I for one am quite comfortable not giving them any more of my money either.
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
145 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
30488 readers
145 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm comfortable not owning their games. In fact, I want their games as far away from me as possible.
For most games, I'm fine with renting my games. If they charge a reasonable continuous rental fee and not a crazy one-off price that will make the game available for some unspecified amount of time at the publisher's discretion. For example, I could imagine paying $2 / month to play Assassin's Creed. And if it turns out to be boring I can just stop renting it.
I’m with you. It’s hip to hate on Ubisoft, but I’m of the impression that subscription based gaming has already gained traction with Game Pass. The article is spot on though when the author remarks that Ubisoft offering their library at 18$ a month is a hard bargain. Especially considering Game Pass is currently at 10$ a month... and includes Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, Origins & Odyssey.
For this to work it would have to be like, hourly or minutely billing. This takes care of the multiple games issue as you’ll likely never play more than one at a time and don’t pay for the time you don’t play it that month. You can try a game for a few days or a week and stop playing and also stop paying. You can try some indie games because you’d only be spending $0.05/hr or something.
Or you just have to include a whole library of games like Game Pass or access to all of Steam or something which would allow you to hop games yet not own them.
I’d still want to be able buy games I intend on playing for years (like Skyrim or Civ or City Skylines). So maybe a “rent to own” scheme would be cool.
I wish rent-to-own was a more common model. Unfortunately the only examples I know of in real life involve customers paying several times the retail cost of the items they rent before they actually own them.
What I'd really like to see is a system that keeps rental and purchase prices roughly where they are, except that once you've paid rental fees equal to the purchase price, it counts as a purchase. That would relieve me of having to guess whether I'll be using something enough to buy it, and I doubt it would hurt seller's profits.
For digital goods you would be right about sellers profits (to a degree, discarding the minuscule amount of interest the money of your purchase could accrue), for physical the use does degrade the worth faster so the seller would loose out.
So you’ve had the game for 3 years and you’ve now payed more than the retail price. Are you going to keep paying for it, or do you expect it to be “yours”. Also, as with most things digital, let’s say you invest a hundred hours, almost get to the end and…. They decide to yank the game from their service. No ending for you. Thoughts on that? Both are very real scenarios by “renting” the game.
I think renting should be renting, and purchasing should be purchasing. I'm okay with renting and what that entails (e.g. they might remove the service in the future and I won't ever own the game). I'm also fine with buying games, and for some games that have a lot of sentimental value or replayability I do want to own them.
What I'm not okay with is the current state of affairs, where they make it seem as if you buy the game and you pay full price, but legally it's only "licensed" to you and the license can be revoked at any time. It's all the disadvantages you describe with renting, but with the price of buying. So that's what I had in mind with my comment: I'd be content instead of angry if they offered a rental service with honest terms of service and a fair price, instead of the bullshit they're pulling right now.
If there was a proper rental service I would likely rent a lot of games that I wanted to try out. Then I would go to GOG to buy DRM-free versions of the games I want to keep for a long time. Games like Civ5, RimWorld and Cyberpunk 2077. I think I wouldn't need to rent a game for three years to figure out that I want to buy it, more like a month.
I've said before that being a PS Plus subscriber has changed the types of games I play by making indie games more accessible to try, with low stakes. Prior, I usually reserved my funds for what I assumed was the biggest bang with AAA titles.
There's value there with having a library of games to just try out. That being said, the trajectory of subscription services generally and "digital ownership" (see Playstation's recent Discovery kerfuffle) is really concerning.
I think Ubisoft's mindset here is on the wrong track (surprise...). Luckily, as others have said, there's not a lot of temptation here for Ubisoft's modern library (Prince of Persia being an admitted exception).
So long as they are comfortable with me never buying them.
Companies claiming you don't own your games are admitting that piracy isn't stealing
I think this model can work, and has its benefits (like with Game Pass). To be clear though, Ubisoft's offering is shit and not worth the price they're asking. And one thing I absolutely hate is the (sometimes timed) exclusivity on some of these platforms. The Lost Crown looks great for example, but Ubisoft are trying to force people to use their service by not offering it on Steam.
Personally I don't really mind not 'owning' the game in most cases. 9 times out of 10, I'll play a game and be done with it. Short, linear indie games for example are perfect for a Game Pass type model. What we don't need is 10 similar subscriptions with their own exclusives.
This. I already don't own my music (Tidal, Spotify) or my movies (Netflix, etc) and I already have been using Gamepass for years just fine.
But movie streaming is a HOT MESS right now. I looked up the X-Men movie franchise the other day for some reason. No joke, it's split across 3 or 4 different streaming services! And next month, it could change. There are streaming services like Peacock or Paramount that have absolutely NOTHING worth watching except one or two shows (e.g. Parks and Rec or Picard) and I really want to watch it but there's no way I'm throwing down money for a streaming service just to watch one fucking show. All it does is piss me off.
If the same garbage happens with gaming where everyone thinks making their own is the way to go, instead of just using a few big ones, it will not succeed. Ubisoft making their own is a bad idea. It's bad for us for the reasons above and it's bad for them because we won't use it.
But movie streaming is a HOT MESS right now. I looked up the X-Men movie franchise the other day for some reason. No joke, it's split across 3 or 4 different streaming services!
Dunkey made a pretty hilarious video about this a few days ago.
The Pokémon bit was especially funny.
It's funny that he mentioned Spiderman and John Wick, two other examples I was thinking about mentioning because they came up recently.
The Pokemon bit ending with "Easy." was solid. :-D
You have the same problem with Steam already for years.. I mean you do not have a physical copy anymore. In fact if Steam is down, you might not be able to download, play or play multiplayer. So you own nothing and be happy - WEF.
And people think I'm crazy for buying physical discs of movies and having 20+ hdds spinning
I did thought you were crazy in the past indeed. Since digital is the future, right? It might still is, but for some reason all game studios, producers and distributors like ubisoft or steam just create bad software/games. Where you need 24/7 internet connection and doesn't allow you to own a digital offline copy of the product. It's not just games.
That is crazy. Why not upgrade to SSDs instead of HDDs?
Cost per GiB is higher and long term reliability is lower in most scenarios.
The failure scenarios for spinning rust tends to work better with large storage arrays as well.
Not all absolutes, but enough of them are true on a common enough basis that spending the extra on SSD's isn't usually worth it.
If you want some real in depth explanations there's probably a datahoarder community somewhere or reddit if you are so inclined.
I can get a 20tb HDD right now for $300. When I am talking about 100s of TBs it makes a difference
Steam is different, though; many games have no DRM and even more just have Steam's DRM that's already been cracked globally and is super quick to patch. They also maintain access to paid games even after they're delisted.
AFAIK, the only problems with maintaining access to Stream games are software-as-a-service games when servers go down (MMOs and multiplayer servers, basically) and music with expired licenses (fuck the RIAA and copyright law for that one; not much Steam can do about that.) I have many delisted games in my library and I can download them any time I want.
Sure, Steam could go down, at some point. Maybe. But it's not a big concern.
I have stopped giving even the slightest fuck about Ubisoft games. There are way more games than I have time. It's just another filter for what to play next.
The only ubisoft game I still care about is Anno 1800
I own all my plunder, yarr
One downside of always-online DRM is that it kind of deanonymizes you. I mean, the game retailer knows that a given person is at a given IP address at a given time, and that information has value that could be used down the line to combine with other sources of data.
Avoiding that would require something like a VPN system that uses a different IP for different services.
Why does that matter for a game?
It doesn't matter any more than any other individual data point. The concern is that when all the data points are collated, it gives a LOT more information about someone than many people realize.
It's not the game in particular -- it could be any service that one makes use of over extended period of time. The issue is that one can correlate with other data.
You already don't own your games. Or much of anything else really. You purchase a license to use the product.
At any time the people who sell you these products decide they don't want to offer their products or services, if they want to abandon them altogether, if they want to brick your hardware and not accept responsibility, if they want to remove features, if they want to add new paywalls, they can do all of these things and see no repercussions.
The only thing you can do is wait until the game has demonstrated that it might be worth what they're charging, buy a copy from a DRM-free store, then create a local/cloud backup.
The only "legal" thing you can do
No
And i want Ubisoft to be comfortable with me pirating every single one of their games
spoiler
even though i still never play them because most of them are shit
I could see myself not playing with a subscription service. I can only play games only so many hours a week as I have a lot more commitments now. I'm not gonna spend money on a monthly subscription for a handful of games that I might play. I'll just go back to pirating games.
Imagine a company telling you that you should get used to not owning the things you buy when arguably the most popular game in their most popular franchise is about being a literal fucking pirate.
I am very comfortable with never owning a ubisoft game ever again.