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.
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?
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.
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 comfortable with the subscription model despite it taking away any possibility to play when you stop paying.
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.
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
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.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-new-ubisoft-and-getting-gamers-comfortable-with-not-owning-their-games
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 comfortable with the subscription model despite it taking away any possibility to play when you stop paying.