http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/35900/Report_Ubisoft_Introducing_Its_Own_Online_Pass_System.php

Yep, these guys are tools.

Ubitax. Because feudalism is the way to go.

I got e-mail from ubisoft.. sucks ass. If I remember correctly I bought that some game from steams weekend deal-thingy.

What sucks, is Ubisoft has a game coming out I'm really excited for (HOMMVI), but the way Ubisoft handles their business is making me not want to support it. Ubisoft puts in oppressive DRM, abandons games, never fixes games so they work 100%, continually looks for new ideas to fuck gamers, and in general just act like the doucheist douches on douche street.

Oh come on, EA does it and you guys aren't up in arms about it, but when Ubisoft does it you guys wet yourselves in anger? Seriously?

I'm not a fan of Ubisoft but what they're doing here is quite logical. If you buy a game new, you get features for free. Publishers don't see a cent from secondhand sales, so to try and profit a little bit from secondhand sales is not a bad idea. Remember, these people are in it to make money. Ubisoft doesn't exist to serve you, the consumer. It's a magical coincidence when they do something good for you.

I dunno about anyone else, but I can tell you that I don't support any game company doing this. Period. When THQ announced they were installing this method for their wrestling and UFC games, I stopped supporting those games. And I have yet to buy a physical copy of a game that has this setup.

Selling my used games for halfway decent prices is the only way I had any money as an unemployed college student who had his financial assistance terminated (until I ran out of things to sell anyway). And by using these codes, they directly effect the ability of others to make a return profit off their games.

No other business does anything like this. If I go buy a chair, and then decide I want to resell that chair at a discounted price, the chair company can't do anything to stop me. I already purchased a physical copy of the game. It's mine to do so as I wish.

To try and hurt my ability to make a return on my own property is a douche move of the highest order.

Well, I'm just happy they "technically" admitted that pirates aren't their worst enemy. It's those other paying customers.

They're not stopping you from reselling your games though. They are in effect saying, "hey, you bought this game secondhand from someone for less than full price, at the least you could play ten bucks if you want to enjoy a fuller experience." If publishers wanted to be pricks, they could basically stop you from reselling your games at all! Even if you sold your game at a lower price and then a 10 dollar extra was tacked on, chances are it won't be anywhere near full price in the first place.

I dunno how often you've resold, but I can tell you straight up it significantly effects resale value.

Let's say I buy a $59.99 360 game, right? I try to resell it a month later. Naturally, price depreciation has taken in effect, but the game (supposing it's a GOOD game), still goes for upper 40's, low 50's.

Now, if it's a mutliplayer game, and a person getting the game second hand has to buy a code to use it multiplayer, the code costs $9.99. That is directly taken off the price of the second hand sale. A person who has to buy that code will not buy a copy of the game used that will equal the full retail price. It's simple economics and cause & effect.

And I've even seen it go farther down then just the $9.99. I've seen near brand new copies of multiplayer games going down as far as $30 dollars resold less then one month after release.

It has a substantial consequence on resale values, which lowers the incentive to resell at all when you won't even recoop more then 50% of your investment. Which is what they want.

Too true, just don't expect anybody to like it.

In professional, technical, and business software, it's long been the case that you make money not on initial sales, but on maintenance and renewals. If your software does an important job and does it well, you'll get those maintenance contracts and renewals.

This has not been true of consumer software. Consumers expect rock-bottom prices, with free handholding and updates, and forget trying to sell them maintenance contracts. They're perfectly justified in doing so, but at the same time software companies (including game developers) are as justified in wanting greater return on investment than this model can provide.

Importantly, it means that there is little or no incentive for software developers to do the work that prolongs the life of consumer titles. How many developers would release a patch to a game, a year after the game was out? Hardly any, because by then the game is being sold in the bargain bin. Unless the game has a profitable subscription following.

That's how you end up with extra-cost online access schemes, schemes to defeat resale, and other ways of nickel-and-diming the consumer. Stinks, but the alternative is higher first-sale prices and fewer companies willing to take risks on creative titles.

Would you be mad if you purchased a used car and had to pay Ford 9.99 for the headlights to work?

How often do you see the move industry complaining about people selling old moves?

But the thing is, you don't *have* to buy the $9.99 extra. If you do, you still save money, if you don't, you save ten dollars. Surely it won't change the way people buy used games. And furthermore, on console games, the multiplayer community usually fizzles out after the first two or three months (unless it's Call of Duty, Battlefield or Halo, which all follow a different kind of economics model from a parallel universe), so in reality the chance of paying for these "premium features" is quite slim.

Can someone explain to me why this is bad for PC gamers? A good amount of us buy through digitial distribution. You can't resell games, outside of GMG, so you guy a new copy and can't resell it. This is literally just another code you have to enter and doesn't hurt us.

I actually support this sort of thing for consoles. Gamestop needs to have that monopoly stopped and this is a good step without hurting people who support the company.

That's different. For one thing, headlights are essential for safety and are required. Multiplayer in a game is not essential in a game (unless it's a multiplayer only game, obviously).

Untill they add patches to the "premium features" you need a pass for.