Ubisoft to start charging gamers who play second-hand games online

[mookiemookie]

All hail Ubisoft, reaffirming their reign as kings of DRM

Ubisoft has confirmed the Passport's existence today, saying the feature will "provide players with access to bonus content, exclusive offers, and online multiplayer play" for "many of Ubisoft***8217;s popular core games," including Driver: San Francisco.

Passport codes will cost $9.99 for those who don't purchase new copies of supported games.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35900/Report_Ubisoft_Introducing_Its_Own_Online_Pass_Sys tem.php

There is no way I would ever buy another Ubisoft product. I don't care what the title is.

Sorry if this is stirring the DRM pot. Mods, feel free to delete if it is.

[Arclight]

EA did this in the past already I think. For example that "Cerberus network" from Mass Effect 2, and I seem to recall something similar for Dragon Age. :hmmm:

But yeah, not scoring any points with this move. Certainly not after their beloved "always online" solution. :nope:

[papa_smurf]

So, does Ubi want to single handedly kill off the 2nd hand market, or increase the number of their games that will be pirated:hmmm:

[Nippelspanner]

Man how I hate Ubisoft...

[HunterICX]

Seems they haven't digged their own grave deep enough yet.

HunterICX

[Task Force]

Nope, evidently they want to dig themselves to hell before they stop.

[NeonSamurai]

Not being able to play online won't increase piracy rates (generally speaking you can't play online to begin with if you pirate).

I don't blame them wanting to shut out the resell market, as it seriously digs into their profits as they only get the price of the game once (where as the retailers get it again and again and again).

[Dowly]

Not being able to play online won't increase piracy rates (generally speaking you can't play online to begin with if you pirate).

I don't blame them wanting to shut out the resell market, as it seriously digs into their profits as they only get the price of the game once (where as the retailers get it again and again and again).

This. :yep:

It's their product, they're the ones who should profit from it.

[jumpy]

Well, it's not like the second hand games market is charging 40 quid a game second hand now is it? More like about 20. I think the main turnover for 2nd hand sales is with console games anyway, which are already overpriced if you ask me.
Besides, I thought publishers priced their games accordingly to not make a loss in sales... or is that a bit crazy for them?



Bye bye ubisoft, you won't be seeing another penny from me. Ever.

[NeonSamurai]

Yes but how many times do they resell the same game for 20$?, often times the turn around for popular new games is a week or less,so these games can be resold multiple times. This represents major losses in sales for the game company (instead of selling 100 copies they may sell 30, with the remaining 70 being repeat resells).

[jumpy]

Perhaps, but I cannot see consumers doing this much for a second hand game - after all of the cost, you may as well buy it from new - which I suspect is what ubisoft is thinking.
And if that's their business, why don't they attempt to get in on the action by some kind of partnership with second hand game retailers instead of this tariff that will see quite a few people just choosing not to buy new or second hand games?
I don't think they understand their target market in this respect, and if they're having to do this because they are already making a significant loss in sales, enough to warrant this kind of extra license, then adding another fee is not only not going to offset the loss by any great margin, but drive gamers away.

Maybe if games were cheaper a lot more people would buy them from new, instead of thinking: "hmm, shall I take a 50 quid punt on a game I might not like or play only once, then ditch it, or shall I get it second hand at the games store, where if I hate it I can exchange it for something I might like better?"

I know that's how some of my mates with ps3 consoles look at it. They might only have the title for a week before trading it in for something better, unless it's a particular title that they are really excited about, in which case they either buy it on release regardless of cost, or they wait a few months until the retail price drops a bit. Or like me, get burned with a pre-order game turning out to be a load of old wank and decide never again to buy any 'new' game on 'reputation' alone. :DL

Come to that, what does this mean for companies like blockbuster who rent pc and console games? Will this mean you have to buy a license to rent a game that you don't own?
I can't see this doing ubisoft any favours tbh.

It might work to incentivise (I hate that word, I really do) gamers to drop a few extra dollars if they think they are missing out on cool content. Seasoned gamers will be wary of such practicesThat rings true for me - the chumps will pay, but there's a lot who will take their cash elsewhere.

[mookiemookie]

Yes but how many times do they resell the same game for 20$?, often times the turn around for popular new games is a week or less,so these games can be resold multiple times. This represents major losses in sales for the game company (instead of selling 100 copies they may sell 30, with the remaining 70 being repeat resells).

1. Much the same as piracy, second hand sales do not equal lost first hand sales. There are people that will never buy the game at full price, no matter what it is.

2. I see it as just more indication of the attitude that what you buy is not yours. You're only buying a license, and this extends to physical media as well. I understand the financial motivation that the game company has for doing this, but I don't like it.

[Herr-Berbunch]

OK, register your new product with a fake name/address and keep the details in the case with the game. Sell game on, new owner installs using old details.

Hell, what about if you move house and rebuild your rig a few times? :hmmm:

[Lionclaw]

I remember the days when one could sell PC games to some game stores and buy used PC games.

It was a good way to get some games cheap, I kind of miss those days.


But it's good that at least console games are still that way, I've sold games that I didn't want anymore, and bought some games used that I found interesting.


But I don't support this. They already got the revenue of that product which is sitting in the used games rack.
And if people buy that used copy, well tough luck.. Used copies are usually quite low in numbers compared to new ones anyway.

Some people buy the game, complete the game, and then sell the game. And repeat for the next game they buy.


Do the car manufacturers charge people who buy used cars with a fee for not buying their new cars?

Yeah I know, bad comparison, completely different type of product and market. Although I don't know much about that business field, I could be wrong. Some car retail businesses sell used cars. :hmmm:
--

Well it's hardly surprising, it's Ubisoft after all.

[Arclight]

Want to keep people from selling games on? Give it replay value. Either that or make the SP good enough to make people want to replay it every now and then.

Stop whining and make some good games, problem solved. The reason their stock is dropping is because they keep doing stupid things, like introducing some bonkers DRM scheme and publishing games that are in all likelyhood, well, crap.


Anyway:
Ubisoft has firmed up UK pricing for its online pass, the Uplay Passport. It costs £7.99 on PS3 and PC while Xbox 360 owners pay 800 Points (£6.80).
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-21-ubisoft-uplay-passport-costs-GBP7-99

Yes, market it as a 'enhancement'. That will win over some hearts for sure. :nope:

At least other publishers aren't being such pretentious pricks about it. :-?

[danlisa]

So, that's UBI added to the list. Oh well. They won't miss me. Rather than get the game on release, I now wait until a new copy hits the bargain bin. Simples.

This move boils down to cash. The larger publishing studios have realised that retailers make close to (or more) money from second hand sales than they (publishers) do with first hand sales.

In case you didn't know, publishing studios and developers receive 0% royalties on second hand sales, everything goes to the retailer. ;) And yes, the console market is the biggest offender in their eyes but they couldn't introduce these measures without bundling the PC crowd in too, could they?

[Lionclaw]

Are there still retailers that has used PC games?

GameStop in town doesn't take used PC games, tried to sell some once.

[JU_88]

Not being able to play online won't increase piracy rates (generally speaking you can't play online to begin with if you pirate).

I don't blame them wanting to shut out the resell market, as it seriously digs into their profits as they only get the price of the game once (where as the retailers get it again and again and again).

I see what your saying but that is the norm with second hand anything.
Do manufacturers of cars, computers, cellphones, clothes, kitchen appliances, whatever - see a penny from second hand sales? No they do not.
That just the way second hand sales work for just about everything on the planet, so in a way the question begs - what makes Ubisoft / games Publishers so special?

[Arclight]

The gross over-spending.

So much money is being sunk into graphical design and marketing that a "AAA" game needs to sell stupid amounts just to break even. Cashing in on some of those 2nd-hand sales lowers that threshold.

Sad thing is that it's kind of nescesary. The majority of people, the average gamers, are more likely to pick up that pretty bauble with the massive marketing campaign driving it than that non-marketed, word-of-mouth title with the fun, solid gameplay. Even if only because they never heard of the latter while the former is right in their face all the time.


Whenever I proudly proclaim "I'm a gamer" to someone, they ask me "so you play World of Warcraft?"
"No, I don't..."
"Call of Duty?"
"No!"
Then they stare at me with an empty gaze while I smash my head on the coffee table.

I've since resigned myself to describing myself simply as a geek.
"Ah, so you're good with computers?"
"Yep, you got it. See? Says so right on my shirt."

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/i_void_warranties.jpg

[NeonSamurai]

I see what your saying but that is the norm with second hand anything.
Do manufacturers of cars, computers, cellphones, clothes, kitchen appliances, whatever - see a penny from second hand sales? No they do not.
That just the way second hand sales work for just about everything on the planet, so in a way the question begs - what makes Ubisoft / games Publishers so special?

Well for one thing the product does not deteriorate like the aforementioned items (all that other stuff wears out and looses value). Plus again the rate of changing hands is vastly different. We are talking resale in a few days to a week, not months, or years. Plus the number of hands it can pass through can be staggering when talking about games. The stuff you mentioned maybe changes hands once to three times.

So apples and oranges.

[TorpX]

Do manufacturers of cars, computers, cellphones, clothes, kitchen appliances, whatever - see a penny from second hand sales? No they do not.
That just the way second hand sales work for just about everything on the planet, so in a way the question begs - what makes Ubisoft / games Publishers so special?

This is how I feel. If I buy a game (or anything else), I should be able to do with it as I please. If they don't like it, too bad. I rarely sell games, but I should have the freedom to do so, if I choose.

Well for one thing the product does not deteriorate like the aforementioned items (all that other stuff wears out and looses value). Plus again the rate of changing hands is vastly different. We are talking resale in a few days to a week, not months, or years. Plus the number of hands it can pass through can be staggering when talking about games. The stuff you mentioned maybe changes hands once to three times.



It may not "deteriorate" or "wear out", but it will most certainly lose value. Computer technology advances so fast, the games have a perishable quality. Really, how many people are going to be playing 10 yr old games? I'll venture to guess not that many want to bother with 5 yr old games. After awhile one runs into compatability issues. People like to buy new and are attracted to novelty.

If that many people are selling their games (at a loss), it can only mean that they did not consider them to be worth very much. As Arclight said, they need to make a better product.



Some time ago, there was talk of this issue with regard to books. Publishers/authors thought they were entitled to royalties for used books. What became of that?

[jumpy]

So, why is this license more expensive on PC & PS3 that the Xbox?

Also I'm guessing this is an extension (of the SH5 thing) where you had to have an active internet connection to even play/save in single player games (is that still the case with SH5? I never got around to buying it) ?

[Arclight]

Er there is no license on PC, if you want to develop on PC you are free to do so. On consoles you need to buy rights to develop for them, hence the games are more expensive.

To the best of my knowledge, SH5 was downgraded (upgraded?) to an "only authenticate at launch" implementation.


---
Right, not strictly related to the topic, but I don't want to start another topic to illustrate how delusional these people are;


Speaking to us earlier today a Ubisoft representative admitted that the developer has seen ***8220;a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection, and from that point of view the requirement is a success.***8221;
http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/28/ubisoft-our-drm-is-a-success/

A succes? That would imply a succes for the corporation as a whole, right? Not just the reduction of some trivial number on some torrent search engine, a number that's not really indicative of anything to begin with?

Of course not, dont' be rational; http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=UBI.PA#symbol=ubi.pa;range=2y;compare=;i ndicator=volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcva lues=0;logscale=off;source=;

Now, if I recall correctly, news about their new DRM broke in Januari 2010. Then, in April, news broke that pirated copies protected by this system were available. That graph really tells the rest of the story.

For the fun of it, scale it up to cover the last 5 years. At this point, I hope the trend continues.

[jumpy]

Er there is no license on PC, if you want to develop on PC you are free to do so. On consoles you need to buy rights to develop for them, hence the games are more expensive.


er, hmm, I was referring to the bit you quoted about the uplay passport being £7.99 on pc & ps3 but only 6.99 on xbox, maybe I missed something in the article?

To the best of my knowledge, SH5 was downgraded (upgraded?) to an "only authenticate at launch" implementation.
ah, good, I may yet buy it one day :03:

[Arclight]

er, hmm, I was referring to the bit you quoted about the uplay passport being £7.99 on pc & ps3 but only 6.99 on xbox, maybe I missed something in the article?
Ah, I see. No just me thinking about something else, not a clue why they would have different prices on different platforms for the thing. :hmmm:

Maybe Microsoft putting their foot down to fit it into their MS-points pricing scheme, 800 in this case.

[jumpy]

Could be, xbox is a M$ product isn't it? Maybe some kind of content/deal thing *shrugs*