Ubisoft Nuking Used Game Sales with Uplay

[daship]

this kind of crap should be illegal. I will make a point to pirate the games if I feel the need to play them which is highly unlikely.

I would rather pay a pirate.

It should also be illegal to sell games for $60+ and offer unlimited $10 addons, if Im expected to buy new maps the base game should be cheaper.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

Used games wouldn't be hurting new game sales if new games would ever come down in price at retail. It's often two to three years after release before a game drops from $60 to $20 new, and it's only a few months before it reaches that price used.

Of course, I'll never understand why people sell games to places like gamestop in the first place. They'll usually only pay you around a tenth of what they resell it for.

 

[K-zon]

I dont even understand where they get the idea of that just cause they charge even 5 or 10 dollars more you are paying more for a used game, when more then likely, its going to be slightly scratched probably, not have one of the following , manual, box, and/or any bonus if their was any in it.

Then of it, to sit and say, you can find "new old" releases still for sale, without being used, especially after a sale of the intial release of course. Doesnt fit to well for the pricing even for the company, right? K, even on the idea of something new right, thats old, after we even lower the price of the release, you are still going to get charge more by the company.

Dont get more wrong of course, used games are usually bought lesser then they are worth so they can sell at a cheaper price, but to add another 10 dollars or so, to pay another company or store, whichever, that you didnt buy the game from in the first place, is kinda of a heighst alittle, i would say. But to be all like, well, with normal features that are in normal releases, we are now going to charge as well too, probably to some points, right?

 

[cwolf78]

You'd think game rental services such as GameFly would have something to say about this. If all publishers end up going this route, GameFly might find themselves in a pickle if their customers can only rent crippled games.

 

[mindless728]

all i can say is, welcome to the PC market console gamers, we almost never get used games

at the same time though, these companies are keeping servers open for these games and thats what this money is for (as servers are not free to keep running)

at the same hand, its ludicrous, if they even charge $1 for each used copy sold they would be able to keep the servers open

 

[MrBig55]

Unfortunately I don't think people will buy these used game since they can get them free on torrent sites...

 

[azgard]

[citation][nom]SmileyTPB1[/nom]Joshua666, take your own advice and think things through before you type.If that is your example then your issue should be with the retailer not the customer. The customer is free to spend his money as he chooses and should not be forced to buy a diminished product because he chooses to buy used. Not everyone can afford to pay full price. Not everyone wants to pay full price for a game that might suck.Imagine if more companies from other areas started doing this. You can buy that Range Rover used but it will no longer have 4 wheel drive and will only go 60 miles an hour unless you pay Rover an additional $10,000 above what you paid for the vehicle used.You can buy that Sony TV used but it will no longer display in HD unless you pay Sony an additional $100.You can buy that used iPhone but it will no longer work until you perform unspeakable act of carnal pleasure on Steve Jobs.Do I need to go on?[/citation]

Actually their already is a precedent for this with hardware, the most glaring example would be Cisco products. The overall trend of the VG industry is really getting out of hand though.

 

[number1guy]

Guess I'm not buying Ubisoft games anymore. They don't know it, but these companies are actually making the problem worse.

 

[Guest]

@getritch

I've seen the example I have described on several different occasions. I had a friend who worked within a Game retailer who encouraged to use the 2nd hand sale interception tactic.

And your whole "no money is lost by devs" statement is completely crazy. Where do you think the retailer will go to get new stock when they run out of new games...hmm?? Do you not think they have a stock level they wish to maintain? I'm sure they do. Fact is games are software, 2nd software still provides the same experience as when it was new. And comparisons to tangible goods are invalid.

 

[-Fran-]

Well, since I'm a Steam user this does't affect me directly (still does, but on another degree for the online stupid schema of EA and Ubicrap). Still sucks for the consumer to be "locked out" to a piece of "software" he can resell with no problem. A license for something is a trade-able thing, right? Steam doesn't offer that, but still gives damn good deals so it's forgiven, lol.

Cheers!

 

[dextermat]

well something for sure i won't uplay or upay

 

[Kamab]

Anyone saying companies aren't losing money as it is now don't understand the situation. All game developers hate stores like GameStop, because 2-3 different people might buy the same title and the original developer only gets paid once.

This really won't affect consumers as much as it will effect used game sales. Pretty soon there will only be digital copies of games and that system will require licensing or "Uplay" type systems all over the place. Might as well get used to it.

 

[DroKing]

Ok Gaming Industry is starting to disgust me now. I think I will stick with my CS 1.6 for rest of my life.

 

[getritch]

If comparisons to tangible goods don't work for this, try this.

I buy a burger from UbiDxxxlds at full price, a new burger. They set the price, not me, and got 100% of the requested revenue.
They.
Sold.
Me.
Property.
I take my bite of it. Its now a used burger. Deciding that I don't want it/am unsatisfied, whatever and with no return policy or recourse to the original burger manufacturer, I to BurgerStop and sell my used burger so that I can buy a newer burger from another company i saw across the street.
A man comes behind me, noticing a burger with only a single bite from it and says to BurgerStop employee #1 "I'd like to buy that burger he just sold you." BurgerStop is happy to sell him the burger since they are profiting more from this than by selling their own burgers they make in the kitchen.

Explain to me why that man should pay UbiDxxxlds any extra money above what he already paid BurgerStop to enjoy his used burger.

Fact of the matter is, they made something, be it IP or no, they took it beyond the bounds of an idea by creating a physical, ownable disk/object from it.
They asked for what they wanted, they got what they asked for, and now they're trying to renege and squeeze all the money they can out of PROPERTY that IS NO LONGER THEIRS. no matter how you slice it, 1.They put it for sale. 2. I bought it at full price. consequently 3. It isn't theirs and they aren't entitled to any more money for it.

Another person brought up a good point. If Ubisoft were to bankrupt overnight and close their doors, and Driver San Fran was just released, how would they acknowledge the activation codes to unlock the games for the original paying customers?

If they want 70 bucks for a game they should charge 70 from the get go, instead of doing this crap. They have every right to set the price of their game at original sale, but not a moment after.

Well...first they'd need to build a game worth 70 dollars, but that's a different story.

 

[Guest]

Oh man your burger example is just plain moronic. You cant compare a real life situation to a made up and bizarre situation. Thats just plain silly, why dont you do a selling babies example too while your at it.

But you know what I'm gonna humor you, Say you did buy ya burger from UbiDxxxlds and with it they GIVE you got a drink and a napkin to compliment your burger, you drink the drink and wipe ya mouth with the napkin there by exhausting both items. You sell ya burger minus a bite (i'm laughing here). Now then burger stop sell 2nd hand burgers but dont provide napkins or drinks, someone buys the 2nd hand burger and CHOOSES to also have a drink and napkin, Burgerstop does not provide any of these so the cheap guy who wants his 2nd hand burger can CHOOSE to run over the road and buy his drink and napkin from UbiDXXXXlds. Fact is they are offering the CHOICE to purchase editional refreshment to go with ya burger that you would of got free had you bought yours new and fresh.

They aint forcing you they are OFFERING you the CHOICE!

 

[applegetsmelaid]

Soon after reading this article, my balls started hurting

 

[kitekrazy1963]

I think it's just another attempt to remove the PC as being the #1 gaming platform.

 

[crapfacednoob]

the beginning of ubisoft's decent into bankruptcy

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]getritch[/nom]If comparisons to tangible goods don't work for this, try this. I buy a burger from UbiDxxxlds at full price, a new burger. They set the price, not me, and got 100% of the requested revenue. They.Sold.Me.Property.I take my bite of it. Its now a used burger. Deciding that I don't want it/am unsatisfied, whatever and with no return policy or recourse to the original burger manufacturer, I to BurgerStop and sell my used burger so that I can buy a newer burger from another company i saw across the street.A man comes behind me, noticing a burger with only a single bite from it and says to BurgerStop employee #1 "I'd like to buy that burger he just sold you." BurgerStop is happy to sell him the burger since they are profiting more from this than by selling their own burgers they make in the kitchen.Explain to me why that man should pay UbiDxxxlds any extra money above what he already paid BurgerStop to enjoy his used burger.Fact of the matter is, they made something, be it IP or no, they took it beyond the bounds of an idea by creating a physical, ownable disk/object from it. They asked for what they wanted, they got what they asked for, and now they're trying to renege and squeeze all the money they can out of PROPERTY that IS NO LONGER THEIRS. no matter how you slice it, 1.They put it for sale. 2. I bought it at full price. consequently 3. It isn't theirs and they aren't entitled to any more money for it. Another person brought up a good point. If Ubisoft were to bankrupt overnight and close their doors, and Driver San Fran was just released, how would they acknowledge the activation codes to unlock the games for the original paying customers?If they want 70 bucks for a game they should charge 70 from the get go, instead of doing this crap. They have every right to set the price of their game at original sale, but not a moment after.Well...first they'd need to build a game worth 70 dollars, but that's a different story.[/citation]

japan already does this, its not uncommon to see new games priced at over $100

[citation][nom]Joshua6[/nom]Oh man your burger example is just plain moronic. You cant compare a real life situation to a made up and bizarre situation. Thats just plain silly, why dont you do a selling babies example too while your at it. But you know what I'm gonna humor you, Say you did buy ya burger from UbiDxxxlds and with it they GIVE you got a drink and a napkin to compliment your burger, you drink the drink and wipe ya mouth with the napkin there by exhausting both items. You sell ya burger minus a bite (i'm laughing here). Now then burger stop sell 2nd hand burgers but dont provide napkins or drinks, someone buys the 2nd hand burger and CHOOSES to also have a drink and napkin, Burgerstop does not provide any of these so the cheap guy who wants his 2nd hand burger can CHOOSE to run over the road and buy his drink and napkin from UbiDXXXXlds. Fact is they are offering the CHOICE to purchase editional refreshment to go with ya burger that you would of got free had you bought yours new and fresh.They aint forcing you they are OFFERING you the CHOICE![/citation]

you REALLY do not get it do you. i mean you just cant comprehend this issue.

FACT is ubisoft sold their game. they got the money for it, and if that game never left the owners hands, online would never go away.

but the MOMENT they sell it, ubi kills the online portion, effectively making 70$ off one game.

this IS a money grab, ubisoft is a GREEDY company who has proven they will do ANYTHING to try and prevent PERCEIVED loss in revenue, even at the cost of REAL PAYING CUSTOMERS.

 

[Guest]

THIS IS WHY PEOPLE USE THINGS LIKE BIT TORRENT

 

[Benihana]

Shall I bend over now, or wait for the Uplay system to go live?

 

[jj463rd]

This is why I cherish my pre 2004 PC Games (No activation,excessive DRM schemes).I will only purchase new non DRM titles only (only a few companies still do this) and games at Good Old Games.

 

[therocketman]

Sucks that their gold mine, the Assassin's Creed series, has an essentially nonexistent multiplayer, doesn't it? And any other series, like Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Driver, and Far Cry will essentially tank in sales because of this milking maneuver.

My suggestion? Ignore these clowns. Since when have their games been the standard for multiplayers these days? You can still buy the games second-hand, just ignore Ubisoft and the $10 multiplayer. There are better multiplayer games out there from better companies.

 

[brandonjclark]

Ahhhh, I remember the good 'ole days for Ubi. Way back when I used to play their games.....

all twenty minutes ago

 

[SmileyTPB1]

After reading through the forum here is a little rant for some of you people who don't seem to get it.

This is copied straight from Wikipedia.

Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of exclusive rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions.

Once software has been sold to the public it is no longer Intellectual Property, it is Property, and is governed by a very different set of rules. While software may sometimes be less tangible than other forms of property it is still just property. As such when you own property you can do what you want with it, just like a lawn mower, a car, etc. It is true that many software companies over the years have argued before a judge that software is really IP, it is not. If they sell copies of it for profit, they are selling a product, and the person that buys it now owns it as property. Any argument that software companies deserve to control software after the sale because it is still their IP is wrong and ignorant.

Imagine what would happen now, in the digital age, where so many things are becoming intangible like movies, music, video games and much more, if software companies, music companies, and companies like Apple that just want total control over everything are able to change property laws so that digital property, paid for by a customer, is not property but IP and that the customer no longer has the right to own it, only use it as permitted. Companies like Apple would be able to do things like sell you that song on iTunes for 99 cents and then charge you a dime every year after that to keep on listening to it. Then the record company would also want a nickel every time you let someone else listen to it because that other person didn't pay them for the song. If you listened to it too loud, or maybe put it in a memorial slide show for you mother that just died of leukemia and Apple or the record company did not approve of it they would revoke your rights to it and take it away from you.

This is the sort of thing that Ubisoft is trying to do. What they are doing right now may be legal, but it is headed a bad direction and I hope that most people are smart enough figure this out and then tell Ubisoft what they think about it with their wallets.