BogdanR
Posts: 75 +28
That has nothing to do with socialism. Actually it has a lot to do with late stage rent capitalism in which a relatively few individuals own everything and expect everyone to pay for the use of it.
Ubisoft says gamers should just accept not owning their games
- Thread starter Cal Jeffrey
- Start date
ZedRM
Posts: 1,804 +1,207
ZedRM
Posts: 1,804 +1,207
Bull crap it doesn't! It's borderline Fascism.
Ok, that was exactly right.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,438 +1,222
"Exec says, physical and digital ownership is on the way out just like CDs and DVDs"...
I no longer buy ANY music, or movies bcz of that attitude. Digital doesn't fit on my wall or in my listening room. Luckily, with ovr 3k discs in my music/movie collection, they can't take my ownership away. Who wants to rent low-quality music..?
Games..?
Games are a wholly different story from non-interactive media. Games are not static (save arcade) and are dynamic, interactive and have player requirements. Personally there is very few games on the market (in the last 10 years) worth owning/cost, let alone playing.
The games I play are all multi-player w/character accounts (& subscriptions) and 100% dependent on player base. If others stop playing, or the base dies off then so does the game. So to keep players & revenues these Developers have to keep the game going.
win/win..
I could care less about a single-player story or walk-threw theme games (ie: cyberpunk/red dead/Starfield/etc) becoming only rentable, or limited use, those games are boring and get old within months, not worthy of ownership or asking price in the first place, IMO.
"Buy to try" (ie renting) should be for most games... and if you like playing you keep paying to play.
I no longer buy ANY music, or movies bcz of that attitude. Digital doesn't fit on my wall or in my listening room. Luckily, with ovr 3k discs in my music/movie collection, they can't take my ownership away. Who wants to rent low-quality music..?
Games..?
Games are a wholly different story from non-interactive media. Games are not static (save arcade) and are dynamic, interactive and have player requirements. Personally there is very few games on the market (in the last 10 years) worth owning/cost, let alone playing.
The games I play are all multi-player w/character accounts (& subscriptions) and 100% dependent on player base. If others stop playing, or the base dies off then so does the game. So to keep players & revenues these Developers have to keep the game going.
win/win..
I could care less about a single-player story or walk-threw theme games (ie: cyberpunk/red dead/Starfield/etc) becoming only rentable, or limited use, those games are boring and get old within months, not worthy of ownership or asking price in the first place, IMO.
"Buy to try" (ie renting) should be for most games... and if you like playing you keep paying to play.
LimyG
Posts: 55 +27
A lot of you guys have made interesting and valid points re: socialism etc. Partly opinion of course that's fine.
So, I said that because I don't want to argue wiith anyone about those kind of topics - when it comes to Ubi.
You see, I just don't think it's worth it. It's true that a lot or most people including me just hate Ubi. Same shiitee for years. They are not worth it.
To me I have no interest in their politics, or how they are viewed politically. Although politics do interest me in general.
It's just that Ubi treat customers with incredulous nonsense. I close my Uplay accout about 5 years ago. The final confirmation after I jumped through all the confirmation emails to "allow" them to delete and wipe my whole account. Was petty. Like a child.
They are not worth the time of day. I just stay away from them.
BUT: It has to be said that they are still around and doing business. They are making money and still feel they can get away with stuff like the topic of this thread.
Sad, but true, us gamers are supporting them enough to stay in business. Can't really avoid that point to be fair.
So, I said that because I don't want to argue wiith anyone about those kind of topics - when it comes to Ubi.
You see, I just don't think it's worth it. It's true that a lot or most people including me just hate Ubi. Same shiitee for years. They are not worth it.
To me I have no interest in their politics, or how they are viewed politically. Although politics do interest me in general.
It's just that Ubi treat customers with incredulous nonsense. I close my Uplay accout about 5 years ago. The final confirmation after I jumped through all the confirmation emails to "allow" them to delete and wipe my whole account. Was petty. Like a child.
They are not worth the time of day. I just stay away from them.
BUT: It has to be said that they are still around and doing business. They are making money and still feel they can get away with stuff like the topic of this thread.
Sad, but true, us gamers are supporting them enough to stay in business. Can't really avoid that point to be fair.
Last edited:
James Ryan
Posts: 101 +158
Just put an eye patch on in protest like everyone else.
Just pay the companies and services doing right by consumers. Which isn't very often.
Bamda
Posts: 519 +285
That is why I buy games at real low prices. You never know who is going to pull some bullshit like that on any platform.
WhoCaresAnymore
Posts: 775 +1,224
I do my best! I just got a new eye patch. I'm more ready than ever. YAR.
WhoCaresAnymore
Posts: 775 +1,224
Always best way. Get in the "dollar bin". What is now old, is now new, and all patched up.
GoldenGoat
Posts: 239 +270
I don't think there is a problem with having an option of buying a subscription instead of buying games outright. If it's a subscription-only approach, it might be a harder sell for many gamers. There are 2 different models of subscriptions currently: the music model where the content maker gets paid only when you use the content, and the tv model where the content maker gets paid just for having it available. the tv model is much worse for the customer because they don't have as many options on what to consume and they have to buy multiple services to get access to even a fraction of the content that exists. Either model still leaves out one simple fact. There are 2 types of gamers. One type moves from game to game quickly, which would be a good target for subscriptions. The other type of gamer just plays one or two games and doesn't want to jump from game to game. This type of gamer would likely have zero interest in subscriptions because it would make more economical sense just to own those one or two games. And the other fact they are forgetting is that the most profitable games are using a free to play model. I don't think the majority of people are going to pay for in-game content to a game they don't own. So the question is, is the subscription model going to be more profitable than free to play? Maybe for people who jump from game to game quickly and don't invest in a single game, but definitely not for people who would rather invest in 1 or 2 games that they play for long periods of time.
Ohnooze
Posts: 613 +1,185
Their games have turned into woke trash in many cases anyway.
I can't think of anything by them that I have enjoyed in years.
I can't think of anything by them that I have enjoyed in years.
Gastec
Posts: 549 +285
"Buy to try" (ie renting) should be for most games... and if you like playing you keep paying to play." NO! BAD BOY! NO!
Last edited:
Gastec
Posts: 549 +285
If you have used Steam (the gaming platform) you know that it considers you are playing a video game (the software application is running) from the moment you push the green play button. Even if you don't go past the intro screen for hours or spend days running in a loop on the first map the app still considers you are playing the respective video game.
I have played multiple times, some to completion, some just a level, a lot of the video games that I bought and I OWN. Just like I own the automobile that I once bought, just once I bought it, not multiple times, and when I bought the vehicle it legally passed into MY possession. Now I can play with my car MULTIPLE times, whenever I want, not when the car maker allows me and the same car maker doesn't charge me money each time I open the door of my car or I start its engine or drive 100 km.
Keeping to the car analogy, instead of paying once to own a $50,000-$100,000 AAA car, you would prefer to pay $1000/month or $100/day of usage of that respective car, and I think I've been generous with those percentages, not like the prices coming from Ubisoft & Friends.
Blink 182 times if it computes.
Last edited:
MasterAce
Posts: 50 +45
Imagine if your car nolonger started if the carmaker went bankrupt
Gastec
Posts: 549 +285
Musk Truck?Imagine if your car nolonger started if the carmaker went bankrupt
"If you have used Steam (the gaming platform) you know that it considers you are playing a video game (the software application is running) from the moment you push the green play button. Even if you don't go past the intro screen for hours or spend days running in a loop on the first map the app still considers you are playing the respective video game."
What's your point? I said I'd rather rent it for cheap and play it once without "ownership". Never mentioned a time limit either.
"I have played multiple times, some to completion, some just a level, a lot of the video games that I bought and I OWN. Just like I own the automobile that I once bought, just once I bought it, not multiple times, and when I bought the vehicle it legally passed into MY possession. Now I can play with my car MULTIPLE times, whenever I want, not when the car maker allows me and the same car maker doesn't charge me money each time I open the door of my car or I start its engine or drive 100 km."
Did you miss the part where I stated I almost never play a game twice? If I want to, I will "rent" it again (with no time limit) for another "75% off retail" or whatever the much lower rental fee is vs buying it. But at least I didn't pay $60 for a one-off. Get it?
This isn't complicated bro. Stop overthinking it, and trying to force others to believe what you do. Your arguments are less than convincing, and my idea probably makes a LOT of sense to people who don't want one game to occupy the next two years of their life, aka COD, Fortnite, WOW etc.
Last edited:
Subscription encourages mass generation of mediocrity. Wait, that's basically Ubisoft in a nutshell.
Once you subscribe, you find reason to why to unsubscribe; reason why everyone wants you to go on subscription. You are only sold the product once, they just need to pump enough content for you to not jump to the unsubscribe button. With gaming, and with basically inhouse subscription, this is worse as it would encourage them to make games longer than they need to be. Maybe is good "value", but more and more I want devs to value my time.
I wish games give me the feeling of "damn, this is over" rather than "finally, this is over."
Once you subscribe, you find reason to why to unsubscribe; reason why everyone wants you to go on subscription. You are only sold the product once, they just need to pump enough content for you to not jump to the unsubscribe button. With gaming, and with basically inhouse subscription, this is worse as it would encourage them to make games longer than they need to be. Maybe is good "value", but more and more I want devs to value my time.
I wish games give me the feeling of "damn, this is over" rather than "finally, this is over."
m3tavision
Posts: 1,438 +1,222
You like, you pay... yes, yes!
There is no way to get bamboozled, you pay as you go. Giving meaning to your time invested into the game. Money and time.
$0.25 per game is how it started...
MasterAce
Posts: 50 +45
They still have to make games that sell the subscription. It’s not like you are somehow forced to take the subscription and keep paying it while they make mediocre games.
I played 120h of valhalla and they propably made a bit more than the retail price of the game, but I didn’t mind. I also had the power to cut the subscription short if I got bored with the game, so if they do make long games, they still need to keep me interested. And I did cut the subscription after farcry6 for nearly a year.
Now I started the subscription again to try avatar, which I would never had bought, and I’ve put 50h into it. After all the bad press starfield got, I would never have bought it, but still tried it on gamepass and it’s actually a solid game (if you look past it’s flaws).
LimyG
Posts: 55 +27
Agreed. In addition to sub topic. In fact everthing they do, make, or say. Utter Trash company.
Marco Mint
Posts: 81 +92
I laughed when I read this, because I haven't bought a Ubisoft game in at least 15 years. I can't even remember why I stopped buying them it was so long ago. Limited activation's or something? Sure I did get to play the first Assassins creed game but I got bored within an hour and never played again. I was glad I hadn't bought it.
Then Uplay came along and gave another reason to not buy them. I seem to have been doing ok since. Now they are giving yet another reason to not buy their games?
So yeah, I've accepted not owning Ubisoft games
Then Uplay came along and gave another reason to not buy them. I seem to have been doing ok since. Now they are giving yet another reason to not buy their games?
So yeah, I've accepted not owning Ubisoft games
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
PlayStation 5 Pro will be bigger, faster, and better using the same CPU- Squid Surprise replied
-
Microsoft Xbox Series X/S sales downturn continued last quarter- user478318 replied
