What our good friends at Ubi$oft are doing...
 

I think that is for console games.

Ha Ha the way to solve this we all know it. Don't buy any game that has it.

When they hurt in the wallet they'll change their twist on things.

Otherwise... if people accept it, that's what Ubi wants and we'll get more of "their success".

There is always some ferret thinking on ways to put it to your. Don't matter what you do. Cell phones in USA are a good example. Everyone of the cell companies has their own encoder, and the same phone used by different companies will not crossover.

Cell phone contract is another biggy for them. 2 year contracts are a joke, anyone that checks around will find you can get every feature you need with a pay as you go phone.

The practice would end when people don't buy their deal. As it is, they'll keep their nasty practice.

So... just don't buy their deal

How is it different from steam? Can't sell steam games either you know...

A dumb question (well, it isn't really, because I know the answer): what is a 'used game'? And why would anyone expect to be able to sell it at all? As much as I dislike the general attitude of most games suppliers, I think that they are entitled to suggest that when someone buys 'a game', they are purchasing the right to use the software, not the right to resell it. This is normally explicitly stated in the terms of sale, and for a very good reason - a 'used' game is no different (unless there are specific restrictions) from a new one - it is just binary data after all. I'm sure that games suppliers could figure out an appropriate price for flog it afterwards if you like' software, but if you buy something with the normal restrictions, you can't really complain about them enforcing it - unless you are willing to engage in a more protracted struggle against capitalism, the profit motive, Mammon, etc - which I'd not advise against (I still have the odd skirmish myself), though I don't think the PC games field is exactly the focus of Class Struggle right now. Otherwise, accept that PC games are like beer - you don't buy it, you rent it, and after you've used it, you can't sell it to someone else.

Its been like this for PC gaming for quite a while now. A game that requires an account + an associated CD-key is effectively the same thing.

hahaha you guys are a trip. complaining about a few bucks. me giggles @ every1

Good morning everyone! EA has had the same system for like 2 years already. The big publishers wants to kill the second hand market because they seem to think that they are loosing money from it.

Its a tricky one.

If you buy a second hand car the manufacturer doesn't getting anything out of it and no-one expects it to be any different, including the manufacturer. In fact their design/reliability concerns in part address the second hand market as it partly influences a potential buyer's re-sale possiblities.

However, this is the software world, usually one of licensing rather than selling and software doesn't deteriorate and need replacing except through eventual boredom. If a game is sold-on cheaply then understandably the distributor/developer is going to feel cheated out if a 'new' sale/revenue and you could hardly blame them for protecting themselves from what they might see as a form of piracy. The alternative might be to increase the original sell price to compensate for that.

I suppose one question is are you buying the software package with the right to re-sell or are you only buying a licence for your personal use?

I never bother with second-hand PC games because I buy so few. I don't use consoles but I can see that market has a high game turnover as those games seem limited in play-life and that's where I think most re-sale takes place.

I can see a reasonable argument for re-charge providing it is done carefully with no risk to the original buyer. How that is achieved is down to the distributors who will lose their business if they get it wrong.

I understand that most people want the most they can get for the lowest cost but the argument persists that if you cut off the hand that feeds you...........

The only other point I can think of is that if console games sales are prolific and high-return, two arguments present themselves:
The companies can afford to live with re-sale
or
The companies can enforce re-charge but could afford to reduce the original price and might be forced to by competition.

So, recharging could possibly reduce game prices.

Of course re-charging may drive down the price of a re-sold game, who would pay £15 and a £10 re-charge for a game they can buy new for the same overall price? But if the new game price is £40 and the second hand one is £15 + £10, they will still buy it. So perhaps there's a balance that will be found.

Not so sure I agree, Klem.

In both company cars and enterprise hardware, resell value is an important factor in making the purchasing decision.

No fleet manager will buy Italian, regardless of how much the sales reps fancy an Alfa, as the fleet manager knows that he'll get nothing in three years time when the warranty runs out, while if he specifies German he'll get back a significant proportion.

The same with hardware. We're changing from P5 AIX machines to virtual Linux on x86 precisely because we'll be able to sell the x86 blades when they're written off as assets in three years, while the Power architecture second hand market has tanked (and a new machine is 15 mil D. Kroner).

So it's a marketing issue.

Can you imagine buying a car with non transferable ownership?

Dose it work like steam where you can have multiple installs or do you have to pay the fee again or convince them it is a legitimate reinstall if you replace your computer or hard drive?

Initiate Wall Of Text!

At the end of the day, it's just a business model they are introducing to maximise sales.

Currently, you buy the game. Now you will rent it. Or at least part of it.

As Nearmiss pointed out; if you don't like it , then don't part with the cash. They will soon get the message when people vote with their wallet.

Digital distribution has made game companies lazy. In 'the olden days', a game would be finished completely before release. If there was any bugs in it, then they would be in the game forever. Companies tended to try and eradicate them so as to not kill the sales. I guess the games were simpler in those days though, so less potential for bugs.

When companies discovered they can patch releases over the internet, they don't bother fixing everything at release (as we all know) and do it later. Then that leads onto companies deciding to release the game and then releasing DLC (often already on the game disk in some cases), and now the business model of Call Of Duty Elite (for example), where people are on a monthly subscription to get addons and new maps.

It's not really a surprise that Ubi are introducing this. Just a surprise they took so long to do it. I can't be bothered with console games anymore, with rubbish like UPlay and cynical attempts to generate extra sales through DLC held back from the customer on release.

Strangely enough, I do pay for DLC on PC games, but mainly for games/sims like X-Plane or Arma 2. At least I'm getting something tangible for the money - a whole extra faction, missions and maps in Arma 2 (£7.99) and for X-Plane, there's some good deals to be had like Heinz Dzuirowitz WW2 fighter pack (£25 IIRC). That's six planes and something like 15 skins.

I guess I'm more into indy developers these days like Laminar, Maddox, Bohemia Interactive and Egosoft. (Which comes with it's own set of problems like buggy releases etc)

If people are stupid enough to pay for all this licensing/renting rubbish, then that's their prerogative.

Deactivate Wall of text.

That is all.

I'll never buy a game that uses something like that.
Too bad all the nubs out there that doesn't understand or care that the're helping to destroy for themselves will still buy those games.

I really think "features" like that should be illegal.
If not everyone that sells anything could have something similar to earn extra money when "their" product is sold second hand.

A growing number of publishers are doing it as well as Ubisoft including the likes of EA and Sony. They are trying to stop the lost revenue from second hand games sales. They didn't do it in the past so why now? well in the past it wasn't an issue for the few games traded between friends or a few copies sold online here and there but now huge high street chains are heavily promoting second hand sales and its losing the publishers/developers money.

Gamestop in the US and GAME and Gamestation here in the UK heavily promote used sales over new. Nine out of ten times when I take a new game to the counter to pay the person behind the counter will ask if I'd like to save a few pounds and buy it second hand. I'd estimate 10-15% of shelf space is given to PC games in my local Gamestation and that shelf is shared between new and used copies. I'd say more than half the shop is dedicated to used games and they will even take the nice glossy store displays for new releases and fill those with second hand copies too.

Used car sales are different, new cars will always be needed,cars degrade, can easily be damaged in crashes etc and many businesses buy new and people aspire to buying a new car as it can be seen as something of a status symbol when its parked outside your home or place of work. Buying a game new or second hand makes no difference so it hurts those trying to sell the games new - the publishers over the high street shops that make more profit from second hand copies.

Why the debate ?

Greed, Ubisoft want a slice of the Pie that by rights they have no right to.

It's one thing for publishers to stop companies from selling their games second hand for profit, a completely different thing to take away the ability to sell or give away games privately.

Everybody's talking about the games companies losing money through second hand sales...

What a load of rubbish, where do you think all that extra money people make from reselling those games goes? That's right, most of it goes directly into funding new games sales and the companies end up getting a slice of the pre-owned pie. I'll add that I never trade in or resell any of my games but if I want to bring it round to a friends house or let someone borrow it i'd be prevented from doing so. I don't care if any company believes that to be piracy because it simply isn't true, the same number of copies exist as did before after all.

I'd like to think games companies are only damaging themselves by going down this route but with some of the bigger games (Call of Duty, Battlefield etc.) people would continue to buy them even if they had herpes included in the box. Games retail stores HAVE to sell pre owned games simply because the margins on new games and hardware for them are so low, it is simply not possible to make enough profit for them to continue to open their doors. I suppose it's all rather moot anyway, given that games will be around 100% digital distribution within five years.

I obviously didn't explain myself very well. I entirely agree with what you say. Resell value is important when buying a car or lots of other hardware - except my old PCs apparently :(

I was drawing a comparison between what car manufacturers expect from hardware re-sale - nothing except encouragement to buy one of their latest product - and what manuacturers of games software expect from their re-sales.

A car manufacturer is in the long-established position of sell once and move on as a person dedicated to buying only second hand cars is never going to buy a new one. He'll buy an old one, wear and tear and all.

Software manufacturers expect something different due to their established 'licencing' mentality - thanks to good ol' Bill Gates setting the industry standard - and for them, anyone buying software is getting it 'new' however old the disc is. And they have a point if their costs are recovered from pricing based on that expectation. Every second hand sale is a loss to sales of their new discs.

Of course I'm not daft enough to think they really will reduce prices if they can jump on the re-licensing bandwagon. They'll take as much as people are prepared to pay for their games. Only real competition will affect that and with the high rate of games turnover and particularly the bottomless appetite for new console games the developers are laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm not decided on the issue yet in fact I don't care because I buy so few games, but just a small point. Well, a large one from the developer's point of view.

We are talking about Intellectual Property Rights. It's not about the number of discs in circulation, it's about the number of software installations from, say, one disc which could be several as a game gets resold a few times. They expect to get a return for every installation/use of the software.

Yes, I know, everyone uninstalls the game they sold on. Yea, right.

lol :)

http://thefacepalmedgamer.wordpress....of-duty-elite/

rofl

it may not be different from steam...how ever lets get back to reality....

a comment on the link cuz its pointless to retype the same thing in essence

If i buy a used lawn mower, Honda isnt going to make me pay just to use it.

the game was bought new at one point. they got their money out of it.

this is why we have things like pawn shops consignment stores and salvation army, tag sales and a whole slew of other second hand sellers...i wonder what FUNCOLAND would think of this....that is if Funcoland still exists (company that specialized in selling secondhand, or used videogames).

now im in no rush to purchase any ubisoft game and the only one i intended on buying was Clod, which dosent have this 'feature' however is still sold by ubisoft....id rather just send my 50-60$ straight to russia, to the developers, than to these crooks at ubisoft...please give us a way to do this...