Driver: San Francisco for Xbox 360 missing Uplay Passport [update]

@Billlop I support the right of consumers to resell goods whole-heartedly, but in the case of multiplayer gaming, I understand why they want you to buy new. Playing online, unlike single player, actually costs the publisher moeny.. so those buying the game used aren't contributing to the (ongoing) costs.

Although, i wouldn't mind a model where you could play a used copy online but with commercials or in-game ads.

@Billlop Just quit now, You obviously dont like gaming.

@fasterthantheworld

How exactly did you come to that conclusion

@LEONLEONLEON

Same question to you

@Billlop

I'm sorry, but if i buy the game, i OWN the game. I should own all aspects of that game. You wouldnt buy a car and then the seller say "Oh by the way, if you want to actually DRIVE it, your going to need to buy the keys off me for another $500".

Fact is, i do pay for online. I play World of Warcraft, The difference with that is that the actual game costs around $5-$10. Not $60. its just greedy and low to charge for online when you already pay $60 for a game, expecting to get the whole game.

Companies are getting greedier and greedier now-a-days and all its doing is stopping me spending money on their games.

@fasterthantheworld That makes very little sense. This is a pure money grab from the publisher. If I buy the game new I am supposedly paying to cover the multiplayer costs. If I sell the game to some one else and then they have to pay an online fee (that has already been collected by the publisher) the publisher is making a profit.

For your argument to make any sense there would have to be some kind of recurring fee to support the use of the multiplayer game modes.

@Billlop

Technically though, you don't "own" the game. You "own" the piece of plastic that the game is written on and are merely leasing the rights to play the game.

@fasterthantheworld
I don't see how one user selling their game and another person buying it can increase cost of multiplayer support.

The person who sold their copy can no longer play the game, so the number of people playing the game online would stay roughly the same.

@Billlop


Just in case we started to think that UBI only sucked big time on the p.c......

@DreadArrow
Servers cost money to keep running, simple as that. As a part of the budgetary calculation the developers factor in the average time a player will play online. The sum of that is the amount of server time you'll need, which equals a certain amount of money. By reselling the game on the second-hand market you'll effectively double the multiplayer time, doubling the server costs for a single sold unit.

This is all very rough of course and a lot more factors come into play, but yeah, selling or giving your game to another player increases server costs. I have no idea how much one average player attention span of server time costs, but that's the cost they're trying to cover with schemes like Uplay.

Seeing as the total percentage of players that go online and the time they spend online has increased dramaticaly over the last, say, 10 years, total server costs and server costs per game sold have also increased, making the added sales of having online multiplayer no longer cover the additional expenses, which is why we see these business methods being used now and not a decade ago.

I'm not a fan of Uplay, mind you, but I can understand why they do it. As opposed to limited activation always online DRM on singleplayer games.

@fasterthantheworld : playing online is one of the major contributing factors in the success of the gaming industry. the industry has done very well for itself since socom and halo and call of duty have been around. if supporting an online game is too much for your company, then get out of the online video game business.

there is no difference between a user using a disc they bought 3 years ago and a user selling his disc to someone else who plays it. it's not like the original owner can keep playing a game after you they sell it.

@Third

What servers are you referring to here, exactly? I'm pretty sure Driver: SF is P2P for actual game hosting on consoles (which means that the user who has the used copy is taking that "server" load themselves...so maybe Ubi should be paying them?). Microsoft handles the matchmaking servers, at least on the 360 side of things.

The servers to maintain Driver on consoles are limited at best, possibly non-existent on the 360.

Besides, these things cost $10 if you buy the game used, right? If this were actually an issue of being able to maintain the server costs they'd be charging people what it will cost them to maintain them, or roughly 15 cents for a new online code. The egregious $10 cost proves that it's nothing more than a cash grab.

@Billlop

If you're paying full price for the game then unless you're buying it new you're getting yourself ripped off, which has nothing to do with the publisher.

If you are buying it new then you're getting a code for the Online Pass which in turn means you are getting the full game for your full price.

@Third

Ah the server cost argument. Overlooking the obvious overcharging on a $10 online pass per used game buyer, compared to actual costs...aren't the servers Microsoft run? Isn't EA the only company that runs their own? Isn't this a red herring?

Online pass is a pure profit center for the publisher, plain and simple. And if you think out of some misplaced loyalty that this is helping individual developers you are sorely mistaken. Stop supporting games that use this bs tactic.

As for this story...what a complete clusterf*ck. Bravo Ubisoft.

@Billlop - "its just greedy and low to charge for online when you already pay $60 for a game, expecting to get the whole game."

If you paid $60 for the game, you purchased the game new & aren't being charged for online play.

@fasterthantheworld

You do realize by buying a second hand copy that the original owner already paid "give his contribution" for the online service. Meaning the original owner would stop playing online and the actual owner of the game will.

So please stop with this bs of supporting the server for second hand copy.

It's all about greedy publisher wanting more money. That's because of ppl like you that's it's allright to been charge 15$ for 4 maps.

@Vcize @Altario
Well, then I apologise. If the online multiplayer really is P2P, then there is absolutely no reason for this. I was under the assumption that Ubi hosted everything on their own servers, like EA or Battle.NET, and really did have costs. Also I agree that $10 is way too high, even if they did host everything themselves. It's mainly just a cheap trick to squeeze more money out of people, especially at those prices.

What I was trying to say in my post was that, if a publisher/developer does host everything from their servers (which Ubisoft apparently doesn't) costs do increase, however marginally.

Also kinda forgot this was about an Xbox 360 game, where you guys already have to pay your Gold membership to get online... Sorry about that...

@Billlop

You don't own the servers on which the game is being played online.

Though you'd be the first to complain if there weren't any servers to play on anymore.

@koehler83

It doesnt use servers. So no, i wouldnt complain

@baby sea tuna

Well, those 7 people may not be able to play online, but at least they get the satisfaction of knowing they helped to screw anyone who buys the game used or borrows it from a friend!

"The Uplay Passport insert in NTSC region copies currently contains a code that unlocks DLC, but is not the code that unlocks the multiplayer."

Jesus Christ, how many codes do you have to enter if you are a legitimate, new purchaser who just wants to play the goddamn game?!?

@baby sea tuna

Awwww. Come on, don't be that guy.

@Apsac D

Driver 2 was probably my all time favorite PS1 game, but seriously, this one looks like a real stinker.

@Mehbah
Why you no like Ubisoft?

@Mehbah
For your information, "Idiot", a lot of people, including myself, like a franchise called Assassin's Creed. This franchise is pretty good if you haven't noticed and guess who the developer/publisher is...

@Mehbah

Too much hate going on here.

It's hard when it comes to Ubisoft, because they develop/publish some pretty solid games, but screw their customers really, really hard. Probably one of the touchier devs who you want to hate but just can't.

Still, I'd hardly call someone an idiot for wanting to buy a game. A huge percentage of people who buy games wouldn't know/care who develops/publishes them anyway.

@K1LLZONE13


then DON´T COMPLAIN when UBI forces you to jump like a monkey and to keepa cage with an ass-raping gorilla, besides your p.c./console that is going to be released if you even try to run your game without asking for authorization, or when they forget to add the passkeys for your xbox/ps3. I don´t really know why people defends UBI so much just for assasins creed, the game is starting to suffer of the same syndrome that all the Ubi games suffer..... THEY ALL ARE THE SAME CRAP, the first splinter cell was nice, the first POP was great, the first asssasins Creed was good, then all the other parts ALL OF THEM were nothing but the same crap, this sounds like that stacy malibu chapter of the simpsons:

-it´s the same stupid doll
-yeah, but the hat is new!!!!!

I thought that was a stupid but funny joke, as time has passed i can say that sadly it´s not a joke, it´s the way of the consumers, just a stupid new hat and everybody rushes for the "new" product.

@K1LLZONE13

Ubisoft is milking the creed franchise pretty badly. Yeah they do this all the time, but this is excessive. between november 07' to november 11', we will have had 4 console releases, and 3 hand held spin offs all in a matter of 4 years. Not to mention the other media treatments it's gotten. Yes, the milk's gone bad!

@Mehbah - I buy Ubisoft games... In fact, I'm likely going to buy this Ubisoft game because I played the demos and found them to be enjoyable.

If I was going to stop buying games from any companies that use online passes or less than ideal DRM, I'd be left with almost nothing to play on console & a few indie games on PC.

I buy games that I expect I will enjoy. Regardless of who develops or publishes them. On top of that, I buy all of my games new so the online pass has zero effect on me outside of the 30 seconds or so that it takes me to type in the code on the slip of paper.

On a side note though, I love Ubisoft & will continue to support them whenever I can.

@HighFiveJesus

Look on the bright side if it wasn't for Developer chicanery like this we wouldn't have the motivation to go out and find other more worthy developers to throw money at ^^

@JoeSway

This is probably a XBLM code like the Mortal Kombat online pass, rather than the kind that came with AC and entitled you to a costume or whatever it was.

@baby sea tuna
Ah...I see. So, wait. Two codes? That's kinda silly, no?

@JoeSway

I've had games with more, including exclusive and preorder content. Seems like I've spent 10% of my gaming time this generation typing in codes to unlock one thing or another...

@TRONdll Shhhhhhhh... don't give them any ideas

@Gibbeynator Little do they know, we can just "forget" to buy the game!

@(Unverified)

Since the average age of a gamer in the US has gone up to like 38, and we as a culture have gotten more and more isolated from eachother, I'm guessing that the days of couch co-op are going to be dwindling even further. It's a nice dream, but I don't really see a LAN party renaissance in our future...though I'm sure that Nintendo would love that, since they still haven't quite figured out this whole newfangled intertube dealy.

@Vcize

Exactly. In the end, pirates will still play, and the good guy is going to get hurt.

Personally, I see straight through their gen-jutsu, and won't be supporting this game.