October 17th, 2011
Posted in 
A while back I wrote an article giving my thoughts about the online pass and how developers are going about getting more money the wrong way. For those who don’t know, the Online Pass is a one time code that comes with a game to allow access to online play. This of course was to counter used game sales and even turn a profit from them by allowing players to purchase a new code via LIVE market or the PSN store. This is nothing but bad news for people who seek to save some money through buying used games if they plan to play online, seeing as how once you pay about ten bucks for the code you are actually paying close to the same amount as you would for a new copy. Of course this not only affects used game sales alone. Families who share one copy of the saved game are forced to either buy a new pass for everyone playing the game online, or share online stats through the same account. Furthermore people who rent games first through game fly or other services are no longer able to test key aspects of the game that could weigh their decision, at least not without making a permanent purchase of something they don’t even know if they will like through the online store. We all see where the developers are coming from, but forcing the consumer to do something is never the way.
Over time I grew to accept the Online Pass and move on. After all, there are only a handful of games I will play for a time online so I just won’t bother with the pass unless I know I will use it (though as a reviewer that uses game fly, I will sometimes have no choice). However, it seems developers have taken it a step further down the road of darkness. Not only do we have some games locking out online content, but developers have started targeting the single player experience as well. Now I called this in my last article to an extent, and some people thought I was crazy. Well it seems every crazy thought has a degree of truth it would seem, and unfortunately it delves even deeper than I predicted. RAGE was the first game to degenerate itself to the new trend, locking out hidden areas of the main single player experience to those without an online pass. Next on the list is a game heavily anticipated by everyone. Batman: Arkham City has officially been announced to not only do exactly what RAGE did with hidden areas, but also take it one step further. All Catwoman experiences will only be available to those who buy the game new or those who purchase an Online Pass. This not only consists of her challenge maps, but also any part of the main game that features her as well. This means that key parts of the single player game that has already been promised to us, possibly key parts of the story, are locked away to anyone who doesn’t have an online pass.
This has created an even bigger blow to the consumer, and I believe the sales will reflect that. While some of the issues with online play may not be implied to offline play, there is an even bigger issue at hand here. Now account sharing to play an offline game with two different saves within the same house hold won’t be as big an issue as sharing online stats, so at least there won’t be any worries there. However one thing that developers didn’t consider is that not everyone has direct access to the Internet. With that in mind, how are people who buy the game used supposed to get their online pass without the Internet? Furthermore, how are gamers who buy games new without direct online access supposed to redeem their pass and experience their full sixty dollars worth? I guess developers figure they can handle a few casualties in their process, which is really poor thinking considering the age old business saying, “the customer is always right” still exists in full effect today. Odds are that these people who would normally buy the game new won’t even bother with it and save their money for a title that won’t screw them over, which is an even greater loss to developers than used game sales were to begin with when you think about it. In addition, there were plenty of people out there who cancel pre-orders and skip games because of this foul practice to begin with. Now that the developers have started targeting actual chunks of the main game, how many more do you think will join the rebellion?
The sad thing is that they have the right idea here, but are going about it all wrong. The answer to getting more money out of used titles is something that developers have had access to for a while, but continually abuse it all the time. That’s right, I dare to say that DLC is the answer. Making decent single player DLC that is only available to download would bring in revenue from new and used copies alike. Now I’m not talking about DLC like Prince of Persia’s Epilogue or Deus Ex’s Missing Link, which are chunks of the main story that should have been included in the main game to begin with (which when you think about it is exactly what they are doing with this online pass, but on a much harsher level). I’m talking about solid content that is a totally different experience from the main story. Content like the Shivering Isles pack for Oblivion, Castlevania’s DLC or any Fallout DLC packs are perfect examples of how to do it right. Capcom even had the right idea with Resident Evil 5′s single player/Co Op DLC (not including versus, which is actually an online pass itself when you think about it). In this way developers would be working with the consumer to turn a profit by offering more content to an already complete game, which in the end will profit much better than working against each other. I mean think about it, the more rules developers try to force on people, the more those people will try to work around them. Personally I can see pirated copies of games with the locked single player content included on the horizon if they aren’t careful.
The Online Pass started out as subtle at first, but it is sadly becoming more of an unstoppable beast who’s only aim is to force consumers into doing its bidding out of corporate greed. DLC was already getting ridiculous when it came to selling portions of a game that should have been there to begin with, now they want to drag the main game itself into the mess. With just a little more effort, developers could make solid additions to a complete game though GOOD DLC and make out much better than this Online Pass crap. I would like to say that they might be seeing things a little differently from their end that would make my solution impossible, but sadly I know exactly why they are approaching their problems this way. It all boils down to one word, laziness. That’s right, I said it. They don’t want to invest the time and effort into making solid DLC that consumers would WANT to buy. Instead they take out chunks of a completed game to sell them separate or lock out chunks through an Online Pass in order to make a quick buck. It seems to me that the days where developers listen to gamers and work with us to deliver content that would benefit both sides are coming to an end sadly. And unfortunately, I see it getting even worse before it gets any better.
NOTE: This article expresses the views and opinion of Jason R (Jason Roberts) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the entire staff.
Tags: 
so a company is greedy for wanting people to buy the game new vs used? online pass doesnt matter if you actualy buy the game new
who woulda thought, how dare they force you to pay full price for something they have put years of hard work and labor to create.
Exactly….
I dont see anythnig wrong with an Online pass atall.
If you buy the game for $60 you get to play it no problem….
If you buy it second hand for $35 a month after its out woopy doo you haveto pay like $7 so you can play online or play as Cat women…. who cares your still getting it bloody cheap! and the devs still get the money that way.
If there is nno online pass the devs could potentially lose half of the money they could. With an online pass they can get a bit of that back and isnt crapping on the consumer atall….. its good if anything.
well in my country a game cost $99 or $110
a second hand game $50 or $70 plus online pass
bloody cheap?
yeah… right
I meant cheap compared to what the game costs new and when yu buy it off the devs…. So it is very cheap and all you haveto do to unlock the content is pay an axtra $7 or w/e and is still very cheap
oh those poor developers, instead of making 50 million they make 48 million cus of the evil people that rent, borrow or buy used games. I completely agree with Jason R, this is getting outta hand. I love borrowing tons of games from family and friends, I’ve done it my whole life. Now they’re gonna try and take that right away from me? Days of gamer customer satisfaction are heading right out the door in favor of more $$$
People who are fine with it also don’t seem to be taking into account people in the same household. I’m not buying two of these so that both of my sons can play. I’m buying one. Just like I only bought one xbox and one tv. I guess only one brother can get the full game experience? There has to be a better way.
this is the problem I have, I’m buying the game and will use the online pass tonight, so this means that my brother can’t play the Catwoman missions when we share one PS3 for both of us? If so, I ain’t buying this game just to not support this bullshit.
Finally!! LOT finally made an article on this. And I thought I was the only one who thought DLCs are a scam to pay more just to make a game complete.
Which is why if this keeps up, ill eventually become an exclusive pc gamer.
Lol. Don’t let the always-on DRM hit you on the ass if you do.
If you are experienced enough with computers then you will understand that there is a way around that.
I agree with the online pass with multiplayer but I don’t agree with it where the SP is concerned. To lock SP content that could be key points in the story is a bit drastic. This doesn’t effect me as I only purchase new games, but there are some games that I choose to rent instead of purchase.
Thing is devs dont make games for you to rent. They make them for you to buy. And if you buy second hand its all good its only like $7 to unlock the content and you paid a fraction of the price of the game.
Actually the pass is $10 if you buys used. And rental companies have been around for years. Never stated that Devs make games to rent. Plus, as I stated I buy most of my games new anyways.
$10 $7 makes no difference if you buy the game used then including that your still getting it cheaper than buying it new
I completely agree. I bitched about this previously and as it’s total bullshit. Not every gamer is a collector, but there are a lot of us out there and I for one would like to play some of my favorite games 10 years down the road.
I buy all my games new unless it’s not available on the market, like older console titles, etc. However, even with this online pass, what happens when PSN and XBL no longer allow you to download your previous downloads? What happens when PSN and XBL go completely down? The original XBOX allowed for gamers to continue downloading DLC up to a couple years ago and they finally dropped that off the same time they removed online compatibility to original XBOX games.
Again, I don’t care about online multiplayer because once PSN and XBL go down, online multiplayer won’t be able to experienced regardless, but with single player content when your hard drive crashes and there’s no way to redownload the unlock code, it’s gone for good.
Now I was previously bitching about not getting it, but Kmart has an amazing deal. $30 gaming credit and $10 Lord of the Rings War in the North credit. I’m not getting War in the North, but I’ll be getting Uncharted 3, so what I decided I’ll do is pick up Arkham City, play through the game, and then later on flip it on Ebay. I’ll atleast gain $30 or more back, and technically(with the $30 coupon being used on Uncharted) that’s actually what I paid.
If there wasn’t such an amazing Kmart deal then I’d have stuck to my first option. Even at $20 gaming credit which I thought it was, I wouldn’t have gotten it, but that extra $10 really pushed me to get it and made it quite a deal.
I don’t see why a developer like Rocksteady would do this with how well Arkham Asylum sold. A game like this doesn’t need the pass to sell. It would already sell well, and like LoT and everyone else is saying, this will cause them to lose sales rather than gain them I’m sure.
Not really… People who are buying it new are buying it new… nothings changed there.. there arent goingto be people that were goingto buy it new that are now not because its got an online pass that they have anyway lol…. which is what your saying… that it could lose them sales???? your logic is wrong.
They will make more money off the people buying it second hand for very cheap who otherwise would have given no money to Rockstedi atall
And this way to the people who are buying it used, and want the bery full game, just haveto pay a little to Rockstedi, or they can still play it and miss a few things out, up to them but either way they didnt give their money to Rockstedi and paid a fraction of the price for the game.
i don’t know that it will be hurt too badly initially by people that were planning on getting it, anyway, but I’m totally with you on wanting to play classic games years later because they were just that good. I guess the main solution would be that they might put the whole game for download uninhibited by a pass on the next or nextnext console, but then you’re going to have to pay for it again. granted, not nearly as much, but it’s the principle of the thing. you already have it on your older system that you already had everything unlocked on. why should you have to pay again?
Then, there’s trading games with friends. I understand – they made the game and they want money for it. It’s not greed to want paid for something you did. But how far does that go? And how much can they charge and still get away with it? People say it’s not much now. $7 or something. I guarantee that will rise. And I know it can cost a lot to make a game, but I have to pay $20+ for a console version of Dead Space 2 when they’re giving it away on the iPad for $1. What is the real fair price? And why should I pay more than that? Isn’t that at least part of what the whole OWS movement is about?
Hmmmmm. I’m in two minds about this. I earn very good money, but the finance nut in me can’t resist a bargain and I buy a lot of 2nd hand games. If the disks & books are in perfect order then why not? I pay full price for new release software that I simply cannot wait for.
Now I can understand the developers concern in regards to revenue loss through 2nd hand sales, it is quite significant. However, it does enable thier talents to be showcased for all to see, not just those who can afford…..possibly resulting in further future sales of developments down the track.
The people who really profit from this are the game traders, and loss of earnings through this might force the price of new releases up. Its a double edged sword. At the end of the day, developers need the cash to justify the effort and money spent on developing quality software so they can do it again with future releases. Buying a multiplayer online code for small change is a good idea, and I would gladly do that for my 2nd hand games if I felt the need.
It’s a tough one. Developers deserve the money. Game traders profit from 2nd hand sales resulting in cheaper new release sales. The online pass-code system may reduce the active online community in any given game. I’d say leave things the way they are. A vast number of my gaming collection consists, as stated earlier, of 2nd hand product that I wouldn’t bother with should I have to pay full price. I would of missed out on some real gems, and in turn, never paid full price for another of the developers games knowing the quality to expect.
But online passes do not prevent you from buying a second hand game or playing it… so your argument of playing a used game as a factor in buying their next game new is somewhat moot… since you can still do that without using an online pass. Online passes are meant to deter used games sales, not render used games unplayable. Also, as per the developers, these types of online passes do not effect the core story of the game… so whether you use it or not has no bearing on the core experience. I purchased RAGE new and never even used the sewer codes (their version of the online pass) and it did not effect the story in any way… I was still able to complete the game 100%.
With Rage no it didn’t deter from the core story, but with Arkham city it seems as if it does because there are main missions in the game where you have to rescue Cat Woman, and some where you actually play as her. If it was some sort of extra missions in the SP no big deal, but that isn’t stated here.
@ Robbie. I am well aware of that and I don’t think you understood what I said correctly. I know that a 2nd hand game is still entirely playable OFFLINE as normal, but a fee would be reqiured for the online pass code. Many people will simply not want the hassle, many kids do not have credit cards for online purchase and the additional cost will raise the bar close to a new game purchase price. For many people the online multiplayer factor for games is the selling point. Things should sty just the way they are. Let us buy our 2nd hand games without additional cost or hassle, otherwise over-all sales will diminish accordingly.
I do not understand why people get pissed at developers/publishers for using an online pass. They provide it at no additional cost when the game is purchased through an authorized channel (i.e. new at retailer). If a game is purchased through an unauthorized channel (i.e. used from Gamestop or from eBay), and the game is incomplete (i.e. no online pass), that is a problem between the purchaser and the seller… not the publisher/developer. As a consumer, people have to take responsibility in what they purchase, especially as-is, used games. In what reality is a developer/publisher/manufacturer/retailer/etc. responsible for used, incomplete, and/or damaged products that are not provided directly by them?
Nothing wrong (from a consumer’s perspective) with buying a game used, but one should definitely understand what they are buying… and who are the responsible parties in the transaction. If someone is buying a game without an online pass, then they should adjust the value accordingly and factor in the possibility of possibly purchasing it separately.
The way I see it, this bit of crap-o-la should be more directed towards putting an end to piracy, not used games; I realize it’s the same difference but, it would just sound neater; over-all, I don’t see this putting an end to “used games”… Too bad for shitbox fan-nerds though; now, not only will they continue to have the misfortune of paying for online gaming but, will now have to add an extra fee on top of that; “tisk, tisk”… Oh well, too-bad-so-sad!!!
I don’t really have that much of a problem with online pass if its done right like how ea does with giving you a free trial to mp. With sp starting to get its own form of online pass i don’t accept that. locking out portion of main story cause you didn’t buy the game new would only hurt the sell of the game more. I’m sure batman Arkham City will sell but i don’t think it will be really high, due to the whole cat-women debacle.
I don’t have a problem with online passes what I do hate though is shop based pre order bonuses.
Nothing wrong with online passes.
Well i always buy my games new on the ps3.But what do you do when u want to borrow a game from a friend?EA at least gives u a 7 day trial from what i know.
You borrow it and play it missing the minor stuff but still get to play the whole game.
Or you buy it second hand for cheap and pay a little to unlock it.
Or you buy it new
I won’t have a problem with Batman because I pre-ordered and have great internet service, but this is total BS. If I wasn’t looking forward to this particular game so much, I might cancel out of protest. There’s plenty of other games I get that I wouldn’t get if it had this crap attached to it. If this is the way things are going, these companies have got to be getting a wake up call. We are buying a product with certain expectations. I’ve been following this game since they announced it and this is the first I’ve heard of them locking out Catwoman, which is an aspect of the game that they’ve been promoting the whole time. The very least they need to do is be up front about this stuff.
Soon, you’ll need an online pass in order to play a game. What’s stopping them? Think about it. Next gen consoles with ”next gen” experience.
Based on what readers post here, it’s more than clear that a lot of ppl doesn’t give a fuck about online pass. Ut question is: ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE NOT AFFECTED?
Let me explain:
When you buy a game with online pass brand new, you get your free pass, all is fine, but in the end you are buying an INCOMPLETE GAME. but, why? If I have the code cannot be incomplete, sad truth is: YES, IT IS, because is in form of DLC, DLC IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY, YOU PAY FOR PRIVILEGE TO USE IT BUT DLCS ARE NOT A GAMERS’ PROPERTY, that’s why when you account fot any or other reason GETS BANNED, you lose all your DLC, it does not matter you paid or not…the DLC is not yours, and after that amother pass must be purchased. That’s why I say that online pass games are incomplete, and on top of everything else: THEY ARE LIMITATIVE.
They are limitative because YOU CANNOT PLAY THE GAME IN OTHER CONSOLES, CANNOT BORROW IT FROM A FRIEND, CANNOT SELL IT CAUSE YOU GET A SHIT OF MONEY FOR IT, CANNOT CREATE A NEW GAMERTAG/PSN ID, cause only works with the one it was redeemed, so:
QUESTION IS:
DOES ALL THESE PROBLEMS WORTH 60$????
Will Be fair to pay full price for just a code that has not warranty? If I get banned? Will that company give me another online pass just because I give em proof I purchased the game brand new??
NO!
AND THE WORST PART IS:
this only affects the legal retail user:
YEAH! ONLY THE RETAIL USER.
because any modded cobsole owner just downloads the DLC, puts it on their jacked console and enjoys the content without a penny spent, by downloading a hacked profile on unmodded consoles can work too, just download the dlc, sing in on controller 2 with the hacked profile and VOILA! online pass free!
Thats why only the legal retail user is fucked up
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE
THIS IS THEFT
THIS IS GREED
THIS IS MOTHERFUCKERISM
Those greedy developers need to learn a lesson, unless we, honest gamers dont pit a stop to this, very soon will suffer worst measures in future, who knows A CONSOLE PASS??
I DONT BUY/SUPPORT ONLINE PASS GAMES!!!
Thumbs up for use of “THIS IS MOTHERF*CKERISM” haha I almost choked on my breakfast!
Man I’ve seen you say some entertaining stuff, but that tops it all. Thanks for the laughs, and the education too.
@DOOMHAMMR:
you’re welcome!
I admit the online pass annoys me. I hate it with passion.
I know man, and we have disagreed in the past…but I can definitely say when it creeps its way into the single player campaign that qualifies it as a total sh!t show.
My Xbox has been offline for a while now. It’s in my son’s room and I don’t allow him unsupervised access to the internet (Live). I will pick it up for PC for myself and a copy for the 360. I guess I’ll have a spare online pass due to the offline 360?
The way I look at it, Companies need to follow THQ’s model for the Online Pass. They allow you to try out the online multiplayer, but you can’t exceed a certain, like in Space Marine or Homefront, where you can’t get past Rank 5. Works like a demo: You can try it out to see if you like, and then buy the pass or not. That’s how devs should be going about. Something like Resistance 3, where it doesn’t even let you access the co-op without a pass is total BS.
However, in the end, it comes down to this: If you really want a game, buy it new. If it’s something you don’t really want, but would like to play, then just wait for the price to drop, and still buy it new. Simple as that.
“Something like Resistance 3, where it doesn’t even let you access the co-op without a pass is total BS.”
Not really man….
You can buy the game $60 new and get the whole game.
Or you can buy it second hand for like $35 and haveto pay like $7 to go online…. your still getting the hole game and for a fraction of the price……..
I buy pretty much all of my games new, so something like an online pass is never really a problem for me. My point about R3, however, was to use it as an example. As much as I dislike THQ, I do like the way they go about the online pass. Anyone who happens to buy a game with an online pass, used, should at least have a chance to try the online component to see if they like it, so they can decide whether or not to blow 10 bucks.
Despite what some people may think, FAR more people play offline than on. In fact, more than 50% of console owners do not have their machines hooked up to the Internet, (don’t ask me where that number came from – I just remember reading it somewhere), so there are a lot of people who are going to be missing out when developers restrict single player content.
the online pass isn’t a bad thing cause the developers deserve the financial support in order to keep them from being closed down and from making half ass games due to lack of budget. it just needs to be used in a better way so as to not punish those who make new purchases and it also shouldn’t be required for single player content. if you purchase a game new you should be entitle to its entirety for as long as you own it and passes should not hinder that. i think we should be able to move from console to console freely as we always have. i definitely agree with the online trials for 2nd hand games. i cant help but think that if retail prices for new games weren’t so high and overpriced that this may not even be a problem.
im not sure what the solution could be but there is probably a better approach to online passes that can make both the consumers and developers happy.
https://tachyoniccargo.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-online-pass-problem/
I’m not trying to promote my blog or anything, which is why I’ve held off making any comment on this topic until late in the discussion (not bucking for screen time or anything at the top of the comments section).
I found this story shared by one of my friends on my FB wall, as well as on Twitter, so came here to read it and originally started a regular comment . . . a comment that just kept growing and growing and growing. Before too long, it was a comment that was over 1,000 words long, and still growing. I know that it is impolite to wall-o-text on someone else’s site/forum/blog/page, so I wound up spinning what was supposed to be my comment to this article, into my own blog post – it was just too big to do anything other with. Which is why I am linking the comment, instead of just posting it here – it’s currently over 2,000 words in length.
Anyone interested in my thoughts, and what I have to add to the dialog on online passes, please follow the link. If you are not interested, that is fine too. Just ignore my comment as I am not trying to make any waves and create any bad blood with anyone here. I would not want to waste anyone’s time, who did not voluntarily want to give it to me.
https://tachyoniccargo.wordpress.com/2011/10/18/the-online-pass-problem/