To open the subject, I’d like to talk about online passes.
In brief, online passes require the purchaser of a used game to pay an additional ten dollars to access part of the game content. Traditionally, this has been for online gameplay, an aspect of the game which is inherently ephemeral in the long term, since servers do not remain up forever and are inherently required to enjoy this feature.
There has been some debate on the matter, as challengers often claim that there is no additional strain on the publisher’s server since the number of player should remain roughly consistent to the number of new copies purchased; used players are simply picking up where the previous owner left off.
This is a matter where I often side with the publishers. The argument posed by used game owners is not inherently wrong, but with a used market so much larger and more heavily advertised than any other media out there, I understand where there may be a feeling of being jilted and a perceived need to compensate for the potential losses sustained when someone chooses a $55 used game over a $60 new one.
In short, I’ve been pretty supportive of the online pass required for purchasers of used video games.
Intruding upon the main subject of this article, it’s worth observing that there have been some stickier instances concerning single player titles, and somehow requiring the player to either pay for something that was already on the disk or else-wise available at (or soon after) launch.
My most recent experience was with my belated journey through Mass Effect 2, which was originally packaged with a Cerberus Network card—essentially a fancy access code for several additional missions and an extra character.
Having not been thrilled with Mass Effect 1, I chose to pick up #2 at my workplace second hand, based on hearsay that it was a superior title. I knew that I likely wouldn’t play it for quite a while, and indeed by the time I did, the value dropped such that I lose some $20 on it, but… meh.
That said, my copy did not have a Cerberus Network card. However, I was enjoying the game so much that I decided to give the DLC a chance, including the pass in question. I ultimately bought everything available, save for some extra costumes and weapons, and paid almost as much as the game was worth new anyways. I suppose in the end, things broke even.
My feelings on the Cerberus Network DLC is that it was functional for what it was. The material was enjoyable but not intrinsic to the in-game experience, with an extra character whom I liked but was not integral to the plot. It’s probably better as an incentive pack than as paid DLC, but I didn’t feel ripped off by it, which is more than I could say for a lot of DLC.
Of course, much of the ire towards this type of tactic is that the material is available at launch, and thus is either on the disc to begin with, or may as well have been.
Capcom has been slung jeers for this more than once, in particular with the Versus Mode in Resident Evil 5 a few years ago. The game itself provided a fully fleshed out experience and the Versus mode, for online play only, more or less ran contrary to how the game was meant to be experienced otherwise. Nonetheless, the mode was available at launch and cost a measly $5 for anyone who found cooperative gameplay somehow disquieting.
I won’t pretend to know every instance in between, but I do recall Capcom getting similarly slammed for DLC characters in Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 several months earlier, who were essentially free if one bought the collector’s edition, meaning that anyone who really cared should probably just start there anyways.
If anything, the bigger eyesore was the lack of DLC to follow, coupled with the announcement of an expanded edition of the game, mere months after the original version’s release. I suspect this is owing more to the Japanese earthquake screwing with production than it does shady business planning, but this may be a dash of generosity on my part.
To come to my point, I feel DLC incentive isn’t a bad thing unto itself either. The offline/single player version of a game is the one that’s going to last, as online play isn’t sustained forever; to that point, I prefer the experience to be as complete necessary, and anything further should compliment it rather than patch it up.
By extension, the single player portion should not be carved under the assumption that a player has online access and the requisite accoutrements to piecemeal a game together.
With this, I express my dismay with the very recent announcement of the single-player incentive for Batman: Arkham City, due for release in less than a week.
Some months ago, an announcement was made that Arkham City would feature one of Batman’s nemeses, Catwoman, as a playable character. She was promised to have a fully fleshed out move-set and, by all intentions, would be fully integrated into the story.
What makes this particular announcement both distressing and distinct from previous incidents of single-player incentive DLC is both the timing and the impact: in terms of timing, it’s either ominous or at least odd that the news is coming when the game is less than a week away. What lends to the frustration is the fact that the original announcement (again, months ago) came with no such string attached, suggesting the decision was enacted much more recently by Arkham City’s publisher.
What’s further troubling is the impact this has on the game. If the omission of Catwoman and her sequences is harmless, then it brings into question her relevancy in the story, which may reduce her sequences to little more than distractions (though, hopefully, fun ones) from the main Bat-campaign.
Alternately, her omission could be harmful to the game experience, creating leaps in the story where events were meant to be naturally explained. Catwoman’s removal could, in essence, hurt the image of the game as a whole, which could in turn do some damage of sales to similar games in the future, if not this one itself.
I propose this notion based in return to my recent run through Mass Effect 2. Though I did play the DLC while going through the campaign, I found the campaign unto itself satisfying on its own terms and have now been convinced I need to buy part 3 right when it comes out.
Had I encountered gaps in the story which the DLC was meant to fill in, my opinion of the game may have been lowered, damaging my resolve to leap, fangs bared, into Mass Effect 3.
Furthermore, such infrastructure works in part because Mass Effect is fairly open-ended. Assuming Batman: Arkham City follows its predecessor’s lead, the timing of the Catwoman sequences is likely based on plot (perhaps the Caped Crusader is captured and needs to be rescued?) rather than voluntarily pursued side quests.
This is all speculation of course, but I don’t like the implications.
I understand the drive to create this kind of DLC, and to make it something people will want. A side story, relevant to (but existing outside of) the main plot is enticing to me, but my impression of the Catwoman scenario is that it was part of the main plot itself.
When Arkham Asylum came out a few years ago, there was some ballyhoo about challenge maps, which I couldn’t care less for. I was playing the game for the experience of the campaign, the story of being Batman, not merely the sneaking around and beating upon witless thugs. It’s a nice addition, sure, but a selling point? I think not.
In all probability, this represents the flipside of not going far enough, to going too far. We’ll see what impact this surgical removal has, but it bodes an ill sign of whole chunks of a planned and structured campaign being sliced out to incentivize people to buy new.
This is a topic we’ve discussed before and tend to not see on the same terms. But first, a nit to pick.
Online passes don’t “require the purchaser to pay an additional ten dollars to access part of the game content.” Obviously, as you later clarify, it’s limited to used game purchases, so strictly speaking, they don’t require the purchaser pay an additional ten dollars to access content. SCAREMONGER.
Anyway.
On the corporate side, it’s all about the money. It’s nice to say, and easy to agree with, that multiplayer servers cost money and new game purchases help finance that, but honestly servers are cheap, especially if you’re only using it for matchmaking and defer in-game connections to P2P relays.
Most importantly is that these things are how publishers try to guarantee sales. Much like movies will factor in the inevitable DVD / special edition release in the total planned gross for a film, so too does a game publisher look at new game sales, incentives, DLC and used game deterrants in securing sales. They’re trying to grab everything they can, because making games is expensive. Single-player games are getting in on the “online pass” because they’re a big hit in the resale market. Multiplayer games, less so.
On the end-user side, it’s a matter of perspective (or rationalization). Are you paying for content that’s already on the disc? Or are you getting a freebie for your new game purchase? Are you getting diminshed, non-essential content (so as to not hurt anyone’s feelings by cutting out vital plot points)? Or is it a wonderful, game-expanding extra that enhances the experience?
As someone that doesn’t buy games used and has easy access to high speed internet, I will selflishly say that people that buy used games or those that can’t be arsed to hook their console up to the internet should complain more about their financial situation that makes $10 for the online pass seem unfair, or in that they live in an area where high speed internet is too expensive or unavailable. Not the publisher’s fault you’re a scrub.
But you know what I’d never do? Buy a new game from gamestop. They open all if their games, and I’ll be damned if I trust them not to use the codes or plunder bonus content if they can. I mean, they already did that to Deus Ex.
Oh, also wanted to toss out this, regarding UMVC3:
The devs kind of stated that, the kind of changes and balance reviews they wanted to do were somehow prohibitive through DLC or a title update, hence the typical capcom “super” fighting game version 2.0. On the fan side, I’m happy I don’t need to shell out $60+ bucks (at the assumption of $5 per character) to see all the new content, which also comes with a bunch fo new and revamped old stages.
Do I feel cheated that I bought Jill and Shuma (via the collector’s edition)? Kinda. All the same, I’ve sunk more time into MVC3 than most other games as of late. I certainly got my money’s worth. I am holding out for some kind of “fan” incentive ala the exclusive character shaders in Super Street Fighter IV for buyers of Regular Street Fighter IV.
But there you go.
My scaremongering goals aside, specifying that the game in question had to be used was an embarrassing oversight. Rectified.
Rather than run around in circles on old arguments, I’d prefer to say that I find the publisher’s interpretation of what constitutes optional content in a game as a little disturbing. To date, this is likely the most grievous piece of material excised from the main experiences- there’s certainly nothing in the game that suggests Catwoman was a bonus or an afterthought. Hell, the game (when the content is included) starts off with her as the first playable character.
I cited Mass Effect 2 because it was my feeling that the Cerberus Network material is indeed ancillary and was designed as such in mind. Certainly Zaeed (and by extension Kasumi) are not nearly so integrated into the story and cast as the characters included on disc, and were intended to be an additional part of the experience.
Warner Bros. Games concerns me because they’ve only become a major player in the last few years, and this is only one of a few recent major releases for them. I’d like to know how sunny and bright it was in the office of the executive who made the decision in what had to have been the last month or so to carve part of Arkham City off the disk and out of the core experience. Do WB Games lack the stretched and basic ethics of the other publishers, or have they inspired this generation’s latest bad idea?
Based on what I read online, I’m likely far more sympathetic to the needs of publishers than most are. I’ve heard conflicting stories (and arguments) on how much cost there is in maintaining servers, but in the end, there is still a cost and I can understand the need to recoup it. The cost comes as much in forms of moderation and patching as anything else and paying those people in itself costs money.
Oh, and concerning UMVC3, I did hear the same thing, but I’m skeptical as to how big these changes were that they couldn’t be patched. Unless they’re heavily altering/adding/removing animations on certain characters, I’ve yet to be convinced that there wasn’t at least some external influence that led up to this decision.
I’m not particularly incensed against it myself. Yes, Jill and Shuma were certainly on the disc (given the size of the patch required to “add” them to the game) and it probably would have been better if they were entirely external, but I’m still going to buy UMVC3 myself. It was more of an observation than anything else.
I dunno. WB games’ other big title, MK9, also featured fairly aggressive DLC, but only a portion of it was on the disc (a largely unfinished Skarlet). Four DLC characters, sold for the price of three with the ever-popular “season pass” that is in no way available for a limited time or in limited quantities (though I think they try to infer that as much as possible).
I will admit that it’s a little shady to have a character so prominently featured in pre-release press work as well as the front cover of the box, that is locked behind a content wall. Extra and ancillary should be the words of the day for new-buy incentives, like the forgettable sewer levels for RAGE.
I’m sure for UMVC3, it’s a no-brainer for capcom to release a newer version of the same game at retail. It’s odd considering they released the massive SSIV “Arcade Edition” pack as both DLC and as a disc in stores, but that might have just been an experiment; casual fans don’t like being confused as to whether they are playing one game or another. Load up SSIV AE and it gives you the option to switch between AE and non AE, and of course some people still play non-AE online.
I think releasing UMVC3 on a separate disc reinforces that it’s a new game, one that doesn’t need a gig or two of patching and DLC to play online.
The changes, well… I don’t know how much you read this stuff, but there’s a ton. The graphics engine seems to be slightly redone, all the characters are getting touchups, frames to animations being taken away and added, new moves added, x-factor in the air, most hypers are “mashable,” …it’s a fairly long list. Whether this could have been patched, or should have been, I’m not sure. In that I do think the 360 holds things back a bit, since anything over 5mb they couldn’t require that the player download and I’m certain it’d be a fair bit bigger than that.