THQ Drops the Ball With UFC Unlimited Multiplayer Codes

[Andy Chalk]

THQ Drops the Ball With UFC Unlimited Multiplayer Codes

THQ's attempt to incorporate a Project Ten Dollar-style multiplayer code in UFC Undisputed 2010 [http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=76650] doesn't seem to be going too smoothly, as a "technical issue" with redemptions has resulted in some gamers unintentionally purchasing unneeded extra codes.

New copies of EA [http://www.thq.com], but there's been a bump in the road: Many gamers have reported difficulty in figuring out what to do with the code and some have even ended up purchasing new codes despite already having the one included with the game.

The biggest issue appears to be the fact that the code cannot be redeemed from within the game, but must instead be entered through the Xbox Live Marketplace or the PlayStation Store menu. According to Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/5548361/ufc-onlines-one+use-code-a-lesson-in-how-not-to-do-it-%5Bupdated%5D], gamers who install the launch-day patch on the Xbox 360 are then informed that new DLC is available and, if they choose to update, are taken to the Marketplace, where it is listed at 400 Microsoft points. No warning that the game includes a code for a free update is given.

It's enough of a mess that THQ has posted detailed instructions [http://community.ufcundisputed.com/blog-post/looking-get-online-multiplayer-read-post] on how to get multiplayer working on both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and issued a statement acknowledging the missteps. "At midnight on May 24, the UFC Undisputed 2010 Microsoft servers went live and we experienced a technical issue with the code redemption," it said. "We are working on a permanent fix and will update our community site as soon as it's live."

The company also claimed that the game's online manual [http://2010.ufcundisputed.com/manual/] contains a "step-by-step explanation of the redemption process," but I didn't have any luck finding it.

I've made no secret of the fact that I like EA's Project Ten Dollar [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98981-New-Mass-Effect-2-Weapon-Hits-the-Cerberus-Network] initiative, but THQ's offering, while similar on the surface, has it entirely backwards. The object is to reward people, not punish them. The difference may be subtle, but this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you get it mixed up.


Permalink

 

[nevernow]

Since when the objective of this "offering" is to reward people? It's obviously to punish and discourage used games sellers and buyers. Is there any doubt about this?

 

[Outright Villainy]

Having a few extra quests or something is fine. Locking out your entire multiplayer content because someone didn't buy it new is just a dick move. The fact that it's such a mess doesn't help either.

 

[Kevlar Eater]

It seems like THQ wants more money from those who buy the game new. (joke)

 

[Irridium]

Having a few extra quests or something is fine. Locking out your entire multiplayer content because someone didn't buy it new is just a dick move. The fact that it's such a mess doesn't help either.

Yeah. What he said.

And also, what I said about this earlier, what if I buy this and my brother wants to play, or if I loan it to a friend, or if I bring it to a friends house to play, will everyone else have to pay $5 to play online?

I don't mind a few quests or extra goodies, but to lock out a whole part of the game, thats just wrong.

 

[Deofuta]

And what about rental companies such as Blockbuster? Do they perchance make a different version for them?

 

[CyberKnight]

This is all fine and dandy, if somewhat harsher than the approach pioneered by EA [http://www.ea.com] [...]

I've made no secret of the fact that I like EA's Project Ten Dollar [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98981-New-Mass-Effect-2-Weapon-Hits-the-Cerberus-Network] initiative, but THQ's offering, while similar on the surface, has it entirely backwards. The object is to reward people, not punish them. The difference may be subtle, but this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you get it mixed up.

What did I miss here?

How, exactly, is THQ's "free code if you buy it new, $5 code if you get it used" strategy "harsher" and "backwards" compared to EA's "free if you buy it new, $10 if you get it used" strategy?

Both punish gamers, even new gamers that now have to manage part of the game as DLC between Xboxes and users in their own house.

[edit] I guess I should clarify, since you linked to Cerberus Network, which is content rather than multiplayer; but EA is doing this with online multiplayer gaming as well: Online Pass [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100582-EA-Sports-Unveils-Launch-Day-DLC-Program-Online-Pass]

 

[Jared]

Well, it was evident things like this would hapen eventually. Lets hope custoemr service is up to scratch

 

[Andy Chalk]

Since when the objective of this "offering" is to reward people? It's obviously to punish and discourage used games sellers and buyers. Is there any doubt about this?

How, exactly, is THQ's "free code if you buy it new, $5 code if you get it used" strategy "harsher" and "backwards" compared to EA's "free if you buy it new, $10 if you get it used" strategy?

Under EA's system, people who buy new get extra shit: Extra guns, extra characters, extra quests. There would have been zero complaints if EA hadn't created Shale or the Firewalker pack, because absolutely nothing would have changed. We'd never even have known.

But with UFC Undisputed, THQ crippled a core component of gameplay, and then made a mess out of the system that was supposed to enable it. One giveth, one taketh away; the desired result may be the same but it's very much a carrot vs. stick approach.

 

[GonzoGamer]

See also DRM Doomed article a couple of stories down.

 

[Delusibeta]

This is all fine and dandy, if somewhat harsher than the approach pioneered by EA [http://www.ea.com] [...]

I've made no secret of the fact that I like EA's Project Ten Dollar [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/98981-New-Mass-Effect-2-Weapon-Hits-the-Cerberus-Network] initiative, but THQ's offering, while similar on the surface, has it entirely backwards. The object is to reward people, not punish them. The difference may be subtle, but this is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you get it mixed up.

What did I miss here?

How, exactly, is THQ's "free code if you buy it new, $5 code if you get it used" strategy "harsher" and "backwards" compared to EA's "free if you buy it new, $10 if you get it used" strategy?

Both punish gamers, even new gamers that now have to manage part of the game as DLC between Xboxes and users in their own house.

EA provides free DLC for people who bought new, THQ won't. Although Online Pass may muddy those waters. [Edit] Ninja'd. By the article's author, no less.

 

[mogamer]

Since when the objective of this "offering" is to reward people? It's obviously to punish and discourage used games sellers and buyers. Is there any doubt about this?

How, exactly, is THQ's "free code if you buy it new, $5 code if you get it used" strategy "harsher" and "backwards" compared to EA's "free if you buy it new, $10 if you get it used" strategy?

Under EA's system, people who buy new get extra shit: Extra guns, extra characters, extra quests. There would have been zero complaints if EA hadn't created Shale or the Firewalker pack, because absolutely nothing would have changed. We'd never even have known.

So, you're saying that multiplayer in EA Sports games is considered a bonus that doesn't affect core gameplay?

 

[Xersues]

It looks like my rant of "The day I have to pay to activate my games, is the day I stop gaming" might be getting closer.

Now I'd never buy this game, it honestly looks like a pile of stool. But any game I might actually like that takes features away for buying a used game...

I'll vote with my feet. Fuckers.

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

Andy, you COMPLETELY missed the point here. Like COMPLETELY.

The REAL headline to this news story should read:

"Somebody Bought a UFC Game!!!"

 

[Enai Siaion]

So basically it isn't too obvious that you can save $5.
I WONDER why it isn't obvious.

League of Legends pulled the same stunt: the game is free, the version on the boxed dvd is exactly the same as the free version but if you buy the box you get a code to redeem for extra characters. Too bad it doesn't exactly jump out at you that this is the case - if you don't already pretty much KNOW it, you'll install the game and ...merrily pay for extra characters, wasting ?30 on a free game. And if/when you finally figure it out and enter the redemption code, the characters you already bought are NOT refunded.

I don't believe that this is an accident. Game companies include an install section in their manual that tells the user to open their dvd player and put the dvd into it. The ingame tutorial tells you that you can click on the camera icon to change the camera. Yet there is so little information about how to save yourself an unnecessary purchase...

 

[CyberKnight]

Since when the objective of this "offering" is to reward people? It's obviously to punish and discourage used games sellers and buyers. Is there any doubt about this?

How, exactly, is THQ's "free code if you buy it new, $5 code if you get it used" strategy "harsher" and "backwards" compared to EA's "free if you buy it new, $10 if you get it used" strategy?

Under EA's system, people who buy new get extra shit: Extra guns, extra characters, extra quests. There would have been zero complaints if EA hadn't created Shale or the Firewalker pack, because absolutely nothing would have changed. We'd never even have known.

But with UFC Undisputed, THQ crippled a core component of gameplay, and then made a mess out of the system that was supposed to enable it. One giveth, one taketh away; the desired result may be the same but it's very much a carrot vs. stick approach.

Looks like my edit went in after your reply. Sorry about that; I noticed your link that you were talking about things like Cerberus Network, which adds extra content. I agree, that's probably the better way to go. But...

EA's doing the same "crippling" thing with their Online Pass [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100582-EA-Sports-Unveils-Launch-Day-DLC-Program-Online-Pass].

 

[Andy Chalk]

So, you're saying that multiplayer in EA Sports games is considered a bonus that doesn't affect core gameplay?

No, if EA Sports follows the same route with Online Pass, then I'd consider that a failure too. But for the sake of this conversation, I'm considering PTD a separate and distinct entity.

*edit: We all seem to be having issues with ninjas here.

Anyway, Project Ten Dollar as we've seen it from EA Games (ME2, DAO) is great. People who buy used will miss out, but they're not actually losing anything. Looking at ME2 as an example, Zaeed Massani was a great character and I was glad to have him along, but I didn't pick up the Kasumi DLC and I don't feel any worse off for it, so if the roles were reversed, it's no loss. That's very fair and I think the way EA really ponied up in ME2 through the Cerberus Network was great. Hope they keep it up.

But I look at stuff like this THQ stunt and what Online Pass apparently has planned (if they actually go through with it) as more akin to EA saying, well, here's Mass Effect 2 but if you happened to buy it pre-owned you'll have to fork over a $10 toll to go through the Omega 4 relay. Entirely different situation.

 

[mogamer]

So, you're saying that multiplayer in EA Sports games is considered a bonus that doesn't affect core gameplay?

No, if EA Sports follows the same route with Online Pass, then I'd consider that a failure too. But for the sake of this conversation, I'm considering PTD a separate and distinct entity.

*edit: We all seem to be having issues with ninjas here.

Anyway, Project Ten Dollar as we've seen it from EA Games (ME2, DAO) is great. People who buy used will miss out, but they're not actually losing anything. Looking at ME2 as an example, Zaeed Massani was a great character and I was glad to have him along, but I didn't pick up the Kasumi DLC and I don't feel any worse off for it, so if the roles were reversed, it's no loss. That's very fair and I think the way EA really ponied up in ME2 through the Cerberus Network was great. Hope they keep it up.

But I look at stuff like this THQ stunt and what Online Pass apparently has planned (if they actually go through with it) as more akin to EA saying, well, here's Mass Effect 2 but if you happened to buy it pre-owned you'll have to fork over a $10 toll to go through the Omega 4 relay. Entirely different situation.

EA Sports announced that online multiplayer will only be available with a code packed in new games. Used game buyers would have to spend $10 for that code. Other than being more expensive, how is this different from what THQ is doing?

 

[samsonguy920]

SNIP

Andy, you COMPLETELY missed the point here. Like COMPLETELY.

The REAL headline to this news story should read:

"Somebody Bought a UFC Game!!!"

I didn't even know they made those. THQ probably mussed things up cuz they honestly didn't expect anybody to buy them.
No dissing on the sport itself, it is actually quite popular in my town, but putting it on a videogame seems to miss a few points to it all.