The new Uplay Passport program will begin in the “coming months and will be included in many of Ubisoft’s popular core games,” according to today’s official release. This backs up rumours that hit earlier this week of the upcoming “service.”
The service means that those “popular core games” will come with a registration code that, when redeemed, provides access to bonus content, exclusive offers and, most importantly, online multiplayer.
If a person gets the game used, from a friend or through a purchase, they will need to pay $US10 to buy a new Uplay Passport to access that content and play online.
The first game to get the add-on used game fee will be Driver San Francisco. Ubisoft joins Electronic Arts, Warner Bros., THQ and (soon) Sony Computer Entertainment, in adding a charge for gamers to play their titles online if purchased used or played secondhand.
Snacuum
Saturday, July 16, 2011 at 12:34 PMGreat now everybody is doing it.
How about making some good games instead of finding ways of making enemies out of your customers, huh publishers?
Allanon10101
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 5:21 PMHow are they making enemies of their customers? The second-hand game market is a retailer-exclusive market. The developer and publisher see none of the profit from those sales, and in fact are losing potential income from sales of new versions of the game.
Why should the developer/publisher have to provide online service free-of-charge when they are receiving no payment at all from the user in exchange for the service being provided?
If you’re going to be cheap and buy a second-hand copy of the game, it’s not unreasonable for the developer to expect some sort of payment for services provided.
TSH
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 11:05 AMYour point would make sense if it were a new user gaining access to their system. But think about it: the original purchase price includes whatever free online services, offered for however long. Then the original purchaser trades the game in and is then unable to access the services, removing their personal load from the servers.
This game gets bought pre-owned, and a different person gains access to the services. From the perspective of server load, it would be as though the original purchaser just took a break from the game for a bit and came back. The services were paid for by the original purchase, so why should an extra charge be applied?
Parker
Saturday, July 16, 2011 at 12:54 PM1. Buy game
2. Make copy
3. Sell game
4. Continue playing multiplayer
Nige
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 10:45 AMWhen I bought a second hand car, the dealer didn’t charge me extra in return for continued access to the vehicle’s air conditioning. Just like multi-player access in a game, it was there when it was new, why the hell should we have to pay for those same features again if it’s used? I’m a pretty fair-minded chap, but have I missed something here?!!!
Allanon10101
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 5:25 PMThe dealer isn’t providing you with services that cost them money to maintain or customer support that requires staff to man. Online servers and customer support cost money. Why should they provide that to someone who has purchased a third-party license, a license they see absolutely none of the profit from, which is after all what the retailer is providing you with when they sell the second-hand game.
Nige
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 11:23 AMIndeed, you are correct, sir… There is a (negligible) cost involved, per customer, in running servers etc, but 10 bucks a pop to continue it?!!! Let’s also bear in mind that these games aren’t multiplying in number when sold second hand… In buying a used game, I’m simply picking up where the other guy left off. He no longer uses the server, I do… What’s the difference?! Your argument is valid, but only to a point. This is profiteering, nothing more, nothing less.
Ash
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 11:39 AMAllanon10101 – You’ve made that point twice and it’s not working.
As TSH said, the original purchaser of the game has paid the developers for the product which has included free online play. The original purchaser has then sold the product on to the next person and no longer has access to that online play. There is no increase in charges, there is no loss of revenue (the developer received their money for that particular licensed copy) and it is unreasonable for the developer to ask for more money for the same product based solely on the fact that it’s secondhand. Either multiplayer is free with this game or it’s not. Either the content comes with the game, or it does not. Keep in mind: the developers have already factored in how long the servers are staying up for into the original cost of the game.
The real problem here is that more and more developers are under the delusion that they’re still owed money after their product has been fully bought and paid for. For as long as that delusion exists, we (the gamers) are going to get more and more screwed on gaming prices, content and multiplayer functionality.
Nige
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 2:28 PMAsh, when I’m running things, I will remember your support… You shall be Minister for Common Sense and Concise Rebuttals.
Ash
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 7:31 PMHaha! Thanks mate. ;) Your response to Allanon got in before mine though. :P
chris
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 11:09 AMfu developers! how about you make some additional content and sell that for $10 and earn your money the old fashioned way.
this is getting ridiculous… I think we should all hate EA as i think they were the ones who started this shit.
does this mean that the servers will be available for the life of this console era? for instance, i went to play grid the other day only to find the servers have been turned off.. so now people are paying does that guarantee server life? i doubt it
Wayno@War
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 1:37 PMIt’s a trend which we’ll see develop into something far worse in the very near future. As it stands, if I can get a game I really like used for, say $20.00, then an extra tenner for online isn’t really that much. I’d have spent at least $88.00 to begin with so it is still a considerable saving.
What I’m more concerned about though is the shift toward exclusive online distribution. Take away my hard copies and I will be lost. Take away my option to buy a second hand game and you take away the option to either buy the online pass or enjoy a cheap game offline.
The words “exclusive” and “bonus” are the driving forces behind this movement.
n/a
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 9:33 PM$10US will likely end up to $20 or more knowing psn and xbox Australia. These pass ideas are just another cash crab. Whats going to be the aspect they take away from gaming and charge extra for it next?
GamerLuke
Sunday, July 17, 2011 at 10:35 PMI was considering picking this up…
…not anymore!(:
DENAz
Monday, July 18, 2011 at 11:48 AMMeh, I buy all my games new, so no problems.
I don’t like the trend but it seems logical from the developer’s point of view. So long as that profit is being put to good use that is!