Mortal Kombat waives 'Kombat Pass' until PlayStation Store returns

@Assmar For the used version, maybe.

@Assmar Or maybe just good for rentals.

@Assmar So WBIE is getting into the paid online pass arena, eh?

@onan

It actually doesn't matter. GameStop atleast is charging $55 for MK used. They auto-generate a code and it prints out at the bottom of the receipt. All the other games with online activation have are $47 because they have no retail codes.

@onan

How is that a reliance when you clicked the DLC Button? O.o

And the games will work, just not online ;)

@onan

Lucky you, world ends tomorrow.

@onan

Yeah, cause this type of thing happens all the time.

And even in the unlikely chance that the PSN store is down 20 years from now, then you won't be able to play online (servers will likely be shut down far sooner than that) and you won't be able to click on the DLC button in LA Noire. Big deal.

@gettinmoney662

"And even in the unlikely chance that the PSN store is down 20 years from now"

What you meant to say is that in the unlikely chance the PSN store is still up 2 weeks from now. we aren't talking the best track record here.

Seriously tho we have just had one of the largest scale outages in online DLC/DRM history and your just casually writing it off...... you know when people say "If this ever happens we are screwed" and people retort smugly "that will never happen" well ... that outage over the last few weeks is a taste of that "never" happening.

@gettinmoney662 Let's be realistic, most of these online services are not going to last more than 10 years, at least not in a format compatible with current consoles.

I'm guessing you also missed out on the mad rush to get all the content off of the original XBL before they shut the Xbox 1 servers down, and now everything after Halo 1 and 2 that got lazy and omitted LAN play is 50% unplayable. Couch coop has also pretty much gone the way of the dodo for most games in favor of an assumed always-on connection to some gaming service, so we won't even have that either. This little redemption card thing in MK is another thing for that pile that's going to make life more difficult. Assuming somewhere down the line someone figures out how to spoof a PSN or XBL server, they're still going to run into problems with all these games that have gotten into the habit of locking their online modes (or more) behind insert card codes.

I understand and accept it's a necessity to combat the used games market, but it's not forward-thinking. Imagine the same technology put to use in Blu-rays to offset rentals, where 95% of the movie is on the disc, and you had to stream the ending from the internet. That's great and all for legitimate purchasers, but what happens when that's not available and you're left with something incomplete?

Not a perfect analogy, and I don't have a solution for them, but you get what I'm saying.

@onan Some rental DVDs only have the film "unlocked". To access the extras, you have to buy the DVD itself.

Not as extreme as omitting the ending, but damn.

@bigwhiteyeti

Would of been better if it was a week or two ago.

IMo, this was just a waste of time cause Tuesday PSN Store may be back.

@My Prerogative

Agreed , and surely this will sometimes work against the software houses.
Example - Imagine some random ,generic FPS that nobody cares much about due to the AAA FPS titles fanbases.
Just how long before this title dies it's death online , due to it's facts of 1) not selling well 2) people picking it up 2nd hand and deciding that it stinks and do not buy the online pass.
This leaves first day buyers with a dead on it's a** online FPS.

My point is I feel most games cannot justify this pass , simply because the massive fanbase is not there for that specific title.
Ultimately it is the consumer who gets burnt , and just how many times will he keep getting burnt untill he decides to pick and chose his online titles more carefully.
If that does happen , I think he will opt for the Gears,CODs,Halos etc and not that generic FPS he found "quite intriguing , I may give it go " .
Thats 1 less sale of that poorly perfoming FPS thtat needed to shift X amount of units to break even...............all due to online passes.

@wcarnation

That's what I was thinking.

@wcarnation for how much of a heaping lag turd the online is, id have to agree with you

But they need money, remember? Used games are THE DEVIL.

@WillPG1212
If you earned the trophy, it unlocks even if you're offline. It's not needed to sync your trophies, if you unlocked it, you unlocked it and it syncs to your profile as soon as you are able to go online.

@Nolan North unless he got the YLOD

@Nolan North

nope, because im using another PS3, we have one in our university house, and i have one at home...

and i had to go from one to the other during the psn outage. i copied my save file over, but the trophies didnt follow :P

alot of games will just give you all the trophies youv already earned (but havent synced) as soon as you launch the game... but MK sadly didnt.

@WillPG1212
None of the games do that, trophies are supposed to be earned on the original save file. If you synced a trophy, that carried over, but if you take a save file and put it in another PS3, even under the same account, the trophies are still locked.

@Nolan North

Ye i know... and its a shame, because i really don't feel like doing the 300 challenges again

@Crayola Q Pants ESQ: wouldn't that be, "Korrection?"

@GrandpaMasaki

Because the companies really care about the gamers.

@Red Runner

What do you mean by "care?" I get the impression that people expect companies to care about consumers in some sort of paternal way, that they should make difficult sacrifices to be morally superior. If companies don't make money they shut down, simple as that. Of course they care about us, because they want to make money. Sure, some companies go above and beyond, but are people really naive enough to think that this is done just because they care? Does Valve really care THAT much, or do they just understand that "caring" creates a loyal fanbase and leads to more money?

I don't see the online pass as a means of nickel and diming the consumer like some forms of DLC is. It's a way of forcing the consumer to support the company directly, as opposed to indirectly through the used game market. As I said before, PC gaming has been doing this forever with serial keys. Why is this considered such an extreme issue on consoles?

When I stress the importance of buying new to support developers, I'm not arguing some sort of moral situation. If you want companies to continue to flourish and produce games, you need to buy the games they create. It's as simple as that. When you buy used or borrow from a friend it is the financial equivalent of pirating. Neither helps fund the next project, and unlike other forms of media, video games are both incredibly expensive to create and offer few opportunities to make back the initial investment, let alone turn a profit. This is why we owe it to companies to buy new, because if we want the medium to flourish we need to support it. People complain about the lack of innovation and the dominance of certain mega-companies, but why do you think that's the case? It's becoming increasingly risky and expensive to develop a new game.

@brettjr25

First off, please don't twist my words. In no way did I imply that individuals do not have the right to sell what is rightfully theirs. Now, "full use" is difficult to define and I guarantee you that you in no way have the RIGHT to the "full use" of a product when you buy used. This sense of entitlement is what I would argue is the problem with the current generation of gamers.

I hate to sound privileged, but you both speak of how the economy works and then seem to imply that if a product is too expensive for the consumer, they are justified in finding other ways of obtaining it. This line or reasoning is eerily similar to that of those that steal. If the product is too expensive for you, you can not buy it. Simple as that. The company has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to provide you with a cheaper product because it is out of your price range.

Please don't misunderstand, I completely agree that $60 is too expensive for a game like Mortal Kombat. This is why I imply that developers need to shed the archaic price structure that has existed for decades. Not all games are created equal, yet for some reason they all launch at the same price (give or take). The fact that new releases are dropping to $40 within two weeks is evidence of this. Game companies need to get with the program and adapt.

You bring up the used car market...and I almost don't even want to address this. Apples and oranges here. Why are people still making this comparison? Do you seriously consider a used car to be the same thing as a used video game? To begin, a car is a much, much more complicated beast. Buying a used car comes with an incredibly long list of risks and disadvantages, while there is almost no risk in buying a used video game. All a used video game needs to do is work, and if it doesn't you can more than likely exchange it for a working one.

I had more to say, but honestly I don't really want to bother. If you really think that used video games are the same thing as used cars, or any other form of used product for that matter, then I don't think I'll be able to convince you otherwise.

@GrandpaMasaki

You know, I'd normally pull out the "tl;dr" or "cool story, bro" response, but not this time.

Because you, and others, still don't get it.

First, a game company gets paid upfront when stores order copies of it, which means they already received some money just from the store buying/ordering a certain amount of stock. Therefore, they get a certain cut upfront. Then, of course, they make some from the sale to the consumer.

Second, how does a game become used in the first place? Someone bought it new and traded it in. This is like used books, movies, etc., once it gets into circulation, the person has the right to sell it off to anyone they wish. And it gets re-traded oftentimes. As I've argued in similar posts before, secondhand sales have been around for ages. How are games any different?

MK9 made millions, too. The numbers for the standard game, as well as the KE and TE packages were incredibly high, and they made a handsome cut on the sales. Tell me, again, how this $10 fee is justified when they probably more than made back the money they spent on development?

And how, again, are used games as bad as piracy? The reason you -- and a lot of other members of the Industry Defense Force, to borrow a term from one of the few game bloggers who has sense and is rightfully jaded regarding the industry -- believe this is because idiots like the heads of EA and other studios have cried poor mouth and brainwashed you into believing used sales are the enemy. Anyone who actually believes this is a moron. And if they tell me they have NEVER bought a used game or sold one to a reseller, they're full of it. So they have no right to point fingers.

This mentality was never around before this generation. The companies have convinced us that we should take more for less and be happy with it. Gamers seem happy to comply, and are more than willing to get reamed by the corporate powers-that-be. Don't you see what's wrong with this picture? They're taking the power away from the consumers slowly, when we should be the ones in control. We make or break companies, yet now they have us on a short leash. That's not how it should be.

But keep believing the lies the industry feeds you, and listen to their poor widdle sob stories. See what that "loyalty" gets you when you're paying a DLC fee to unlock the start menu (an exaggeration, but probably not too far off from what's in store).

@Red Runner

No one cares about you whining about online passes because if you are whining about them, you aren't buying new.

Video games are different from used books/movies/cars/etc. because when those things are sold second-hand, they are not still using the resources of the parent company like online video games are.

The point is, online passes are here to stay. The only people who complain about them are the ones who buy used (except in this extremely rare circumstance when the PSN store is down because the entire network has to be rebuilt) and therefore, companies won't care what you say because you are supporting them. It doesn't affect people who buy new so they have no reason to complain.

Go ahead and downvote away.

@gettinmoney662

Because USED IS EVIL, as the loving, caring, hugs-and-kisses corporations would have you believe.

But the big capitalist companies, who we used to hate on as greedy and selfish, are looking out for not just themselves, but us!

I can't believe people are willing to keep getting forcefed this BS and take it without question. When corporations hypnotize gamers, we all lose.

Aren't gamers supposed to question and despise greedy tactics? Whatever happened to the days when gamers united against such BS as horse armor? We're happy to take it up the bum now because of...some ill-conceived, imaginary "devotion" to companies who really don't care about consumers, but their money instead?

Go on, keep drinking the Corporate Kool-Aid, plenty to go around.

@Red Runner

I know I can't win this, but I still don't understand why people automatically refer to other used markets to prove their point. They are not the same thing and they are not treated the same way. Again, I never implied that the used market is illegal or should not exist, but used video games are completely different from used books and movies.

Movies have several sources of income, from advertising to the initial run in theatres to dvd sales. Books cost significantly less to produce. Also, how often have you seen a used copy of a film/book at Target sitting right next to the new copy on a shelf for a couple of dollars less? Video games are the only item that I can think of that actually do this.

For used books I'm forced to head to a used book store if I want to find a copy, and it's a similar situation for DVDs (unless we're counting online sales). The selection is always pretty much random, and there is no guarantee that I will find what I'm looking for. On the other hand, if I went to Gamestop right now, I guarantee you I would find a used copy of LA Noire on the shelf sitting right next to the new. Maybe it will only be $5 less, but $5 is still $5. My point is that the two markets are very different, and the existence of one does not completely negate the problems associated with another. We have to treat the used video game market as the USED VIDEO GAME MARKET and cease with these pointless analogies that don't really help clarify the situation.

Also, are we looking at the fee by a case by case basis? Is it not justified here because MK made money, but it would be justified if it hadn't? Is my argument no longer valid just because in this situation money was made? I mean, just because they made money, they don't need to make anymore, right? You've clearly already decided that they made enough, so they shouldn't make any more.

@GrandpaMasaki

...and their means of making more money, in this case with the online pass, is PUNISHING consumers who want to save a few bucks. I don't understand what's so wrong with that. And before you go accusing GameStop as everyone seems to enjoy doing, eBay, Amazon, Best Buy, etc. all buy and sell used games now. And as I said, the publishers get money from when the stores buy the stock, they get money from the overpriced DLC...the sale to the consumer is not the only means of making money. If a game does poorly in sales, or if copies of it are returned quickly, why does the blame fall on the shoulders of the gamers? If a game is a POS, it deserves to be spit upon and returned ASAP. In those cases, no, a company doesn't deserve money...and if a game is crap, people won't even pay for the BS online passes when they buy a used copy and realize how awful the game is, which negates the purpose of the online pass anyway.

But please, continue to stick up for the companies.

@GrandpaMasaki

Glad to find someone who feels the same way I do, thank you.

@Red Runner

I think this is going to be my last reply here, but I want to point out that you just contradicted yourself. You state that sales to the consumer are not the only source of income, then proceed to list sales of stock to retail outlets and DLC...which are both means of selling to the consumer.

Retail outlets stock according to demand. Now, I admit that I don't have any raw date to support the following statement, but I am pretty sure that the existence of trade-in programs at retail outlets is affecting how retailers order their stock. If anything, they probably encourage customers to trade-in their used games as soon as possible, because a used game sale is, I'm assuming, much more profitable. The demand for new is obviously going to be lower if within a week these outlets are already able to put used copies on the shelves. Instead of ordering more new copies from the distributor, they'd simply wait for the trade-ins to start coming in and stock with that. Consumers are happy because they get their games cheaper, and retailers are happy because they make more profit, while the developers get cut out.

While DLC serves many purposes, there are two that I'd like to focus on. First, DLC can help encourage customers to hold on to their copies longer, in an attempt to undercut the used game market by lowering the amount of copies in circulation. Second, DLC can be seen as means for developers to get money out of those that purchased used. I don't approve of DLC being used for either of these purposes, which is why I'm glad that publishers are toying with the idea of online passes. I want DLC to exist because there really is a need or a demand for it, like if the developers couldn't cram everything in before the deadline, or if the success of a game has created demand for new content. I hate it when things end up being withheld for the sole purpose of selling it later, or when some sub-par content is created simply in an attempt to trick the consumer in forking over a few extra dollars.

As for the rest of your argument...well, I don't really follow your line of reasoning. We're not talking about poor sales due to the quality of a title, but no, if a game is not any good it does not deserve to make money. I don't think I ever implied that this statement was true. If a game isn't any good, then the game won't sell and retailers will end up slashing prices. Well, they would anyway, if it weren't for the used game market. I often get the impression that retailers keep the price of new copies high in an attempt to increase used sales. Hell, almost all the sales I've seen at GameStop have dealt specifically with used titles, but rarely new.

@Red Runner Glad to see someone gets it. People, companies want to squeeze every last dollar they can out of you these days, they are not your friend and they are not poor starving artists. Let's use EA Sports as an example, charging $60 for an annual roster update is already screwing over the user, but that's not enough for them. Now they also charge for an online pass even though they shut down the online play for a game about 2 years after release now and they have all these Ultimate Team and booster packs for sale as well that destroy the online balance of their games.
Doesn't anyone wonder how the video game industry has survived all these years when used game sales have been going on the whole time? I buy new all the time but always wait a few months for the price to fall. I also sell/trade in when I am done if it is not a game I will want forever or if the price has fallen low enough that I don't think it's worth it to sell or trade. I also agree with those of you who say that there really needs to be a variable pricing structure instead of one size fits all.