Crossing the line when it comes to prices

[Endoperez]

I'm not complaining about a $10 up front fee. I'm complaining about the fact that the used games that I previously could have bought for $10 will now cost me $20 if I want all the content for the game that I payed the store price for, whereas if you buy new, you don't have to pay this $10 fee. What if I genuinely believe that game is only worth $10?

First, you didn't pay the store price for the extra content. As long as it's somehow documented what content is the extra content, you know there's something you're not getting in the used game. As long as the game is actually playable without the extra content, you don't have to pay extra. I mean, if it's not good without the extras, would the extras really change anything? The developers would try to make the game so good that you don't want to stop playing it, and the extra content also so good that it's worth the extra 5$ or 10$ or whatever.


Also, regardless of the worth for the player, all games are worth more than 10$ when you consider the expenses of the publishers and developers. Regardless of if the game sucks or not, the publisher wants as much money back from their mistake as possible.

Regarding the thousands that you claim will no longer be buying used games... no game developers or publishers have to care about them. The publishers get zero, zilch, nothing out of any and all used game sales. If no used games were ever sold, anywhere, the publishers would not directly lose anything. There could be adverse side-effects, but the publishers can't run business if they fear their own shadows, can they?

I think this is a rather clever system, and as one of the alternatives would be a system that didn't allow used games to be played AT ALL, I also happen to think it's not very malevolent either. To my knowledge, no publishers have yet locked any major parts of the game with these codes. A third of the classes, the end half of the game, all weapons except the most useless ones etc.

[Blorx]

Eh, no. That would be the case, but there's no extra content being sacrificed. Online play is being sacrificed. In some cases, they're even considering cutting users off from 90% of the game without it.

[Zhukov]

In some cases, they're even considering cutting users off from 90% of the game without it.

Care to provide an example?

Preferably with a supporting link or two.

[Blorx]

In some cases, they're even considering cutting users off from 90% of the game without it.

Care to provide an example?

Preferably with a supporting link or two.

I gotta find it, and right now, I'm more focused on really getting work done for once.

I remember Kotaku did an article on it if you want to go look.

[Endoperez]

I had to dig at it for a while, but it does seem like you have to pay something to access online play on some games. On UFC Undisputed, it's a one-time 5$ (source). EA calls it an "Online Pass", everyone can access it with a 7-day free trial, but I didn't find even an approximate price on that page, which I found a bit weird (source).

5$ isn't that much if you already like the game and have enjoyed the single-player, so I don't think I'd mind that, as long as you can see how many people are playing it online BEFORE paying. 10$ would be much more annoying if you couldn't get the free trial.

I wouldn't mind if online play on company servers was only available on new copies/a newly bought codes. As long as it stays at the 5-15$ range, it still lets me buy a used games for cheap. I do hope a free trial system becomes widespread too, though, since that'd make it easy for people to see if they'd enjoy the multiplayer content.

[Blorx]

Yeah, the way it went with UFC definitely is more reasonable. I'm definitely glad they decided to put in a free trial before saying "need monah nao" and all.

But, we're talking Ubisoft getting in on this, so it can only go downhill from there.

[Renegade_Turner]

After Spore's horrendous DRM with EA, and Assassin's Creed 2/Splinter Cell Conviction's horrible DRM, you'd think they'd get it, but no! They don't only want to screw PC gamers, they're now going to screw console gamers too!

Here's something I read from a user review on Metacritic that struck me as particularly resonant, and I didn't know where to post it other than here, so here it is. It's about Assassin's Creed 2.

Rating: 0

I need to vent. Honestly, I don't know how good the game is because there always seems to be connection problems. Constantly, to the point where it's just pure frustration and the game is unplayable. The forums were no help whatsoever...believe me I tried everything. Before buying the game I had read some articles on this new DRM method but am not technically inclined enough to have judged its stability. You just expect that the manufacturer wouldn't implement something that didn't work well. So now hindsight is 20/20 and it's truly mind-boggling how someone at Ubisoft could think this was a good idea. I've spent $1000s of dollars on games over the years and wouldn't know where to start pirating a game. I just like to whip out the VISA card and start playing. But this is way, way over the edge. I'm out $60 and that's ok since I learned a valuable lesson...if the name Ubisoft ever shows up in Steam or on a retailer's shelf, I won't even look at it. No way, no how and I'll make sure that everyone I know that plays games is aware of the issue too.

Also, if we analyze the variances between the Metacritic scores, there's a clear verdict. First, the critic scores, then the user scores.

Critical Scores
PS3: 91%
XBox 360: 90%
PC: 86%

User Scores
PS3: 82%
XBox 360: 88%
PC: 27%

Really had to give a firm LOL to the PC user rating when I first saw it. Well done, Metacritic users.

[Freshbite]

It goes to show that Ubisoft is really starting to fuck up, big time. Someone up with the big guys needs to start to pull some string before the company become even less popular than cancer.

[Zhukov]

I'm just glad that Ubisoft haven't released anything particularly good since they started using they're abominable new DRM. With the possible exception of Assassin's Creed 2.

But if they ever release BG&E 2 and it has that DRM on it... I might finally have to resort to the pirate bay.

[zoidberg rules]

Wow, that is pretty bad, don't know what that translates into in pounds, but that still seems pretty damn steep.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but I've always sort of liked Ubisoft games...Don't really know about the newest POP games though, what I've read is that their very 'iffy'

[Ragdollmaster]

Wow, that is pretty bad, don't know what that translates into in pounds, but that still seems pretty damn steep. '

It is, average North American price is $60 for new releases. Older games are generally between $30 to $50 and "greatest hits" are $20.

[zoidberg rules]

So how much is that in £ ??

[Freshbite]

$60 ≈ £40
$72.5 ≈ £48

More or less.

[Renegade_Turner]

Stop complaining. A new Nintendo game here in Sweden is generally 72.5 dollars.

I was wondering what fucking relevance this comment had to what me and Zhukov said, and then I realised what the original topic was.

Stop taking my off-topic threads (as in the threads I cause to be off-topic) off-topic and therefore back on-topic.

50 euro is the usual retail price for games.

[zoidberg rules]

@ Freshbite, that is pretty damn steep, still, I s'pose I can't talk, I paid like £50 cash for Mass Effect 2 on the day of release...