On online passes

If you knew me, you'd know I buy a lot of used games. Now before you go and call me evil or anything, you should know that most of the games I buy used are several months, if not years, old. Really it's only when I can get a decent value out of buying it used.that I do so As such I have a unique opinion when it comes to online passes (the hot button issue of the day.) I don't mind them, if there was a game coming out that new is $60 then I don't see the sense in paying $55 for it and not supporting the publisher. I think online passes work because they support new game sales while not punishing players who pick the game up later use (Because let's be honest most online games are dead six months after release anyway). Still I can't help but feel this is a slippery slope. Take for example Batman Arkham City, the new purchase incentive for that game is a piece of the single player game, ditto with Kingdom of Amalur. Right now both developers have said that the content for both games was always intended to be DLC, but I'm just worried it won't be long before a publisher puts something that's not DLC behind an online pass? Companies should be especially concerned with this, because when you lock away something other than multiplayer behind an online pass, you're no longer just incentivising new purchases, you're turning your back on latecomers.

5 Comments
5 Comments
Posted by Deathawk

If you knew me, you'd know I buy a lot of used games. Now before you go and call me evil or anything, you should know that most of the games I buy used are several months, if not years, old. Really it's only when I can get a decent value out of buying it used.that I do so As such I have a unique opinion when it comes to online passes (the hot button issue of the day.) I don't mind them, if there was a game coming out that new is $60 then I don't see the sense in paying $55 for it and not supporting the publisher. I think online passes work because they support new game sales while not punishing players who pick the game up later use (Because let's be honest most online games are dead six months after release anyway). Still I can't help but feel this is a slippery slope. Take for example Batman Arkham City, the new purchase incentive for that game is a piece of the single player game, ditto with Kingdom of Amalur. Right now both developers have said that the content for both games was always intended to be DLC, but I'm just worried it won't be long before a publisher puts something that's not DLC behind an online pass? Companies should be especially concerned with this, because when you lock away something other than multiplayer behind an online pass, you're no longer just incentivising new purchases, you're turning your back on latecomers.

Posted by MooseyMcMan

I am calling you evil for buying used games!

Posted by laserbolts

I feel zero sympathy for you and I hope they keep doing this kind of stuff. Sorry.

Posted by RE_Player1

The online pass stuff doesn't really bother me as I rarely buy used games. Games drop in price so fast now if you wait a month or two your bound to see a sale or a price drop on a game you want so even if it gets to the point where more content is locked I won't be effected. Also I have no problems with used games just GameStop as they are essentially a pawn shop, taking advantage of the customers that walk in because they are desperate for cash towards another game. If you want to buy/sell used games do a little leg work and sell them yourself, you'll end up saving and getting more money.

Posted by MasturbatingestBear

@Deathawk said:

If you knew me, you'd know I buy a lot of used games. Now before you go and call me evil or anything, you should know that most of the games I buy used are several months, if not years, old. Really it's only when I can get a decent value out of buying it used.that I do so As such I have a unique opinion when it comes to online passes (the hot button issue of the day.) I don't mind them, if there was a game coming out that new is $60 then I don't see the sense in paying $55 for it and not supporting the publisher. I think online passes work because they support new game sales while not punishing players who pick the game up later use (Because let's be honest most online games are dead six months after release anyway). Still I can't help but feel this is a slippery slope. Take for example Batman Arkham City, the new purchase incentive for that game is a piece of the single player game, ditto with Kingdom of Amalur. Right now both developers have said that the content for both games was always intended to be DLC, but I'm just worried it won't be long before a publisher puts something that's not DLC behind an online pass? Companies should be especially concerned with this, because when you lock away something other than multiplayer behind an online pass, you're no longer just incentivising new purchases, you're turning your back on latecomers.

I do feel for you. It totally sucks. Luckily there has only been one potential used game purchase for me that had the stupid online pass, so I just passed on that and got Burnout Paradise.

Let me tell you, you are missing nothing from Arkham City's Catwoman DLC. It can all be completed in less than an hour and a half, and I never put any upgrades on her.