The story is too old to be commented.
hiredhelp2679d ago

its official the gaming industry has just got greedy.

M-Easy2679d ago

Here comes the PSN pass outrage Ubisoft. Or is it???

evrfighter2679d ago

I dont foresee an outrage as the people who would be outraged have their foot in mouth by professing their love for sony when they announced theirs.

sdtarm2679d ago

^I dont get it, there are too many complicated fkin words for me

Bereaver2679d ago

Three words.

Creators should receive.

If you don't think the creators deserve it, then just don't buy it.

vickers5002679d ago

"Creators should receive.

If you don't think the creators deserve it, then just don't buy it."

Lol, who are you to tell us what we should and shouldn't buy? It's perfectly legal to buy used games. So by your logic, should I make out a check to the creators that made my used car?

If you've ever bought a used car, then go ahead and send the amount of money you paid for the car to the creators of your car, or at least HALF of that, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

What makes gaming so much more special than the automobile/movie/music industry? I honestly can't believe there are people as stupid as you who support this kind of greedy nickel and diming scheme crap. They say people who buy used are "ruining the industry" (despite the fact that gaming is the biggest industry in entertainment), but it's actually going to be people like you who will be the downfall of the industry for supporting this kind of greed.

powerofcell2679d ago


The reason why people supported Sonys decision is because it doesnt really effect most of us ps3 gamers. we mostly buy sonys games for the sp experience.

This further reinforces the fact most of us p3 gamers dont play online. most of the people flaming ubi are not ps3 gamers.

kaveti66162679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )


Prove to me that it is the "CREATORS" who will be benefiting from this.

You think that the developer should get a kickback from a used sale? They shouldn't get paid twice for the same disc?

They should assume that the disc they sold is being played by the original consumer. It's not like they have to accommodate two different players on their server.

Person A buys a game, and plays its online mode. The developer/publisher is accommodating Person A on their server.

Person A sells the game to another person.

Now person B is playing online. Person A is gone. The developer/publisher is still accommodating one person on their server. They are not being burdened in any way. They still made their money from selling their disc.

Their argument is that if used game sales are allowed to continue without these passes, their will be no incentive for SOME people (that is to say, poor people who cannot afford the full price of the game) to buy the game brand new.

The publishers are basically picking on a small group of people who wanted to be economically conscious. "Why should I buy it brand new when I can buy it used?"

The publishers don't like that there is another industry, the used-retail market, that is making money from selling their products. They don't like private individuals who purchased the game to sell the game to another private individual.

But where are the facts? How much potential money do these publishers lose from the "Used Games" market?

And what about their unfounded assumption that "used game" buyers would purchase the game new if they didn't have another choice?

What about the people who are being hurt because of this? How many consoles can I play this game on? How many accounts? If I purchase this game, why can I only play it on my original console? What if I make another account or my console breaks or my hard drive gets corrupted and I have to create a new account and buy a new console?

The Pass system becomes another form of control, another way to make money where it is not earned and not deserved.

slayorofgods2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

We can no longer try out ubisoft games via rentals and if you buy it it's yours forever because you can not sell it to anyone. Look on the bright side though, you can still take sucky games that you mistaken for something cool to the shooting range. Although, it is a 60$ target since you can't buy it used.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2679d ago
Nate-Dog2679d ago

Ubisoft have always been greedy (I still like them but they really are, just look at the likes of the ACII "DLC" as they called it which was so obviously 2 chapters just ripped straight from the story to be sold for extra monies later on), not surprised at all and couldn't be bothered kicking up a fuss over it. They'd probably do it too with Assassins Creed if the multiplayer had a bigger fanbase.

Blackdeath_6632679d ago

the thing that worries me most are the online trophies you have to get in order to get platinium, they should give multiplayer its own set of trophies and not mix it with single player. i understand that running the server costs money @rlineker (bellow) therefore they should only prohibit pre owned games owners from online and everything related and not from getting platinum trophies.

egidem2679d ago

They should never have included in online trophies at all. I hate online trophies because they can ruin the experience especially if you are looking to platinum a game whose servers shut down.

Some games should NEVER have implemented an online feature in the first place, like Dead Space 2. They really didn't need to bring in multiplayer.

xxBiG_BoSSxx2679d ago

Why would ubi, sony or whoever do anything for pre owned users? If you buy a game used you are not a customer of theirs. They don't, and shouldn't care about your needs.

Tired2679d ago

Not paying a publisher ANY revenue...and expecting a platinum?


Why not wait till the game becomes affordable? Or maybe save up?

rlineker2679d ago

I wouldn't say the game industry is greedy, an online pass would be the only money they get from a pre owned sale. If any one is greedy it is the retailers selling the pre owned games.

theonlylolking2679d ago

You make money and you lose money. That is just how things are.

otherZinc2679d ago


I agree, great comment.
However, the way this online pass hurts me is; I have 2 consoles in my home. This would mean I have to pay $70 per game, as my son would play the same game in his room.

However, this wont effect me with UBI Soft as their games are so great, I usually buy 2 copies for the co-op experience with my son.

On other games making these demands isn't good for them as Resistance 3 is below average or terrible & Uncharted 3 has an awful 3 player co-op mode. Who the hell is going to pay extra for that?

And...Gamestop is absolutely ripping off the consumers & I've stopped shopping there for the last 3 years. I buy more than 15 games a year & I'm happy to say Gamestop gets nothing from me anymore.

DiabeticJedi2679d ago

I know it doesn't help much but there are 2 ways around the pay for your situation there. You can sign in with the same account on both consoles and share the online pass for the games that you have only 1 copy. Or the online pass is usually $5 to $10 dollars, which I know still sucks but at least it's not another $70.

off topic though since you mentioned the game costing $70 I'm going to guess your Canadian, lol

xxBiG_BoSSxx2679d ago

I'm in a similar situation. My wife and I each have a ps3 and that's the only reason these passes are a concern. If you can use the pass between other consoles like all other dlc, then problem solved.

uncharted562679d ago

the industry has not got greedy but you as a customer sure have got greedy. Used games are a bigger threat to this industry then piracy itself. Only small number of people pirate but a larger buy used games. Imagine you buy bf 3, do you know the cost of dedicated servers. Imagine the cost across all platforms and if people buy the game devs get no money, so EA has implemented online pass with free trial upto a week or two. While I do agree that most people are doing this to kill used game sales so they can get more money, thus they are greedy. Its also to safe guard their product. Some of these people will actually use the money they generate through these passes to invest in future game developments to make better games. God I feel I can write a whole article on this subject. What has journalism come to specially in gaming where most are biased and rarely good articles come by.

memots2679d ago

Well i am not sure if i got greedy but just the sheer amounts of game coming out if i want to be a real gamer and try most of these games i have to be a little greedy.

This is why i do most of my gaming on pc mostly via steaM. No pass , No online fee and cheaper cost up front for games. I get some games on ps3 in the cheap bin but this pass thing means ill have to shell out an extra 10$ for online and that sucks. All the while 360 gamers still need to pay Ms and get the pass to play online.

maniacmayhem2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )


Wrong on so many levels. I don't know how many times i've read comments like yours and shook my head in complete disagreement.

Every used game sold was once a game bought new, i doubt there were so many more used games to new bought ratio that a company was shut down because of it. If so please name one.

People act like these companies that are implementing these online passes are these little garage, coffee house devs that will make or break themselves on their first IP. No, Ubi, EA, Activision, Sony are all million/billion dollar companies. So please get this notion of support the developer out of your head. As consumers we have made those head honchos rich and they ding us for trying to save some of our own hard earned cash? Hell to the no i say.

Like an article I read on here not to long ago, developers/publishers give up their right of ownership the minute they sell us their product. If we want to resell it thats our business. In fact thats. How every other business in the world works but for some reason now the video game deems this practice that has gone on for years with music, appliances, cars even clothes all of sudden it's a sin for video games. And to teach the consumer a lesson they'll make us pay for it.

How is implementing a pass safe guarding a product? guarding it from who and what? Please dont say its killing the industry. CoD, God of War, Mass Effect 2, Darkriders, Bioshock, Uncharted 2, Gears of War 2 etc. etc. etc. have all had huge sales some even record breaking and you think there were no used game sales of those?

Make no mistake, please i beg you. These companies are only shutting used games out because they want more money has nothing to do with anything else. i doubt i really doubt that this money will go back into development.

XRider2679d ago

Agree. Looks like free online gaming is just about over. I hope publishers get out of the online pass "per" game and go for a yearly all game access pass. If they don't these passes will fail, fast.

Rynx2679d ago

Free online gaming in general? Or free online gaming to pre-owned games?

Some of you "Doom and gloom-ers" are hillarious.

bebojet2679d ago

It's only a matter of time before M$ and Nintendo follow suit.

user8586212679d ago


wonder whos next...

xxBiG_BoSSxx2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

all of them probably. maybe there was a secret meeting among devs. a darkened boardroom, cigar smoke wafting under a single light, lots of sinister finger twiddling. maybe.

i rather think they all just got tired of gamestop hosing them, and us really, by selling a used game for $55.

aquamala2679d ago

What's next will be you can't buy this code on psn/xbla store, it only comes from new copies of the game, dc universe on ps3 already does this. And then of course more and more content will be moved to this code, to the point where without it you just pretty much have a demo. This is all coming soon, I can see it.

rdgneoz32679d ago

DC:UO came with a 1 time use code because its an MMO. Tell me what PC MMOs (that aren't free-to-play) let you sell the game or trade it to a friend and create their own account. They all pretty much have 1 time activation codes.

As for other content being moved to this code, I don't see it happening for any single player content (outside of companies taking chapters or levels and selling it as DLC later on...), since there are still some gamers without internet connections that would get screwed in the end.

JoGam2679d ago

Like I said before, this online pass will be adopted by more and more companies. Get use to it.

hiredhelp2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

Oh for the record. I love my ps3 i love my pc gaming. So my messaged was also inc sony. Ea codemaster,ect

@bereaver its not a case of devs deserving money.
This goes deeper than a loss to the devs witch i personally think is (BS) sorry but i tell it as it is.
No this isnt money to just the devs but another way making extra money.
Lets face it all these fees ok you pay for a pass online. That is apart of sony and even microsoft. You pay over xmb?.
Do you think thre gonna give the devs that full price 7.99 (example) to renew your online play hell no there take a cut too. See its what you call a scam to me. Infind it very intresting that these prices are around same as a DLC content.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 2679d ago
rlineker2679d ago

My opinion is probably not shared by many so don't go crazy below. But on pre-owned games the developer and publisher make absolutely no money from the sale. Then they have a new user using their servers which costs them money. At least this way each user that plays the game online pays for his share of the game to the developers and might stop money going to the greedy game shops selling preowned games.

Emilio_Estevez2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

Agreed. By buying used games your supporting Gamestop and other retailers who are constantly ripping people off and misleading. People always say how fed up they are with them, but buying used ONLY supports the retailer. Buying used COD, Halo or any other game that sells a ton doesn't really matter, but buying a new game from small devs can mean a better next game. Think of it as an investment into their future. Or think of it as: Who would I rather give my money to? Game retailer, who gave $6 for a game I bought last month for $60, or Dev who made an awesome game?

TBM2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

My brother is a manager at a gamestop here in nyc, and even he has told me on many occasions that the company is a ripoff.

I get majority of my games from his store, and 99.5% of the time I purchase new copies of the games I want unless its an really old used; that's when I get them used at a lower price.

I plan on buying resistance 3 day one because I love the series, and I will not let some online pass crap deter me. Same goes for BF3

limewax2679d ago

Yeah I personally have no real issue with the passes, If I want a game and don't want to pay full price then I wait and then get it new for half the price or even less. Cutting off the least important part of a game (MP) for any used sales and charging a small price for it is only fair for the devs. Imagine if they cut out the SP instead, That would be greedy.

Provided all digital downloads come with the pass too this shouldn't really be too much of an issue for a large percentage of gamers

gamingdroid2679d ago

I probably bought used less than a handful of times and if I want a cheaper game, I just wait.

***Cutting off the least important part of a game (MP) for any used sales and charging a small price for it is only fair for the devs.***

That isn't exactly cutting out the least important part of a game. For many that is the main reason to buy a game.

***Provided all digital downloads come with the pass too this shouldn't really be too much of an issue for a large percentage of gamers***

See, providing extra is not something I take issue with at all and wholeheartedly support. However, as it is, it is taking something away that used to be there. That is a money grab.

gamingdroid2679d ago

Technically speaking, the right to use the online servers were conferred with the game. It was included in the original purchase.

Consider this:

a) the original user can create as many accounts as they want

b) the original user can use the servers as much as they want

So why would it be different for the new owner to use it? Especially considering, the cost of using those servers are factored into the original sale of the game!

Also, why does the gaming industry need any special protection that no other industry receives? I don't see other software companies charging you for software security/feature updates (unless it is a major upgrade) and access to support especially when the license is transferred to a new user.

This is a greedy money grab, pure and simple. It's fine people support it as it is a capitalistic society and you vote with your wallet, but don't be gullible and ignorant.

limewax2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

Although I do see your point, it technically does break the rules they laid out. However I personally feel the devs deserve a share of the money made from used sales. If they must do something like this to claim the money they are entitled to then so be it is how I feel personally. I Don't think this has anything to do with a 'capitalistic society' But more a view of 'If I wasn't getting paid fully for my job, I would want the money I deserve too'

rlineker2679d ago

Fair comment, but with retailers selling pre owned came for 80% of the original price soon after the games release that money goes straight to the retailer and a potential purchase of the game is lost from the developer. If retailers gave a percentage of preowned sales then yes I would think of online passes as greed. But at least this will a) deter people from buying pre owned games or b) give money to the developer from a preowned game.

cogniveritas2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

@limewax; How is this "money they are entitled to?"
In this market it's supposed to be a fair trade. We give them our money once and it becomes theirs (to use and invest into profiting more if they choose), and they give us their game once and it becomes ours (even to sell if we wish). We do not benefit off of our money more than once, so why should they benefit off of their game more than once?

It's not really a question of right or wrong, it's more of a question of who has the will to get the better end of the trade. And the developers/publishers are wielding the market power they have against the consumers.

Think about the balance? Do they retain rights to the property that your purchased from them? Yes. Do you retain rights to the money you contributed to them? No. You don't collect fees or dividends from your end of the bargain, so they should keep their hands off and stop tampering with the market.

And also you said ...."If I wasn't getting paid fully for my job, I would want the money I deserve too".
A more appropriate comparison would be that you DID get fully paid for the job you did, however your relationship to your work ends there. You are not entitled to any of the benefits your client earned from your work thereafter if it was not explicitly laid out by law or contract.

Arksine2679d ago

Really? The right to use online servers is included in the purchase? Then how do you explain a platform holder charging a subscription fee for basic online gameplay? Its funny that I never heard you complain about that, yet you have the gall to call out others as gullible and ignorant.

gamingdroid2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

***Really? The right to use online servers is included in the purchase?***

The right of accessing the game online is conferred with the purchase, yes.

***Then how do you explain a platform holder charging a subscription fee for basic online gameplay?***

The fee has been there from the start so the opportunity to complain has long past, almost a decade now. That said, MS do offer you other features that competing networks don't in addition to online play and introduced many features to console that other competitors is slowly getting. They have revamped the interface at least twice now.

Ironically, MS often maintain their own server, which means servers aren't shut down like on PS3/PC:

The other distinction is that, it's not like you bought into the platform and all of a sudden they are forcing you to pay a fee. It was up front and you had the opportunity to say yay, or nay to the platform.

***Its funny that I never heard you complain about that, yet you have the gall to call out others as gullible and ignorant.***

I have actually complained about it if you go far back enough in my comment history.

My ignorance comment is to the fact that people claim *after* decades of online gaming coming with the game essentially free, their developers all of a sudden need the fees and need some kind of protection from the used sales as cogniveritas pointed out above.

If customers want to support it, that is fine with their money. Just don't be gullible and ignorant and tell me the developers somehow need the fees. They don't!

This will not affect used games sales one bit, as you just reduce the trade-in value. Retailers profit margin stays the same and that used game now appears even cheaper than before.!

I don't pretend MS needs the Xbox Live fees. They do it because it is a profitable business and they offer me a choice to say yay or nay, prior to buying into the platform.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2679d ago
BlackKnight2679d ago

For the last time, almost NO developer provides you servers!!!!

gears of war (gears 3 ill support a mix)

and !99%! of all console games are NOT run on their servers, they run on YOURS, meaning someone is host (the server) and uses THEIR internet connection (they pass the cost onto you by using your ISP connection).

All they provide is stats/matchmaking, which can be on 1 or 2 servers for THE ENTIRE community, maybe more for something like COD, like 5 or 7. But that's it! A server to do stats/matchingmaking is only going to cost the TINIEST of a fraction of the development cost.

Not only that but here it goes:


These companies are PLAYING all of the gamers that are ignorant, and there are a shit-ton of you that are ignorant of technology. Do you think Valve has been running counterstrike servers all this time? No, we can run our own or host our own dedicated servers. While on console, something that we do ON OUR OWN SYSTEMS AND ISP CONNECTION is being claimed a cost.

Movie studios dont get the used movie sales, TV show studios don't get money from used sales, same goes for video games.

The ONLY games that can justify this is bad company 2 (which is ONLY dedicated servers and EA runs them), but however, as you saw in past articles, since we don't have the option to host ourselves, your game has a limited span, bought new or used. They will shutdown servers and not give us the ability to run it ourselves when it is so simple to do.

The gaming industry is getting screwed and its 2 reasons:

1. Greedy corporations vying for profits for shareholders at expense of price/value ratio of game.
2. An ignorant market of consumers who don't have even basic knowledge on tech to realize they are being charge for something that costs YOU to run. Or in other cases, they take that option completely away and only let the game's MP work for a limited time.

Disgusting, I wish gaming had never gotten this popular.

Lavitz20122679d ago

Wow you took the words right out of my mouth here's a bub.

FunAndGun2679d ago

You are too bright to be in this dark place. :)

BlackKnight2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )


I hate the community here, but if I have the chance to educate people and REALLY get them to look into things and cause them to spread the word, then I think it is worth it. I love gaming to death, "played" the Atari while wearing a diaper and sitting on my dad's lap. People have no idea what companies are taking away and/or now charging you for something that is not new and has been free all this time.

I buy 99% of my games new, I have money. But back when I was in college and working part time, used games was my way of being able to play something at a price I could afford. And you have snobby people in here saying "stop being cheap". It is like NO one paid attention to economics 101 and supply and demand. I think it's more this RIDICULOUS fanboyism where they want other gamers to pay for new games so it supports "their platform" of choice.

EDIT - I appreciate the positive feedback, from all of you. I want developers to prosper and make a profit, but corporations (mainly publishers who must get maximum profit for shareholders) are WAY more common in gaming and now we are getting less quality and charged more.

That's my issue. Again, thank you all.

radphil2679d ago

Thank you BlackKnight. Glad to see someone else that actually explained out in detail on this situation.

DarkTower8052679d ago

@ BlackKnight, you're going off the assumption that publishers are saying they're making online passes because of server costs. I haven't heard any publishers say that, it's the gaming community that'd saying that.

You're also wrong to compare used movie and tv show sales with video game sales. Movie studios make a shit ton of money off of reruns shown on tv. video games don't have that luxery. Its not all greed, sometimes it's about staying afloat.

maniacmayhem2679d ago (Edited 2679d ago )

@ blackknight

Thank you, thank you very much.

It is truly shocking to read some of these comments of people who actually support this.
They keep screaming support the developer when it was us in the first place that got them where most of them are.

I also find it strange that people call Gamestop evil. Because they buy your used games at a low price then sell them for a higher price, but i ask you what trade shop doesnt do this?

Also some people on here are actually suggesting that developers should get a percentage of used game sales. That is the most insane thinking i have read. What about games that are out of circulation or no longer supported. What if i bought a ps2, NES, Genesis game for nostalgic reasons. Since those game are not being made more than likely i will have to buy used, should the dev still get money off of that sale?

People need to wake up. Power to the consumer doesn't mean disloyalty to your favorite brand..


Again i have to ask, which dev house is suffering because of used sales? Which dev house shut down because of used sales?

DarkTower8052679d ago

@ maniac, money lost from used game sales is something that cant be calculated. But what do you think happens when a dev spends $50 million to make a game and sales were poor regardless if the game was good or not? The last studio I remember closing was Grin, they had decent games but still closed.

Game development is a high stakes venture nowadays. Every gamer wants great musical scores, great voice overs, beautiful graphics, immersive story, but these things cost money. And if investors don't see good returns, guess what? "sorry Grin, we don't need you anymore."

maniacmayhem2679d ago

@ Darktower
Grin? I really seriously doubt that Grin shut down because of used games sales. From what I remember they put out the Bionic Commando: Rearmed which was download only. Then Bionic Commando which was rated low cause the game was super sub par, i played it and didn't like it myself. Then they did Terminator: Salvation which is a movie game and we all know how good those are (/s). Yea, I'm going to have to say that used games did NOT kill Grin.

"But what do you think happens when a dev spends $50 million to make a game and sales were poor regardless if the game was good or not?"

If a dev makes a game for 50 mil and the sales are poor then the sales are poor, what does used games have to do with that? They never release games USED, Gamestop isn't making copies of the game in their back office then selling them to consumers. So I don't really understand what you're saying there.

If a game is good the game will sell. Now I know this isnt always the case (Ico, Psychonauts) but those titles were never hurt by used games. In fact used games might even help them. I know I bought Ico used and loved it, guess what when that team comes out with Last Guardian(?) I will be buying ;)

BlackKnight2679d ago


Many tell me you can't compare games to movies and tv show sales due to MP actually being a cost, so I gave the reason why that is false.

Companies have no right to complain about used games sales, if the game is good enough, it sells new, if not, it's over priced for what it offers.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 2679d ago
Seventh_Blood_Reborn2679d ago

I think as you. Also if I don' t like Ubisoft very much this is right for every developer on the market.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2679d ago
Dart892679d ago

Well it's official before this generation is over everything will have an online pass and i will quit gaming this generation if it does happen.Good luck to the rest of you.

jetlian2679d ago

I think we should buy new just 40 instead of 60 like I normally do. I want them to know the pass isn't a guaranteed extra dollars!

consolez_FTW2679d ago

Ow come on Ubisoft. The whole Uplay thing was bad enough...Guess I'll just have to make sure I buy new it seems.

user8586212679d ago ShowReplies(3)