Another article written for Castle Co-Op, a website dedicated to Film, TV, Music and Culture – Published 12-02-2012
Cracking open my brand-new copy of Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, a startling discovery makes itself present; a seemingly innocent insert containing a PSN code to access the ‘House of Valor’ DLC Pack featuring seven additional Single Player quests. This thinly veiled attempt to rebrand the Online Pass as day one DLC has ignited my otherwise placid view on the debate surrounding the pre-owned Video Games market. This aggravated response isn’t necessarily targeting the existence of the Online Pass, but its necessity for offline Single Player content – it just stinks of corporate greed.
The Online Pass is a system that enables publishers to restrict the online content or online multiplayer components of a game. This is basically a non-issue for those who purchase the game new from retail establishments (an online pass is provided for free); however this requires players with pre-owned or second-hand copies to purchase a new code in order to access this material.
The reasoning behind this initiative is justified as publishers and distributors – not the creators or developers – claim its primary purpose is to make back the money supposedly lost to piracy and the second-hand games market. The additional revenue is also used to keep the servers maintained and operational. Any player purchasing a pre-owned game hasn’t attributed any revenue toward the publisher and is therefore using their service for free. This is how publishers claim the used-games market is ‘robbing them blind.’ Therefore an Online Pass is used as a detrimental disincentive to the used-game market especially with a popular game like Battlefield 3, a largely online experience.
The Online Pass isn’t a new phenomenon as it was used with the PlayStation 3 release of Mass Effect 2. It was widely advertised as the ‘Complete Edition’ of Mass Effect 2, however this is only achieved through downloading additional content using the Cerberus Network, an Online Pass only available with an activation code for the PlayStation Network (again, available free with new purchase). Hence the product is not as advertised with the ‘complete’ experience closed off for some players without PSN access.
This issue was also sparked late last year with Batman: Arkam City’s necessity of an Online Pass to access some of the Catwoman DLC. The outrage was aimed toward its necessity due to the original nature of an Online Pass; to access online content and multiplayer functions. However Arkham City is an offline Single Player Game.
You can be in two camps about this current issue; satisfied that the justification of purchasing the product new grants you additional content for free because the developers deserve the money, or that you are sick and tired of paying for content that should be available on the disc upon release as advertised.
It’s a mystery seeing publishers creating ill-will and unneeded animosity towards their supposed target demographic. Instead of blaming a service like GameStop (Electronic Beautique/EB Games in Australia) why not compete with them by providing a superior means of service, i.e. offering consumers with a trade-in or buy-back system toward ensuring future patronage from consumers. Better yet, with the vast library of used-games collected vis-à-vis this service, you can sell them back to the public with an advantage no other service can provide; packaged DLC content with used-games. Odds are consumers are more likely to purchase from the certified publisher considering the value is reasonably competitive.
Publishers curse the used market because they don’t see profit in the resale of their product. The aforementioned scenarios seem a more advantageous way to profit from the used-games market; a more elegant solution than an Online Pass.
The validation of the Online Pass is somehow unfairly attributed to piracy. By definition, piracy takes a single ‘game’ either leaked or purchased illegally and replicates it multiple times. However every used game sitting on a shelf at your local retailer represents a sale each. Despite other allegations, the used-game market exists legally within the same capitalist regime in which their original publishers operate and continue to profit to the tune of millions per year.
To be blunt, I actually am impressed with some developers who charge for DLC available the same day as the games release; they truly have steely nerve to put a price-tag on what I see as cut content from the retail release. I mean they are already collecting revenue from the sale, coupled with fans buying the ‘additional’ content as DLC from the online store. Then we see publishers make a complete 180 and demand to take a $10 cut from a used-game sale in order to keep the game or servers running; fundamentally telling the world “we still need more money.”
Impressive. Yes. It is also by and far the most grotesquely greedy exploit publishers have to close off the single avenue and advantage we can get as customers (reselling an undesired game) because that’s the one aspect of the sale they cannot profit from.
On the opposite end of the spectrum other will argue the used-game market is damaging to the industry as a whole and a result of the retail sector trying to combat the growth (and inevitable domination) of digital distribution.
The reason digital downloads has not fully encapsulated the market is that ownership of the physical media is vastly superior for a number of reasons. Not only is there a slight romanticism about owning a physical object, but you can then sell the item and use the revenue to fund your next purchase.
The majority of profits generated from the sale of ‘new products’ go to the publisher and developers to contribute to a continuing improved service. Opposed to 100% of the sales generated from a used game going to the seller, a party that has no influence on the product at all.
With all said and done – here comes the hypothetical. What if you purchased a game brand new at retail and hated it. What else could you do with it? Could you return it to the store? Perhaps. Would you throw it away along with your $60 ($100 in Australia) investment plus tax? Absolutely Not. Give it back to the publisher? If only. It’s not like you can return the product direct to the publishers if you’re not satisfied but in their minds, if you’re not purchasing games new at full price, you are a thief.
Often I cannot personally justify buying full price retail (especially in Australia) for a game when I know my obscure value to enjoyment ratio wouldn’t be satisfied. However I generally import games brand new anyway, so this debate really doesn’t revolve around me – and to be frank, as long as developers are worthy of my hard earned cash, I’m happy to pay for the continual service and promise of future releases.
In its current state, I see the both the value and corrosive nature of the used-game market that’s focused on maximising their own profits. To me, I fall under the category where the whole Online Pass debacle is a non-issue. The only exception would be back catalogue games, but to date, no title so far is yet to hold any Online Pass. To top it off, the rise of digital distribution will render this controversial topic moot.
The only reason I would sway my vote against the use of Online Passes in favour of a free used-game market is because used-games is the only functioning avenue that supports our rights as gamers. The capitalists are merely looking to extend their revenue beyond their legal right; seeing as how each individual product sold is now under the ownership of the consumer (disregarding warranty policies), and s/he is welcome to do whatever they like with their property.
The facts are used-games still have value despite the absence of publisher approval. The inclusion of an Online Pass devalues the product as soon as it’s paid and played – especially for a Single Player Experience like Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning with day one DLC content; purposefully cut content. Publishers need to resolve the dichotomy between themselves and their consumers. Stop screwing around with your customers, compete and grow within the gaming-industry instead of whining about it, and try to create a win-win situation for all parties.
