<![CDATA[Microfeed for UFC Online's One-Use Code a Lesson in How Not to Do It [Updated] - Kotaku]]> http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/kotaku.com.png UFC Online's One-Use Code a Lesson in How Not to Do It [Updated] - Kotaku Comments http://kotaku.com http://kotaku.com/5548361/ufc-onlines-one+use-code-a-lesson-in-how-not-to-do-it-[updated] <![CDATA[Comment from Hammo]]> @TiltingMills: So you wouldn't want to see two women grappling?

Hammo

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from lenandude]]> @emeraldgsl: And its amazing how smart you must think you are. Of course I'm not buying this game. I understand that its business, but how many other people do you see doing this? Only EA so far. And its only for their sports games at this point. I don't think THQ needs to grow anymore. The majority of their games are shit, and devs who make shit need to eventually close down. They have been on their way for a while, and they need to close down. Anyways, the DLC code thing is okay in my opinion. Lets people play online without having to mess with anything. If they buy used and want the DLC, they can pay for it. But locking a person completely out of the online play is just ridiculous, whether they want to make more money or not. Of course, if I don't like this I don't have to buy, but I shouldn't have to factor in "Oh shit, if I buy this game used, I'll only be able to play single player unless I pay (insert dollar amount here)." Its just stupid. I know cars are a necessity really but what if car companies decided to lock you out of using what before was a standard feature unless you bought new? Its almost the same situation. You would of course be pissed off.

lenandude

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from gla55jAw]]> @WarlordPayne: I'm a little late to noticing the comment here but NooklearToaster answered it for me.

gla55jAw

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from user_catch]]> lame companies like THQ are trying to kill the used game market. if they could have it their way there would be no such thing as a used game market and games would never go on sale.

for ex: if ufc 2010 sells for $50 used at gamestop, and the online code is $10, then you might as well buy the game new for $60. eventually, the game makers are going to try to move to implement an unlock fee on all used games. ex: you buy "some game" used for $50 and in order to play it at all you have to pay $10-$15 either online or by phone or by mail.

user_catch

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from KillerBeeTX]]> @Kilolas: I do have two gold accounts but not the game so I can't help you. Sorry.

KillerBeeTX

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Kilolas]]> @KillerBeeTX: Hmm idk. It might still work, because things like map packs for CoD still work on any account for that console. If someone who has the game and multiple accounts on their xbox could tell me, that would be great.

Kilolas

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from GeneralBattuta]]> @AngryAtom: The problem is that the in-game prompt _acts_ as if it's a way to redeem your code, but it's not: it makes you buy a new code.

GeneralBattuta

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from KillerBeeTX]]> @Kilolas: But the UFC code is for multiplayer, which cannot be played without being connected to live.

KillerBeeTX

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Kilolas]]> @KillerBeeTX: No but it is tied to the console too, thats why I can play the Fallout 3 DLC my brother bought on our console on my account and not his.

Kilolas

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ssh00]]> UFC/Dana this is what you get for signing with a 2nd tier company like THQ. Go with the leader in sports, EA! You want a colossus of a product that will rule the sales charts for decades, go to EA.

ssh00

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from TiltingMills]]> @Some_Guy2: and here's the obligatory call-anyone-who-doesn't like-sweaty-man-grappling-pix-a-homophobe comment.

It's sweaty and gross...I don't like slobber or bloody drool either, regardless of gender. Maybe don't read so much into harmless comments?

TiltingMills

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from KillerBeeTX]]> @Kilolas: Hence it being tied to the account and not the console. My point exactly.

KillerBeeTX

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Kilolas]]> @KillerBeeTX: How it works is with DLC like this, the console you download it to and the account you used to download it have the rights to use the DLC. This allows you to the DLC on your console without the use of an internet connection. Also it allows you to use it on other consoles as long as it is your account and you are connected to live. But with the license for the console, any account can use it.

Kilolas

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from IvanDashSmith]]> @KillerBeeTX: Well my wife has a gold account and is able to use my DLC or arcade games in her login. So I would assume this would be no different but wanted to be sure. And like Kieferkuroi pointed out, you can apply a license to the console for all the downloads. I just wasn't sure if this was a download or something attached to a gold account. I probably never will know, I guess we aren't going to by the game anyway after all. :[

IvanDashSmith

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from emeraldgsl]]> @lenandude: If you dont like it, dont buy their product. Simple as that. They made the game and want you to buy it new so they can make money. Money will help them make more games, help people keep their jobs and help them grow as a company. This is a business. It's amazing how many people don't understand that.

emeraldgsl

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from PowerT]]> @b-radicate: Thus my term "almost" instead of "all". There are no 1:1 correlations between other industries and gaming. Cars depreciate heavily right after you drive them off the lot. Movies make more money in the box office so used DVDs don't hurt as much. Music is close but with radio and concerts they still come out ahead.

9/10 the games that make the most money are the annual launches of the same old content plus something new. The rest are lucky to turn profit after high development costs.

PowerT

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from pixelSHREDDER]]> "The decision to include an online access code solution in UFC Undisputed 2010 was made early in the product development process."

That's either a blatant lie, or proof that THQ is not good at what they do, which is publish games. Not including something so important as a one-time activation code anywhere on the printed manual, the box, or even in the game itself is perhaps the single biggest thing a publisher can do if they want to show their developers- and their customers- that they are incompetent.

I suggest THQ rescind the above statement and admit that the one-time activation code process was shoehorned into the product at the last minute, thus explaining the slapdash implementation. It's the least-damaging thing they can say at this point.

pixelSHREDDER

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from sailingtonorway]]> @Kovitlac: And what I'm saying is, with the car you are getting something worse for cheaper price. With the game (and without $10 project) you are getting the exact same thing for cheaper. Devs can't make the game slower for used copies of course, instead they are removing features to reduce the value you get out of used games. That is their intention. The fact that you keep using the car analogy is useless, and that was exactlty what I said in my original post. Apples and oranges.

sailingtonorway

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Kovitlac]]> @sailingtonorway: My statement was no more irrelevant then yours does. THQ is REMOVING features from their games for people who buy them used - exactly as my example said. The game is not running slower, it doesn't necessarily have scratches on it (it might, but that's not the point of the argument here). Features are GONE.

Kovitlac

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from LeepNasty]]> Yikes. I love the UFC games and the team behind them has some great guys, but...yikes.

LeepNasty

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from sailingtonorway]]> @Kovitlac: Sorry that's a completely irrelevant statement. When you buy a used car, the engine doesn't run as well, the body has scratches etc. Of course dealer doesn't remove features. But the bottomline is, car is in worse shape. Would you prefer if your game runs slower if used? Geez.

sailingtonorway

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from b-radicate]]> @PowerT: You've clearly never been to a car dealership where they sell used vehicles right next to new ones.

b-radicate

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Sidious Strange]]> @furiku: I obviously didn't mean they should see any money from a used game sale. I was only saying that I don't blame them for wanting to give more incentive for people to buy their games new rather than used.

Sidious Strange

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Unfluffy Bunny]]> This has to stop now. we as gamers are letting companies do this to us. I get trying to make money but we as gamers are the ones getting hurt in this pay to play crap. if you make a good game people will buy that game new when it comes out. if its not so good people will buy months later used to try it. but either people will play your game. what happened to making games because you wanted people to enjoy what you made not enjoy the amount of money you can get out of the same game every year.

Unfluffy Bunny

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Seraphic Star]]> @PowerT: Exactly! :D

Seraphic Star

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from PowerT]]> @b-radicate: I'm completely fine with used sales. They make sense from a recycling standpoint. But for almost every other industry the top brick retailers don't sell both used and new right next to each other. Those retailers also don't go out of their way to shove used into their consumers faces over the new copies for just $5 less. That's what this system is battling. Go ahead, buy used for $40 and then spend $5 for online if you so choose. You still save $15 from the new price.

PowerT

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Some_Guy2]]> @TiltingMills: And here is the obligatory homophobic UFC 2010 comment.

Some_Guy2

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from b-radicate]]> @PowerT: Sorry, but almost every industry out there currently has, and has had for decades, a thriving used market where original manufacturers don't try to curtail sales or even impose additional fees post-initial sale. Not everyone can afford the newest and shiniest all for full price. Other industries have come to terms with it. Gaming hasn't. Not properly, anyway.

For one, any industry that has weathered the economic storm as well as the videogame one has is not "going down the crapper" as you suggest. If there is anything that is destroying the game industry at all it is a lack of innovation and the investment in trivial pursuits.

Look at EA and Activision, the two largest publishers, running multi-million dollar franchises into the ground year after year. Or look at how they persisted on selling high cost peripheral-based games on the masses. Contrast that with new revenue streams from free-to-play games and low-cost games on mobile devices and you won't see an industry dying. You'll see an industry growing; you just won't see it growing in traditional terms in traditional manners.

The videogame industry needs to learn that the masses aren't dumb. They know what they want. They buy what they want. It's up to the companies and developers to give them what they want. Or, which is where the real growth comes from, they give them something they didn't even know they wanted, but once they get it, they can't live without it.

Also, you're definition of a AAA title must be different from mine, because mine doesn't have a fixed upfront cost associated with the definition. AAA titles are those that are made well by passionate people and deliver quality experiences. They aren't the ones cobbled together by faceless corporations in a fiscal year squeeze to add dollars to the bottom line.

b-radicate

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from KillerBeeTX]]> @IvanDashSmith: I have had a 360 since launch. I have entered hundreds of codes for various shit over the years. Every code, every single one, is a one time use tied to an account. You are a fool if you think this code will somehow be different. Making it multi-use for different account, even on the same box, would defeat the whole purpose of the code in the first place.

KillerBeeTX

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from PowerT]]> @b-radicate: Yes, typing in a code you get for free is an annoyance to you. But what's even more annoying is a billion dollar industry going down the crapper because of used game sales.

Most games are lucky to break even nowadays. It takes about $35 million minimum to make a AAA title which means you need 1.7 million sales to break even.

PowerT

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from PowerT]]> @Seraphic Star: Because we trust gay men to tell us what women are attractive?

PowerT

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from BrinkleyTown]]> At least I understand the problem now and can get it working. I was pissed enough when I found out about the one-use code (I work at a LAN center. That doesn't cut it.), but when I couldn't even figure out how to get that to work, rage was building.

BrinkleyTown

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from slamdance]]> Take that Gamestop!

slamdance

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Kainy]]> You know, reading the title of this, I thought the issue was something serious, not "people who bought this game are fucking retards"

Turns out, people who bought this game are fucking retards, and suddenly I'm A-okay with THQ.

Kainy

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from kenpojujitsu3]]> @tandyman: Agreed.

kenpojujitsu3

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Zebra_without_a_face]]> @icarus212001: It doesnt matter, that $5 code was in the game you bought... that code is worth $5.... and youll never ever use it... good luck sending it in for a rebate from THQ

Zebra_without_a_face

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Zebra_without_a_face]]> @ninjacrusader: at least half of the American people that bought this game and then bought the DLC by accident, just said, "ah fuck it, whats five bucks"

You know, like when a cell phone company charges $5 more on your bill just to see if you pay it or call to deal with 2 hrs of being on hold to dispute it, in which they say, "oops sorry for that error, we took it off your bill."

Zebra_without_a_face

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Zebra_without_a_face]]> @RAGE QUITTER: Return it?

Zebra_without_a_face

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Zebra_without_a_face]]> The batshit crazy thing is that people that dont shell out the ridiculous XBL fee, still have to pay the $5 for the code in the 'new' game price.

So someone never going to use online modes is still paying for it because instead of making the game cost $5 less and then charge $5 for online multiplayer as DLC, they decided that whether or not you wanna pay $50 a year for XboxLive, your paying $5 for a one-time code like it or not.

In a way, they are charging everyone for something not everyone uses. And not everyone uses it because you have to pay for XBL.

sdrawkcab-ssa

UFC 2011 will cost $60 and come with a bra... anyone buying the game used will have to buy the bra for five dollars extra. WHAT?!? You don't need a bra? Tough fucking luck, your paying for it if you want the game new.

Zebra_without_a_face

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from furiku]]> @Sidious Strange: "since they don't see any money on used game sells outside of the original purchase".

Of course they don't. That would be illegal. It's like me buying a car from a dealer, and when I go to sell it to someone, the dealer then coming to me a saying, "Hey, where the hell is our cut?".

furiku

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Randy Treibel]]> @RAGE QUITTER: Way to fuck things up, THQ. At least I know what to do when I burn my copy.

*FIXED*

Randy Treibel

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from TiltingMills]]> Personally I'd pay five bucks to never have to look at more screenshots of sweaty man-grappling on my kotaku mainpage.

TiltingMills

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Jekku]]> @Daniel Hinkles: Most of the people who bought RE5 acquired it before the multiplayer DLC came out. Perhaps you should shift your focus on the people who complained about the DLC and then bought the DLC.

Yes, Sony is selling a service but nobody knows the specifics of it yet. Don't be so quick to judge.

People who buy a new copy of the game will have a code so they do not have to make a purchase.

Jekku

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Gusdor]]> @Wirbelwind: I love you man. Gimme a hug :D

Well said on all fronts tbh.

Gusdor

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Gusdor]]> @cwbys21: Negative. They own the rights to distribute the content. The print and the copy of the software contained on it belongs to the purchaser.

Gusdor

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Gusdor]]> This 'non-refundable' stuff does not hold water for me.

Always pay using a credit card folks. You simply cannot deny the consumer basic purchasing rights, especially where there is a pretty sharp margin for technical error.

The gamers should be pushing the industry for an ombudsman to to control the "nickle and diming" that goes on - and by that I mean ensuring that it is bulletproof legally and technically.

Gamers have no consumer rights at all. Look at steam and xbox live. Everything is non-refundable. Publishers are locking content behind GUIDs for most titles now.

Pay on a credit card and dispute it with your bank.

Gusdor

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from MyDirtySecretary]]> Another publisher bites the dust for me.

MyDirtySecretary

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Mothergooch]]> @willyt9: I blame Vanna White

Mothergooch

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from chickdigger802]]> @ninjacrusader: Sorry, that I haven't been keeping up with the lingo for all this crap that's happening these weeks.

This also confused me because EA sports are the ones doing the project $10, which they also have an MMA game, which I don't think is out yet. And... fuck it.

I should have added "to me", but can't really edit now. So w/e.

chickdigger802

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from IrinaWylder]]> @Foxhack: Way to make me notice what his nick was. :D

- I don't know what this game is all about, nor why people are making a fuss about this. Maybe it's my inability to read English, but I can't see a problem with how PS3 and X360 handles DLC content. That's not UFC's fault is it?

IrinaWylder

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Fredendil]]> Book publishers, music labels (CD's, 'free' mp3 songs from the internet), movie companies (bluray and dvd movies) don't get any money when people buy those things used, or when someone borrows them from a friend, etc. Then, should we weep for them?. In my opinion, the only way game companies should get any money from used sales has already been implemented quite some time ago: paid DLC. You bought an used game? crap! we, the game company, see no money from it! but hey, you can buy these attractive crap for a 'cheap' price. (seeing how mw2 map packs have sold millions, its safe to say that even people with used copies paid for those, thus, seems the DLC works for game companies, right?)

I can't just help but feel that maybe, just maybe, all that propaganda from game companies not getting money from used sales, boo-hoo, does get into our heads (brainwash us) and makes us think it's ok for them to do this kinda crap.

My 2 cents/My opinion.

PS. And yes, i read some of the comments saying 'but movies get their money from box office revenues' and whatnot. Please. Ever heard of movies not doing so great on theaters but once on dvd, wow! it's selling like hot cakes?

Fredendil

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Shinryoma]]> Every time I glimpse these UFC topics and see all that skin I think it's porn.

Shinryoma

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Manix]]> @Jekku: My issue is more to do with idiots that keep paying for things without caring what the results will be, especially when they moan about the results.

For example, all those people that complained about Resident Evil 5's DLC but then still bought the game. Then they moan again when a company replicates the whole "cutting content out of the game to sell as an extra" bull shit, hence Assassin Creed 2 DLC.

People who paid for xbox live have lead to Sony selling a service and they have also lead to this "code stuff" because they proved that idiots would pay for the online aspect of gaming.

When people buy the code for these games, they too will prove this scheme a success and the line will move once again.

Manix

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from grendell]]> @willyt9: I blame Vanna White, personally.

grendell

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Seraphic Star]]> @Quilt: Hmm, perhaps. But I think it might have been Estelle Getty. lol

Seraphic Star

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Seraphic Star]]> @willyt9: lol, my sister watches the show all the time. It's really not that bad, and Betty is pretty hot actually. And this is coming from a gay man. :S

Seraphic Star

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Fredendil]]> @jayntampa: Just what i was thinking about yesterday, after reading... i forgot what it was, but, yes, my thoughts exactly, mate.

Fredendil

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from bassrocker521]]> @xcornmuffinx: Agreed. Cerberus was fine with me because if I had bought it used I wouldn't care if I got Zaeed or anything like that. However now I can't go rent Madden and play online when I get the itch to do so, and that just irks me.

bassrocker521

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from cwbys21]]> @Auouywonz: they do own the game, you are just paying for the privilege to play it.

cwbys21

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Wirbelwind]]> @Culebra: Thats not what I said at all. I said that the new demographic gets all the relevance when they don't support the industry as a whole, meanwhile companies like Sega and Nintendo are holding back games that I want because other people don't support them and me wanting them doesn't matter to them.

As for your comment about getting more of what I like if I support it. How about that Mother 3? Xenosaga 2 didn't sell enough copies, well shit lets cut out 3 games. Breath of Fire has gone where?

The high horse comment is always so laughable. I would get off mine but it was bought with my money and my time and my being on it is well deserved. I'm sorry that you don't feel like your time and money is really worth being able to speak your mind...must be very tough for you to have any standards in life.

Also, was that last part supposed to be an insult or something? I'll go play some games too now that I'm done reading this week's comics(Luke Cage in charge of the Thunderbolts...shit is gonna go downnn) and finished season 3 of Justice League. It's like I don't play games as much as I used to...weird.

Wirbelwind

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Auouywonz]]> Tis a sad thing when the publishers think they own games that the gamers have paid for once already...

Auouywonz

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Azriel77]]> Welcome to gaming hell, remember when we could just put in a game and just play it without being ripped off? Ah, the good old days.

Azriel77

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from マジカル パイ]]> @thirdeye09:

マジカル パイ

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Foxhack]]> @RAGE QUITTER: ...

Rage quit?

Foxhack

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Gagoff]]> @HatchC2: Ok, what's the next step?

Gagoff

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from 00Bear00]]> this is just gay

00Bear00

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Culebra]]>
@Wirbelwind: You say that the industry caters to anyone but you, yet you have 150 titles across all three current gen consoles, including Wii.

Right.

Get off your high horse. You seem pretty upset that there are other venues for game companies to explore that don't involve your area of interest.

Tough shit, really. Enjoy what you like and support it, and you'll get more of it. The same goes for other demographics.

What a dumb thing to get bothered over, really. Enjoy your parting shot, I'm gonna go play some games.

Culebra

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from 2NinjasTapedTogether]]> @Daniel Hinkles: I'm not specifically talking about this game or publisher, but gaming in general.

Games are an expensive medium that (unlike films which can make money back on DVD sales, or musical acts that can make money back on live ticket\merch sales) can only really make money once.

People complain about paying for DLC that they think "completes" a game, or complain about being forced to buy a game new... But I think that, in many cases, it's just developers and publishers looking out for their best interests.

Is it always? Definitely not. There's no such thing as always.

2NinjasTapedTogether

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Jekku]]> @Daniel Hinkles: Seems like your issue is Xbox Live, and not this code stuff.

Jekku

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Wirbelwind]]> @Culebra: It's a business, a business of ass fucking us for them to make money. 15 dollar map packs are so great right?

Here is the thing, that "new demographic" buys a lot of Wiis, and they buy a lot of Nintendo games like NSMB. Here is what they don't buy, anything else.

The Wii software numbers support this heavily, as the first game to show up on the top 20 selling Wii games is Guitar Hero 3 and the difference between that and the top selling games from Nintendo on the same console is HUGE(15+ million copies).

So yeah, it's great they bought all those Wiis and they supported Nintendo (and to a lesser extent Activision) a lot, but they haven't done fuck all for anyone else...except the makers of Carnival Games...

So here is my problem, I have about 150 games across all 3 consoles this gen, with the majority being 360 games, and yet everyone and their mother in this industry(except Atlus) tells me I should shut up because my money isn't what they want, they want my mom and grandmother's money instead.

It's just business though and I should probably not say anything because they don't want my money anymore...yeah fuck that nonsense.

Wirbelwind

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from mistico5656]]> @KingKevin: Yeah my only concern for MvC 3 is that it gets 56 characters or more and that it doesn't get rushed released just to sell me extra characters 2 weeks later.

mistico5656

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Manix]]> @2NinjasTapedTogether: The original UFC undisputed sold 4m copies. Explain to me how they are remotely struggling to make their money back.

Don't try to justify a company ripping people off, just expect it.

Manix

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Manix]]> @Countdwn2Static: It will keep getting worse because folks can't keep their money in their pockets long enough.

First it was buy our game and play it. This turned into "buy our game and then pay someone else to play certain features of it", now it's "buy our game, pay someone else to access certain features of it and then pay again for us to give you access to those features".

All this because people keep on paying.

Manix

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Manix]]> So you buy the xbox 360 version, then you pay to redeem the code so that you can play online but unfortunately you can't play online because you don't have an xbox live gold account.

In other words you have to pay over and over and over again just to be able to use your game. What a pile of shit.

Manix

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Sidious Strange]]> I don't blame companies for looking for ways to drive new sales, since they don't see any money on used game sells outside of the original purchase. But this was messy. The game is fantastic. It is a shame it's launch was marred a bit by this.

Sidious Strange

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Griefy]]> @AngryAtom: The must not have ever pre-ordered or purchased a game with a pack-in code ever consider that this was standard procedure. RDR on the other hand had it where you had to do it from within the game which was actually weird.

Griefy

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Pepe Thunder]]> @Culebra: ha...haha......hahahaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Pepe Thunder

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Pepe Thunder]]> @HatchC2: My kode won work!!!1!!11 i boght it 5 times and noone works!11!!

Pepe Thunder

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from KingKevin]]> @mistico5656: and THIS is why I'm likely NOT to buy Marvel vs Capcom 3, a franchise I love. I hate DLC. Games are JUST about money these days, not the love of gaming. Its really sad...

KingKevin

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Sugoi]]> @TrentUGA: I find it more remarkable that people are willing to purchase so much DLC.

I mean, I buy some DLC for games when it actually adds a lot and wasn't clearly chopped from the original title... but clearly some people are completely nuts about it.

Sugoi

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from thirdeye09]]> Can I get an "epic fail"?

thirdeye09

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from MadPretty]]> @Masterpain22: The thing is, with the way THQ and certain EA titles are using this "Project $10", it is doing nothing but reinforcing customers who wait for a used to copy to still wait. Believe it or not, quite a few people don't care about online play, so saying "You have to pay extra for online!" doesn't work for them and you still lose sales.

Now, with Mass Effect 2 and Alan Wake, you tell the customer "Thank you for buying this new! Here are some extra FREE goodies for you that are not included on the disc." This gets the attention of those who wait for used and push them towards new sales.

MadPretty

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from AnonymousNoob]]> @killah101: You also fail to take into consideration the fact that GameStop is a corporation who's bottom line is entirely dependent on the sale of used media.

This is not a transaction between you and a friend, or a sale at a mom and pop store; this is a company selling used games on a national level. There are no other stores that operate like this and this is the main point of contention that both developers and publishers have with GameStop.

The closest comparison there is is the certified reselling of used cars and even then said sales operate out of brand specific dealerships.

It's not the same; sorry dude.

AnonymousNoob

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from IvanDashSmith]]> @KillerBeeTX: So you have two gold accounts and the online code for the game and have tried it?

IvanDashSmith

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Culebra]]> @Wirbelwind: @K-Dogg 3000: @HunterKiller_: I never understood why a game company or publisher looking to be profitable is seen as a negative thing by some.

This case here isn't about nickel and dime-ing anyone, it's a clumsy attempt at saying 'Don't buy used, buy new.' Videogames are a business.

And for K-Dogg, no, I don't mean the Wii or Natal is the worst thing to happen this gen. If anything, Nintendo helped spread gaming to a new demographic.

You may not like motion controls, and I can understand why. But it's not like games aren't made for the core gamer anymore. This year in particular is a poor year to make a claim otherwise, in fact.

Culebra

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from MadPretty]]> @2NinjasTapedTogether: I understand that publishers and developers want to make their money, but I feel that punishing people for not buying a new game (EA Sports titles) is not the way to go, but instead they should reward those who bought it new, like what they did with Alan Wake and Mass Effect 2. You give them some extra stuff coming out at a later date for free, but other people still have the option to buy it and do not lose out on the core gameplay experience. I feel that the EA Sports approach to this is a very, very slippery slope.

MadPretty

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from AngryAtom]]> I bought it for PS3 and the first thing I did was redeem the code on the back of the manual. I thought it was pretty obvious. Of course I can only speak for people who aren't morons.

AngryAtom

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Quilt]]> @surft: I smell class action. Upon settlement, you can get your $5 back by filling out a 27/b form, and sending it with a proof of purchase with $5 to:

We Hav Ur Loot! LOLOLOL
133 T Pwned Avenue
Balls Deep, Florida

Have a nice day.

Quilt

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from eternalbl]]>
@kevito: On the plus side, all overpayments will be forwarded straight to mailroom Kenny.

eternalbl

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from NakedEskimo]]> @Countdwn2Static: To be fair, it usually gets worse before it finally fixes itself. Who knows, maybe digital really is where console gaming will end up. I know I pretty much refuse to buy games for my PC from anyone but Steam, just for how easy they make it for me.

NakedEskimo

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Quilt]]> @Seraphic Star: Bea Arthur made her do it.

Quilt

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Chester Coat Sleaves is disappointed Dean is gone.]]> @Quilt: Yeah EA announced last week or something that along with Tiger Woo 11 all EA sports titles will feature this Project $10 jazz.

Chester Coat Sleaves is disappointed Dean is gone.

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Masterpain22]]> @Altima NEO: I can't really agree with you on that. There is no brand loyalty if you don't buy the game in a way you give them a profit, and you are not their costumer if you don't buy from them.

Also, if you go to Gamestop and you can choose between a new game for $60 or a used one for $55 that you would have to pay $5 extra for a code then you'll come to the conclusion that buying it new is a better deal (if you also care about the manual and case and so on).

I still don't agree with what they are doing, but we can at least understand where they are coming from.

Masterpain22

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from EVILBEARDMAN]]> @Nintendo451: LOL agreed, but Owen did rant about this a podcast or two ago, so probably wont be another one...

EVILBEARDMAN

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from willyt9]]> @Seraphic Star: C'mon, Golden Girls wasn't that bad...

willyt9

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from getlefty]]> ...kind of speaks to the intelligence of the people that buy MMA games...

getlefty

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Quilt]]> @Chester Coat Sleaves: I couldn't comment on the quality of the game, because I've never played it. EA is doing the same thing for online play though?

Uhg, that's rough, especially when you consider these sorts of systems will become more and more prevalent.

Quilt

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Seraphic Star]]> @willyt9: I blame Betty White.

Seraphic Star

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Wirbelwind]]> @Culebra: Wayyyy too much money being spent on games now for that to happen. It's going to get worse as the piracy rate increases and game costs go up. It's a super huge business now and greed will crush it all.

Wirbelwind

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from AngryChiefsFan]]> @b-radicate: You must not have read your agreement with Microsoft and XBOX Live: "Certain games, content offerings, features, or events (for example, sweepstakes and tournaments) that are available via the Service may contain additional terms, codes of conduct, or guidelines that govern your use of those games or features, or your participation in those events."

Those "additional terms" are, basically: "You buy the game new, online multiplayer is free with an XBOX Live subscription. You dont? It's $5-10."

"Project $10" is a specific game subscription and has nothing to do with XBOX Live.

Also, your ISP gives you access to plenty of things, but you still can't access parts of it without a subscription fee. Such as: ESPN Insider, a majority of porn sites and numerous newspaper websites. Identically, you have access to all the other stuff XBOX Live offers, but if you don't want to fork over the specific game subscription fee for that used game you bought, you can't play that game online.

Also, if you didn't sign an agreement that has a 'Terms of Use' or "User agreement" when you signed the contract with your ISP, tell me where you got it from. I'd like to go to that company.

AngryChiefsFan

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from KillerBeeTX]]> @IvanDashSmith: Per account, not per console. If you have two accounts, you are fucked.

KillerBeeTX

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from K-Dogg 3000]]> @Culebra: You mean to say "The Wii is probably the worst thing that's happened this gen." ......Well, till Project Natal comes out...

And I would hardly say a company trying to cheat people out of money is a growing pain. Tho if it keeps happening it will be a growing pain in our wallets.

K-Dogg 3000

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from spyderr0de0]]> @Anthony Gallotello: TROLL!

spyderr0de0

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from xcornmuffinx]]> @bassrocker521: Really? That is a bad idea. I like the Cerberus Network idea but making people pay more for the standard function of online play is ridiculous.

xcornmuffinx

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from sniperspider]]> @beep: I guess thats lame for you i dont pay anything a year to play my games online.

sniperspider

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from TrentUGA]]> I really hate this new initiative to try and get your money any way possible.

TrentUGA

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from 2NinjasTapedTogether]]> @abasmic: This is very true. I've spent more time gaming on my iTouch (mainly on $.99 games) than I have on my PS3 (where one game costs more than all the stuff I've bought from the App Store).

I've always argued for an emphasis of story and gameplay over graphics. I've been arguing over this since the N64 age where my friends all went to the Playstation because of the graphics (which is not to say there weren't excellent games with great story\gameplay on the PSX, just that my friends went ONLY on graphics).

2NinjasTapedTogether

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ArykheartX]]> but see thats how they are gonna make money by tricking the gamer which is a low blow but to THQ and EA spots.... its just businesses

ArykheartX

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Sam-urai]]> Psst, not to be a jerk Owen, but it looks like you highlighted a bit too far down in your article. I think the final paragraph of THQ's statement is actually part of YOUR article, and not part of their quote.

#corrections

Sam-urai

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from excaleranth]]> @IvanDashSmith: Things you buy online only attach to one account, I'm sure the same goes for this one use code.

excaleranth

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Revenge_of_Nekojin]]> @AMonkey: So, an ignorant, biased asshole has jumped to a conclusion on the Internet? Surprise!

Revenge_of_Nekojin

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from mistico5656]]> I can imagine a future that obligates you to pay $10 to play the multiplayer of a $50-$60 dollar game plus $5 for a downloadable content installer that will let you install the $15 DLC you bought, but wait be prepared to throw in an extra $5 to activate your Achievements/Trophies.
And it gets better because in the future since they wont release any more game manuals you can buy the in- game manual for just $10.

But remember you can always buy the Collectors edition that includes the game, the DLC installer, Achievements/ Trophies, 1 DLC, in-game manual and 1 Theme and 1 Gamerpic. All that for $149.99.

And i suspect that this method will be used in WWE Smackdown VS Raw 2015.

mistico5656

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Strixvaliano]]> @Quine: I'm behind not purchasing games that incorporate this.

Especially when a company is so blatantly trying to rip off its consumers.

Strixvaliano

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from kevito]]> Yeah, it is pretty obvious when you boot up the game they purposely made everything as vague as possible in hopes to schist unsuspecting people who bought the game and already have the code out of five bucks.

kevito

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Rebellion598]]> @Curiously Flamboyant Sheep: Regardless of that... *puts sunglasses on* ...You'd make a pretty good meal.

Rebellion598

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Problem?]]> Add 1 vote against this scam and i'll simply vote buy not buying games using this practice. Sorry game companies don't see a dime from used game sales but neither do most other producers whose products are sold used.
Fight piracy but don't stick it to legitimate buyers.

Problem?

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from eternalbl]]> @AMonkey: Project $10 was EA.

eternalbl

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Curiously Flamboyant Sheep: Inter-Pasture-ary Ninja Assassin]]> @Rebellion598: I'm but a sheep!

* suppresses maniacal cackle*

Curiously Flamboyant Sheep: Inter-Pasture-ary Ninja Assassin

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Altima NEO]]> @joecamnet: They can still buy DLC, etc. Theres also brand loyalty and other factors that come into play.

Altima NEO

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Anthony Gallotello]]> ufc sucks

Anthony Gallotello

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from AMonkey]]> So...the company that came up with the Project $10 has further acted like douches? Surprise!

AMonkey

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from KieferCrimson (totally not a Biodrone)]]> @Shinta: If the code is redeemed you should get a LICENSE for the console, same as you can play DLC from another Gamertag even if it's offline, as long as it's licensed on the console.

I say should because I'm not sure, and also because they might go Final Fight draconian style.

KieferCrimson (totally not a Biodrone)

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Quine]]> I will not buy games with this clear money-grab. Please join me in voting against this behavior by not purchasing games like this.

Quine

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from EVIL HOBO]]> Way to fuck things up, THQ. At least I know what to do when I get my copy.

EVIL HOBO

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from HunterKiller_]]> @Culebra: "the industry tries to find the sweet spot to rake in more profits"

Fixed.

HunterKiller_

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Countdwn2Static]]> @Culebra: It's good you haven't given up on that world. I have serious doubts it will level out anytime remotely soon as it still seems to be getting worse.

Countdwn2Static

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ApolloAxis]]> if more companies keep catching on to this than what the hell are we paying 50 dollars a year for????

ApolloAxis

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from willyt9]]> I blame Dana White.

willyt9

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from HatchC2]]> To read this comment online, please enter your redemption code at Hatch's PayPal account donation screen.

HatchC2

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Culebra]]> These growing pains as the industry tries to find the sweet spot to be profitable are probably the worst thing that's happened this gen.

Can't wait till all this mess gets sorted and we have a nice, somewhat standardized, mutually beneficial gaming world again.

Culebra

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from riceKRISPYninja]]> @lenandude: "HERE HERE!"

riceKRISPYninja

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from abasmic]]> @2NinjasTapedTogether: Maybe it's time to scale back games, and focus more on core ideas than pomp and flashiness. Do you notice how many of these multi-million dollar titles simply AREN'T fun? For $10-$15, you could pick up something that will keep you more entertained, and for longer periods of time, off of any console's online game service. What do you think the profit margins are there?

Ah, who am I kidding?

abasmic

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Stinkfinger]]> @ninjacrusader: Being a life long console gamer since the 2600 days, it's these kinds of practices that are making me sell my consoles and pushing me more and more to my pc.

While I don't think the pc gaming population will be immune to these tactics for ever at least there seem to be more level headed people in the development community with some good ideas (everything Valve does, free to play) on how to get consumers to pay for their product without nickel and diming their loyal customers.

Stinkfinger

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from b-radicate]]> @AngryChiefsFan: Well then millions of those of us who pay for the service are sadly misinformed. It is a widely held understanding that paying for Xbox Live buys you the ability to play games on your Xbox online. It's sort of... you know... the whole idea behind it. Drawing the ISP/Live parallel is completely irrational.

The reason it is different is because an ISP gives you access to the entire internet. What you do with it is up to you. There is no user agreement to sign. You open the pipe and can drink all the delicious internet you want (at least with my ISP in my area; I realize some ISPs are limiting access; different topic, different discussion).

Live, however, gives you a prescribed set of options and abilities you sign up for up front. One of them is clearly labeled online multiplayer. It's the vast majority of the system's sales pitch, for god's sake (hell, it was the ONLY sales pitch when it first launched). It's the essential cornerstone of the service. If you want to argue the semantics, take it up with Microsoft. I, however, will gladly agree to disagree with you.

If you're okay with paying twice for a service you were promised you'd be given the first time, so be it. I'll vote with my dollars, though, and not support games that promote such shitty practices.

b-radicate

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from KingKevin]]> omg, I thought this was something about gay porn (b/c of the photo). Disappointed that its not...

KingKevin

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from lenandude]]> I think its ridiculous that they are locking you completely out of the online portion of the game unless you have a code or pay $5 to access it. Its a load of bullshit. A code that lets you have free DLC is one thing (example: Battlefield Bad Company 2), but locking a person completely out of the online play is just wrong and should not be done.

lenandude

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Shinta]]> @IvanDashSmith: " I would imagine the download code would work across all accounts"

I have no idea why you would imagine that actually. I would be surprised if it did.

Shinta

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from 2NinjasTapedTogether]]> As game budgets swell and developers HAVE to sell more and more games to break even (y'know, so they can make more games), this is going to keep happening.

I honestly don't have a problem with doing this to try to increase new game sales over used. It sucks, but the developers are trying to make sure they get their money back on a game they created.

However... this is definitely a really bad way to implement it. Nothing like bilking $5 out of the loyal gamer that paid full price for a new copy of your game...

2NinjasTapedTogether

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ThreeOneFive]]> @Altima NEO: You're right, it's not exactly the same, but I see some obvious similarities.

PC: Buy game new, input code to be able to play. Can't buy "used" games.

Console: Buy game new, input code to be able to play online. Can buy used games, but will end up costing you an extra $10.

ThreeOneFive

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from IvanDashSmith]]> Here's a question to anyone with more than one account on their Xbox: can you play online with either Xbox Live account? I would imagine the download code would work across all accounts, but who knows?

IvanDashSmith

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from PookandPie]]> @tandyman: What directions? There are no directions. Clicking yes to redeem the code takes you to a purchase window.

That's just poor coding, and confusing for obvious reasons. It's unfortunate that some are too hip to see over their own pelvis, and can't seem to grasp how something that's confusing would, um, confuse people.

PookandPie

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from bassrocker521]]> @xcornmuffinx: EA is doing this for every upcoming game with an online component, including Madden. THQ is just taking a page out of EA's playbook.

bassrocker521

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Rebellion598]]> @Curiously Flamboyant Sheep: Ok People! Grab your pitchforks and torches, It's time to chase this guy down the countryside!

Rebellion598

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from haihn7]]> So they started the project already. Wow. Sorry game developers but you will never get that money from me, I'm mainly play single player, I have about 10 games right now and the only one I play online is MW2, if IW start charging money to play online, I'd simply just stopped.

haihn7

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from joecamnet]]> @Altima NEO: Not sure if you realized this, but the point of it is to dissuade people from buying it used in the first place. Buy it new, support the developers. That's what they're aiming for.
"A buyer is a buyer, and it's still their customer."
How is it their customer if they didn't get any money for the used game sale?

joecamnet

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from SurakshaNewt]]> @tandyman: Well if it weren't for developers pulling this kind of crap, there wouldn't be complaints from "illiterate" gamers in the first place. Don't try to pull a bullshit maneuver and then get pissed off at other people because of your incompetence.

SurakshaNewt

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from AngryChiefsFan]]> @b-radicate: This has nothing to do with XBOX Live just as the subscription fee to World of Warcraft (or any MMORPG) has nothing to do with your ISP. In this scenario, game manufacturers are letting you use their "servers" or online area for free unless you purchase the game used or rent it, then you have to pay a $5-10 service fee to play the game. Paying for XBOX Live is just allowing you to partake in online content, it has nothing to do with actually being able to play games online for free.

AngryChiefsFan

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Curiously Flamboyant Sheep: Inter-Pasture-ary Ninja Assassin]]> Bwahhahahahah! My plan is reaching completion! Bwa-haahaha-hahaha-ha.

oh.

... hi guys...

*runs away*

Curiously Flamboyant Sheep: Inter-Pasture-ary Ninja Assassin

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Muttmutt]]> @tandyman: Actually, if I read the article correctly, the bold instructions are being given by kotaku and not the publisher. The article also says "You're left to figure out for yourself that it has to be redeemed through PSN."

So the issue is not people's inability to follow directions, but rather the publisher failing to give the proper directions. Basically they gave everyone a code and said "here you go" without any explanation.

Muttmutt

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from TheSpecial1]]> On the community site instructions are posted informing about his.
But I'm probably the only person that actually looks and reads manuals anymore and looks at the back of them, hence I didn't have any problems.

TheSpecial1

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Ad-hominem]]> @tandyman: It's funny. I'm pretty sure they described how the Xbox Marketplace actively tries to trick you into buying the free product.

And, the thing is that THERE ARE NO DIRECTIONS. It doesn't tell you that you're supposed to do it. And, don't tell me you should be poring over every line of text and possible document available to you to play a single goddamn game.

Ad-hominem

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Strages /rE/]]> @jsalari: Hah! That's the first thing I thought of too.

Strages /rE/

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Altima NEO]]> I think its outright retarded that theyre basically punishing anyone who buys their game used. And in this case, even new.

Removing integral features of a game and charging more for it is absurd. If the whole reasoning behind it is to encourage sales of new product, then why not include extra bonuses that are worthwhile, to entice new game buyers.

In the end, a buyer is a buyer, and its still their customer.

To me this seems more like a gold rush by developers to find a way to charge buyers even more. Then theyll bitch about piracy later. After shit like this, they deserve the lost sales.

Altima NEO

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from screamingslave]]> I almost had that happen to me. I followed the in game menus up to nearly confirming the purchased before noticing the fee. Luckily in that moment I realized the code must be redeemed in the marketplace and backed out.

screamingslave

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Owen Good]]> @tandyman: Read the article again. Other paywall codes have much clearer instructions on redeeming them, and are often done in-game. It may make you feel smart to say this; that doesn't mean this isn't a design flaw and a legitimate consumer issue.

Owen Good

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Altima NEO]]> @chickdigger802: EA's is the $10 project. Everyone is trying to copy it with a me too scheme. But since EA did it first, I guess theyre just calling it that now.

Altima NEO

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from killah101]]> @AnonymousNoob: lolz.

Dude, Gamestop sells games. If they want to buy used games then sell them at a nationwide level they are free to do so.

So what do the gaming companies want?: "Sell our games only if they are new so we get the maximum profit but you lose a significant, if not major, source of your revenue. So, its okay for us to screw customers and get even more profits, while you must suffer just because we, quite literally, said so."

You're right with your used car example, though. So, in tune with that idea, should GM go to all used car dealers and say "Stop selling our cars. Sell only if they are new and don't buy used cars to sell back so we get the maximum profit but you lose a significant, if not major, source of your revenue. So, its okay for us to screw customers and get even more profits, while you must suffer just because we, quite literally, said so."

What?

killah101

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from x Dave Lister x]]> Wait, people paid $60 for UFC Undisputed 2010?

Anyway, pay-walls for standard game content are total bull.

x Dave Lister x

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Altima NEO]]> @ThreeOneFive: Not CD keys, DLC codes.

Theyre making used game buyers pay extra cash just to get standard features, such as online play. New game buyers get the code with their new purchase.

Altima NEO

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from PurpleFries]]> @icarus212001: that would be terribly abyssal.
Don't tell Activision!

PurpleFries

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ninjacrusader]]> @chickdigger802: "Actually this whole article makes little to no sense."

How about doing a small research before disqualifying this article and saying that it is useless? Google is your friend. Moreover, there has been enough articles by Kotaku covering this particular topic. Owen has always provided gamers with well structured up-to-date information. (and no I am not trying to kiss ass here)

ninjacrusader

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from XavierHarkonnen]]> Did THQ even tell anyone they were implementing a project 10$-like thing into ufc 2010? I hadn't heard anything about it until this article so now it just seems like more of a cash grab than it already was. Although i suppose that was their master plan, they can get money out of any copies of the used game, and day one purchasers.

...And here I was thinking Kotick is ceo at Activision :S

XavierHarkonnen

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from tandyman]]> That's a long article you wrote for basically saying "people are in too much of a hurry to follow directions, so lets blame the developers for not just letting us hit X twice and be done".

tandyman

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Kovitlac]]> @killah101: I couldn't agree with you more. And I'd like to also point out that many consumers believe that prices for new video games (many of them retailing at $60+) is completely outragious. People protest this trend by trying to purchase games cheaper. This $10 Solution is a slap in the face for these people - sure, you can purchase them cheaper, but then you only owe more in the end! The industry can't get it through its ever-thickening skull that their games are too expensive.

Kovitlac

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from MSUHitman]]> @chickdigger802: EA is the one most associated with the practice (although Microsoft does it as well see Gears 2, Forza 3, and Alan Wake) so when any company does this, it's going to be referred as their "Project $10" as that's EA internal name for it and it's fast becoming the way other companies describe it as well.

It's not always been EXACTLY $10. Some of the codes have cost $5, $10, $15, or even $20 (NBA Live 09) seperately, but Project $10 is the official name of the practice when EA does it, and for the sake of simplifying discussion, it's referred to as that.

It's also how it's called a podcast instead of a netcast, even though it was originally called podcast because it was something that debuted on ITunes. Leo Laporte was the one trying to convert techies to call their shows netcasts as that was giving Apple free plugs in his mind but after about 2-3 years he gave up that fight and everyone refers to them as podcasts.

MSUHitman

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from SamFishersBrotherBob]]> You can tell that someone ran down the halls at THQ like two weeks ago and said "hey! This worked for EA we should do it too!!!"... so they slapped it on in the most sloppy and quick way possible.

By the way, tonight I'm not even able to get past the friggin title screen.... it just says "connecting" at the top of the screen, and I've been staring at that for 20 minutes. How shoddy is that?

When I'm actually able to get the damn thing to work it's actually pretty damn fun. But good grief... this is pathetic.

SamFishersBrotherBob

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Shinta]]> @Chris Morrison: Yes, I suppose he does. I was making a joke. I think the "cry more" line entitles a little ribbing on the matter.

Shinta

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from MSUHitman]]> That paragraph in bold you wrote should have been on the back of the manual where the code was but it wasn't and that's the big issue as you point out.

Seeing as the code is 5 sets of 5 characters on the 360 version I instantly knew it was redeemable via the normal methods, but I'm not Joe Typical that bought the game.

One thing to note on the 360 version is if you're at the purchase screen to pay 400 allards to buy the 108 kb file, you can hit X I believe it is to go to the code redemption screen and enter your code there.

MSUHitman

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from AnonymousNoob]]> @killah101: You also fail to take into consideration the fact that GameStop is a corporation who's bottom line is entirely dependent on the sale of used media.

This is not a transaction between you and a friend, or a sale at a mom and pop store; this is a company selling used games on a national level. There are no other stores that operate like this and this is the main point of contention that both developers and publishers have with GameStop.

The closest comparison there is is the certified reselling of used cars and even then said sales operate out of brand specific dealerships.

It's not the same; sorry dude.

AnonymousNoob

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ThreeOneFive]]> Wait, console games have CD Keys now? Isn't that against the whole point of owning a console over a PC - you know, ease of use?

ThreeOneFive

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ninjacrusader]]> @Chris Morrison: Well there are companies that care about their fanbase and produce higher quality games than ANYTHING by Activision/EA/THQ/Capcom/Square Enix out there. It is not all lost. And to be honest I will probably not miss these corporations. There nothing more but 'milking' disasters. =)

ninjacrusader

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Decoy_Doctorpus]]> @frankjaeger: Boo hoo no you don't. Don't make me cut you.

Decoy_Doctorpus

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Chris Morrison]]> @Shinta: He does have a point, though. I don't know how many questions per day I get regarding 'how do I do this with my console' that could be answered by reading the owner's manual.

Chris Morrison

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from frankjaeger]]> @Decoy_Doctorpus: boo hoo i have a better mgs name than you

frankjaeger

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Kovitlac]]> @sailingtonorway: When I buy a used car, the dealer doesn't nod and then proceed to remove the breaks or the steering wheel. Plus I always have the option of buying a used car with all the features of a new one.

Kovitlac

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Salari]]> Aw, they're in love!

Salari

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Decoy_Doctorpus]]> @#c23600490
Ahem. "boo hoo i'm not literate enough to read the entire article"

Something like that?

Decoy_Doctorpus

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Chester Coat Sleaves is disappointed Dean is gone.]]> @killah101: Well said sir. Some people just don't get it though. You have to admit that the industry has done a fucking damn good job convincing people they don't own what they pay for.

I wish someone would come along with some legal facts that would clarify this one way or the other.

Simple logic explains it but some people are just fucking dumb.

Chester Coat Sleaves is disappointed Dean is gone.

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from frankjaeger]]> @Shinta: okay i'm going to remove that comment lol

frankjaeger

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Chris Morrison]]> @ninjacrusader: You'll probably just have to stop gaming, because more companies are going to adopt these sorts of measures in the future.

Chris Morrison

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Nightshift Nurse]]> @killah101: These days I think a lot of studios are in it more for the DVD sales than the actual box office take.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that home entertainment as a whole is where the serious revenue comes from anymore.

Nightshift Nurse

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from chickdigger802]]> I'm more confused on how "$10 solution" = $5 dlc.

Actually this whole article makes little to no sense.

I thought project $10 was EA.

chickdigger802

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Kovitlac]]> I don't mean this toward the buyers at all, but all this bad publicity serves THQ right. It sets a dangerous precedent when a developer can just remove an integral part of a game. Free DLC or bonus items for first-time buyers I have no problem with. But don't you go editing out huge parts of the game - this is absolutely crossing the line.

Kovitlac

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from The_Foo]]> @b-radicate: Then I'm gonna assume I didn't lose my code and bought it new, so I don't have to pay again.

The_Foo

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from TheAftermath]]> Glad this was posted, I was going to pay $4.99 on PSN for an unlock code when I got home from work - didn't know it was printed on the back of the instructions... I have a bunch of friends who play games but don't keep up with Kotaku or other gaming blogs, so how the hell would they even know that: 1.) online needs to be unlocked via code 2.) said code is provided when you buy the game new?

TheAftermath

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Shinta]]> @WarlordPayne: Thus completing the irony about complaints of illiteracy.

Shinta

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Shinta]]>
When you find out you just paid $5 for something you already own, a video of Dana White laughing should just pop up.

Shinta

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from TriG8]]> @slotter: A second hand purchaser has every right to play the game online. Let's keep this simple for those at home. Imagine there are 2 copies of a game sold and both go online. One of these is resold 100 times and the other is kept by the original owner. Even though there were 101 transactions, because of the DRM built into console and PC titles, guess how many copies can be online at any given time.... TWO.

The publisher gets their money up front at purchase time to pay for the online service.

TriG8

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from frankjaeger]]> @WarlordPayne: true, lets say contents of box.

frankjaeger

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Chester Coat Sleaves is disappointed Dean is gone.]]> @Quilt: I think the fact the game is terrible gives EA more of a step up then this. Considering they are doing the same thing with EA MMA as THQ has done here.

Except EA has been telling people and making it very well know, whether I agree with this shit or not EA is actually do this the right way. Not telling people is how you get sued hard and lose big bank.

Chester Coat Sleaves is disappointed Dean is gone.

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from PureAdrenallen]]> @slotter: But at the same time, that service was already paid for by the first person to own it, so it isn't taking them any more resources than if the same person was playing it online.

PureAdrenallen

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ninjacrusader]]> I hope sane gamers will unite and stop purchasing games from the companies that abuse their presence on the market. THQ, I wish you all the worst. I hope you fail, you do not deserve to be loved by gamers. Now who is next? Ubisoft? EA?

ninjacrusader

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from b-radicate]]> @killah101: I completely agree with you, for the record. It seems the videogame industry is the one of the only ones working hard to destroy the second hand market.

What they don't realize is that without second hand buyers, a lot of their digitally distributed content would never sell copies, nor would subsequent sequels.

b-radicate

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from WarlordPayne]]> @frankjaeger: According to the article the box doesn't actually say anything about the code.

WarlordPayne

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from killah101]]> @slotter: This is the business they are in. To sell a damn game. That's it. Movies are NOT firstly in the business of selling a dvd (as you said, they are in it for the box office firstly). Even now, gaming companies are selling rights (movie, story, etc) left and right.

The company who provides the online service? Xbox live, PSN? If EA is paying for the servers, then they should tell MS/Sony to pay for them. If MS/Sony are paying for the servers then you know what.

Video game companies are not entitled to never ending royalties because they sell a singular product. They sell item A. This is a thing. If they say you own it, then you own it (features that are in it intact). If you are leasing it or renting it (which I wouldn't be surprised if we are) then they should make that clear with big labels that say, "you do no own this product, you are renting it. When you sell this product, the new buyer must repurchase the rights to features from us again."

@serea_killer: Games don't get revenue from theaters because they aren't movies. They're games. Their revenue comes from the product. The game. Rights are sold (as said before, even recently with Mass Effect selling off the movie rights).

I could use the pencil example, if I add something: a pencil that never degrades. But if you own this pencil, I mean OWN IT as in its your property, then wouldn't, given that it works, you be able to write with it? Of course. But now if the pencil company of the never degrading pencil says, "no in order to use the writing feature, you must pay us" Well then you don't "own it" because you can't use all the features that are inherent in it. You are renting it.

What is all this talk of gamestop?

killah101

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from b-radicate]]> @slotter: You're right. They just make more money in a single day than all other forms of media can manage. They can't make money AT ALL.

Please; cry me a river. If game companies were run more efficiently they wouldn't have to nickel and dime their customers. I know, I was a Take-Two shareholder. The companies are run LIKE SHIT.

b-radicate

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Lord Dr. Nürburgring III, Esquire]]> @slotter: Well...someone did. It's just that up until now no one's had a problem. I expect Game Companies are likely to think to themselves, "We're going into this assuming we're making $60 a unit, and not a penny more, excluding merchandise and such".

I'm not saying you're wrong, but just that why has no one else had a problem about this before, and suddenly one or two publishers are falling into this trance called Project $10?

Lord Dr. Nürburgring III, Esquire

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from frankjaeger]]> boo hoo, i'm not literate enough to read the box of the product i just bought but i'm literate enough to make online credit card purchases.

cry more

frankjaeger

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from sereal_killer]]> @Pray4Mojo: Zing

sereal_killer

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from surft]]> sniff..sniff, I smell lawsuit...

surft

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Laronvas]]> @killah101: If this online code thing kicks off and jacks EA's profits through the roof don't be suprised if some movie studio attempts a similar concept.

Especially with alot of DVD/Blu-rays being internet compatible we could see a future surge of attempts to make movies and the like require online connectivity with your one time use code.

Laronvas

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Quilt]]> *sniff sniff*

Hey, what's that smell?

You smell that too EA?

It smells kind of like a huge opportunity to get a foothold with your new MMA franchise.

I don't know how prevalent this problem is, but THQ might have a VERY big problem on their hands here.

Quilt

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from SecCom]]> We're bound to have some road-bumps on this process. I believe this is the next step in the long road toward download-only, full-retail titles, which may be at least another decade away. EA had the great idea to start "Project $10" or whatever they call it, consumers like this idea because it gives confirmation to their full retail purchase. Of course other companies are going to go on the "me-2" offensive and hastily implement these things as an after-thought.

Similar is the 3D trend going on in the movie industry right now. One movie becomes box-office gold for using 3D in a unique and revolutionary way, so other studios have decided to rush 3D development on movies that didn't need it or shouldn't of ever had it.

SecCom

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from MrYuzhai]]> @icarus212001: lol...

MrYuzhai

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from b-radicate]]> @WarlordPayne: Because if you bought a regular game and want to play online, you've already paid a fee to do so. If you want to play this game online, you have to pay again to play it online.

Assuming you bought a used copy or lost the code or something.

b-radicate

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from TheJoser]]> @sereal_killer: Yes. Yes it is.

TheJoser

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Latias_On_Vox]]> I'm sure this is PROBABLY a one-time thing, because, like you said, it was a late implementation.

I'm sure that EA will be much more redeemable in nature.

However, bad one for THQ.

Latias_On_Vox

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from VileMethoD]]> Thus, my prophecy is nearly fulfilled.

VileMethoD

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from jayntampa]]> @tomonori.iwaki: Books should self-destruct, too -- because, you know, writers don't get any money when you lend them to people.

Ripped off is a pretty strong term since when you buy books, music, DVDs or any other piece of entertainment, you can sell it or trade it.

jayntampa

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Laronvas]]> This reminds me slightly of how some games with their own DLC interface list "NEW DLC!" by their schedule....not by whether you've already looked @ said DLC and decided to not download/purchase it.

So for weeks you constantly see "NEW DLC!" and if there IS DLC on the horizon you were waiting for your checking that menu constantly not knowing if it's the residual new flag or the one you wanted is out.

Laronvas

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from NooklearToaster]]> @WarlordPayne: Well technically he has a point, because if you buy the game used then you still need to pay $5 AND a live subscription fee in order to play against anyone online.

It's bullshit either way, and it has nothing to do with microsoft, but it still hurts the wallet at the end of the day.

NooklearToaster

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from sereal_killer]]> @killah101: like has been mentioned games dont get revenue from theather openings and movie rights. pencils and cars cant be compared because they degrade after usage where the game
doesnt.

sereal_killer

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Pray4Mojo]]> So consumers want to fight in the octagon and then they are inadvertantly screwed? Sounds like they're getting the real MMA experience.

Pray4Mojo

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Manipulated_Variable]]> @Wahrheit: No, it only pertains to playing the game online.

Manipulated_Variable

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from xcornmuffinx]]> THQ is definitely doing it wrong. Taking out a feature that would normally be included is just wrong. It's not a good way to endear people to your buying scheme.

On the other hand, I thought the EA implementation of it in Mass Effect 2 was just peachy. I bought the game new and got free DLC. Had I not gotten the game new I would have still had all of the features fo the regular game. That seems fair to me.

THQs method doesn't seem fair at all.

xcornmuffinx

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from DrDankstone]]> @spiderweb1986: That goes to MS, not the developer.

Just because you are getting gauged by someone, doesn't mean that money is going to the right place.

While I think that this is a horrible thing for gamers, I applaud anything that hurts Gamestop. They are ripping off gamers and publishers alike, have been for years, and will continue to as long as we let them.

DrDankstone

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from slotter]]> @Pyure: If Gamestop and other retailers helped improve ANY gaming services I'd be all for it, but alas they just rape everyone.

slotter

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Krakenstein]]> @spiderweb1986: Maybe he wants to put it before hand and later when he gets the interwebz he doesn't have to scurry to find the code.
Still I belive if they were going to do this code thing wouldn't it be better if the people who bought the used game didn't have to buy a gundamn code and let them play online.
Or backwards, people who buy the game "brand new" would have gotten a code for a discount on the dlc.

I just know that my gamestop is just gonna lose the code when I go get it new and say "well it's your fault"when I reclaim they opened the freaking package and lost the gundam code......damn these bastards.

Krakenstein

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from sailingtonorway]]> The THQ implementation is terrible. But using a "used car" analogy for used games is nonsense. When you buy a car used, you get a worse car than new. When you buy a game used, you get the exact same game as new. The $10 project is trying to discourage used sales by reducing the value of a used copy.

sailingtonorway

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from PureAdrenallen]]> @#c23599650: Ya I agree with that, but at the same time, you have to agree paying to use part of the game you purchased is crap.

PureAdrenallen

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from ep5760]]> @icarus212001: Yea i'm gonna agree with spiderweb, if your console has no way to be online, you never bought the game for multiplayer anyways.

Neither the function in-game, nor the code on the manual/bought online would have any bearing on your purchase.

Go away troll.

ep5760

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from CNega]]> I had no problem with the code, although on the ps3 version, it just brought me back to the PS3 store with a blank screen. I had to navigate a little bit, but I've redeemed codes before so I knew where to go. BTW, THQ's online servers are still crap. It's like they share the same server as 2K Sports because it's always a challenge to get a match going.

CNega

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Wahrheit]]> Is this offline multiplayer as well?

Then it has gone too far. Way too far.

Wahrheit

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Taggart451]]> I sense a "Something Negative" coming out of the debacle...

Taggart451

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from spiderweb1986]]> @slotter: At least with the 360, the user is giving money to the service via Xbox Live.

spiderweb1986

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from icarus212001]]> @Archaotic: Wait a min- (re-reads) Oh. I mistook it as a code that let's you play the game itself (a weird alternative to Ubi's perma-internet connection deally).

icarus212001

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from WarlordPayne]]> @gla55jAw: It's a one time fee that you don't even have to pay if you bought the game new, I don't see how Xbox Live has any relation to this.

WarlordPayne

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from sereal_killer]]> this is just sad, when i read the headline i tought the article was agains the one time use code idea and i was gona argue. nnow i see i was wrong and this is a really bad implementation of what should be a simple idea.

if it says online play on the back but there is no mention of needing a code anywhere on the game isnt it false advertizing?

sereal_killer

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from slotter]]> @killah101: A video game doesn't make millions from box office revenue and selling the rights to TV studios for syndication rights...

What gives the second hand user the right to play online when they have given no money to the service?

slotter

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Boss-Moogle]]> @icarus212001: Then you would have no use for an online multiplayer code anyway...

Boss-Moogle

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from wocalax]]> @icarus212001: errr, what?

wocalax

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from MrYuzhai]]> @icarus212001: how is that thq's fault? lol.. sign up to broadband dude.. thq wont come and do that for you.. hahahahahaha!

MrYuzhai

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from AchromaticMagus Loves Wotter]]> @icarus212001: If your 360 and PS3 don't connect online then what in fucking hell were you going to do with the online modes in the first place, genius?

AchromaticMagus Loves Wotter

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from AcidCrownie]]> @icarus212001: Then you would have no use for the MP provided by the code?

AcidCrownie

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from killah101]]> This, "companies should remove features and implement them for first time buyers (and not for second hand buyers)" is bull.

But people cry, "But then the gaming companies won't get a dime from second hand sales!" To this, I say, "No shit." So, what, if I sell a movie of mine on dvd to my friend should the movie company get another dime out of that? No. I already paid for the damn movie. End of story; end of transaction. What entitles a game to have never ending royalties from the people purchasing them? We should move this idea to other items like movies, cars, and pencils. You buy a car? Well guess what, now you have to pay to the car company again. Bought a pencil from you friend? Well to use it, you've got to shell out again to the pencil company. Give me a break.

killah101

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Michael Dukakis]]> @icarus212001: Ha...?

Michael Dukakis

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from VincentGrey]]> @Archaotic: @spiderweb1986: Oh, double snap!

VincentGrey

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Jhriad]]> @icarus212001: I can't tell if you're joking or not.

The one time redeemable code is for ONLINE multiplayer. If you can't connect your system to the net then it has no impact on you whatsoever.

Jhriad

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from spiderweb1986]]> I agree with the article, but one quibble:

Such last-minute process flaws that make redeeming online access so confusing and opaque also inadvertently portray THQ's $10 solution as a money-grab against even day-one customers.

Lousy phrasing - for one thing, "Project $10" is EA's solution. More importantly, though, it only costs $5 here. I don't think the catch-all term should rely on the dollar amount, especially when it's untrue like it is here.

spiderweb1986

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from MrYuzhai]]> i dont mind that new games have this feature as it stops the developer getting ripped off out of potential sales due to used games etc.. HOWEVER.. it seems as if thq have done a piss poor job as many consumers could end up paying for it but not needing it as they purchased a new copy..

MrYuzhai

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from Archaotic]]> @icarus212001: ...if you have no way to connect your PS3 or 360 online, why are you worried about a code that locks out online play?

Archaotic

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from gla55jAw]]> We already pay for Xbox Live. I'm getting sick of all this pay to play online crap.

gla55jAw

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from spiderweb1986]]> @icarus212001: What if I have no means of connecting my 360/PS3 online?

If we're assuming this hypothetical is true, why would you ever care about the code for online play?

spiderweb1986

]]> <![CDATA[Comment from icarus212001]]> What if I have no means of connecting my 360/PS3 online?

Exactly.

Fuck you, THQ.

icarus212001

]]>