Gamers Suffer in War Between Used Games and Online PassesTo anyone who passionately follows the console gaming industry, the use of “online passes” is a matter of passionate debate. While some consumers acknowledge and understand their use, most are simply opposed to them. It's easy to understand the latter perspective – the use of the online pass is a run on used games, and with implementing it, used games inherently have less value.
So, for gamers as consumers, online passes offer no benefit over the system that was in place before, which typically granted multiplayer access without having to use a code. For gamers, they know this is being taken away from them and many aren't happy, even on principle. Some gamers might buy all of their games new and thus be unaffected by the online pass, but still it's what they view as a right being removed that they protest.
While I understand the protests and typically side with the consumer, I also completely get why publishers are doing it with online titles. After all, these online games are a service that they have to continually support – for people who purchase used games (or worse, pirate a game) they play the multiplayer without contributing to the infrastructure that maintains that online experience. Now a counter argument can be made that those who purchase used games can be converted in some other way after they get started, like with purchasing map packs (I think Activision is leaning that way with the Call of Duty series). Still, the reasoning for the online pass for multiplayer, something inherently online, is something I understand even if it's not my favorite thing in the world.
"It really feels like game consumers are the ones losing in all this, being inconvenienced with unnecessary steps dictated by some corporate bean-counters and hit with additional costs in games that are already quite expensive."
“An analogy would be you watch a movie in the theater, then as you leave you sell your ticket back to the movie theater owner (at a discount), he can resell it over and over and never has to pay Hollywood anything again,” one game executive, who requested to remain anonymous, told IndustryGamers. “Trust me, Hollywood wouldn't stand for that, even if it was legal to do so.”
So I get it, and comprehend how AAA game publishers/developers are a business and second-hand sales, which Lionhead’s Mike West essentially described as “worse than piracy”, lead to services rendered for no cost; never a good long-term business tactic. There is another sort of online pass, however, that is starting to creep in that is much more sketchy in its intent – the pack-in code for single-player content. For those who might not know, this budding trend grants those who purchase the game new some single-player component that was purposefully withheld and made into a download. This sounds unintuitive to the natural design of a game, and I'd argue it definitely is, but make no mistake about it – this move is all about discouraging and possibly monetizing used games for game publishers.
One of the first such experiments with this sort of single-player online pass was with Dragon Age: Origins. The Stone Prisoner content, featuring the playable character Shale, was a character and situation cut from the full game, but became instead launch-day DLC. Those who pre-ordered the game received a code that supposedly had an expiration date (yet another controversial measure) though ultimately the codes worked after the date in question (April 30, 2010). The $15 DLC offering was clearly a shot across the bow of used games, though it's worth noting that the greater story arch of Dragon Age: Origins is mostly unaffected by Shale's absence.
Another similar DLC offering came from Assassin's Creed II. Yes, plenty of games offer post release content that feature some sort of epilogue to the full single-player experience, but in this case content from the main storyline was released later, not on the first day and not part of an online pass. It left the content in a weird place because it couldn't be necessary to the overall story because only a small fraction of players would ever experience it, making it functionally content that's just there for people who wanted more of Assassin's Creed II, relegating it to side story status.
2011 has seen the full maturity of these single-player downloadable options in what is being called a “Season Pass.” Described as a “long term, pre-paid, post-launch downloadable content plan” it's a more ordered and organized way to offer DLC content for a lump sum. Gears of War 3 is offering a collection of multiplayer and single-player content, while Mortal Kombat had four new “Kombatants” to play with. Most notable for this article, however, is L.A. Noire and its so-called “Rockstar Pass.” Along with a variety of smaller DLC items, also included were four cases that were woven into the main storyline. This made them seem relevant to the points in the greater story arch that take place, but if you never play them, the story is essentially unchanged. It made for a great offering for those who enjoyed the game and something easy to skip if you weren't as big a fan. Season Passes seem like a logical evolution, since it's a more upfront offering with DLC, and I'm willing to have a little empathy for Rockstar in the case of L.A. Noire, since the game was already crammed onto 3 DVDs anyway for the Xbox 360 version; that extra single-player content may not have fit in the first place.
Not all is well in the single-player DLC space, however. One of the most recent, and somewhat baffling, uses of this single-player online pass is with Batman: Arkham City. Fans had been eagerly anticipating Catwoman as a playable character as part of the main story. And then it was revealed mere days before the game's launch that Batman's on-and-off antagonist/lover and the whole Catwoman subplot would be a download, available only to those who purchase the game new, leaving used game players to pay for the content or experience the game with a noticeable gap in the experience.
This offering is probably the most direct I can think of that is designed to stick it to those that sell (and buy) used games. There's really no reason to include the Catwoman content as a download like this, except to try and convince gamers who buy it used to pony up for either the price of the DLC or to just get the new version instead. This maneuver, done at launch, would appear to be a direct shot across the bow of GameStop... except it isn't.
See, this situation has caused GameStop to blink. Seeing clearly the damage it would have on their hugely profitable used game business, they announced that pre-owned copies of Batman: Arkham City will contain codes to download the Catwoman content. Perhaps this was a byproduct of an agreement with publisher Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, where GameStop paid them some amount of money for the codes. GameStop likely capitulated to Warner Bros.' terms (basically giving them money for some of the used sales) and WBIE is no doubt satisfied with the result.
This whole situation leaves me a bit peeved, however, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, GameStop is far and away the greatest seller of used games on the planet (and often offers what many consider a less than stellar deal with their trade-backs), but for this situation it's almost like they've managed to weasel their way out of the problem. Secondly, consumers are getting jerked around while publishers are trying to figure out what to do about this whole used game thing – hoops are put up to jump through in order to get to the full experience, just because WBIE is scared to death that players will trade in a copy of the game and someone will buy it.
I keep coming back to the fact that, as an entertainment industry, we should be all about service; every business should have that philosophy really, but especially when you're talking about people's luxury expenses. Moves like this suggest that WBIE took their audience for granted, which they honestly probably can given the anticipation for the new Batman game, the renown of the Batman IP and the critical reception calling the title a “Game of the Year” finalist.
What I really just want is to get past these awkward these intermediary steps between digital and physical products that the industry is suffering from right now. It really feels like game consumers are the ones losing in all this, being inconvenienced with unnecessary steps dictated by some corporate bean-counters and hit with additional costs in games that are already quite expensive. Is the solution to this used game dust up putting codes in boxes, the way Newzoo suggests? I have no idea, but I have this feeling that things are going to get more encumbered for consumers before the solution is eventually found.
