[Last week, you were asked to blog your thoughts about online passes in games. Today's promoted blog on that topic comes from nekobun, who acknowledges that used games can cause a problem for developers and publishers, and suggests a number of ways that online passes could be improved. Want to see your own blog on the front page? Write a blog on the current topic: MMO Stories. -- JRo]
The growing trend of online pass (ab?)use is somewhat murky territory; while publishers may actually have a point about used game sales putting a dent in their profits, they're doing a pretty good job of screwing, and therefore alienating, their customer bases by not thinking these passes through. I think the system could use a spin toward positive reinforcement rather than used-buyer deprivation if it's going to last and/or be a successful money recovery scheme, and I have a fistful of ideas as to how this can be gone about.
Incentivize To Monetize
Locking your consumers out of modes that will be primary draws for their purchasing dollar (i.e. multiplayer modes in games that are known for their multiplayer), things they're already expecting access to with their initial purchase, is pretty much a dick move. Rather than demanding a cover charge for the main attraction, things would be much more inviting if these passes offered some sort of VIP content. Access to extra, unique perks and equipment, or some sort of in-game key assigned to your character that opens pathways to particularly advantageous sniper spots or vehicle garages, for instance, seems much more palatable than locking out online play altogether.
Leveling caps, as in Space Marine, are a little less palatable but still mildly acceptable, as they give the player a chance to get a feel for the game and decide whether the multiplayer is worth ponying up for if they've purchased a used copy. It doesn't hurt that the game's loadout-cloning mechanic gives all players a shot at trying out all the weapons and perks available regardless of their rank, and in all likelihood makes shelling out for the pass that much more enticing.
Everyone Gets Laid
If you're going to implement online passes, it's only fair to implement offline passes too, especially given that the former are likely to push at least a few players towards more single-player games in order to save a few bucks. Again, this is dangerous territory, but treating pass-based content as a bonus rather than holding things back is the way to go.
Recent games already seem to be taking a stab at this, with Rage and Batman: Arkham City being great examples of both sides of the coin. A pass included in new copies of Rage unlocked some extra side areas to explore and profit from, but in no way did missing out on these areas detract from the full game experience. They were a nice little bonus for early adopters, but livable without. Arkham City, on the other hand, decided to lock out the Catwoman stages it'd been advertising almost as far back as the game's announcement, much to the chagrin of everyone who thought they'd just be part of the full package. It didn't help that the Catwoman codes apparently didn't even work, but just setting things up that way in the first place was a terrible idea.
Dead On Arrival
Broken Catwoman codes aren't the first instance of online passes not being functional from the get-go, either. Driver: San Francisco had issues with misprinted codes included with new copies, which were needed to enable the Uplay Passport required for online play. Implementation of the Passport, at least for that title, was scrapped entirely, essentially wasting the time and effort put in by whatever team had gone in to implement the pass in the first place.
If you're going to foist a pass onto your customers, make sure it works before you ship. It's annoying enough to be forced to input a passcode, and finding that to be non-functional increases that ill sentiment exponentially.
Pay At The Pump
It may not be the worst idea out there, both for convenience's sake and to regain some good relations with the retailers from whose used-sales pie publishers are clearly trying to take a slice, to send out stacks of codes customers can pay for and take home with them when they buy a used copy of a game. This would cut out a lot of additional work and console-based typing for those who don't have a credit card tied to their online gaming accounts, or don't feel like buying more MS points than the pass costs if they're using Xbox Live and have a standing balance. Without all that hassle to look forward to, buyers are liable to be mildly less discontent dealing with a pass in the first place.
Or, in a similar vein, offer the full single-player version of a game without a pass at all, but at a lower retail price, and have the pass be completely optional and obtainable both online or at the time of retail purchase. That way, those customers whom already have a die-hard obsession with one online game, who weren't going to have the time for or interest in another, can still get the game without the hassle and without wasting codes they don't have much use for, and those who want to play online know they're paying full price for a reason.
Contextual Disconnect
If you really must whore your game out to the pass system, at least go to the effort of making the pass-limited content relevant to the core product and target customer base. Tacking on an unwarranted multiplayer mode to a crafted single-player experience (a la Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2, or Mass Effect 3) is a waste of both in-house resources and customers' time, not to mention an incentive to actually wait for a game to show up on used shelves, since most fans aren't particularly interested in that element anyway, and can do without getting a pass for it. That, and as I mentioned before, the online multiplayer realm is already clearly dominated by a handful of titles; if you're not a Halo, a Call of Duty, or a Battlefield, your market penetration is going to be limited at best.
That's not to say everyone should stay out of the multiplayer game with those big three FPSes dominating things. Great ideas come from smaller multiplayer offerings all the time, and it's not like those three were always the kings of deathmatch - they had to start somewhere. Just don't expect players to pay extra for multiplayer solely because it's there, and don't think it's suicide if a multiplayer element isn't included. If anything, more games could stand to use Space Marine's "insert pass to continue" method, wherein players have somewhat limited access to multiplayer play right from the get-go, but if they like it and choose to punch in a few characters or pony up for an online pass, they can get the full shebang. If not, no harm, no foul, as the single-player's pretty rich in and of itself.
Should the idea of multiplayer feel like too difficult to mesh with the context of the single-player campaign, or would take too many resources away from crafting that campaign ('sup, F3AR?), don't waste that effort and capital. Polish your single player, throw in a pass for some sweet bonus items or an easter egg area, and call it a day. Great solo games get just as much, if not more, acclaim than their multiplayer brethren when it comes to awards and being hailed as classics, so it's just as noble a pursuit. Just look at Nintendo. Even though there's been clamoring for years for them to get their online act together, how many of their classic, beloved franchises really demand a multiplayer element, online or otherwise? Beyond StarFox, Super Mario Kart, and Super Smash Bros., I can't really think of any off-hand.
These Prices Are INSANE
Lastly, there's quite a jump in consumer trepidation when you move from a single-digit dollar amount to double-digits, even if it's simply a step from nine dollars to ten. That extra zero means a lot to the spender, even with that mere one-dollar difference. That, and given that used copies of fresh titles, especially big-release ones, are rarely offered at less than five dollars under their new versions for at least the first month of release, there's no reason an online or offline pass should cost more than that five-dollar difference.
I Feel It Slipping Away
While I hope some of these ideas eventually register in the minds of those keen on milking online passes for however ridiculously tragic their supposed losses to use sales are, I'm not even sure the whole pass trend is more than a fad, anyway. The reality of the industry seems to be drifting away from a need for them, even as they're just beginning to be introduced. Games, especially on the 360, are already beginning to reach a size where the multiplayer and single-player elements need to be housed on separate discs, which leaves one to wonder why multiple versions can't be made available that eliminate the pass requirement altogether.
Want just the single-player? Here's the Campaign Edition, for half the price or so of the full jam. Oh, and we threw in a single-map trial of the multiplayer for you, just as a tease. Multiplayer your bag? Bam, have a Versus Edition, complete with a single-player demo, just in case. Want it all? Complete Edition, sixty bucks, thank you and good night. Such a model would not only give players more freedom in finding what they want and how they want to play, but it could lower production costs (and subsequently, retail costs) for studios looking to focus on just one aspect or the other. Fully blown-out single- or multiplayer experiences for the full standard price would still be an option, but for franchises cranking out new iterations every year, more snack-sized offerings may prove more viable.
Such an approach could eventually reach the point where both halves of each franchise spin off into franchises of their own, with Call Of Duty: Kill Dudes With Spears 3 (multiplayer-only) releasing alongside Call Of Duty: Back To Peloponnesia in Q4 2016. Campaign and multiplayer tend to get farmed out to separate dev houses more often than not anymore, so I don't see why not.
Eventually, I could even see things evolving to the point where modes are nothing but DLC. While not that feasible on the current generation, the Playstation 4 and Xbox 720 (or whatever they decide to call it) are bound to have oodles of hard drive space. Give me a core disc (if discs are even a thing by the time the next gen releases) with the game's assets, and perhaps demos of the game's available modes, and then let me pick and choose what elements I feel are worth my time and money. Maybe I just want campaign, with a side of co-op. Maybe this game's wave defense mode is strong but everything else bores me, so I just want that. Perhaps I'm a multiplayer die-hard, and this latest round of Battlefield lets me carry over my levels from a previous iteration, and I want to keep that rolling and just that.
Granted, this would kind of screw players without an internet connection, but that's not say it'd be impossible to release full versions, with all the trimmings, on disc alongside these "core" editions. Hell, offer the full package for slightly less than it would be to cumulatively download everything, so as not to completely hose the disconnected children and still offer an incentive to get things all at once.
This is all conjecture, however, and for the time being, it looks like the pass system is the flavor of the month. Here's hoping it at least gets a bit more palatable, rather than sparking a revolt amongst players. I don't know about you, but the idea of an Occupy Tsavo Highway movement seems pretty damned impractical.
Okama Gamesphere render by CasinoJack.
Contest:
7:30 PM on 10.26.2011 | 
They hatin
So yes, good post, but I have no hope for the future because of the precedent that's been set.
Not every game warrants that price, either. You can't tell me things like MorphX and that stupid Zombie Guitar game are worth full price.
Why? Because they're myopic, and they can't think in terms of short- vs. long-term best interests.
Of course after Arkham City's sales, I've lost all hope in anybody else actually caring. I guess I'm just going to be one of those gamer's left behind and forgotten in an industry increasingly becoming full of passes, codes, day 1 DLC, DRM, mandatory online connections, and stagnating single player (and even stagnating local multiplayer, why the fuck do I have to be online to play DR2 coop?!?).
Still, I think game developers and publishers are just idiots some times. I mean, the launch of Dark Souls had no online passes at all, yet it had fuck up written all over it (this, despite being a great game!).
Yeah, there's a chance like you've mentioned before that the Wii U library won't be as big as the PS3 or 360's, but what's the point of having a large total number of games if most of them are games you have to jump through hoops to play?
Looking at what's going on now with these passes and DLC and such, maybe it's not such a bad thing that the Wii's online features aren't as robust as PS3/360 or that the Wii didn't get many of the same exact games as PS3/360. Something to think about.
I support online passes because it's no extra cost to the consumer if they buy the product new. So long as used games are a huge part of our industry's culture, developers/publishers aren't getting all of the profit. I don't think used games should go away, and I see this as a viable solution, giving gamers the choice to buy used, but less incentive to do so.
Seriously, they could just say if you don't have an "online pass" you can't play online and FORCE people to buy the games new. Atleast they still offer a way to buy used AND play online. Look at PC games with their registration keys, I don't want that.
This right here sums up how I see online passes. This industry is one of the few industries that quality speaks louder than the talking suits who make controversial statements and moves like the online pass. Many people including me are not gonna miss out on a masterpiece like Arkham City because of some silly online pass. It's sounds bad I know but that's how this industry is and how 99% of gamers think.
Ps. I'm posting this from my phone so spelling is goin to be bad.
Used players aren't technically the developers/publishers customers, their gamestops customers :/
I see a lot of articles criticizing how developers/publishers are trying to give some form of incentive to buy their product new but not a whole giving good alternative solutions :/
People like you flailed against the Catwoman "online pass" thing specifically because it was advertised months in advance. Now why is that a bad thing? Because it's intrinsic to the experience? Well, that's not for you, or anybody but Rocksteady to decide, now is it? It's their product, after all. They decided to market it as bonus content, so that's what it is, and if they hadn't advertised it as withheld content at all, like Rage, then nobody would've batted an eye at it, and that is proof of the blatant ignorant hypocrisy of the most vocal of gamers. The fact that the passes didn't work as advertised is a flaw, yes, but the entire marketing scheme is not in anyway malevolent, unless you choose to believe it is. All the same, withheld content is withheld content. If people want all of the game they should be willing to pay full price, or accept some form of sacrifice. Fair is fair. What Batman AC, Rage, all Bioware games, etc is a beneficial way for companies to provide incentive to people to buy new, and only minor content is lost if the game is bought used.
And how is portioning out the game into 3 different packages any different, or cheaper, or less confusing to the customer? Used games are too expensive so publishers should just dismantle their products because people only want so much of it? That's inane and backwards, and creates far more problems than it fixes. Production costs would go up, the base cost of the game would rise, people would still buy used, but now there'd just be more versions of each game to buy used. It's ridiculous to believe that any one actually prefer that, unless you take into account the people that are just being contrarian because Online Passes Are Evil.
The only way the system will become fair and accepted is if every body stops panicking every time something happens differently from the way the expect, and it doesn't help that every wanna-be journalist with a keyboard is trying to rile people up, especially since most of you are going to get these games new anyways. It seems to be far too easy to trick people into being prejudicial, because it's so much easier to be pissed off than understanding. Games are still getting better year by year, just the way they're being marketed is starting to shift because it's become known that the vast majority of people with a video gaming habit have a stable internet connection these days. Used game sales have always been a sort of detraction, and now they're trying to find ways to recoup that lost income, and that's okay. Most people buy new anyways, but at least this method doesn't just lock out a copy of the game. The used market is still allowed to function, and hopefully used games will become cheaper as this becomes more prevalent (I shouldn't be able to walk into Gamestop and find Shivering Isles being sold for more than a new copy of Oblivion with all DLC included. Nothing regulates used games).
Everybody just needs to take a step back and be calm and rational about this stuff. It's clear that everybody that comes to sites like this cares about video-games, at least a little, so why be so bitter and reactionary about every bit of potentially inconvenient news? The way video games are being sold is a little different today than it was when I started, but it's still a cheaper hobby to get into than ever, with systems offering more comprehensive services and alarmingly good games compared to a decade ago. These are good times, and it's certainly a waste of aggression to go after a ten dollar service charge like it's the fucking antichrist. Hell, I get charged for my convenience every time I do business over the phone. It's not like this is a new concept.
@KenAkuma
Used players aren't technically gamestops's customers, they are players who want used and rent games.
What makes you think gamestop is the only business out there that does this?
Agree
The point of this isn't to make money off of consumers. It's to reassure retailers to purchase a second print of a game without having to discount. The whole point is to make people pay for the full experience. If it's used, they'll see little rewards like $10. If it's new, publishers will gain access to the full rewards from a retailer.
It's a win win situation if a consumer chooses to play the game. As long as consumers do, the publisher won't change a thing.
This is why MGM doesn't demand you pay them $10 to unlock the used DVD you just bought at a garage sale. This is why Ford doesn't lock the used car you just bought and demand money in order to drive it. This is why Apple doesn't lock out features of their iDevices when bought used and demand money to unlock them.
Every single one of these companies has costs associated with their products after they leave the warehouses. This is why the "server costs" excuse that the industry loves to use is a lie. If it was server costs, then they wouldn't be locking out single player content as well. DO NOT buy games with an online pass. DO NOT support such anti consumer practices.
They are stealing from you. Buying used is not illegal and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Online Passes are scams designed to make you think that you have done something wrong. You haven't. This is why I never buy any game that has any sort of online pass. I buy it used or rent it. I will NOT support that kind of anti consumer practice.
Don't be fooled into thinking you are somehow taking money away from these "poor" developers. Don't be fooled into thinking the "deserve" to profit off of subsequent purchases of the same product. Just imagine if you have to pay the manufacturer for every used product you bought. Can't think of any other company that demands to profit off of your used purchase?? That's because none exist.
everything I got from your argument was don't fight something that you feel is unfair because everyone knows that when something changes it changes for the right reason. Am I correct in viewing the basis of your argument this way?
You are as guilty as the people you counter my friend. You sit at your keyboard and continue to rile people up for your side of defending publishers right to do this. (You see what I did there, I made you sound just as bad as the people you argue against really amazing how easy it is to do when you hurl insults their way is it not?)
I love the language that you use: DEMAND (multiple times), ILLEGAL, ANTI CONSUMER.
These are all words that come with negative images, but the fact is there is no DEMAND being made from publishers.
Its a request.
Do are under no obligation to buy the extra DLC. It is totally optional. If the developer, makes some money from an Online Pass, then whats the big deal? Yeah, maybe they DON'T deserve it, but should we not be supporting the people that support US by making the games?
Its not about fighting change, or even about NOT fighting change.
Things change, its just life. Things starts costing money that didn't cost money before. This happens everywhere to everyone.
If their buying their games used from gamestop than yes, technically they are gamestop's customers....
Of course I know gamestop isn't the only business that deals used games but that doesn't change my point.
If your buying used/renting, your that store/service/person's customer.
If I were denying any changes throughout time then I wouldn't be typing to you through my laptop as we type, my point was change doesn't always signify change for a common good. I should have specified, my apologies. To argue change is always good i.e. the change in the way DLC is presented in the industry and to just bend over and take the fact that there is a spinet of code that prevents you to play part of the game unless you take the time to enter another code to play the game which you have purchased is down right silly and impractical and a hinderenous on your consumer which in my own opinion is a stupid thing to do.
Especially when you have an established franchise such as the ones that mainly use these silly online passes. If you have a fanbase and treat your consumer with respect time and time again it shows that in the long wrong your following will be less flimsy. Valve is the perfect example of how to do your product and marketing right. Not to alienate but to reward.
Its funny that you mention Valve.
When I first bought Half Life on PC, it came with a CD key. Yet, I wouldn't say that the relationship between Valve and I is worse off because of that. Did i just get anal raped by Valve? No. They gave me a 20 or so digit number and i entered it. it was pretty easy. In fact, a monkey could do it! I will be honest and tell you that the only diference i see here is.... ok wait, there isnt one.
If i lost my Half Life cd key, i would most likely need to buy a new copy of the game to play it legitamately. So I would still need to shell out more money to play it. Should I tell Valve how evil they are for making me buy another code?
No.
Thats the answer. I was the idiot that lost it, i should be the one to pay.
In closing: if you dont have a code for Batman: AC, BF3 or any other game that you feel you were screwed out of content in purchasing, then dont buy used. Buy new. Get the code, enter it, (trust me, its easy) and then you can smile.
No, cd keys are not like the current online pass at no point did you need to download a portion of the game that was withheld from you. You can't compare the two when we are first talking a different platform with different issues, and we are also talking an entirely different system put forth for entirely different reasons.
Anyway, bitching about it wont solve anything. Ppl needs to learn that actions speak louder than words. If anyone is not comfortable with this, just dont buy the game. If you have the imperative need to play a game, just wait a few months. It is more likely than not that publishers will release some GOTY shit and give you all DLC for free.
So what's next, people creating ghost accounts just to be able to sell full games in the future?
"This is why MGM doesn't demand you pay them $10 to unlock the used DVD you just bought at a garage sale. This is why Ford doesn't lock the used car you just bought and demand money in order to drive it. This is why Apple doesn't lock out features of their iDevices when bought used and demand money to unlock them."
DVD publishers force major retailers to sign agreements that they won't sell new and used DVDs in the same storefront. Redbox has to destroy most DVDs rather than resell them to customers. Video rental stores can sell used DVDs, but they have to pay more for special rental copies. Ford has much higher profit margin on OEM parts and service sold after the sale, which is a lucrative market because, unlike games, a used car deteriorates in terms of value to the new owner. Apple has a huge profit margin, and they make money in a lot of different ways, including with iTunes, and there is that nice battery replacement fee.
The videogame used market is unique. No where else do you see new and used products sold side by side, where the used product offers the exact same experience, with no significant level of deterioration, and with the used product actually being pushed over the new product. Most comparisons fail in multiple ways. But, people will continue to compare them to toasters and microwaves (I've seen both).
I said "storefront". Online is a different animal.
Still, I rly think that publishers should just stop whinning about something they still get tons of money from. If you take into account DLC, used games players are still players you can take advantage from.
Online passes and crap like that dont seem like the way to go.
Other big-time studios have negotiated for the same thing. The idea that ONLY the videogame industry is fighting sales of used products is way off base.
The thing is, that's a behind-the-scenes deal. The general public doesn't mind stuff if they can't see it, because they never think about it. If videogame publishers had been able to work out a deal with GameStop, I think they would have been happy, but either EA or Activision would have to make the first move, and thus leave themselves open to the other. They aren't allowed to legally "work together" because of anti-trust laws.
The best thing that could happen, and what I hope happens, is that the publishers begin selling online passes to GameStop for them to put in their used games.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76_sU-Oyx1M
Just listen to the way claptrap speaks about the expenses and how he brags of his materials
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RimfJCrYyA&ob=av3e
Eventually it will be pay to play. Like X-box Live or worse. You'll have to buy the game, then spend extra to play it. Every online game will essentially be an MMO. Monthly charges to keep playing. And why not? As long as people are dumb enough to keep shelling out money to be abused, they'll keep doing it. If the demand for your product is high enough where people will pay extra for even the smallest things, the laws of economics say you charge more for it.
Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it.