Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubisoft Hops On the Online Pass Bandwagon

Posted by Soulskill on from the stop-pretending-this-adds-value-for-customers dept.

Joining the likes of THQ, Electonic Arts, and Sony, Ubisoft has now announced plans to launch the "Uplay Passport," a $10 fee charged to buyers of used games if they want to play them online. They say the program "will begin in the coming months and will be included in many of Ubisoft's popular core games. In each new copy of a Uplay Passport-enhanced game will be a one-time use registration code that, when redeemed, provides access to Uplay Passport content and features. The code can be found on the insert card inside the game box. Gamers can identify Uplay Passport-enhanced games by looking for the logo on the back of the box."

106 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Great by click2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Another games publisher to avoid.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    1. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everybody should avoiding Ubisoft since long ago.

    2. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have boycotted Ubisoft since they started with the always on internet connection DRM.

    3. Re:Great by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That decay has been going on for well over a decade now.

      It may be just grumpy-old-guy syndrome, but in spite of the cmoparatively crap graphics, the old 1990's era games were a lot more fun to play (yes, bugs and all). The reason why have to do with elements that have little to do with the technical:

      * Most of the old games (Quake/II/III, Unreal/UT, Half-Life, etc) were devilishly customizable, and the software companies actually encouraged modifications
      * With only a few games of a given genre, you had a *lot* more players
      * dial-up may have sucked, but it did equalize the field by quite a bit (everyone had lag to some extent) - OTOH, this is obviously more of a bandwidth thing and not a game design thing.
      * the good games back then were more concerned about flow and content, and less concerned about "balance" or graphics
      * most of the games were hosted and played freely online, not kept behind a pay-gate
      * Some folks complain about bots and griefers back in the old days, but hell, they're just as common now as they were back then, if not moreso... just that the cheats are more subtle now, and the greifers less so.
      * nobody gave a crap if you 'pirated' or copied the game, because odds were very good that you'd buy the next iteration when it came out (see also id Software)

      Only opinion, but I'm blaming around 2000-2001 as the time when gaming began declining. CD Keys were only the barest hint of the DRM to come. More and more games got shoved into pay-for-play mode. The flood of games meant a growing fragmentation (even among folks playing the same title... You had Unreal Tournament, UT 2003, UT 2004, etc... all running w/ players at the same time). LAN parties became less and less common, and the ones still going only meant that there were UT players, Quake players, BF 1942 players, CS players, etc... and each new game or iteration meant less folks in a given LAN that could play a given game (or that wanted to, instead preferring their own game/version).

      Sure, the consoles kept things going for awhile, but IMHO (and nothing more), it only pushed game publishers down paths that meant more DRM, higher prices, and pay-to-play online experiences. Not even going to touch on the remakes/reboots/re-whatevers that means the majority of games coming out are some re-iteration of something you've already played before.

      Certainly, there are bright spots in this dark prose... games that stood out and demanded attention, and/or broke new ground (games like GTA). That said, most of the big ones just became more fodder for sequels, each not quite as good as the last.

      Ah well... enough rambling. :)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Great by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's becoming easier and easier to shop for games every day.

    5. Re:Great by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      It may be just grumpy-old-guy syndrome, but in spite of the cmoparatively crap graphics, the old 1990's era games were a lot more fun to play

      Pshaw! 1990s games? Just eye candy.

      The 1980s games _are_ more fun to play. Mr. Do, Frogger, Dig Dug, etc.

      (I'm largely joking, though I do like those old games... I see Amazon has a buy 2 get 1 free game sale for some games I'm interested in, so I will likely stock up on some more even before I have a PS3! Also, I've never had a Nintendo system, but one of the reasons I'll probably eventually get a Wii is for the relatively cheap old games on their network.)

    6. Re:Great by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Totally disagree.

      I had way more fun with Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 2, and Left 4 Dead than I ever did with Quake or Unreal. Warcraft 3 and Company of Heroes and Starcraft 2 are absolutely better than their predecessors.

      Game makers have gotten smarter and design their games with better mechanics. TF2 and L4D, for example, have exceptionally well-balanced asymmetrical modes. Weapon and ability variety has increased tremendously. Map design has become more objective. Frustration factors have been reduced. Lobby systems have been improved. Mod-ability still exists, and has led to great modes like DotA.

      I think the real problems with gaming today are the same ones the movie industry has been facing for a while. Simply put, studios have realized that a well-hyped turd with name recognition can make more money than a quality title. Just look at Duke Nukem Forever for proof. They never intended that game to be good, but it will make plenty of money for them. Even with good games, it's easier to make incremental improvements than risky innovative titles (see: Call of Duty, the Sims, any sports title).

      There are a few companies that still focus on putting out groundbreaking titles, but even then, those titles will then be milked for at least a few sequels before the next innovation comes along. However, there is a way to reliably find innovation among modern games -- look among indie developers. They can take more risks, and as a result you get titles like Braid and Minecraft.

      As for DRM, with a few exceptions (lookin' at you, Ubisoft), it's less intrusive now. I have not-so-fond memories of looking up page after page of text in the back of the manual during Interplay's Lord of the Rings. Cat pissed on the manual? Can't play that game anymore! Or CD checks that deprived me of my copy of Tie Fighter after the disc got scratched. I'll take Steam over that any day.

    7. Re:Great by NotBorg · · Score: 2

      Beyond the DRM bullshit (there really is no other word), the gaming industry is suffering from the Disney movie effect. They just keep making sequels or remaking the same. Newer Unreals were the same game as previous ones just with better graphics. It was no more exciting than Aladdin 23 or Parent Trap 9 (or what ever Disney is up to now). When the games differed in more than new graphics they added extra complexity to the game that just didn't add anything to the game play. Many argue that the playability of earlier Unreals was better. Yes the first Aladdin was great, but you can over do a thing. That's what the gaming industry has been doing for the past decade.

      Again parallel with the movie industry... if you've seen a few popular 80's horror movies, you'll never need to see another. Same tricks with the music, lighting, creepy camera follows just with higher definition (Despite all the technological advances they still manage to somehow make it less realistic than the movies that were made 30 years ago. WTF?). The movies with an interesting story line have much more replay value.

      You can incorporate every feature known to mankind in a game, but is it fun? No? Then those features don't mean anything. Classic side scrolling Nintendo games with a small fraction the bells and whistles can be just as much fun. Simple graphics, simple mechanics, but so much fun. It's not the nostalgia talking either. I think they worked harder on game play when equipment was much more limited in capabilities.

      Maniadrive can be funner than the most advanced racing games with all the physics and graphics that cause the wimpy systems to bleed.

      --
      I want this account deleted.
    8. Re:Great by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      I was going to write a long involved comment on it but I think it's better put this way:

      $22,733 - this is how much it would have cost me to buy what I have for my Xbox (including the cost of the xbox and accessories) had I not bought it used.

      Somehow I don't think my $60/month budget for gaming would cover that... unless they wanted to wait 31 years. They've priced themselves out of their own market and rather than dropping prices so people can actually afford to buy the games new they're trying to impose a tax on the used market.

    9. Re:Great by fremean · · Score: 1

      I've boycotted them since StarForce...

    10. Re:Great by dskzero · · Score: 1

      Weren't you already avoiding Ubisoft? The only way I'd play one their games is pirating them. All these decisions piss me off and makes me wonder if they really want to stay in business.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    11. Re:Great by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Where have YOU been? Everyone who cares at all has been avoiding them like the clap since the "Hey lets make them have an always on connection for single player!" DRM bullshit. the hilarious part is something like 3 weeks after that BS the "Reloaded" edition hit P2P where they managed to completely bypass their BS. Just goes to show you DRM only bites paying customers.

      Now as for TFA if the ONLY thing it does is require payment for a used game to play MP? I really don't care. After all they are gonna have to pay to keep the severs up but on the flip side there needs to be an "expiration date" on ALL games with this crap so that you don't buy a game in the store and find out its "gone bad" because Ubisoft pulled the plug. If only they can host MP? Then it has to have an expiration date so everyone will know the EOL for the game. If I can host? Then NO expiration date.

      You see for me that's the worst part, it isn't them nickle and diming for MP, anybody who doesn't know these companies are greedy little piggies hasn't been paying attention. No it is having the games just "die" with no way for the community to save it. I still play Freelancer MP and that game was .... what? 2003? Yet if anything it is even better today than when it was released because not only has the fans made patches to fix some seriously irritating bugs, but they have created huge new universes for you to play in.

      Instead of being able to break out a favorite old game like Freelancer or Quake and find someone to do a little battle with you'll just have dead MP if you are lucky. if it is Ubisoft's "Forever Internet" games you won't even have single player and I really think the customers should be warned about that so they can make an informed buying choice. Of course the Razr1911 and Reloaded versions will still work, as I said it never bothers the pirates. Just more proof IMHO that the greedier these companies get the better piracy looks.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    12. Re:Great by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Another games publisher to avoid.

      Same games publisher to avoid. Ubisoft has been the very worst in the industry when it comes to things like invasive DRM, requiring always-on internet connections and the like. If you get a burp in your connectivity (hope you're not playing on wi-fi), the game dies. Hope you saved.

      They don't even disable their evil DRM on Steam, which itself is pretty good.

      Shame, too. Some of their games look fun. But when I see that Ubisoft is the publisher of a game, I refuse to buy it.

    13. Re:Great by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Most of the old games (Quake/II/III, Unreal/UT, Half-Life, etc)

      Man, I'm 31 and to me Doom/Quake were when games stopped being fun. I grew up in a world without First Person Shooters and never really got into them. I suppose we all just like what we liked when we were kids, and I'm sure in 20 years time when consoles plug directly into your brain today's children will be moaning about how the new stuff isn't as much fun as Halo 2 was.

      At the risk if sounding really old one of the issues I have with many modern games are the complicated controls. Gamepads have hundreds of buttons because FPS games need them, but it seems like every developer has decided that they are going to use all of them now just because they can. It is hard to just pick up and play a game these days, instead you have to learn the controls which usually entails a long unskippable and utterly boring tutorial.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Great by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I've been gaming since the Pong days, and I couldn't disagree more. I am consistently impressed with the innovative games coming out today. Does the DRM suck? You bet. Are there a lot of sequels? Yep. But 90% of everything is crap and always has been. But that 10% includes some truly, truly amazing stuff. Back in the day, I couldn't have even imagined something as amazing as open world games like Oblivion, Fallout 3, L.A. Noire, etc. I couldn't have even imagined MMO's like WoW, Eve Online, Rift, etc.

      The amount of value that I get out of a $60 game today blows away what I *ever* could have *dreamed* of getting out of a $30 C64, or Atari 2600, or NES game back in the day. I can wander the wastes of Fallout: New Vegas for hours. I can ride the plains of Red Dead Redemption forever--playing games of Liars Dice with strangers online, roping bad guys, playing the main mission, going on sidequests--all for a pittance of what I would have plunked into Defender in the arcade in an average month back in the early 80's.

      You "Back in *my* day, everything was better!" guys are nuts. I've been around videogaming from the beginning and there has NEVER, EVER been a time that even compared to today--not in terms of fun, not in terms of game quality, not in terms of value. Sure there are things to nitpick about, but this idea that games are going downhill from some mythical golden age is just bonkers.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re:Great by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      I built my own arcade machine specifically for Mr. Do! (though with MAME, I clearly didn't stop with just one game). It's always interesting to see somebody else know that relatively obscure game that's like dig dug with a snowball. :D

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    16. Re:Great by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Not to mention virtual target practice isn't really that fun. I enjoyed older games because there was real strategy involved. It was more than just the superficial point and shoot crapstorm games are today.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    17. Re:Great by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Dig dug with a snowball? I've never heard it called that. (Mr. Do is obscure?)

      (At first I thought you were referring to Snow Bros, but that doesn't have digging.)

    18. Re:Great by FredFredrickson · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a simplistic way of looking at it, but the point is, You dig, much like dig dug. Instead of blowing guys up, you just hit them with.. what I assume is a snow ball. Ok ok, but you're a clown. So it's different.. but you get it.

      And, yes, Mr Do! is obscure- at least more so than most arcade games. Very few of my friends know of it. I only know of it cause I grew up near an pizza place with mr do! and I pretty much spent my allowance on it every week.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  2. Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So on top of charging $59.99 for games, upwards of $50 to "enhance" your nerfed game through DLC, this too? I'm really starting to become disillusioned with the gaming industry.

    1. Re:Sigh by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      You do know that it's free for new copies of games, right? It's only if you're buying a used copy do you get hit with that $10 fee for online access with that game.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    2. Re:Sigh by Seumas · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. It's free for ONE PERSON who uses that new copy of the game. Let's say you you're underage and have siblings? Or you have a spouse who games? Or maybe you have roommates or live in a sort of "house of dudes"? Having to pay another $10 for each person to be allowed to play (not to mention, possibly charging separately for each piece of DLC *per person*, depending on the particular piece of DLC in question) is bullshit.

      Imagine if you bought Monopoly at the store for $10. You set it out and got the game ready to play. And then you had to pay another $30 so the other three people could be allowed to play. Or maybe if your cable company charged you $500/mo for cable television, because there are four people in your household instead of just one person watching content. Or handing your spouse a copy of a book you just read and they have to pay another $30 to read it.

      The problem with all of these companies and all of this nickel-and-dime-ing bullshit is that they're fucking over the primary customer. The customer who is WILLING TO PAY FULL PRICE FOR THEIR GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    3. Re:Sigh by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      If you're gaming in a communal environment, for games like this, use a public sign-in for the whole house. Everyone's pleased. This isn't rocket science. I already do it myself between me and my wife, so I know that this does work. And no, they're not short-changing the primary customer. They're short-changing the secondary customer, and I honestly couldn't care less for the secondary customer as I don't buy used games nor sell the ones I have and have also planned ahead when the concept of DLC came to fruition.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    4. Re:Sigh by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Though one of the other recent stories said that the public sign-in wouldn't work, IIRC.. Didn't it prevent you from restarting the game from the beginning, once you'd finished it?

    5. Re:Sigh by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      If it's a single GamerTag/PSN ID for the whole house, on one device in the living room, I don't see why it wouldn't work.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    6. Re:Sigh by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      This is the story I was referring to:
      http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/06/27/2331211/Capcom-Announces-Unreplayable-Game

    7. Re:Sigh by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really apply here since you can't put gamesave data on a DVD/BD-ROM. It's read-only, after all.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    8. Re:Sigh by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but couldn't they do the same thing with a "save game slot" on the internal hard drive on the console, or "in the cloud"?

      Sure, it'd probably be get-around-able in some way, but effectively, it seems like the same thing.

    9. Re:Sigh by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 1

      With gamesaves on a local drive, I don't see that happening. With cloud stored gamesaves, I only see that possibly happening if the data is stored on the publisher's servers. Even with XBL moving so that a gamertag lives solely in the cloud, your data is still going to be on Microsoft's servers and rather difficult for a publisher to get their hands on and edit.

      --
      The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
    10. Re:Sigh by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      probably Canadian... $70 new, $65 used at EB!

    11. Re:Sigh by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      At least on Xbox - I don't know about Playstation - this isn't a problem. The player who "owns" the pass can play on any console, and all players using the owner's console can play too.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
  3. Arts funding needs to extend to video games NOW by mykos · · Score: 1

    Good games just aren't profitable enough.

    1. Re:Arts funding needs to extend to video games NOW by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      As long as idiots pay the money the publishers will keep taking their cut. As long as customers keep saying "I don't like it, but I just got to have the game" then this will keep happening. As Liberace said, "I'm laughing all the way to the bank."

  4. Enhanced for who by clutch110 · · Score: 1

    Enhanced? What is it enhancing? What is this $10 buying besides a spot in their wallet and not mine. Thanks but no thanks.

    1. Re:Enhanced for who by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's the thing. If they were providing any value for the money it probably would work, but as it is they're taking away value unless you pay them $10.

      There's all sorts of services they could provide that would be worth $10 to the consumer without costing them $10 to provide. And yet they go the lazy route and just raise prices on their games. Hardly as brazen as the 60% that Netflix managed, but it's still pretty insulting to suggest that they're entitled to something for nothing.

  5. Mod me troll now, I guess. by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, I think this is good - as long as it's clearly marked on the box/digital 'packaging' so that people can make informed choices, let them. They'll lose customers, they'll also gain revenue - and they (and the market) can decide in the end if the revenues gained from second-hand sales make up for the revenue lost in first-hand sales.

    I think it will more than do so - most people are basically inconsiderate in the end. If they get their gameplay out of it, they're really not going to worry about what the second-hand purchaser is getting when they go to gamestop to make their trade-ins. I suspect we'll see the second hand games resellers lowering both their purchase and resale price for these games over time.

    1. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by Hatta · · Score: 2

      I think it will more than do so - most people are basically inconsiderate in the end. If they get their gameplay out of it, they're really not going to worry about what the second-hand purchaser is getting when they go to gamestop to make their trade-ins.

      There's a selfish motive for not buying games you can't resell at a high price. If I buy a $50 and resell it at $30, I've only spent $20 in that transaction. If I buy a $50 game and can only resell it at $10, I've spent $40. In either case I get the same amount of entertainment out of the game, but I'm paying twice as much for the undesirable game.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by click2005 · · Score: 2

      Seriously, I think this is good - as long as it's clearly marked on the box/digital 'packaging' so that people can make informed choices, let them.

      How visible is this logo going to be on Ebay, Playtrade or any online marketplace. You can bet ebay sellers wont advertise the "you have to pay another $10" part.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    3. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by Intropy · · Score: 2

      That all makes sense. But take it a step further down the chain. "I suspect we'll see the second hand games resellers lowering both their purchase and resale price for these games over time." That means that people who buy the game new will get less for their trade-ins. Not everyone trades games in, but that will yield a lower average value to the new game since some proportion of the buyers counted on defraying the purchase price with a trade-in. That will yield lower sales and/or lower prices on new games that use Uplay. Ubisoft, retail stores, buyers, and resellers will all adjust their prices to the new equilibrium over time. The end result will be a sharper divide between used and new game prices, lower prices on both generally, greater purchaser choice (since the difference between used and new games is itself larger - that doesn't mean to say that in any particular instance the choice you prefer is still available), and greater user annoyance at needing to deal with the uplay system.

    4. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      If the resale price goes down, then less people will be willing to buy the game new. As they will have less of that resale money to spend. They will lose customers and revenue. I now know to avoid them, but I don't buy games when they first come out anyway. On the other hand I do tend to buy the first version and the GOTY editions of really good games. I just wait until those products are available at the reasonable price or get them used. They need to realize they are not only competing with new games but with the last 20+ years worth of video games for my entertainment dollar. These antics are not going to make me more likely to spend my money with them.

    5. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      Come on guys, it's only the price for two latté....

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
    6. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      However, in terms of enjoyment-per-hour, games are still remarkably cheap.

      Still hard to beat the $0.99 Tiny Wings or Angry Birds, though.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    7. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Guys don't drink lattes. Not only is it a stupid measure of value, it is a product the MBA that came up with that idea drinks and not the end users.

    8. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I think Angry Birds causes more frustration for people than enjoyment. No one believed me when I told them I'd beaten the original, Rio, and almost finished Seasons because most people find them so hard to complete the more challenging levels.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    9. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by toriver · · Score: 1

      If you drink latté - and write it like that - then you are an iPhone + iPad user, and only pay $0.99-$4.99 for your games anyway...

    10. Re:Mod me troll now, I guess. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much everyone i know that has a real dedicated gaming PC also has an Ipad........

      --
      Good-bye
  6. Uplay Passport-enhanced games * by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    * For certain unconventional definitions of "enhanced"

    1. Re:Uplay Passport-enhanced games * by snl2587 · · Score: 2

      "Enhanced" as in "enhanced interrogation".

  7. Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

    Another attempt to kill the secondary market.

    I'd say I'd stop buying Ubisoft games, but I have mostly stopped buying games except thru Steam anyway.

    --
    "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    1. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another attempt to kill the secondary market.

      I'd say I'd stop buying Ubisoft games, but I have mostly stopped buying games except thru Steam anyway.

      Isn't steam the wet dream of those trying to kill the secondary market?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    2. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd say I'd stop buying Ubisoft games, but I have mostly stopped buying games except thru Steam anyway.

      Wait you'd stop buying ubisoft because they are trying to kill the 2ndary market, because you buy on steam where they already did?

      Hell.. on steam... you can't even lend or give a game away, never mind resell it.

    3. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      It is, but it is a three edged sword. Used sales disappear, customers gain convenience, and as economic theory would suggest game prices are lower and must be to make up for lost value.

    4. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by DanTheStone · · Score: 2

      The nice thing about Steam is that everyone knows you have no resale, so (admittedly, sale) prices reflect that. Most people wouldn't care if they couldn't resell their console games if they sold for $15-20 instead of $60.

    5. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Intropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Steam doesn't allow a secondary market; that is true. But they make up for it by selling games much, much, cheaper than other retailers (I don't have figures, but I assume that their deeply discounted games greatly outsell the others). The ability to resell a game has a value to me. If you discount the new game by an amount greater than the amount of the resale value, I will happily prefer buying your cheaper, but non-resealable version. Go low enough and nobody cares about buying used either since nobody buys a used game because they prefer used to new; they buy used because it's cheaper. The losers are the stores that specialize in reselling used games since they can no longer profit off of arbitrage.

    6. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they already have me hooked. Prices are low, selection is good...

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    7. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by captjc · · Score: 2

      With a vow to never spend over $15 and some patience (maybe as long as a couple of years), there is no reason why you can't get any game on there for cheap as hell. Usually by waiting for a major holiday.

      However, for non-sale prices, Amazon (new and used) is usually cheaper, sooner.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    8. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      I lend quite often. It's called I switch my password to something temporary to let a buddy play, or just signin once to their machine, download the game, and put the hack on to put Steam into permanent offline mode on their machine.

    9. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by paziek · · Score: 1

      Steam has one of the highest prices I have EVER seen. They drop them not that often, so you can buy some older games for still full price. And well... each new one goes for around 50-60€, while local retailer will sell it for around 15-30€ - boxed! Even if Steam puts something on sale its still often more expensive than my local retailers, tho I must admit sometimes its cheaper or shipping costs and me having to watch for mail makes Steam a bit more convenient. But overall its very expensive, especially in countries where you don't earn 1500-2000€ minimal.

      People actually raged in Poland when they heard that Starcraft 2 will be priced at 50€ at retail. That was just unheard of for a PC game, tho it had enough fans to make a sale.

    10. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by d4fseeker · · Score: 1

      Drop me a note when you find a "local retailer" offering new games for 30 bucks, I seem to only hit the overpriced ones, as does everybody I know.
      Oh and fyi: I live in Luxembourg

    11. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by paziek · · Score: 1

      I figure that your retailers match their price to earnings of their customers, so it could be hard to find something as cheap as here. Problem with Steam is that (from what I can tell) they have the same price for everyone in Europe. If new games for PC would be priced at 50-60€ at retail in Poland, then almost no one would buy. There are people here who need to live out of 300€ a month, and families with 3+kids that have "just" 600€ in total. 30€ for a game is already a hefty price + hardware that costs the same as in west EU; if not more.
      I would suggest trying amazon UK, recently I bought there Sins of Solar Empire and Gothic4 cheaper than anywhere I could find.

    12. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by PenquinCoder · · Score: 1

      Gaming industry insider says, "THIS IS NOT LENDING!1!1!!! THIS IS STEALING!!! How am I supposed to feed my family with your friends stealing MY PROF1T!!"

    13. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      With a vow to never spend over $15 and some patience (maybe as long as a couple of years), there is no reason why you can't get any game on there for cheap as hell.

      $15? I don't remember the last time I paid more than $5 for a game that was tied to Steam.

    14. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Granted, you lose the ability to sell your games, but you get a lot in return. Install on many machines, including at work, laptop, desktop, etc. You can only play one at a time, but thats ok, and fair within the idea of buying "a" game.

      You can forget about losing the disk, or scratching it. Installing is pretty painless and reasonably quick. They have great sale prices if you shop a bit. You can still play games many years after you buy them (I'm playing games I bought in 99, ie: HL1, TFC, which was even before Steam).

      One of the biggest plus is updates. Updating games used to be a fucking nightmare. Going to Planetwhatever.com and putting up with their endlessly stupid registration and begging you to get a paid subscription so you can "download now!", when the game makers should have been making it easier to download fixes to their own games. With Steam, it is automatic and you never have to think about it, they just stay updated. Steam auto defrags games, too. Steam has a GREAT interface to buy games, simple shopping, a few clicks and you are downloading and installing.

      So Steam isn't perfect, but it is how I buy most of my games because I never sold them anyway, and Gabe really seems to care about gamers. They balance profitability and usability quite well to make a very good product that helps all game content creators make a profit, while not stomping all over end users. Seriously, it is by far the lesser of all available evils, and the real cost is the loss of selling your games, after you likely paid less for them on Steam than you would have in the store to begin with.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    15. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Egg meet Chicken.

      The reason console prices haven't dropped is in part because of the 'vibrant' secondary market. Steam proves that publishers are happy to drop prices with a captive audience.

      The used games market on the consoles is bad for everyone. It artificially inflates retail prices and it denies publishers revenue and instead hands it to useless organizations like Gamestop.

    16. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      While you're correct, you're in a bit of an edge case (albeit a bit one) since you have to deal with that whole $1=1€ thing on steam.

      The rest of us paying in USD generally get games cheaper on Steam.

    17. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I rarely if ever will spend more than $5 on a game from Steam. The only exceptions have been when the alternative was buying from somebody I hated even more than Valve and didn't have the patience to wait for the price to drop to next to nothing. In practice that's happened like twice.

    18. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I lend quite often. It's called I switch my password to something temporary to let a buddy play...

      This is in blatent violation of the Terms of Service you agreed to.

      And while your buddy is playing an online game, you can't login. Even if you own 20 other multiplayer games and wish to play something that is not in use....

      or just signin once to their machine, download the game, and put the hack on to put Steam into permanent offline mode on their machine.

      Effectively cracking the system to let your friend play it. Why not just have your friend torrent a cracked copy? How is what you've done any better?

      Plus this method ensures you can't lend someone an online game, and/or that the lendee can't do any multi-player.

    19. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Yes. It's sneaky, get people to object over "bad" DRM and have the cozy up to "good" DRM and even go so far as to defend the DRM. To some people Steam is convenient so they conveniently overlook the fact that their rights are being removed. As long as a publisher has a game that someone wants, you can make them jump over flaming hoops to get it.

    20. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Except that prices don't really go down. They go down much faster in retail stores than in online stores. Eliminating the middle man of the retail stores just means they pocket the difference, they will not pass that on to the customers (well, Steam is a new middle man here too, taking their own cut). So I can get cheaper games retail AND give them away to a friend when I'm done (legally!) OR play the game a decade after the publisher has gone bankrupt.

    21. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I can not purchase a game from Steam, I can only rent a game from Steam. They retain full rights because of the DRM and my right to transfer ownership is denied.

    22. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      This is backwards. If there are inexpensive second hand sales this will drive down the costs of the first-sale products to match. Games are cheaper on Steam only when they're older, and even then it seems to take much longer for games to fall into the $9.99 bargain bin prices on Steam than they do in a brick and mortar store. Competition should reduce costs overall, which is why publishers strive to eliminate competition so that they can keep the profits high.

      The comparison though is hard to make because many titles on Steam that have DRM are unavailable elsewhere because they Valve prefers to have contracts with the developers that discourage alternate distribution methods. If you see a retail box of a game that is on Steam with DRM, you can be pretty sure that the boxed game will require Steam during installation.

      Gamestop is not the only destination for second hand games. They may be the worst of them though as they sell games at nearly full price. There are places where you can get second hand games at a bargain, and you can even give games away for free to friends. Do not support DRMs and give up your rights just because you hate Gamestop.

    23. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      console games if they sold for $15-20 instead of $60.

      But a lot of them DO sell for that. Greatest Hits get down to the $20 level.. and as I mentioned in another thread, there's an Amazon sale of buy 2 get 1 free. There were some $20 or less games there too, so if you can find 3 you want, that's effectively $13.33/game.

    24. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Steam has bargain games, but retail stores have bargain bins. When you look at new games Steam is not selling at a bargain.

      I have even gotten one of my only Steam games from a retail store _cheaper_ than Steam was selling it online!

    25. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Steam isn't perfect true. It's also evil. DRM should be boycotted by anyone with a brain who does not want to give away their rights merely because they're drooling over a game. It's not as restrictive a DRM as some other places, but it is still DRM and they have control over the game you paid money for. They're not doing this to stop piracy, but to stop second hand sales which is a right you should have as a consumer. But most people don't care because they no longer think about owning a game anymore they just want to play it temporarily while it's still fashionable and then discard it, and Steam is perfect for this sort of rental model. Same way that people don't worry about DRM on blu-ray because they'd rather get the flashy new movie than worry about their rights.

    26. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      So you can give away a Steam game by cheating to get around Steam's rules. Seems to me that Steam has some restrictions in their model that you don't like.

      I'd rather have a game that I can give away publicly without hacking or cheating the system.

    27. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by aekafan · · Score: 1

      That's ok, i couldn't care less about their TOS. Hell, my friend and I share a steam account (about 200 games now), and we just D/L the game, and the go into offline mode. Have never had a problem with it, and we get to share each others games. As for multiplayer, I never buy a single player game for the multiplayer aspects. That is what MMOs are for, they do much better at it. I am loving steam ever since i bought Half-Life 2 years ago. Many of the older games and MMOs dont even require steam to work. As for cracking it, hell yea. I usually pirate games first, then if i like it, I'll buy it (saved a lot of money on DNF and DS3 this way). Once i buy it, it's mine and i couldn't be bothered to care what the devs or publishers think of my cracking it at that point. Plus steam usually has less actual and less debilitating DRM than a physical copy

    28. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      I have the same deal with Xbox - my average price is $5.19 (excluding DLC). The highest price I'll pay for a game is $15 because they're so short and I usually only like about 20% of them.

    29. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      If Valve wanted to stop that they could make installing the game on multiple computers a massive pain in the ass. But they don't. I think they know that lending doesn't kill the market.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    30. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by binkzz · · Score: 1

      you are right and Valve's ToS is draconian. It's new technology and no laws are in place for it yet, which I hope there will be soon. Until then I create a new account for each game that I buy, so I can easily sell or lend games to other people.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    31. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you can always sell your entire steam account. hah. as if you couldn't sell your wow accounts too.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    32. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by toriver · · Score: 1

      Prices sort of go down if you stick to only buying games on Steam when they are on sale at reduced prices.

    33. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Kwpolska · · Score: 1

      By the way, is there a way to change the currency?

    34. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      That idiotic-sounding gaming industry insider has a point. How is he supposed to feed his family without his profit?

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    35. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      I think there used to be, but as far as I know, not anymore.

    36. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Steam's amazing sales go beyond the need to buy used. Nowhere else can you get a used copy of BFBC2 for console for $5.

      --
      Good-bye
    37. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>DRM free games are a pipe dream, unless you don't mind only playing ancient games from GOG.com, or freeware, open source crap

      Ooh... shouldn't have gone there on Slashdot. =)

      Even though it's kind of weird to say it, console games are more "free" (as in protection of first sale doctrine rights, not as in beer) than PC games these days. For a long time now, retail copies of PC games come with a one-time code to register it online, and once you've registered your copy of, say, Diablo II, nobody else can use that copy of the game, even if you give away your installation disks.

      By comparison, console games can be handed to your friends, fully functional. Only recently have console manufacturers been doing evil shit like in TFA, but it is doubtful they will ever go so far as on the PC, where transferring a game is effectively prohibited (unless you pirate the game, of course).

      It's effectively the same as Steam hypothetically charging a $10 fee to transfer a game from one account to another.

    38. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I bought Batman:Arkham Asylum GOTY with all DLC for $5 from Steam. It has been at this price point at least 3 times. This version also includes free re-downloads at any time i wish and no disk to store (technically no individual disk to store, i still keep a physical backup of all steam games on my backup HDD). I dont need , nor want a physical manual, box or disk.

      --
      Good-bye
    39. Re:Another attempt to kill the secondary market by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Steam's amazing sales go beyond the need to buy used. Nowhere else can you get a used copy of BFBC2 for console for $5.

      What do you think will happen if steam should become some dominate that there is no longer a functioning used market?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  8. Hey, guys, remember the good days, like Mech2? by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Where they didn't have multiplayer done in time, so they released it as a standalone FOR FREE?

    Yeah, I miss that too.

  9. So what will the new excuse be? by grapeape · · Score: 1

    Most I have discussed this with have talked about this being their last "console generation" if even half of them follow through and go back to pc gaming how do you think the publishers are going to explain away lost sales. Back when I was still console gaming a few years ago I would occasionally buy used games and when good they usually enticed me to buy the next title when it was released. Most that I know that buy used do so because they aren't willing to pay $60 for a game so they wait until it hits a price point they feel comfortable playing and either buy used or new depending on what drops first. I dont see this doing much to raise revenues if anything I see it dropping initial revenues and then maybe if gamers attention spans last long enough increasing the sales when it hits bargain bins.

    1. Re:So what will the new excuse be? by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "how do you think the publishers are going to explain away lost sales"

      Piracy & hackers.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  10. GTFO of my pocket! by Tyr07 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, do companies need to profit on everything we do? They're as bad as the government. Tax when you get paid, taxes on the things you bought, taxes on the money you give, taxes on money you save, taxes on property you own. A single dollar gets taxed for like 50% of it. Gaming companies are trying to do the same! Pay money when you buy the game(I support that) Pay money to keep playing it (I understand it, content updates, servers, you know, mmo stuff) but now money when you sell it to someone else? They have to pay to use it? You have to pay for items in game in a lot of games now too! 3rd parties need to back off, get their hands out of my pocket before I snap it off. I'm tired of all these third parties trying to get their grubby little hands in your wallet EVERY time you bring it out.

  11. Newspeak by dcollins · · Score: 1

    "Uplay Passport-enhanced games"

    Or rather: Uplay Passport-crippled games.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  12. fine by me by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    I wont touch a ubisoft game because of their retarded DRM stunts
    fuck sony
    THQ? what do they make aside from crap wrestling and movie games, and the occasional total shit port to another system (road rash 64 pops to mind)

    And yes EA I am still pissed that nearly 10 years ago I bought Tiger Woods Golf for my pretty new palm 5 (and it was a great game), but you stole from me around 6 months later. (there is a cd key but it does not work with the game, you go to a long dead website, enter that seed, and get the current key for your seed+date or something, so you could not use the same key over and over again, which I might add is a real pain in the ass on a device without persistent storage)

  13. Hmm.... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

    Whether this movement is a good thing depends on one major factor: the price of used games.

    If, because used games have less value thanks to not being able to go online, resellers drop prices, then I actually like the idea a lot. For me, who doesn't give a shit about most multiplayer components in games, I'd much rather get a single player-only game for cheaper. Mark down the prices by ten bucks and let me decide whether I'll get the MP component or not. In fact, that kind of modularity would be nice even at retail. Maybe it'd show publishers that you don't need to cram a multiplayer mode in every damn game.

    Now, if resellers don't drop prices, then they'll see a dearth of customers and the entire thing will suck. Let's hope they'll take the sensible approach.

  14. Coming Soon... by brim4brim · · Score: 1

    Uplay hacked and now redundant as using the hack is undetectable as they can't tell the legitimate from the illegitimate codes. Queue restart of used games market. It is kind of like having a stick with a carrot on the end of it except your stick can be hacked :P

  15. Uplay Passport 'enhanced' by PenquinCoder · · Score: 1

    Enhanced for who??? CERTAINLY not the user.... Marketing ploys suck.

  16. obvious misnomer by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    obvious misnomer; more accurately be "U-Pay Passport." You don't pay, you don't play.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  17. Great! by Seumas · · Score: 1

    The thing I love most about gaming is ENTERING FUCKING LONG CODES and dealing with complex registration and login bullshit (UBI and EA tend to be the most fucking convoluted).

  18. This is a good thing... by Cruciform · · Score: 2

    I love that the big publishers are doing this. It alienates consumers and makes small indie products even more attractive.
    Keep digging those graves, you greedy bastards!

  19. Enhanced by Legion303 · · Score: 3, Informative

    This word works great in other contexts as well:

    Hurricane Katrina flooding = enhanced swimming.
    9/11 = enhanced travel services.
    rape = enhanced snuggling.
    concentration camps = enhanced lodging.

    Now of course I'm not comparing Ubisoft to the holocaust. That would be absurd. Ubisoft is worse than the holocaust.

  20. `Good' Publishers List? by Kwpolska · · Score: 1

    Is there any list of good publishers (for all platforms), i.e. ones that don't have idiotic DRMs, online passes, etc? I'd be happy to get their games.

  21. Greed by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    these online passes are nothing short of greed. if the purchase of a new game covers online play, then a used copy would not add to the overhead: it is the same disc. then again, its not surprising. hell, in 20 years, we will have to pay for every single individual listening/viewing/etc. of all media anyways. might as well start now.

    --
    ...
  22. I'll pay it under one condition. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    Make Scott Pilgrim an online game, dammit.
    I'd happily shell out $10 for online support for that.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  23. strategic anti-consumerism by mfaine · · Score: 1

    I will not buy any game from any developer with this restriction. Not just because it is greedy, anti-consumer and shows contempt for customers but for practical reasons. They've devalued the games to the point where I can't play them. I usually don't even play a lot of multi-player but my son does. I have a strategy that has worked for some time. Buy the game on Amazon for $40 - often games that sell at Gamestop for $60 can be had on Amazon for $40. Play the game until we are sick of it (usually not that long) then put it back on Amazon for $20. All told the experience cost me $20 and some of my time. In a lot of ways this reminds me of the tactics employed by Netflix recently. It will have the intended side effect of destroying physical media sales while promoting online distribution. Businesses have decided that all you have to do is piss off the consumer, force them into a position where they won't pay such a crazy price and then give them the alternative you wanted them to choose all along at a better price. Over time you control the distribution and completely end secondary markets.

  24. This really irritates me... not because I buy... by Talonius · · Score: 1

    used products but as someone who has multiple XBL accounts in the house. I'm not paying the publishers extra money just because my son, my daughter and I like to have separate achievements. Figured this out when I went to play the latest NFS... worse, I own it on my PC but there's no way to go, "Hey, I own two copies of this, let me play!"

    Fuck the people who do this. The games are already shoddy pieces of crap which are unimaginative, buggy, and overpriced - now you want more? I'll just stop buying - for me, my son, my daughter, my wife. 4 consumers, lost. See you on the flip side, suckers.

    --
    My reality check bounced.