For the uninitiated/casual gamers out there, an online pass is pretty much what it sounds like: a pass that allows a game to be played online or allows access to online content. Publishers like EA and Ubisoft have instituted the use of these passes in order to discourage consumers from buying used games and to make up profits “lost” to used game sales; people who buy games new receive the pass for free whereas people who buy games used must pay extra for the pass. Although this practice seems innocuous at first glance, it’s really not. What is worse, though, is the new practice that has begun to appear with some high profile games, in which the online passes are being used to lock content that is not online enabled.
Let’s look at the argument for online passes. The thesis goes that used game purchases hurt publishers because those publishers do not receive payment for sales of used games; all profits go to the seller, not the publisher. Okay, it’s easy to see that publishers gain no profit from used sales, but how does that hurt them? After all, for a game to be sold as used it must have been initially bought as new, which means that the publisher already profited from the sale of that copy; why should they be entitled to additional profits from reselling the game? It’s like selling a used car—or anything second-hand, for that matter. General Motors is not entitled to a chunk of your cash if you decide to sell your old Chevy.
Another claim that publishers make is that used game sales hurt them because they are forced to provide online content to people that did not pay for that content (hence the “online” part of the online pass). For example, the publisher must maintain servers so that gamers can play online deathmatchs against other players. People who bought the game used, the claim goes, are not paying for the upkeep of those servers. Shenanigans, I say. Access to those servers was already paid for by the game’s original purchaser who is no longer using that access. The original purchaser transferred his/her rights to that access along with the property rights to the game disc to the new owner. Publishers are not losing a dime when someone buys a used copy of a game. It’s not like buyers of used games are pirates; they are not stealing.
For the sake of argument, though, let’s say that publishers are justified in their claims. Implementing a pass system that treats an online mode of a game as, in essence, a separate game would not be wholly unreasonable. Online multiplayer, for example, is not really part of the main game itself. It can be argued that it is a bonus, much like the bonus features of a DVD. You do not need access to online multiplayer in order to play or enjoy the main game. After all, you don’t have access to a movie’s bonus features when you see the movie in the theater and not having that access does not detract from the experience. (One obvious flaw in this line of reasoning is that games are not really analogous to movies, but we’ll let that slide. Another flaw is that online modes in games have become an expected part of the gaming experience, but we’ll ignore that too.) If we treat such online components as separate games, then an online pass system is not unreasonable, making it akin to an MMOG’s subscription fee (we’ll further overlook the point that MMOGs have by-and-large abandoned subscription fees as unsustainable). But what is not justifiable are publishers locking portions of the main game itself unless the consumer pays an extra fee for an unlock code.
When the much acclaimed and anticipated Batman: Arkham City was released last October, gamers were shocked to find that they were locked out of the heavily advertised Catwoman portion of the game, which reportedly accounted for twenty percent of the main game. Even though it was possible to finish the game’s storyline without accessing that content, you could not fully complete the game without it. In January of this year, the same controversy arose with the much anticipated Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning when it was learned that an entire quest line that is included with the game will be locked behind an online pass. The owner of that game’s studio, Curt Schilling, went onto his studio’s forums to say,
DAY 1 DLC, to be extremely and VIVIDLY clear, is FREE, 100% totally FREE, to anyone that buys a new copy of Reckoning, ANYONE. If you don't buy new games you buy them used, and in that case you will have to pay for the Day 1 free DLC content the new copy buyers got for free.
It's clear the intent right? To promote early adopters and MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO ME, REWARD fans and gamers who commit to us with their time and money when it benefits the company . . . This is not 38 [Studios] trying to take more of your money, or EA in this case, this is us REWARDING people for HELPING US! If you disagree due to methodology, ok, but that is our intent . . . companies are still trying to figure out how to receive dollars spent on games they make, when they are bought. Is that wrong? if so please tell me how . . .
Atrocious grammar aside, Curt, here’s how: a) the locked content is not DLC (i.e. downloadable content) if it’s already on the disk itself; b) it’s not free if it’s included in the purchase price; c) as explained above, you’re company is not losing money from used game sales; and finally, d) you’re not rewarding your supporters by giving them access to a product that they legitimately bought and own. To use the DVD example again, it’s one thing to deny access to a movie’s bonus features (as some studios have begun doing with rental discs, by the way) and quite another to deny them access to a movie’s ending. What Arkham City and Kingdoms of Amalur have done is akin to the latter. Contrary to Schilling’s claims that companies are just trying to protect their interests, they really are trying to take more of their customers’ money.
So what’s the solution? Well, the most obvious solution is for publishers to acknowledge that used game sales do not hurt them and get over it. After all, if you wanted to buy an old NES cartridge you would have no choice but to buy it used and you don’t hear Nintendo complaining about it. The fact is, second-hand sales of many things—including games—have occurred for a very long time and nobody has ever complained of lost revenue from it except for some game publishers. But the cynic in me knows that these publishers will never acknowledge that fact, so other options must be considered. Since the best way of solving any problem is to eliminate its causes, let’s consider the question of why people buy used games. If given a choice between buying something new versus buying it used, people would naturally prefer to buy new. How could they not? The reason people buy used goods is obvious; the new goods are too expensive. Personally, except for games like Duke Nukem Forever that aren’t worth buying new (zing!), I always buy new games. However, except for very rare occasions, I NEVER pay full price for them. When a game costs $60+ at launch and has a 50%+ price cut within six months’ time, can you blame me—or anyone—for not wanting to get ripped off? It’s easy to see the appeal of buying used. The best alternative then is to not overprice the games to begin with and sell them at twenty or thirty dollars from the start. If publishers did that, consumers would feel much better about buying new copies of games.
But again, the cynic in me knows that will never happen. So what’s left? Actually, I think Schilling had the right idea of rewarding customers who buy new copies. The reward, though, has to be an actual reward, i.e. a bonus, not SOMETHING THEY’RE ALREADY ENTITLED TO, YOU DOLT!!! (Ahem—sorry about that.) Suppose new copies of games came packaged with vouchers for legitimate DLC, such as extra multiplayer maps or weapons (like existing pre-order bonuses that stores currently give out). This content would be entirely optional, so instead of punishing used buyers by locking them out of online multiplayer (which is really a fundamental component of games today) unless they pay a ransom, they will have the choice of buying that DLC. Companies should reward their customers, not treat them like thieves.
