How do people not understand, 1. they get us to overpay for new games to ensure profitability, 2. they force us to agree to terms and conditions AFTER we buy items, 3. they not want us to send them play information by logging in, collecting data on us that helps them solicit more money from us... why do you think they offer free reward points? A company will NEVER do anything for a customer that does not serve their interests... Instead of giving you the money they used to have to pay to get this information, they give you the illusion of value, ubipoints. By ommitting certain things from games upon release and giving them back to you, they make you think you actually got something. There are already networks we can log into regardless of who the manufacturer is, so we can talk to and compare with our friends, why would we limit ourselves to just a big Ubi-forum/Ubi-world? Uplay is free player information and yet another term and condition you must agree to just to play a game. The only service it provides is for Ubisoft. I leave this comment because if we do not objectively look at the news about upcoming "features" and give feedback, we will be at the whim of producers and their contracts. PS They are forcing some old games to update and use Uplay as well. That was not in the terms and conditions I agreed to, nor would I agree to use a game I already purchased pre Uplay. Boo Uplay.
Pass will be bundled with new copies of "core" games beginning with Driver: SF, offer gamers "additional content" and full access to online modes; secondhand players can opt in for $10.
Yesterday, it was rumored that Ubisoft would join major publishers Sony, THQ, Warner Bros., and Electronic Arts in offering an online pass for its games called the Uplay Passport. Today, the French publisher has made it official, confirming the program and detailing it.
The Uplay Passport will come bundled with new copies of Ubisoft's "core" games, beginning this August with the racing game Driver: San Francisco. The onetime-use code will give gamers full access to the game's online modes as well as unspecified "exclusive" additional content.
The publisher did not specifically name upcoming games that will use the Uplay Passport, but Assassin's Creed, Ghost Recon, and Far Cry games fit the publisher's "core" description.
Gamers who borrow, rent, or purchase a Uplay Passport-enhanced game secondhand will need to pay $10 for the pass. For more on the first title to use the Uplay Passport, check out GameSpot's latest review of Driver: San Francisco.
id say lets have anynomus stick it to these guys and hack them for all the codes and they release them to the public for free, hopefully the psn shutdown does not happen again.
@fightingfish18 I'm not sure that hurts anyone except for GameStop. What price they charge has no effect on what the pay to put it on their shelves. Besides, the next get consoles from Sony and Microsoft may be download only with no physical media for new titles, just a slot for discs for backward compatibility. In a few years, the only way to get a game will be to get it brand new.
If I was Gamestop I would stick it to these publishers by charging $15 less than the new price for online pass games... Then gamers ciould pay the new price and get second hand thats in perfect condition, and get full access to online multiplayer, and the publisher doesn't get a dime.
If we accept these online passes, the only true worthy games of an online pass is CoD and battlefield, they are basically the only games that have decent multiplayer, all the games with the online passes usually have rubbish multiplayer and they need all the people online as they can get & now the passes will mean even fewer on the servers. With these games i could buy it 2nd hand, think its a good game buy the online pass and then i get online and the servers are empty, no one is playing. I dont get why basically only CoD, BF, Halo have decent multiplayer and they are the ones who dont charge to play online and its the games with crap multiplayer who do charge! Make a decent multiplayer and maybe people will accept the passes!
As long as they're making money off these DRM style online passes and bs DLC, I don't see them stopping it. Things are only get worse. With further price increases and upsells, future gaming fun will be an unaffordable hobby for many.
All this 'pass' BS is getting too much, give us gamers a break. If the future of gaming is heading in this direction I (like many other gamers) will definately be planning on buying considerably less games (both new and 2nd hand) - so publishers be warned - keep things fair- sure trade-ins account for many new game purchases, and if the value of pre-owned falls then less people will buy early to trade-in. Moral of this story - dont screw the customer or they will eventually screw you...
this is a joke....really ubisoft....because dri3er and parrell lines were so friggin great last gen right?....
@stressthesky.....i read your post in the beginning of the comments and you made a hellava point.....if i wanted to unload a game for any reason i have to at least consider a deduction of $10 off my sale because buyers are going to be factoring that in when they buy it from places like amazon or ebay.
I'm seeing a bunch of articles on the declining and poor sales of games...did they ever stop to think that stupid **** like this is one of the big reasons. I went from a happy gamer who poured tons of money into new games, to someone who hasn't bought a game period in months because I'm sick and tired of being nick-and-dimed to death. Probably 80-90 percent of new games now have made my boycott list because of stupid passes, DLC abuses, or exclusive B.S. RIP gaming; it was a fun ride while it lasted.
Music has been around for 100+ years because it understood music would be sold and distributed as a second-hand product. It did not go to court, for example to stop stereo systems having two cassettes with a facility to copy.. In fact record sales were at their peak when these stereo systems came along. Technically, you don't own the music you buy anymore than games, yet the music industry has never done anything to make it's customers believe anything other than they "own" their CD's, tapes, 45's, 33's and 78's! It is this reason they are still here. By showing gaming customers they don't own anything when they "buy" a game will just be another reason why gaming won't be around for another 50 years, because if people don't think they own anything for their $50-60, they will stop buying it. Paradoxically, companies are doing this because costs are going up 20% a year and sales have been falling by the same amount since around 2008. This is a way they see to claw some money back, but they need to look to their house first. Even with Uplay, if development costs are going to be $100 million per game in 5 years, NO game will make a profit! If a game like STALKER can come to market for about $12 million and sell 4 million on PC alone, a game that costs £30 million needs to do over 8 million units, and even if that is spread across multiple formats, it is unlikely to make a profit, given that only the hugest hits can manage that, the vast bulk of the other 80% lose money!
@bizuit Don't these people remind you of that idiot, Ike Clanton in the movie Tombstone? It goes like this: Curly Bill: [takes a bill with Wyatt's signature from a customer and throws it on the faro table] Wyatt Earp, huh? I heard of you. Gamespot Kid: Listen, Mr. Kansas Law Dog. Law don't go around here. Savvy? Wyatt Earp: I'm retired. Curly Bill: Good. That's real good. Gamespot Kid: Yeah, that's good, Mr. Law Dog, 'cause law don't go around here. Wyatt Earp: I heard you the first time. [flips a card]
All this makes me want to do is purposefully buy Ubisoft games used now, and then buy the online pass from someone on Ebay.
To the people saying they're doing this because servers cost money, take another look at the calculation. Let's say I buy a copy and then go online, that's one person on the server. Then I sell the game to a guy and he plays it online, it's still one person on the server. Not two, because I just sold my game and I can't play it online anymore. The money towards the server they got when I first bought the copy. And there can only be one person online per copy. So why do they need the extra 10$ on a second hand product? Smell the coffee, you're being ripped off.
if you want to see the way games are planning on going and seeing what the future really holds read this: http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/22/videogames-internet-wada-technology-square-enix.html If it gets to this point, I've got a bullet for my consoles.
@ everyone who supports this Please observe the current state of PC gaming. Though many awesome games are on the PC, their system attempts to screw them out of actually getting to play them (preventing SP play w/o internet, anyone?). If we don't say something to the devs with our MONEY, as opposed to just pissing and moaning on this web site, well just hope they lube up before they really f**k you.
So why were online games free to play in the beginning (for ps3)? I thought the technology for servers would be the most expensive at the beginning and get cheaper. They're just deciding now that they want to charge, now that SP experiences are prettymuch shot and people are addicted to flash-in-the-pan MP experiences? I'm glad I started to rebuild my collection of ps2 games, because with the way current devs are going, I may not want to play new anymore.
I understand that companies want to get some profit on used sales, but for xbox live users this blows. We get double charged to use multiplayer aspects of these games. NFS Hot Pursuit was the first game I'd gotten new for a while, and it included the pass. But after raving about it to friends, I had completly forgot they'd have to drop 10 bucks to play against me if they bought it used. Anyway, it gets in the way, but its worth it for the games with stellar multiplayer... And with Hot Pursuit it included some new rides, so if they keep that trend like it was mentioned in the article then the games people love will make more money and for the rest of the games it'll be business as usual...
@deadkingdg Dead on, except you also have to figure that part of the $15-20 that the developer actually sees also has to go toward running the company (payroll, rent, utilities), meaning the ACTUAL profit from a $50-60 game is probably closer to about $3-5.
@Ten_Tigers Umm, they make less than 20$ per sale, not 50-60$. The publisher takes the biggest cut then the retailer takes a similar cut. With the development cost these days, they need to sell a _lot_ of copies to just cover the cost of the game.
@Ten_Tigers But how is it a rip off for those who buy their games new? Trust, the majority of the time I would agree with basis of what you're saying since I'm all for consumer rights, but this really only effects second hand sells. To be fair, developers do lose some revenue from people buying games used. I guess I'm not all that concerned with this issue because I buy the majority of my games new (even though I was royally pissed when I paid to play MK online and found out much much later that I didn't have to). My primary concern with all of this though is how it fits in with the overall all plan of completely eliminating physical game periphals (such as discs). This seems to also be a way to eliminate any benefit to having game discs oppose to downloads causing a more psychological buyin to downloadable games and (God help us) game streaming. To basically have the mainstream gaming community buy in to services such as PSN, XBOX Live, and now evidently, Gamestop having full control over the availability of the product and how we play it.
This is going to end Gamestop as we know it. They don't make much on new games. They mark used games down 10% and buy it for much larger margins than new product. If people are going to start having to pay extra to access the full game when buying used, then the used market will disappear. (which is exactly what game manufacturers want as they only make money on new games). Sorry to say it but RIP Gamestop. You were great while you lasted and you will be missed.
I was going to comment positively on the video but what the hell, lets stick to online pass thingie. I understand and acknowlegde Ten_Tigers point about how economics and greed work. However this is also true regarding economics: so long you understand what you get, paying the price means that you thought it was worth the money regardless of how high the price was. So in a sense, let the gaming companies charge whatever they like. If we think that is fair price, we will buy it. If not we will not buy it. This mechanic will be affecting their pricing strategies, complaining and then still buying won't. Mostly the online addicted people will be affected by this. A calming notice as well is that gaming software is something we can do without if we don't like the price. Electricity and water isn't. Also, if you are more into singleplayer then it won't matter all that much. So yeah, think like this "I paid because it was worth it" instead of "those bastards sqeezed me on my money". You'll feel happier.
@Eddie Makuch Sir, you've misspelled the last link above the video. It's not Review, it's PReview. :)
What is great about these passes is if you do not bother going online with games. They drop in price a lot faster than other games, and when someone trades em in to gamestop they are even cheaper used than they would be if there was never an online pass. For example a game with no online pass sells for 59.99 new and 54.99 used. Games with an online pass sell for 59.99 new and usually 34.99 to 39.99 used. So games with online passes, i will always buy used. Games without passes, i will most likely buy new.
I have never pirated a game - and now I say "Please Pirate the games if they have UPlay!" I will also actively investigate the legality of this move!
I love the people who are actually trying to defend this. These companies are NOT providing us servers anymore than they are actually losing money. This is greed, plain and simple. Anybody who has any actual knowledge of economics will know what a product lifecycle is. These companies are just trying to make an extra buck off of a product at the end of its lifecycle. It would be like you buying a used car then Chevy saying they won't let go over 20 mph unless you pay them a couple extra grand... Nonsense, they made their money on the original sale. These game companies equating used game sales to revenue loss are full of crap EXPECIALLY how they pretty much all milk us via DLC. They will make $50-60 on the initial sale then another $20 to $40 on the DLC. And some of you are waving a flag and cheering for them. Damn, I need to start a software company. You will buy my product then blow me in appreciation.
I really don't understand what's so horrible about this. You're using THEIR servers to play the game, so why shouldn't they make money on that? For single-player-only games, I can understand the irritation in having to pay extra with used copies, but the online is a part of the game that the company has to pay to keep up. There's no reason for anyone to be able to use the service without the company receiving money for it. Also, keep in mind that many games are sold at a 10-15$ discount, which means that Gamestop most likely make more money with recent used titles than with new titles. With this, if Gamestop wants to keep functionning like it does, it'll simply have to lower its prices by 10$, so chances are, the ending result will be a relatively similar price, only 10$ of it actually goes to the company (some Gamestops and EB Games already pay 10$ per used copy to the publishers in order to include an online pass with each used copy also). If the prices really do go up, then you can simply blame Gamestop for trying to suck out your money, not developers (some companies do abuse prices, ie Activision with their past titles still at 60$ in some cases, but other does that mean companies like Atlus and Aksys have to suffer from sales?)
This new trend really isn't going to help these companies to sell more games. Many people who buy new games do so partly because they know they can get a good chunk of it back when they get tired of it and trade it in. Many games (multiplayer heavy ones in particular) will have virtually no trade value if this becomes the norm. By undermining the used market these game companies are actually going to be hurting the sales of their marginal titles and new IPs. Great, a future full of more sequels to the crappy schlock that sells so well with no hope for new brands because no one wants to risk money that they have no hope of recovering.
I miss the days where you just bought a game and that was it. It included everything. None of this DLC or passport garbage.
you let this slide, then soon online passes to play single player will eventually go into effect. killing the games lifespan when that console is phased out 'like online play on original xbox'. if that happens then say goodbye to playing your favorite games unless the console you registered your game on is still kicking in the future. ps:ubisoft's pc DRM forces you to have a internet connection to play single player. one hiccup in your internet connection and your game shuts down. no autosave or anything. is that what you want the future of gaming to be? if so your an idiot who believes anything a corporation who usually screw over they're own devs more than piracy ever will tells you.
@Agronot So what? People are supposed to buy all their games for generally twice as much, when they don't have to for a game that is is usually in just a good quality as a new one? That's pointless. You pay for a 2nd hand game in the knowledge that it has been used and isn't in as prestine condition. If they want more people to buy a new game, maybe they should reduce the RRP or sell more copies initially? Or like this service, make people buy there passes (which I don't agree with). It's not people's fault for buying 2nd hand games, it's stupid to say it's their fault for saving money. It's more to do with the retailers and/ or the gaming market.
Wah-wah-wah... I knew I'd see a lot of complaining comments when I saw the title of the article. This doesn't affect people that actually pay for their games. And I don't mean the second hand market either as publishers/devs don't see any money from that. Making games is expensive and if profits continue to fall because of piracy and second hand sales it will have a knock on effect to the games we play. Yes companies are greedy and want every penny you have. This is how the world works kids. However this is where the money comes from to make bigger and better games. As consumers we also have a power. If you feel the game isn't worth the money just don't buy it or wait for it's nre price to drop. I usually only takes a couple of months anyway. Simple really.
@Agronot I could tell you as an ex-retailer. I have seen documents that have flat out stated that even though they discount the games far below the recommended price (and I'm talking low) there is still profit for both publisher and retailer. Also, the fact that the game will continue to sell for an indefinite of time is a continued stream of revenue. Not to mention the reduced cost to sell games and dlc digitized now (i.e. no shipping cost, no supply cost, no retailer cost), yet, prices remain high. And if the rising cost of games was because of used sales then how do you explain other industries that still sell used products and also spend tons of money on development, marketing, etc., but prices that remain practically the same, if not lower? The reason you see rising costs is because you cannot digitize a used car or a used toaster or whatever. Making items digital gives them a majority of the control of where and pieces of their products to sell. You can't sell customers a car without a steering wheel, but if they could I bet they would. I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with you.
You know somebody needs to ask Microsoft why we are shelling out money to play online when publishers are not allowing us to. What the hell?! Some reporter needs to do this or we need to start a class action suit because this is bull. This means we are all paying a separate $10 fee for multiplayer now. You know what if I'm going to pay 10 bucks to play online then make the payment separate because I do not want to pay 10 dollars for multiplayer most games MP are just horrible. Oh wait, there is a way...buy games used. Thanks! I just went from buying new games to used games. Great job guys you just accomplished the complete opposite of what you intended.
Ubi... Activision... just a bunch of vulture that would eat off our carcass and sell the rest if they could.
Avalanche Studios co-founder says developer's ambition is for action, not moments that make players cry; steampunk-style game on hold. Full Story
- Posted May 15, 2013 6:33 am PT
4A Games creative director Andrew Prokhorov thanks Jason Rubin for telling the studio's story, but says, "We deserve the ratings we get." Full Story
- Posted May 16, 2013 12:44 pm PT