Ubisoft says gamers should just accept not owning their games

[hahahanoobs]

He's not lying or alone. Gamers just don't want to accept it.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Soooooo the digital copies ought to be significantly cheaper than the physical ones, in order not to claim ownership.

lol I don't remember anyone demanding digital copies be cheaper since they didn't need to be shipped or packaged. I also don't remember demands for discounts for pre-orders.

The fuss over ownership will pass like the rest...

 

[bviktor]

And so Ubisoft should just accept falling revenues as well.

If it doesn't happen, we really deserve them.

 

[MasterAce]

You guys think you own games? Unless it runs offline, no questions asked, then sure. But so many do not. Devs can remove half the game at a whim (destiny2) or just turn off the servers for ”reasons”. What if Valve went backrupt? How many steam games could we still run?

No no, we lost ownership a long time ago. It’s a license, and they do hold all rights to do what they please. Atleast with subscription we have no delusions of owning anything.

 

[fadingfool]

You guys think you own games? Unless it runs offline, no questions asked, then sure. But so many do not. Devs can remove half the game at a whim (destiny2) or just turn off the servers for ”reasons”. What if Valve went backrupt? How many steam games could we still run?

No no, we lost ownership a long time ago. It’s a license, and they do hold all rights to do what they please. Atleast with subscription we have no delusions of owning anything.

Quote from Steam support "In the unlikely event of the discontinuation of the Steam network, measures are in place to ensure that all users will continue to have access to their Steam games."

We haven't lost the ownership battle unless you have surrendered - I still buy DVDs and CDs (and rip them onto a media server for use at home).

 

[brunocasarini]

You'll own nothing and be happy.

 

[Gastec]

Well, people pay to experience movies all the time - but they don't get ownership of said movie in doing so, correct? Not being able to "own" it does not mean it should be absolutely free.

A much more logical argument is to charge a lot less for a full gameplay (perhaps the cost of a movie ticket for any new AAA title) and call it good. If I choose to play it again, I pay the lower price again - just like seeing a movie more than once.

That is how you loose money in life, with renting and subscriptions.

 

[return]

I own their pirated ****.

 

[erickmendes]

No no, we lost ownership a long time ago. It’s a license, and they do hold all rights to do what they please. Atleast with subscription we have no delusions of owning anything.

Was going to say just that... Seems like the only subscription free options in the near future is Solitaire and Minesweeper.

 

[Sherwoodnt]

I think we do accept that on every purchase made

My thoughts exactly. CS:GO being my most recent example. Thought I paid for that game but then poof!

gg, Valve :-/

 

[Bobbydpue]

I wouldn't pay Ubisoft a subscription to play their games.

 

[Bobbydpue]

My thoughts exactly. CS:GO being my most recent example. Thought I paid for that game but then poof!

gg, Valve :-/

Didn't you get the updated version of the game, though?

 

[okie11]

I accepted it years ago, by not buying any ubisoft games. There are still plenty of games available from the past 10-20 years that are still more than adequate for me to play.

 

[MasterAce]

Quote from Steam support "In the unlikely event of the discontinuation of the Steam network, measures are in place to ensure that all users will continue to have access to their Steam games."

We haven't lost the ownership battle unless you have surrendered - I still buy DVDs and CDs (and rip them onto a media server for use at home).

Fundamentally it’s still in their hands to honor their word on that, not like nothing could take it away from you.

A NES works fine to this day, if you have compatible TV. It’s just not going to be the same for modern pc games, or consoles for that matter.

 

[BogdanR]

“…not owning your game."
The very definition of an oxymoron. Coming from a massive m0r0n.

 

[RandomWAN]

Ubisoft should just accept their declining share price. Normies might accept paying for subscriptions to never own games, gamers won't. I know plenty of gamers that don't buy new, wait for heavy sales, and chase physical or at least downloadable copies of games whenever available. Anything I'm interested in having access to after I beat it the first time, I look for a way to get a copy of it that doesn't rely on a platform having it available.

 

[mgwerner]

He is right. I will not own a Ubisoft title, and stopped giving them money two decades ago. I cannot remember what game it was they sold that demanded an alway-on connection, but that is not how buying something works. Too many people have accepted it, and it is now in cars.....

 

[Underdog]

"They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection."

Who's THEY? I have just under 600 CDs at home and can play any or all at the touch of a button without having to load them. The people that have given up on the physical media to go to streaming have enabled my to buy them at 10cents each from my local charity shop. The players that hold anything up to 400 discs are making a fortune on ebay in Europe at the moment. I bought two non-working ones for the price of a year's streaming service. €8 a pop for a set of belts and I'm good to go. Thank flip I'm not a gamer.

 

[Dimitrios]

So if you want to have fun playing games or watching movies we have to own literally 30+ different subscriptions?

This is getting nuts.

 

[Dimitrios]

The rate we are going, the developers will charge us to only watch them make the game and only they can play it.

 

[polvooo]

This is exactly what you'd expect a company based in socialist France to say. Ubisoft has lost whatever magic they once had (during the original Splinter Cell days). The only game of theirs that got me excited in recent years was Immortals and they went and killed it after one game.

GOG forever. The only mainline store that gives you true ownership.

 

[polvooo]

So if you want to have fun playing games or watching movies we have to own literally 30+ different subscriptions?

This is getting nuts.

The only way this trend will ever stop is if people just start saying "no", but that will never happen because people are hooked on all these subscriptions where once they all add up every month, a chunk of their paychecks is already spoken for before they even get them.

No thanks

 

[MakeMSGreatAgain]

I hate ubisoft... which is sad because I loved them back when Splinter Cell came out. Even as of several years ago, their required launchers over the years have been awful, clunky, unreliable heaps or garbage. This kind of crap just angers consumers. And when this heavy handed approach to DRM took over and their games started becoming more and more mainstream political I wrote them off - which was years ago now. Last game I enjoyed was Far Cry 4.

 

[ddferrari]

That is how you loose money in life, with renting and subscriptions.

I never mentioned anything about renting or subscriptions.

My point is that were it an option, I'd prefer to pay a much smaller one-time fee, and play a AAA title once - versus paying full price to "own it", as I will likely never play it again. If I do want to replay it, I will pay the smaller fee again. It's rare that I will do a second run, but if I do it would still be cheaper to rent twice than to pay full retail.

With a huge backlog, and being a bit of a completionist, I feel compelled to move on to a new game after milking a current one for nearly all it's worth 99% of the time.

 

[LimyG]

It's amazing that pretty much everything Ubi announce or do just serves to make gamers, or anyone for that matter hate them more.

Seriously, what is up with these XXXX Holes.