Well, The way they're handing the Heroes 6 closed beta is a bloody shame. No new updates for the Steam version at all. The closed beta has been going on since June 28th. Ubisoft just sucks.

Aren't Ubisoft's games worthless enough as it is?

True, but the way they treat their customers is beyond awful. If it wasn't for consoles i think this company would go belly up.

Just to point out, while that case sucks.. that was the game store ripping you off, and in my experience, if you can adequately express to a game company that you were ripped off in such a manner, they'll often issue a replacement code.

When I got my copy of DA:O, which as you may know came with a couple of DLCs free, the DLC redemption coeds from my brand new, un-opened game were showing up as used. EA replaced them.

Exactly, it's their stupid DRM principals that have led me to buying their games used just so i don't give them any of my money.

/shrug
Can't say this bothers me much. I'm already very selectiv on purchasing Ubisoft titles with their DRM in mind (still haven't gotten Settlers 7, even though it looks like I would enjoy the game).

So in the end it's just more titles I'll get brand-new on a Steam sale for 10 bucks or less. All it takes is a little patience. Thanks Ubisoft for saving me money.

And not a single thing you mentioned is in an effort to keep people from selling something they bought. If a car company came out and said when you buy a used car you would have to purchase a code to have the power steering , air conditioner, and lights work would that be ok??

And I say again, game companies are not trying to please anyone but their investors. They are simply gouging their customers.

That gets to the real heart of the matter: a business can do what it wants within the bounds of legality, and the customer decides whether or not the product is worth it.

I draw in customers because I give away free lifetime phone support, for products I have not sold and have no initial financial interest in. The OEM has recently started charging for support for those companies who buy a used machine from some other source. Both of those are the choices of the two companies offering support. For those people who don't want to pay the OEM for tech support, many come to me. I get nothing for it initially since I wasn't involved in the used machine sale and also did not get anything out of the new machine sale. But it brings in customers. Conversely, the OEM policy scares away some of their customers. When customers try to pay me for phone support, I tell them that it's always free. All I ask is that they consider my company when it comes time to buy parts and have service work performed. The business made a decision to operate this way, and the consumer decides if it's worth it.

This isn't an exact parallel since I am offering the same thing as the other guy, whereas there is no alternative source of the online extras that Ubi offers for $10. But ultimately it comes down to the choice of the business and the customer. The consumers will either determine that it's BS and Ubi sales will suffer, at which point Ubi may change the policy, or the consumers will decide that it isn't a big deal and Ubi sales will continue on at the current pace.

That's right, we can't compare it. For one, the whole thing is a bit backward: if I'm paying upwards of $30,000 for a piece of business software it damn well better come with free support and patches, whereas at $40 I feel that free post-release add-ons are pretty generous of the dev / publisher - but it makes perfect sense from the aspect of customer loyalty. But if the business software provider does not offer that free support then it's my responsibility to decide whether or not the purchase makes sense taking into consideration the long-term cost.

So I don't have a problem with Ubi doing this. As a consumer, I have the tools to make an informed choice on the matter and if it doesn't sound like a decent deal then I can take a pass. Ubi will either reap the benefits or suffer the financial consequences. Simple as that. If I have any gripe, though it's more like advice, it would be that $9.99 seems high and it should be closer to the $3-5 point. But again, that's a decision for Ubi and the individual consumer to make. To me, it's not worth it since I can pick up a GOG or two, complete games, for that cost. So this consumer has made the same choice available to everyone else.

Gotta laugh at the people calling it 'evil'. Folks, for the most part business has to make at least a bare minimum profit else the business eventually goes under. Online extras cost money to create and maintain and it's reasonable to try to recoup some of that expense. For the original purchaser, that expense is rolled into the retail price, or for some titles it comes from subscription fees or micro-transactions. For the second-hand buyer, it comes from UPass or whatever they call it.

Could be worse - Ubi could simply lock out the second-hand market altogether. At least this way there is a choice.

And +1000 to everything Zolgar has said. A business needs to make money to continue supporting old products and creating new products, and to continuing paying the workers. This is just another way of doing so. As the consumer, you decide whether or not that policy makes sense. From the results of this thread, it seems that some do and some do not. That's the marketplace at work, and Ubi will find out whether or not this plan works.

In that case why are you even bothering to complain and have this argument? If the backlash over this is just a lot of noise with no actual action then you have absolutely no reason to worry for the game companies, do you? I personally think there will be a bit of actual backlash, but I have no idea of what the extent will be and what the actual effect on the overall balance sheets will be, so I'm just waiting to see what the results actually are (I have no personal stake in this as I don't buy used, don't sell my games, almost never play multiplayer, rarely buy games at full price or near release, and haven't bought an Ubisoft game in years). However, it sounds like you need to figure out where you actually stand on what you think the effects will be; once you've done that we can continue this discussion if you still have any interest in it.

I'm as against DRM as anyone here but I don't think locking online features behind a single-use code is bad. The PC has had that as standard for over a decade... it makes sense, especially when companies run servers or save profiles and characters. DRM matters little on online titles anyway.

Locking singleplayer content behind a code is horrible though, I don't support that. Especially on consoles where getting that content after the servers go down could be impossible. Can you get the KOTOR and Splinter Cell DLCs for the original Xbox versions now that the original Xbox Live is dead?

Maybe I'm forgetting some of my gaming history, but I don't recall single-use codes for online play being part of PC games until very, very recently. There have been serial keys used for decades to ensure that only one copy of a game could be used to play online at any one time, but accounts weren't irrevocably tied to these keys, and if you sold or gave away your copy of the game (along with the key) the new owner could still use it to play online. Now, if I've forgotten some elements from gaming history then please feel free to educate me.

I have no stake in it at all, and I know exactly where I stand:Game companies need to make money and protect their investments, and no matter how they try to do that, people will bitch and moan about it.

People were first complaining about how horrible and evil Ubi's current plan is: I pointed out that they're a business out to make money, and every company that sells a product is out to make money somehow.

You said there'd be a backlash, I pointed out that I doubted there would be because.. people are stupid.

... Also, I like to argue ;)

RCGamer:
The car company doesn't do something like that because they already pretty much have the monopoly on new parts for their cars, and dealer maintenance etc. They already make tons of money off of 2nd and 3rd hand buyers,

Game companies though.. their products don't hardly degrade. by the time a CD has degraded to being unuasable, the game will be in the bargain bins, or completely gone from the shelves most likely. there's no parts that will break down over time and need to be replaced, no 'important' parts you can lose or misplace before you sell it to someone else.

Businesses exist to make money, and if there is a way that people will get the companies product without giving the company money for it, the company will try to either find a way to stop it, or profit off of it.

This particular scheme is not a gouge at all to their customers. you still pay the same price. The argument of "well you make less money off of it when you resell it, so it costs more effectively" has one major flaw: Resale values are highly unpredictable and circumstantial. You could argue that releasing a bad game 'gouges the customers' because it's going to have a lower resale value.

So instead of making completely groundless accusations towards a game company (as I said, we have no means to know for certain what the exact financial reason for this move is), and raging about it on a game forum.. if the problem bothers you so much, make your voice heard with your pocket book, or by going straight to the company.

Saying that your stance is that game companies need to make money is kind of like saying that your stance is that the sky is blue. File that one under "duh." Of course game companies need to make money, but as we've covered there are different ways to try to go about doing so, some of which most people are perfectly fine with, and some of which cause people to complain and possibly start looking to take their business elsewhere.

That they're a business out to make money (duh) doesn't make their plan on how to do so any less lousy from the perspective of some of their customers. If someone tries to sell me a pencil for $50 and then tells me I shouldn't complain about the price because they're just doing business and need to make money, I'm still going to tell them just where they can shove that pencil. And coming back to Ubisoft, while they're out to make money, if they try to do so in a way that ends up driving customers away then they've ultimately ended up working counter to their goal. Whether this ends up being the case or not, we'll just have to wait and see. And as for customers, if this new policy means that a customer is no longer being offered a deal that they think is worth it, then that customer is perfectly justified in saying that the policy is lousy and that Ubisoft can take their games and shove off. Ultimately Ubisoft is perfectly free to try to wring ever more money out of its customers, and its customers have every right to tell Ubisoft that they're no longer their customers.

Yeah, if you have a USB capable memory card, you can download the DLC off various sites. Cracked, but you can get it.