Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubisoft-ONLINE PA$$

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ubisoft-ONLINE PA$$

    Following Sony's decision to make used games require an online pass, Ubisoft is also going in the same direction with their games. If you want to play Assassin's Creed: Revelations online without paying a fee, you'll have to buy the game new.

    Ubisoft has confirmed the Uplay Passport, which the publisher says begins in the coming months and will be included "in many of Ubisoft's popular core games."

    "Customers who've acquired a pre-owned game can purchase a new Uplay Passport online for $9.99 and automatically unlock the game's online content and features," Ubisoft said. "Starting with the upcoming Driver: San Francisco release, games featuring the new Uplay Passport will offer gamers exclusive bonus content plus access to online features."

    Original Story: Publisher Ubisoft is preparing to launch its own online pass initiative called Uplay Passport, according to a new report from Gamerzines.

    While still unannounced officially by Ubisoft themselves, the report says the Uplay Passport will function similarly to EA's Online Pass and Sony's PSN Pass programs, where players will have to enter a one-time use code to unlock a game's online features. The code will be included with new copies of each game, but must be purchased separately for buyers of used games.

    The report says the first Ubisoft title to introduce the program is Driver: San Francisco. The publisher said in May 2010 it was looking carefully at what EA was doing with its Online Pass and will "probably follow that line at sometime" in the future.

    Calls to Ubisoft for comment were not returned at this time.

  • #2
    seems to me like everyone's just following madden's suit
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      It doesn't really effect me as I buy 95% of my games new. However, this is crossing the line imo.

      I'm not going to support developers that are this greedy, and want me to pay them $10 for a used game that I bought from someone else. Car companies don't get money for used cars that are re-sold. House builders don't get money when a house is re-sold. Computer manufactures don't get money when a computer is re-sold. If you want to make more money, get off your greedy ***** and make better games.

      I wouldn't be surprised in the future we'll P2P even new games online. Its gotten to the point where I really believe that.

      Activision will be the next company to do this. Only reason they haven't done it yet is because they pissed off enough people with CoD Elite.

      This completely screws over companies like Gamefly and especially Gamestop.
      Last edited by Amari24; 07-15-2011, 04:27 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Don't like the online pass trend thats happening at all. One big flaw is a scenario such as psn getting hacked and the store being down. When psn came back up people who bought Mortal Kombat couldn't go online because they couldn't redeem their pass cause the store was down. Developers are just money hungry.
        sigpic

        2013,2014, and 2015 Adopt a Bronco: Champ Bailey, Marvin Austin and Matt Paradis

        Comment


        • #5
          I have no problem with this, I really do not understand the issue. If you by a game used and pay say $35.00 and then have to pay $10 to play it online you still are coming out ahead. $45.00 is less the $60.00.

          I think two main factors caused this Gamefly and MMOs. Companies looked at the millions of people willing to pay monthly fees, even for new games.

          I also find it odd that people fault game companies for charging money for services like this. Saying they only care about money, when they themselves are complain about money.
          Ask me about My Jesus and how to have a relationship with Him.

          Red Sox Mafia RLF4 Life! Boston 617 Strong!
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Southstander View Post
            I have no problem with this, I really do not understand the issue. If you by a game used and pay say $35.00 and then have to pay $10 to play it online you still are coming out ahead. $45.00 is less the $60.00.

            I think two main factors caused this Gamefly and MMOs. Companies looked at the millions of people willing to pay monthly fees, even for new games.

            I also find it odd that people fault game companies for charging money for services like this. Saying they only care about money, when they themselves are complain about money.
            Companies do only care about the money. That's how they stay alive as a company and how they profit. It's how they get payed. If they can find a new way to profit from their product then why not. It won't stop until people quit buying video games.
            sigpic
            2013 Adopted Bronco - Duke Ihenacho

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Amari24 View Post
              It doesn't really effect me as I buy 95% of my games new. However, this is crossing the line imo.

              I'm not going to support developers that are this greedy, and want me to pay them $10 for a used game that I bought from someone else. Car companies don't get money for used cars that are re-sold. House builders don't get money when a house is re-sold. Computer manufactures don't get money when a computer is re-sold. If you want to make more money, get off your greedy ***** and make better games.

              I wouldn't be surprised in the future we'll P2P even new games online. Its gotten to the point where I really believe that.

              Activision will be the next company to do this. Only reason they haven't done it yet is because they pissed off enough people with CoD Elite.

              This completely screws over companies like Gamefly and especially Gamestop.
              i buy new as well

              i'm just surprised more wasn't made of this when madden did it a year ago
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JakeNbake View Post
                Companies do only care about the money. That's how they stay alive as a company and how they profit. It's how they get payed. If they can find a new way to profit from their product then why not. It won't stop until people quit buying video games.
                exactly, as they say, you've got to vote with a bullet, and your only logical bullet is your consumer dollars
                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  I don't have a problem with it, but I definitely don't support it neither. It makes me sick watching companies like Activision support CoD Elite when their games is already selling well, it's unnecessary. That's my only gripe. I don't have an issue with online passes, I just hate seeing them placed on already successful franchises. Homefront is a game that needs an online pass, most people would buy it used and having a $10 online fee would help them out. CoD (for example) should NOT have an additional online fee if it's used. The game is already successful enough to where it doesn't need it.

                  But like I said, I buy most of my games new, and I'm mostly all about the single player experience, save FPS's.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    They're transitioning to an "app store" kind of model, where games would be non-transferable. I have the same difficulty with Kindle books -- in the old days, I could buy a book and then my wife could read it. Now, it's a hassle because I bought a digital copy. It's like I bought the right for me to read it, instead of buying an actual book.

                    There may come a time when you don't need a disk to play the best games. (I don't know -- combination of dowload and web-hosted data. At this time, still quite a bit of data required to be sending over the web).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jay3 View Post
                      They're transitioning to an "app store" kind of model, where games would be non-transferable. I have the same difficulty with Kindle books -- in the old days, I could buy a book and then my wife could read it. Now, it's a hassle because I bought a digital copy. It's like I bought the right for me to read it, instead of buying an actual book.

                      There may come a time when you don't need a disk to play the best games. (I don't know -- combination of dowload and web-hosted data. At this time, still quite a bit of data required to be sending over the web).
                      that time is coming soon i'd think

                      infamous 2 was released in download form on the ps3 store only a week or 2 after release

                      if companies can ever figure out a way to provide either a great streamed game experience, or make the storage for these games inconsequential to the hard drive space, i think that time will be here
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Amari24 View Post
                        It doesn't really effect me as I buy 95% of my games new. However, this is crossing the line imo.

                        I'm not going to support developers that are this greedy, and want me to pay them $10 for a used game that I bought from someone else. Car companies don't get money for used cars that are re-sold. House builders don't get money when a house is re-sold. Computer manufactures don't get money when a computer is re-sold. If you want to make more money, get off your greedy ***** and make better games.
                        Cars and Houses are major purchases. Video games are inconsequential.

                        Cars and Houses are generally requirements to live our lives. Video games are purely for entertainment.

                        Cars and Houses are generally long-term investments. Video games generally lose value to their owners once they've played.

                        Cars and Houses require upkeep by their owners over time, meaning further investment by their owners. Not including subscription-based games, you generally don't fork over any more cash for a video game once you've made the initial purchase.

                        Cars and Houses degrade over time and only persistent effort by their owners keep them in good, working order. Video games can be passed on and played exactly the same as if purchased new.

                        Video games are not comparable to cars and houses

                        And if you're going to be using the game manufacturer's bandwith to play online, there's definitely good reason for them to charge a new owner of a previously purchased game.

                        Originally posted by Amari24 View Post
                        I don't have a problem with it, but I definitely don't support it neither. It makes me sick watching companies like Activision support CoD Elite when their games is already selling well, it's unnecessary. That's my only gripe. I don't have an issue with online passes, I just hate seeing them placed on already successful franchises. Homefront is a game that needs an online pass, most people would buy it used and having a $10 online fee would help them out. CoD (for example) should NOT have an additional online fee if it's used. The game is already successful enough to where it doesn't need it.

                        But like I said, I buy most of my games new, and I'm mostly all about the single player experience, save FPS's.
                        Yeah, but who's to say that a game is "successful enough" to not charge a fee to new owners? Game manufacturers can do what they want and if people aren't willing to pay for it, they'll change their tune.
                        "You can't take the sky from me..."
                        ------
                        "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Javalon View Post
                          Cars and Houses are major purchases. Video games are inconsequential.

                          Cars and Houses are generally requirements to live our lives. Video games are purely for entertainment.

                          Cars and Houses are generally long-term investments. Video games generally lose value to their owners once they've played.

                          Cars and Houses require upkeep by their owners over time, meaning further investment by their owners. Not including subscription-based games, you generally don't fork over any more cash for a video game once you've made the initial purchase.

                          Cars and Houses degrade over time and only persistent effort by their owners keep them in good, working order. Video games can be passed on and played exactly the same as if purchased new.

                          Video games are not comparable to cars and houses

                          And if you're going to be using the game manufacturer's bandwith to play online, there's definitely good reason for them to charge a new owner of a previously purchased game.



                          Yeah, but who's to say that a game is "successful enough" to not charge a fee to new owners? Game manufacturers can do what they want and if people aren't willing to pay for it, they'll change their tune.
                          Yeah but look at Computers, Laptops, and DVD's for example. If I were to re-sell my gaming laptop for $300, HP wouldn't be getting any of that money. If I were to re-sell a Blu Ray disc I purchased a while ago to someone else, Samsung, Sony, Phillips, etc. get no money out of it.

                          Cars and Houses are generally requirements to live our lives. Video games are purely for entertainment.
                          It depends. I wouldn't say a Ferrari or any luxurious car is requirement to live.

                          Video games can be passed on and played exactly the same as if purchased new.
                          Video game disk also degrade overtime. They're not invincible to scratches and scuffs.

                          Not including subscription-based games, you generally don't fork over any more cash for a video game once you've made the initial purchase.
                          Those $15 CoD map packs would like to have a word with you. Also, you were pretty much forced to buy the Halo 3 map packs, if you even wanted to experience the MP. DLC is made for the sole purpose of the consumer forking out extra cash after buying the game.

                          Yeah, but who's to say that a game is "successful enough" to not charge a fee to new owners? Game manufacturers can do what they want and if people aren't willing to pay for it, they'll change their tune
                          If you're game is a top selling franchise (Halo, BF, CoD, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, Gran Turismo, Uncharted, etc.) You don't need an online pass, period. Those games will sell well regardless.

                          However, if it's a game that's sandwhiched between those successful games, like Crysis or Homefront, for example, then those games absolutely need an online pass. The types of games that people would settle for used, over something new (like CoD), are games that should have them. In credit to the article, Driver: SF, is a game that should have one imo.

                          [QUOTE]
                          And if you're going to be using the game manufacturer's bandwith to play online, there's definitely good reason for them to charge a new owner of a previously purchased game.
                          [QUOTE]
                          So what about the people who are paying $60+ a year for online? You think they should have to pay an extra $10 to play a used game online?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I mostly buy new, so this doesnt hit me at all. I have been interested in this topic though.

                            Apparently Gamestop has already adjusted their prices accordingly for this type of situation. If there is an online game pass that will be required they generally charge $10 less than they would.

                            For Gamefly, I have read that most of these game pass situations have a 7 day trial or something per account (and some limitations to rank or other goodies), so Gamefly doesnt seem to be hit as hard.

                            In the end it will hit the people who resell the hardest. Gamestop will lower their buy back prices (tough to go lower than the crap they offer, but still).

                            I am really just surprised it took this long for the outrage. I was pissed when Madden started micro-transacting every little thing. "Hey you want to draft good? Well pay $2 for this add-on"
                            Kyle: Dude! I almost thought those Afghani kids talked you into not liking America.
                            Stan: No, dude. America may have some problems, but it's our home. Our team. And if you don't wanna root for your team, then you should get the hell out of the stadium.
                            Kyle: Yeah.
                            Stan:<salutes the American flag> Go America.
                            Kyle:<salutes> Go America...

                            Kyle: Go Broncos.
                            Stan: Yeah, go Broncos.
                            Cartman: Yeah.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Southstander View Post
                              I have no problem with this, I really do not understand the issue. If you by a game used and pay say $35.00 and then have to pay $10 to play it online you still are coming out ahead. $45.00 is less the $60.00.

                              I think two main factors caused this Gamefly and MMOs. Companies looked at the millions of people willing to pay monthly fees, even for new games.

                              I also find it odd that people fault game companies for charging money for services like this. Saying they only care about money, when they themselves are complain about money.
                              When was the last time you saw a game that was $60 new going for $35 used? Oh that's right... never? If you look at the prices it's generally a $5 mark down, but I always go used because they generally have awesome deals going on like buy 2 used get 1 used free. Now when I do that, you're telling me I need an extra $30 if these are all games with co-op/multiplayer?

                              I definitely hate this new deal going around, big name games I buy new, pretty much everything else I'll rent or get used, and guess what... now I pretty much cant. If I'm buying it used it's because I wouldn't have bought it new otherwise, and they've already made their money off of this game since you know.... it's already used. If the game is good enough they'll make money off of me with their lame excuse for DLC, or hell, if I like it that much I'll buy the sequel new. They need to worry about making a game that I want the day it comes out, not stiffing people for their online services.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X