Ubisoft readying online pass - report

By Fred Dutton Published 14 July, 2011

Uplay Passport to launch with Driver: SF.

Ubisoft is the latest publisher to jump on the online pass bandwagon with the Uplay Passport, according to a GamerZines report.

Apparently launching with Driver: San Francisco later this year, the system will ask players to enter a code included with all new retail versions of the game in order to access the title's multiplayer modes.

If you buy a used copy you'll need to purchase a Uplay Passport code from Xbox Live Marketplace or PlayStation Store in order to access online play.

We've put in a request with Ubisoft for clarification and word on whether the pass will extend to all of its future titles. Look out for an update soon.

If confirmed, the move would see the publisher finally join the likes of EA, Sony, Codemasters, Warner Bros and THQ in charging used game purchasers for online play.

Picture of Fred.

About Fred Dutton

Fred Dutton is Eurogamer's US news editor, based in Washington DC.

Read more articles from Fred by visiting the Fred Dutton archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (37) Latest comment 10 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • InvisibleCrane #1 10 months ago

    Does not surprise me, in fact I'm wondering what game companies have not jumped on the online pass bandwagon yet

  • randompanda #2 10 months ago

    They're entitled to do it I guess, but I expect servers to be running for at least a reasonable amount of time after buying my pass.

  • geeza2020 #3 10 months ago

    /vomits

  • kosigan #4 10 months ago

    Well, I have to admit that I was wrong. Earlier this year I thought it would take a couple of years for everybody to get on this. Obviously, I overestimated by quite a bit: before Christmas this year seems more likely now.

  • darkmorgado #5 10 months ago

    If you want to complain about stuff like this, point the finger, etc etc, point it at retailers like GAME who have built a bloody industry out pre-owned games.

    It's one thing to sell something second hand on Ebay, it's another for major high street retailers to base their entire business model around it.

  • ZizouFC #6 10 months ago

    Of course they are.

  • bikmate #7 10 months ago

    I'm surprised Ubisoft are this late to the party.

  • bad09 #8 10 months ago

    Funny this story came up. Was just posting about Driver, according to Steam it also seems the permanent connection is back for the PC folk as well sadly....well for people who don't pirate their games that is, like all of these poor infected Ubi games I'm sure those nice hackers will provide a better quality product free of charge.

    Thought they were getting better after Brotherhood, oh well plenty on offer from companies not run by cunts.

  • hilts #9 10 months ago

    Enough already !

  • Daeltaja #10 10 months ago

    I don't buy traded games so this online pass business means squat to me.

    Anyway, why doesn't every publisher bundle in online passes and get it over with.

  • HyperTails #11 10 months ago

    I'm glad that Ubisoft are doing this, as people aren't supporting the industry by purchasing pre-owned games. Only by companies making money can the industry move forward.

  • TheRealBadabing #12 10 months ago

    If trading in games were to stop tomorrow, the sales of new titles would plummet.

    When will publishers realise that the people who trade stuff in do so to fund buying new ones? When a customer knows a game has a resale value, that can be factored in to the purchase of his £40 title. Take away that residual value and suddenly a full price game is too much of a risk, especially in these days of 9 hour campaigns.

  • romelpotter #13 10 months ago

    I firmly believe that the second hand market supports the entire Gaming Industry, and has done since the beginning. Putting to one side for the time being, the fact that Game have recently targeted the second hand market more, above that of new game sales, Developers may want to think strongly about killing the second hand market altogether (which is effectively I think, what they wish for) as it may cripple the industry.

    I for one wouldn't consider spending £40 on a game that I wouldn't be able to reclaim some thing back. I remember doing the same with "By fair Means or Foul", a BBC Micro game that I believe cost £7.99 on cassette. I traded that in for another game at the local market many, many moons ago!

  • arcam #14 10 months ago

    Trouble is if Ubi don't implement a pass now, it's gonna be their games that get sold to pay for games from rival publishers that need to be bought new. Once some publishers did it, really everyone had to follow.

  • darkmorgado #15 10 months ago

    @RomelPotter

    "Putting to one side for the time being, the fact that Game have recently targeted the second hand market more, above that of new game sales, Developers may want to think strongly about killing the second hand market altogether (which is effectively I think, what they wish for) as it may cripple the industry. "

    Despite what you seem to think, GAME are not singlehandedly propping up the games industry, globally or in the UK. If they folded tomorrow it would make no difference to anything other than next month's unemployment figures.

  • DaemonSpawn #16 10 months ago

    @randompanda
    I expect servers to be running for at least a reasonable amount of time after buying my pass.
    Well, think again. EA is the first major publisher to implement online pass, and they are know for closing down servers for older games.

  • lavalant #17 10 months ago

    Just another way to rip off the consumer, forcing people into buying their mediocre games at full price, mediocre games or games lacking in content should be priced accordingly. It's bad enough they lock out content on disc so they can charge it as DLC, and surely Xbox Live Gold fees will fuck off now?

    Xbox owners already pay to access Live servers, what the fuck has it got to do with the publisher?

  • steagz #18 10 months ago

    do the developers of this game not realise that the driver games only worked in the late 90s on the ps1. ever since then gta 3 and all its sequels took over. the games industry moved on driv3r was a failure driver paralel lines was slighhtly better but nobody really cared anymore since gta on ps2 took over. why they keep bringing this game series back is beyond me nobody fucking cares about driver anymore ITS ANCIENT HISTORY THAT SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE

  • Master09 #19 10 months ago

    Second hand sales killing the gaming industry is bull. There isn't solid evidence to support this.

    Despite the economic downturn game companies especially the big companies are still recording massive profits and sales.

  • oerhoert #20 10 months ago

    No sale, then.

  • chessboxer #21 10 months ago

    @lavalant

    There is zero chance of MS scraping that revenue scheme, especially seeing as with all the other online passes, it only puts the charge on second hand users and so many 360 owners are willing to pay the XBL Gold premium.

  • SvennoJ #22 10 months ago

    Why multiplayer in a Driver game? And why San Francisco? If it was Driver: Mumbai then I would be interested. They have some crazy drivers over there.

  • sajtion #23 10 months ago

    i don't belive anyone is buying online passes. i think its actually counter-productive for companies. most older games hardly have any online players on them and you can't play when you want. i know because i have rented hundreds of games and if your lucky you may find one rare match online on the weekends. try paying for assassin creed brotherhood, army of two or split second and see yourself get ripped off by greedy companies and of course no online buddies = no refund

  • Spong #24 10 months ago

    "If you buy a used copy you'll need to purchase a Uplay Passport code from Xbox Live Marketplace or PlayStation Store in order to access online play."

    I'd argue that. I own Dead Space 2, one of EA's titles that supports their online pass. I've never used it (the pass that is), if I sell it on then any subsequent second-hand owner will still be able to redeem it. Anyone who buys a second-hand game that requires an online pass would be stupid not to try and redeem the code that comes with the game first (before buying a new one).

  • rockavitch #25 10 months ago

    I have no problem with this at all. Buying a preowned game prevents developers getting a cut, and so what, cars etc can be sold second hand so there's no reason games can't but I understand charging preowned customers for using the online servers which the companies are still paying for, with or without your contribution, so it's fine if it's only to play online (that Street Fighter blocking half the characters bullshit is not the right way to do it).

  • Gumersindo #26 10 months ago

    Lower prices in new games, that's the point. And forget about passes and stuff.

  • orangpelupa #27 10 months ago

    btw these "online pass" in my country is kind of work in a good way.

    on my country piracy is rampant, you even can easily buy pirated games but hard to buy original game (need to import, wait long delivery time, the customs give trouble too, etc). Like when i buy BFBC2 pc retail dvd box, it took 1 month to arrive on my house... ugh...
    when i buy portal 2 also the same... more than 2 months to arrive ...

    so in PC gaming here since long time ago, since before Xbox 360/PS3 era....
    gamer buy pirated PC game, play SP. Then they buy the "online pass" when want to play MP.

    like in BFBC2 the "online pass" is about 20USD.

    so instead buying original dvd box that expensive and take long time to arrive, (that if customs not custody it).
    instead downloading pirate game for long time (download speed in my country is very slow, imagine dialup speed x4)

    the gamer can just buy pirated games that every gamestore, every shopping mall have, then buy the "online pass" to play MP.
    Thus these gamers that buy pirated games also support developer.

    sorry bad english.

  • djed #28 10 months ago

    Wow, this must suck for people who care about multiplayer.

  • djed #29 10 months ago

    But online pass to kill 2nd hand sales? Haha, you guys are aware that there are a lot of games that don't have/need multiplayer? Still a 2nd hand market there. What this is killing is story, AI etc. etc.

  • coolbritannia #30 10 months ago

    Thank fuck Ubisoft haven't made a must have game since Rainbow Six: Vegas.

  • homerramone #31 10 months ago

    Guess ill rent it then.

  • playgen #32 10 months ago

    How long of a gap are these companies going to leave between letting people buy an online pass, and shutting down the server for the game? My guess is none.

  • geeza2020 #33 10 months ago

    My problem is that this is just a precursor to publishers putting a code in the box that you need to have to even play any part of the game, even singleplayer/campaign modes. So no more taking games to friends houses for a few beers, no lending of games to friends for them to try things out. You'll only be able to play it on your console in your house on your internet connection with your copy of the game bought/downloaded straight from the publisher for £49.99 RRP. Its getting to the point where we're better off with PC's and their DRM, but at least the games will look better and are cheaper :-(

  • SonicUk #34 10 months ago

    I only occasionally play with mates online - that is, people I already know in real life, so am not too bothered about this as I'm more of a single player man anyway and always have been and buy all my games new (unless they are old retro titles that are out of print). I do fully support devs for doing this sort of thing as people who buy secondhand titles only and refuse to pay for anything new aren't helping the industry they claim to love. Places like Game who's entire business model is centered around secondhand games are in danger of seriously damaging the industry and if people use a studios servers they must realize they cost money to maintain, so why shouldn't they contribute if they have not paid the cost in the price of the game?

    I however would have a problem if they started doing this sort of thing in single player modes, as if you bought an old game new and there was a problem with the servers or they had been shut down for whatever reason (studio went bust since the game was released for example) you wouldn't be able to play the game you've paid the new price money for. I also have a massive problem with Ubisofts "Have to be connected to play" bullshit, which is simply punishing legitimate customers for being loyal, while pirates can have a massive laugh at our expense while playing the game without the need to be connected. Ubi' need to realize that piracy will always exist no matter what they try and do and just accept it and make a better quality product which legitimate people will want to pay for and support them. A pirate would never buy a game anyway so its not like they've lost a sale out of it.

  • uknortherner2000 #35 10 months ago

    It'll only be a matter of time before this kind of crap extends to the single-player experience too. I see a future of machine-locked games and/or limited activation limits. It started on PC and people accused PC gamers of being "entitled" for expecting no restrictions on a full price title they paid good money for. It won't be long before this happens with the consoles too because there'll be plenty of enablers out there who can't do without their annual SuperMega Call of Fifa BoreFest Minor Pricey Incremental Update 392 fix. If anyone speaks out, they are either being "entitled" or are accused of cheating developers out of cash. Yeah, in an industry that continues to report record profits year-on-year.

    Its making my decision to abandon commercial gaming after this generation's out feel more justifiable by the day.

    EDIT: Also, gaming is a luxury, not an essential part of life. Developers and publishers would do well to bear this in mind before screwing over their dwindling consumer base in future.
    Edited by uknortherner2000 at 15/07/11 @ 11:34

  • deano2099 #36 10 months ago

    If this extends to single-player at some point, the games industry has screwed themselves.

    If a game costs £40 new, but I know I can trade it in for £20 in a month's time, then the effective cost of that game to me is £20. For people that trade-in games, preventing trade-ins effectively doubles the cost of games.

    It's a silly business model, where publishers get paid once because the same game is traded in over and over, with GAME skimming a crap-load off the top, but it happens because games are so expensive. Make games untradable AND half the price of the new games and you might have something that vaguely works.

    [See: the PC - DRM has pretty much killed the second-hand market, but it's been replaced by mega-discount Steam sales]

  • sajtion #37 10 months ago

    they should really go after second hand retailers for a resale fee rather then gamers who are already getting ripped off buy all sorts of means. this kind of restrictions only angers gamers and makes greedy companies lose their customer loyalty.