NullPointer
Member
Competition at its finest huh?Vilam said:
Truly the invisible hand of the marketplace is in everybody's best interests.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ubisoft Announces Uplay Online Pass; Locks Multiplayer/Extra Stuff [For PC As Well]
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
Truly the invisible hand of the marketplace is in everybody's best interests.
mclaren777
Member
Driver is one of my most anticipated games of 2011/2012.24FrameDaVinci said:
Big-ass Ramp
hella bullets that's true
Publishers don't like used game sales it would appear.
me too.
mclaren777 said:
me too.
I'm that guy that always has a minimum of five titles on pre-order, buys the stupid collector's editions at a high price for a half-assed artbook or partial soundtrack, and almost never trades games in, but fuck this noise.
Publishers this generation are trying their hardest to make me want out of this hobby. First it was pricey DLC for content already included on the disc. Then it was retailer exclusive pre-order content, ensuring that I never really have a full game (plus the Canadian arm of EB seems to make a habit of rarely receiving the pre-order content at the game's release). Now It's another section of the game hidden behind DRM, making it a pain in the ass to play games with my friends and roommates during LANs.
No more. If this garbage is making me sit out a game like Uncharted 3, which I'm actually interested in, Ubi's titles are officially off my radar for good.
Publishers this generation are trying their hardest to make me want out of this hobby. First it was pricey DLC for content already included on the disc. Then it was retailer exclusive pre-order content, ensuring that I never really have a full game (plus the Canadian arm of EB seems to make a habit of rarely receiving the pre-order content at the game's release). Now It's another section of the game hidden behind DRM, making it a pain in the ass to play games with my friends and roommates during LANs.
No more. If this garbage is making me sit out a game like Uncharted 3, which I'm actually interested in, Ubi's titles are officially off my radar for good.
NullPointer
Member
What a bullshit argument, repeated ad nauseum in each one of these threads.Vilam said:
The game was already bought (and the requisite people paid) before it got traded back, or lent, or given to a friend.
I don't buy used games but this affects me, because when I'm done with a game I pass it on to my friends who wouldn't or couldn't buy it. I'm the kind of customer that publishers and devs should want, but this negatively impacts me, just like all of these stupid DRM like schemes.
R_thanatos
Member
24FrameDaVinci said:
THIS !! Testing the waters with a title many aren't aware or are warry off isn't the brightest move
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Lothars said:
Do you really think it's going to stop with online passes? I guess I've grown distrustful in my old age.
Vilam said:
notsureifserious
Isn't that what consumers are supposed to do?
NullPointer
Member
The reality is I now have a reason to avoid these games. And if I do buy them I'll wait for a significant drop in price, or *gulp* buy them used and avoid the online portion of the game.Vilam said:
M3d10n said:
Yeah, ok. Meanwhile studios are shutting down left and right and layoffs are occurring industry wide... but I'm the one living in some fantasy world.
If you want to play good video games and enjoy them as a hobby, then support those who create those games so they can continue to do so.
NullPointer
Member
Those studios should stop trying to make the next COD. They should stop betting the farm on selling 3 million copies to break even. They should be more conservative with their targets and resources now more than ever when the economy sucks.Vilam said:
Instead they're acting like we have unlimited money to shower upon them in exchange for jack and shit, respectively.
Like has been said many times before, if you want to support the devs directly, buy their t-shirts, hoodies, posters and plush toys. Hell, stop them on the street and give em a 20.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Lothars said:
In this gen alone there's been some pretty nasty changes that I've not been a fan of. On disk DLC, DLC characters and moves for fighting games, day 1 patches, paying for P2P MP (that's already on the disk), nasty DRM, inability to delete save files, and now online passes.
All of this under the guise to help the poor developers. Even if we go totally DD, I still can't see this nickel and dime bullshit ever ending until we have to end up paying a subscription to license the console, license MP, and license the game.
Barack Lesnar
Banned
If this helps curb the massive financial hit devs and publishers are taking on used game sales, it's fine with me.
Lothars said:
Because it's another layer of garbage tied to specific accounts. There's a potential for things to go wrong, and it's an obnoxious hassle when you live in a household like me, with multiple consoles and gamers. With certain games, I even buy secondary backup copies for LANs in case a friend brings over a system but doesn't have the game. Now the online portions of many games are going to be locked away to a single account, making that pointless as well.
I get the sentiment behind the move, but it isn't like I'm not supporting the industry as is. Moves like this just make the products less appealing, and I refuse to support those moving in this direction.
And yeah, it isn't like my purchasing habits solely determine the success or failure of the industry, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Vilam said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't most the studios who shut down neglect to release games on the best selling console this gen as well?
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Riptwo said:
I feel the same, I buy plenty of games new, as well as the CE edition and multiple copies of many games (Street Fighter, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, etc). But this online pass nonsense is BS. All this has done is made it so I go from buying 10-15 games per year to 2-3 once they hit $19.99 or less, most of the time used.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Lothars said:
This is all a precedent for getting consumers to belong to an ecosystem. Whether it's Steam or Origin or whether it's online services such as XBOX Live or PSN. These passes are a way to lock-out the consumer who wishes to not use these services unless they either buy new or pay an additional fee.
The money needs to go back to the people who make the games we all enjoy. The used market also doesn't cater to the gaming model. Not when people expect those used games to perform exactly as they did new and not when the publishers also have to host those games online to people who have not supported them. There are costs associated with keeping the game online.
NullPointer said:
Get a clue, please. Buying a t-shirt doesn't support a dev. Buying a poster doesn't pay the bills. Buying a plush toy doesn't increase full-time headcount. We aren't begging for your charity or crying about our wages, we want a stable environment to work in where jobs and personnel aren't in constant flux.
You know how a developer stays in business? Having a healthy relationship with a publisher. When a publisher is happy, their developers are happy. Publishers making money rather than it lining some Gamestop CEO's pockets is a great thing for the industry.
NullPointer said:
Exactly, and why should we foot the bill? I'm all for supporting the industry, but it's kind of hard when they're trying to battle used sales by removing value on our end, instead of finding a way to encourage new sales by *gasp* adding value. This probably sounds crazy, but maybe preorders could be 10% off of the MSRV, or they could bundle new copies with digital games (DS2 w/Extraction).
In the case of online passes and mandatory, third party accounts, we gain nothing. It's an inconvenience at best. In the end, I don't think this is gonna have an impact on used sales, and hopefully the publishers will be forced to go back to the drawing board and find a way to encourage new sales without fucking over the consumer.
I have friends who work in CEX, a British used game shop. If this bullshit becomes industry standard (which, considering the pro-corporate slant in this thread, would be largely welcomed by most of GAF), they'll all be looking for new jobs within a year.Lothars said:
Just remember that it's not just devs' jobs at stake here. Or are you all saying that one person's job is more worthy than another? That a CEX or Gamestop worker doesn't deserve to be able to pay their bills as much as a member of a development team or publisher, who had already been paid for their work before the games they made even shipped?
Plus, the main point of all this: no matter what, the developers and publishers, once paid, have no right to profit from the legal resale of what is now not their property. I know that online passes are like CD keys, but trying to destroy the second-hand games market just because you don't see (and have no legal right to) any further income from second-hand sales? Immoral and ridiculous, IMO.
Since when have the denizens of the Internet been so eager to give away their consumer rights to massive corporations?
NullPointer
Member
What are you talking about? You're the bloody sherpa on this guilt trip.Vilam said:
But hey, spend your money as you will. I'm just registering my angst and find the support-the-devs argument to be a weak one.
It's hard to feel sorry for console gamers with this online pass. PC gamers stupid enough to pay more than rental prices for certain games get to deal with stuff like this, for single player and multi player:
3rd-party DRM: Ubisofts Online Services Platform. Ubisoft requires a permanent Internet connection to play this video game at all times.
3rd-party DRM: Ubisofts Online Services Platform. Ubisoft requires a permanent Internet connection to play this video game at all times.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Vilam said:
Everything wrong with the modern game developer in one post.
bdizzle said:
But all those things you listed not all of them are bad such as downloadable characters and moves for a fighting game which is a good thing to me, day 1 patches was inevitable, those are not good but not bad either, I do agree that day 1 DLC/on disk dlc is a bad thing, nasty DRM, inability to delete save passes are bad things which most of those have been taken a stance against which is why we are at online passes but I don't think Online Passes are a bad thing.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Riptwo said:
That's fine for right now. You have many options out there. What happens when they all get together and now your options are limited? I'm not so sure all of these people who say they won't support it will keep feeling that way if it means they can't play.
Right now it's still the early stages and the kinks need to be ironed out. I do agree that they should not force families to buy multiple copies so each has their own account. However they do need to curb the constant recycling where only the original buyers investment goes to the publisher.
EvilDick34
Banned
Can someone explain to me why video game companies think they think they deserve money from a used game? They got their share of money with the original purchase of the game, this isn nothing but greed. I hope someone has the balls to sue Sony, Ubisoft and anyone else who does this.
Louis Cyphre said:
I hear this sentiment often enough, but I think it's a cop out. There's been a huge push towards usage based internet billing here in Canada, and many people just claimed that it was an inevitability and brushed off those fighting it.
When it came down to it, however, we pushed back hard enough to make our government notice, and initiated some real discussion on the issue. One of our major ISPs drastically shifted policy after users expressed their anger regarding the issue, and while the fight isn't entirely over, our voices were still heard.
This isn't inevitable unless you all accept it as such.
NullPointer
Member
I still think that if they made these passes a requirement for only the first 30 to 60 days after a game's release, and incentivized buying within the release period (bonus xp days, price drops), there would be more support for these kinds of endeavors.Louis Cyphre said:
As it stands this is removing value from a product and has an affect on all customers, not just those who rent or buy used. Publishers keep trying to take and take without providing anything in return.
Quoted for truth.Riptwo said:
Dambrosi said:
It's not gonna kill used game sales and I don't want it to kill used game sales but I am saying that online passes are not gonna to kill used game sales, I have no problems with trading in games or buying games used.
I am saying that online passes are not a big deal and I am not surprised they have started to get more and more popular with companies but to me they are lesser of two evils when compared to other means of DRM.
I will agree the thing with online passes is that it should count for anyone in a household because that's an even bigger issue if it only counts on one account and not everyone's.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
Lothars said:
For me DLC characters and moves are bad. MK9 had DLC fatalities as pre-order bonuses. MvC3 and MK9 has pre order characters. I really doubt they completed the game 100% then decided, "Hmm, let's make some more characters since we didn't have time!" On top of having to pay the bullshit $10 "HD tax."
My contention is I don't see this ending with online passes. It's been a progression of more and more restrictions. Microsoft started the subscription model with XBL. Activision is dipping their toes in it now. I assume other publishers are going to try the same thing.
bdizzle said:
Your wrong MvC3 and MK9 never had pre order characters but both games had characters that you could download a month or so after the game was out, MK9 dlc fatalities were an iffy situation but they did release them as a pack for 5 bucks after the game was out, that's an acceptable solution becuase you don't miss out on them and it's an affordable price.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Riptwo said:
What you are talking about is a very corrupt policy to begin with. You have Bell whining because Netflix was piggy-backing off of their service and thus Bell members who would simply bypass their own video on demand services for the much cheaper Netflix option.
So not only do companies like Bell and Telus hold all the cards due to their investments in the infrastructure and make it very difficult for smaller contractors to get involved, they are now trying to get the government to side with them to limit useage because of companies like Netflix that are just a video provider. It's no wonder consumers fought back.
What we may see though is a useage fee of bandwidth like an electric bill.
UnblessedSoul
Member
I am against any pass costs imposed by publishers
bdizzle said:
I can definitely see the passes evolving into something bigger. Maybe the online mode will be barebones in all copies (very limited features and maps), new or otherwise, but for only 800 spacebucks you can unlock the premium version. Or for $50, you can unlock the publishers season pass, which will give you full access to full content for an entire year. Either way, you know there are a bunch of suits holed up in a boardroom right now, trying to brainstorm various ways to bleed us dry.
You think it's bad now, just wait.
tetrisgrammaton
Member
Vilam said:
That's what consumers do.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
NullPointer said:
Right now it's a big mess. Most of us I assume enjoy the flexibility that comes along with buying a physical copy of a game. We like the freedom of playing it on various systems so that we can lend it or play it at a friends house. I remember a rumor before the PS3 came out that the blu-ray software would be locked to that unit. There was a huge outcry and I'm not even sure if that rumor had any merit to it. However it did raise the question of what exactly do we own?
I buy new games and used games without much thought of where that money goes. Now with all the press behind how only new games go towards the people behind the games it has changed my views somewhat. I still want the flexibility of being able to trade or lend or sell my games but at the same time I also want to support the industry.
I think we need to view games as a totally different entity from other consumables because a used product performs much like a new product. The only real decrease in value is when the games are no longer playable online. Speaking of which why isn't these online passes going towards making sure the games are always available to be played online?
There simply needs a better system in place than what we have now. We need a loyalty type program otherwise what are we to do with our old games and why would we want to go in a direction of less flexibility unless there is something in it for us?
But Teksavvy regained their unlimited plans as a result of consumer backlash, and Shaw increased caps and introduced unlimited plans for the same reason. Telus also came out against UBB in recent hearings.Louis Cyphre said:
Once again, we don't have to just accept this as the way that things are going to be.