Ok so if you sell your house should they be able to lock a room until the new owner pays up?Richardplex said:
Ubisoft Prepares "Uplay Passport" - UPDATED
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I think you need to look at Ubisoft's catalogue. They're worse than EA for "money grubbing", as you'd call it.AgentBJ09 said:
Anyway, why is this garbage? Buy the game new, you get everything. Buy it used, you don't. In other words, support the dev/publisher and get 'rewarded'. Be a cheapskate, and miss out. The idea games are 'expensive' for most people is complete BS, because games drop in price ridiculously quickly. I recently picked up new PC versions of Hunted: The Demon's Forge - Special Edition and Fable 3 for £14 and £16 respectively from a major retailer in the UK, despite them only releasing about two months ago. A little patience just saved me £30. I got stung earlier in the year because I stupidly bought Bulletstorm: Limited Edition for £35 the day of release, but weeks later I saw it for £20.
Games drop price quicker than a working woman drops her unmentionables.
This is different. UPlay has been around since last year, at the very least, but this is something else. Basically, if you don't register a code you get with the game, you don't get access to certain features. You can still play the game, but the 'UPlay Passport' features will not be accessible to you until you redeem the code you get or you buy one (Which is only supposed to be done if you've bought the game used).Sephael said:
The only market it truly has any effect on is the console one, as the used PC market doesn't exist too much due to the prevalence of account-tied games (Such as Steamworks releases) and the relative low price of PC games. Plus stores don't stock many PC games these days, let alone used ones.
I feel the difference is that there is not your expected, nor wished to, go to a brand new house if another old house is available, because there are natural limits on housing and what not, but I see your point. The reason I support this is because I've seen the Extra Credits episode on this, and feel sympathetic towards the game developers for the same reasons.Richard Allen said:
Well there are scratched discs, less players to play with, and games get boring so they deal with the same things as physical products. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I'm curious what the extra credits post said that make you feel sorry for an industry that is growing at a huge rate, with more and more developers every day, and companies making billions of dollars makes you feel sorry for them. Do you feel sorry when buying a used dvd or movie? Cause the gaming industry is making more then them and isn't slowing down.Richardplex said:
Like I said I'm a coder for 10 years, trust me, it's not a bad business to be in.
And how they punish them?They pay less they should get less.There is no problem having used sales thing is there is no difference btwn a new game and a used copy,they both have the same content,while a used car for example is not the same as a new car(even in perfect conditions her life span is lower than a new car for example).CM156 said:
Sure a big chunk goes to the publisher but don't write lies like developes get nothing since that would be te same like sayng a writter gets no money from selling a book and his publisher gets all.
Game publishers are doing all that can to:
1) make game collecting past the Playstation 2/Xbox/Gamecube generation very hard to do.
2) ensure that game collecting past THAT generation virtually impossible.
3) foster an industry environment in which gamers can be resold 'classic games' again and again.
For all the debate I have seen about these passes, I have not seen the ones above. Honestly, are gamers today so prepared for all their games to become tea coasters in a generation from now? That's what going to happen.
The idea that second-hand sales are only things that occur near launch is logically flawed. I have a vast collection of 8, 16 and 32 bit games and most of them were bought second hand. They are all out of print (of course) but entirely playable, just as they were when they were first released. Say farewell to that from now.
Besides, why is it that consumers are being punished for exploitation by retailers? CD rentals and second-hand sales are regulated in many countries at no negative affect to consumers in terms of availability and useability.
Consumers should be allowed to sell, trade and lend games they buy, just as they can with pretty much every other thing they own. These actions by consumers are NOT the problem and never have been. Retailers are the ones exploiting the situation, thus THEY should be the ones bearing the brunt of the publisher's attack.
In the end, what sales are truly lost by a second-hand sale. The publisher has been paid for what they produced, and essentially, all that is happening is a transfer of ownership or possession. The money or goods, or just good-will that funds the transfer is no business of the publisher, just as Toyota has no say in used car sales.
If 1,000,000 games are sold at full price, it results in 1,000,000 owners. When those games are sold again, there are still the same number of owners and the same amount of product. The publisher has lost nothing, but they seem to want something for free.
1) make game collecting past the Playstation 2/Xbox/Gamecube generation very hard to do.
2) ensure that game collecting past THAT generation virtually impossible.
3) foster an industry environment in which gamers can be resold 'classic games' again and again.
For all the debate I have seen about these passes, I have not seen the ones above. Honestly, are gamers today so prepared for all their games to become tea coasters in a generation from now? That's what going to happen.
The idea that second-hand sales are only things that occur near launch is logically flawed. I have a vast collection of 8, 16 and 32 bit games and most of them were bought second hand. They are all out of print (of course) but entirely playable, just as they were when they were first released. Say farewell to that from now.
Besides, why is it that consumers are being punished for exploitation by retailers? CD rentals and second-hand sales are regulated in many countries at no negative affect to consumers in terms of availability and useability.
Consumers should be allowed to sell, trade and lend games they buy, just as they can with pretty much every other thing they own. These actions by consumers are NOT the problem and never have been. Retailers are the ones exploiting the situation, thus THEY should be the ones bearing the brunt of the publisher's attack.
In the end, what sales are truly lost by a second-hand sale. The publisher has been paid for what they produced, and essentially, all that is happening is a transfer of ownership or possession. The money or goods, or just good-will that funds the transfer is no business of the publisher, just as Toyota has no say in used car sales.
If 1,000,000 games are sold at full price, it results in 1,000,000 owners. When those games are sold again, there are still the same number of owners and the same amount of product. The publisher has lost nothing, but they seem to want something for free.
Watching the big fish of the gaming industry slowly dig their own grave with the greed shovel makes me giggle.
"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"
are there other components that have been held back by that online pass system?
i don't know of any so i won't describe it as "missing content" but "entry fee to the servers"
which already sounds a lot less evil
are there other components that have been held back by that online pass system?
i don't know of any so i won't describe it as "missing content" but "entry fee to the servers"
which already sounds a lot less evil
AYe, we will, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm pretty on-the-fence on this really, but you'd get less players and the games get boring whether you buy new or old. If the game costs £10 or more less than the game new, the players are still getting a better deal, and the companies are still paid for their work. I don't buy used dvds or movies, I buy them new... well, I ask my parents to, being a NEET and all, to support the official release etc like the paragon of justice that I am. Like I said though, I don't think your opinion is wrong, just not the same as mine. and the extra credits episode is http://bit.ly/pO6DxG, and yes I know it's pretty biased forming my opinion because of this, but it's logical (I think) so I don't mind so much.Richard Allen said:
Locking away single player content that is already on the disk or finished at launch behind a code is slimy.
Oddly enough, all this thing does is make me not buy a game at all. At least if I buy the game used I may still want to buy DLC, or future/past games in the series.
I'm just wondering when they'll start charging for split-screen co-op, because that second player is getting the game free, right?
I'm just wondering when they'll start charging for split-screen co-op, because that second player is getting the game free, right?
Anyone else surprised that Activision hasn't jumped on the bandwagon yet? They're the only one's who could get away with it in the eyes of the mass market since they publish COD which is the greatest game evarrrrr.
Anywho, I always buy new so this does not effect me in the slightest. Go about your business Ubisoft.
Anywho, I always buy new so this does not effect me in the slightest. Go about your business Ubisoft.
I only buy games as new, so these online-registration-demanding features are nothing but an (major, if there's no Internet available at the moment) annoyance. Especially when the registration & log-in systems are usually clunky, somewhat unreliable and usually add time in between launching the game and playing the game.
There are 2 problems with this:LostNumber said:
1) They already made their money when the used copy was sold new. There will still only be one person per copy on their severs.
2) It won't stop with online multiplayer. Once this effectively kills online multiplayer (which is the only bright side) they will start tagging single player games with activation keys.
I don't and that is the issue. No one can see this for what it is and everyone supports it. So I can try to educate and ***** so at least people know they are being ripped off. I've been gaming for over 20 years now, and I love the new games I'm not one ot ***** at devs cause they make to many sequels, or there is not innovation. It's simply not true, but I will ***** about how gaming was a much better value where developers had to fight for your money instead of removing features, charging more, and saying take it or leave it. It sucks, so yea I'll be vocal about itZyst said:
I do wish more people would vote with there wallets and consider if they want to buy a product from a company blatantly making cash grabs at them. That being said I gave up in my heart a long time ago, too many gamers who can't skip cod:x or w/e so they will continue pusing this as far as they can. Can't wait til games are 80$ a pop plus 20 for online play.
I s'pose that makes some sense. But really, can you blame them? This doesn't hurt AAA Franchises so much, they make their budget back in the release day, but what about new IPs venturing into the wild who end up dying simply because there were not enough sales, and after the guy finishes it and sells it you will find it on a Bargain bin for 10$, at that point you really don't buy the game new at all.Richard Allen said:I don't and that is the issue. No one can see this for what it is and everyone supports it. So I can try to educate and ***** so at least people know they are being ripped off. I've been gaming for over 20 years now, and I love the new games I'm not one ot ***** at devs cause they make to many sequels, or there is not innovation. It's simply not true, but I will ***** about how gaming was a much better value where developers had to fight for your money instead of removing features, charging more, and saying take it or leave it. It sucks, so yea I'll be vocal about itZyst said:
I do wish more people would vote with there wallets and consider if they want to buy a product from a company blatantly making cash grabs at them. That being said I gave up in my heart a long time ago, too many gamers who can't skip cod:x or w/e so they will continue pusing this as far as they can. Can't wait til games are 80$ a pop plus 20 for online play.
Although I digress, since it WILL be AAA games using this, but I would buy the game new to support a new IP, or buy a "pass".
I can get behind that, even though blizzard is not a small company anymore I'd always support their games (even the horrific diablo exp pacs), and I'm sure I'd feel ok with it on a great indie game. Even still it would be better if they just sold mp and sp separately and priced accordingly.Zyst said:I s'pose that makes some sense. But really, can you blame them? This doesn't hurt AAA Franchises so much, they make their budget back in the release day, but what about new IPs venturing into the wild who end up dying simply because there were not enough sales, and after the guy finishes it and sells it you will find it on a Bargain bin for 10$, at that point you really don't buy the game new at all.Richard Allen said:I don't and that is the issue. No one can see this for what it is and everyone supports it. So I can try to educate and ***** so at least people know they are being ripped off. I've been gaming for over 20 years now, and I love the new games I'm not one ot ***** at devs cause they make to many sequels, or there is not innovation. It's simply not true, but I will ***** about how gaming was a much better value where developers had to fight for your money instead of removing features, charging more, and saying take it or leave it. It sucks, so yea I'll be vocal about itZyst said:
I do wish more people would vote with there wallets and consider if they want to buy a product from a company blatantly making cash grabs at them. That being said I gave up in my heart a long time ago, too many gamers who can't skip cod:x or w/e so they will continue pusing this as far as they can. Can't wait til games are 80$ a pop plus 20 for online play.
Although I digress, since it WILL be AAA games using this, but I would buy the game new to support a new IP, or buy a "pass".