Ubisoft Says "We Still Haven't Decided" Over Xbox One Pre-Owned Games

The Xbox One will only allow the sale of used games if the publisher of a specific game allows it. What do publishers, less than six months out from the console's launch, think of this?

Well, one of the biggest in the world, Ubisoft, has no idea. Or at least isn't publicly talking.

Speaking with GameSpot, Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot was asked whether his company would be allowing the sale of used games on the Xbox One, to which he replied "We haven't decided yet."

The Xbox One is out in November. It's already the middle of June. Guys like Guillemot must have known about this for months. Anything short of a definitive "no" is a pretty strange answer.

Ubisoft CEO says used games 'good' for industry [GameSpot]

WATCH MORE: Gaming News


Comments

    Is this how it's going to be in the future. I go into EB games to trade some Xbox One games. The kid at the counter takes out a chart of which games or publishers are allowed and not allowed to be traded in?

    So, from what Jack Tretton has said as well, it's basically in the hands of each of the publishers to whether they want to implement their own used game blocking/tariff methods (on PS4) or have them implemented on their behalf (on Xbone).

    "We will not be allowing the sale of second hand games. However, the gaming public have not caught on that this is what's best for everyone. Therefore we will bide our time."

      +1 ... while I think it's a d!ck move on Microsoft's part, at least they are being upfront about it, while Sony is deliberately hiding the fact that publishers can still choose to not allow it.

      MS still sucks for the check-in requirement, and the 1 year delay in Asia (ex-pat in Singapore here)

        Sony aren't hiding it, they already said it'll work exactly like it does on PS3 where publishers are already free to implement their own DRM. That's why you've seen things on PS3 like online passes, and even the odd single player game that requires an internet connection to play.

        The difference is that PS4 doesn't support it, encourage it or provide any kind of infrastructure for it. On XBone it's baked right into the console and its entire ecosystem. So to implement it on XBox the publisher effectively just has to flick the switch to the "on" position and Microsoft handles the rest. To do the same thing on PS4 the publisher has to set up (and pay for) its own infrastructure and build its own system from the ground up and maintain it. That's an expensive, non-trivial exercise.

        It's unlikely that anybody except the really big publishers (EA, Activision and Ubisoft) would have the resources for it. And judging by their performance with the launch of Diablo 3 and Sim City, respectively, even Activision and EA would struggle to handle something like this themselves.

          I don't know how online passes work on the PS3 (because I don't own one), but they are effectively just DLC on the Xbox, or at least that's how EA's games work. They just provide a code for the DLC in the box. If that's how it works on PS3 too, then I imagine it wouldn't be too hard for devs to do something like that for the PS4 either.

            Yeah but I'd still rather have to buy online passes on PS4 than have to buy the whole game again on Xbone. And you're right, online passes on PS3 are exactly the same; you put in a code on the PS Store and that gets you the DLC to enable online.

    I Cant see how publishers can benefit from this as people will stop buying the game in the first place. And I don't get that if they dont allow it for xbox then allow the same game from ps4? Doesn't make sense

      If they block used game sales, they would do it for both Xbox One and PS4. And people will still buy those games. Remember how effective those SimCity and Modern Warfare 2 'boycotts' were?

      Last edited 12/06/13 8:42 pm

      You have to be the most uneducated person today, I bet you think Steam make no sales either...

    Brace for always online DRM for both consoles

    I think an "always yes" or an "always no" is the best option here for both Sony and Microsoft. When it comes down to used games, the average consumer isn't going to know or care whether their game is one of those you can or can't trade. They'll rock up to the counter and expect them all to be worth something, or already know they're all worth nothing. I see big headaches for the retail workers on the front lines if they can only trade in games from certain publishers.
    It'll reflect poorly on the respective companies if they allow that sort of segmentation on their platform.

    “We Still Haven’t Decided." Hah. Right.
    All that they haven't decided on is when and how. Should've been: "We're not going to admit to it just yet because we don't feel like being crucified at the moment."

    Last edited 13/06/13 8:30 am

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now