- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
If only bankruptcy actually meant consequences for those responsible.
Pretty much. The leadership team all have a golden parachute and will be integrated back into an industry and fuck that up too.
It’s a shame that they don’t have a literal golden parachute.
I sentence the investors and executives to lives of extreme luxury
Eat shit and die motherfucker
Gamers say that Ubisoft execs need to get comfortable with not being solvent.
I’m afraid Ubisoft execs won’t feel much from that.
Ubisoft execs need to get comfortable flying coach.
You love to see it
ubisoft needs to get comfortable with not existing.
Ubisoft just needs to get comfortable with no longer owning their games. 😈
I don’t think i even play Ubisoft games, they can go down for all i care.
I’m a very casual gamer. Where can I find out what Ubisoft is doing to get them so much hate?
It is difficult to know where to start, since there have been a lot of unpopular actions. A lot of these are pretty standard for the triple A studios unfortunately. Think DRM with always online and authentication server issues, toxic workplace, decommissioned games by removing the servers for them and not giving ways for people to self host, rehashing existing properties to milk success, having their own launcher so having double layers of authentication, microtransactions, subscription based model pushing, game variants locking out certain content unless more money is payed etc.
decommissioned games by removing the servers for them
The pirated version usually works.
and I was mad when I couldn’t local host StarCraft anymore.
I really try to avoid recreation companies with human right ‘challenges ’ like abusive working environments.
So is Ubisoft worse than most others ? Do they do that junk on console games as well? Like if I got an Ubisoft game for switch would I need a non-Nintendo account?
Based on the words of internet strangers I will not purchase their games. Sounds like way to much to go though just to play a game. Do people really go though all of that to game?
It sounds like way too much effort
Ubisoft games on game pass require ubisoft logins. Not sure about switch. Steam versions usually require it too.
At this point I think its smart for most people to just pirate ubisoft stuff if they really want to play it.
A year ago Ubisoft exec gave an interview where he said that the next leap in gaming industry should be fueled by gaming subscriptions, and that gamers should get comfortable playing by subscription as opposed to buying and owning game licenses.
He then proceeded to give an example on how players got comfortable switching from physical media and full ownership to digital licenses.
This caused a massive player backlash on the wave of protests against the migration from ownership to subscriptions (aka “You’ll own nothing and be happy”). Ubisoft has got a financial dent as sales and subscriptions dropped, and is now facing a problematic financial future.
Thanks. Is that like how steam or console games need to connect to a server to validate a game before you play, so when the server stops so does your game or is this worse than that? Can’t say that idea appeals to me either.
Anything else ? or was that enough
Steam doesn’t do that. Some games on Steam do, but it’s the games deciding to do that, not Steam.
There are many games on Steam that are DRM free and can be played offline and without Steam running or being installed at all.
That’s what happens with DRM and digital licensing, which was considered by the exec to have most players already onboard.
Here, he was talking about gaming subscriptions, i.e. paying a monthly fee to have access to a library of games. Once you stop paying, games become unavailable, and games outside the subscription are not available either. His idea is to make more gamers are more comfortable with the subscription model despite it taking away any possibility to play when you stop paying.
And nothing of value will be lost.
Yeah but… You do get that you don’t own any of your games on Steam, Epic, whatever either?
Just GOG is DRM free.itch.io as well
Id just like to point out when you read the full article the context is different than the headline as usual. But regardless Ubisoft deserves their demise.
You’re not wrong, but Ubisoft were absolutely tone deaf for saying that.
steam can be DRM free as well but it depends on the game to use or not the Steam API for license…
I took their advice and got comfortable not owning Ubisoft games.
They make it so easy: anything they release I’ve already played years ago already.
i quit after AC4. kept up with the news and reviews, seems I never really missed anything good.
“Company fails to generate infinite revenue even after implementing every abusive tactic known”.
Imagine, about five years ago, they peaked at $82.
It was also during that time when they talked about getting into Crypto, NFTs, and all sorts of other get rich quick schemes.
Now look at them.
More like, company keeps pushing for short-term profits, runs out of goodwill built up in the past.
Ubisoft had many long standing issues, but disowning The Crew users was the worst possible move they could have made in their already dire situation.
I played and enjoyed both of them, shutting down the first one instead of giving it offline functionality really pissed me off and was the final straw for me with Ubi. It had a fully offline playable story, NPC vehicles to race etc. and the game would’ve been preserved forever.
Instead we got the crew 2, always online AAA signature garbage.
I want to say the same thing…
But then you have like every other corporation on earth doing the same, and most of them see their stock price soar.
Don’t you mean… AAAA company?
Ubisoft is clearly a tone-deaf company. But that doesn’t change that this comment has been frequently cited in some very out-of-context ways.
For those who don’t know, the not-owning games comment was in reply to an investor asking why people were reticent to try out Ubisoft+, their monthly service that lets people play pretty much all their games. He was suggesting many people are not used to the option of mass rental as opposed to ownership. But, many Game Pass subscribers (at least before their price increase) can attest that when the value proposition is good enough, it is an appealing option, wherein you accept impermanent access to get more games. In that sense, he was right.
So far as I can see, the intent of the comment had nothing to do with people who buy “lifetime” copies of their games. There’s separate criticisms to make about poor online implementations leading games like The Crew to be yoinked, and I’m in favor of that regulation. But Ubisoft is hardly alone in the way they’ve mishandled that, and the quote had nothing to do with it. I feel like most people pointing to it have only a vague idea of what corporate greed it represents, as though CEOs just want a way to delete your library and somehow make money from it.
The opinion isn’t even incorrect. I have the XBOX game pass and the value is pretty great for pc users.
I usually pick up a game and play a while then drop it when I get bored, so having a lot of options is great.
No one could have predicted this, no one.
