advertisement

Homefront to Feature THQ's Online Pass; Multiplayer Available but Capped for Secondary Users

by Xav de Matos, Jan 05, 2011 1:00pm PST
Related Topics – Homefront, , xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Online Pass, PC

Shacknews has confirmed that THQ's upcoming "war at home" shooter Homefront will use the company's newly developed Online Pass for multiplayer--recently featured in UFC Undisputed 2010.

THQ's Online Pass is a single-use code that is included for free in all new copies of games sporting the "feature." Users who do not have access to a free code--whether it be from rental or purchasing the game second-hand--can purchase an online pass for $10. EA has executed a similar program to sway gamers to purchase new copies of its titles.

According to THQ--via Shacknews parent company GameFly--users who do not have an online pass will still be able to play Homefront's online component; however, the experience is limited. Users will have access to all multiplayer maps but can only progress to a maximum level of 5 out of the full experience's 75 levels.

Users can continue to play the game online without an online pass for as long as they choose but will not be able to progress past the capped level. The single-player portion of Homefront is unaffected by online pass status.

Shacknews has sent a note to THQ to find out how the level progression in Homefront functions, and whether the game unlocks items and modes over the course of the level progression (as seen in recent Call of Duty games, for example) or if it completely open. We have yet to hear back at the time of publishing.

Homefront is in development for the Xbox 360 and PS3 from developer Kaos Studios. A PC version is also in the works from Digital Extremes. Homefront is scheduled to release in early March.





Comments

30 Threads* | 150 Comments


  • I think publishers are overlooking the fact that Gamestop isn't the only used games outlet. This $10 pass negatively affects only the person dumb enough to take a measly $5 discount.

    Most games, even big AAA titles, can be found used on Amazon or some other online marketplace for $30-40 just a week or two after release. If I don't have the full $60 on release day, that's probably how I'll get this game, and in that case, it's a winning situation for everyone. I get the game for $30-40 + $10, still a discount from the new price, and the publisher gets part of the money.








  • I can understand trying to cut down on used game sales, but I hate that that initiative bleeds over into rentals.

    Just because I want to play a game doesn't mean that I want to own it and have it sit on my shelf wasting space when I'm done with it. I think we all have the right to try a game out. Also, when rental copies are purchased from the publisher, a much higher price is paid by the rental company to account for all the people that will be playing the game. Sure, some money is still lost, but it helps a bit.

    Also, does anyone really think going all digital will cut prices? Yes, shipping and manufacturing can be largely eliminated, but publishers know that we've been paying $60 for a new product and will continue to do so, especially if we are given no choice, since digital-only means no resale, so why would they sell at a reduced price? Their primary goal as a business is to make profit, and if I was in their shoes, I would consider charging the consumer the same price, because I would know that they are already accustomed to that pricepoint.

  • I hate that so many people get so pissy about this. The game will probably sell for like $25-$30 second hand, so you pay $10 for the online pass. You're still saving $20 from a new game. And hey, you'll still be sticking it to those evil developers, who will get none of that money, and probably lose their jobs due to the game not selling well enough. Instead, you'll be giving it to those totally awesome Gamestop people who are always so helpful and kind when you talk to them.

    Seriously, why are people so eager to give all their money to the people that sell games instead of the people who make games?










  • Seems like it'd be cheaper to just switch the PC version to Steam to avoid this on PC.

    As for consoles, well if publishers would price games at the price they DESERVE to be at, then worrying about the secondhand market wouldn't be necessary.

    Call of Duty Lookalike #3 deserves to be $30. On sale, $20. If you want the full $60, then make a game worth it. Like GTA or RDR.

    Just because MS set the MSRP of games to $59.99 does not mean you have to charge that for every game you release. Especially not in this economy. It's going to be very funny when game sales DROP and these publishers wonder why.

    And then they realize that a lot of the people who were buying games new were doing so on the back of the secondhand market that they so loath. Without that option to resell the game, many of the consumers they're used to having a lock on will disappear.

    Leaving them even fewer sales than before. I'm sure piracy will become the cause of this, though.