Do you prefer owning your games?
If buying isn’t owning, then pirating isn’t stealing.
Comment has been collapsed.
How does that translate to subscription based gaming? Same as netflix or spotify. You pay and you use the service which offers you entertainment. Doesn't change that pirating movies and songs is stealing. Not that I am condoning Ubisofts business practices as I hate the subscripttion based services... But your sentence really does not make sense in this context.
EDIT: Did not catch that this is a reference to a whole deal regarding gaming industry. Sorry about that :)
Comment has been collapsed.
its all call out to the people who knew this shit was gonna happen 20+ years ago.
and also, the last paragraph of the post.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, sure. But I just don't see the connection to it. Frankly the last paragraph (If I understand correctly is the ubisofts claim) is just detached ramblings of a lunatic. Having game progress saved over time period has nothing to do with people "being comfortable" with not owning the games. So bringing that up as a reasoning just shows they have no idea what is going on in reality.
But still, subscription to play games at no moment implies you own something. Hence my question. Seems like fallacy to bring up owning a game and condoning piracy when the talk is about subscribing to a service :D I mean, I am all for pirating games if they start bullshit business practices.. so don't get me wrong
Comment has been collapsed.
This line is a copy pasta that's being shared around when these companies do these shady things to not actually give you the product anymore, but I think it stands for not considering it bad to get it from a different source than that company when the company does bs business practices, kinda like you just said.
Comment has been collapsed.
It doesn't relate to subscription based services but that's the warning sign to not support these toxic systems. If people keep supporting subscriptions, it will be a norm. Then you'll have to pay a sub to microsoft, epic, steam, ubi, etc. each which will provide you different games, kinda like netflix or spotify, which both have some things, but most things you'll have to find in other places. So I guess the point is, don't buy things where you don't at least get a license key, where you at least have some ownership. Hence if that service fails for whatever reason, you have proof of purchase.
The sub system will make it hard to play old games, especially those which have licensed content, and it will make it worse for modders too, which is probably something these companies want to get away from, like with capcom recently and them putting danuvo on old ass games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo62S5Dfg1A
My guess is this, they want to make sub system a norm, and once it becomes a normal, the prices for the subs will increase. I mean, netflix, amazon, youtube, music, adobe etc. all of these did this already, so this happening to games wouldn't be surprising if it succeeds. But it's a testament imo that you'd be better off buying the games and owning them, or getting a license for them at least as proof of ownership since you might go through multiple games in a month, or not play at all for a while, and while atm it's not a bad price to take advantage of this deal, think of all the games that aren't in the sub, think of all the games added and removed from it, and how you'd have to get them when they aren't on any sub service. Also, if you're gonna play super old games for an entire month, your sub might cost you more than the games would. So this would make sense for AAA games, at the same time, it doesn't seem profitable for them to sell you AAA games at $10 a month if that's all you're gonna play.
So they're banking on the idea that eventually they'll raise prices, that people will play maybe 1 game a month max, and that for the most part most users wont be playing the AAA titles probably due to not owning the hardware as that would cost them more money, then what they sell the sub for. I'm sure they pay devs/companies a % fee based on how many plays they have, etc.
If this was the only option for gamers, this would actually hurt devs/publishers too because they'd get paid based on how much their game gets played, however many of us collect games even though we might never get to them. This might just be publishers trying to spread the game outreach as much as possible. But consider my acc, at 8386 games, assuming I played 1 game every month that would be enough for about 698 years of gaming. In my case I probably play more than 1 a month and once in a while I touch some grass to keep in touch with reality but still I consider myself to be a dedicated gamer and not really a casual gamer. I' probably not the best statistic, but lets take someone with I don't know, 200 games. If all they played was 1 game every single month, they'd still have 16 years of gaming. However, if they paid $10 a month for 16 years consistently it would only be about $2000, and I'm pretty sure you can buy 200 games worth the money for under $2000. If all your were getting were AAA new release games, that would be worth around $12k, so then it would make it worth it. However, the more games you play in that 16 years period, and the more are less than $60, the more the value is going to go down, and the more they're going to look to raise the price of the subscription, meanwhile old games would be getting delisted and vanish from there, unable to be played ever again without special means if you know what I mean.
TLDR: Subs are toxic, avoid them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps I was just being too picky today.
But definitely - I agree with points you raised. And overall I do dislike the subscription based services and agree that people should avoid them.
Comment has been collapsed.
It will be the norm anyway. Once all the big actors have made the switch, we will have no choice but to sub as there will be no altyernatives (at least no legal ones). It has already started, and as it gives companies more revenue, others will follow.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it might be stealing, and it might not be - the digital world offers so many solutions that is is easy to get lost.
For sure, pirating digital media you would otherwise consume anyway is a clear cut steal. Even if you justify it for yourself it is still stealing, the "digital copy, no-ones lost anything"-argument doesn't hold up, they have lost revenue.
But what if you (for whatever reason) aren't going to consume the media "the correct way"? That means pirating it is not a loss of income for the developer/publisher. Sure, technically it is still stealing, but it's a victimless crime. No loss of revenue.
But so far the only discussion is how we as customers don't treat developers/publishers right, what about the "stealing" going on the other way? The fact that every time the question is asked we overwhelmingly answer "we don't like subscription based media" just because it will cost us more while giving us less, so that's developers/publishers forcing a system on us because it makes them more revenue for the same media, it's them stealing from us.
If you look at only one of the sides, it looks bad. But when you pit both against each other, pirating seems less and less like stealing for many, and more like Robin Hood-esque behaviour against an evil empire.
Comment has been collapsed.
How does that translate to subscription based gaming? Same as netflix or spotify.
Piracy is COMPLETELY justified: Louis tries NetFlix & remembers why
Comment has been collapsed.
It could be what you're referring to, but in case others see this, and haven't read it, this is a great article covering the topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't literally own any game on Steam anyway, yet many people don't know this. Any digital game (PS, Xbox, or PC) you don't own. Only if you have a disc version of a game you actually own it (or on GoG where you have DRM free games, but you still need to either burn the game to a disc or back it up somewhere, just in case GoG goes poof). And even then, you need the platform to update your game with patches and whatnot. If they disable online services for say PS4, then all games you own on PS4 on a disc probs won't be able to get those patches. You'll get to play the game, but only it's 1.0 version, which nowadays is buggy most of the time and requires a day 1 patch anyway. Look up how buggy Skyrim was on day 1, unpatched.
So, I know it's hot to hate Ubisoft right now, but this is simply them saying they want people to buy into the subscription model more, which is where all big companies (MS, Sony, etc.) want to go. Cloud gaming is what they want, and subscription services will be what they will look to sell to people with that.
Comment has been collapsed.
More like realist. Go on your Ubisoft bad grrrr rants all you want, won't change the fact that this isn't anything new and this has been the standard (us not owning digitally purchased games) for almost two decades, only people weren't aware of that fact (or at least the majority weren't).
And with the push towards Cloud gaming, subscription services like GamePass will be the "future" of gaming. Even Sony made their own "GamePass" thing because they saw how well it was doing for MS.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ummm, you do know you're the one here who's complaining about Ubisoft just because it's what the internet deems as acceptable behaviour for anything Ubisoft does or says, no matter if there is a reason to give them flak? Ha
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam games are DRM free. You could technically buy a game, install it on a 2nd hard drive with the game alongside steam, refund it and still play that game forever in offline mode.
In case steam servers go poof, you can play everything you own. Stop spreading misinformation for no reason.
Check this out for more details
Unless the game itself has a 2nd check for the license, you're good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your Reddit post is about playing games offline, and you are correct; you can play almost any game in Steam offline mode (games with Denuvo need the game to run in Steam's online mode first). But I'm not talking about that. Just because you can do that doesn't mean you own the digital game you bought, and that's my point. If "my" game can be revoked (taken from me) at any time, I don't own that game. It's that simple. Maybe read Steam's TOS next time, ye? Seems you skip those. You're not buying the games, you're buying the license to use them. And that ain't "owning" games.
Comment has been collapsed.
So where's the difference between Steam and Gog?
Is it in the fact that you get the can download the installer?
In my eyes, it's basically downloading the game, you just can't share it with others.
Gog COULD also revoke your license, aka your right to download the installer. They're just on a "trust me bro" basis, saying they don't do it.
IF you were to download every single game on steam, put it on the drive and never connect it to the internet, you have unlimited access to said license.
You can't own anything digital - it just doesn't work like that. Bits are bits. But is the money in your bank account fake, just because you can't hold it in your own hand without withdrawing it?
If the bank decides one day you can't withdraw money anymore... Bad luck, it's all gone
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know if GOG can, as I don't use it. But if they can, then the only difference is that all GOG games are DRM-free and don't require it to play. On Steam, that isn't the case for every game. And it's not just AAA games. Even some indie games won't run without a Steam (client). So, I know (probably, ha) Steam is unlikely to go under. They are too big (basically they are PC gaming). But I wish we had options to buy physical copies; even if that isn't 100% owning a game (since you may need Steam to run it, just like you need Sony's platform to play their games, etc.), it's still better given they can't revoke the license. But digital is what the current meta is, and with cloud gaming, it's gonna be subscriptions. So, I guess people will now wake up a bit more to the fact we don't really own anything digital (if we did, we could resell it, oh how I wish this was true, haha).
Also, I do prefer to hold my money, ha. I want it to be real .D
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer - Players Want Ubisoft To Be Comfortable GOing Bankrupt
Comment has been collapsed.
Well... not really anything new or surprising that development company wants to push its users towards subscription based business model. If you are well known and have good stuff to offer, that can be more profitable. That's why pretty much most of the SW developers tend to switch to subscription models (be it CAD software, video editors, project planning tools).... Gaming industry has been trying to jump on the subscription based business model for quite some time. So for them obviously someone who pays once and then plays for years is not as good as someone who pays monthly, but less amount.
And to add to that - I know its just a technicality, but you never really "own" anything anyway. You just have the right to use the software (or game) since you OWN The licence.... not the game ... its a very important little detail to note. Be it digital or physical. But to answer your question - yes, I much prefer to have a license tied to my account without some subscription models.
Comment has been collapsed.
You own your physical copies though, or DRM-free games like the ones on GOG.
I agree, subscription-based software getting more annoying any day. However in response to this open-source alternatives becoming serious competitors, at least for some of them. Like Blender, Krita, Godot, Ardour... And there are still some companies sell perpetual licenses for their software, and I believe there will always be.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh right. You can actually download and get access anytime to games from GOG, is it correct?
Yet I still wonder what is their terms of use? Is it still just a service which allows you to download the game files and use them or are you truly the owner of the content? Maybe I am going a bit too much into the whole topic, but the game as "intellectual property" never really goes into your ownership however you buy it. Or am I misinterpreting here? I mean I get its technicalities, but IMO its important to understand them.
As for open source - I believe that it will pose a huge competition for years to come. As for perpetual licenses, I think will only decrease with time. IMO good example is Davinci Resolve. They offer free version of the app + perpetual license for most features. And this is top of the line video editing SW.... Yet they can really support that business because mainly blackmagicdesign builds and sells expensive cameras. A company which pretty much only works on one product will eventually run out of new prospective buyers and will have to rely on existing client base. At least in gaming they can lunch new games which can attract new buyers. When they have to rely on only one game, then it becomes problematic (they need to rebrand new year and sell if for full price (FIFA, NBA), start pumping out paid DLCs or offer ingame purchases (GTA)). Thats why I think subscription based model is so widespread for softwares but not for gaming. At least for now.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's correct. You can buy a game on GOG, download your copy and keep it in your harddrive, you can even print it as a DVD if you want (which makes it a physical copy, no one really uses them anymore though). Owning a DRM-free copy is exactly like buying a film's Blu-ray, it doesn't make you the owner of the film but you can watch it whenever you want. Just like you can play your DRM-free game any time you want without any restrictions. There are games on GOG that include online services but the publishers who put their games on GOG agree on terms that their games are DRM-free, so online services are optional. You can still use them if you want (by agreeing that publisher's terms).
From GOG's about page:
Owning the things you buy
We don't believe in controlling you and your games. Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for, or constantly asked to prove you own them - this is DRM-free gaming.
An optional gaming client
GOG GALAXY is the optional client to install & update GOG games, with features like cloud saves, update roll-backs, achievements, and is a convenient way to manage your cross-platform library while staying in touch with friends.
GOG Galaxy is a service, like Steam, but it's optional.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah they all want to be Adobe with $$$ in their eyes.
The main problem is Adobe went sub-based to
a) pay for the constant development of their apps, which they were actually doing, not just to take the same game over and over, slap on new arts on it and call them new games, and
b) to crack down on piracy of their apps, which was a huge problem for them because their main target audience is still professionals.
Ubisoft has been drooling over this model (remember in 2019 when they announced they would not be releasing new AC games but... modules in a "live Assassin's Creed service" or whatever?) but they know they can't do it. At least some of them know, but they can't get the message through to their megalomaniac CEO and all the yes-men he surrounds himself with.
So yes technically we don't own games. Steam is still making massive effort in their TOS to avoid any implication that we own games on the platform. But if Steam went full sub-based with access to their library for a monthly fee, it would be hundreds of thousands of games, not 90 miserable games with 2 added every year or whatever Ubisoft is peddling now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup. As I mentioned to Mitsukini, I think that professional software devs will definitely stay to the subscription model. While most wouldn't like it, they are after all working on one software for years, offering support, updates etc. Only thing that bugs me, is that they, while obviously mainly targeting professionals, don't offer free or discounted versions for hobbyists. For example Autodesk offers Fusion 360 for non commercial use for free and blackmagicdesign offers davinci resolve for free with stripped down functions. While the biggest players like Solidworks or Adobe are so high up on their horse, they want students, hobbyists and the like still to pay and for that they even offer stripped down almost unusable versions....
Honestly the whole business slowly rots from inside running after greed. Partly I think Steam is so big they are in a safe zone. They don't have to try drastic measures to improve revenue. Ubisoft, EA and other big publishers are only running on their own games. And obviously money wise CEO and management wants to pursue every possibility to increase their business. Same as Epic being predatory in their business practice - they are still small, don't have that big of a following and don't have as stable business model as Steam does.
So even if Steam decided to go subscription based or for some god knows what reason ends support for the steam client, it would bring such a backlash they would probably lose most of their business. I personally am not very worried about Steam and their ToS. I've always bought games with that in mind - I just have a license to use the product. And while obviously I as many preferred physical copies over digital and DRM locked, the lifestyle has changed into such that its way easier to live with digital versions. At least for me - PC, laptop, Steamdeck.. All are connected to 5G and I can transfer from one to other seamlessly.
So maybe subscription based service would come in as a standard with time... If it could benefit gamers. IMO I like subscription based gaming on consoles. I wouldn't want to buy every game for 60 EUR so I would much prefer pay the amount and just play the games sicne many have so little gameplay anyway. Currently though I don't see the benefit on PC, when gaming on it is relatively cheap.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only thing that bugs me, is that they, while obviously mainly targeting professionals, don't offer free or discounted versions for hobbyists
Exactly this. They could have done what they did with Lightroom years ago and offer a limited version for free to non-pros who just wanted to tinker with their pictures. But nope.
And Adobe's offer doesn't make much sense sometimes. It's as expensive to get Adobe+Lightroom monthly than just Lightroom because they added massive cloud storage that's non optional to the Lightroom offer. How does that make sense?
Honestly the whole business slowly rots from inside running after greed. Partly I think Steam is so big they are in a safe zone. They don't have to try drastic measures to improve revenue.
Probably. Despite a few knee jerk reaction when Epic was launched, they have settled back into safety mode since Epic is not much of a threat after all and that's a good thing. If anything, they will keep going for side ventures like SteamDeck but they won't break their long standing successful model just to scratch an itch. They are making solid money as they are. Why change things?
Ubisoft, EA and other big publishers are only running on their own games.
I know EA used to have indie games in their catalog but they're getting rare. Ubisoft has made a big deal of announcing the addition of the Activision Blizzard catalog (of all things) to their offer but they haven't even announced a date yet so it might be moot.
I think the success of Game Pass made the big publishers dream but instead of joining forces to have a large catalog they could make money on, they all started creating micro-offers. The reason Game Pass is big is because it offers a huge variety of games and because console is a different offer altogether.
Comment has been collapsed.
limited version for free to non-pros who just wanted to tinker with their pictures.
This is form of advertisement. Although developing that kind of apps is not really worth time/effort nowadays. Because people who just want to "tinker" with pictures won't buy full and expensive software anyway. Especially that you have tools that are completely free that can do just that.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know about that. My gf was into photography but never really had a proper camera so she was taking pictures with her phone and using the light version of Lightroom to make adjustments. When she finally got herself a good digital camera, she started taking classes and photography trips with friends and she invested into a better version of the software.
I think it's one of those hobbies that can turn into something serious or even professional for people. It won't happen with everyone but there's always a chance of conversion.
Ofc Adobe is a special case. I don't think that will happen with all kinds of software
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't consider hobbyist as "not-pro who just wanted to tinker with pictures" though. People invest money in their hobbies (just like your sister).
Average person that takes pictures might want to crop it or do some minor brightness/color adjustments... and that you can do with windows image browser, or some free online tools. This is beginner level. Anything above that is intermediate? And above that you have advanced level that is target group for adobe.
What I wrote was too vague. Should be:
developing that kind of apps is not really worth time/effort nowadays for adobe
Comment has been collapsed.
Worked on me with Davinci Resolve. Frankly free versions you can find for video editing (along with basically 80% of paid ones are crap). Clipchamp actually is decent. But that is one I suggest for those who don't know anything about movie making and simply want to start out. If you want anything more serious then its Adobe or Davinci. Davinci offers free version - eventually for the studio I bought the davinci resolve pro version. Obviously I am not representing the market, but even if at minority, I think that its still a valid business practice to attract more professionals or aspiring hobbyists to your product.
I have been getting back at 3D CAD design and I used Solidworks when I studied. So I wanted to use that again, but of course for non-commercial use they have specifically built 3DExperience which still asks for yearly subscription, but supposedly is absolute crap compared to Solidworks. So they still had to build a new product, new cloud based saving system or whatever and create new subscription model. Instead they could have just skimmed down the original Solidworks and it would have been better. So I ended up using Fusion360 because without any hassle I can simply use for non-commercial use their main product.
And to add to Fluffsters point - its not that easy to replace lightroom with free software. I use it quite a lot as well and honestly ended up at pirating it due to simply not having any good free software which can do the same thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
What I wrote was too vague. Should be:
developing that kind of apps is not really worth time/effort nowadays for adobe
Absolute beginners can use free stuff. Advanced users can afford to buy stuff (because its usually job-related). Not many cater to the needs of intermediate users.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to be really technical, you don't 'OWN' anything at all.
People that think they own their land + house? Watch what happens when you don't pay property taxes.
People that think they own their possessions? civil forfeiture says otherwise.
People that think they own their money? Police can charge cash itself with a crime to legally steal it from you (in the USA).
People that think they own their own body? Abortion laws have something to say about that.
Comment has been collapsed.
It makes me sad, because that one of the rare AAA company who offered for free (and owning games, not a free trial), many games like Assasin Creed 2 / Assasin Creed Chronicles China / Assassins Creed Syndicate / Child of Light / FarCry 3 / Rayman Origins & Legends / Starlink : Battle for Atlas / Steep / Tom Clancy’s : The Division / Trial Fusion / Trial Rising
Comment has been collapsed.
They only "offer games for free" when they are not making money off them anymore or promoting a more recent game in the franchise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I hope they're comfortable with not having customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Heh I was just thinking that when I read the title. I am perfectly comfortable not owning any Ubisoft game anymore. I played them.
Comment has been collapsed.
They seem desperate for steady profit, and they are going at it the wrong way
Increased the original plan from 15 to 18, and added a lower tier that is still too overpriced 8 per month for 2 years old games at most with zero dlcs.
Comment has been collapsed.
Increased the original plan from 15 to 18, and added a lower tier that is still too overpriced
Pretty much how it went for IGN when they tried to rebrand the humble choice some time ago. Obviously failed even when you get the game on steam afterwards. So ubisoft will most likely get burned and in time will revert their changes. IGN held on to their pricing model quite stubbornly though before crumbling in and reverting to classic approach.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ubi has been making so many bad decisions in the last few years I'm honestly surprised they are still going at it,
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty gross how they use the word 'comfortable' here. 🤮
More like conditioning and manipulating the market.
Comment has been collapsed.
Odd that introducing a cheaper tier to a subscription service is considered something bad.
That a publisher would prefer constant revenue is only logical, the question should rather be why some gamers would rather pay $18 per month then buy individual games.
Prince of Persia costing $50 full price certainly won't make it more likely that I pay $18 every month. So sorry, I don't see the connection.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it's just there to introduce the sub-base gaming to more people, which still serves them on the long run.
So sorry, I don't see the connection.
I think this is a cheap channelization tactic to make people consider to buy subscriptions, so I believe more Ubisoft games will follow this fashion. I wouldn't surprise if I don't see $20 gaming tier from Ubisoft anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
That cheaper tier isn't that cheap -imho- it is 8 per month and that is €8 / $8 / £8 ..
I took a quick glance and it seems the newest games in it are 2 years old at most and zero dlcs
If we compare it to EA Play: EA Play is $5 / €4 per month and in some poor countries its price in local currency equals 1 or 2 $ .. there is also a 50% off annual sub
Almost zero dlcs
EA games added to EA Play between 6 to 12 months old.. and EA publish more games annually than Ubi
As for the original plan, the 15 price tag was already -again imho- too expensive .. too much for a price for a subscription that is mainly for just 1 publisher .. the indie games addition (even if they are true gems) still not a strong selling point
Ubi also seems to be forgetting or ignoring an important fact: that most of the paying customers who are interested in Ubi games already own most (if not all) of Ubi games they are interested in
Comment has been collapsed.
And yet their subscription program already was very successful, according to the article. Despite being overpriced and lots of competition with superior value.
My point is that it doesn't seem that they have to force anyone, as it was suggested. Many people already willingly embrace their offers.
And a great Metroidvania for $50 won't make any difference, unless they should suddenly decide to stop making any sales with discounts too.
Comment has been collapsed.
The most I feel sad for The Crew, when someone paid money for the game and now Ubisoft decided to close it without even switching it to offline mode (which, I believe, is not a big problem). Also, it has no any "torrent edition", what means that the game will completely cease to exist, like no one will ever be able to play it again. It is wrong. I'm sure the same thing they will do to The Division in a few years.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you remember when most MMORPGs were subscription based? You paid once for the physical copy and then a monthly subscription. If you were playing it for years, you spent hundreds of bucks only to have nothing left upon shutdown.
People like to rant about microtransactions, but unless it's pay 2 win and you fall for buying them, it's way better for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Things like this is one of the biggest problems with GaaS (gaming as a service). Once a game out of the service, there is no way to play it. You may find unofficial ways to play it, ergo someone mods the game, runs their own server etc. Test Drive Unlimited 2 still lives like this for example. Some companies DMCA these people and shut those servers, even though they don't let you to play that game anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer owning my games, but tbh that ship has already sailed long ago, when we went from games on CD/DVD to games on Steam.
We barely even own our OSes nowadays... heck we don't even own our CPUs, with Intel IME and AMD PSP. Sad world.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hence why we must make sure archive.org survives, no matter what.
Comment has been collapsed.
I love Ubisoft games, I have almost all the Assassins Creed, some Far Cry, several of the Tom Clancy's saga, and others, but I got tired of these shitty commercial tactics, I got tired of the standard, gold, deluxe, complete and incomplete versions, I'm tired of them killing the multiplayer mode of the games, even if they're old, and in the process screwing up the sinlge player content like they tried to do with several Assassins Creeds titles and now with The Crew, I'm tired of the terrible customer service , I got tired of Yves Guillemot's greed (he is a character worthy of Abstergo).
After announcing the closure of The Crew, I made the decision not to support this company again. That week I had bought the season pass for AC Syndicate and other DLC not included, and I almost bought the entire The Crew. But no more, no matter how much I want to play Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora or Star Wars Outlaws, this company is not going to see another cent from me until they change their business tactics, but it seems that things are going badly worse, as @Melusca says "Well I hope they're comfortable with not having customers."
Comment has been collapsed.
I still can't believe they actually expect The Crew players, who were still active in the game, to turn around after being screwed like that, and just spend money on Motorfest... knowing it will be the same crap all over again in a few years or whenever they release the next game.
That's greed for sure but also incredibly naive.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ubisoft needs to be comfortable with not having any of my money.
I dislike the idea of games behind a subscription, even something like Game Pass which is universally praised because of how incredible its value is.
I want to buy a game today, even if I don't technically "own" it because it's a license on Steam or whatever, and then play it whenever I want. Tomorrow or in 10 years time. Games get removed from subscription services all the time, I don't want to rely on the whims and licenses of the subscription provider to play my games. I don't want to keep paying to play. If the game takes 200 hours to complete and I only have 20 hours a month to play, I don't want to have to pay 10 months of subscription service for it.
What is worse about the potential future of subscription games, in both Game Pass and Ubishaft+, is adding FOMO tactics to all possible games. Log in X days/weeks in a row to receive this reward. Play for X weeks to get a bonus for a future game. Release the game not all at once, but in monthly "seasons", piece by piece, so people keep coming back. Reminds me of scummy Patreon modders and Minecraft texture pack authors that literally drip feed their patrons every month to suck them dry while doing fuck all for years. Some deliberately shut down old download links so if anyone wants to re-download the stuff they paid for, they need to re-subscribe. If this is the kind of scummy shit regular Joes can think of, I dread to think what gaming executives will conjure up to multiply their bank accounts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ubisoft needs to be comfortable with not having any of my money.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm generally down for pushing against things Ubisoft does that harms the consumer unnecessarily (namely the killing of games that could be perfectly fine single player modes like the fate that will happen to The Crew 1 soon).
However, this one is not the one to really be mad about because it's a quote that is removed from the entire sourced article surrounding it.
"The point is not to force users to go down one route or another," he explains. "We offer purchase, we offer subscription, and it's the gamer's preference that is important here. We are seeing some people who buy choosing to subscribe now, but it all works."
This article isn't about them taking your games away. You can buy or subscribe, he doesn't care. The part that the quote that keeps being reshared is specifically asking about growth of subscriptions to the guy that is the director of subscriptions. Literally his job.
The question remains around the potential of the subscription model in games. Tremblay says that there is "tremendous opportunity for growth", but what is it going to take for subscription to step up and become a more significant proportion of the industry?
And it is after this part that the quote that is in the OP comes from. I do not think it was the greatest answer, but truth be told, there's not a lot of good answers I can think of to that. It is a mindset change that caused the culture shift. Gaming isn't immune to these things.
Think to the times when cosmetic DLC was laughed at (Horse Armor). Now it's a norm to pay more than that for an armor in some f2p (and in some cases, paid) game.
Think about when it used to be free to play online on Nintendo services. Now you have to pay for it.
Think back to when owning your PC game was actually in a box with instructions. Now if you're lucky, you get a case with an installation CD.
That's what this guy is foreseeing as far as growth goes. I do hope we avoid a subscription only future for as long as possible. But I'd like to close with repeating above. The guy never said subscription only was what Ubisoft was doing, but he's literally paid to promote the service.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had decided not to buy any more of Ubisoft products after the announcement of removing paid DLCs from their platform, and this news is not even more surprising at all. I personally don't care at all for purchasing games, only for the sake of ownership of those, even if I might not play them at all. But a subscription being required to play games, with no option of purchasing individual games? Hell, no.
Perhaps they decided to be comfortable with not owning the money in their bank account. They would be happy to see the money, but definitely shouldn't care even if the customers withdraw the money away from the company's account.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really see a problem. Most games only get played once. Can easily do that at a heavily discounted rate via a one month sub. And for persistent games like The Crew, how often are they actually supported for more than a decade?
It's not like you actually own any of your Steam games either.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't bought Prince of Persia and I am okay with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont blame ubisoft particularly on this occasion. Theyve just been candid and got a quote published...
theyre all thinking like that now, not just ubisoft. Heck even steam had been going on that line of tought since inception - its not subscription and they made sure to garantee acess to things (even if a title stops being sold) but legally speaking we dont 'own' anything on steam either- and if they ever close shop its all gone
You can assign that stance and mentality to the entire gaming industry frankly, the exceptions are smaller indie devs and perhaps nintendo. Its not just gaming, ever since our internet got so good things like netflix and spotify changed the mindset and framing of CEOs everywhere
And what hes saying about getting the customers 'confortable' is just how things happen. Every new thing have a slow implementation until it gets normalized, its just how things are. Even credit cards took some time before they were around long enougth that it didnt seemed strange (and the conveniences won people over). They dont even need to try and do anything to make that happen- maybe they are, but everyone and their dog noticed how subscriptions been normalizing so its just a matter of time before theres only a small minority who wouldnt go for it anyway. The majority in the end wont mind so much... even if were loosing more then gaining - thats just how the masses go
I was on gamepass for awhile. I liked it- i could never shake the feeling of not owning anything (much more obvious then say steam); Even me being so hellbent on owning and collecting. I didnt saw gamepass as substitute to owning (and even increased my wishlist, titles to buy later), more like a more convenient rental
Frankly its always been like that. 'Owning' or the perception of it wasnt even such a thing in the begining- im old enough that my parents rented cartridges for my snes way more then cartridges i owned. I didnt grown up in the arcade golden era but there were arcades around and it never seemed so strange to pay for sessions dimes at a time for arcade machines. If history been just slight different it would never happened (owning as the main way)- it was the advent of newer consoles with cds (cheaper then cartridges) and pc gaming pre-internet (pre fast internet i mean) that made it happen.
For me GOG is the golden model(i wish steam went that route) - but frankly the owning thing have its issues too. My library is filled with way too many titles i either didnt like or finished and wont be coming back so why theyre there? I think theres space for both. In an ideal world we would only bother buying to own(actually owning) things we liked most or like to replay, like a curated collector- and renting or the current subscription would have its place as trying and even finishing games for much cheaper. IF you love/like it then you could buy/own later
The only missing part there is owning being REMOVED as an option at all
Comment has been collapsed.
PS: theres hope tough
Right now the subscription craze is at its height but like everything it will subside. Theres proof the model works and people get confortable with it but no one can sustain that many subscriptions... we just have to wait for the craze to pass
Pretty much all industries will try the model, hard.
Then they will all be competing with everyone- theyre not only competing with their similar on their field but with every service that asks a montlhy fee. Customers will have to prioritize... and the weakest will loose subscribers quickly IF they ever get many to begin with
Eventually they will either subside their goods to the best services that work- say, instead of their own platform going for gamepass, sony, etc...
...and to have a venue for profits in parallel to that what else can they do? They will sell, just like before.
Once all those publishers realize they cant survive on their libraries alone (ubisoft, ea, etc) their tune will change- and eventually they wont gain anything by pushing 'not owning'
I just dont know how old i will be (or if i will be around) for things to come around the other side
Comment has been collapsed.
You get it. I'd agree with most of your posts.
I only have less faith in the big publishers backing off from it. Same mess going on with streaming now. Max, Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Disney+, Paramount+, Peacock. It's getting a little too spread out from the time when Netflix was king. But so far, none of these major services have died. But this is a short term comment after all, 10 years from now the story might change.
I think Ubisoft is the most likely to fall but it has a cushion. That deal with Microsoft giving them streaming rights to all of Activision-Blizzard content (aka Call of Duty past and future). That's probably their long term play here. Microsoft keeps the downloaded versions, but at some point, there will be that audience that just wants to try the newest CoD quickly and they could sub for a month then drop. Similar behavior as what goes on now but a lot more people might be into that. Could even be the way that Playstation players maintain access to future CoD versions after the 10 year promise ends.
Meanwhile, EA Play can be bought on Steam and the basic version is included in Gamepass (which I assume MS pays them for inclusion). I think this cross integration is what helps ensure they won't fail either.
But whatever happens, I hope purchased copies continue being a thing. I hope their metrics do show subscription growth, but always maintaining a strong showing for outright ownership so they don't abandon the idea entirely.
Comment has been collapsed.
But the process have started (with streaming). They havent given up on their platforms yet, but theyre alreading loosening the tigh grip on their assets- things that were taken out and were exclusive to each studio platform are now poping up on prime and netflix. Prime have aditional fees to subscribe to content that were previous only found on particular platforms and ive been noticing more and more a few titles from those platforms are available on prime without extra fees.
Just recently netflix got a couple of hbo shows, yellowjackets and a few others that were also exclusives. Heck yellowjackets i recall was one of the main popular hitters from its owners (i forgot the platform). Only the first season out of 2 is on netflix so they havent given up entirely on their hopes... but lets be frank- you imagine too many people will subscribe to 'the yellowjackets platform' for yellowjackets season 2 alone?
Im sure eventually some platforms will close but many never will- depending on their costs vs small amount of faithful subscriber, deals, investors optics and other minutae they may keep up their services as an option- but that wont matter much when most of their catalog will be available elsewhere.
One thing that will never change tough is where to find it all- they will likely spread their deals, like half of hbo on netflix, other half on prime or another one
With gaming will be easier- sure we have splits like gog, epic... but steam is so massive everyone will relent their 'exclusives' to steam too
I think your hopes will be met- the only interest they have messing with purchases is to push platforms, wich are already struggling. I doubt they will have the courage to refrain purchases altogether- at most they may try to push people with cost, like their titles never going on discount or small discounts (making the monthly rent more enticing)... but the costs nowadays are so low its a no brainer to let some steady 60 dollars purchases coming in even if their renting proves more popular
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah, but there is another reason for the shift for streaming services. Timed exclusivity basically. I'm not as well versed at every show going to every service, but I do recall a few things like how AMC's The Walking Dead would only appear on Netflix after the season ended. So for those who wish to see ASAP, they have to watch on TV/pay for a service that covers AMC. This gets them more of the money than dropping on Netflix as they used to do. The need to see these shows immediately is what's helping them survive.
But I think it gets a little complex when it comes to the gaming side of things and trends. FOMO still exists for sure. But there's a large part of PC gaming culture that's into waiting for Steam sales, and we're kind of used to that.So when a company avoids Steam, it tends to cause us to avoid or wait for that company to give in. Because we have so much stuff we can choose on Steam, it's easy to not worry about missing one or two. And there's a bit of pride in building your collection in one place.
Subscription services don't carry that kind of pride, but that's a niche mindset at best. With how ingrained streaming services are now, that "pride" will be eroded as more grow up without that concept. Console gaming is actually kind of doing that indirectly. PS+ is required to play online AFAIK and there's a game pass version (CORE) for online and a few games. So people are already subbing for multiplayer with games they don't own as a bonus. If they can grow that mindset in the populace, that can be the turning point.
But at the end of the day, Ubisoft+ isn't one of those services. I think they know they need their purchases alongside their subscribers for the foreseeable future.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well put, havent tought about that- im not usually the kind that 'must watch right away', not ever since game of thrones (now that i think of it might been the only show that made that for me). Thats something i dont mind, as long as eventually they become acessible without paying a dozen subscriptions...
Btw now that you mentioned pc gaming im worried about consoles, i never think much of then- ive been out of the loop (pc gamer only), only ever owned a snes as a kid, but console gamers may be well underway to swallow that easier with all that paying for playing online nonsense and thinks like ps plu/xbox gold or whatever they were called.
Still none of that worries me more then what a generation growing on mobile +mtx might do. If subscriptions is what it takes for pc/console gaming to not turn into an microtransaction hell id take the least harmful poison. Its a depressive line of tought i know but realistically makes sense- AAA is all about shareholders and profit, with mobile 'games' made with a fraction of the budget getting into top grossing on mtx alone i fear that niche being butchered for us more then anything. I love indies, i know they will carry the banner if needed be- but damn will i miss good production AAA if they become nickel machines... if gamepasses keep things afloat let then come. I will still buy games where i could even if later, gladly
Comment has been collapsed.
If it helps, I think we will avoid the microtransaction only future for awhile. The businesses are about profit and live service is the biggest possibility of return. But many are failing quickly, and sometimes failing before even releasing. There was going to be a Last of Us online game, a Spider-Man online game, a Halo battle Royale just got canceled. One good live service game will cover up for a few losses. But if they're starting to not even let these see the light of day, I think they're starting to see it just might not work.
Comment has been collapsed.
theyre all thinking like that now, not just ubisoft.
Yup. And seeing people's reactions, this is why most companies usually weasel around it instead of being straightforward like Ubisoft.
Lying 1 - Being honest 0
Heck even steam had been going on that line of tought since inception - its not subscription and they made sure to garantee acess to things (even if a title stops being sold) but legally speaking we dont 'own' anything on steam either- and if they ever close shop its all gone
Exactly. It's basically a subscription system but instead of paying a monthly subscription you pay to add games to your collection. And then you pray that they make enough sells every month to keep everything up and running.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing Steam hasn't been doing for years. You don't own the games you buy, like in Gog.com. You buy a license to play the games through the Steam service as long as Steam decides; they can one-sidedly decide that you did whatever-they-choose-this-time and you no longer have access to "your" library of games. You don't even buy the license from the publisher. It's Steam who decides who can play what. Sure, you can counteract. Good luck suing Steam and not losing, even if you win.
Honestly, I was always against having anything to do with Steam. I have always been against all forms of vendor lock-in. It all started with my gf gifting me games in Steam because I had an account I used to buy some LOTRO expansion for very cheap long ago, and I didn't want her to have my Gog account to avoid being sent gifts. And now, almost five years later, I'm still giving money (very little this year and maybe coming years) to a system I distrust. I'm at fault, at the end.
At least I've started to play again, after a troubled long hiatus.
Comment has been collapsed.
F*cking liars
you don’t lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there.
Except if you don't log in for year and we remove your account.
Or if we decide to close servers for your game.
Comment has been collapsed.
WOW a whole year to log in once what a time wasting effort
Comment has been collapsed.
Well -it depends on where you have most of your games.
I play mostly on steam. I had to log in to ubisoft account just to not loose it lately. It's been idk 3 or 4 years since I logged in last time. And yeah it was a time wasting effort. What good games are on ubisoft anyway? Open world, cookie-cutter boredom simulators?
Comment has been collapsed.
well if you don't like Ubisoft games why do you care if you lose them then?
Comment has been collapsed.
I simply have some games on their platform and that's all. Why should I not care? Who likes to loose their stuff? And this "cookie-cutter garbage" is more like recent trend. I still have some games that I might play later.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok. That's something I can do. But what about second argument? Look at people who bought "the crew" and now were told that game would no longer run after march.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the fate of all online games. They die sooner or later.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is true for games that doesn't really work in single player (idk fe moba). The crew would technically work just fine as single player game. And yet - Ubisoft decided to make it unplayable anyway.
It's a good example why we shouldn't trust companies.
you don’t lose your progress.
GTA V was removed from Xbox game pass. The same can happen in any other case if people feel comfortable with "not owning their games".
Comment has been collapsed.
If it "technically" could work - it'd have worked. But it doesn't, therefore it technically can't work without servers. Otherwise it would be another game with a single player mode.
And if you don't trust companies I wonder how you've ended up here, on the site giving away games for the capitalistic Valve's Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
The game was made on purpose to not work without servers. And there are many other games like that. If community of gamers will be OK with "not owning" games - that kind of stuff would be more and more popular.
I don't know what has steam to do with it. I can play games on steam offline. Some don't even need steam running and can launch from their .exe. Also I have no idea why you bring "capitalistic" as some sort of argument. All companies making games are capitalistic. I would go further and say that there will be no games without capitalism. Because why even make them if not for profit.
I have problem with companies that treat their customers as necessary evil standing between them and our wallets. That's it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Online only games exist as long as the online itself. To some people it's okay, to some it's not and they don't play (and pay for) them. You can't demand from companies to make things to yours liking, they don't owe you anything.
I mentioned Steam because you don't own any of games you "bought" there. They only rent you a permission to play the games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, companies owe everything to consumers. Let's not pretend they exist without us or our money. They absolutely do not.
That said, it's far more cost effective to sub for a month and play the game or games you really want to play without paying a AAA price tag to own it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Consumers exist until companies exist. I wonder where you'd spend your money if all companies vanished. They depend on each other but they don't owe anything to each other. A company isn't obliged to please everybody as a consumer isn't obliged to buy everything he can.
Comment has been collapsed.
People can exist without companies and without currency. That's a simple, historical fact. Companies OTOH can't exist without consumers and their money. Also a fact. Companies/corporations do in fact owe their existence to consumers. Anyone saying otherwise is trying to sell you something from their overlords.
Comment has been collapsed.
Companies are a result of a high demand by consumers. And vice versa when consumers want to purchase goods in large quantities they need someone who could produce them. It's not possible without companies, that's a simple economic fact. Anyone denying it requires a good economy book.
Comment has been collapsed.
You really are a corporate schill as pointed out below. Ouch.
Say hello to your overseers for us.
Comment has been collapsed.
Stop being corporate shill ok?
Online only games exist as long as the online itself.
Why can you play first or 2nd diablo without online, but cant 3rd or 4th?
Why can you play starcraft without being online and can't sc2?
What about mentioned above The Crew?
These games would work just fine offline. Only reason to make them on-line only is urge of company to have absolute control over user. To the point where they can change stuff or even remove completely without permission.
you don't own any of games you "bought" there
I don't know about you, but I own stuff that I bought. I don't own stuff that I rented. Just like I have physical copy of book in my house, or diablo 2 on 3 cd's - I have DIGITAL COPY of stuff that I bought. Corpos sure would like to change the definition of word "buy" to fit their greedy agenda, but that don't work with every country. Keep in mind, that if TOS is breaking the law - the law has higher priority. We are in the middle of a war between consumers and corporations. We - the consumers want to own stuff we bought. Corporations want to own the stuff we bought and change the meaning of word "buy" so it would be the same as rent.
In that case those game passes and similar are more honest. At least you are told that this is renting the games at the start.
Comment has been collapsed.
Stop being corporate shill ok?
It would be really appreciated if you stop insult people you don't know.
Why can you play first or 2nd diablo without online, but cant 3rd or 4th?
Obviously because Internet wasn't available to a vast majority of players these times.
These games would work just fine offline.
Says who? Are you a developer of the games?
I have DIGITAL COPY of stuff that I bought.
If you "bought" it on Steam you don't own any digital copies because Steam doesn't sell games. And I'm not even going to argue about this, it was all discussed numerous times.
Comment has been collapsed.
it was all discussed numerous times.
And yet you don't get meaning of basic words. You sure are brainwashed. For further reference:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/
buy: to obtain something by paying money for it:
rent: a fixed amount of money that you pay regularly for the use of a room, house, car, television, etc. that someone else owns
Comment has been collapsed.
Obviously you don't know that the legal English and the casual English are not the same. You can't argue in a court with an English dictionary. Also I didn't say that Steam doesn't sell anything. They sell permissions to play games using their platform but not the games itself. And if you give yourself a trouble to search one of discussions I've mentioned before you'd already knew this.
Comment has been collapsed.
They sell permissions to play games using their platform but not the games itself.
Ok. Now please. I suppose thet I have to repeat myself, because you ignored that part. TOS is not above the law.
Again: TOS is not above the law.
What I obtain from STEAM is digiatal copy of a game, with permission to play it. Just like years before, but without physical medium. I don't have rights to sell it as my game or modify it and do other things without buying copyrights to that game. Please don't confuse these things.
It doesn't make sense. You can't have permissions to play without files needed for playing. When you buy game, you buy access to files and right to use them. You don't own copyrights, but you own your digital copy.
Companies try to make it works as you described - and they were indeed in courts and in many cases lost. Just search what changes were forced on steam in order to keep selling games in EU.
I suppose that in Texas it's differnt. If there is something about giving them your kidney in TOS - then they have legal right to come to your house and take your kidney (im exaggerating ofc).
Keep in mind that laws differs between countries and are constantly changing. Again - we are in the middle of war between consumers and corporations. People who mindlesly follow what corporations says are just pathetic. What's next? Subscription plan for using some parts already installed in your car? Trains with DRM that can be switched off in the middle of the field if company detects unauthorised repair? Oh wait - we already have those. The fact that greedy asholes want to force some rules doesn't mean we can't fight back.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see that you have some pretty specific understanding how does law work and I'm tired to say the same things again and again. You can live in any imaginary world you like, it's your life not mine.
Comment has been collapsed.
imaginary world
Bruh. Valve lost in court this year. And the case was basically what we discussed above (they appealed though - but it's just buying time). But sure thing - stick to your "slave-like" understanding of how does law work.
Comment has been collapsed.
You shouldn't only consume news that caused an uproar but also follow-ups.
Ubisoft doesn't delete any accounts with a purchased game.
https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/account/article/closure-of-inactive-ubisoft-accounts/000079595
Comment has been collapsed.
Deep-Down inside.They want users to pay for each install just like Unity.Ubisoft continues to work hard....in the wrong direction.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't pay for subscriptions services because I want to own what I buy so I have the ability to play it again anytime I want in the future and don't have to worry about losing it. I don't care what these companies or the law says about not owning what I buy. When I buy a game, I am not buying a temporarily license that they can take away. If I buy a game, I have the right (in my mind) to play it forever, and if they steal it away from me, I am not paying for it again, I will simply steal it back. If they start taking away digital things we paid to purchase, people will be afraid to buy anything digital and everyone will start going this route. They will lose trust and therefore money and it will be their fault. Sorry for all the run-on sentences :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm already very comfortable not owning Ubisoft games
Comment has been collapsed.
Apparently people are also comfortable with not owning their stock.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow. I knew things were not great for Ubi but I didn't know it was such a downward trend.
All these bone-headed decisions like going into cartoons for Netflix, "focusing on mobiles games... oops, no, forget it", Rocksmith+ and selling games DLC as full games really don't make investors very confident I guess.
Not to mention their complete mishandling of harassment issues
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I didn't know it was this bad either. Kinda explains why did they come back to Steam. Yet they're still trying to make their users angry. People don't even like separate launchers. I wouldn't surprise if they got acquired by Microsoft in the end after all these shenanigans.
Comment has been collapsed.
Micro$oft is definitely keeping an eye out on the price of these shares.
One more stumble and they'll pounce, imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is also Tencent. If I remember correctly, they already have 5% of Ubisoft. They might go further with these stocks.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think they are more interested in Mobile games because they make easy money there.
But maybe they'd like to branch out of it and acquiring Ubisoft would definitely give them a good way to do that.
Not that Ubi couldn't do with a shake-up at the top level. Their games are not always great but the good ones they do have get ruined by poor marketing strategies and cash grab tactics
Comment has been collapsed.
They also own 40% of Epic Games, which is kinda scary to be honest. They usually prefer mobile but they're not so distant from PC gaming. It's much better if Ubisoft can thrive on its own since this industry have many vultures. Perhaps they want to be eaten, who knows.
Comment has been collapsed.
Right now it looks like they are legally limited by the partnership they made 2 years ago but that only prevents them from a direct hostile takeover.
They could partner with someone else, like Microsoft, or a third party investor.
Or Guillemot could decide to sell more shares to Tencent to take on a less active and more lucrative role.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they commit to hostile takeover, they can do it any time I guess. Partnering with someone else seems more probable to me as well.
Even EA didn't make this mistake and their subscription is cheaper. Well, at least for now, they're not better than Ubisoft. Though they sure know their crowd better than Ubisoft.
Comment has been collapsed.
They're not distant from PC gaming, no. Tencent Games owns Riot Games at 100%.
They're the makers of League of Legends (and its spin-off games) and Valorant, two of the biggest esports games - and they're PC only.
Comment has been collapsed.
Profit-taking, acquisitions, mergers, lay-offs.... the business world has a contingency and a term for everything. I find merger-narratives to be very interesting. Acquisitions that are 'buying up' usually buy out competition. Others are consolidating whilst others are business rescue. But how often does stock price have nothing to do with daily operations, it's just a hedging for wealth and profit-taking scheme, with the stakes of litigation to liquidation as a hedge. The economy has incentive to hedge as much as possible, and in essence profit-taking presents an opportunity for new investors to realize gains, but others investors send deliberate messages this way as well. Its a fascinating world if it didn't frustrate me as much as well. Ultimately we would want everyone to be doing well. Because hedged wealth realizes gains. The economy sees taxation as growth so technically youre hedged wealth comes from excessive taxation lmao. Score for the people who had an extra $10k to drop on a value stock, thats the motivation supposedly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why is EA worst company in America? Because Ubisoft is in France.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hahahaha
Ubisoft is in France
Also Brazil, Canada, Mexico, Italy, Spain, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, and Royal Leamington Spa (???) in the UK
I guess they open a new office every time a corporate guy wants a paid vacation disguised as a business trip.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's over! This company is already Chinese, not French. Tencent completely owns Ubisoft. Open your wallet, Tencent needs more money from the laowai to financing the Chinese Communist Party.
Comment has been collapsed.
No wonder ubisoft gets worse and worse. It's always tencent. Whatever they touch becomes a toxic thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just LOL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent
Ubisoft - Ownership stake - 9.99%
So maybe the Chinese Communist Party have the 9.99% to blame for the bad actions of Ubisoft, I wonder who gets 90.01 of the blame?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well yes and no. They made a deal a couple of years back for a minority stake that's been limited legally for 8 years to prevent them from getting control of the company while Ubisoft was able to refinance their debt... but they could make a partnership with a third party for a hostile takeover or Guillemot could decide to sell them more shares and to take a backseat for more money and less worries.
So while it owns "only 9.99%", and is a silent partner for now, it's not unnecessarily something that will last.
Comment has been collapsed.
interesting information, but at the moment they are not to blame for Ubisoft's policies, who knows if Tencent finally decides to go for the whole cake, maybe it won't be so bad... maybe...
Comment has been collapsed.
No you're absolutely right. They do not even have voting rights.
I honestly think they have bigger fish to fry and that Ubisoft is not going to be on their radar of acquisitions.
And the fact Ubisoft is adding the Activision Blizzard catalog to Ubisoft+ gives me an inkling Microsoft might be on the case more than Tencent is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just LOL
Since 2022 Tencent have a 49,9% stake in Guillemot Bros., which has the largest single shareholders in Ubisoft. Tencent are now the largest owners of the Ubisoft company and can influence the direction of the company's developments.
https://www.eurogamer.net/tencent-seeks-to-become-single-largest-ubisoft-shareholder-report
https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/tencent-acquires-stake-ubisofts-family-holding-2022-09-06/
Chinese semi-goverment companies are doing the same maneuvers in N+S America, in Europe, in other industries, not only in video games, but also in automobiles, aviation, microelectronics, chemicals, medicine, pharmaceuticals, wherever it can serve the benefit of China and give control levers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if I read the articles correctly, there is nothing to fear, Reuters clearly says that:
"The pact involves Tencent's acquisition of 49.9% of Guillemot Brothers Limited - the holding company that owns the bulk of the family's 15% stake in Ubisoft - with 5% voting rights, Ubisoft said in a statement on Tuesday evening."
but in the end if the communists are the owners with 100%, it doesn't matter, I don't live in the 50s and from what I know of history the biggest mistakes are the fault of capitalism, and in any case I don't discriminate based on political beliefs, everyone can believe in whatever system he wants as long as he is responsible as a citizen and does not blame the other side...
Comment has been collapsed.
The interesting part is, even if you were interested in an upcoming game or such, you would just subscribe for 1 month, beat the game; don't renew. It is true it provides Ubisoft with a constant flow of money from those who want to play games for a longer time or have more titles. But players like me, would simply not renew it or give a damm at all.
And in case of games that have a lot of grind or no clear end; like The Division for example; it simply depends on cost vs time your going to be having in that game. I personally do not like subscription base stuff; because every single time I'm playing or doing something else, I feel like I'm "wasting" what I paid for; so I just avoid those in the 1st place to not have such sensation when playing other games.
Comment has been collapsed.
They have games tailored for that kind of paying model. Even single player games.
Huge open world.
Insane amount of collectibles.
Shitload of copy-paste tasks.
Grind
It's a trap I tell you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ubisoft has to be ok with me never giving them money again. Which is easy since I've already been doing that for 10ish years.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, I know, another Ubisoft thread but it seems they're pushing their agenda hard. After reading this article, this thread (Ubisoft has officially lost their minds) started to make sense. It seems they want you to buy Ubisoft+ instead of individual games. On the long run it's more profitable for them. If no one owns an individual licenses, no one will complain about when those games' "services" have ended (win-win for them, surprise surprise).
Comment has been collapsed.