Ubisoft Nuking Used Game Sales with Uplay

[falconqc]

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one end, I think it is completely retarded for stores like EBGames to sell used games 5$ less than the new in box version. Whenever I see that, I keep thinking they are royally screwing over their customers by charging almost full price for a game where they give back nothing to the developers. And let's face it, 5$ less on a game is not even worth it in my opinion. I'd pay the extra 5$ just for that new, unopened game box smell.

On the other end, I think this type of system sucks for people with multiple xbox consoles and accounts. Me and my brother often swap games. We usually purchase two and exchange them when we're done with them.

 

[Guest]

Well... I disagree with what they are doing but look at it this way. You pay the extra $10 to go online. Your basically paying for them to run the online features which continually cost money to maintain and run. I don't think it's necessarily to squeeze people for money but to try and shift profits that go to Gamestop for used gamesales.

 

[Guest]

No offense meant to you guys but you're missing the point, and giving a knee jerk reaction. Ever since the used game sales have gone up, new game sales have gone down. In order for them to make the money on games they need new game sales. For example, 10 gamers used to buy a new game, now only 5 buy it new and 5 buy it used. The gaming company will only see profit out of those 5 initial buyers whereas the shops get profit for the used games. You guys are all making a stink about what? $10? Get real, it's a business. If you want good games in the future then I think it's fair to pay a little bit extra.

 

[ram1009]

Sounds like nobody here has read a EULA in some time.

 

[link064]

It's funny how crazy people are getting while blowing things completely out of proportion. Some of you tools must be the same idiots who were complaining that Valve had day one DLC for Portal 2. If you knew how to read, you would have seen that they are including "exclusive bonus content" (read: DLC) along with access to the online component WHICH THEY STILL OWN. You aren't losing your ability to play the game. You aren't being forced into paying $10 extra for used games. You are still free to buy used games and play them for the same price. You just won't get the extra DLC stuff or be able to play online. Boo freaking hoo. You paid considerably less than people who bought it new. Why do you feel entitled to the same features that people who paid more than you get? All this is is bratty, self-entitled, stupid pirates who feel that they deserve to get everything for nothing.

Also, if you would like an example of how used sales have hurt the retail market, take a look at textbooks. A grand majority of textbook sales come from the used market, so textbook manufacturers have to increase prices to recoup their initial costs and ensure that the authors get paid. If they could kill used book sales, then they wouldn't need to charge so much for new books. This is exactly what Ubisoft and the like are doing: trying to recoup their costs from used sales but they are doing it without increasing the cost of new sales. Would you rather new games cost $100 or have used games cost slightly more to access online components? Also, considering used game sales are not fixed in price as the article would suggest, I'm guessing that used Ubisoft games will cost less at the store since the online functionality won't come with it (thus lowering the value of the used game).

Also, textbooks have been doing something similar for quite some time now where they will have a one-time use code to some essential web service or have a page that you need to tear out to hand to your professor. Gasp! What evil they are committing! Then again, those books usually cost less than half what their re-sale-able counter-parts cost, so I'm not exactly complaining.

TLDR: stop complaining you self-entitled brats and realize this is for the better

(Also, inb4 "drinking kool-aide" and "fanboy" comments.)

 

[wcnighthawk]

@deebomaster

In order for those 5 guys to buy it used, 5 other guys had to have bought it brand new. So, um...what point are you trying to make exactly, seeing how 10 guys still bought a game brand new and the game company got the profits on 10 new games being bought.

 

[sliem]

If I buy a used copy of World of Warcraft, I don't get the free 30-day which costs at least $13. This is what Ubisoft is doing. The problem is that retailers will sell used games at higher price if you were to buy the $10 for online feature than the new game. In the end, it benefits Ubisoft and purchasers who don't ever want the online feature. It does not benefit those who want to buy used game and expecting it to be as it was new. In the end, Ubisoft wins.

 

[cburke82]

The real issue is with places like Gamestop not the devs. Here is why. They are the most money grabbing greedy bunch out there. They sell you a used game for $60 then offer to buy it back for $20-25 $30 if your lucky, thats only if you sell it close to the release date. If purchase the game new a few months after release (still for $60) they might give you $15. Then they sell that game for $55...WTF is that, Id bet there is more profit selling the games used than new and thats why the devs are doing this. This might force Gamestop and others to give more than a silly $5 discount on a used game. IMO a 50% markup is not bad so take a new game for $60 I sell it to them for $30 they should be at $45 in order to be fair. They would still make $15 on the game when sold and the Devs could charge there $10 and the game would STILL be cheaper used. Everybody wins a little there, and they will have to do something like that because I dont see anybody buying a used game for a $5 discount only to pay the $10 fee. So they will sell more new games or lower there prices to keep selling used games.

 

[davewolfgang]

If I buy a used copy of World of Warcraft, I don't get the free 30-day which costs at least $13. This is what Ubisoft is doing. The problem is that retailers will sell used games at higher price if you were to buy the $10 for online feature than the new game. In the end, it benefits Ubisoft and purchasers who don't ever want the online feature. It does not benefit those who want to buy used game and expecting it to be as it was new. In the end, Ubisoft wins.

Actually that's a VERY bad comparison.

WoW is literally an online ONLY game. You can't play unless you are connected to their server.

AND - you don't even need to go have a CD/DVD of the game, you can get it directly from them. There's actually ZERO purpose in buying a "used" WoW CD/DVD. The cost for WoW is the actual Account, which is all online.

 

[MagicPants]

Thing is, if you buy a used game and the publisher/developer doesn't see a dime from it, then you're not really their customers and they don't have any reason to care about you. This is how economics works. They are not your Mom.

 

[cburke82]

Thing is, if you buy a used game and the publisher/developer doesn't see a dime from it, then you're not really their customers and they don't have any reason to care about you. This is how economics works. They are not your Mom.

Your right lol the question is this: Will Gamestop care about there customers and lower the price of games protected this way accordingly? And will they do that without taking the whole price drop out of the buy back price( Obviously the game is worth less so the buy back price has to drop but they could cut the price for the game by $10 and only cut the buy back amount by $5 and still make plenty of cash)?

 

[SapienChavez]

im done with ubisoft.

i spent about $300 on ubisoft games in 2009.

$0 since then.

you did this, ubisoft.

 

[danny69t]

do i see this right? i can torrent the game, pay 9,99$ and have the full game? ) that would be ridiculous

 

[Guest]

Instead of charging the customer why can't these companies charge the retail stores whom sell the used games? I think that, that is fair as saying the retail stores get all of the profit while the gamers take all of the sacrifice.

 

[cburke82]

It's funny how crazy people are getting while blowing things completely out of proportion. Some of you tools must be the same idiots who were complaining that Valve had day one DLC for Portal 2. If you knew how to read, you would have seen that they are including "exclusive bonus content" (read: DLC) along with access to the online component WHICH THEY STILL OWN. You aren't losing your ability to play the game. You aren't being forced into paying $10 extra for used games. You are still free to buy used games and play them for the same price. You just won't get the extra DLC stuff or be able to play online. Boo freaking hoo. You paid considerably less than people who bought it new. Why do you feel entitled to the same features that people who paid more than you get? All this is is bratty, self-entitled, stupid pirates who feel that they deserve to get everything for nothing.

Also, if you would like an example of how used sales have hurt the retail market, take a look at textbooks. A grand majority of textbook sales come from the used market, so textbook manufacturers have to increase prices to recoup their initial costs and ensure that the authors get paid. If they could kill used book sales, then they wouldn't need to charge so much for new books. This is exactly what Ubisoft and the like are doing: trying to recoup their costs from used sales but they are doing it without increasing the cost of new sales. Would you rather new games cost $100 or have used games cost slightly more to access online components? Also, considering used game sales are not fixed in price as the article would suggest, I'm guessing that used Ubisoft games will cost less at the store since the online functionality won't come with it (thus lowering the value of the used game).

Also, textbooks have been doing something similar for quite some time now where they will have a one-time use code to some essential web service or have a page that you need to tear out to hand to your professor. Gasp! What evil they are committing! Then again, those books usually cost less than half what their re-sale-able counter-parts cost, so I'm not exactly complaining.

TLDR: stop complaining you self-entitled brats and realize this is for the better

(Also, inb4 "drinking kool-aide" and "fanboy" comments.)

I agree with much of what you say but... In some cases the cost of a used game is not "considerably less than people who bought it new". A store might price the new game at $60 and the used game at $55. So the saving are not alwayse that great. But you are correct in saying that they are not stopping you from playing the game. But then at $55 if you like playing online the game would be more expensive than buying it new and thats what they are really trying to do, get people to just buy it new and not used.

But then this could also hurt twice because if it drives the value of the used game down you get less back. So before they did this lets say you buy the game used for $55 (saving $5) play it and then sell it for $20. Now you just buy it for $60 and when your done can only sell it for $10. So to the user the end result is a game that costs $15 more to play. But if they feel they are loosing a big amount of money due to used games then they are 10% within there rights to try to get some of that money back. And because it does cost them money to maintain the online servers this is a good way to do this in a fair way. Its fair because you only pay more if you play online and if you are playing online that the company that is maintaining the server should 100% be making some money from that customer .