Ubisoft Wants You To Be Comfortable Not Owning Your Games

Yahahaharrr.gif


It's sad when the best consumer experience is only available to people that don't pay.
 
Good luck playing online.

I played a month of BF1 and 5 for like $6.
You got me. Best I can do is buy BF1 for $12 and BF5 for $9. So for like $21 I can play the games as many time as I want without a monthly reoccurring fee. I also don't care for the legitimacy of the keys because BF1 is 8 years old and BFV is 6 years old, plus I'm kinda of a dick. But hey, you saved money because BF1 on Steam is $40 and BFV is $50.
 
I don't own any Ubisoft, EA, or Activision games. I've been free of 'the big 3' for well over a decade, and I got rid of all my physical copy games a while back. My memory is starting to go but I think the last ubi game I bought was the original Farcry (which is the only Farcry game I've ever played), and Crysis was for sure the last EA game I bought. Not sure about the last Activision game but it's definitely been a looong time as well. *well actually I do own Diablo 3 and all the Starcrafts, but I don't remember if acti had already acquired blizzard at that time or not.
 
Last edited:
Best I can do is buy BF1 for $12 and BF5 for $9.

I did this on release, played the campaigns, dumped rest of time into multiplayer. For less than your cheap ass keys half a decade later. Done, zero desire to play again. And I never did. So, $108 saved versus buying the games with the only effort being that I remember to cancel.

I think the entire AC Valhalla cost me like $12 or whatever because it's a hundred hours long and took me a couple months to trudge through.

They're going to undoubtedly turn it into overpriced shit, but there were good ass deals at the time
 
But you don't own your games on Steam, either.
As far as I'm concerned, I do. Most people would consider buying games online to be 100% theirs. It's a grey area that hasn't been taken to court, and chances are if they did it would cause more problems than it would solve. What can any one company do if I own a GoG copy of the game and continue to install it, even though my license were to be revoked? What if I backup my Steam games and use cracks to continue to use them? Not a whole lot they can do about it.
I did this on release, played the campaigns, dumped rest of time into multiplayer. For less than your cheap ass keys half a decade later. Done, zero desire to play again. And I never did. So, $108 saved versus buying the games with the only effort being that I remember to cancel.
Why mention games you haven't played since 2016 and 2018? Also couldn't have been good games if you haven't revisited them again. I don't play these kind of games personally but games like Overwatch I played for a good 3 months before I was done with it. Also, Game Pass is said to be poor value today due to the lack of new AAA games released on it. Quick look shows their newest games are Resident Evil 2 Remake and AC Valhalla, which aren't new. We're talking about 2019 and 2020 games. They're up to Resident Evil 4 remake which Game Pass doesn't have. They do have Starfield if that's a game someone wants to play. Game Pass started strong but like any new service the deal has changed for the worse.
I think the entire AC Valhalla cost me like $12 or whatever because it's a hundred hours long and took me a couple months to trudge through.
I make it a rule to avoid Ubisoft games. Assassin's Creed games I especially avoid, because I've played enough to know.
They're going to undoubtedly turn it into overpriced shit, but there were good ass deals at the time
Like any new store that opens up, the deals are good. Now that the store has established customers, the deals are gone. Don't be surprised if they eventually show ads and require more money to remove ads.
 
Seems almost inevitable. People used to complain about streaming and not owning their music but almost everyone does now. In part I suppose because it is often prepared with other things.
 
Companies are going to the rental/subscription model to get around the first sale doctrine (in the US). It’s a pretty shitty maneuver and we shouldn’t reward the companies exhibiting this behavior.
Remember when the Xbox One was announced and Microsoft had a plan to allow you to resell your digital games, but everybody attacked Microsoft so much that they got rid of that plan simply because the console would be required to check in online to verify your licenses every so often?

Crazy.
 
Remember when the Xbox One was announced and Microsoft had a plan to allow you to resell your digital games, but everybody attacked Microsoft so much that they got rid of that plan simply because the console would be required to check in online to verify your licenses every so often?

Crazy.
i could be remembering wrong, but it seemed like the online check was more about drm, kinect and blocking used games, meaning no reselling even for physical disks?
 
Trying to think about this objectively, I'd need to know how much I spend on games in a year and divide that by 12 to see if it's cheaper than purchasing individual games. If it's only Ubisoft games, I think I buy one of their games every two years, so that might be 60/24 = 2.5... $2/mo is what I'll pay for their service (I'm rounding down since I won't 'own' the games) and even then that's too much.
 
i could be remembering wrong, but it seemed like the online check was more about drm, kinect and blocking used games, meaning no reselling even for physical disks?
Microsoft was putting the control of game reselling in the hands of publishers, which goes to an earlier post about corporations trying to eliminate the first sale doctrine. They were trying to tie the game disc to a single user like a digital good.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013...sed-games-always-online-and-privacy-policies/

The Kinect was a separate issue. The main concern was over privacy about needing it to be connected to the console at all times, which I'm sure Microsoft was keen on collecting data as all the other IoT devices do these days. Secondary to that I think they wanted it to be required so it would make the UX on the console unique. They really tried hard to sell the ability of being able to control all aspects of the console with your voice and hand gestures before launching the console, and I'm sure they spent a good amount of R&D on that aspect. There was also the concern about the camera being used for yet another DRM scheme whereby it could verify the number of people in the room when consuming content that publishers wanted to limit the amount of eyes on it at one time without paying more money. I was certainly concerned about all that, so I didn't buy an Xbox One until Microsoft removed the requirement for the Kinect to be connected at all time. I tossed it into a box when I set the console up and have no idea where it is anymore.
 
World of Warcraft?
:whistle: https://www.reddit.com/r/wowservers/
Remember when the Xbox One was announced and Microsoft had a plan to allow you to resell your digital games, but everybody attacked Microsoft so much that they got rid of that plan simply because the console would be required to check in online to verify your licenses every so often?

Crazy.
Also remember when the Xbox One console had failed and pushed Microsoft to hide the sales of their console, plus port their games to Windows because sales were that horrible? This is why we have Halo Infinite on Windows on day 1 of it's release. Technically Microsoft never did financially recover from this move that they quickly walked back on.

View: https://youtu.be/ETXQUkp-VOg?si=vNjEHeTprGpf4qEe
 
My policy is simple, you respect my rights as a consumer I continue being a consumer, if you don't respect my rights, I don't respect your rights. And that is just simply the way it's going to be. I will never be comfortable not owning my games, it's why I also buy games I already own on Steam on GoG when available. I still buy discs and am very pissed off when I can't find a disc to buy because some streaming service is trying to monopolize it (I am looking at you Disney+ and Hamilton it's been years now since it was released and I still can't buy it on disc). I don't buy digital shows/movies because you aren't in control of the media as many Playstation store Discovery show buyers found out the hard way. A digitial store has a problem with a content license holder and boom you are screwed. Digital purchases gives companies the ability to steal your money legally. We all knew this fact when Steam was introduced and why for literally years they promised us they would make a way for us to keep out purchases we downloaded playable in the event of their demise. We gave into Steam for digital distribution several years passed and they reword their ToS to make sure they never have to be legally culpable to keep that promise now.

I always hope Gamers will say no to this and stop patronizing these subscription services. Yeah they are all attractive in some aspect and cheap but in the long game we lose. We gamers are all playing this strategy game call "I can own stuff or own nothing" against all these game companies. We are all saying no you can't take our ability to buy games and own them. We built a huge fortress and locked the doors, but then they dangle some bait "oh for only a $1 for the next 3 months you can play any game on this list", and 1/3 of the gamers go "you can't fool us", and the other 2/3 go "oh... sure that's a great deal I can finish that new game in that time period and it'll only cost $1". Now they just got people to open a door to the fortress and have stuck in their foot.
 
Companies are going to the rental/subscription model to get around the first sale doctrine (in the US). It’s a pretty shitty maneuver and we shouldn’t reward the companies exhibiting this behavior.

Well, there's also the fact that Wall Street busts a chubby every time someone says the word "subs". Investors like what they see as predictable recurring revenue and reward companies accordingly.
 
Urgh, Ubisoft always puts a bad taste in my mouth... ever since the Uplay / intrusive DRM days, I totally avoid their games on PC.
 
Last edited:
Apparently not. This is why you don't say the quiet part out loud.
View attachment 628066
It also didn't take long for the memes to start.
View attachment 628067

That goes back to way before that announcement though, and there is more to the stock price than just whether or not you're turning into a subscription service. Generally, that is a favourably viewed move on Wall Street, but it won't matter if the rest of the financials suck.
 
This is how it always is. I am not sure why people think it will be $1 a month forever. It will be $20 a month, and you will need to get multiple subscriptions. And if you liked modding and user hotfixes, you'll see less of those.
This is how it is so far with other subscription services. The price will go up, and the price to remove ads will be an additional fee. Except that I'm a little late on the ads because Ubisoft is already doing this in Assassin's Creed games.
awZp7Br_700bwp.jpg

That goes back to way before that announcement though, and there is more to the stock price than just whether or not you're turning into a subscription service. Generally, that is a favourably viewed move on Wall Street, but it won't matter if the rest of the financials suck.
It's not like Ubisoft has been making good games for the past 5 years. Can anyone here think of a good game they made that wasn't a Rayman game and Far Cry 3? To give you a better idea, here's their stock form the past 5 days. Whether this is about Ubisoft doing poorly in general or from their plans to go subscription, is not yet clear.
aGEXyd6_700bwp.jpg
 
Let me step in here for a minute to provide some context. Ironically, Ubi's subscription service seems to be one of the best of those I've seen (or perhaps, the least shitty), at least to date. THe features as I understand it are...

Includes all current and past Ubi published/first party titles on PC, plus an assortment of 3rd parties and indies that may or may not phase in and out depending on contracts
Brand new games are available on release (or 'early release') to all subscribers. No waiting around for the newest stuff or delays before its part of the subscription.
All games are the "best version", typically equivalent to the Gold/Ultimate editions and include all pre-order , DLC etc. Any newly released DLC is included for free immediately!
Uses standard Uplay Connect client, downloads games to your PC and runs them locally, can be modded etc. Not predicated on streaming . I do wish they'd allow you to just use Steam directly, but considering the same Steam launched games also have UPlay integration, its not a big deal I suppose.
Price is around $10-15/month or so, making it a good value if you'd otherwise be interested in buying one new 1 Ubi game per year (particularly at the $100+ Gold / Ultimate costs these days). Of course, you can also sub for a month or two, beat the game(s) that hold your interest and leave

Taking this into account, I don't really have an issue because its an optional thing that in no way becomes more restrictive - you use the same client, its on your hardware, and people can decide if they want to buy outright either immediately or wait until cheap down the line or if its best to use the sub for their choice. Comparing it to expensive console setups like those on Playstation where to play certain games you have to pay a considerable amount, like the highest tier of PSN or even those like Xbox GamePass on PC - the one that most consider the least offensive but I've aways disiked for the requirement to use the Xbox/WinStore based client, the games do NOT include DLC and you're encouraged to buy DLC for games you don't own, among other issues like games frequently running out of contract time leading to removal.

Its entirey possible that Ubisoft will take their momentarily, perhaps accidentally decent subscription and "enshitify" it further, but I do think its worth being fair and frankly, if Ubisoft is the voice of least-shittiness in any monetization strategy others should be very, very embarassed that they can't do better. I've been hoping for years that Microsoft would integrate GamePass into Steam , after seeing how well their 1st party titles do on Steam direct (Halo MCC, Sea of Thieves, others etc) as opposed to their frormerly Windows Store/Xbox ony platform, yet they resist. Steam can easily support the subscriptions - most of the games are already on Steam and all they'd need is a different Library color for a title that's temporarily granted to you vs one you own outright; they do it for free weekends etc. If they did this, and included all current and future DLC in active gamepass titles, I'd even consider subscribing if the value was worth it - hell, add Steam coupons and discounts to buy outright games formallly on subscription. If they were smart, they (and for that matter, Ubi) would share revenue of new GamePass or Ubi+ or whatever the fuck subscriptions and probably make up a ton on volume, but that doesn't seem to be the way things are going.
 
It's not like Ubisoft has been making good games for the past 5 years. Can anyone here think of a good game they made that wasn't a Rayman game and Far Cry 3?
Vaas, how we miss thee.

Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is?
Buying the same stuff over and over, expecting stuff to change.

That. Is. Crazy.
 
People also need to realize some day all these publishers are going to pull out of gamepass/PS+ and make their own sub service like Ubisoft. Instead of paying $15 to MS/Sony you will be paying $15 to Capcom, SE, take two and Nintendo. It happens video streaming.
 
Its entirey possible that Ubisoft will take their momentarily, perhaps accidentally decent subscription and "enshitify" it further, but I do think its worth being fair and frankly, if Ubisoft is the voice of least-shittiness in any monetization strategy others should be very, very embarassed that they can't do better....If they did this, and included all current and future DLC in active gamepass titles, I'd even consider subscribing if the value was worth it - hell, add Steam coupons and discounts to buy outright games formallly on subscription.
Do you actually think that after they get subscriptions ingrained into gamers that there will be an ability to outright "buy" games any longer or even discounts or coupons that might undercut their subscription service value? Do you not see how Adobe killed off any kind of perpetual license sales after the move to subscription took hold? Adobe once offered both when they introduced subs and once they had a decent percentage on board the subscription train, then boom perpetual licenses disappeared. We need to learn the consequences to having software move to subscription services from the very people the game publishers are aiming to emulate (the streaming services and software makers like Adobe, Autodesk, etc..), and those consequences are simple, they move to subscriptions, and you can't buy any new games. Like Adobe and Autodesk, they will update their EULAs so that they can EOL (end of life) their activation servers for their older software due to "maintenance costs", so once you change the PC, reinstall windows, uninstall/reinstall the product or upgrade enough you are SOL. Software you "bought" is non functional and they will say if you want to use the product subscribe since it's part of their back catalog as support for the non subscription versions of the software have been discontinued.
 
So it's like that Ubisoft? That's cool, I'll just vote with my wallet, I have other games to play that aren't published by Ubisoft.
 
I remember having Sega Channel and I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Imagine games that were exclusive to Sega Channel that died with it?
People also need to realize some day all these publishers are going to pull out of gamepass/PS+ and make their own sub service like Ubisoft. Instead of paying $15 to MS/Sony you will be paying $15 to Capcom, SE, take two and Nintendo. It happens video streaming.
That is ultimately every game studios goal. The problem is that you can't just expect this business model to work, just because you make games. Ubisoft is living off their games reputation they made in the past, like Assassin's Creed and Far Cry. Instead of just making quality games first, they worry about monetization first. The reputation from these franchises are carrying the frequent release of these games. Ubisoft is a publicly traded company, and like any publicly traded company their focus is on shareholders and not consumers. The other problem is this incentivizes the development of games to have a lot stuff that wastes your time, which is something Ubisoft is known for. If you're paying per month, then the more they keep you playing the more money they make. This is a tactic that Blizzard has done with World of Warcraft and it's done wonders for them.

Ubisoft offers Ubisoft+ Premium for $18/month, and they aren't on Steam anymore. So they are already pushing for this. They do offer $8 per month for their "classic" games. I don't think their games are worth $1 to buy, let alone per month to rent. If Nintendo did this I could see it work, because Nintendo produces enough quality games to give it value.
 
Back
Top