Ubisoft Prepares "Uplay Passport" - UPDATED

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Crelda said:
CM156 said:
Crelda said:
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.
I take it you aren't a fan of used sales and Gamestop as a whole then, eh?

I can see that point. But this reeks more of "We want more money out of used sales"

I had an idea for how they could make money better: Give people a reason to keep the game for the next few months rather than trading it back in.

Lets say game A is getting released, and they plan to have $35 worth of DLC out over the course of 5-7 months. When buying new, you have a chance to buy a "online pass" of sorts for, say $25, and get all the DLC when it comes out. That rewards people for buying new. If you got it used, you can get the same code for, say $30. Both ways give people a reason to hold onto their disks for the next few months. Thus, at launch, there will be fewer used games competing with the new games. And at the end, when people DO sell off their games, it gives people a chance to play them and buy the DLC at full price if they want. Kinda combine the "Rockstar Pass" with "Cerberus Network". I would be fully behind this plan. If you think ?Oh, but then they would lose money because they wouldn?t make as much money on DLC?, consider this: If I spend $25 on content that is yet to come, I am most likely going to keep the game. This reduces the number of games resold, which will make them more money, because there are fewer copies of the game to buy used. Gamestop can still make money on sales from the kind of people who play a game in 3 days and return it for resale in order to get a new game, and devs/publishers give people more of a reason to want to keep the game if they like it.
 

Sixties Spidey

Elite Member
Jan 24, 2008
3,299
0
41
Oh, whatever. I've found copies of Mortal Kombat, Mass Effect 2, Homefront, etc. used with the codes still intact. This won't be any different.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Crelda said:
CM156 said:
Crelda said:
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.
Would you be happier if Gamestop was selling a $60 game for $30?
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
And they still slap their Always Online DRM onto the game for PC players. This is Lame City on their part. I get rewarding those who buy a game new, but any gamer shouldn't be punished whether they buy the game new or second-hand.
This smells less like encouraging those to buy a game new, and instead more looking for a new revenue stream to add to their coffers.
They best be making clear what getting a game new entails, so people know what they might be missing out on if they get it used.
 

nin_ninja

New member
Nov 12, 2009
912
0
0
Sucal said:
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.
Hey, Shale was awesome and was actually part of the story. Zaeed was just there.
 

striderkiwi

New member
Jul 15, 2010
93
0
0
damn looks like it's gonna become mainstream. Well I guess I won't be playing online that much anymore or just won't be buying that many games. Yay singleplayer games....?
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
I might not buy the new Rainbow Six game just because of this bullshit. As long as I have been waiting for it, I cant abide this horrendous practice.
 

Cenequus

New member
Jan 31, 2011
385
0
0
Don't understand the anger over this. Atleast if you buy it new some money goes to he developer,if you buy it used nothing goes to the developer. Sure a AAA title can afford it but new IPs usually die because people rather buy the game used.

A long as the overall price isn't higher than a new game I really see no problem.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Cenequus said:
Don't understand the anger over this. Atleast if you buy it new some money goes to he developer,if you buy it used nothing goes to the developer. Sure a AAA title can afford it but new IPs usually die because people rather buy the game used.

A long as the overall price isn't higher than a new game I really see no problem.
I think people's anger over this is for 2 reasons

1) It punishes people who play second-hand rather than rewarding those who got it new

2) This money goes to the publishers, not the developers.

Oh, and ah, used sales exist for everything. And yet we still have new books, movies, TV shows, ect every year.
 

Sucal

Dragonborn Ponyeater
Dec 23, 2009
237
0
0
nin_ninja said:
Sucal said:
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.
Hey, Shale was awesome and was actually part of the story. Zaeed was just there.
They both played vital roles anyway. Shale because she was part of the Plot and Zaeed because trying to get everyone through alive without him was incredibly hard. Which is why this is better then cutting characters out.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Zyst said:
I think it's fair. I mean, not really complaining..
And I agree that things like Project $10 can do a very good job at this in a way that is a fair compromise. What I don't like is gamers lining up to say how much they hate used sales and want to see them done away with, and publishers wanting all sales to be new.

Imagine this: You buy a DVD of a movie that runs 120 minutes. However, if you buy a used copy of the DVD, or rent it, you miss 10 minutes of character development/plot information unless you put down some extra money. That would be nuts.

Cid SilverWing said:
When. The. Fuck. Are. They. Going. To. STOP!? Treating. Customers. Like. CRIMINALS!?
No kidding. Really, they just need to wise up about this issue. Not all sales are going to be new. I also don't like entering the code everytime I pick up a new game.
 

Zyst

New member
Jan 15, 2010
863
0
0
CM156 said:
Zyst said:
I think it's fair. I mean, not really complaining..
And I agree that things like Project $10 can do a very good job at this in a way that is a fair compromise. What I don't like is gamers lining up to say how much they hate used sales and want to see them done away with, and publishers wanting all sales to be new.

Imagine this: You buy a DVD of a movie that runs 120 minutes. However, if you buy a used copy of the DVD, or rent it, you miss 10 minutes of character development/plot information unless you put down some extra money. That would be nuts.

Cid SilverWing said:
When. The. Fuck. Are. They. Going. To. STOP!? Treating. Customers. Like. CRIMINALS!?
No kidding. Really, they just need to wise up about this issue. Not all sales are going to be new. I also don't like entering the code everytime I pick up a new game.
The thing is, a lot of Movies get their development costs and such back merely with the Cinema, the DVD sales are just a plus. On the other hand game developers live off the money you buy of their games, with you buying used games they get nothing. I'm not saying I endorse this, I just think it's fair enough, and I'm not complaining.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Cenequus said:
Don't understand the anger over this. Atleast if you buy it new some money goes to he developer,if you buy it used nothing goes to the developer. Sure a AAA title can afford it but new IPs usually die because people rather buy the game used.

A long as the overall price isn't higher than a new game I really see no problem.
They aren't entitled to money from used sales. Every used copy was already sold new.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Zyst said:
CM156 said:
Zyst said:
I think it's fair. I mean, not really complaining..
And I agree that things like Project $10 can do a very good job at this in a way that is a fair compromise. What I don't like is gamers lining up to say how much they hate used sales and want to see them done away with, and publishers wanting all sales to be new.

Imagine this: You buy a DVD of a movie that runs 120 minutes. However, if you buy a used copy of the DVD, or rent it, you miss 10 minutes of character development/plot information unless you put down some extra money. That would be nuts.

Cid SilverWing said:
When. The. Fuck. Are. They. Going. To. STOP!? Treating. Customers. Like. CRIMINALS!?
No kidding. Really, they just need to wise up about this issue. Not all sales are going to be new. I also don't like entering the code everytime I pick up a new game.
The thing is, a lot of Movies get their development costs and such back merely with the Cinema, the DVD sales are just a plus. On the other hand game developers live off the money you buy of their games, with you buying used games they get nothing. I'm not saying I endorse this, I just think it's fair enough, and I'm not complaining.
I will say this: If it stops at $10, I'm fine with it. To me, that is a fair compromise. Just stop saying people who buy used are just as bad as pirates and we are golden!

I buy almost all of my games new, but I understand/endorse the used market.
 

Negatempest

New member
May 10, 2008
1,004
0
0
The problem I see with this is that the game developers usually stop with "free" content after 2 DLC and the rest you still have to pay regardless. So yeah, nothing special..just ****ing with the customers again.