Report: WB Moving Towards 'Online Pass Code' Scheme

March 29, 2011 -

According to a report on Joystiq, Warner Bros. may be joining THQ and EA in offering codes for online play in its latest Mortal Kombat game. Citing an anonymous tipster who forwarded an email from WB to retailers, Joystiq claims that the company wants to charge used game buyers an additional fee for getting online. A new pass will supposedly cost 800 Microsoft Points for Xbox 360 and $10 for PS3. From the alleged WB email:

 

"Mortal Kombat, available on April 19 for the PlayStation 3 computer entertainment system and the Xbox 360 video game and entertainment system from Microsoft, includes a one-time-use registration code that gives players access to all online modes in the game. Players who do not have a code will get a free two-day trial of the online play and then be able to purchase the online modes for 800 Microsoft Points on Xbox LIVE Marketplace and $9.99 on the PlayStation Network."

Warner Bros. did not respond to the Joystiq report and has not confirmed the validity of the email or the story. For now, it should be considered a rumor.

Source: Joystiq


Comments

Re: Report: WB Moving Towards 'Online Pass Code' Scheme

I don't even rent games that have an online pass. If I can't get what's on the disc when I get the disc, I just don't play it.

Re: Report: WB Moving Towards 'Online Pass Code' Scheme

They're charging an extra 800 MS points to access the MS servers that host all online Xbox services that people already pay $60 a year to access, just to play one particular game on it? All because they think they're special in the sense that they shouldn't have to compete with a second hand market like every other business that produces a product? Get real. They have been saying over and over and over, ad nauseam, that their games are a "product" as opposed to a service. Now they get indignant about it because people are buying second hand like any other product. Pathetic. They don't have the right to supress the right of first sale on anyone just because they feel like they should get money every time the game changes hands. Maybe electronics manufacturers should get upset at pawn shops and try to supress them from selling their products too?

"You can buy this MP3 player from the pawn shop, but you'll have to pay another $20 to download music on to it! Having the ability to use all functions of the product is just our way to reward our real customers. (It has nothing to do with trying to screw over those that don't buy it from us)"

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Report: WB Moving Towards 'Online Pass Code' Scheme

God dammit Warner Brothers I hope this isn't true.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Report: WB Moving Towards 'Online Pass Code' Scheme

So if I buy the used game, I'll be punished by actually HAVING to add money to my PSN wallet and spend it on getting to play online if I choose instead of spending it on DLC or other games.

 

 

Re: Report: WB Moving Towards 'Online Pass Code' Scheme

I really hope this is false. I'm getting mine new, anyway, but I don't personally believe in the online pass. I still think EA is going under for even starting it.

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician