I remember when they said “players should get used to not owning their games”.
Well Ubisoft. You should get used to not getting a penny outta me forever.
Steam says the same thing and everyone jerks them. Plus the quote was actually out of context.
While you don’t technically own the DRM games you buy on Steam, it’s a whole world different than putting games behind subscriptions.
It’s not Steam’s decision to make. The statement you’re referring to is just Steam highlighting a decision made by the game publishers. Even if Steam didn’t highlight it, it would still exist, as you would see if you read the games’ license terms before paying.
Ubisoft is a game publisher. They actually make the decision that you don’t own the games you pay for.
valve is a publisher too, and they have the exact same policy for their games.
Practically all game publishers do. Sadly, it’s the industry standard.
(By the way, you linked Steam’s subscriber agreement, which concerns Steam’s service and client software, not the games bought on Steam. Maybe you meant to link a Valve game license?)
In any case, it doesn’t matter here, because the complaint was about Steam, not Valve.
I’ve never had Steam entirely revoke a game from my library that I paid for though.
It happens every few years when a publisher gets petty:
- https://steamcommunity.com/groups/Sentinels_of_the_Store/announcements/detail/4157463936692986362
- https://steamcommunity.com/groups/Sentinels_of_the_Store/announcements/detail/2495505669486891393
- https://steamcommunity.com/groups/Sentinels_of_the_Store/announcements/detail/2239921952554905285
- https://steamcommunity.com/groups/Sentinels_of_the_Store/announcements/detail/2736357490467304767
Mellow_Online1 Officer 20 Sep, 2017 @ 1:55pm Update: Valve has stepped in and keys have been reinstated, previous owners of the game should now have it in their library
Seems like the developer was dumb and steam did everything right…?
Yea, but the whole notion that Steam just lets developers do this, sometimes repeatedly…
What are you talking about? If the developer says XYZ are stolen/bla keys of course steam has to do that? Stop trying to put blame on steam here, they did everything right. First help the developer and then go back once it was clear they were doing bullshit. Not saying steam is a saint, but holy fuck are they the best of all of them by a long shot.
I don’t get the downvotes. You’re right, everything you “own” in steam is through a license. People just don’t like to admit that we’re willing to let that one slide for convenience.
the downvotes are because it’s borderline misinformation:
whether a game comes with DRM or not has nothing to do with steam, and everything to do with the publisher.
plenty of games on steam are completely DRM free!
(…but the majority does have DRM, which, again, is on the publisher, not steam)
Don’t bother reading the EULA for all commercial software then. You don’t actually own anything you purchase.
Unless you have the code there is no freedom and it is all an illusion.
Yeah, that’s the point I and the person above were stating.
I was pretty sure Steam was getting dunked on because you don’t actually own the games according to the contract. I was just pointing out this is also true of any commercial piece of software.
For example, you go to GameStop and buy a physical copy of your favorite game. When you install it the EULA makes it clear you don’t actually own the product, just a license.
True but if I own the .exe or physical disk, it’s going to be a lot harder to stop me playing the game than if I’m accessing it through a platform.
That is a good point.
I may be misremembering but don’t some steam games have no drm? KSP1 and Ultrakill come to mind, are they still on a licence like games with drm?
You are right - https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_Big_List_of_DRM-Free_Games_on_Steam.
My main arguement though was that it’s not like your steam library is yours without restrictions. You’re agreeing to Steams terms and services and there are lots of ways they can prevent you from playing (most) games you “own”.
Gamers are not always the most unfrozen pogos of the box.
Or as I like to say, two buns short of a hamburger
If their customers are going to have to get used to not owning games they paid for, I guess Ubisoft is going to get used to not having money 🤷🏻
Works for steam tho Edit: apparently Ubisoft wanted subscriptions, so steam isn’t exactly comparable
In addition to Steam not being subscriptions, Valve has so far not screwed over their users. The way the Ubisoft exec suggested that we should change our attitude really showed what they in plan
Gross. Good riddance!
Sucks for the workers but I hope this continues. Fuck Ubisoft
Goodwill with your playerbase doesn’t show up on a quarterly report, but without it your company is sunk.
It’s incredible that a company with the resources of Ubisoft couldn’t figure that out, even with people shouting it at them daily.
External MBAs taking over running businesses will either result in this or making a billion dollar company through the heavy exploitation of their workers and the consumers. I think the vast majority are the former though.
I think the big “issue” is that there’s a notable lag between loss of goodwill and loss of income/profit/value, and there’s an even bigger lag between trying to fix goodwill and returns on that. It makes it too hard for any profit-first company to get right.
I think you’re absolutely right. When these studios go public and start having pressure from shareholders, it starts the gradual decline in quality.
I think when all these famous studios were interesting, they still by inertia functioned the way people with actual skills founded them. I’m thinking of BioWare, Black Isle, Obsidian, but reading the history of any famous video game studio gives that impression. It was a rather personal business in 90s and early 00s, it seems.
Then the “professionals” came and started “fixing” everything, and something about today’s computing makes me personally deeply disgusted of anything advertised there.
I don’t want a shooter not better than a hundred Q3 clones, but taking 50GB disk space. I don’t even want it with “photorealistic” (no they aren’t) graphics. I don’t want CK3 because it’s slow and has too much bullshit happening, the secret of success is in quality of content more than amount, and more is not always better if a player gets bored with small events. I admit, I haven’t tried Hogwarts Legacy, put from what people say its open world is as useful as Daggerfall’s map the size of England, because most things on that map are all the same, though as a dungeon crawler Daggerfall is still better than typical modern game. And Star Wars - its Expanded Universe mostly came into existence in the 90s, it’s designed the way very convenient for all kinds of video games, or any entertainment and any secondary art at all, and George Lucas approached that theoretically before making the first movie (the “obscenely huge profits” part he may or may not have considered, but it came as a welcome bonus, I suppose), and still every modern time Star Wars game is just not interesting to me ; my favorite one is KotORII, so there is, of course, a gap between me and the majority, but it’s still baffling how didn’t they even try to make an X-Wing remake.
One can go on. People want to play interesting games. Very few people play games because of “more, better, wider” in ad. The whole idea of a game is to be interesting. It’s entertainment. It’s not “I’ve got a new iPhone and you don’t” dick size contest. Some game being very technically cool, but absolutely bullshit in gameplay, writing, UI design, character design, location design etc, - is not entertaining. Some other game being technically a visual novel (not necessarily), but with all those things done well, - it is entertaining.
So, making a good game doesn’t even require a lot of very competent and very stressed CS heroes working since dawn till dusk to the extent of their ability.
Simplified: capitalism made these studios shitty, just as it’s done for gestures broadly
I live in the midst of something that can be very carefully called capitalism. It was called socialism once and then the “socialist administrators” did sort of a rebranding.
Point being - yes, this is simplification.
“review and pursue various transformational strategic and capitalistic options to extract the best value for stakeholders”.
Ah there it is. That’s the only thing that matters anyway.
fyi, in case someone isn’t clear on the difference:
stakeholder ≠ shareholder
stakeholders are basically all people involved, including staff, and even stuff like landlords, janitors, citizens (sometimes things like parents), etc.
it’s anyone with a stake in an organizations operations!
example: a city decides to create a new bus route. in this case, stakeholders include the local residents, the companies involved in creating the route, the companies supplying the buses, the mechanics needed to keep the fleet running, etc., etc.
there’s a usually a LOT of stakeholders, and typically you don’t always include everyone in every little decision because it quickly becomes unmanageable. so only the most relevant ones are included in most decisions, and who exactly that is depends on the project.
shareholders on the other hand are what everyone is probably thinking of, and that’s the people (“people” being used generously here) only interested in next quarters profits. you know! the parasites!
of course the message is still bullshit and nothing but coded corpo-speech for “shareholders”, but i thought some folks might be interested in knowing the difference anyhow.
even if, in this case, it’s only important to highlight the extra special bullshit they put into the statement…
Good point and thanks for pointing it out, I misread it. A shareholder and stakeholder aren’t (necessarily) the same indeed.
actually good point on your part too, cause i should have mentioned that as well:
shareholders can also be stakeholders!
totally not confusing or anything…
i really hate basically all the language around finance…
It feels like a complete bloodbath with the job situation in the gaming industry in the west.
The worst thing is none of the executives are getting fired (in a proper manner, no golden parachutes and clawbacks on any stock based compensation).
The worst thing is none of the executives are getting fired (in a proper more manner, no golden parachutes and clawbacks on any stock based compensation).
lol, welcome to the west
Yeah? The executives are firing people, to lower costs, make the numbers look better…? Which makes the owners of the business money?
Why wouldn’t the executives get bonuses or golden parachutes if let go? They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.
Executives don’t make products, provide services, or add any productive value. They are just the face of the owners, and will do the “hard” things for them.
Like lie, commit crimes, do mass-layoffs etc etc.
Executives are responsible for the direction of the company. They aren’t just there to cut costs (at least, not usually). They’re there to see what opportunities the company to move into, and guide them to success.
This is the opposite of what most executives at these gaming companies have done lately. They’ve driven up budgets and pushed them in a direction that makes people not want to purchase their games, causing them to fail.
If a company has to fire employees then that’s the fault of the executives. They should be taking cuts first, not the people who were doing their job well but were just pointed in the wrong direction.
Do you always argue with people that agree with you? How is that helpful?
I feel horrible for the people affected, because for a lot of them, this was probably a dream job, but Ubisoft will get 0 sympathy from me
And they probably had to sweat blood and tears to get there, because the videogame industry is a harsh mistress.
All the people making the shitty decisions will be fine. Everyday people will be the ones to lose their jobs, as is always the way in these things. :-/
That’s a shame, that was the studio that worked on Guitar Hero Live. I kind of liked that game
I like to think I had a very tiny hand in this, since I never pay for Ubisoft games I play.
I went one step better and didn’t even play them.
I can respect that.
The employees should form a cooperative, they are the ones with the skills, the actual producers
deleted by creator
Fuck Ubisoft
they should start by laying off executives and commercials who had that veeeery bad ideas of forcing internet connection even on offline mode, forcing Ubisoft Launcher even on steam and thinking that making a game pass with just Ubisoft IP was a good idea…
Spoiler alert: those were finally not good idea at all
In Skull and Bones they couldn’t even replicate the experience from their own previous IP, and then advertised is as AAAA game. It’s a disgrace - they deserve to burn.
When that game came out I bought AC4 for $5 instead. Had a fun time and the graphics still look modern anyway
a year
a week
Owners doing everything but admit they’re finished and just ride off into the sunset on their golden horse.
So… You’re saying to buy?
I was lucky enough to catch the big dip a few months back, my hope is that they have a big enough library that someone just buys it. But the Guillemot’s want to have their cake and eat it by selling but maintaining control. There’s a big old battle with the big shareholders and the Guillemot’s. It jumped 33% when tencent made plans to buy it. Course they could just liquidate the whole thing and walk off. The Guillemot’s really are being almost negligent at this point I think now more people have lost their jobs for ego.
Closure ? So… Ubisoft is gone ?
Just one of its studios, not the whole company.
Ubisoft Leamington is gone. Ubisoft as a whole is still around (for now)
Booo
