UFC Undisputed 2010 Requires Code for Online Play (Pastapadre, Destructoid)

[MarkAdrianPI]

Quote: Originally Posted by Trevelyan

That is a really scary opinion to have for the future of the video game industry, and us, the consumer, but I think what you're saying is the exact reasoning publishers would use. I think its terrible how in the era of DLC/patching games, everything that people complained would happen 5 years ago, is now commonplace and accepted. Games are being released with huge problems all the time because developers know people will live with them while they take months to roll a patch out.(NBA 2K series) Games are being released with content left out, that they then release a few weeks or a month later at a premium, and now, we're onto the next step, games are being released with portions of the game locked on the disc, and you better buy them the way they want you to or you're screwed. The only way things like this stop happening is if people stop buying games with this crap built into them, money is the only thing publishers understand. I truly believe 80-90% of the people who buy games really won't change their habits though, so who knows what the next step will be.

I totally agree with your statements. I doubt if people will stop. I recently conversed with a friend and he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed but he is a loyal gamer. I scolded him about EA and there new may to punish the consumers, he tried his dardest to defend his gaming habits but failed. After thinking I got through to him, told him never to buy EA games!

He said, "What...I cannot do that, it only applies to sports games."
I said, "Seriously what did we just discuss. You understand other companies and other EA non sports games are next."
(3 arguments later)
He said, "No I cannot I am addicted."

And he has no hope. Most gamers are like him. Look at what Nintendo did, took advantage of casual gamers by allowing crappy games to be released and only caring about the bottom line. I guess those hardcore gamers who hated the casual gamers will keep there mouths shut.

Now it's time for companies to take advantage of the hardcore gamers because most are addicted, too dumb to realize they see you as tools. Honestly Microsux, Sayno and Nintendoo's should step up and help the gamers by trying to stop EA$$, THQrap, Non-ACTIVISION and UBISOFTie from taking advantage of them but why would they when so much are loyal addicted drones that will just take it, smile and ask for more.

[Jukeman]

Pretty much.. the used games and rented games are accounted for, as of now, who ever is in charge of making this decision is just being greedy and up the sales to the maximum...

We better get a better all around product...

UFC 2011 AI (THQ SVR AI sux too) better be a hugh upgrade..

[allBthere]

Quote: Originally Posted by Azamien

It's not about used games offering price competition. It's about the fact that the game publishers make $0.00 on used games. Surely I'm not the only person who thinks it's not out-of-line for companies to want to get paid for copies of their games that get sold. Businesses exist to make money, and the cost of making A-AAA titles is rising more and more. The alternative to DLC/online codes/whatever would be for the big companies to demand that chains like Gamestop stop dealing in used games, or start demanding a cut of the sales. The former would be a huge disaster for Gamestop, and the latter would be a huge disaster for anyone who wants to buy used games since the price of them would rise to make up for the loss of profit by the stores. The answer is simple: if you want the features included only in new copies, but don't want to pay full release price, wait until the price drops.

so what? If I sold my new IMAC, apple wouldn't get a penny. They earned the money for that merchandise already.


UFC 2009 didn't have the biggest budget ever or anything. They also sold over 4million copies - they are doing fine. The only companies doing this are EA and now THQ - which tells me they want more money not because their sales are sluggish, but because they are shizzy with money, waste it, make bad decisions and want the consumers to pay for it.

There shouldn't be an alternative, it's should just be part of the cost of operating their business! And if there absolutely had to be some kind of alternative - don't put it on the consumers, all they know is they paid for the game and now they have to pay again online?!? It's confusing and insulting. If anything Gamestop could pay the publisher a $5 "re-stocking fee" ...but in the end it's all BS and should remain, as I said, part of the overhead operating a business. To play online as it is I need the internet hooked up ($35-70 a month), I need a console (MS/sony new console cost), I need xbl (for 360), and I need to buy the game ($60) ...I'm already paying to play online with all these prerequisites. Since many games have advertising in them (additional revenue), when I'm hosting online games, maybe I should charge the publisher's for my ad-space, since I'm providing the bandwidth! Anyway you cut it, this is total BS and disrespectful to consumers.

And finally, the answer is simple. MS and Sony need to say "you want to publish games on our consoles? Stop insulting and frustrating our user base."

edit: oh and one final thought...you want to reduce your used game market? Make games worth keeping... CoD4 can still fetch you $25 or more used. THAT is staying power.

[MarkAdrianPI]

Quote: Originally Posted by jaynny

I understand that companies need money to function but i think is taking to far and if it needs not stopped in any way or form, its only going to get worse....if this so called extra charge happen to be a successful thing, ALL companies will do it and continue to try to raise the price in the future...look at this scenerio.....kid goes to gamstop to buy game for 59.99, developers(which is happen alot) didnt finished game or left content out and the kid hates the game and return it to gamestop for $35..gamepstop then turns around and charge a excessive amount of $54.99 to next kid....this next kid had a hard time for moms to buy and she would not dare buy a new game..kid get home and wants to play online and now have to DARE ask his moms to put and extra $5 dollars...she says hell no and dont wanna give him more money for some damn game and now this kid brought a game and now cant go online...Thats F'ed up!!!!!!.....these game companies need to get at gamestop but big brother wont bother big brother...lets just hit the customer up, he/she is the real fool!!!!

I really wonder what is Gamestop getting from EA to do this. We all hate Gamesuckers, I mean Gamestop, they are a gutless corporation but logic says EA will give Gamestop either money or special discounts as they agreed to support EA. BTW full disclosure, I also never buy from Gamestop and never will. Unless I ccan take advantage of them. I believe it's time the Consumer Strikes Back not the Empire. JUST SAY NO TO GAMESSTOP, EA, and THQ....THEN EVENTUALLY ACTIVISION and UBI...THEN EVENTUALLY.....

[Azamien]

Quote: Originally Posted by MarkAdrianPI

SO I buy a game for $60 and sell it to a friend, so I am in the wrong? Makes no sense. Your logic is flawed. Not sure how old you are, business exist to make money. You understand that they should make better products right...? It's like blaming the consumer for not wanting the recycled crap with roster updates.

When did I say that buying or selling used games is wrong? I didn't. I simply said that publishers finding ways to encourage buying the games new rather than used isn't bad.

As for the "they should make better products", it's your logic that's flawed. If the game isn't up to the standard that customers desire, why are they buying the game used? Why are they spending any money on it at all? "They should make better products" has nothing to do with whether or not publishers should encourage customers to buy new copies instead of used.

If a game isn't worth my money, I don't buy it. It's pretty simple. If the game is worth my money, I'd rather that at least part of the money I spend goes to the people who made the game worth buying, rather than buying a used copy where all of the money goes to Gamestop.

[eeyor]

I really don't understand why people are complaining in such a manner about this online activation thing. Guys are really thinking that all people are that dump? Do you really think that you will be the one paying more? Why? I don't get it. This is simple economics.

Supply and Demand is what governs the used game market. People will buy a game used if and only if he thinks that the value he gets from playing the game matches the amount in $ he is willing to pay for it. Now lets have a closer look at this. Given that the consumer is informed about that a game requires online activation if bought second hand (he needs to be made aware of either by the retail stuff selling the used game or by a note on the backcover of the game) he will only buy the used game, if it satisfies the criteria of being in his/her price range:

Price of used game + 5-10$ for online activation = actual Price for the used game

If the consumer is willing to pay this price he can buy the game, if not, he will not make the purchase.
However the market will regulate itself. The used game price will be discounted by the amount of costs from the online activation. That is common known theory in economics. So a game that now costs 49$ used will then become 44$ or 39$ in order for the retailer to make the sale. Again simple economics.

So in the end, its not the consumer paying more, its just a redistribution of who gets the money out of a used game transaction. You will not pay more. Why would you? It is your choice.
In the end the selfregulation of the used game market could be for the better for us customers. If the market discounts used games by the amount of the online activation people who do not want to play online will pay even less than it they would pay now.

[nextgengamer]

These companies will continue to dig deeper into the consumer pockets. If you agree with them then you must also agree with this argument, when you buy a used car there should be a fee of $3000.00 so the car manufacturer can be compensated and get their piece of the pie in the used car market. My internet company QWEST tried to charge a dollar fee to pay my bill online, which has always been free before. Can you believe that i had to pay to pay my bill. It didn't last long customer were furious, everyone complained and many canceled their service, its the principle not the dollar amount. WE HAVE TO MAKE A STAND.

[TracerBullet]

Quote: Originally Posted by nextgengamer

These companies will continue to dig deeper into the consumer pockets. If you agree with them then you must also agree with this argument, when you buy a used car there should be a fee of $3000.00 so the car manufacturer can be compensated and get their piece of the pie in the used car market. My internet company QWEST tried to charge a dollar fee to pay my bill online, which has always been free before. Can you believe that i had to pay to pay my bill. It didn't last long customer were furious, everyone complained and many canceled their service, its the principle not the dollar amount. WE HAVE TO MAKE A STAND.

Car comapanies get money from used cars form the parts you buy when it breaks down later on. Most people still go through the dealers to get there parts so they are making money off of the used cars being brought.