If you knew me, you'd know I buy a lot of used games. Now before you go and call me evil or anything, you should know that most of the games I buy used are several months, if not years, old. Really it's only when I can get a decent value out of buying it used.that I do so As such I have a unique opinion when it comes to online passes (the hot button issue of the day.) I don't mind them, if there was a game coming out that new is $60 then I don't see the sense in paying $55 for it and not supporting the publisher. I think online passes work because they support new game sales while not punishing players who pick the game up later use (Because let's be honest most online games are dead six months after release anyway). Still I can't help but feel this is a slippery slope. Take for example Batman Arkham City, the new purchase incentive for that game is a piece of the single player game, ditto with Kingdom of Amalur. Right now both developers have said that the content for both games was always intended to be DLC, but I'm just worried it won't be long before a publisher puts something that's not DLC behind an online pass? Companies should be especially concerned with this, because when you lock away something other than multiplayer behind an online pass, you're no longer just incentivising new purchases, you're turning your back on latecomers.