Ubisoft "looking very carefully" at EA's Project $10


Recommended Posts

Commenting on how Ubisoft plans to counter used game sales, Martinez said that the company will probably implement some form of “solution” such as EA’s in the future.

“Regarding … monetizing used games or downloadable content … most of the games that we will release next year will have downloadable content available from the start,” said Martinez.

“We are looking very carefully at what is being done by EA regarding what we call the ‘$10 solution,’ and we will probably follow that line at sometime in the future.”

Source

Just Activision left out of the big publishers then. But they are too busy charging ridiculous amounts for DLC at the moment it appears.

RIP Used Game Market - 90's-2011 :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to make a graph. It'll show that piracy increases when these kind of plans are put in place, and maybe then the games companies will decide to stop being silly, and stop trying to squeeze their market dry.

Perhaps the above is a slight exaggeration, but this is getting very out of hand. First crappy DRM that p***es paying customers off, now attacking people who legitimately buy the game for a cheaper price...is it any wonder that people turn to piracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do these greedy arse***** get away with crap like this, is it reasonable for your car manufacturer or dealer to ask for a cut of the sale if you resell your car, or the company that built your home get a cut of the sale if you resold your house to someone else?

They developed the game, they got paid when the game sold, why should they get any more money if someone else buys the game used?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the above is a slight exaggeration, but this is getting very out of hand. First crappy DRM that p***es paying customers off, now attacking people who legitimately buy the game for a cheaper price...is it any wonder that people turn to piracy?

So say if it's like Bad Company 2 - You buy the game new and you get a VIP code which gives all the additional map DLC for free you're against it?

Why do these greedy arse***** get away with crap like this, is it reasonable for your car manufacturer or dealer to ask for a cut of the sale if you resell your car, or the company that built your home get a cut of the sale if you resold your house to someone else?

A game doesn't cost a couple of thousand pounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A game doesn't cost a couple of thousand pounds.

Yeah but you gotta factor in the scale of the operation, building cars and houses requires a large workforce and materials to build them, relatively games developers are a lot smaller and they dont have to redevelop the game for every copy of the game they sell.

I dont mind paying a bit more if the game is worth it but i dont agree that they should get more money every time someone resells a game when they can make millions from a game release like MW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that the punters fault, if a game doesnt sell as well as it should then its up to the developer to make a decent game. If a developer spends millions making a game then they should price it at a level commensurate with the cost of development, not sell the game then expect more money when the game resells it doesnt happen in any other market so why should it happen with games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So say if it's like Bad Company 2 - You buy the game new and you get a VIP code which gives all the additional map DLC for free you're against it?

A game doesn't cost a couple of thousand pounds.

Sorry, but your all for being charged through the ass for this stuff?

A game doesn't cost a couple of thousand pounds? Neither does a single track download for music, but it's okay for the RIAA etc to fine people thousands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if a game doesnt sell as well as it should then its up to the developer to make a decent game.

I can't tell if you're joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A game doesn't cost a couple of thousand pounds? Neither does a single track download for music, but it's okay for the RIAA etc to fine people thousands?

Stealings stealing. If the price you payed for theft was to just repay the cost of the item there would be no deterrent. The RIAA are an idiotic organisation, but the fact people get large fines for stealing media isn't really the problem, especially when its the law system they should be handing out the fines in the end of the day (assuming people dont settle on the RIAA's terms).

Anyway the $10 things is pretty crap. EA were onto something when they put one use keys in game boxes. This on the other hand is a backwards step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway the $10 things is pretty crap. EA were onto something when they put one use keys in game boxes.

This is the same thing: One use key in new copies of the game giving some sort of DLC. Used copies have to buy the key for $10. The market will balance it self out in the end. Either GAME & Co will have to take the drop in profits on used games or aggressively price on new to keep up with online deals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was just DLC fair enough, but im pretty sure EAs $10 project means that if you buy the game used you cant use multiplayer till you pay $10, thats what i read anyway unless this has changed.

If you use Xbox Live then you are using Microsoft servers and PSN people are hosting servers on their own machines, why should you have to pay $10 to get functionality back that is already on the disc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do these greedy arse***** get away with crap like this, is it reasonable for your car manufacturer or dealer to ask for a cut of the sale if you resell your car, or the company that built your home get a cut of the sale if you resold your house to someone else?

They developed the game, they got paid when the game sold, why should they get any more money if someone else buys the game used?

Cars need fixed and parts replaced. The manufacturer still makes money from those.

It's not unfair that publishers are seeking more money from used game sales. The customer doesn't have to buy it used, they could buy it new and even at a discounted price, backing the game fully and giving the publishers the chance to make new IPs with less of a risk and giving IPs the chance to grow. Used games sales take money away from publishers day 1 and that is not right. I don't see what the big deal is, either with this and the multi-player fee. You can buy new, full price or discounted, reap the benefits or buy used and maybe still get it cheaper even with the fee on top. It's no loss to anyone and will hopefully give the industry more chances to invest in some new stuff.

If it was just DLC fair enough, but im pretty sure EAs $10 project means that if you buy the game used you cant use multiplayer till you pay $10, thats what i read anyway unless this has changed.

If you use Xbox Live then you are using Microsoft servers and PSN people are hosting servers on their own machines, why should you have to pay $10 to get functionality back that is already on the disc.

EA provide their own servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do these greedy arse***** get away with crap like this.

I think it is because of the way comanies activly push pre-owned. GAME/Gamestation are activly encouraged to offer a pre-owned alternative on EVERY sale. And have targets often of 40% to 60% of all there sales being preowned stock every day. That's a hell of alot of money not going to devs,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So say if it's like Bad Company 2 - You buy the game new and you get a VIP code which gives all the additional map DLC for free you're against it?

That would be great if that was the way it worked. But if I take a look at the DLC available for my games at the moment, a majority cost money to download and play with.

Now if they were going to change the system so that DLC was free with a VIP code without any additional cost to purchase the game (for example, some versions of Assassin's Creed 2 came with a VIP code, but you had to pay more for that version) then I'd say fair play. Also, I haven't been able to find anything in the source article that mentions anything about releasing a free VIP code for brand new games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cars need fixed and parts replaced. The manufacturer still makes money from those.

It's not unfair that publishers are seeking more money from used game sales. The customer doesn't have to buy it used, they could buy it new and even at a discounted price, backing the game fully and giving the publishers the chance to make new IPs with less of a risk and giving IPs the chance to grow. Used games sales take money away from publishers day 1 and that is not right. I don't see what the big deal is, either with this and the multi-player fee. You can buy new, full price or discounted, reap the benefits or buy used and maybe still get it cheaper even with the fee on top. It's no loss to anyone and will hopefully give the industry more chances to invest in some new stuff.

It is unfair, they have already been paid once they shouldnt be paid for each subsequent time the game is resold to someone else. If they want to charge for DLC then fair enough but you cant sell a game with all features intact then like EA is rumoured to be doing including a code to "activate" the online portion which when the game is resold the next person cannot use. Thats like me buying a car and paying to have the engine switched on then when i sell the car i take the engine out and the next person has to pay for a new engine. This has never been the case with any market games or otherwise for 20+ years, its all about greed. idiots like Kotick make millions from games and people like him want to introduce the $10 fee to activate the online portion if a game is resold.

I agree developers should be paid for their work but not repaid every time the game resells used.

They should offer incentives for people to buy new, not screw everyone over by making it so only the person who bought it new can use it full featured.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was just DLC fair enough, but im pretty sure EAs $10 project means that if you buy the game used you cant use multiplayer till you pay $10, thats what i read anyway unless this has changed.

Half right. Loads of games have had it since... Last year? Mass Effect 2 was the first off the top of my head I could think of. Game came with additional free DLC in the form of missions and items you couldn't obtain if you bought it used. The $10 multiplayer only pertains to sports games. Though I imagine that, maybe, the $10 MP is the final form of this system since if you don't buy BC2 new you don't get the 4 maps you have to download to play with everyone else.

I'd say if you don't like it, then vote with your wallet. But not that it'll make a difference of course. *points at MW2*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If thats the case then i dont have any problems with it, from what i read months ago EA was going to implement it in all their games so that when someone bought it used they would have to pay $10 to be able to play it online, if its option bonus content then if people want it buy new or pay for the DLC, Multiplayer isnt bonus content its an integral part of any game and shouldnt be monetised for used games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it before, but this new trend will kill the rental business. Not completely, but enough to effectively render rental sales moot. And the funny part is this will probably end up raising prices, as rental companies either go out of business or reduce inventory/spending. Which in turn will reduce the amount that game publishers get, and then they'll try some new scheme to make more money.

Unfortunately, there are too many idiot consumers out there to make "wallet voting" an effective deterrent against these publishers. The best we can hope for is the FCC/BBB to prevent publishers from doing this, or they require retailers to explicitly tell consumers who buy used games that they have to pay extra to "unlock" the whole game. This might get more people to not buy used, but again not enough to make a difference.

We're screwed either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A better analogy is textbooks. Why can I actively reselly my textbooks without the publisher charging 'extra' but yet game companies don't want us reselling our games. Oh right, because textbook publishers come out with new editions all the time (game speak: DLC) that have added value over buying an older version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that the punters fault, if a game doesnt sell as well as it should then its up to the developer to make a decent game. If a developer spends millions making a game then they should price it at a level commensurate with the cost of development, not sell the game then expect more money when the game resells it doesnt happen in any other market so why should it happen with games.

I think many of you are underestimating how hard it can be for devs to break even. When you're not a big-hitter such as Halo or CoD, it gets tough to take two years or more without steady income to create a game and hope it will sell enough to recoup costs and give some breathing room for the next one.

In this day and age when half of the people out there are buying their games second-hand, I can see why publishers are going this route. I'd be ****ed too if I was only paid for 3 millions copies of a game I published or developed, yet its made its way around to 6 million people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Used game sales sell more new games overall.

To have used games to sell, people have to trade in their unused games, for store credit, to use on buying more games. If this was to go away new game sales would slump heavily, because most people don't have $120 to spend every month on videogames. Millions of people trade in games for pre-orders, new games, accessories, etc.

GameStop and EB should come up with some figures showing how used game sales effect the industry in a positive way. I just wish they didn't try and get 200% profit on all used games (why they push so hard to sell them, MSRP doesn't leave much profit for retailers on new games). Why I only get $15 back on a used game when they turn around and sell it for $55 is just absurd.

These publishers need to check their figures again, most are unrealistic. Like RIAA assuming every person who downloads a movie would have gone to see it in theatres had it not been available for download. Some are going to watch a .torr copy and then go see it in theatres anyway, while others would have never seen your movie at all had it not been listed on PB.

People who buy games used most likely waited until it was available for a price they were comfortable with, and would not have purchased it at retail price. Assuming every used game sold is a new game sale lost shows a lack of integrity on their part. Most games released today aren't worth $60. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're in for the monies, of course. They want to maximize their profits. The only thing we can do as consumers, is to just not buy it. Vote with our wallets.

If they think people will be "forced" to end up paying the 10 bucks - or even worse - buy a brand new copy, well, that sure as hell won't be me. I'm not going to buy it AT ALL.

If I'm buying a used copy, it's either because 1) I'm broke or 2) The game just isn't worthy enough to get my $60. So why should I spend the extra 10 dollars? It clearly doesn't fall within my criteria when buying used games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing we can do as consumers, is to just not buy it. Vote with our wallets.

If I'm buying a used copy, it's either because 1) I'm broke or 2) The game just isn't worthy enough to get my $60. So why should I spend the extra 10 dollars? It clearly doesn't fall within my criteria when buying used games.

As it's already been said. For every one of you there are 3-4 people negating the loss. If you don't think it's worth it fair enough. Just don't expect all the DLC that comes with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.