Nathan Blades looks at the polarising RPG for PS3 & 360.
Jason Rose brings us a buyers' guide to smartphones available this Christmas.
Nathan Blades covers some console and industry-defining titles for the Sony PlayStation
Nathan Blades burns rubber in Mario kart 7.
To understand the issue here, we need to look at the second-hand market for games itself. Much like DVDs, CDs, or even cars, games have a thriving second-hand market. It’s highly likely, if you’re into games, that you’ve bought one. Perhaps you waited a few weeks after a big release; fished something out of GameStation’s bargain bin; or maybe you’re a "retro" enthusiast. The second-hand market allows gamers to experience games at a cheaper price, as well as providing cash when you trade in old titles.
I’m not arguing against the second-hand market, and the games industry in general seems to have a massive sense of entitlement in this area, believing it should gain money on all new titles sold. Compared to any other industry this is ridiculous - the entire premise of sites such as eBay, Craigslist and Gumtree are based on the fact that we can freely trade away our unwanted used goods.
The difference here is in the “online pass”. In general, large developers will charge a one-off fee to “unlock” the online portion of a game. When the game is purchased new, a code is included in the case which allows this, but is single-use only. When the game is sold on, it does not contain one of these codes, instead one must purchase it from the manufacturer. This allows the company to recuperate some income in the new purchase, and initially appears to be in contravention of my earlier point, but it really isn’t.
To provide the online component of a video game, the company must provide servers and an Internet connection. These things require financial input, and the continued investment of new buyers allows the company to continue to provide an online service. While those who make the initial investment of a new game are provided with the online service gratis, those who did not make the initial expenditure miss out. Indeed, it seems irrational to expect the company to provide for a consumer who has given them nothing. Realistically it is better to give the consumer the option of a cheaper game and no online, than to simply deny online to second-hand purchasers.
The online pass isn’t perfect, by any means, and indeed it frequently goes wrong, as in the case of the aforementioned catastrophically buggy Battlefield 3 as well as Batman: Arkham City. In the latter’s case, however, I find the pass indefensible - it was a code only for “on-the-disc” downloadable content (DLC), content included as a code with the game. To provide the DLC costs the company nothing, hence isn’t really justifiable.
As long as it’s handled correctly, the online pass doesn’t need to be a bad thing. It can extend the online life and community of a game long past its normal “death” date - servers are usually shut down when they cease to be financially viable. It’s not a perfect system, but, much like DRM, when handled correctly (like Valve’s Steam platform), it can be well-integrated with games, and at least help to promote development in the industry.
You must log in to submit a comment.
