Ubisoft Hops On the Online Pass Bandwagon 134
Joining the likes of THQ, Electonic Arts, and Sony, Ubisoft has now announced plans to launch the "Uplay Passport," a $10 fee charged to buyers of used games if they want to play them online. They say the program "will begin in the coming months and will be included in many of Ubisoft's popular core games. In each new copy of a Uplay Passport-enhanced game will be a one-time use registration code that, when redeemed, provides access to Uplay Passport content and features. The code can be found on the insert card inside the game box. Gamers can identify Uplay Passport-enhanced games by looking for the logo on the back of the box."
Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Another games publisher to avoid.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Everybody should avoiding Ubisoft since long ago.
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
I have boycotted Ubisoft since they started with the always on internet connection DRM.
obvious misnomer (Score:2)
obvious misnomer; more accurately be "U-Pay Passport." You don't pay, you don't play.
Re: (Score:2)
It's becoming easier and easier to shop for games every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>Another games publisher to avoid.
Same games publisher to avoid. Ubisoft has been the very worst in the industry when it comes to things like invasive DRM, requiring always-on internet connections and the like. If you get a burp in your connectivity (hope you're not playing on wi-fi), the game dies. Hope you saved.
They don't even disable their evil DRM on Steam, which itself is pretty good.
Shame, too. Some of their games look fun. But when I see that Ubisoft is the publisher of a game, I refuse to bu
Re:Great (Score:4, Interesting)
That decay has been going on for well over a decade now.
It may be just grumpy-old-guy syndrome, but in spite of the cmoparatively crap graphics, the old 1990's era games were a lot more fun to play (yes, bugs and all). The reason why have to do with elements that have little to do with the technical:
* Most of the old games (Quake/II/III, Unreal/UT, Half-Life, etc) were devilishly customizable, and the software companies actually encouraged modifications
* With only a few games of a given genre, you had a *lot* more players
* dial-up may have sucked, but it did equalize the field by quite a bit (everyone had lag to some extent) - OTOH, this is obviously more of a bandwidth thing and not a game design thing.
* the good games back then were more concerned about flow and content, and less concerned about "balance" or graphics
* most of the games were hosted and played freely online, not kept behind a pay-gate
* Some folks complain about bots and griefers back in the old days, but hell, they're just as common now as they were back then, if not moreso... just that the cheats are more subtle now, and the greifers less so.
* nobody gave a crap if you 'pirated' or copied the game, because odds were very good that you'd buy the next iteration when it came out (see also id Software)
Only opinion, but I'm blaming around 2000-2001 as the time when gaming began declining. CD Keys were only the barest hint of the DRM to come. More and more games got shoved into pay-for-play mode. The flood of games meant a growing fragmentation (even among folks playing the same title... You had Unreal Tournament, UT 2003, UT 2004, etc... all running w/ players at the same time). LAN parties became less and less common, and the ones still going only meant that there were UT players, Quake players, BF 1942 players, CS players, etc... and each new game or iteration meant less folks in a given LAN that could play a given game (or that wanted to, instead preferring their own game/version).
Sure, the consoles kept things going for awhile, but IMHO (and nothing more), it only pushed game publishers down paths that meant more DRM, higher prices, and pay-to-play online experiences. Not even going to touch on the remakes/reboots/re-whatevers that means the majority of games coming out are some re-iteration of something you've already played before.
Certainly, there are bright spots in this dark prose... games that stood out and demanded attention, and/or broke new ground (games like GTA). That said, most of the big ones just became more fodder for sequels, each not quite as good as the last.
Ah well... enough rambling. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Pshaw! 1990s games? Just eye candy.
The 1980s games _are_ more fun to play. Mr. Do, Frogger, Dig Dug, etc.
(I'm largely joking, though I do like those old games... I see Amazon has a buy 2 get 1 free game sale for some games I'm interested in, so I will likely stock up on some more even before I have a PS3! Also, I've never had a Nintendo system, but one of the reas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dig dug with a snowball? I've never heard it called that. (Mr. Do is obscure?)
(At first I thought you were referring to Snow Bros, but that doesn't have digging.)
Re: (Score:2)
And, yes, Mr Do! is obscure- at least more so than most arcade games. Very few of my friends know of it. I only know of it cause I grew up near an pizza place with mr do! and I pretty much spent my allowance on it every week.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally disagree.
I had way more fun with Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, and Left 4 Dead than I ever did with Quake or Unreal. Warcraft 3 and Company of Heroes and Starcraft 2 are absolutely better than their predecessors.
Game makers have gotten smarter and design their games with better mechanics. TF2 and L4D, for example, have exceptionally well-balanced asymmetrical modes. Weapon and ability variety has increased tremendously. Map design has become more objective. Frustration factors have been reduc
Re: (Score:1)
I was going to write a long involved comment on it but I think it's better put this way:
$22,733 - this is how much it would have cost me to buy what I have for my Xbox (including the cost of the xbox and accessories) had I not bought it used.
Somehow I don't think my $60/month budget for gaming would cover that... unless they wanted to wait 31 years. They've priced themselves out of their own market and rather than dropping prices so people can actually afford to buy the games new they're trying to impose a
Re: (Score:3)
Beyond the DRM bullshit (there really is no other word), the gaming industry is suffering from the Disney movie effect. They just keep making sequels or remaking the same. Newer Unreals were the same game as previous ones just with better graphics. It was no more exciting than Aladdin 23 or Parent Trap 9 (or what ever Disney is up to now). When the games differed in more than new graphics they added extra complexity to the game that just didn't add anything to the game play. Many argue that the playabi
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the old games (Quake/II/III, Unreal/UT, Half-Life, etc)
Man, I'm 31 and to me Doom/Quake were when games stopped being fun. I grew up in a world without First Person Shooters and never really got into them. I suppose we all just like what we liked when we were kids, and I'm sure in 20 years time when consoles plug directly into your brain today's children will be moaning about how the new stuff isn't as much fun as Halo 2 was.
At the risk if sounding really old one of the issues I have with many modern games are the complicated controls. Gamepads have hundreds of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been gaming since the Pong days, and I couldn't disagree more. I am consistently impressed with the innovative games coming out today. Does the DRM suck? You bet. Are there a lot of sequels? Yep. But 90% of everything is crap and always has been. But that 10% includes some truly, truly amazing stuff. Back in the day, I couldn't have even imagined something as amazing as open world games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, L.A. Noire, etc. I couldn't have even imagined MMO's like WoW, Eve Online, Rift, etc.
The am
Sigh (Score:1)
So on top of charging $59.99 for games, upwards of $50 to "enhance" your nerfed game through DLC, this too? I'm really starting to become disillusioned with the gaming industry.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's not. It's free for ONE PERSON who uses that new copy of the game. Let's say you you're underage and have siblings? Or you have a spouse who games? Or maybe you have roommates or live in a sort of "house of dudes"? Having to pay another $10 for each person to be allowed to play (not to mention, possibly charging separately for each piece of DLC *per person*, depending on the particular piece of DLC in question) is bullshit.
Imagine if you bought Monopoly at the store for $10. You set it out and got t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Though one of the other recent stories said that the public sign-in wouldn't work, IIRC.. Didn't it prevent you from restarting the game from the beginning, once you'd finished it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the story I was referring to:
http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/06/27/2331211/Capcom-Announces-Unreplayable-Game [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but couldn't they do the same thing with a "save game slot" on the internal hard drive on the console, or "in the cloud"?
Sure, it'd probably be get-around-able in some way, but effectively, it seems like the same thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Arts funding needs to extend to video games NOW (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as idiots pay the money the publishers will keep taking their cut. As long as customers keep saying "I don't like it, but I just got to have the game" then this will keep happening. As Liberace said, "I'm laughing all the way to the bank."
Enhanced for who (Score:2)
Enhanced? What is it enhancing? What is this $10 buying besides a spot in their wallet and not mine. Thanks but no thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing. If they were providing any value for the money it probably would work, but as it is they're taking away value unless you pay them $10.
There's all sorts of services they could provide that would be worth $10 to the consumer without costing them $10 to provide. And yet they go the lazy route and just raise prices on their games. Hardly as brazen as the 60% that Netflix managed, but it's still pretty insulting to suggest that they're entitled to something for nothing.
Mod me troll now, I guess. (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, I think this is good - as long as it's clearly marked on the box/digital 'packaging' so that people can make informed choices, let them. They'll lose customers, they'll also gain revenue - and they (and the market) can decide in the end if the revenues gained from second-hand sales make up for the revenue lost in first-hand sales.
I think it will more than do so - most people are basically inconsiderate in the end. If they get their gameplay out of it, they're really not going to worry about wh
Re: (Score:3)
I think it will more than do so - most people are basically inconsiderate in the end. If they get their gameplay out of it, they're really not going to worry about what the second-hand purchaser is getting when they go to gamestop to make their trade-ins.
There's a selfish motive for not buying games you can't resell at a high price. If I buy a $50 and resell it at $30, I've only spent $20 in that transaction. If I buy a $50 game and can only resell it at $10, I've spent $40. In either case I get the sam
Re: (Score:2)
However, in terms of enjoyment-per-hour, games are still remarkably cheap.
Still hard to beat the $0.99 Tiny Wings or Angry Birds, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, I think this is good - as long as it's clearly marked on the box/digital 'packaging' so that people can make informed choices, let them.
How visible is this logo going to be on Ebay, Playtrade or any online marketplace. You can bet ebay sellers wont advertise the "you have to pay another $10" part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If the resale price goes down, then less people will be willing to buy the game new. As they will have less of that resale money to spend. They will lose customers and revenue. I now know to avoid them, but I don't buy games when they first come out anyway. On the other hand I do tend to buy the first version and the GOTY editions of really good games. I just wait until those products are available at the reasonable price or get them used. They need to realize they are not only competing with new games but
Re: (Score:1)
Come on guys, it's only the price for two latté....
Re: (Score:2)
Guys don't drink lattes. Not only is it a stupid measure of value, it is a product the MBA that came up with that idea drinks and not the end users.
Re: (Score:2)
If you drink latté - and write it like that - then you are an iPhone + iPad user, and only pay $0.99-$4.99 for your games anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
Uplay Passport-enhanced games * (Score:1)
* For certain unconventional definitions of "enhanced"
Re: (Score:3)
Another attempt to kill the secondary market (Score:2)
Another attempt to kill the secondary market.
I'd say I'd stop buying Ubisoft games, but I have mostly stopped buying games except thru Steam anyway.
Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market (Score:4, Insightful)
Another attempt to kill the secondary market.
I'd say I'd stop buying Ubisoft games, but I have mostly stopped buying games except thru Steam anyway.
Isn't steam the wet dream of those trying to kill the secondary market?
Re: (Score:3)
It is, but it is a three edged sword. Used sales disappear, customers gain convenience, and as economic theory would suggest game prices are lower and must be to make up for lost value.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that prices don't really go down. They go down much faster in retail stores than in online stores. Eliminating the middle man of the retail stores just means they pocket the difference, they will not pass that on to the customers (well, Steam is a new middle man here too, taking their own cut). So I can get cheaper games retail AND give them away to a friend when I'm done (legally!) OR play the game a decade after the publisher has gone bankrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Prices sort of go down if you stick to only buying games on Steam when they are on sale at reduced prices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
With a vow to never spend over $15 and some patience (maybe as long as a couple of years), there is no reason why you can't get any game on there for cheap as hell. Usually by waiting for a major holiday.
However, for non-sale prices, Amazon (new and used) is usually cheaper, sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
With a vow to never spend over $15 and some patience (maybe as long as a couple of years), there is no reason why you can't get any game on there for cheap as hell.
$15? I don't remember the last time I paid more than $5 for a game that was tied to Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
I rarely if ever will spend more than $5 on a game from Steam. The only exceptions have been when the alternative was buying from somebody I hated even more than Valve and didn't have the patience to wait for the price to drop to next to nothing. In practice that's happened like twice.
Re: (Score:1)
I have the same deal with Xbox - my average price is $5.19 (excluding DLC). The highest price I'll pay for a game is $15 because they're so short and I usually only like about 20% of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I can not purchase a game from Steam, I can only rent a game from Steam. They retain full rights because of the DRM and my right to transfer ownership is denied.
Re: (Score:2)
Egg meet Chicken.
The reason console prices haven't dropped is in part because of the 'vibrant' secondary market. Steam proves that publishers are happy to drop prices with a captive audience.
The used games market on the consoles is bad for everyone. It artificially inflates retail prices and it denies publishers revenue and instead hands it to useless organizations like Gamestop.
Re: (Score:2)
This is backwards. If there are inexpensive second hand sales this will drive down the costs of the first-sale products to match. Games are cheaper on Steam only when they're older, and even then it seems to take much longer for games to fall into the $9.99 bargain bin prices on Steam than they do in a brick and mortar store. Competition should reduce costs overall, which is why publishers strive to eliminate competition so that they can keep the profits high.
The comparison though is hard to make because
Re: (Score:2)
But a lot of them DO sell for that. Greatest Hits get down to the $20 level.. and as I mentioned in another thread, there's an Amazon sale of buy 2 get 1 free. There were some $20 or less games there too, so if you can find 3 you want, that's effectively $13.33/game.
Re: (Score:2)
you can always sell your entire steam account. hah. as if you couldn't sell your wow accounts too.
Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Steam has one of the highest prices I have EVER seen. They drop them not that often, so you can buy some older games for still full price. And well... each new one goes for around 50-60€, while local retailer will sell it for around 15-30€ - boxed! Even if Steam puts something on sale its still often more expensive than my local retailers, tho I must admit sometimes its cheaper or shipping costs and me having to watch for mail makes Steam a bit more convenient. But overall its very expensive, espe
Re: (Score:1)
Oh and fyi: I live in Luxembourg
Re: (Score:2)
I figure that your retailers match their price to earnings of their customers, so it could be hard to find something as cheap as here. Problem with Steam is that (from what I can tell) they have the same price for everyone in Europe. If new games for PC would be priced at 50-60€ at retail in Poland, then almost no one would buy. There are people here who need to live out of 300€ a month, and families with 3+kids that have "just" 600€ in total. 30€ for a game is already a hefty price + ha
Re: (Score:2)
While you're correct, you're in a bit of an edge case (albeit a bit one) since you have to deal with that whole $1=1€ thing on steam.
The rest of us paying in USD generally get games cheaper on Steam.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there used to be, but as far as I know, not anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Steam has bargain games, but retail stores have bargain bins. When you look at new games Steam is not selling at a bargain.
I have even gotten one of my only Steam games from a retail store _cheaper_ than Steam was selling it online!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they already have me hooked. Prices are low, selection is good...
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, you lose the ability to sell your games, but you get a lot in return. Install on many machines, including at work, laptop, desktop, etc. You can only play one at a time, but thats ok, and fair within the idea of buying "a" game.
You can forget about losing the disk, or scratching it. Installing is pretty painless and reasonably quick. They have great sale prices if you shop a bit. You can still play games many years after you buy them (I'm playing games I bought in 99, ie: HL1, TFC, which was e
Re: (Score:2)
Steam isn't perfect true. It's also evil. DRM should be boycotted by anyone with a brain who does not want to give away their rights merely because they're drooling over a game. It's not as restrictive a DRM as some other places, but it is still DRM and they have control over the game you paid money for. They're not doing this to stop piracy, but to stop second hand sales which is a right you should have as a consumer. But most people don't care because they no longer think about owning a game anymore
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's sneaky, get people to object over "bad" DRM and have the cozy up to "good" DRM and even go so far as to defend the DRM. To some people Steam is convenient so they conveniently overlook the fact that their rights are being removed. As long as a publisher has a game that someone wants, you can make them jump over flaming hoops to get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Steam's amazing sales go beyond the need to buy used. Nowhere else can you get a used copy of BFBC2 for console for $5.
What do you think will happen if steam should become some dominate that there is no longer a functioning used market?
Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say I'd stop buying Ubisoft games, but I have mostly stopped buying games except thru Steam anyway.
Wait you'd stop buying ubisoft because they are trying to kill the 2ndary market, because you buy on steam where they already did?
Hell.. on steam... you can't even lend or give a game away, never mind resell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That idiotic-sounding gaming industry insider has a point. How is he supposed to feed his family without his profit?
Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market (Score:4, Insightful)
I lend quite often. It's called I switch my password to something temporary to let a buddy play...
This is in blatent violation of the Terms of Service you agreed to.
And while your buddy is playing an online game, you can't login. Even if you own 20 other multiplayer games and wish to play something that is not in use....
or just signin once to their machine, download the game, and put the hack on to put Steam into permanent offline mode on their machine.
Effectively cracking the system to let your friend play it. Why not just have your friend torrent a cracked copy? How is what you've done any better?
Plus this method ensures you can't lend someone an online game, and/or that the lendee can't do any multi-player.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you can give away a Steam game by cheating to get around Steam's rules. Seems to me that Steam has some restrictions in their model that you don't like.
I'd rather have a game that I can give away publicly without hacking or cheating the system.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>>DRM free games are a pipe dream, unless you don't mind only playing ancient games from GOG.com, or freeware, open source crap
Ooh... shouldn't have gone there on Slashdot. =)
Even though it's kind of weird to say it, console games are more "free" (as in protection of first sale doctrine rights, not as in beer) than PC games these days. For a long time now, retail copies of PC games come with a one-time code to register it online, and once you've registered your copy of, say, Diablo II, nobody else can
Re: (Score:2)
If Valve wanted to stop that they could make installing the game on multiple computers a massive pain in the ass. But they don't. I think they know that lending doesn't kill the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, guys, remember the good days, like Mech2? (Score:1)
Where they didn't have multiplayer done in time, so they released it as a standalone FOR FREE?
Yeah, I miss that too.
So what will the new excuse be? (Score:2)
Most I have discussed this with have talked about this being their last "console generation" if even half of them follow through and go back to pc gaming how do you think the publishers are going to explain away lost sales. Back when I was still console gaming a few years ago I would occasionally buy used games and when good they usually enticed me to buy the next title when it was released. Most that I know that buy used do so because they aren't willing to pay $60 for a game so they wait until it hits a
Re: (Score:2)
"how do you think the publishers are going to explain away lost sales"
Piracy & hackers.
Re: (Score:1)
Newspeak (Score:2)
"Uplay Passport-enhanced games"
Or rather: Uplay Passport-crippled games.
fine by me (Score:2)
I wont touch a ubisoft game because of their retarded DRM stunts
fuck sony
THQ? what do they make aside from crap wrestling and movie games, and the occasional total shit port to another system (road rash 64 pops to mind)
And yes EA I am still pissed that nearly 10 years ago I bought Tiger Woods Golf for my pretty new palm 5 (and it was a great game), but you stole from me around 6 months later. (there is a cd key but it does not work with the game, you go to a long dead website, enter that seed, and get the c
Hmm.... (Score:2)
Whether this movement is a good thing depends on one major factor: the price of used games.
If, because used games have less value thanks to not being able to go online, resellers drop prices, then I actually like the idea a lot. For me, who doesn't give a shit about most multiplayer components in games, I'd much rather get a single player-only game for cheaper. Mark down the prices by ten bucks and let me decide whether I'll get the MP component or not. In fact, that kind of modularity would be nice even at
Coming Soon... (Score:1)
Uplay Passport 'enhanced' (Score:1)
Great! (Score:1)
The thing I love most about gaming is ENTERING FUCKING LONG CODES and dealing with complex registration and login bullshit (UBI and EA tend to be the most fucking convoluted).
This is a good thing... (Score:3)
I love that the big publishers are doing this. It alienates consumers and makes small indie products even more attractive.
Keep digging those graves, you greedy bastards!
Enhanced (Score:4, Informative)
This word works great in other contexts as well:
Hurricane Katrina flooding = enhanced swimming.
9/11 = enhanced travel services.
rape = enhanced snuggling.
concentration camps = enhanced lodging.
Now of course I'm not comparing Ubisoft to the holocaust. That would be absurd. Ubisoft is worse than the holocaust.
This really irritates me... not because I buy... (Score:2)
used products but as someone who has multiple XBL accounts in the house. I'm not paying the publishers extra money just because my son, my daughter and I like to have separate achievements. Figured this out when I went to play the latest NFS... worse, I own it on my PC but there's no way to go, "Hey, I own two copies of this, let me play!"
Fuck the people who do this. The games are already shoddy pieces of crap which are unimaginative, buggy, and overpriced - now you want more? I'll just stop buying - for