THQ Using Online Pass for Homefront Multiplayer

[Logan Westbrook]

THQ Using Online Pass for Homefront Multiplayer

Anyone can play Homefront online, but not everyone is going to be able to rise through the ranks.

If the idea of battling against a communist Korean empire in the not too distant future sounds appealing, then Homefront [http://www.amazon.com/Homefront-Xbox-360/dp/B003Q53VZC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294318122&sr=8-1 ] might be just the game for you. If you want to get the full online experience though, you'd better have either bought it new, or be willing to shell out for an online pass.

Online play won't be completely cut off to those who rent the game or buy it pre-owned, but it will be pretty significantly limited. Every multiplayer map will be available, but players will only be able to hit level five, whereas people who bought the game new will be able to go all the way up to level 75. Players without a pass can play for as long as they like, but they'll never be able to progress beyond that level cap. It's not clear exactly how the leveling system affects the gameplay, but it's reasonable to assume that players unlock new weapons and capabilities as they go.

Some gamers will inevitably rail against online passes in any form, but THQ's solution actually seems like a pretty decent compromise. It's not an all or nothing deal, and instead gives players the chance to check out the multiplayer mode and possibly entice people who might not have paid for it into buying a pass. It actually seems to have a lot in common with the way that free-to-play games are structured, and that might not be a bad model for online pass systems to emulate.

Homefront comes out for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360 in March.

Source: Shacknews [http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/67030]


Permalink

 

[The Red Spy]

Wasn't something similar mentioned in an Extra Credits video? Seems like a fair arrangement.

 

[Calico93]

Yeah this seems reasonable, MOH and BFBC2 did it. I plan on getting the game new anyway.

 

[Daniel Wild]

Ok, I'm not going to buy this game, never interested me, but this seems an unnecessarily aggressive thing to do to the pre-owned market. Why not allow pre-owned buyers to buy this pass from the market place for £10 or whatever so even then THQ still make money from it. Even EA isn't that agressive, at least you can buy most of whatever comes with their project 10dollar vouchers.

 

[The Cheezy One]

Good call THQ, nice balance, was planning on getting it new anyway!

 

[HK_01]

Sounds like a good idea, to be honest.

 

[Megacherv]

Ok, I'm not going to buy this game, never interested me, but this seems an unnecessarily aggressive thing to do to the pre-owned market. Why not allow pre-owned buyers to buy this pass from the market place for £10 or whatever so even then THQ still make money from it. Even EA isn't that agressive, at least you can buy most of whatever comes with their project 10dollar vouchers.

You've obviously mis-read it
EA's $10 dollar thing is more aggressive as that just restricts you completely unless you have a pass. Here, THQ is letting people play the multiplayer for sometime without a pass, but restricts your progress. Single-player isn't affected at all.

 

[uppitycracker]

love me some PC gaming, where my options are limited to new anyway, therefore this does not apply

 

[Lt. Vinciti]

Didnt Mass Effect 2 do this sorta....the whole Cereburus (spelling I know) Network deal..


Doesnt seem to bad....already looks pretty decent to BUY anyway

 

[brunothepig]

Wait. It is a one-time payment isn't it? If so, I applaud them. This is a great way to make a little money off the preowned market, without ruining the game for those who don't want to pay extra.
However, the payment thing isn't specified in the article, so if it is a subscription thing, it's a really bad idea...

 

[DTWolfwood]

i'll take this over not having an online mode at all. If they insist on an online pass, this is a proper compromise.

Wait. It is a one-time payment isn't it? If so, I applaud them. This is a great way to make a little money off the preowned market, without ruining the game for those who don't want to pay extra.
However, the payment thing isn't specified in the article, so if it is a subscription thing, it's a really bad idea...

Its 1 time deal thats tied to your THQ account, which i assume u need to actually log in and play. Its the same as the EA Online passes for their sports games, except less fascist to those who buy used.

 

[Zhukov]

I'm going to join the choir and say this actually sounds pretty reasonable.

Although I personally won't be affected.

 

[Veloxe]

Seems like the most reasonable attempt at something like this yet.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Was going to get it new anyway! I love THQ and most of their games

 

[Asehujiko]

Isn't the first sale doctrine supposed to protect against this bullshit? Or are media companies except to that too like they already ignore privacy and fair trial laws?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think it's fair .... the developers get zero dollars if a person buy's it secondhand.

Although what I think would be preferable would be by law have game retailers giving kickbacks to the developers whenever their games are sold second hand.

The only people this will be hurting is the people that buy secondhand games, and to be fair ... they are getting a game, at a reduced price, yet none of that money going to the publisher or developer. Secondhand games (barring the initial purchase price) are 100% profit (to the retailer) when yet the producers of the product and the IP holders get none of that money in return.

It is like saying to someone "you get to enjoy the efforts of others, at a reduced price. And we get to sell it like the intellectual properties are our own".

And it's a continued service too ... patches, advertisement, servers, support etc etc.

As such I dislike secondhand games ... I'm not against loaning games ... because if a friend loans me a game and I like it I'll buy it myself. But I always buy it at the RRP (Recommended Retail Price) because that way there's a good chance that the developers who made the game are atleast likely to get some of that money depending on their legal status and current operations beyond the near date of first release.

 

[Baby Tea]

How is this reasonable? If you sell on your copy of this game then you cede ownership to someone else, perhaps through ebay or through a bricks and mortar shop (which is paying people a job and may well be selling new games and consoles, and as such is a part of the gaming industry), then why should THQ need to make more money selling the new owner an online pass?

Because when one person buys the game, that's 1 sale. THQ makes money.
When that person sells the game, that 2 people who have had the game, THQ gets 1 sale.
When THAT person sells it, that's 3 people who have had the game. THQ makes 1 sale.

Now multiply that by the thousands and thousands of gamers who buy used, and THQ just lost a huge amount of potential income. They want to be paid for their work, and that is reasonable. And rather then alienating the used game market with no online unless you have a pass (A la EA), they still open up the multiplayer but limit it. IF people don't like it, they don't have to pay for the multiplayer. If they do like, they pay for it and THQ gets a portion of a sale. If they are happy with the limited MP, then they still enjoy the product at their used price.

How the heck is that not reasonable?
It's easy to cry 'GREED!' when it's not your business.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think it's fair .... the developers get zero dollars if a person buy's it secondhand.

Why should they get anything, it wasn't theirs to sell anymore than it's theirs to sell when a sale is made in a shop? If i wish to sell on my games to someone else then that's entirely legal and ethical. I think it's disgraceful that publishers (and no t necessarily the developers) seek to exploit technology to benefit from this.

I hate to quote myself, but because I added the main thrust of my argument in an edit I'll do so in this case.. I apologize for any confusions;-

The only people this will be hurting is the people that buy secondhand games, and to be fair ... they are getting a game, at a reduced price, yet none of that money going to the publisher or developer. Secondhand games (barring the initial purchase price) are 100% profit (to the retailer) when yet the producers of the product and the IP holders get none of that money in return.

It is like saying to someone "you get to enjoy the efforts of others, at a reduced price. And we get to sell it like the intellectual properties are our own".

And it's a continued service too ... patches, advertisement, servers, support etc etc.

As such I dislike secondhand games and will only buy them if I have no other (legal) means to get the product.

I'm not against loaning games ... because if a friend loans me a game and I like it I'll buy it myself. But I always buy it at the RRP (Recommended Retail Price) because that way there's a good chance that the developers who made the game are atleast likely to get some of that money depending on their legal status and current operations beyond the near date of first release.

Edit: I'll also add that in no way does a publisher sell their rights to IP despite someone buying their game and then re-'saling'. It's not the same as a car, or a fridge (albeit individual components of cars and fridges are different) ...

This is why you're also not allowed to show dvd's you bought ibn public without technically seeking legal permission to do so.

 

[Petromir]

Isn't the first sale doctrine supposed to protect against this bullshit? Or are media companies except to that too like they already ignore privacy and fair trial laws?

No, 1st sale only applies to software that hasnt been used. That has been tested in court, all the sucessful 1st sale cases have been gainst things like people splitting bundles and selling the parts or similar. The courts accpeted it was a licenses, but that the license only applied once installed/registered.

Edit: On the main subject I suspect most companies against the used game market, are against middlemen liike games stores getting a second slice of the pie, for almost zero investment, people swapping games at home etc probably barely worry them.

 

[Bretty]

How is this reasonable? If you sell on your copy of this game then you cede ownership to someone else, perhaps through ebay or through a bricks and mortar shop (which is paying people a job and may well be selling new games and consoles, and as such is a part of the gaming industry), then why should THQ need to make more money selling the new owner an online pass? This is pure greed made possible through simple technology. It's not remotely similar to piracy either.

Because Gamestop did anything to deserve the profit off these games? Last time I chaecked they give nothing to the industry as a whole and just sponge off it.

Previously Used sales have hurt the console developers bottom line. This is the way around it so everyone is happy. Except those that buy pre owned, but whatever. You think you deserve the same treatment as those that pay more than you?