Taking a Pass on Online Passes

Opinion by James Dewitt on 1st January 2012

Online passes have gained a scary amount of momentum lately. When the idea was initially presented, I tried to remain neutral and open-minded. After all, I play online games less than other players. But that was before online passes gained serious popularity with companies including THQ, Warner Bros. and Ubisoft rolling out their own take on the idea. Sony now requires their PSN Pass for all of their games from now on. It’s unsettling how quickly the landscape is changing, and not necessarily changing for the better.

The reasoning for online passes stems from the observation that publishers make no profit from used-games sales, and thus need to come up with a revenue source and a reason for consumers to buy a game new. Thus was born the online pass, packaged with a brand new copy or bought for $10. If a game is bought used, players can’t play online. Needless to say in the current age the online portion can count for a huge amount of a game’s entertainment value.

screenshot

Perhaps I’d be more malleable to the idea of online passes if the gaming industry wasn’t collectively accusing me of stealing profits from them when I buy used games. According to Mike West of Lionhead Studios, “piracy these days on PC is probably less problematic than secondhand sales on the Xbox.”

Cory Ledesma, THQ’s creative director for its WWE titles (which have since hopped on the online pass wagon) also had a few choice words on the subject. “We hope people understand that when the game’s bought used we get cheated,” Ledesma said when defending the inclusion of an online pass. People who buy used games are not stealing anything. The people playing pirated copies of games are the ones cutting into profit. I also rent a decent amount of games, too, which I’m sure irks them as well.

screenshot

Online passes have even begun to restrict single player content as well. The Catwoman portions of Batman: Arkham City are locked away with a pass, which strikes me as completely silly and unnecessary. I didn’t buy it on the first day it came out because I wanted to play as Catwoman, it’s because I wanted to get my hands on the game as soon as possible and play it until my eyes bled.

Would we put up with this if it was any other product? Imagine buying a used DVD or Blu-Ray and being locked out of any special features. It simply would not fly. Once you’ve bought something, it’s your property, and you have a right to resell or trade it with whomever you please.

screenshot

I’m worried about how far publishers are willing to take this. What next, going after businesses that let you rent games? How about trading games between friends? Or just for argument, just giving your game to somebody when you don’t want it anymore? If it were up to publishers like EA, you’d buy every single one of your games brand new, on launch day at $60, and never trade them in. That’s simply not feasible. People get bored of games, or have done everything there is to do, or never liked them in the first place.

Although online passes are trying to cripple and eventually do away with the used games market, I don’t see it happening. While they’ll try to cram it down our collective throats, it will not (nor cannot) be allowed to become a standard feature for all games. In the end, all it’s going to do is piss off consumers: the people who were probably going to buy your game new in the first place, but now they’re not going to on general principle.

screenshot

This is a debate with little middle-ground, and I stand firmly on the side opposed to online passes. It’s a terrible idea and a naked attempt at trying to punish anyone who buys a game used rather than ponying up $60 for a limp, forgetful five-hour campaign. Online passes have to die for the greater good of everybody involved—gamer and developer alike. It’s an idea that needs a pillow put over its face, a knife plunged in its heart, and buried out in the middle of the Nevada desert never to be seen again.

Spread the word

About the author

James Dewitt is a Staff Writer at Thunderbolt, having joined in March 2010.

Comments

Benny
1st January 2012

“Once you’ve bought something, it’s your property”

Yes, but the servers aren’t.

The point of restricting multiplayer is that there are costs associated with keeping servers running, hence the need to charge used buyers for a pass. Of course, the question of pricing of online passes and restriction of other content is an issue, but disregarding the reasoning behind their introduction as simple profiteering just devalues your own argument.
Guymar Dudikoff
2nd January 2012

In point of fact, if you are playing on say, X-Box live versus PSN, your gold subscription pays for the servers, NOT the publisher. That means you dole out your $10 for an online pass like a sucker and your monthly gold membership fee, and that $10 is just gravy for EA and the like.
Guymar Dudikoff
2nd January 2012

But let me digress from embarrassing the throngs of passive consumer gamers that have allowed the gaming market to become what it is today, and EA, which needs no help from me in that department.

I don’t play online, so I’m really almost immune to any stupid thing the publishers try outside of locking basic content as DLC. The number biggest reason people buy used games is the cost. How many times have you gone out and bought a game for $60 and gotten a stupid scratch and sniff sticker or something like that, only for the game to drop down to $25 the next month? Don’t know about everybody else here, but it sure makes me feel like a jerkass for spending the money.

I’m no demographics expert, but I’ll just bet the #2 reason why people buy used is chances are good to great is generally the exclusive content is lame, or there is none, or here’s a stretch, you can’t get it after the pre order period, hence, no longer any reason to buy it new.

We are in a tough economy with not nearly as much disposable income as EA likes to think. It’s a new market, and they’ve got to adapt, not the consumer. The consumer will adapt by taking their money elsewhere, it’s that simple. You want me to buy new? Give me a reason, and it better be a better reason then something I’ve always expected out of the box. In 2007, if I bought a multiplayer game used, and I was up on my X-Box Live dues, then damnit, I’m paid up, and I expect that portion of the game. I’m not tacking on some extra fee. It’d be like buying a vacuum used off Craigslist and not being able to use the attachments unless I kicked $10 to Oreck.

Who would be passive enough to take a kick in the balls like that?
Peter Skerritt
3rd January 2012

I’ve discussed this a ton since we saw Online Passes introduced in 2010. Make no mistake about their purpose: industry employees (and internet apologists) will claim that they exist for server maintenance or some other excuse, but Online Passes exist to force revenue on preowned product where there hasn’t been any.

It was bad enough when publishers locked out online multiplayer. Limiting potential players on servers is NEVER a good idea, especially in this constantly connected console generation. No online community oftentimes means a game that quickly becomes worthless. “Server costs” were accounted for in the original purchase price of the game. User sells game: -1 user. Another user buys former user’s copy: +1 user. (-1) + 1 = 0. ZERO difference.

The more egregious use of “Online Pass” is the Catwoman example from Batman: Arkham City. Stripping out single-player content is a new thing, and it won’t be the last time. After WBIE and Rocksteady hyped up Catwoman at E3, nothing was said about locking her away as DLC until much later. Worse, more consumers are hurt by this move than just those who buy used. Those without an active internet connection lose out ON SOMETHING THEY PAID FOR. A voucher does nothing for these people. But again: Used games are bad and the industry will strong-arm consumers to get its perceived cut.

This console generation has been great in terms of the experiences that we’ve been able to have thanks to great games. It’s also been one of the worst console generations on history thanks to anti-consumer business decisions and an industry that’s brazenly greedy. I shudder to think what the cost of the next console generation will be.
Anthony
3rd January 2012

I agree with the dubious nature of online passes. The best way to protest is to refuse to buy games that use them. I’ll start as soon as I get Mass Effect 3.
Hans
4th January 2012

I bought Hot Pursuit on Steam (i.e. new and demonstrably bought). Unfortunately the “online pass” didn’t work - it had apparently already been redeemed. EA claimed to reset the code, but this did nothing. They gave me a new code - which had also already been redeemed. After that they simply stopped answering my (still polite) emails - it’s been over a month and I cannot play my newly bought game online AT ALL.

I don’t play a lot of online games, and after this experience I’ll stay far away from anything that requires an online pass. Also, EA really sucks: why would a Steam version have to be activated at all? Why aren’t they answering email? Why can’t they FIX THE PROBLEM?
Guymar Dudikoff
4th January 2012

Just thought I’d throw this in there because math isn’t my strong suit:

It occurs to me that, let’s say EA sells 1000 copies of Medal of Duty or Call of Honor or some such new. And let’s say their total take is $50K. And let’s say out of that $50K, that $10K goes to pay the server costs for those 1000 copies, and every single one of those 1000 players takes it online. Still with me?

Now, all 1000 users get sick of it, and trade it in to Gamestop, who now resells it used. And those 1000 used copies all resell and all go online. You’ve lost 1000 players, and you’ve gained back 1000 players. The cost of maintaining the servers was (according to EA logic), paid for by the new copies right? And you still have the exact same number of players as was originally paid for.

So, where does EA lose money? If there’s a flaw in there, lemme know, but I’m pretty sure I nailed it. Any way you possibly figure it, if the copy EVER sold, assuming it wasn’t stolen or pirated, EA covered the cost
Philip Morton
4th January 2012

I don’t have a view on what, if anything, the Online Pass pays for, but there are two things to take into account if you were trying to calculate it. First of all, the cost of servers is ongoing, not a one-off cost. Secondly, the cost of servers will vary with the amount of people playing the game. The less people playing, the fewer servers you’ll need.
Guymar Dudikoff
4th January 2012

Perfect calculation is probably impossible without talking to probably at least 3 departments of the publisher, I’m just trying to give a very general sense of how the math works.

I’m in IT, so given the tech I think my numbers are pretty close. There are all kinds of things that could make support cost go up or down (for instance only 800 of those 1000 going online, or one of the servers catching fire, or dropping support for a game and the server being repurposed), but I’ll bet most of that gets factored into the initial cost of support. EA (or whoever) isn’t going to do anything involving releasing thousands of copies of their product, and servers, without crunching the numbers both technical and financial first if they have brain one