Ubisoft Wants You To Be Comfortable Not Owning Your Games

I am not a fan of subscription models. But it is interesting to me that I have a ton of games I own on physical media for which I do not own a reader anymore.
Obviously, I can attach one, but the ever-increasingly ephemeral nature of media and accessibility is very interesting / scary.

I still have picture books printed all the time, even though I have a bunch of online storage. Books are not forever either, but they are much harder to remove by a 3rd party.
Well if you're super "hardcore" you could spend the time to make ISO's of all those discs.
And going forward buy everything on GOG and also download all of your games there.

It's just that truthfully we're incentivized to not, because who wants to have 10's of TB of uninstalled games they have to maintain? But if you're paranoid and an archivist, then it's a thing you can do.
 

PC does have a high piracy rate.

The closing accounts thing was debunked as false.

Ubisoft has made good games. That's really a matter of opinion.
 
PC does have a high piracy rate.
According to ubisoft themselves 2 million copies were sold of AC:Valhalla in the first week on PC, so if there is 95% piracy that would mean 40 million people playing a pirated copy. The doubt is off the charts.
I'd not brag about high piracy rates anyway, because it means people don't think your product is worth buying, or don't want to jump through the roadblocks you put in front of customers.
The closing accounts thing was debunked as false.
More likely they sounded retreat due to the mass backlash, and spun it like they never intended to delete inactive accounts.
Ubisoft has made good games. That's really a matter of opinion.
That's no reason to accept all their anti consumer BS.
 
According to ubisoft themselves 2 million copies were sold of AC:Valhalla in the first week on PC, so if there is 95% piracy that would mean 40 million people playing a pirated copy. The doubt is off the charts.
I'd not brag about high piracy rates anyway, because it means people don't think your product is worth buying, or don't want to jump through the roadblocks you put in front of customers.

More likely they sounded retreat due to the mass backlash, and spun it like they never intended to delete inactive accounts.

That's no reason to accept all their anti consumer BS.
I didn't say 95%, I said "high". People pirate because they're self entitled thieves for the most part and justify it with all kinds of silliness, if a product isn't worth buying/playing it wouldn't be worth pirating either.
 
I didn't say 95%, I said "high". People pirate because they're self entitled thieves for the most part and justify it with all kinds of silliness, if a product isn't worth buying/playing it wouldn't be worth pirating either.
So then why are you protecting them in relation of an article that says 93-95%? OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: what is your definition of high? High compared to what? Show something that makes this claim substantive.

Piracy is not their problem, it is just a symptom of bad service. But I've already explained that:

Everyone has their own line set in sand, to limit how far backward they are willing to bend before they say enough is enough and stop paying for a service. Whether someone chooses to pirate after that line is reached is completely irrelevant to the service provider's predicament. They are not victims of piracy they are the victims of their own shoddy service.
 
1705933744552.png
 
My 2 cents worth or less. Subscription model does not work for me. Especially if the norm, death by a thousand slices. Had Ubi subscription for a period of time, I just did not use it enough to warrant the cost. It is like having a subscription to 20 different pay channels where realistically you only watch one channel, one show for a few hours at a time. Does not work.

The additive costs on having this the norm is not workable. There are free streaming services, called radio and TV, plus open source software that are pretty good and usable. I will probably toast Microsoft 365 subscription, Modo, plus local car wash, bla bla and save or keep thousands a year.

One thing I’ve notice, subscriptions seemed good when started but sour over time.
 
I don't think anyone has pointed out that the real, long term danger of subscription services for gaming is the ability for the large corporations to crush and eliminate competition. This includes direct competition in the form of games as smaller studios would obviously not have a subscription model for just one or two games which makes their games look like they aren't worth having. Additionally it's a way to push any retail storefront, digital or brick and mortar, out of business. No more storefronts, no more competition and no more sales.

Storefronts from a company for only their games is bad enough, especially when it's the exclusive way to get those games. Many have tried this and it has not been working out the way they wanted. The subscription model for their games and eventually making that the only way to play their games is the next step in control and removing choice and competition from the market.

None of this is done for the short term or long term benefit of the consumer. In fact it is the exact opposite.
 
I don't think anyone has pointed out that the real, long term danger of subscription services for gaming is the ability for the large corporations to crush and eliminate competition. This includes direct competition in the form of games as smaller studios would obviously not have a subscription model for just one or two games which makes their games look like they aren't worth having. Additionally it's a way to push any retail storefront, digital or brick and mortar, out of business. No more storefronts, no more competition and no more sales.

Storefronts from a company for only their games is bad enough, especially when it's the exclusive way to get those games. Many have tried this and it has not been working out the way they wanted. The subscription model for their games and eventually making that the only way to play their games is the next step in control and removing choice and competition from the market.

None of this is done for the short term or long term benefit of the consumer. In fact it is the exact opposite.

We saw this when Activision, Valve, EA and others took control of server browsers and multiplayer server control options roughly 20 years ago now. Valve made HalfLife1 users, 5 years after the fact use Steam only to connect to HL1 multiplayer servers (a reason I boycotted Steam for 7 or so years). Activision with ModernWarfare2 in '09 only having official servers to play on. No custom dedicated, player owned/operated servers and that MW2 boycott failed miserably and became a meme.

Survival games are a counter point in that they almost require dedicated servers player owned/controlled to thrive. It will be interesting to see how games like the new Palworld work out with that game being on Steam and GamePass. Will MS offer you the game pass subscription to play the game and a server subscription? What kind of control over server mods will they allow? None? Look at EA and Battlefield with its server rentals. I can run a PC version of Conan Exiles survival game with tons of mods, including even more nudity options than the default game notoriously allows.

From 2016 and BF1:

https://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-1-server-rental-prices-revealed/

PC

  • 1 day: $2.99
  • 7 days: $11.99
  • 30 days: $42.99
  • 90 days: $99.99
  • 180 days: $149.99
PlayStation 4/Xbox One

  • 1 day: $1.99
  • 7 days: $7.99
  • 30 days: $26.99
  • 90 days: $64.99
  • 180 days: $99.99
 
My 2 cents worth or less. Subscription model does not work for me. Especially if the norm, death by a thousand slices. Had Ubi subscription for a period of time, I just did not use it enough to warrant the cost. It is like having a subscription to 20 different pay channels where realistically you only watch one channel, one show for a few hours at a time. Does not work.

The additive costs on having this the norm is not workable. There are free streaming services, called radio and TV, plus open source software that are pretty good and usable. I will probably toast Microsoft 365 subscription, Modo, plus local car wash, bla bla and save or keep thousands a year.

One thing I’ve notice, subscriptions seemed good when started but sour over time.
For me, a subscription service isn't a replacement for purchasing games. I use things like Game Pass to try out games I otherwise would not have purchased in the first place, and if I really liked the game, I will buy it to keep. If I was already going to buy a game then I am just going to buy it.
 
For me, a subscription service isn't a replacement for purchasing games. I use things like Game Pass to try out games I otherwise would not have purchased in the first place, and if I really liked the game, I will buy it to keep. If I was already going to buy a game then I am just going to buy it.
I too like to try before I buy, as everyone should.
a6qRe1A_700bwp.jpg
 
We saw this when Activision, Valve, EA and others took control of server browsers and multiplayer server control options roughly 20 years ago now. Valve made HalfLife1 users, 5 years after the fact use Steam only to connect to HL1 multiplayer servers (a reason I boycotted Steam for 7 or so years). Activision with ModernWarfare2 in '09 only having official servers to play on. No custom dedicated, player owned/operated servers and that MW2 boycott failed miserably and became a meme.

Survival games are a counter point in that they almost require dedicated servers player owned/controlled to thrive. It will be interesting to see how games like the new Palworld work out with that game being on Steam and GamePass. Will MS offer you the game pass subscription to play the game and a server subscription? What kind of control over server mods will they allow? None? Look at EA and Battlefield with its server rentals. I can run a PC version of Conan Exiles survival game with tons of mods, including even more nudity options than the default game notoriously allows.

From 2016 and BF1:

https://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-1-server-rental-prices-revealed/

Could you post the boycott meme? I haven't seen it.
 
For me, a subscription service isn't a replacement for purchasing games. I use things like Game Pass to try out games I otherwise would not have purchased in the first place, and if I really liked the game, I will buy it to keep. If I was already going to buy a game then I am just going to buy it.
I’ve found just reading forum experiences, comments, images is enough for me to make a good decision or chance in buying a game I would like without having to try out multiple games, hours at a time to just feel like my hour glass of life is now less. Of course CP 2077 I thought I would love turned out much less than I expected.
 
I’ve found just reading forum experiences, comments, images is enough for me to make a good decision or chance in buying a game I would like without having to try out multiple games, hours at a time to just feel like my hour glass of life is now less. Of course CP 2077 I thought I would love turned out much less than I expected.
I think the love for CP 2077 comes from the 80's theme and of course Keanu Reeves. I've played the game and did every quest. Boring as hell, with lots of busy work quests. I'm the kind of guy that needs to do everything because I fear of missing out of something good. Most of the quests the game has is about making money, which is useful to get upgrades and guns but that seems more like work. Lots of time wasters like go kill but don't be seen. The main plot is the meat and potatoes of this game, which is not like Witcher 3 at all where the side quests are just as good as the main quest. CDPR took a look at Ubisoft and thought they need to start making games like them, and that's what CyberPunk 2077 is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Have people realized this is false outrage yet?
Interviewer asked what it would take for subscription models to be successful. Reply was that people would need to be comfortable not owning their games.

He didn't say gamers need to be comfortable not owning their games, or that Ubisoft wants gamers to be comfortable not owning their games.
It's literally just the answer to the interviewer's question. The premise of a subscription model is that you don't own the games.

Q:
what is it going to take for subscription to step up and become a more significant proportion of the industry?

Philippe Tremblay, director of subscriptions at Ubisoft:
One of the things we saw is that gamers are used to, a little bit like DVD, having and owning their games. That's the consumer shift that needs to happen. They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection. That's a transformation that's been a bit slower to happen [in games]. As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don't lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That's not been deleted. You don't lose what you've built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it's about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.
 
Last edited:
Have people realized this is false outrage yet?
Interviewer asked what it would take for subscription models to be successful. Reply was that people would need to be comfortable not owning their games.

He didn't say gamers need to be comfortable not owning their games, or that Ubisoft wants gamers to be comfortable not owning their games.
It's literally just the answer to the interviewer's question. The premise of a subscription model is that you don't own the game.

Q:
what is it going to take for subscription to step up and become a more significant proportion of the industry?

Philippe Tremblay, director of subscriptions at Ubisoft:
One of the things we saw is that gamers are used to, a little bit like DVD, having and owning their games. That's the consumer shift that needs to happen. They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection. That's a transformation that's been a bit slower to happen [in games]. As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don't lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That's not been deleted. You don't lose what you've built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it's about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.
I know what he said, and I still don't like it. It's not like they didn't have meetings talking about this. He clearly put a lot of thought into that response. The game industry has been pushing for a subscription based model for sometime, and very unsuccessfully. This is why cloud gaming was attempted and failed, multiple times. In fact, nothing he said was something I'm comfortable with. People like to own things, even if it's just a license agreement and not actual ownership. Music and movies are often compared to video games, because they lack actual knowledge of how things work. While I'm comfortable with not owning CD's and DVD's, that's because I had long ago jumped on the MP3 and DivX bandwagon. Rather than evolving physical media to flash storage, the industry pushed for downloading it. DVD's or Blu-Rays are a huge pain in the ass. They are slow, they scratch easy, and they easily break. That's why people were OK not having these things, because putting stuff onto a hard drive was always the better way. Apple did this with their iPod, and Microsoft pioneered it with their Xbox which was the first console to have internal storage. People still thought they owned their digital purchases, because why wouldn't they? What's the different with something on a CD vs something on a hard drive? There is literally none, except that Discs are slow and cumbersome.

The reason why nobody cares about owning movies and music is because they usually suck. If it wasn't for the Marvel movies the industry hates so much, the movie industry would have been dead. As far as I'm concerned the music industry is dead with Spotify as the grave where all songs go. The inception of streaming seems to have revitalized content people want to see, but nowadays it seems streaming services also put out ten times more crap than good. It's become cable where it's not about quality but quantity. Hundreds of channels with nothing to watch is now dozens of streaming services with nothing to watch. If streaming were to remotely take off for gaming, then this too will be gaming's future. Bad enough as it is that people play new games and only new games in fear of FOMO. People don't know what a good game is anymore, until we're reminded when a game like Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring is released. Look at Palworld and how it's popular for no other reason but because people are obsessed with Pokemon, and it's not even good. This means the industry will now create dozens of Pokemon clones, but they'll all be bad for maybe except one.


View: https://youtu.be/buRSN13jH3E?si=M3u9-IcTYzDXzQ7_
 
Lots of good info I agree with here. I am hoping this trend reverses. It’s been at least 5-6 years this has been going on.
 
Back
Top