21 replies to this topic

[Epic Kirby]

Well when you first purchase a copy of a Ubisoft game you will be provided with a one-use code that will unlock online content. Bought the game second-hand? Fear not! As you can still use the online content. Only after you pay $9.99 of course.

Yes that’s right, you will now have to pay extra for the privilege of using a used game online.

This really makes me sad. Not only will this make buying used games less attractive, especially for those of us who cannot afford brand new titles; it also will make the re-selling of games that you’ve completed potentially less worthwhile.

The first game to use this feature will be Driver: San Francisco, out on September 2nd.

http://www.eurogamer...rms-online-pass

What do you think about this? And would you care if others followed suit to encourage people to buy games new?

[nintendo3DS]

This is an outrage. Ubisoft suspects people to pay for online on a Nintendo console? I for one will not be picking up any used Ubisoft games for the Wii U. If you ask me Ubisoft is money-hungry, just like Microsoft.

[Auzzie Wingman]

Meh.
Every time I see an article about used game sales, they try to play the sympathy vote.

Get over it. Whoop dee doo, $10.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Seriously!? -.-

[Bill Cipher]

This is an outrage. Ubisoft suspects people to pay for online on a Nintendo console? I for one will not be picking up any used Ubisoft games for the Wii U. If you ask me Ubisoft is money-hungry, just like Microsoft.

UBISOFT's not expecting for you to pay for online unless if you are buying the game used. Do you know why? Because for each game thats sold that's used, no money goes to the publisher. Plus, calling them money hungry is kind off a no brainer. THEY ARE CORPORATIONS. IT'S THEIR GOAL TO MAKE MONEY.

[Caius Casshern Sins]

i don't really mind as long as i am saving money i am good with it. Also the money supports the devs in the long run and besides i do not play online like that.

[Reaper Pin]

There will always be code generators.

[Caius Casshern Sins]

There will always be code generators.

They have those for online codes and they work?

[Reaper Pin]

They have those for online codes and they work?

Dunno, but you can almost get any type of code with a generator, like for flash, I think some hackers are going to get to it.


And hopefully not hack Ubisoft itself...

[Epic Kirby]

i don't really mind as long as i am saving money i am good with it. Also the money supports the devs in the long run and besides i do not play online like that.

Yep they are just out to protect themselves because they don't get any money from used game sales, this way either people will buy new games because $10 plus the used game price won't be worth it and if they do decide to buy used games the devs will get $10 if they want to go online, that way it will be win win for them.

[Reaper Pin]

Yep they are just out to protect themselves because they don't get any money from used game sales, this way either people will buy new games because $10 plus the used game price won't be worth it and if they do decide to buy used games the devs will get $10 if they want to go online, that way it will be win win for them.

Du...dude....
YOU GOT A DRY BONE RANK?!
HE IS MY FAVORITE MARIO ENEMY!
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

[Waller]

Du...dude....
YOU GOT A DRY BONE RANK?!
HE IS MY FAVORITE MARIO ENEMY!
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Completely relevant to the topic.

[Reaper Pin]

Completely relevant to the topic.

Hey, If you check the first page, you will see some post I made that were on-topic!

[Epic Kirby]

Du...dude....
YOU GOT A DRY BONE RANK?!
HE IS MY FAVORITE MARIO ENEMY!
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Anyways, back on topic I wonder whether other companies will do this.

[Wertville]

I'm going to completely opposite most and APPLAUD Ubisoft for doing this. With the growing cost of video game development, the amount of money made has to be higher... Which means they need more sales. However, a large chunk of those sales (Much MUCH more than Piracy) get lost to used game sales, in which the devs make no money and therefore must accommodate this through other means...

Three methods so far:
1)The infamous DLC. ("What's that? You want to buy the game cheaper, simply because someone else has played it? WELL FINE, then we'll only INCLUDE half the game MUHAHAHHA")
2)The misinterpreted (But potentially valid) Save locking. ("Hmph, you want to buy a game used? Fine. We'll make SURE that it's used, though.")
3)The newest, Forcing Full Price. ("You want to buy the game $10 cheaper? Ok, but we're going to knock off $10 worth of content until you decide to go full."

Now, out of those 3, which is the most fair? The third one only really affects used gamers and gives much better support to the companies, while the other two hurt everyone and bring bad rep.

[Waller]

So, what they're saying is that I can't share a single game with two different accounts?

[BazzDropperz]

I hope other devs start doing this, and it becomes the norm. More money for developers = better games for us.

[Auzzie Wingman]

I welcome this business tactic.
I mean, it's not like I'm paying more than I should to have the whole game, and the dev gets a boost too.

[Epic Kirby]

I'm going to completely opposite most and APPLAUD Ubisoft for doing this. With the growing cost of video game development, the amount of money made has to be higher... Which means they need more sales. However, a large chunk of those sales (Much MUCH more than Piracy) get lost to used game sales, in which the devs make no money and therefore must accommodate this through other means...

Three methods so far:
1)The infamous DLC. ("What's that? You want to buy the game cheaper, simply because someone else has played it? WELL FINE, then we'll only INCLUDE half the game MUHAHAHHA")
2)The misinterpreted (But potentially valid) Save locking. ("Hmph, you want to buy a game used? Fine. We'll make SURE that it's used, though.")
3)The newest, Forcing Full Price. ("You want to buy the game $10 cheaper? Ok, but we're going to knock off $10 worth of content until you decide to go full."

Now, out of those 3, which is the most fair? The third one only really affects used gamers and gives much better support to the companies, while the other two hurt everyone and bring bad rep.

The third is also the most awkward, let's say I want to take Driver: San Francisco to a friend's house that means we can't go online with it unless he pays ten dollars. It makes things complicated. It also lowers the worth of used games which means people would get a lot less money selling them because stores would devalue them. A lot of people sell games to pay for their next system, if this thing spreads then they would get a lot less when buying new consoles.

[hooky]

To be fair you still get the single player stuff with a used game, and publishers/developers need money to pay for the servers...