Online Pass: Fight it every step of the way or greet it with flowers?

[sbofn]

Reading about the upcoming release of Homefront, I see that they will have an online pass similar to THQ's other release SvR 2011 and UFC, where most online access is unavailable unless you a) buy the game new or b) pay for the pass.

This seems to be a dangerous step past "same day DLC," especially for a game which is clearly built for multiplayer like Homefront. I admit to being a frugal gamer, but I would think that when surcharges like this start showing up is when players decide to pay LESS for games. By adding a $10 charge to a used game, used buyers will just wait for the price to go down an extra $10.

Sure, that money doesn't directly go to THQ anyway, but does anyone REALLY think a healthy secondary market hurts a primary market?

 

[AntiLeaf33]

Considering places like EB Games only take $5 off the second hand price compared to the retail version, it is pointless to by any game with online pass second hand if you plan on using it. EA has been putting it in their games recently, but consider I buy most of them new, it doesn't really upset me too much.

 

[vivisectvi]

I'm fine with it. I rarely buy used.

 

[HSJ]

By the time the price of a game goes down enough to warrant buying it used + the pass, it'll have been out for months and the number of online players of the game may have decreased.

 

[AnonymousBroccoli]

I'm not a fan at all, and I don't even play online games (don't even have XBL Gold), or buy new-release titles all that often. I re-sell my games quite often, and this sort of thing immediately de-values the game, whether you use the code or not. EA's even done it to Bulletstorm, which they're only publishing, and didn't develop.

 

[NoCalMike]

This should probably upset XBL users more, since they already pay a subscription fee to play online.

 

[Kageho]

An online pass makes me feel as if I'm paying for the right to be loaned the ability to play something. And that has never sat well with me at all.

 

[Jaxxxson Mayhem]

What do they do about renting games through gamefly or other game rental places?

 

[AnonymousBroccoli]

What do they do about renting games through gamefly or other game rental places?

The customer pays an extra $5-10 on top of the rental fee, or they don't play online.

Err, actually, I think EA has offered a 7-day free trial for their online passes. I guess THQ offers a "limited" trial now, too. For a longer-term rental like Gamefly... more money.

 

[bps21]

I haven't run into a problem yet since any game with a pass I've either bought new or just never played. I'm sure I'll be angry when it comes up though.

 

[sbofn]

This should probably upset XBL users more, since they already pay a subscription fee to play online.

That is true. It certainly factors into my annoyance, along with multiple threads on other boards, where defenders of the practice line up to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[ViciousFish]

Personally I think I you're buying something used you should be prepared to get less "value" as it were. If online play is that big of a deal buy the game new.

 

[Golgo]

Part of me thinks it to be a better alternative to other ways to drive up new sales. Pre-order exclusives, store bonuses, and day one or on-disc DLC can all go rot. Not that I believe any of those to end even if online passes take hold.

 

[Jaxxxson Mayhem]

I say fuck it. Everyone should pirate their games to fuck them over as much as they are fucking the customer over.

 

[vivisectvi]

No one is getting fucked over, imo. Why should some guy who payed $10 for COD get to use the multiplayer bandwidth that I paid $60 to use? Plus the companies have to pay staff to keep these things running otherwise they get shut down w/in a few years time.

 

[sbofn]

Golgo: I feel the opposite way, aside from same-day DLC, which I figure is the same thing (an imaginary extra cost for a complete game). I'd rather they come up with ways to reward early adopters rather than punish late adopters. I do agree, I don't think that this will replace them, but just set a precedent for future surcharges.

dubq: As an Xbox Live player, I already pay for multiplayer, and it's not like I'm exempt from this charge.

 

[ViciousFish]

You pay Microsoft for the right to go online with your 360. The game companies pay for the game servers.

 

[vivisectvi]

^^^ What he said.

 

[Sabre]

It doesnt bother me. Ive paid for a few of the online passes i.e UFC etc but they turned out to be the drizzling shits, if a game has an online pass, ill not bother with it. Im a single player gamer as is, with the occasional blip of COD online.

 

[NoCalMike]

Is paying for the service going to guarantee any type of upgrade or better quality of service?

 

[Sabre]

Its allegedly suppose to help cover server costs, but i call bullshit. Its main reason for implementation was for piracy imo.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

No one is getting fucked over, imo. Why should some guy who payed $10 for COD get to use the multiplayer bandwidth that I paid $60 to use? Plus the companies have to pay staff to keep these things running otherwise they get shut down w/in a few years time.

I agree with this. It costs money to keep those servers running. It is only reasonable to have to pay for it.

 

[oldskool]

Servers seemed to run just fine before the online pass came to be. Hell CoD3 still has games on Xbox Live all these years & game iterations later, all for free.

Why should some guy who payed $10 for COD get to use the multiplayer bandwidth that I paid $60 to use?

Because the guy that sold it to the other one for $10 a) originally paid the same $60 you did for it & b) is no longer using the multiplayer bandwidth. It's not like the game's connection quality degrades because a bunch of people are playing second-hand versions they bought off of eBay.

 

[Sabre]

Servers seemed to run just fine before the online pass came to be. Hell CoD3 still has games on Xbox Live all these years & game iterations later, all for free.

Why should some guy who payed $10 for COD get to use the multiplayer bandwidth that I paid $60 to use?

Because the guy that sold it to the other one for $10 a) originally paid the same $60 you did for it & b) is no longer using the multiplayer bandwidth. It's not like the game's connection quality degrades because a bunch of people are playing second-hand versions they bought off of eBay.

Exactly, which is why its really aimed at pirates. The current batch of flashed 360 firmware is undetecable for 1.5years by microsoft, which is very strange as they usually do a mass banning in novemeber of every year. Instead they have implemented security checks on popular online games/major releases such as Halo:Reach, Black ops etc.

If you insert one of these copied games into your Xbox, then if fails to load with a "dirty disk error" and you get banned soon after.

However this lasted a week as a new firmware was released as well as the ability to patch the games to their retail counterparts.

The Ps3 in its jailbreaked glory allowed free use of the PSN until the 3.60 update. But alledgedly it is soon to be cracked also, thusly free online gaming will always take place within the hacking community, unless the servers reap the extra $10 or whatever in the UK to use online.

 

[vivisectvi]

Servers seemed to run just fine before the online pass came to be. Hell CoD3 still has games on Xbox Live all these years & game iterations later, all for free.

Free yes, but how much money are they losing keeping those servers running just to appease their fanbase? Running these online games isn't just plugging a server in and letting it go. There are staff associated with each game (and each server if there are multiples) and they all need to be paid.. and last I checked, the industry wasn't exactly booming like it used to be.

I'm not saying that the Online Pass isn't in part because of piracy - but that's not the only reason. VG companies are businesses and they want to make a profit. Why spend money on keeping online games running and updated if you're not making any of it back?