When getting $60 isn't enough...

http://www.destructoid.com/ufc-undisputed-2010-requires-code-to-play-online-update--174080.phtml

This shit annoys me. So much so, that it brought me out of retirement. That's right, 24 hours to crack the case or the sarge is going to tie me up with so much red tape that my badge will just be a butt ornament, because he'll shove it up my ass.

Vulgarity aside, when did publishers start find it acceptable to actively show their contempt for consumers? I know, Kotick is in some tall building looking down at humans like ants, rubbing his hands and whispering to himself "Buy all the DLC you can, peasants- I AM YOUR MASTER!"

Some will say that this is just an attempt to stop Piracy- which is, really futile. The gaming industries war on drugs. There's also the potential to get more people to buy brand new copies of games, removing the cost incentive from buying used by making you pay the difference to have a fully working game. I can see the benefits for publishers in either scenario.

Here's the thing- why does it always have to hurt the consumer? I have no problem with wanting to prevent piracy, but breaking a game and then handing it to us as and demanding money to fix the issue seems far more criminal and sinister. Free market economy aside, this is almost a protection racket.
Imagine if the same thing happened when you brought a car- the breaks are deliberately broken and the manufacturer just shrugs and says "The car will move, but you'll need to hand over more cash to get the complete driving experience". Who the fuck would buy that car?

Of course, this isn't going to stop people from buying the game. Also, it's not going to stop used game sales and the publishers know it. It's just going to be a way to milk more money from people when they don't realise they paid less money for a crippled game.

Feel free to whine at me for being a commie in the comments or that you buy new anyway and this won't effect you.

---

LOOK WHO CAME:

Fuzzy Chtulhu   

Chris Bradshaw   1

Elsa   1