Ubisoft, never tired of finding ways to screw with its customers, is undoubtedly punching the air and rubbing its hands together at the news of EA Sport's Online Pass initiative, a new scheme that charged secondhand buyers $10 to play its games online, while brand new copies offer it for free. Unsurprisingly, Ubisoft likes this, and may follow with its own plans.
"Most of the games we are releasing next year will have from the start downloadable content available," explains Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez, "and we are looking very carefully at what is happening with EA regarding what we are calling the $10 solution, and will probably be following that line sometime in the future."
That's all well and good, and I get that publishers don't want people buying used games. However, this despicable victim complex from companies that still make millions upon millions of dollars and charge $60 per game really is getting trite and pathetic. I'm sick to death of publishers acting like the used market is exclusive to the industry and a dreadful cancer, especially as we're edging ever closer to an all-digital market where these companies are gearing up for complete dominion over its customers and their wallets.
Basically, STFU game industry. You're not a unique and fragile little flower. Actually offering good incentives for paying customers, rather than holding expected features hostage, should be your focus. But of course, that would be the less dickish thing to do, and we can't have that.
Ubisoft will 'probably follow' EA's Project $10 [Videogamer]
Contest:
9:00 AM on 05.19.2010 | 
But games still being £40 after being out for a year or so, and pre-owned copies not coming with online is pure cuntish.
i have no problem with them wanting to charge pre-owned buyers to play online, but I do have a problem with the "only if it's a terrbile game" depreciation system that's at work with brand new vidyagamez.
-You purchase your game online, digital only at a gouged price directly from a publisher
-You have to play on their servers, which requires a constant net connection
-Online Play will not be a pre-order bonus, but a required extra $10 purchase
-Advantages such as better guns will be sold for $10 a piece
-Map packs will follow Modern Warfare's "5 for $15" scheme, and will be required to play on 90% of the matchmaking playlists
-Servers will go offline permanently after a year to make way for the next $60+ sequel
Right now forcing us to buy new to get this content is fine with me: it's money directly in their pockets. But it's a slippery slope.
I rerally don't mind giving a little back to the dev/publisher (publisher not so much, not a fan of middlemen) when buying used games at a hefty discount.
and guiz, remember, the used price of games is likely to drop by $10 when online play isn't included!! It's not going to make any odds to those buying used games, may make a difference to those selling used games though.
Aren't games supposed to be "not for resale" anyway?!? i dunno, they probably should be.
things like this hurt people that purchase many games. its very hard to keep up with all the dlc....not even getting into DLC to play online
I try not to buy EA games unless it just came out and the majority of my friends list is playing. (you know servers are going down in 2 years)
Welcome to the future - it's already being tested on the PSN!
http://www.destructoid.com/final-fight-double-impact-psn-requires-internet-to-play-171696.phtml
crybaby publishers need to adapt or die like the music industry.
valve is ready. who else?
Baby with the bathwater strikes again.
so i should be fine.
I think that the smartest and the fairest way for the game industry to deal with this problem is. strike up a deal with retailers to have a 'blackout' period. for example gamestop cannot resell games until a month after release.
oh yah, and try making games that have more replay value.
I could easily see this turning into "have to pay $10-20 ON TOP of buying a NEW game" to play online.
I mean, Activision took away LAN support for Starcraft 2. This is very much the future. Playing a game online will be a "privilege" now, a privilege that costs.
Blah.
example. buying ps1 used games while ps2 is out, buying ps2 used games while ps3 is out. so i wont be buying used games for the ps3 for some time.
All this will do is piss people off who aren't informed on DLC, and they may not buy another product of their company.
This industry is full of itself, and I'm amazed at all the apologists for companies that pull stunts like this.
The industry should revolve around the consumer, not the other way around.
Future of console gaming
1. You must pay your Live, PSN free every year or they lock your account.
2. You only can buy games through digital distribution, PSN, Live. The game will be locked to your account and cannot be transferred.
3. You must have an internet connect all the time even for signal player and
all save games will be saved to the publisher server.
4. Online play will be another 10 to 20 dollars or a monthly fee.
5. DLC will be another added cost.
6. The game server will be shut off when the next version of the game comes out.
I'm just wondering if Jim has left out any information like he did in his romero apologises article.
I enjoy the odd few games online...UFC, left 4 dead, etc, but not THAT many, and I would never pay extra for an online only mode.
this is why digital distribution is a bad idea, folks. they act like WE are the bad guys for not being able to afford every game we want new for 40-60 bucks, depending on your country. if things go digital, they have NO competition, and can charge whatever the hell they want. thats why I will never understand the pro digital distribution people..it has advantages, but you still have no more choice, or competition and will be charged whatever they can get away with.
but then again people were dumb enough to buy the modern warfare 2 maps, so maybe us intelligent people are doomed by the stupidity of the masses, making this future inevitable.
had to wait a bit to play assassin creed 2 FREE, but i managed
had to wait much less to play settlers 7 FREE, but i managed
had to wait very little to play "splinter cell contardation" FREE, but i managed
while AC2 is a real good game, and i would have bought it original if the DRM wasnt shit, the other 2 games i dont like or care, and i would not have bought them, but i pirated them anyway...
cause it seems that someone at ubi is having a fit for every pirate download, and i wanna do my part
now excuse me while i go play the new PRINCE OF PERSIA on PSP, which i just pirated, oh yea, thanks for the free games ubi
As someone who buys a good amount of used games, I'm against the policy simply because it's them charging for something that was already available for free. That feels like a big step backwards, and what's worse, it feels like it's the first step towards a more substantial change, like pushing the initial cost of new games up to $70.
You mentioned that you wouldn't have a problem with it if it led to an equivalent price drop. I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd wager that the prices will not be affected all that much because retailers aren't going to want to miss out on money just because of the new system. I would liken it to the way that digital downloads are still initially priced just as high as physical copies of the game, in spite of the money saved on shipping, packaging, shelf space, etc.
But here's the line that really sent me for a loop:
"Aren't games supposed to be 'not for resale' anyway?!? i dunno, they probably should be."
Am I misreading this, or are you coming out against the entire used game market?
(rayman 1 for ps1 i think?)
Route the audio to usb and let the external unit do the processing/sending/receiving of data.
No cross game chat is so annoying, setting up a game is way too cumbersome as it is