Kingdoms of Amalur has an online pass

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/27/kingdoms-of-amalur-reckoning-locks-out-questline-via-online-pas/
Update: 38 Studios community manager "Muse" posted the following statement to the 38 Studios forums, as pointed out in our comments section: "We wanted to post a quick clarification for something we've seen a few comments about. For what it's worth, the House of Valor content was not in the finished game/disc at one point, then removed. It isn't there and we're locking you out of it. The House of Valor was created as stand-alone content, and was always intended to be the first DLC. Instead of holding onto it and charging for it later, we opted to give it to everyone who purchases the game new, for free, on launch day. We hope that helps clarify that point, at least."

Update 2: EA issued this response to Joystiq this afternoon: "The House of Valor quest line is free bonus content available to those who purchase a new copy of Kingdom of Amalur: Reckoning for the Xbox 360 and PS3 by entering the Online Pass included with the game. PC players who purchase Reckoning at one of the many digital retailers online including Origin, Steam and more, will also receive the House of Valor quest line at no cost."
Click to expand...

all by blocking out some of the content that’s already in the game, with a one-use code.
Click to expand...
So you are calling the developers lairs? For me their only misstep was to call it an "Online Pass" because people seem to read that and automatically put on blinkers and charge head first at the hate train. They gave an inventive to new buyers by adding something extra into the game for free, yet people will still cry foul no matter what.

What I find MOST humours is that PC games seem to howl and gawk at this notion yet we've had the 'Online Pass' almost since the inception of computer games only we called it a CD-Key. So why exactly must I be incensed by developers efforts to try and get console gamers to actually give them money for a product they developed. Are we really such sheep that we much blinding hate certain things because that's what's 'cool' on the internet at the moment.
 
MOnk said:
So you are calling the developers lairs? For me their only misstep was to call it an "Online Pass" because people seem to read that and automatically put on blinkers and charge head first at the hate train. They gave an inventive to new buyers by adding something extra into the game for free, yet people will still cry foul no matter what.

What I find MOST humours is that PC games seem to howl and gawk at this notion yet we've had the 'Online Pass' almost since the inception of computer games only we called it a CD-Key. So why exactly must I be incensed by developers efforts to try and get console gamers to actually give them money for a product they developed. Are we really such sheep that we much blinding hate certain things because that's what's 'cool' on the internet at the moment.
Click to expand...

Whiny gamers will whine.
 
OmegaFenix said:
Considering the amount of whining you've been doing on this subject I feel like I should quote you.
Click to expand...
You're welcome to add my words of wisdom below monk's ;)
MOnk said:
I guess you can say complaining about complaints is in itself complaining but I'd rather voice my opinion then have to listen to the bleating of the sheep. :P
Click to expand...
Not very decent wanting to censor other people just because you don't allow them to have an opinion over just being able to read yours. That's just as tiring. Before I consider spending 1c on this game I'd first try it out either at a friend or whatever means since they already fucked up the demo if they don't do us proud and release another one. Which they should to save face.
 
MOnk said:
So you are calling the developers lairs? For me their only misstep was to call it an "Online Pass" because people seem to read that and automatically put on blinkers and charge head first at the hate train. They gave an inventive to new buyers by adding something extra into the game for free, yet people will still cry foul no matter what.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. And have updated the article accordingly. Thanks!

As for your point about CD Keys and this being around forever - it boils down to ownership. If I pay money for a game, a physical game, then I should be able to have full access to it, and have the freedom to do with it what I want. That's not to say make copies and give it to the world - but rather that I should be able to lend it to a mate and let him have the same gaming experience as I do.

In this case it's DLC, so it was never part of the original game, and that's fine - but in cases where in-game content is blocked off from access, that's just downright annoying.

It's like being sold a car, but you can't use the radio until you enter a code in. If your friend wants to borrow the car, he has to pay the car manufacturers to use the radio. No, it's my car, it's my radio, and I choose to allow someone else to make use of it. Online passes expressly remove that right.

The car analogy is also apt because I expect my car back, unless I sell it - so I'm not talking about the piracy stuff here.

The intellectual property I'm buying isn't mine - and that's fine, but the physical access to it most definitely is - and by withholding that, I feel the developers have no right to that. When it comes to digital distribution it's a different story - as with Steam - there's no physical part to it; I can't lend out a Steam game because it's data attached to my specific PC, and fat chance of him getting that.

[edit] and yes, before someone points out the flaws of the car analogy, I know the difference between the physical/digital rights; it's just an example.

My counter-argument there is, fine, if what I'm buying is the intellectual property on the disk, and what I pay for is a license of that property (and the disk itself is just the medium of delivery) - then should that disk break, I should be entitled to get it replaced, or given a digital copy of the intellectual property at no or minimal (depending on the format) charge.

That will never happen, though.
 
@Prophet
I never mentioned anything about censoring people's opinion, I only expressed my own frustration with the stance. You're still free to feel that way.

@qornea
The car analogy is broken not just because of games being digital but rather because games are sold as an experience and not as a commodity. So if I have a car and I lend it to my friend over the weekend, he might take a liking to the car and get himself one. If I lend a game to someone and they finish it, there is almost zero chance he will go and buy that same game. Once you finish a game, you have gotten all you can get from that game and giving it to someone else doesn't change that fact. A car however is only useful to you as long as you own it, so if you sell it to someone you lose something.

My counter-argument there is, fine, if what I'm buying is the intellectual property on the disk, and what I pay for is a license of that property (and the disk itself is just the medium of delivery) - then should that disk break, I should be entitled to get it replaced, or given a digital copy of the intellectual property at no or minimal (depending on the format) charge.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with that, but it's not as alien as you think though. You could actually get your 360 games replaced by Microsoft if your 360 scratched them, not quite as ubiquitous as it should be but at least it was something. This is one of the main reason I get most of my pc games off Steam, just saves the worry and hassle of having to look after physical discs.
 
MOnk said:
.
@qornea
The car analogy is broken not just because of games being digital but rather because games are sold as an experience and not as a commodity. So if I have a car and I lend it to my friend over the weekend, he might take a liking to the car and get himself one. If I lend a game to someone and they finish it, there is almost zero chance he will go and buy that same game. Once you finish a game, you have gotten all you can get from that game and giving it to someone else doesn't change that fact. A car however is only useful to you as long as you own it, so if you sell it to someone you lose something.
.
Click to expand...

Yeah I get all that, but my point was mainly that I don't agree with them blocking out content because of what may or may not happen - I just feel they have no right to dictate to me what I can or cannot do (within the boundaries of the law) with something I buy full physical access to.

The concerns with resale value shouldn't fall onto the consumer to fix up. The bundled DLC is a good way to handle this - that I dont mind at all, because it's a genuine bonus - and if a friend who borrows a game wants it, it's a case of "too bad" because, hey, I didn't pay for it.
 
I am a big fan of using the carrot over the stick, as in incentives for buying new rather than punishment for buying second hand. The problem is most people can't seem to tell them apart and if you try to give something extra for a new purchase people complain that it should have been in the game in the first place.

Destructoid's article on the topic I felt used completely irrenous logic saying that because EA was trying to encourage new buyers it meant they had no faith in the game and people's willingness to keep their product. For me that is a load of garbage, you can find people selling brilliant games the same week of release, why because it's single player and they spend the entire week playing it finish it and then resell. It has nothing to do with the value of the product, they will do the same for great games as they would for bad or average games.
 
Last edited:
Here is what I dont get...

kingdomsonlinepass.jpg


The online pass clearly says ADDITIONAL quests. So why the big hoo-ha?
Battlefield 3 did it.
Mass Effect 2 did it.
Driver San Fransico did it.
Batman Arkham City did it.
RAGE did it.
Pretty much every game in recent memory has been trying to entice us to buy new instead of pre-owned by giving us additional crap? Arkham city put all the Catwoman quests behind the on-line pass.

So why is it suddenly this HUGE sore point?
 
I believe methods like this are more than fair. It's a good way to incentivise someone who would have instead waited to buy the game second hand to rather get it new.

These people are in a business after all and they are well within their right to make profits in any way they can. There are scenarios where publishers take things too far and in that case just vote with you wallet since that will make more impact on them than voicing a strong opinion on a forum.

All that said though, the demo of the game did not gel with me, so I don't see myself buying this game at full price anyway, if at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top