Kingdoms of Amalur's "Online Pass" continues a slippery slope f

[compl3x]

Review copies of Electronic Arts's Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning are starting to reach critics, who have made a surprising collective discovery: an insert containing a code to download a "House of Valor" content pack featuring "seven additional single player quests."

EA has confirmed to Ars Technica that this downloadable content will be included free with all new copies of the game, including digital copies purchased on the PC through Origin, Steam, or other services. Players who would rather purchase a pre-owned copy, however, will presumably have to pay an additional fee if they want to access to this portion of the game.

Charging used game players for such an "Online Pass" is nothing new in the game industry, of course. But implementing an Online Pass in the single-player Kingdoms of Amalur represents a continuing tumble down a slippery slope for the entire game industry.

A subtle redefinition

EA experimented with locking out used game purchasers from some limited downloadable content with Mass Effect 2's Cerberus Network, but the company first embraced the idea of charging for Online Passes on a large scale in mid-2010, rolling out "Project Ten Dollar" to charge for online gameplay and features in its myriad sports games. In launching that program, EA justified itself by saying it had "made a significant investment to offer the most immersive online experience available," adding that it "want to reserve EA Sports online services for people who pay EA to access them."

In other words, EA was saying that used game purchasers were actively costing it money in the form of continuing server costs, which the company deserved to recoup. Publishers including THQ, Warner Bros., Ubisoft, and Sony have used similar justifications in copying the system for their own online games.

Here's the thing, though?Kingdoms of Amalur is an exclusively single-player game. There are no multiplayer servers for used players to theoretically exploit as freeloaders. The original, stated justification for the Online Pass has disappeared, but, for some reason, the Online Pass itself is sticking around in games like Amalur.

The Arkham City defense

EA declined an opportunity to comment on its reasoning for expanding its Online Pass system from online modes to single-player quests. The company would do well to come up with a better defense than Warner Bros., which pulled a similar stunt by charging used purchasers for a set of Catwoman missions in last year's single-player Batman: Arkham City.

The company's official (and rather weak) justification for nickel-and-diming used gamers? "Playing as Catwoman is not required to complete the game."

When pressed by Wired.com to expand on that official defense, Arkham City director Sefton Hill emphasized that the Online Pass content is less than 10 percent of the entire game. But this kind of argument represents an extremely slippery slope that could lead to a further redefinition of what it means to buy a used game.

The slippery slope

Look how the concept has slipped already. Online Passes, which started as a way to pay for continuing online operating costs, are now used to lock used players out of small portions of the single-player game. As time goes on, what's to stop publishers from expanding the concept further, locking ever larger portions of a game behind a downloadable pass? Will we soon see a game that prevents used purchasers from finishing the single-player quest unless they pay to download a required mission? Where's the cut-off?

Used game fans would be justifiably irate if a publisher abruptly used Online Passes to completely hobble pre-owned copies of its games (or just abruptly stopped used games from working altogether). But by slowly and subtly moving the goalposts for what's "acceptable" to block from used game buyers, publishers like EA may be trying to acclimate customers to the idea that they shouldn't expect a used game to offer them a complete experience, or that they shouldn't be interested in the ability to buy used at all (hello, digital downloads).

If that's so, publishers may be betting that the easiest way to blunt the impact of used games might not be a technological fix, but rather a simple, methodical redefenition [sic] of the very idea of what a used game is.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/01/kingdoms-of-amalurs-online-pass-continues-a-slippery-slope-for-used-games.ars?comments=1#comments-bar

I completely agree with he last part. Companies will slowly introduce this online pass crap little by little. By the time we notice it's starting to gobble up larger and larger portions of our games, it will be too late.

Passes for online gaming might be able to be justified, as the article states, for operating costs. But what costs are there for single player content? This is industry greed at its ugliest.

[spaceelf]

Without greed none of the games we take for granted would exist. Software developers make a premium because good ones are rare. And they have to spend loads of time and money to release a product in the first place.

They built a product, they want a return on investment. It's not exactly rocket science.

[trag3dy]

It's lose lose for gamers though. If the game sells well the game publishers and developers will think the model works well and take it even further. We'll start to see more and bigger portions of games locked away like this. And on the other hand if the game doesn't sell well they will blame piracy and used game sales. And for future pc versions at least, they will see that as a reason not to make pc versions of their games.

[HawkMan]

A game is a consumable product, limiting the damages from used sales is their right and makes sense. If you don't want to pay full price, wait a month or two and pick it up from the bargain bin.

and no, a consumable product is not comparable to used car sales.

[playXray]

This is a moot point. There is no issue over 'online passes' because one day in the near future all games will be distributed digitally. When that happens, there won't be any need for 'online passes' because you won't be able to sell your used games.

People are quick to argue the rights and wrongs of 'online passes' but they're only here until digital distribution takes over.

[TheLegendOfMart]

Without greed none of the games we take for granted would exist. Software developers make a premium because good ones are rare. And they have to spend loads of time and money to release a product in the first place.

They built a product, they want a return on investment. It's not exactly rocket science.

The 80s, 90s and 00s called and they said lolwut?

They get a return on investment when the person buys the game, they arent entitled to more money if someone resells it which is the only reason these online passes exist.

[HawkMan]

Games was a LOT more expensive in the 80's and 90's. on top of that they where much easier to make and was generally made by small teams.

And used games didn't pick up until mid 00's anyway. it existed before yes, but wasn't as big since the game market was smaller and ther wasn't as many games stores around offering trades.

In any case it doesn't change the fact that the developers are the ones who decide what they can and cannot do, and the fact that games are consumables.

[AbandonedTrolley]

I still have my original Gran Turismo on PS1 with it's ?59.99 sticker on it. People moan about game prices today but yep they were a lot more expensive 10-20 years ago.

[compl3x]

The 80s, 90s and 00s called and they said lolwut?

They get a return on investment when the person buys the game, they arent entitled to more money if someone resells it which is the only reason these online passes exist.

Exactly. If you make a desirable product, advertise and market it well then you will see profits. Rather considerable ones at that. This idea of double-dipping is outrageous.

[DKAngel]

lol and thats the reason people will stop buying the games and pirate instead

[trag3dy]

Games was a LOT more expensive in the 80's and 90's. on top of that they where much easier to make and was generally made by small teams.

And used games didn't pick up until mid 00's anyway. it existed before yes, but wasn't as big since the game market was smaller and ther wasn't as many games stores around offering trades.

In any case it doesn't change the fact that the developers are the ones who decide what they can and cannot do, and the fact that games are consumables.

What other consumable products do the original sellers get paid twice for? I can't think of any.

It's pure greed and that's all there is to it.

[HawkMan]

I still have my original Gran Turismo on PS1 with it's ?59.99 sticker on it. People moan about game prices today but yep they were a lot more expensive 10-20 years ago.

You also have to remember that 10-20 years ago ?60 was a lot more money than it is today. paychecks weren't even close to what they are today back then.

[Miuku.]

You also have to remember that 10-20 years ago ?60 was a lot more money than it is today. paychecks weren't even close to what they are today back then.

10-20 years ago the average game sold a mere fraction of what it does today, even when taking into account the development cost.

[HawkMan]

What other consumable products do the original sellers get paid twice for? I can't think of any.

It's pure greed and that's all there is to it.

They don'

t because consumable products are by nature "consumed", games are different because you consume them, and they're still there to be consumed again and again. Taken at a very extreme, the whole world could all play the same copy of the game if they did it in turn. and the developer would only have sold one copy. now that's super extreme to the ridiculous but it proves the point.

The alternative to hindering used copies is to raise the prices. let me look up the statistics site here in Norway to check some inflation stats. ah there it is.

a game that would have cost 600NOK(about the same as ?60) in 1990 (pretty regular price for games back then), would in fact cost 934NOK today (or about ?94.5), Yet games today, who costs 10 to 100 time, if not a 1000 times as much to develop, costs around 50, less when there are release week sales at most retailers.

But sure. Maybe they should release two versions of games, one regular non resellable for 40-50 and one that's resellable for 95. which one would you buy ?

10-20 years ago the average game sold a mere fraction of what it does today, even when taking into account the development cost.

A fraction of the sales with a fraction of the dev costs. and back then, a much bigger cut of the sales price went back to the developers than it does today as well.

Also don't forget that they don't develop games and fund the development for fun. they do it to make money. if they don't make money, and lots of it, they'll fund something that makes them more money.

[Xilo]

I only buy new and never sell, so online passes don't bother me in the slightest.

Plus, with the way prices fall few months after release, there's no reason you can't just wait.

[Fourjays Veteran]

If there isn't a demo for an online pass game, I won't be buying it. And as someone who doesn't like clutter, I'm going to end up being much pickier with my game purchases if I can't sell them on (as I don't like them or won't play them ever again), and thus I'll buy fewer games. Not to mention that I'll be buying less anyway as I can't sell old ones on to buy a new game I'll actually play (and it is harder to afford a new game outright). So the game companies will lose out from me.

Probably ok for those who use trade-in shops, which I believe are the ones the game industry are actually trying to target. The claim of ongoing server costs is bogus and I frankly can't believe anyone falls for it (one copy = one user online, and data from an unused account would amount to no more than a few KB and cost mere fractions of a penny to store).

Wonder if people here would support such a system if it was applied to their houses or cars? Sorry, if you buy used you have to pay 25% of house's original value to the builder. Sure that would do wonders for the world housing market...

I'd rather see the companies focusing their efforts more on DLC (in a good way, like Bethesda RPGs/Gran Turismo/LittleBigPlanet/Battlefield) and making more money from supporting the product long-term. Rather than taking things out and charging you for them, then after a few months acting like the game no longer exists.

Maybe it just annoys me more as I consider a game a longer-term investment and not something I play for a month then trade-in for ?5 (or throw in the trash, if the game companies had their own way - hey, why not just make them biodegrade after 3 months :rolleyes: ).

[S00N3R FR3AK]

They already came out and said that this was going to be the first DLC pack but instead chose to gave it to those that bought it new.

[mad_onion]

They're rewarding people who actually pay EA/the developer by giving them extra content. I don't see what's wrong with that, If you choose to get it as cheap as possible by not supporting the developer then the least should expect is to not get everything the game has to offer.

[TheLegendOfMart]

A fraction of the sales with a fraction of the dev costs. and back then, a much bigger cut of the sales price went back to the developers than it does today as well.

Also don't forget that they don't develop games and fund the development for fun. they do it to make money. if they don't make money, and lots of it, they'll fund something that makes them more money.

Why is that our fault?

They do the deals with the publishers not us, they choose to make a AAA blockbuster with hours of cutscenes/voice work/music/etc.. not us.

If they arent making enough money then scale back on production costs or put the price of the game up dont make people buy online passes, the price they set at retail is the price they are prepared to accept in exchange for the data on the disc, the person who bought the game the first time round has already paid the developer, they cant expect to get a cut for the game if its resold.

They're rewarding people who actually pay EA/the developer by giving them extra content. I don't see what's wrong with that, If you choose to get it as cheap as possible by not supporting the developer then the least should expect is to not get everything the game has to offer.

Why not?

The person who bought the game originally has already paid the developer for that content, would you be happy buying a house and the builder saying because you didnt buy the house new you now cant use the top floor?

[Ayepecks]

Then don't buy the game.

You're not entitled to additional content that the developer has created for people who give them money. You're also not being "locked out" of any portion of the game with the example given (Kingdoms of Amalur), the people who buy the game are just given extra content in a downloadable form. Online passes are a bit different in that regard, but I don't mind developers giving people who buy the game first-hand additional online content.

The industry keeps growing when people buy first-hand, and developers stay open. Am I saying people who buy used are bad? No, they're just looking to save a buck. But don't bitch when you don't get additional content that's given to paying customers.

Why is that our fault?

They do the deals with the publishers not us, they choose to make a AAA blockbuster with hours of cutscenes/voice work/music/etc.. not us.

If they arent making enough money then scale back on production costs or put the price of the game up dont make people buy online passes, the price they set at retail is the price they are prepared to accept in exchange for the data on the disc, the person who bought the game the first time round has already paid the developer, they cant expect to get a cut for the game if its resold.

So make a crappier game is what you're saying. Genius.

[HawkMan]

Wonder if people here would support such a system if it was applied to their houses or cars? Sorry, if you buy used you have to pay 25% of house's original value to the builder. Sure that would do wonders for the world housing market...

Stop applying the faulty used car analogy, a car is NOT a consumable.

[+BeLGaRaTh Subscriber¹]

They're rewarding people who actually pay EA/the developer by giving them extra content. I don't see what's wrong with that, If you choose to get it as cheap as possible by not supporting the developer then the least should expect is to not get everything the game has to offer.

Thing is generally you are not paying vast amounts less to get games second hand, a quick look around Game/Gamestation/CEX etc you will see they are only around ?5 cheaper than the full retail version, so I don't understand why people buy them second hand. Especially with CEX, most stuff in there is tatty as f00k yet they still charge more or less retail, or in some cases I have seen them charging more than retail. When the 3DS came out they were selling second hand machines without boxes etc for ?20-?30 more than retail, yet people still bought them :(

I personally wont buy second hand games etc but thats just me.

[Boxster17]

lol and thats the reason people will stop buying the games and pirate instead

And when there's no more money to produce games since no one is buying them, then what? We'd be left with a limited game selection of games like CoD that will sell millions but not get to enjoy a lot of these smaller often more enjoyable game experiences done by smaller teams.

I don't quite understand this problem with an online pass at all. Every PC game just about comes with a serial that you need to activate before playing online, and you don't even have the option of buying used to play online due to that. Why is it that console gamers seem to think that they're always entitled to this free online portion when the PC industry hasn't been like that for years. Considering that fact, I fully expect this stuff to become a bigger part of games sales for consoles and honestly support the developers with this if it means I can enjoy more games from them.

[HawkMan]

The person who bought the game originally has already paid the developer for that content, would you be happy buying a house and the builder saying because you didnt buy the house new you now cant use the top floor?

I already answered this, before you brought it up. so maybe you should go back and read my other post on consumable goods. a game is consumed like a carton of milk, witht he one exception that after you consumed it, it's still full so another person can consume it.

Sow ould you rather have "consumable" games for the price we have today, or would you rather the price of games go back to what they where in the 90's, with consumer price index adjustment making games today costs ?95. oh but we're forgetting that dev costs have also increase 100's if not 1000's so they price owuld have to increase even further to adjust for the increased costs of making them as well, not just the consumer index.

[mattmatik]

I don't quite understand this problem with an online pass at all. Every PC game just about comes with a serial that you need to activate before playing online, and you don't even have the option of buying used to play online due to that. Why is it that console gamers seem to think that they're always entitled to this free online portion when the PC industry hasn't been like that for years. Considering that fact, I fully expect this stuff to become a bigger part of games sales for consoles and honestly support the developers with this if it means I can enjoy more games from them.

That's been my stance as well. Now, I guess you can argue that with a PC game, more often than not you don't need internet access to enter your serial (at least it used to be that way, don't know about now).

I can't believe people are comparing video games to houses or even cars, and I certainly don't think this will get people to pirate more games. If anything, people will stop buying used games and buy new.

Hell, I picked up Arkham City two weeks ago, new from GameStop (refuse to buy used games from there). It was $39.99 new or $54.99 used...NOT including Online Pass. Now, you tell me who the ******* is in this situation?