Posted by Rebecca Quintana | 4 Comments
Community Voice – Online Passes: Solution or Problem?
Publishers are always lamenting the revenue they lose due to used game sales, so they’ve tried to come up with solutions to the “used game” problem. One that has become increasingly popular lately is the “online pass,” which often takes the form of a code that grants the user access to the online component of the game. Of course, not all games include online play, so publishers of non-multiplayer games have tried to use the online pass concept in their own way, as applicable to their games. This usually means day-one DLC: content that those who purchase the game new will have access to (via the included code) but those who rent or buy used will not, unless they’re willing to pay up. Usually, this means about $10 in addition to whatever else you may have already paid to play the game, and is one reason EA’s program in particular is often referred to as “Project $10.” Of course, if you don’t have an internet connection for your console, you also miss out on this content, even if you buy your games new.
This week, two games came under fire for their own versions of Project $10: Ratchet and Clank: All 4 One and Batman: Arkham City. Gamers (many of these parents, as the game is aimed toward children) who purchased All 4 One may have been surprised to realize they needed a code in order to play the game online. While this has become fairly common (Resistance 3, for example, had an online pass), many felt it was unfair to do so with a children’s title. Those who rented the game were disappointed to discover they were locked out of the online experience.
Arkham City had its own issues. Because it doesn’t have an online multiplayer, Warner Brothers instead went with the day-one DLC approach, vis-a-vis: Catwoman. If you purchase the game new (or if you’re lucky to get a used copy with a code at Gamestop, as they were promising), you get the opportunity to play as Catwoman during select moments of the story. Rather than simply an add-on quest, it appears as if Catwoman is fairly well integrated into the overall game, meaning that even though her role is small, those who don’t pony up the $10 (if you don’t buy new), might feel as if they’re missing out. (EA has done this multiple times with their Mass Effect and Dragon Age games; for example, Shale in DA:O). Worse, it appears as if the codes included with the collector’s editions of the game were incorrect, so gamers who purchased new copies of the more expensive version of Arkham City have to wait until WB and Rocksteady come up with a solution.
What do you think? Are online passes a good way to reward those who buy new, or do they create more problems than they solve? Let us know how you feel in the comments.
What is Community Voice? Community Voice is your weekly chance to make yourself heard on Vivid Gamer. Each week our Community Voice topic is meant to encourage discussion, not only with the staff, but with the community as well. We want to hear from readers of the site, so let us know your opinions on the topics every week, and let’s get something lively going!


















Online passes certainly aren’t good when they’re handled this way. Still, I don’t really care for the argument that because Ratchet & Clank is a children’s game, it shouldn’t be included. I’ve played all of them since the first, which sums up my junior high, high school, and college years.
Arkham City’s online pass pretty much reveals the industry’s whole intent with this stuff. Arkham City doesn’t have multiplayer. It’s no longer about maintaining servers or being able to continuously provide content. No, this is blatantly about curbing the used game market.
In my opinion, there is more than enough game to justify a used Arkham City purchase without the Catwoman content. And you know what? If you end up loving the game to death, I’m sure you’ll happily pay a little extra to access the Catwoman missions later. Curbing the used game market isn’t something I agree with, but I don’t find this (or many other examples) particularly aggregious. This is a fairly new development – games with online passes make up an infinitesimally small portion of the used game market at the moment (though that portion will grow in the next decade and beyond).
The argument is completely off how the game is marketed. They’re not trying to sell it to adults, but kids. Just because adults play it too; doesn’t mean its intended for our demographic.
Arkham City was not the first to do this. Bulletstorm locked out SP content, but allowed for online content. There have been many games that have done different takes on the whole concept, but very few get it right. (I will say bulletstorm also does it right)
The importance now is like anything else. Last generation there was DLC (if you knew or not) and a prime example would be the Halo 2 map packs. The first pack was free due to mountain dew, the second pack was 4.99 or you could wait 2 months and get it for free. Finally the third pack offered five maps for 12 usd or you could wait 6 months and get them for free. Now you look at a game now a days… Disgaea 3′s DLC cost nearly 2x – 3x what the base game currently costs? We’re constantly seeing DLC evolve and take horrible forms. This includes preorder DLC from many locations (or complete with the CE like thats a real reward…), Special promo DLC from certain retailers (subway and Uncharted 3) or its just rushed out (killzone 3). All of this basically happened in 2 years and shows us that this can snowball as fast.
On topic… I think too many companies want to control this market. Gaming is an expensive hobby and punishing those that don’t play your way is illogical. If companies wanted to kill the used game market which is “taking so much cash”; perhaps they should look inward and cut expenses first! (A confusing concept I know) Take a look at one of the first online pass games, Dead Space 2. This was not the best multiplayer ever, many didnt agree with the concept, the beta was poorly recieved, but they still MAKE it and decide to force used buyers to pay an extra fee for a mode many disliked and is most likely dead? What about all the collectors editions? Just about everyone discounted the helghast edition and I still see them at Bestbuy… how many other CE’s sold poorly?
Halo 3
Halo Reach
Gears of War 3
God of War 3
Bioshock 2
Dead Space 2 (I guess im picking on this game huh lol)
Fallout New Vegas
Fallout 3
Dead Rising 2
Black Ops
Modern Warfare 2
Tron
inFAMOUS 2
Assassins Creed Brotherhood
Mortal Kombat 9
Marvel VS Capcom 3
etc
If they stopped trying to promote worthless crap like CE’s and perhaps marketed their games better… we wouldn’t get all this drama when it comes to a new game.
I still don’t see why the Ratchet and Clank online pass is any more offensive because it’s being marketed to children. Whomever the demographic is composed of, Insomniac’s intention is based solely on curbing used game sales, and from a business standpoint kids shouldn’t be treated differently simply because they have less disposable income. With gaming being such an expensive hobby, plenty of parents are the ones doing the purchasing anyway – give the game’s focus on co-op and family fun, it’s to be expected.
Collector’s Editions don’t sell well because they’re overpriced and scant on features, and DLC examples like Disgaea’s overpriced microtransactions probably won’t stop even if we stop purchasing them. The thing is, game makers have found a nice little loophole to get out of supply-demand economics. This loophole is the fact that their products are digital, and far less risky / costly to put out than the material goods “supply & demand” economics is based on. So normally, if our demand goes down dramatically, supply skyrockets and costs have to be greatly lowered to compensate. This isn’t the case for digital goods, where supply is always exactly equal to demand and they’re cheaper to provide anyway.
The online pass idea started with Madden NFL 10, in 2009, i think. Then EA decided that it would do that with all of its games last year. It obviously worked because everyone is jumping on board. There are a few companies that aren’t doing it but even they are starting to get in on it in different ways (COD Elite is free with CE purchase). But offering extra items for buying special editions isn’t a new concept at all and has been around for a long time, they’ve just moved it over to the normal versions of the game.
I honestly dislike GameStop and encourage devs to cut out the used game market because GameStop consistently rips people off, misleads customers (mainly parents) and does nothing for gamers. If they changed their used game practices than we wouldn’t have this problem. I sell my games on ebay all the time and i’ve noticed that used game aren’t selling for as much as they used to but you can still get a lot for it. it’s my opinion that most of the people who buy used a) dont know about the online pass b) don’t care about it, so i’m not sure why buying used without the content is that big of a deal.
Some companies can do this “New Game Code” deal well, others just don’t at all. Bad Company 2, ME2 they did it right IMO. Homefront did not cause their online didn’t work. DS2 didn’t work either but really i didnt want that game for its MP.
In terms of Catwoman in Batman AC, she brings nothing to the campaign and if you didn’t download it prior to beating the game, you would never know that her portions come up during the main story.
To me i buy almost every game new, then sell it, and even if i dont get it right away, i can wait for a good deal on the game which almost always comes a few months after release. Really i dont mind this, i get more upset when they hype the included DLC and it ends up being horrible/pointless (Catwoman DLC), so we shouldn’t be talking about getting rid of the pass/codes we should be mad that companies aren’t giving us good content to make us want to buy it new.