Ubisoft Prepares "Uplay Passport" - UPDATED

[Andy Chalk]

Ubisoft Prepares "Uplay Passport" - UPDATED

Ubisoft will become the latest publisher to hop aboard the "online pass" train when it rolls out the Uplay Passport with Driver: San Francisco [http://www.amazon.com/Driver-San-Francisco-Pc/dp/B002I0HFBC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1310696418&sr=8-4].

The "online pass" system has become pretty popular since EA introduced it back in early 2010 with Dragon Age: Origins [http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Effect-2-Pc/dp/B001VJ4DHK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1310696617&sr=8-3]. The concept is fairly simple: buy a game new, get full access to everything; buy it used and you'll have to fork over another ten bucks to the publisher for missing content, or do without. The most common component held back in new releases is online play, which is the route Ubisoft has taken with Uplay Passport in the upcoming Driver: San Francisco.

Online multiplayer access in the new Driver game will be restricted to those who buy a new copy of the game or pony up for a Uplay Passport code through Xbox Live or the PlayStation Network. Pricing hasn't yet been announced, nor is it known what other Ubisoft titles currently in the works will employ the system, although Gamerzines [http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Creed-Revelations-Pc/dp/B002I0IHIM/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1310696722&sr=8-3] that is he currently "not aware" of the scheme.

Ubisoft said back in May 2010 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100755-Ubisoft-Planning-Its-Own-Project-Ten-Dollar] that it was "looking very carefully" at EA's "Project Ten Dollar," with an eye toward launching its own similar system at some point in the future. Since then, Sony, THQ and Rockstar have all rolled out their own online passes and now it seems that Ubisoft has finally caught up with the pack.

Driver: San Francisco comes out on August 30 for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii, 3DS, Mac and PC.

UPDATE: Ubisoft has confirmed that the Uplay Passport is in fact a thing, telling Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35900/Report_Ubisoft_Introducing_Its_Own_Online_Pass_System.php] that it will "provide players with access to bonus content, exclusive offers, and online multiplayer play" for "many of Ubisoft's popular core games." Uplay Passport codes for those who buy used copies of Ubisoft games will be available separately for $9.99.


Permalink

 

[King Toasty]

I buy most games new anyways, so meh. I can see this getting annoying, though.

 

[Arehexes]

Why is thismultiplayer pass thing so "news worthy" now, why not we just assume this. Head Lines:All game companies now own your game you just buy a pass to use the software, if you trade it the disc will melt."

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Why is thismultiplayer pass thing so "news worthy" now, why not we just assume this. Head Lines:All game companies now own your game you just buy a pass to use the software, if you trade it the disc will melt."

Were that true, that would be a sad day.

Anyways, things like this are reasonable if they are only $10 or so. Still, it does get annoying to put in a code with every new game.

 

[infohippie]

I only ever buy new, so it makes no real impact on me. Of course, I won't be buying this at all, since it's published by Ubisoft and I'm never giving them any of my beer tokens ever again.

 

[Sucal]

I think this is rather fair. Or at least more fair then some of the EA project ten dollar versions. I mean sure, you don't play multiplayer but not everyone wants to play multiplayer. Much better then Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Ages removal of a character anyway.

Especially since Zaeed and Shale were such unique and useful characters that fulfilled vital party roles.

 

[Stormz]

Only restricting online play is a lot better then restricting game content, but it still isn't fair in the least and I really wish this whole used game sales thing would pass, I'm not stupid though, I know it never will.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Sheesh. Again with this pass thing? Good thing I could care less about online play, but to those folks who do play online and have to put up with this garbage, I feel for you. I really do.

Somebody needs to slap these companies in the face and in the coinpurse by not buying products that have this coding. It's starting to get a bit out of hand.

Note to Ubisoft: EA is a company of money grubbers. If you learn money-earning tactics from them, you sink parts of your user base in response.

 

[Kaytastrophe]

All this means is that gamestop and similar stores will offer less for trade ins and subsequently lower the price of the used games. I assume used games is where the money is for retail stores. They will do whatever they have to make sure this continues.

Wouldn't it be great if stores like gamestop made some sort of deal where they purchase these passes en mass at a cheaper price and pass the savings onto the consumer. It would be a situation that would benefit everyone to a certain degree (developers get their money, used game sales continue, and players aren't effected too much).

 

[therandombear]

I only buy new anyways...it is actually cheaper to buy new games then old games here...usually.

So..not really phased by this >.>

 

[The Random One]

That's OK for games like, well, Driver, in which multiplayer is an afterthought. Might end up being counterintuitive. (Buy this game, then pay extra to play through the worst parts!) As long as you don't pay if you buy the game new it's objectively better than DLC. The best style was how EA did for Battlefield Bad Company 2, in which if you got the game new you'd constantly get new stuff.

But nothing could stop me from playing my most wanted game, TANNER: GHOST COP.

 

[Noogai]

It's okay, no one was planning to buy Driver: whatever anyways.

 

[Epona]

Just another step towards console games having PC-type activation codes.

 

[Arehexes]

Why is thismultiplayer pass thing so "news worthy" now, why not we just assume this. Head Lines:All game companies now own your game you just buy a pass to use the software, if you trade it the disc will melt."

Were that true, that would be a sad day.

Anyways, things like this are reasonable if they are only $10 or so. Still, it does get annoying to put in a code with every new game.

Now you have hit the high life of being a PC gamer, welcome to the club here is your party hat and Ram in bikini (Hell why do you think PC gamers love it so much, that's right it's the ram).

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Why is thismultiplayer pass thing so "news worthy" now, why not we just assume this. Head Lines:All game companies now own your game you just buy a pass to use the software, if you trade it the disc will melt."

Were that true, that would be a sad day.

Anyways, things like this are reasonable if they are only $10 or so. Still, it does get annoying to put in a code with every new game.

Now you have hit the high life of being a PC gamer, welcome to the club here is your party hat and Ram in bikini (Hell why do you think PC gamers love it so much, that's right it's the ram).

Don't count on it yet. I'll go down fighting

And really, if it becomes so bad where you cannot buy physical games, I will just find a new hobby

 

[TheLoneBeet]

I buy most games new anyways, so meh. I can see this getting annoying, though.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Crelda]

Personally I am on the game devs side for this as long as they keep the removed content to multilayer access. If the companies who make the games aren't getting paid when you buy their game why should they let you use their servers and use up their bandwidth?
Game devs should be able to offer something extra to the people who who actually give them money.

 

[Arehexes]

Why is thismultiplayer pass thing so "news worthy" now, why not we just assume this. Head Lines:All game companies now own your game you just buy a pass to use the software, if you trade it the disc will melt."

Were that true, that would be a sad day.

Anyways, things like this are reasonable if they are only $10 or so. Still, it does get annoying to put in a code with every new game.

Now you have hit the high life of being a PC gamer, welcome to the club here is your party hat and Ram in bikini (Hell why do you think PC gamers love it so much, that's right it's the ram).

Don't count on it yet. I'll go down fighting

And really, if it becomes so bad where you cannot buy physical games, I will just find a new hobby

Same here, maybe I can finish a programming book instead of going half way and winging it.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Personally I am on the game devs side for this as long as they keep the removed content to multilayer access. If the companies who make the games aren't getting paid when you buy their game why should they let you use their servers and use up their bandwidth?
Game devs should be able to offer something extra to the people who who actually give them money.

I would argue this: Because they already sold a copy of the game you are using. By the vary nature of a used sale, the person who bought the product first is no longer playing the game. Despite my dislike for Angry Joe, he did make a good point on this with Homefront: One sale = one person on your servers. It isn't costing you any more than person A keeping it forever.

I do want devs and publishers to make money, but for a used market to exist. Giving a reward to a new player is much better then locking out function for a second-hand player.

 

[Crelda]

Personally I am on the game devs side for this as long as they keep the removed content to multilayer access. If the companies who make the games aren't getting paid when you buy their game why should they let you use their servers and use up their bandwidth?
Game devs should be able to offer something extra to the people who who actually give them money.

I would argue this: Because they already sold a copy of the game you are using. By the vary nature of a used sale, the person who bought the product first is no longer playing the game. Despite my dislike for Angry Joe, he did make a good point on this with Homefront: One sale = one person on your servers. It isn't costing you any more than person A keeping it forever.

I do want devs and publishers to make money, but for a used market to exist. Giving a reward to a new player is much better then locking out function for a second-hand player.

The problem I find with that argument is that if a used version of a game is £2 less than a new one, then there will be people who would have bought the game for the full price but were deterred from it due to a slightly cheaper alternative being available for no compromise. That is one less person who has effectively paid the developers for their game than should have. I know that isn't always the case with all people who buy second hand especially if there is a bigger price gap but I hope you see my point.

In terms of rewards over locking out functionality I do agree that is the better option. Though I am sceptical that it could have the same kind of sway.