actually they were quoting a kotaku article...so....yeah...probably full of shit..

I do know Sony and Micro both make 7 or more bucks per new game purchased...so they do have reason to sell new games vs used...

http://kotaku.com/5879202/sources-th...oduce-kinect-2

I would guess there's at least *some* truth to the rumor, given that we know publishers have been trying to fight the used game market for the last few years. It isn't that far out that there would be some discussion with Sony or Microsoft where some ideas were thrown around.

Yeah, that article doesn't give any reason why MS might want to do that except to be "cheered by publishers". If consumers don't buy your new system, they won't buy any new or used games for your new system. That story made my bullshit meter explode.

Personally I liked the system that THQ had with Homefront. It allowed you to get a sampling of the multiplayer environment before you plunked down money for a online code.

It'll be interesting to see what nintendo does with next gen. The Wii U is supposed to have better online. Will they start using online passes or some form of activation?

I think most of the negatives have already been brought up by others, but I'll attempt to summarize my primary concerns.

1. It's a system that's ripe for exploitation of consumers. At first it was just the online component, now it's content that may have been part of the original game that was cut out and relabeled as DLC (this is pretty clearly what happened with the Catwoman content for Arkham City, and there's evidence that it's exactly what happened with Kingdoms of Amalur as well), and I have little doubt that the next step will be a more substantial portion of the content that should be included in the game as released, and would have been in earlier times.

2. It's an inconvenience to buyers of new games. Having to input a code that may or may not be correctly or even legibly printed (e.g. the Catwoman code fiasco) and then wait for a substantially sized file to download (assuming the servers are up) and take up a chunk of the limited space on my hard drive is punitive, not rewarding, to me as a consumer.

3. Those without internet-connected consoles are denied a portion of the game they paid for. Furthermore, there are a number of problems and concerns for multi-gamer or multi-console households.

4. Code expiration has already been discussed, but I'm more concerned about content expiration. What if I want to play the game I bought at full price along with all of its content in 10 years? Assuming I'm playing on a console that doesn't have the content already stored on its current HD, the full game experience will almost certainly be no longer available. My copy of Super Mario Bros. is still complete and fully playable, even if I buy a secondhand NES off eBay. This won't be the case with most of the games that lock content behind an online pass.

5. There's been no attempt to hide the fact that the point of all this is to combat the used game market. Why is this ok? The point has already been mentioned that the used market is likely not as damaging to publishers as they'd like us to believe. But more importantly for a buyer of the new game, the resale value is automatically lower because the product I have in hand is incomplete. The control of the content belongs to the publisher rather than the consumer.

It's a combination of all the above considerations, and the slippery slope nature of the whole practice, that makes me extremely reluctant to support any title that uses it. There are some points in favor of online passes that I don't necessarily disagree with, and I'm interested in both sides of the argument. I'm not condemning anyone who does buy these titles, I'm just not personally comfortable supporting them. That's why I started the thread (along with an attempt to steer other threads back to their primary topics).

Better?

yes

I agree with this, and will say that EA has already started adding to the tip. I bought NCAA for the first time in years, and they charge you for Dynasty mode stuff, you can play w/o paying, but you are limited in what you can "research" in Dynasty mode. The last Tiger Woods did not include all the courses, you had to buy them on day one if you wanted them all. This is bullshit and just a money grab. I would not mind the online pass if I was not already paying a yearly fee to Live, but I hate being double tapped.

I really don't care about "online passes". But I would feel better if I was 100% sure that developers are helped by it.

That's a good point. I doubt we'll ever see it, but it would be nice if EA came forward and said what percentage of passes were activated through used copies. It should be easy enough to track, especially since they are the ones spearheading this movement.

^

I used to dislike Jim Sterling, but he has really taken the lead in this particular battle over the past year or so by appealing to simple common sense above all else.

no online pass for Syndicate...their reasons behind it kind of fall in with what I have said all along...and I think they are doing the math when it comes to the 4 player coop...that even if one or two buy it used..friends will talk others into buying it new...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...te-ea-confirms

I hope it works out for them. If that game's successful, then maybe EA will let some more of its properties forgo the online pass.

Just thought I'd leave this here.

Why would people who don't connect their consoles to the internet care about multiplayer at all?

I think, if these companies want to make more money off of their games, they have to make good games first, then they can make DLC that adds to the experience after the fact and people will buy that. This online pass stuff smacks of greed, mainly because used sales are not the anathema that the big companies make them out to be, and additionally because it's clear that EA is cutting out stuff that would normally be in games and selling it as day one DLC.

I'm reviewing Ridge Racer on the PS Vita right now, and it's got five cars and three tracks. The rest is DLC. Granted, it's free right now, but after this initial window the game will be five cars and three tracks and then a whole bunch of DLC. That's unacceptable (and not EA, so they're not the only ones doing it).

I love me some good DLC. It's a great way to extend the life of a game (and monetize it beyond its initial release at a much lower cost to the company), and I've spent plenty of money I shouldn't on impulse purchases, so it doesn't even necessarily have to be major DLC to turn a profit. But increasingly publishers are using DLC to sell you a game piecemeal, and the online pass is part of that. The game is $60, and increasingly we're seeing less and less being included for that $60. And if you buy it used you're the devil and must pay more to make up for your unpardonable sin.

Also, I think EA is getting really smart about making this stuff integral to the game so you feel like you have to buy it. For example, in Mass Effect 3 how you couldn't get the "best" ending without playing multiplayer, basically. But the multiplayer requires the online pass. And because that was the online pass content, the extra squad mate got pushed to day one DLC for $10. So now EA gets $10 from most people who bought the game new, while getting $20 from people who buy it used. Now, Mass Effect 3 still had a ton of content for the $60 asking price, but many of the sports titles can't say the same at this point.

And really, the only way to combat it is to not buy the DLC, but also not buy games we know are being crippled out of the gate. This can be tough because gamers find it hard to control their impulses much of the time. But if we really want to send a message, don't buy games that use online passes (or buy them used and don't buy the online pass). For games like Mass Effect 3, don't buy the day one DLC (I didn't). As long as this model makes them money they'll have no reason to change.

Not multiplayer -- I was referring in that case to the single-player content that's being increasingly cut out and locked behind an "online pass" (which isn't the right term in that situation, I guess, but we're talking about the same thing). For example, the Catwoman stuff in Arkham City. You bought the game new but don't have an internet-connected console? Too bad!

Completely agree with the rest of your post.

You do realize there was multiplayer gaming before the internet right? Hell local multiplayer is a reason why the Wii was such a juggernaut.

I don't like the Online Pass structure at all, mostly because my friends and I tend to loan games out, as we always have, and you seem to lose a big chunk of the game when online features are taken away.

I don't particularly care about 1st day DLC situations though, as long as the game itself is complete.

On the bright side, games seem to get cheaper faster these days (the last 3 games I picked up were Rage (360, $5), Batman Arkham City (PS3, $10), Rayman Origins (360, $20). All new and all of which are fairly recent.) which helps out.

I didn't realize in-person multiplayer gaming was locked behind an online pass.

Looking at my post now, I can see I worded it poorly. It should read "Why would people who don't connect their consoles to the internet care about ONLINE multiplayer at all?"

And for people who didn't connect their console to the internet and thus lost out on the Catwoman content: You were the lucky ones.

I always enjoy hearing about the latest online pass facepalm.