UFC 2010 has EA Sports-style Online Pass

By Tom Bramwell Published 20 May, 2010

$5 for multiplayer if you buy second-hand.

UFC Undisputed 2010 will require players to enter a redeemable code supplied with the game in order to use its online functions.

Review copies of the game pitched up at the Eurogamer office yesterday complete with 12- and 15-digit codes for PSN and Xbox Live access respectively.

That makes THQ the latest company to hide multiplayer features behind a redeemable code in an attempt to undermine second-hand sales, from which publishers make no money.

People who buy the game second-hand when the code has already been redeemed will need to pay a one-time charge of $5 for the same access.

EA Sports recently announced that, starting with Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11, future releases on PS3 and Xbox 360 would require gamers to enter a one-time code to unlock multiplayer features.

Earlier this week Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez said the French publisher would "probably follow that line sometime in the future" when asked about the EA Sports "Project Ten Dollar" policy, which CEO John Riccitiello reportedly green-lit last year in an attempt to strengthen the value of EA titles.

Last weekend GamesIndustry.biz columnist and Eurogamer contributor Rob Fahey argued that the decision to restrict multiplayer access is a case of publishers attempting to weaken the value of second-hand games, whereas earlier initiatives - such as bundling free DLC coupons with Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 - were more acceptable because they were designed to add value to first-time sales.

THQ explained to Destructoid that the UFC Undisputed 2010 restrictions would prevent players without the code from accessing the new Fight Camp mode where players can assemble up to 40 people and train together online.

"This is a significant value-add to the game as players can continually improve their skills by training with their friends and bringing teams of MMA specialists together," the publisher said in a statement.

"This multiplayer content for UFC 2010 Undisputed will be available via a one-time code included with the game at purchase. Codes for accessing the content will be available for second-time buyers for an additional $5."

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (47) Latest comment 2 years ago

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

  • kosigan #1 2 years ago

    Thus begins the slide towards on-line activation to play a console game at all. Today, pay up for on-line multi-player. Tomorrow, pay up for off-line single-player.

  • dpb135 #2 2 years ago

    Dont forget Sony have done this to with MNR on psp yesterday

  • Kremlik Verified Co-Founder, Crash To Desktop #3 2 years ago

    As much as people will scream over the fact it's catching on I'm glad it actally is as lets be honest here we KNOW 2nd hand only helps the retailer milk us more for it and the prices we can get games these days new if we look in the right places we can hardly say this is screwing us over.

    Either way it's not so much a kick in the teeth (lol considering) if you aren't that interested in online MP at least you can still have your friends over for a bash

    @the minus ppl - to put it clearer for you look at the Shopto proce of the game it's £35 new £50 rrp - i can tell you now that game/gamestation will be selling the game at £40 new and more then likely £37 preowned thats the whole £37 going to the store NOT the industry - this is 100% why publishers are doing this at least if you buy from shopto/asda/etc new the money goes back into the industry not the retailer only - go look at gamestop's profits in the US last year thats mostly down to preowned sales NONE of that went back into the industry.. Game are likely to hard most of their profits put up in that - hell even Asda are trying it!

    Bottom line is it's STILL more value for money to shop around and buy new then save £2-£3 (or in some cases pay £2-£3 more) for a 2nd hand title
    Edited by Kremlik at 20/05/10 @ 09:09

  • Pastici #4 2 years ago

    Skate 3 also has a code, you can't share and downlond media without the packed in code.

  • keyboardmonkey #5 2 years ago

    Sorry, but this is just wrong..

    I know it's software and therefore people try to justify this money grab by the publisher in some way... But if i sell my board game of monopoly, hasbro don't spring up and say that the person i sell it to can't play it.

    I'm lost as to why they feel they can justify this.

  • Redeye #6 2 years ago

    Yeah, this will really kill the second-hand games market in a stroke, won't it?

    Note to publishers - you've already made your money off the game being sold the first time round, that's why such things are called 'second-hand'.

    *wonders if anyone is left at the top of this industry with any intelligence whatsoever*

    EDIT: Nice to see my personal neg monkeys are back again...*waves*
    Edited by Redeye at 20/05/10 @ 15:16

  • Bealsy #7 2 years ago

    this is like disabling txt messaging on 2nd hand phones. I'm pretty sure Augustus is taking over gaming to get his hands on the cash monies.

  • bad09 #8 2 years ago

    Big surprise Ubiscum wants in on screwing consumers! :)

    I love how people are saying good and it's the right thing to do as publishers get nothing from second hand. These people have no clue.

    This direct attack on 2nd hand consumers will devalue games as consumers/retailers refuse to pay a decent price for these games. The stores, many of which use 2nd hand to survive as new gives them very little profit as the cost of gaming is too high, will feel the pinch many will close and we will be left with only people like game or the supermarkets selling us games...at RRP...which is rising even with DLC cutting half the game out.

    Even in the stores that survive, as people who want rid of games to cover the rising cost of gaming discover games no longer have value 2nd hand those trades dry up further and in turn NEW game sales dry up.

    Greed never ends well, and this greed won't either......

  • themorganator #9 2 years ago

    I really don't know how I could detest EA anymore.

  • kosigan #10 2 years ago

    Retailers get 40% of the RRP on a new game - hardly a small amount. The publishers will end up biting the had that feeds them, though, with this out-and-out money-grabbing policy. How many people here have bought a game second-hand and subsequently bought DLC for it? How many people here have traded in some games to get another one? I know I have. I wouldn't have bought the games if I'd had to pay full price and so wouldn't have bought the DLC. Reducing the second-hand market is only going to reduce the sales of new games too. This is a dangerous precedent that I can't see ending well for the publishers or the gamers.

  • RobotRocker #11 2 years ago

    Now I'm not saying murder and firebomb the games industry.

    Im just saying do it slowly first to see if they get the message.

    Retailers get 40% of the RRP on a new game - hardly a small amount

    [Citation Needed]
    Edited by RobotRocker at 20/05/10 @ 09:31

  • MiniAmin #12 2 years ago

    I loved the demo, I was going to buy this, now I won't. I had no intention of ever selling it - but they've lost my sale on principle alone. Vote with your wallets people.

  • timewarp87 #13 2 years ago

    I guess when you register the game, it registers your gamer tag. So what happens if you want to take the game round to a mates to play or lend them it ? Eurogamer, do you know how it works??

  • bad09 #14 2 years ago

    "Retailers get 40% of the RRP on a new game"

    Certainly not the case these days, a few I know make very little on new look at the retail chains buying supermarket loss leaders farce. It can be cheaper and more profitable for store to buy from supermarkets now. It's no wonder they all need 2nd hand so badly and promote it more.

    On MW2 many charged £45 and they made practically a couple of quid profit on each copy, and then supermarkets sold at nearly half RRP as a loss leader.

  • iamian #15 2 years ago

    Retailers get 40% of the RRP on a new game - hardly a small amount

    [Citation Needed]

    They don't get anywhere near 40% - I would guess 25% at a push.

    Publishers need to work with retail to come to an arrangement with 2nd hand sales. Without retail, no games would sell in the millions like they do now-a-days. As it stands, retail are still selling products at the same prices and it's us, the consumer that ends up paying more. If no one makes a stand then it's us that foots the bill - what other industry operates a punsih the consumerm policy ?!!!?

  • JahB #16 2 years ago

    I'm with Kremlik. No, this is not wrong. No, this is not some deviant EA scheme. This is purely to keep more money in game development/publishing and reduce the retailers cut.

    I was at a local gameshop last week and saw MW2 new for EUR 59,99 / used for EUR 57,99. It's an outrageous scheme that is extremely detrimental for devs/pubs and only good for retailers, so if EA cuts their profits and gets more money back to them, I'm all for it.

    Do you guys remembered what happened last time EA had some extra cash to burn on an new IP attempt? Yeah, that was Dead Space. I'd much rather see publishers make more money and take a few IP gambles than seeing a retailer laughing his way to the bank.

  • iamian #17 2 years ago

    Vote with your wallets people. +1

    Seconded

  • HermitArcader #18 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • bad09 #19 2 years ago

    @Vertical Stand

    Yeah there is a chicken and egg situation here, and of course the big retail chains are very much responsible this stand off as they grew their 2nd hand to the point it's bigger than the new sections, but I do think new has always been pretty tough on independents. I remember the days of trading on MD and SNES and PS1, even then many indies I knew spoke of the small margin in new and that they needed trading to survive.

  • BulletTheory05 #20 2 years ago

    I'm sorry, but I don't see anything majorly wrong with this, at all.

  • MiniAmin #21 2 years ago

    You can voice your dissatisfaction here on the Eurogamer forums. THQ regularly read the thread and regularly post there.

    edit: For those arguing over the % retailers get from a game this will be useful to you.

  • HermitArcader #22 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • keyboardmonkey #23 2 years ago

    People who don't see anything wrong with this are a bit blind as to what is actually happening.

    If you buy a car from a dealer with some added extras, and then sell it, does the person buying it from you then not get the extra options that you purchased?
    Does the car manufacturer remove that piece of functionality from the car?

    The car manufacturer has been paid for what it produced, why should it then get more money if i decide to sell the car to some one else?

    It may be that you don't agree with the trade in prices, or the preowned price of a game being sold.. that doesn't justify the game publisher asking for money again for a piece of functionality that was originally supplied.

    Maybe some one else knows the answer to this, but do second hand shops have to pay money to the manufacturers of everything they resell? Records, Books, Dvd's, Mobile Phones etc...?
    Edited by keyboardmonkey at 20/05/10 @ 10:24

  • MiniAmin #24 2 years ago

    One of the biggest problems is that; sometimes it's quite difficult to find a "new" game after a couple of months. Thus your only option is to buy second hand.

    I wanted to buy Crackdown recently, and the only copies left in store were preowned. If Crackdown was released with a similar code, then i'd be unable to play online with my friends. If retailers fail to provide new games for a given length of time, then why should I the consumer be punished for that? In many shops (and online too actually) it's very difficult to find "new" unpopular games after just a few months.

  • Masaroth #25 2 years ago

    Personally i dont mind the publishers looking for alternitve revenue streams such as this as the alternitive, raising the RRP of games would be worse for everyone. Im still quite suprised that that game prices have stayed static for so long yet the development costs have increasded and an exponatial rate. Would anyone complaining about this pefer that you get the full product with non of this schemes at say 50quid new 47 preowned?

    Heck as far as i rember som N64 games were 60-80 quid and this was bout 10 years ago so would be worth a bit more in todays terms due to inflation.

  • Eraysor #26 2 years ago

    It's a shame they're doing this because it easily tips me from a "might-buy" to a "no-buy" for this game.

  • ignatiusjreilly #27 2 years ago

    Would anyone complaining about this pefer that you get the full product with non of this schemes at say 50quid new 47 preowned?

    If publishers can't survive by selling the games at the current price (which I don't really believe) then yes, they should raise the price of the game, cut the costs it took to make it or try and sell more copies through marketing or higher quality releases. Undermining perfectly legitimate markets should not be their way of increasing profit IMO.

  • kingmong #28 2 years ago

    5 quid to enjoy all the rage-quitting they promised they'd fix in the first game, but probably haven't in this one either

  • metalangel #29 2 years ago

    Hey publishers, if you drive all the shops out of business, where are the great unwashed gonna buy your games? Wayne T. Chav doesn't shop online.

  • sfp_noodle #30 2 years ago

    Hopefully this won't happen, but imagine if MS said you'd have to use a code to access Halo online. How many sales would be lost? You'd want to take Halo down your mates house and show him how awesome the online is, but you can't because the code is used. Halo sold 9 million worldwide as far as i know. But I'm sure that a couple of million more bought that game used. I was one of them because I simply could not afford it at college. That reduces sales through both word of mouth and free advertising that consumers provide on publisher's behalf.

    Of course, not all the games using codes to access online will be anywhere near as popular as Halo. But it devalues the consumer. The consoles are expensive enough to buy and considering most new games released cost around 20% of a consoles value it is unfair. People buy all sorts of shit second hand. Be it TVs, movies, cars, PCs, or phones. The manufacturers don't go crazy over their item being sold off at a later point, they got their profits on it when they sold the product as new.

    Finally, for students like myself, pre-owned gaming is the only kind of affordable gaming. I spend around £20 a month on games at most and they are almost always second hand. In fact sometimes I can't even afford that so I instead buy a classic PS2 game for around £2. It just puts it in to perspective. If publishers started locking out single player content, later down the line when new stock is exhausted, how is anybody else supposed to enjoy the game? Publishers and developers have to accept that there are people who loves games that can't afford every single new release.

  • ziggy_played_guitar #31 2 years ago

    that can't afford every single new release.

    I work and I can't afford every single new release, not that I want to buy every single new release. Video games are not food, sorry, no money ~ less games. Tough world.

  • MrChuckles #32 2 years ago

    Buying a 2nd hand digital copy of a game is nothing like buying a non digital copy of anything. Cars, Tables, Mobile Phones, Hats, Packs Of Biscuits, Screwdrivers, Dogs.. All of them degrade over time, things go wrong, risks ensure whenever you buy anything second hand apart from CDs, DVDs, Bluerays or Games. Therefore the price of physical items drops over time, and many people would rather buy it new.

    The reason you (And me) all buy 2nd hand games is because there is no risk. If it doesn't work, you bring it back and get it exchanged.

    Now, pasting, my comment from a previous thread:

    For those who don't understand just how much devs get ripped off vs retailers... Lets pick an example life of a computer game...

    Player A buys Assassin's Creed 2 on xbox 360 day 1 release for £39.99 from GAME... About £5 goes to game, £35 to Ubisoft, of which of that £5 goes to marketing, £5 to production and distribution and £10 to develop the game.

    So, so far,

    GAME Profit (GP) = £5
    Publisher Profit (PP) = £15 (Non publisher made games split this with the developer).

    Player A, sells game to GAME for £20 a week later; GP = -£15; PP = £15
    Player B buys the game for £30; GP = £15; PP = £15 (So 1 second hand sale makes it about equal)
    Player B sells the game for £17, GAME resells it to Player C for £25; GP = £23; PP = £15
    Player C sells the game for £12, GAME resells it to Player D for £20; GP = £31; PP = £15
    Player D sells the game for £8, GAME resells it to Player E for £15; GP = £38; PP = £15.....etc....

    So in this example, the shop on the street makes over twice as much profit as the company that took the risk on funding the game development for 2 years, did the marketing, and made the game. All GAME did was have a shop on the high street and push 2nd hand sales down your throat...

    This $5 for online gaming if anything will drive down the sale price AND buy price of second hand games, meaning, those of you who only buy second hand will get them CHEAPER than you do now. So what are you complaining about?

  • Jonny5Alive7 #33 2 years ago

    I don't think its that much of an issue to be honest. Most people will be buying it new so they're not going to be inconvenienced. If you're buying something 2nd hand then your getting it on the cheap anyway, so paying an extra fiver to play online isn't that big of a deal. It also means people who pirate the game have to pay something if they want to use it online too.

  • secombe #34 2 years ago

    How many people here have bought a game second-hand and subsequently bought DLC for it? How many people here have traded in some games to get another one?

    This is the bit that interests me, there are publisher benefits to a sensible second-hand market...presumably no figures exist for how many people trade-in against a new title, but I'm guessing it's not an insignificant number. Unfortunately there is no easy way of making that second-hand market 'sensible' again, as high-street retailers have so much power.

    The amusing thing is that this is being 'tested' with the yearly EA Sports titles, of which each new release surely benefits from the trade-in cycle more than any other games..?
    Edited by secombe at 20/05/10 @ 12:39

  • ignatiusjreilly #35 2 years ago

    To those who think this is a good idea - how would you feel if the entire game was through the use of a single-use code?

  • Skooch #36 2 years ago

    @Chuckles

    "Player A buys Assassin's Creed 2 on xbox 360 day 1 release for £39.99 from GAME... About £5 goes to game, £35 to Ubisoft, of which of that £5 goes to marketing, £5 to production and distribution and £10 to develop the game."

    All your numbers (bar the price) are just plain wrong.

    @ Everyone

    Digital distribution is a far bigger threat to the second hands game market than Project $10. Right now only the online component is being restricted for users (which you can argue for or against) but with digital download you can't even lend the game to a mate, yet alone sell it second hand.

    The other interesting thing is what are 1st Party games for Sony and MS going to do. I don't expect them for one minute to start implementing this for things like Killzone, Fable etc. but who knows???

  • ryohazuki1983 #37 2 years ago

    How about those who rent games? will there be rental copies with no activation required?

    It may have been mentioned before, but does the activiation link to your console or gamertag? I suppose gamertag would be better as of course RROD and YLOD strikes consoles these days.

    Still a bit shit if you want to change gamertag for any reason....

    They should allow some kind off trial - to at least see if theres anybody who still plays online!
    Edited by ryohazuki1983 at 20/05/10 @ 13:04

  • byakuya83 #38 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 10:03:41 30-03-2012

  • Shikasama #39 2 years ago

    Funny thing is, I WAS going to buy this. I'll wait until I get a second hand copy now.

    UFC online is a totally different game and not a very enjoyable one. The essence of the game is taken away and it is filled with Super-CAFs and exploitation of the system. I'm not saying thats a bad thing mind, it's what happens when players play against other players and is perfectly acceptable, but it isn't very fun.

  • kosigan #40 2 years ago

    @iamian
    Retailers get 40% of the RRP on a new game - hardly a small amount
    [Citation Needed]
    They don't get anywhere near 40% - I would guess 25% at a push.

    Fair enough. Here's one (there are others):
    [link url=http://www.costik.com/whycost.html
    ]http://www.costik.com/whycost.html
    [/link]

    The relevant part (paragraph 6):
    "So for our $30 product, Schlocko is only getting $12.15. The distributor doesn't keep the rest; he usually takes a 10-20% cut. The retailer gets the rest of the money."

    The big retailers were selling Modern Warfare 2 for £26 on an RRP of £55 because they were taking a loss on every copy, just to get people in the store.

  • XVariant #41 2 years ago

    I'm not entirely against the idea of extra content for 1st time buyers but absolutely against restricted access for anyone but 1st time buyers. Surely publishers and retailers could get together and find some way of publishers getting a cut from used game sales because as it stands gamers are caught in the middle of a fight between two groups of fat greedy old men.

  • dirtysteve #42 2 years ago

    Project ten-dollar seemed like a good idea to me, added value for first time buyers. This looks like the opposite, negative penalty style, as opposed to bonus style.

  • ron_aldo #43 2 years ago

    My main concern would be if someone were to buy a game second hand say a year after release and bought the online key only to find no one is playing it online anymore or the servers have been switched off.

  • FuzzyDuck #44 2 years ago

    I'm curious about where this idea of high street shops being the scum of the earth came from. 'They only want your money!'. No shit, they're hardly in BUSINESS for the witty banter.

    And there's countless threads elsewhere of people saying 'they gave me x amount for my game, load of *******!'. Now you're gonna get less, because it's gonna be resold for less due to its reduced functionality.

  • miiiguel #45 2 years ago

    Alan Wake Special Edition comes with a +500Mb episode voucher and when you start downloading it, it says something like: "Thank you for buying an Alan Wake brand new copy, here have this fine DLC, just for you. Love Remedy" (hardly a faithful quotation, but you get the picture)

  • solidSnake04 #46 2 years ago

    what if i dont like multiplayer... can i demand the publisher to knock $5 off the price ?

  • TRUTH #47 2 years ago

    This scored 9/10 in Edge magazine - a must for fans, and huge improvement over the first UFC game.