Sections

Crytek confirms lack of Online Pass in Crysis 2

Monday, 7th March 2011 18:06 GMT By Patrick Garratt

Crytek confirmed in a statement today that, as previously rumoured, Crysis 2 won’t include EA’s Online Pass system.

“All we can say/confirm is that we aren’t using Online Pass for Crysis 2,” a rep told CVG.

The news was initially reported by Gamertag Radio, who said that Crytek chose instead not to be a “testbed”: the system was offered to the developer early on in its development.

The site said last week that the German developer wasn’t looking “to put a wall up to keep people away from the multiplayer.”

Online Pass is a system EA uses to make buyers of secondhand games pay an extra fee for online services.

Crysis 2 releases on March 22 in the US and March 25 in the UK for PS3, 360 and PC. Multiplayer demos for PC and 360 launched today, with a PS3 version coming soon.

Latest

19 Comments

  1. DSB

    Crytek 1 – EA 0

    #1 4 years ago
  2. YoungZer0

    If they are really going to use this Online Pass system i’m not even going to buy it second hand. It’s a double lose.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. AHA-Lambda

    i was going to get this on pc and not deal with that shite anyway =/

    #3 4 years ago
  4. YoungZer0

    @3: I thought they meant the PC Version?

    #4 4 years ago
  5. AHA-Lambda

    EA PC games dont have to deal with online pass, only consoles

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Shonak

    So I guess this means no free Map DLC as in BF:BC2? Smart greedy move, Crytek.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. DSB

    @6 I don’t think your logic could possibly be anymore broken than that.

    Allowing millions of people to purchase and play this game used, without charging them an extra 10 dollars a pop (of which Crytek would certainly get a share) is greedy?

    And BC2 actually had free original maps? Geeze, I own the game, and I never saw any, except recycled landscapes with the borders redrawn that were unlocked a good time after the game released.

    Thanks for those recycled maps months after release, EA, you’re the Mother Theresa of gaming.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. YoungZer0

    @5: Ah, okay, thanks for the heads-up. Is EA the only one using it?

    #8 4 years ago
  9. Shonak

    THe Online Pass is quite easy explainable and I don’t consider my logic broken at all – EA loses through the second-hand market since it doesn’t get any profit from the player to player deal. While a used copy gamer can enjoy the SP he can easily unlock the MP for 10 bucks so that EA has a little bit of this share. I might be a corporation-whore, but I think its a smart move from EA. Since I mostly buy first-hand copies of a game, be it on release or months/years after, I obviously prefer the Online Pass instead of Map Packs. Logic fixed?
    BC2 Maps were free to me – so it’s fair to me. Although I must say that the Onslaught mode was money not worths spending. Crytek will surely release Map Packs for 800 or maybe even 1200 MS Points if the game sells well. This gives me extra cost then, and everybody else too who bought an original copy.
    And…
    @BC2: No, they were not original since each map was included in the game already or in the previous title, but still a constant supply of maps came which allowed me to have always enough time to adapt to a map while not losing the “gaming info” about the old maps or sometimes the interest. Still I ended BFBC2 cuz the leveling got too annoying after Lvl 30-35 (dunno my exact level anymore) and too many SP titles were released (AW, RDR…)
    Also, I never said something about free original maps.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. DSB

    EA doesn’t lose anything, since they never had those sales before. They’re just greedy and they want people who never wanted to pay full price to begin with, to give them a cut for it.

    To me that’s fairly extortionist. That’s a real ethical problem. If you charge people 10 bucks extra for a new copy, that’s a fair deal. If you surcharge people 10 bucks for a resold game they’ve already paid for, that’s an issue to me.

    Logic fixed? I don’t know, explain to me why Crytek saying “No thank you” to surcharging people an unnecessary 10 bucks for a resold game, is actually greedy?

    I’m not impressed by a company throwing me content that’s simply stripped from a finished version. If they were to give something away that would actually take some effort, then I’d be impressed.

    I’d rather pay for original content than be stuck playing the same stuff from a different angle. At least they’ve made the effort to earn that sale. Different tastes, I guess.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Shonak

    No, EA as well as other publishers lose something indeed. A couple of months after a game releases most of the games get cheaper, of course not Call of Duty but that’s a different story. While the games first-hand get cheaper the second-hand market is still flourishing, simply because its cheaper to buy a used copy then a new one. EAs and THQ stratgies with an Online Pass is just a way to secure that they get at least a little bit of profit out of this. Sure, the fans of a game keep playing it and the collectors keep a copy, but there are many people who buy a game just for the SP or (short-term) MP and then sell it. I don’t really say that its right, its just that for me the strategy is just absolutely understandable – and for me as a person who buys mostly original copies also favourable. If you are someone who prefers to buy games a couple of weeks or months later much cheaper than of course this is something that seems more greedy to you, but overall I think that the strategy of EA, THQ etc. is quite a fair one – they made the product and they should get at least a little bit of profit from it.

    Also, EA doesn’t charge 10 bucks extra from original customers. It’s just a nice extra for the original buyers. But yes, second-hand buyers have to pay 10 bucks to EA if they want to play MP or want to have other additional content; the price they payed for it is not important. If its 10 or 40 bucks for the game – 10 bucks go to EA if you want to. And I think thats important. You don’t have to pay EA if you only want to use the SP or like in ME2 play it with only 9 (or ten?) squad members. So it’s up to the gamer if he wants to pay those bucks or not.

    And also I’d like to mention: If a gamer wants to sell his game and doesn’t want to fear that his game in terms of price will have any disadvanteges he just shouldn’t use the code. It’s pretty simple. Then he can charge 10 (or 5) additional bucks since its what people would save since they have the online pass included.

    @Crytek being greedy: I personally think that they will surely make Map Packs for 800 MS Points or maybe even COD-style 1200. In this case I imagine they would get much more revenue instead of just allowing an Online Pass. Of course I don’t have figures but since original buyers wouldn’t have to pay for it (in theory) they would lose money. And just to say it again, I’m pretty sure there will be a map pack. That’s how the system works.

    “I’m not impressed by a company throwing me content that’s simply stripped from a finished version. If they were to give something away that would actually take some effort, then I’d be impressed.

    I’d rather pay for original content than be stuck playing the same stuff from a different angle. At least they’ve made the effort to earn that sale. Different tastes, I guess.”

    I agree, I’d prefer to see new SP missions, completely new maps etc. more like just remapped stuff. I don’t know how EA handles it with Dead Space 2 or Medal of Honor but I was also a little bit disappointed that they e.g. charged for the Onslaught mode money. In theory, as I’d like say, the strategy of EA is really pretty good and understandable, but they don’t really offer enough bang for the bucket. And DLCs like Overlord or Shadowbroker – well, you have to pay for them. EAs strategy should definitely be improved (or fixed, however you see it) if they really want to be so customer-friendly. And yes, I say this by absolutely knowing that it might be completely contradictional to my previous statement. After all, I was disappointed too that BC2 didn’t offer any original, new maps too, when DICE promised constant free map-support – well, I imagined something different.

    Just wondering: Would the Online Pass be ok for you if it included for a game in the future new original maps or chars or anything?

    #11 4 years ago
  12. Gekidami

    @6
    It really doesnt matter, Dead Space 2 has an EA online pass and has given no extra content as of yet. And none seems to be planned.
    So if EA want their online pass in a game but wont promise any extra content from it, they’ll do it anyway. They’ll have their cake, and eat it too.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. DSB

    Good question. I don’t dabble in used games myself, but I just don’t buy the notion that it’s absolutely neccesary for a publisher to charge people for buying a used game. It’s not their transaction. If people are buying used, then the publisher has already lost that sale, and I don’t think they deserve to intrude.

    If they want peoples business, they can make games that are good enough to be bought at the original price.

    I don’t dislike online passes because they help the publishers, I dislike them because they represent a powergrab that encroaches on consumer rights. The gaming industry has always been one of the worst offenders when it comes to attempting to dominate their end users, and this to me is just yet another stretch, which ultimately hurts gamers, and neccesarily sets a new precedent for what publishers can get away with.

    I’d rather pay 2 euros extra or 5, or 10, than have my rights restricted. At least that leaves the power squarely with me. So the answer is that even though I always buy first hand copies, I’ll never agree with the underlying philosophy of an online pass, no matter what they might tempt me with.

    About Crytek: If they put in the effort to actually make original DLC, how is charging for it greedy? If they put something into it, shouldn’t they be allowed to profit?

    They’d arguably make a lot more by stripping finished content, reselling that (or giving it away) and then scalping the used games market with an online pass.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. DSB

    Could you imagine buying a used toaster or leafblower, and having the manufacturer (or a power company, or any other third party) charge you 10 dollars just to use it?

    It’s insanity. We already have internal revenue services trying to do that, and now corporations want to tax us too? Fuck that.

    #14 4 years ago
  15. Shonak

    @12: As I said I don’t know about Dead Space 2 too much. I saw it Justin.tv and decided not to buy it because as I saw it, it was more of the same. Maybe I get a little bit too much like yahtzee in terms of horror games, but yeah… They will probably add multiplayer maps. Or isn’t a Story DLC annoucned already? If they charge for it – then yes, that’s greedy.

    @DSB – Crytek: Yeah, I see and I guess I understand your point. Of course they deserve profit for their work, even for their additional content. After all every developer does it nowadays. It’s just that I personally kinda prefer the step EA is taking with the Online Pass – and so it was for sure quite a over-the-top statement by me. You win. ;)

    @DSB – Online Pass: People don’t really know how good a game is or not. When they know it, it’s already too late. Honestly, if I buy a game and I like it, I sure as hell won’t buy it again for the sake of the publisher. Mass Effect 2 won several goty awards and still they said after the first month that the sold copies was around 1-2 millions. Compared to other blockbuster titles that’s not very much, and it’s like the GOTY 2010 next to RDR, which sold much, much more. Alan Wake, my personal favourite game of last year, got more pirated than sold; although MS offered the first DLC for free for original buyers. Publishers need a certain strategy to make their games valuable; despite making them awesome and pushing a lot of marketing budget in it. And games have a much higher living cycle than any movie or maybe even book (and god knows, I read way more than playing games). You grab them over and over again maybe for months or years, especially in Multiplayer. Surely, it’s not right from a personal, maybe even moral point of view, but EA isn’t saying something like “Buy the copy and everything is there”, but instead every buyer should know that they don’t have the additional content such as MP or Map Packs. And yes, I demand from buyers that they inform themselves over a product – after all, you don’t go into a store to buy a toaster or leafblower without informing yourself. And your example with a toaster or leafblower by the way is not really fitting, because it is to hypothetic and has nothing do to with it all. There’s a difference between such companies and a gaming company – they make the most revenue in the first month instead a toaster company will have its product on the market for several years and only has decreasing sales over time until the next one comes out. Also gaming companies have server costs afaik and teams working to patch it etc.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. DSB

    People make their own decisions based on the information they’re presented with. 9 times out of 10, that information will be strongly indicative of the quality of the game.

    If EA can’t handle the fact that people don’t think their games are worth 50 euro at release, then they should either make some games that are, or lower their prices. Measures like online passes and DRM just reek of desperation to me.

    Really, there’s no difference between a games publisher charging people to use their products or a leafblower company charging people to use their products. Both constitute a tax for use of a resold product.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Shonak

    9 out of 10 is fairly exaggerated, or do you have any statistics by hand of the behaviour of game buyers?

    I hate DRM, I think it’s useless. And yes, they should keep always try to sell games by qualitatiy rather than business decisions. But still I don’t see Online Pass as nearly as bad as DRM.

    And yes, there is a difference between a leafblower company and a games publisher. I really don’t like to make the comparison again since it is way too hypothetic as I’ve already said, but a leaflower company has after the release of its newest leafblower only the production costs and maybe some little marketing costs now and then. A game publisher has to provide for a game in its cycle for support, server, content or other things such as the game developer or even future titles. I still don’t see anything wrong in charging for a Multiplayer from a used copy as long as original prices don’t go up anymore. If they do, I’ll sure as hell be pissed.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. DSB

    I’ve been buying games for at least 15 years now? Does that count? I can remember exactly one game off the top of my head that was utterly crap but wasn’t publicly labelled as such – Mass Effect 2.

    A games publisher has other expenses, but it isn’t the paying customers fault if it hasn’t planned for those in advance. It’s just a pathetic excuse, since we’ve been online for more than a decade, but suddenly now it’s a huge problem? Right, right.

    If they can’t make a living on the games they sell, they should make a subscription.

    They won’t do that, though, because it’s an obvious lame excuse, and it certainly doesn’t cost them more, that the same copies get circulated around. It actually costs them less since you have two unique users using the same “slot” of bandwidth, as opposed to a new buyer who would actually need his own slot.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Shonak

    Companies have to adept to the internet, it’s fair. Shitty music industry had to do it, shitty movie industry had to do it, now it’s the games industry – and they found their way, maybe. Online Pass won’t even succeed probably because the subscription model will be introduced someday and it will gain profit much more. Then I actually have to reconsider my hobby.
    Also, I don’t understand the last part of your post, but it doesn’t sound really right to me, because a gamer who sells his game won’t be able to use the server anymore, or?

    I guess we’re just two different types, so let’s agree on that we disagree? In terms of business model and probably in taste of games too? I’d like to thank you though for quite a new point of view in that matter. :)

    #19 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.