Ubisoft Prepares "Uplay Passport" - UPDATED

[Kaytastrophe]

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.

That's hilarious. It took me 10 mins to stop laughing...
Or are you serious.

I'm sure gamestop will still be selling used copies for $2 short of new because there will be plenty of suckers who will pay it.

Ubisoft games are so crappy online, that this really only encourages me to buy used...but still not from gamestop.
Actually, every time I hear about one of these schemes, it makes me want to only buy their games used. In fact, it seems that now-a-days I always buy new games unless someting like this is encouraging me to buy used out of spite.

Same with Mortal Kombat, why would I want to play that online? I want my opponent to be on my couch.

I completely agree with you. I could care less about having multiplayer online. However, I do think you will see used game retailers for the most part do something to get around this passport feature. Yes they will get a few people in the first little while but eventually people will start buying new because when games first come out there will be no point in buying used when it in fact costs 5 dollars more (new game=60$ used 55+10 dollar pass). I think I might have been a bit idealist when I said they pass the savings to us; but I bet you they will make a deal with these companies to sell these passes in the store. It only makes sense. Gamestop contacts ubisoft, ea whoever and says sell us these passes for 5 dollars or whatever, and they add it to the used game automatically. That way instead of taking a chance that the person will pay 10 dollars for an online pass they have a guarantee that all used games will bring in 5 dollars (a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush). Gamestop is not going to sit back and not react to these new online passes, it threatens their largest revenue; maybe not today but once this becomes common practice (and it will) people will know about the added costs of buying used.

Gamestop bought Impulse too, I think eventually they will get out of the used game market and be a digital distributor.

I didn't even consider the fact they bought Impulse. You could be right, it wouldn't be the first time they got out of the used game business (thinking of pc gaming). I still think they will first experiment with different ways of getting around the online pass thing. But I guess you and I are just wasting words because neither of us know exactly what gamestop is thinking.

 

[Epona]

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.

That's hilarious. It took me 10 mins to stop laughing...
Or are you serious.

I'm sure gamestop will still be selling used copies for $2 short of new because there will be plenty of suckers who will pay it.

Ubisoft games are so crappy online, that this really only encourages me to buy used...but still not from gamestop.
Actually, every time I hear about one of these schemes, it makes me want to only buy their games used. In fact, it seems that now-a-days I always buy new games unless someting like this is encouraging me to buy used out of spite.

Same with Mortal Kombat, why would I want to play that online? I want my opponent to be on my couch.

I completely agree with you. I could care less about having multiplayer online. However, I do think you will see used game retailers for the most part do something to get around this passport feature. Yes they will get a few people in the first little while but eventually people will start buying new because when games first come out there will be no point in buying used when it in fact costs 5 dollars more (new game=60$ used 55+10 dollar pass). I think I might have been a bit idealist when I said they pass the savings to us; but I bet you they will make a deal with these companies to sell these passes in the store. It only makes sense. Gamestop contacts ubisoft, ea whoever and says sell us these passes for 5 dollars or whatever, and they add it to the used game automatically. That way instead of taking a chance that the person will pay 10 dollars for an online pass they have a guarantee that all used games will bring in 5 dollars (a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush). Gamestop is not going to sit back and not react to these new online passes, it threatens their largest revenue; maybe not today but once this becomes common practice (and it will) people will know about the added costs of buying used.

Gamestop bought Impulse too, I think eventually they will get out of the used game market and be a digital distributor.

I didn't even consider the fact they bought Impulse. You could be right, it wouldn't be the first time they got out of the used game business (thinking of pc gaming). I still think they will first experiment with different ways of getting around the online pass thing. But I guess you and I are just wasting words because neither of us know exactly what gamestop is thinking.

Buying Impulse tells me that Gamestop won't put up much of a fight to save physical media.

 

[J4D3N]

As long as they treat me like a criminal I might as well be a criminal. But why should I pay to be treated like one when being one costs absolutely nothing!

Exactly, I think that the more these publishers come up with these "bright" ideas the more people are going to hack and reverse engineer, then these publishers will get nothing at all, then a few years down the line the gaming market will crash.

I wonder what the employees that came up with this idea would say if they bought a second hand car or a house or something and then had to pay an extra chunk of money to the original designer/builder etc to use part of the product?

Just another money grabbing ploy that is going to alienate the core audience they are trying to reach.


Edit:- Also, if they want extra money for the product how about they actually make the game worth the amount of money that you pay for it new? I cant remember the last time I brought a new game at £40-£50 and at the end of the game thought that it was definitely worth the money I paid.
I know this may not be the opinion of many here but lately I am finding that too many games are going the route of having flashy gimmicks and features but very little in the way of content.
/Rant

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Eh.

I can understand when Bioware does it. Extra content for being a "fan" or at least a fan that can afford to purchase the game new. And so far, buying their games new has been worth it.

They only times I don't agree with "passports" is when you have to pay extra to access online features that you already paid for with xbl gold. The most recent times I've noticed this was with Mortal Kombat and I think Crysis 2 and Dead Space 2 had "passes" also. To me it just seems ridiculous and petty (maybe) to double charge us for the same thing.

But the only games I play online don't have "passports" yet. So I don't mind so much.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I still see no real issue with this. Everyone likes to trot out the tired old "But if it was a car... !!!" analogy, but that doesn't work. A used car isn't the same as a new one, and used car dealers don't sell their used cars for $5 less than a new one. There are also no maker licensed service needs for a used game.

The analogy works fine if you don't think the game industry is special. If you start thinking the game industry is special then that is your error.

The used market exists because consumers own what they buy and they should and do have every right to resell it.

So you don't like that Gamestop sells used games for $5 under new. Would you like it better if they sold used games for half as much as the new price?

That would be up to GameStop and the publishers/developers to figure out. Personally, I don't really care even if I buy my games new to support the developers and publishers that I think are worthy of being supported. The thing is, if there was a real difference in price between used and new, it would do two things. First, it would create a real used market as opposed to what we have now where a used game sale actually is coming at the expense of a new sale. Sorry, if you're able to pay $50 or $55 for a used game, you're just as able to pay $60 for the new copy. Secondly, it would force publishers to actually think about intelligent pricing strategies instead of just throwing everything they make on the shelf for the same price regardless of value.

And the game industry is unique to other industries. Games generally make their money at one point, a new copy sale. Period. The only common exception to this is DLC, but that potentially requires a large amount of extra work so it's hardly something the pubs/devs get for free. Every other industry that often gets brought up in relation to this argument has multiple points of sale. Movies, for example, have domestic release, foreign release, home release, extended edition home release, and TV rights just to name a few. Heck, even books have staggered hardcover, softcover and paperback releases, plus often options for movie/TV rights. The games industry does operate differently.

You can buy used all over the place, not just at Gamestop. Try eBay or garage sales or classified ads or even Best Buy or Amazon. The entire used market isn't like Gamestop and I personally think Gamestop is playing nice with publishers, they could be selling used games so low the people would buy new only as a last resort. As it stands, most people would buy new when they only save a few dollars.

For example, I recently bought Golden Sun on the DS. It was new for $19.99 and used (without the case or manual) for $17.99. Gamestop is hurting themselves like that but that benefits publishers. Quit hating on Gamestop, it could be much much worse for the publishers than it is.

All products are unique to each other. Cars don't have the same sales model as movies and movies don't have the same model as games and furniture has it's own model. None of this matters to the used market. The game industry already has the benefit of a no return policy which no other industry gets. Now they want to eliminate the used market too, no. They are not special when it comes to the First Sale Doctrine. They do not retain ownership of the physical disc or cartridge once they sell it to you.

Sure you can buy used all over the place, but I would bet that the lion's share of used games are sold either by GameStop or by other outlets that use the same pricing policy. It's the industry standard and it's what game companies are having issue with. While systems like Project $10 do have an impact on Ebay sales or garage sales or whatever, the bigger issue is companies like GS that exist only to feed off the work of others. The vast majority of people who buy used games, particularly within the initial 3 month sales window, do so at places like GameStop.

You may think that GS is hurting themselves with their practices because you know and care about games. To many GS customers, however, that $5 of savings is enough to cost a new copy sale.

It's not so much that the idea of a used product differs from one thing to another, it's the industry around that which you're not recognizing. Right or wrong, and as I said, games are built around the new copy sale. Game companies need to approach used sales differently than any other industry because of how much they are directly impacted by them. To a car company, a used car sale isn't really a lost sale and they still will likely make some money off the used car anyway due to parts, body shop licensing, etc. To a game company, they get nothing if someone buys a used copy for $55 instead of a new one for $60. But worse than that, the person who spent $55 could have spent $60 as the difference is so small, which is not the case with other industries. Someone who bought a $7500 used car likely couldn't have purchased the same car new for $20000. I'm not saying it makes the game companies right for their approach. There are likely other ways they could attack the same problem (selling a game in distinct pieces, for one), but it's perfectly logical why they are approaching things as they are.

 

[Epona]

the bigger issue is companies like GS that exist only to feed off the work of others.

You could classify used book stores or used car dealerships or used music stores this way too, but it isn't true. These places buy their product from Joe Customer and resell it. I don't see what is so wrong with that.

The vast majority of people who buy used games, particularly within the initial 3 month sales window, do so at places like GameStop.

This is probably true but it shows that customers choose Gamestop, no one is forcing people to buy from Gamestop.

You may think that GS is hurting themselves with their practices because you know and care about games. To many GS customers, however, that $5 of savings is enough to cost a new copy sale.

So, then the customer made a choice. If Gamestops prices were lower then even more customers would choose the used copy. In this way, I see that Gamestop is more publisher friendly than people give them credit for. It sounds like you object to the amount of money Gamestop makes but if insane profits are an issue for you, then why aren't you complaining when publishers don't drop the prices once they have made back their money? If the next COD games makes it's money back in the first week, should Activision drop prices or continue to make insane profits as long as people are willing to pay for it? If it's ok for Activision, it's ok for Gamestop. Remember, Gamestop isn't stealing these games, they are buying them from customers so they have made an investment too.

To a car company, a used car sale isn't really a lost sale and they still will likely make some money off the used car anyway due to parts, body shop licensing, etc.

If we were to apply what the game industry is doing to the car industry. Ford would be pulling out the passenger seat (a useful but not necessary part of the car) and forcing you to buy another from Ford if you want to have a passenger seat.

If they tried that, how many people would say "sounds fair and logical"?

 

[UnravThreads]

I say it's garbage because even when the games drop in price, as you said, that online pass price will not. The update has pointed out quote, "Uplay Passport codes for those who buy used copies of Ubisoft games will be available separately for $9.99." That bolded text makes this idea even more ludicrous.

How? It's no more ludicrous than the price of DLC. That rarely, if ever, goes down in price outside of a sale. There are a good number of games where the price of the DLC is higher than that of a new copy of the game itself. And why does the "separately" part make it ludicrous? It's a service or product aimed at those who have bought the game used (Which does not make it a sale for the publisher) and who have no access to the passport-tied content.

And then, what happened to the idea of renting a game, or buying it used, to test out the single-player, online multi-player, and multi-system co-op before deciding to throw down some real money for a new copy? With these Online Pass codes in place, you have to spend extra money to see if the multiplayer content/gameplay is worth it, and then once that happens, since you have the pass, why buy a new one at all? You paid for it once already.

Or you could download the demo (A good number of games still have them). Another idea is to wait for a price drop. Renting is still around, yes, but I can only see it declining in popularity, which will only be hastened by measures like this.

Your last point makes no sense at all, however. If you rent the game and buy the pass, that pass is yours to keep. You would have to either only use that pass whilst the game is yours via a rent, or you could buy a used copy. The pass is not aimed at those who want to buy the game new, because they will automatically get that and have access to the features in question from the start. You wouldn't buy a new copy of the game if you'd bought the pass.

The price of a used copy + the pass is going to come close to that of a new copy, if not more, and the whole point of this system is to encourage the customer to buy a new copy. If you do, that way you support the developer, the publisher, encourage them to either produce sequels, increase the likelihood of support and post-release content and so forth. You could also argue it's to fill the publisher's coffers rather than that of the store, but so what? At the end of the day, buying a new copy of a game is going to have a greater benefit than that of a used copy.

You could look at it this way: If you buy a used copy of the game, the publisher sees no money from that secondary sale. If you play multiplayer on that publisher's servers, you're costing them money, as you've not put any towards the upkeep of the game. If they establish this passport system, one where you pay a one-off fee to play online, then you have contributed, no matter how small the amount, to the upkeep and maintenance of the game. Their profit status is not important. What is important is that they are offering a service, and have every right, morally at least, to expect payment in return.

If we were to apply what the game industry is doing to the car industry. Ford would be pulling out the passenger seat (a useful but not necessary part of the car) and forcing you to buy another from Ford if you want to have a passenger seat.

If they tried that, how many people would say "sounds fair and logical"?

They would if it had been that way from the start. If you want an official, endorsed replacement for, say, a home electrical item, you're often stuck with a small number of suppliers or the manufacturer themselves. But your analogy falls over because that situation wouldn't exist. It'd be more akin to the car's original owner removing the car seat, and then selling the car without the seat. Ford cease to be involved after that initial sale except for they offer a replacement.

But Ford are not, unless you pay them otherwise, providing a service to you after the sale of the car. If you have a problem, you go somewhere to get that problem solved. Even if you go to an official Ford garage after, you are paying them for the service to that car, not for anything else. The publisher, however, does provide a service after that initial release. If we use the example in the article, they would be providing the multiplayer servers as a service. That is an expense to them, and one they would recoup the costs for via sales and post-release content.

 

[koga88]

I find it interesting that the only companies to actually make these online passes and systems like that, are the rather huge companies like EA and Ubisoft and THQ too I believe. I know companies of all sizes need money, but large publishers like this are the only ones reaching out for the extra dime.

Plus it makes the online community even smaller than it should be, especially for games that are a bit older. Sure things like Call of Duty and Battlefield are always going to have consistent online players, but what about other titles that only have an influx of players at the start and then dwindle in a week or two. Used players may buy the game somewhere down the line, but what's the point of paying $10 to go online if you paid only $30 for the game in the first place. Which removes a potential online player from the game's already limited user base.

 

[Baresark]

LoL, this is their way of making up for games that aren't worth holding onto. Gotta get that green!

OT: You haven't been able to buy a used PC game for a long time. I personally only ever buy games on consoles for the single player. Console MP sucks balls compared to the PC. This is not really newsworthy, it's like putting out a story saying that another person jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, no one who wouldn't do that really cares about it.

The used game publishers, who sell used games at a large profit margin will only drop their price by $10 so it's still worth buying their games, and also probably give less for the trade in value of the game so they can keep the same or similar profit margin from it. And, if a game is lousy and not worth holding onto, $10 won't be nearly enough to make a dent. It's really just nickel diming the customer, pissing off the customer, and ensuring that your future revenue streams won't be as good as they could be. I am already pissed at Ubisoft for their stupid launcher, it's completely useless. I will only buy the minimum games from them, and then only on a good Steam sale. I am voting a big fat "NO!" to them with my wallet. Remember, the CONSUMER IS KING BABY!

Edit: To demonstrate the err of my ways, this is newsworthy because I would hate to buy a Ubisoft game and then be treated by this without knowing. Now we all know not to buy used Ubisoft games, because out of the publisher/developer, middleman, consumer triangle, the consumer is a distant third... very distant third. Same goes for all the other that engage in such activity.

 

[Epona]

I find it interesting that the only companies to actually make these online passes and systems like that, are the rather huge companies like EA and Ubisoft and THQ too I believe. I know companies of all sizes need money, but large publishers like this are the only ones reaching out for the extra dime.

Plus it makes the online community even smaller than it should be, especially for games that are a bit older. Sure things like Call of Duty and Battlefield are always going to have consistent online players, but what about other titles that only have an influx of players at the start and then dwindle in a week or two. Used players may buy the game somewhere down the line, but what's the point of paying $10 to go online if you paid only $30 for the game in the first place. Which removes a potential online player from the game's already limited user base.

Good point, the greed is amazing. The richest companies are the greediest but I guess that's how they got so rich in the first place.

 

[Baresark]

I find it interesting that the only companies to actually make these online passes and systems like that, are the rather huge companies like EA and Ubisoft and THQ too I believe. I know companies of all sizes need money, but large publishers like this are the only ones reaching out for the extra dime.

Plus it makes the online community even smaller than it should be, especially for games that are a bit older. Sure things like Call of Duty and Battlefield are always going to have consistent online players, but what about other titles that only have an influx of players at the start and then dwindle in a week or two. Used players may buy the game somewhere down the line, but what's the point of paying $10 to go online if you paid only $30 for the game in the first place. Which removes a potential online player from the game's already limited user base.

Good point, the greed is amazing. The richest companies are the greediest but I guess that's how they got so rich in the first place.

I couldn't agree more. The only thing is, they do it because they think they have properties that everyone will buy. But eventually, they will not make things that are not worth the headache of actually buying. It's not if, it's only when. Also, as a huge corporation, they are almost completely disconnected from their target audience. Smaller publishers/developers are not, so they don't add stupid annoying DRM and online passes. The bigs have much further to fall before they are hurting, so they do this kind of thing. This from a no name publisher would completely ensure it's destruction, no matter how good the game in question was.

 

[Epona]

They would if it had been that way from the start.

Don't follow, Online passes have not been here from the start.

If you want an official, endorsed replacement for, say, a home electrical item, you're often stuck with a small number of suppliers or the manufacturer themselves.

So you agree that in most cases you do not have to buy your replacement parts from one company?

But your analogy falls over because that situation wouldn't exist. It'd be more akin to the car's original owner removing the car seat, and then selling the car without the seat. Ford cease to be involved after that initial sale except for they offer a replacement.

My analogy doesn't fail. That this would never happen is because people wouldn't allow Ford to get away with it.

Your example of the previous car owner taking the seat out misses the point. Let's say that Ford made used car dealerships rip the passenger seat out of used cars and forced the new owner to buy another seat FROM FORD upon purchasing the car used or live without the a passenger seat (because Ford found a way to prevent you from buying the seat anywhere else). It sounds ridiculous and it is, yet that is exactly what these passes do.

But Ford are not, unless you pay them otherwise, providing a service to you after the sale of the car.

Customer A, who bought the game new, already paid for the server costs for that copy of the game and when customer A no longer owns it, he can no longer use the service he paid for. Customer B though, can use the service without it costing anything extra to the game company because customer A already paid that fee. Charging customer B again for something customer A already paid for is just greed.

If customer A keeps the game and plays online until the servers go down, why does customer A never have to pay again for server upkeep?

 

[AgentBJ09]

How? It's no more ludicrous than the price of DLC. That rarely, if ever, goes down in price outside of a sale. There are a good number of games where the price of the DLC is higher than that of a new copy of the game itself. And why does the "separately" part make it ludicrous? It's a service or product aimed at those who have bought the game used (Which does not make it a sale for the publisher) and who have no access to the passport-tied content.

Here's the problem with that argument: Online passcodes stop you from playing online if you don't have them, while DLC is optional content for the game. No company forces anyone to buy DLC, and if you're trying to compare an optional purchase to what could end up being a mandatory one, your counter argument doesn't make sense. Even if you're thinking of Map Packs and Costume sets as justification, since those are still optional.

Having to buy passes for each game you own at that 9.99 price tag versus a single 9.99 pass that works for every used game you get from that publisher is a greedy move. All it tells me is the publishers are not satisfied with the initial sales, and are thinking that they deserve to be treated better than any other industry that deals in used luxury merchandise.

What about car buyers? Does Honda ask for sales percentages of used Civics that someone decides to sell? What about computer buyers? Kingston doesn't demand you give them five bucks from your sale of a set of used RAM sticks. Furniture buyers? I don't see Ikea demanding people pay for the secondhand sales of their used furniture.

The bottom line is the games industry is built on luxury items, of which some people will buy used if it's cheaper. Making them pay the publisher to access certain content is not the best way to handle things. All that pass does is punish used buyers, not reward new buyers, which is what they SHOULD be doing.

Or you could download the demo (A good number of games still have them). Another idea is to wait for a price drop. Renting is still around, yes, but I can only see it declining in popularity, which will only be hastened by measures like this.

Your last point makes no sense at all, however. If you rent the game and buy the pass, that pass is yours to keep. You would have to either only use that pass whilst the game is yours via a rent, or you could buy a used copy. The pass is not aimed at those who want to buy the game new, because they will automatically get that and have access to the features in question from the start. You wouldn't buy a new copy of the game if you'd bought the pass.

My last point went like this: That if you buy used, and have to buy the pass, what's the point of buying new at that point? You already have the pass for that game, and buying it new means you wasted extra money on a second passcode. You said the exact same thing I did since it wasn't worded quite right the first time around.

As for demos, a good number of games like Duke Nukem Forever don't have multiplayer in their demos at all, so that solution doesn't work. Buying a used game, or discounted game from Half-Price and the like, to test multiplayer makes sense because if you don't like it, you can usually return the game.

As for your final point about paying to help them maintain server costs, that doesn't make sense to me as a good reason to make online passes. You can say the passes do that, but as I said in the second part of my post before, 90% of new sales happen at launch. If that 90% isn't enough, and they're going to charge used buyers to play online, some will decide that the extra $10 is a rip-off and they'll avoid that altogether.

Of course, I have to ask this question as well: "How dedicated are those companies to that online service?" If the answer is Not Very Dedicated, then drop that component of the game and focus on making good single player content that people WANT to buy New for.

 

[TheComfyChair]

Want to play online? Try paying the guys who host the servers and made the game instead of gamestop.

Simple.

 

[Epona]

Want to play online? Try paying the guys who host the servers and made the game instead of gamestop.

Simple.

They were already paid.

 

[mikeybuthge]

pass codes today, monthly gaming subscriptions on console games tomorrow

 

[Costia]

They are getting greedy
Don't think it will get them any money though
They will just lose the players that are annoyed by this

 

[Icehearted]

This would go down better if they weren't already charging a premium for EVERYTHING. DLC, the game itself (arbitrarily priced too high as it is), Xbox Live Gold, etc...

I get that they want to get paid, but a lot of what they do to squeeze out the most cash they can from us is insane, and frankly underhanded.

Maybe I'll just wait them out until the prices are dropped so much that a used game and the pass itself are about the same price. Then again, since this is a multiplayer issue, I care even less about it. I just don't like the direction this is heading.

 

[Zyst]

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.

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.

Does Toyota get a cut of used cars sales? Then why should developers. Coming from a 10 year veteran coder.

*Shrug* it's their game, and if they wanna grab their ball and play home they have every right to in my opinion. If you are Really so against this "movement" don't buy their games and voila!

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 it

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.

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.

I can really see the whole SP and MP Sold separately backfiring like hell; I can pretty much taste the griefing "They want us to buy the game fucking twice!!"

Also, games like CoD Would drop any premise and just develop the multiplayer, and since you are buying, you know, the multiplayer part of the game SP Quacks can't really complain (Although this might not be such a bad thing, might end mediocre 4 hour long campaigns.)

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Good thing I don't use multiplayer.