Ubisoft isn't the only publisher that's implementing a program similar to Electronic Arts and their EA Sports Online Pass. According to sports gaming blog Pastapadre, THQ is beating EA to the punch by two weeks. Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, which launches on June 8th, will be the first EA Sports game under the EA Sports Online Pass. But THQ's UFC Undisputed 2010, due out next Tuesday, May 25th, will also come with a one-time-use code on the back of the game's instruction manual, and players will need to type in the code if they want to play the game online (as you can see above).
It's essentially the same idea as the EA Sports Online Pass. If you buy UFC 2010 used or rent it, you'll be prompted to purchase a code from the Xbox Live Marketplace or the PlayStation Store. We've pinged THQ for comment, since there's no word yet on how much a code will cost, or if there will be any sort of free trial period (like the 7-day trial that the Online Pass offers). As soon as we hear back, we'll update this story.
I guess we're going to have to get used to this stuff.
Confirmed: UFC 2010 Requires Code for Online Play [Pastapadre]
[Update: We've just received an official response from THQ; you can check out the full statement after the jump. Here's the takeaway: codes for non-new buyers will cost $5 (400 Microsoft Points). There's no mention of a trial period, so it looks like renters will have to pony up to try the game online.]
The official statement from THQ regarding online play in UFC Undisputed 2010:
THQ is delivering a truly unmatched online gaming experience for fans of UFC and across all fighting games in general. The main enhancement of UFC Undisputed 2010’s premium online content is the new “Fight Camp Mode” in which players can assemble ranks of up to 40 people and train together. This is a significant value-add to the game as players can continually improve their skills by training with their friends and bringing teams of MMA specialists together.
This multiplayer content for UFC Undisputed 2010 will be available via a one-time code included with the game at purchase. Codes for accessing the content will be available for second-time buyers for an additional $5.
Details for acquiring the codes and how this will work will be available via the UFC community site.
Well, there you have it. Keep your eyes on the UFC Undisputed community site for further details.
Contest:
7:30 PM on 05.19.2010 | 
What? Buying new games? Cry me a river.
You get used to it, I'll just stop buying.
Honestly, this is kind of lame. Providing additional new features to people who buy new is okay; DLC isn't a core portion of the experience. Playing online is, and always will be, the core experience people expect from a game like this.
If I were ya'll, I wouldn't bitch too hard about this. It's either this, or something invasive and fucked up.
I have zero problems with the EA Pass.
It's the forced fee we're going to have to pay that I'm going to have problems with: new copy or not. You know it's the next logical step.
I'm guessing those $55 dollar used games at gamestop wont be selling anymore.
It matters to publishers who want as many New games sales as possible because used game sales provide them no money.
Either way I don't buy games with dates in them, so this is just another reason to wait for either a really good deal, or next years iteration.
Although this is bullshit that a game is restricting access to standard XBL features.
If you buy a game new, for $60/£40 or whatever, the developer and publisher are making money from that. If you buy a game used, the only people making money are the store to which you sold the game.
Anyway, what's the difference between buying a second hand video game and software/music/film piracy via file sharing? When you consider that the only non-aesthetic difference is that when you torrent something the guy who uploaded the torrent doesn't get paid, the correct answer to my question would be nothing apart from the legitimisation of the act.
"so either pirate the game and put up with zero bullshit, or legally purchase the game and then you get to pay more to play online"
I don't understand. If you pirate the game you will not have a code and cannot play online. If you legally purchase the game (new) you do not have to pay anything extra as the code is supplied with the game.
Unless you're like me and always buy your games new anyway, and as such, this kind of thing doesn't affect you at all.
As someone who actually supports developers and publishers who make the games we play, I love that they are either adding incentives to buy games new or taking away privileges from those who don't.
Someone else pointed out loaning out games- it's true that that aspect sucks, but how many times do you loan out a game for someone to play online? 9/10 times I loan a game out, it's because it's single-player and one of my friends wants to play it.
This is DRM.
Just think of it like a very large expensive DLC game that isn't downloadable.
we'll be watching how this plays out
The fact that consumers are actually going out of their way to justify it makes it even worse, albeit funny in a sort of hopeless kind of way.
I do generally buy all my games new, but sometimes I'll buy an older game used and it's not something I'd likely play online, so this won't really affect me. I don't really agree with it from the standpoint that I pay for Xbox Live already and shouldn't have to pay another fee to play something online regardless of whether or not it's secondhand.
@Schmo0zle No offense but you might be retarded, just thought you should check into that.
Yes, it is "DRM" in it's own way, but at least it targets someone. Other forms of DRM are indescriminate, they target everyone and anyone. Even if you buy Spore legally, you still have to put up with BS to stop pirates. But if I buy this retail and not used, I only have to enter a code and then game over, no more bullshit to deal with.
I see this as fine. Game companies have a right to do something like this...They lose a lot of cash to leeches like Gamestop who make a fortune off reselling their IP's.
I'm against the fascist copyright-state as much as the next guy, but I find this totally reasonable, especially when you consider the alternatives they've been using...Or would you really rather buy a used game that requires 24/7 internet connection or your game dies and you lose all your progress? ;)
Unfortunately we still might see this AND that, because they target different issues. Which sucks, but whatev'.
This is going to a major extreme but lets just say that every game from here on out game with some sort of code or gift for buying new rather than used. GameStop, Play N Trade, and other video game retails make their money off of people buying used games. There is little to no profit in anything else that is sold. If everyone jumped on the bandwagon to strictly buy new only for their codes that would cause a loss of money on the retailers end and could cause stores to close. With stores closing where would people buy their games from? I prefer buying my games from specialty shops. I'll skip the trip to Target, Best Buy, and Walmart. Kthnx.
Also, I don't know about other people but I buy games such as Alan Wake and Red Dead close to, if not, the day they come out. If I happen to find a used one within those first few days then sweet deal for me. If not, oh well. Chances are people aren't waiting around for a used one to come around and want to get their game the day it comes out. Working in a GameStop I can say we hardly get newer games the day or even week of. Publishers may lose a small portion of money to used game sales but I doubt it's big enough to cause such a fuss over it. Gtfo. >:c
By witnessing the deep discounting that hits games at retail so quickly, it's obvious that the $60 premium price was an arbitrary profit grab, and this is even further padding their bottom line as quickly as they can.
Giant titles like Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy XIII, Assassin's Creed II, and even our debut "buy it new" title The Saboteur are already available NEW at a steep discount from their not-too-long ago debut. I bought DJ Hero for more than half price AND got the bonus content. Yay!
Now how does this benefit me to buy it now-now-now for new to get a download code? I can wait an extra month, buy it at a discount when it goes on sale on Amazon for $40 and fuck the publisher out of that extra $20?
We can play that game, you know... I fully grant Michael Pachter the ability to rub his balls all over your big huge title not selling well in it's first 30 days because YOU PUBLISHERS do this shit.
It's no incentive for me to run out and buy Mass Effect 2 new at retail when I can get it 2 months later for half the price. I do not care how it affects your bottom line. I know you're either going to commit to sequeling the shit out of any new game, or it'll fade away and something else new and shiny comes along.
Either way... The only person truly HURT in this process is the publisher. I could give a crap if Bobby Kotick can't afford to buy Top Shelf Ramen this month. Let him eat the expired Shrimp Chips (on sale for $.50!) and imitation Top Shelf Ramen.
A game developer, those grunts making textures, rigging, mo-cap, those people? They get laid off, but they find another gig someplace else. And so it goes.
You want the used game market to dry up? Punish Gamestop, not the consumer. Also get over it. As long as physical media exists, then we as consumers have a right to treat our media however we see fit. If you don't like it, we won't buy your game.
DRM'ing a physical disc with bonus codes that unlock prominent features on a game is just fucking dumb.
Some of you people astound me. For fuck's sake, if you love and support the hobby of gaming, then you should love and support the people responsible for making the games you play. EA, Ubisoft and THQ are not the bad guys here, GameStop is.
Whether you like it or not, used game sales hurts the industry. Don't be surprised when a console developer creates a game that requires a code to access ALL of the content. PC Gamers have been fine with CD keys for decades, and this would be no different.
I don't like it.
I agree it is not bad for DRM, compared to what I sometimes put up with on the PC, I was just saying it is DRM.
PC gamers have been using codes like this to access multiplayer for years and years and years, and if you needed a second one you needed to buy the game, not some $5 thing, so in a sense this is not that bad.
I just dislike publishers' endless wars on consumers in general. No other industry, even modern music companies, attack their customers like this.
....PROFIT
Why must game budgets be so high? When the economy is in the shitter, banking that random game #5 is going to sell millions just to break even is luck of the draw. I think games need to be worth owning before game companies work on Splinter Cell for like 5 years to make a 10 hour game (just an example).
This is just killing the online lifetime of any game. Wait and see...
If devs actually made epics that were worth a shit, they wouldn't have to worry as much about people saying "fuck it" and waiting or selling it off immediately. Stop focusing on goddamned HD graphics and focus on the fucking gameplay.
And as said, shit is just too expensive now with video games. I'm a poor college student--I can't afford to pay $64 a pop on a video game. Fuck the "discipline yourself to save money!" tools, video games aren't a lifestyle, they're a goddamned hobby. I shouldn't have to go hungry or not be able to buy gas just to afford a piece of shit game that's under eight hours long and tries to microtransaction me to death. (Or, in FF XIII's case, a piece of shit game period.)
Also, you would think the publishers would come up with better ideas to counteract the declining sales of their sports titles other than nickel and diming the consumer. They release the same game every year with a few extra tacked on features and they think that used games are the reason they're losing money. Give me a break!