THQ Joins the Used Game Fight

[Andy Chalk]

THQ Joins the Used Game Fight

THQ has confirmed that UFC 2010 Undisputed [http://www.ufcundisputed.com/#/home] will contain single-use codes for online play, making it the latest publisher to require pre-owned purchasers to pay extra to get everything.

EA Sports was first out of the gate with the announcement of UFC 2010 Undisputed [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100582-EA-Sports-Unveils-Launch-Day-DLC-Program-Online-Pass] comes out next week. The game will come with a code that players will need if they want to play online and once it's used, future owners will need to cough up five bucks for the privilege.

The 2010 edition of the game will include a new "Fight Camp" mode that will let players train together in groups of up to 40 people. "This multiplayer content for UFC Undisputed 2010 will be available via a one-time code included with the game at purchase," the publisher explained in a statement to Destructoid [http://www.destructoid.com/ufc-undisputed-2010-requires-code-to-play-online-update--174080.phtml]. "Codes for accessing the content will be available for second-time buyers for an additional $5."

It sure didn't take long for EA's "experiment" to morph into "the way things are." It looks like this is the future, kids. I suggest you get used to it.


Permalink

 

[joystickjunki3]

And just like that, I will not support THQ anymore.

 

[Jared]

Seems to be fashion at the moment. Not that its a totally bad thing, giving people more reason to buy new.

Got a feeling they wont be the last ones to jump into the fray

 

[JeanLuc761]

I'm still iffy on this whole concept. On the one hand, I fully respect developer's desire to make as much profit on the game as they can and offering "enticements" for new copies is a good way to do it.
On the other hand, I don't like the notion that devs will start removing "integral", for lack of a better word, aspects of the game in order to punish those who buy the game used.

I work at Gamestop and there are very few customers who come in looking for major releases in the used section immediately after the game comes out.
However, one thing I tend to notice is that many people buy used because "it's cheaper." Maybe if developers would lower the prices of their games a bit quicker, buying new would feel like a better idea.

Oh well, we'll see how it goes.

 

[Darktau]

And just like that, I will not support THQ anymore.

Same, stupid corporates.

 

[Billion Backs]

Yep, people might as well get used to it.

... Damn I sure wish OP didn't use this obvious pun in the article so I could pretend to be smart and witty now...

Either buy it full price, or pirate it.

 

[SniperWolf427]

It looks like this is the future, kids. I suggest you get used to it.

*Ba-dum pish*

In all seriousness, I have no problem with this new solution. The developers need to make money and this is an understandable way to do it. It's much preferable to intrusive DRM, the apparent solution to piracy.

And the 3 - 4 dollars you save buying used is never worth it anyways.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Isn't this completely doing the opposite of what they want to happen? Sometimes some companies need a good punch to the face.

 

[microhive]

The question still remains, will Blizzard eventually join the flock?

 

[HK_01]

Is this even legal?

 

[Sneaklemming]

Not surprising to be honest. I know once their managerial accounts linked piracy and used sales language - that this would happen.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Is this even legal?

Of course it is. It's their game and they can do what they want with it. Whether or not the consumer agrees to it and purchases the title is a different story entirely.

The logic behind making online $5 for used purchases is twofold:
1) It's an enticement to purchase the game new and not have to deal with the hassle.
2) Most used games are just $5 cheaper, so forcing customers to pay for the "full thing" completely offsets the benefit of used.

It's simply an attempt to get more sales for the developer, rather than secondhand.

 

[Olikunmissile]

So what if my console died? Then what? I'd have to pay again? Fuck them! I will never buy a game that has this in it.

I always loved THQ for publishing S.T.A.L.K.E.R if the next game has that in it I won't be buying >.>

 

[Riobux]

First THQ feels the need to make you sign up for an account if you want to play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call Of Pripyat online, and now this...

Thanks for contributing to the death of gaming culture, along with EA and Activision. I'm sure Rockstar Games will be joining you in time.

 

[XainBushido]

I mean me personally why do I buy used? Well because the warranty is better, like gamestop for example with their either 7 day return no worries. Or it might be 30 now I havent a clue. But if I buy a new game out the game hate it if I bring it back guess what I get a lousy 25.00 back on a 60.00 game. I mean I have to do serious research on games before I spend for a new copy. Thats just me though, I got burned to many times when I was younger on buying new games only to get stuck with things like Countdown Vampires. Oh don't worry kids it's RE 2 with vampires. Um Liar.

So anyway making me have to buy new just to get what is including on the disk is kind of redundant I need a code to play online but the game has online mode. Is it my fault the guy who bought it brought it back because either they didn't like it or made some trades for something else. If you nix out the used game market developers are going to lose a lot of players because why else would I give a random game studio a shot unless I really knew their product. Start holding modes in games hostage to buy new only irritates people.

However just my opinion on this and nothing more.

 

[Bicko]

@olikunmissile: I assume this will involve some sort of account, the way most things have done for the last few years, so you don't lose your DLC.

You've also gotta remember that there's an important difference between a Publisher and Developer. Publishers tend to push this DRM stuff because it makes the biggest impact on their income, Ubisoft and THQ are companies that are both devs and publishers.

I'm generally against DRM, but this one seems to make sense.. because if I had no plans to play online then I've actually saved money on a game, but if at some point I decide I want to play online I now have the option.

 

[ASnogarD]

See thats what happens when you let small things slip past, it grows and get bigger and worse until its a de facto standard, then the next little thing starts...

DLC... it started as a small little gimmick, now its standard to have DLC. It wont be long till we will be asked to pay full prices for portions of the game as it gets sold in downloadable chunks.
£20 for stage 1 ?

... same with MMO's, started off paying subs for everchanging content, now we pay subs and pay for expansions , and now more recently items in the game.

(Seen the latest AoC letter ?
Offers you the chance to buy the Might of Crom pack which includes rare items that cant be obtained in the game, powerfull items... last I checked AoC was a subscription based game)

 

[chemicalfire]

I cannot afford to buy new games most of the time, so I rely on being able to trade in my older games to buffer the cost. When companies like Activision won't drop the price on their older games (Modern Warfare was still full price here when MW2 came out), it makes the waiting process needlessly long. Most of my fellow gamers rely on the trade in system to be able afford our hobby. If I lose the ability to utilize the used games market, then my overall financial participation will drop. I'll buy less games and less downloadable content. Considering that I almost always tade in games for store credit to purchase a new game, this would actually effect the developers.

 

[DrunkWithPower]

Looks like the "Let's not attack the pirates, let's attack the customers" idea is heading full steam. Let me break out my chalkboard and nazi imagery.