You must log in or register to comment.
I for one appreciate that ubisoft chose the top down view of poop as their logo. it’s the perfect symbol for everything they represent and they’re incredibly brave for wearing it proudly on their chest.
They could have got away still if they actually make good games
Yup. Millions subscribe to MMOs and Game Pass. Live service games like Genshin Impact and Fate/Grand Order are incredibly popular. There are also games with crazy intrusive DRM like kernel level spyware and always online DRM that are still installed by millions. How can you look at these stats and not think people are fine with paying for temporary games? If the game is good enough, players don’t care. Ubisoft’s problem is their games aren’t good enough.
Making good games is probably not as easy as it seems though.
The 5 year price graph is much nicer to view.
I originally used the 5 year one but I thought it wouldn’t be as “accurate” to their most recent disasters
I was a huge fan of Ubisoft. I basically stopped playing any of their games after Assassins Creed 3. With the exception of AC: Black Flag, which I got from the high seas, ironically.
Question, is buying games on Steam “owning”?
Depends on the game.
There’s a surprisingly large amount of games on steam that are DRM free, meaning once downloaded, running the game doesn’t actually require steam.
They should all be like this.
GOG
“Shareholders need to get comfortable not owning their yacht”
Of course I’m really not a fan of whatever they do and I would never buy an Ubisoft game for at least a decade now, but I still think that a lot of people should don’t know what buying means and that they never, ever bought (and hence owned) a game or movie. Those are not material goods like a car, which you can physically transfer from one person to another. Those are intellectual goods, and ownership here means you own all rights for it, which usually only the publisher has. What you buy online or in a shop is mere a license to watch/play/use/whatever and a medium with the associated data (like a DVD).
Therefore “piracy” had never been theft (or robbery, as it is called so nicely on German news). It is a license violation. Just that doesn’t sound as demonizing as the publisher want it to sound.
It’s really very simple:
- When it’s for the benefit of the Owner class (in this specific case mainly Publishers) it’s ownership hence people are told they’re buying games (only to discover after paying that it’s not so) and piracy is described and even in some countries treated as Theft.
- When it’s for the benefit of citizens in general it’s intellectual property and it’s not really owned by them when they buy it (only licensed, often in such a way that they can lose access to what they were told they were buying) and if they do happen to created intellectual property themselves it can easily be taken away from the by the Owner class who “curiously” even in those countries which treat Piracy the same as Theft won’t be criminally held responsible for it.
It’s the good old “one rule for thee another for me” so popular with authoritarians, especially Fascists (which probably explains why Germany is one of a few countries in Europe that criminalizes piracy, but de facto only treats it as such when it’s the little people doing it).
Are you calling the Federal Republic of Germany fascist?
I love how G*mers decontextualised this just to circlejerk.
When Valve has made G*mers comfortable not owning their games.
You’re allowed to say gay.
You’re allowed to say gamer
Hard R…
You can be arrested just for saying you’re a gamer.
I wish that was true.
