Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get 'Comfortable' Not Owning Their Games for Subscriptions to Take Off

L4sBot@lemmy.worldmod to Technology@lemmy.world – 692 points – Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get 'Comfortable' Not Owning Their Games for Subscriptions to Take Off - IGN
ign.com

Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get 'Comfortable' Not Owning Their Games for Subscriptions to Take Off::An executive at Assassin’s Creed maker Ubisoft has said gamers will need to get “comfortable” not owning their games before video game subscriptions truly take off.

218

I'm comfortable not owning Ubisoft games. ;)

These people are like an adversarial neural network being trained to find the most efficient ways to piss of their own customer base.

I think it's important to note that the entertainment landscape as a whole has been changing, and those changes have mixed with the shitty investor culture that already existed to create a terrible set of incentives that are wildly misaligned with consumer sentiment. I say this because I think that if we want things to change, we need to look at root causes.

The entertainment industry is feeling very threatened. It's hard to make money. That's a reality. And all the solutions to the problem are fucked up attempts to find ways to get players to give more money for things they don't want.

I think we need a better patronage model.

A quality game for a good price that provides hours of entertainment is a good start.

I don't find it hard to believe that the cost of making AAA games no longer matches the standard game price nowadays, because the typical $60 price hasn't changed in at least 20 years. Publishers have used a lot of alternatives to recoup that like launch day DLC, deluxe editions, and microtransactions.

I honestly don't mind deluxe editions with cosmetics for that reason, if someone wants to pay $100 for some extra outfits that's probably the ideal scenario for everyone.

But I agree that Ubisoft's insane DRM practices and subscriptions aren't the right solution to that problem.

Well then maybe they should make less expensive games even if I think they’re still making a lot of money

These people are like an adversarial neural network being trained to find the most efficient ways to piss of their own customer base.

I think we forget how removed these people are from reality.

What's funny is that they're not detached from the gaming industry. The average person, if you asked them "Do you think players like live service games?" they'd say, "I don't know what you're talking about."

These people have a lot of really nuanced, heavily informed opinions on the history, present, and future of gaming. They're just all highly unpopular opinions outside of people who demand to get a check in the mail immediately if not sooner because they just bought a share in a company they know little or nothing about.

Ever since they started the Epic/Uplay exclusivity stuff, it's made it easier than ever to avoid buying their games.

possessing a copy of them, sure. ownership is a legal construct that doesn't really matter that much to me.

If buying something doesn't mean you own it, then pirating something doesn't mean you stole it! As long as there is a subscription fee, take the justifiable torrent option to choose to pay ZERO. The only way is not to pay!

Legally speaking, piracy is not theft. It’s copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement with NO monetary loss—the very definition of a victimless crime.

There's the thing... Data is infinite. Piracy isn't great - it does nothing to support creators - but existing structures siphon off most of the money before it ever gets to them anyways. We don't have a working system.

Donations rarely can support a single person these days, and frankly it seems to require being a public social media figure of some kind... And that's a skill unrelated to art or building things

I don't see an answer aside from ubi - some of us live to create things, and we'll do it whether we're paid or not, whether we even release it or not. Take away the unnecessary coercion to make what other people want to survive, and you remove the stress from all of us. There's no longer this requirement to monetize everything - we'll make weird and beautiful things that makes everyone's life better

Writing this, I had this idea for gaming in particular... What if you had a service where you paid whatever the creator demanded for a game (as we do now), but then your monthly spending was distributed based on your play time? Realistically, only steam or an app store could do something like this, but it seems like an interesting way to incentivize quality and lowering prices

Gamers says CEOs need to get comfortable not having a subscription model for their sales to take off.

We’re lucky that Ubisoft doesn’t make any good games.

Actually I think Ubisoft unfortunately has some bangers in its back catalog.

Steep is by far and away the best backcountry skiing/snowboarding simulator (shreddders is better in the mechanics of snowboarding, but steep is better at being a giant winter playground).

Ghost Recon Wildlands looks awesome especially with the first person mod (though I would probably find the politics of the game insufferable)

Both these games are extremely detailed games, with massive open worlds and are generally fairly critically acclaimed at least at this point (not sure about release). These games sell for chump change now though. Steep regularly goes for $3 which is insane when you think about the fact that there isn’t a Steep 2 nor really any rivals other than Shredders (Riders Republic just isn’t focused on winter sports). Ghost Recon Wildlands sells for $7 which I guess is fair but still seems like underselling the game.

My point is that Ubisoft being attached to games actually reduces their value by quite a bit. If Steep had been made by an indie studio it would still be selling at $10 or more, it is a stunningly big game and nothing else comes close.

Oh yeah and Riders Republic, the game Ubisoft is/was trying to draw in a bunch of more casual players into a unified multiplayer sports game, has apparently really fun gameplay (though arcade-y for sure) but has a 45 MINUTE NON-OPTIONAL TUTORIAL YOU CAN’T SKIP. For a casual, multiplayer open world sports game….

It is hilarious how much value Ubisoft destroys in just being associated with products. They are the opposite of a business, they take valuable things and destroy their value to consumers. Some of the games they make could easily sell for premium prices way into the future but Ubisoft undermines the value of their games so much that they end up trying to sell these massive games, with huge open worlds carefully made through countless hours for chump change because everybody hates Ubisoft.

edit I forgot about Anno 1800, a momentously big city building game that is extremely critically acclaimed already being sold on sale for $12, that shit is bonkers. Any other dev and that game would never have to come below $20 until there was a sequel.

Nope. We refuse. But fuck you for asking.

I don't know. A lot of people seem willing to pay for battle passes, which is already halfway there.

It was good to see a little bit of resistance this year and particularly the success of BG3, but I'm concerned that the overall trend is negative. Any publisher beholden to investors will be under strong pressure to monetize, monetize, monetize.

All I can do is not give them money, but someone else probably will.

Yeah, people in this thread are saying this is absurd and nobody will go along with it, like have they met gamers from outside Lemmy?

In the wider world, people think I'm insane for not loving Microsoft's game subscription service. Even here and on Reddit I've received flak for not wanting games as a subscription service. It's weird.

Game subscriptions will happen. The wider market, unfortunately, loves the idea of paying a monthly fee to play games.

I’d rather quit gaming. Fuck Ubisoft and their predatory practices.

Indie gaming is only getting better and better - unity self-immolating has slowed the tide a bit, but random individuals now have access to tools on par with professionals

Plus AAA games are compulsively running with lower and lower staff, putting more and more effort into micro transaction content, and pushing the game less and less finished. It makes indie games and standout hits feel better by contrast

As long as they get comfortable with the idea of if buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.

Sounds logical but governments still seem to care to protect corporate IP while they don't give a single fuck about customer ownership rights.

yeah I know what Im saying is a pipe dream because Im not my government's actual constituency but a man can dream.

>Director of Subscriptions

“Ubisoft director of paying them money every month says gamers should pay them money every month”

Maybe I am just an old nostalgic fart but I have games that I own that are over 30 years old that I still have access to and regularly play and that's how I like it.

I personally don't at all see any benefit to the consumer that subscription based gaming provides. Arguably you can access more games for less money, but if video streaming is anything to go by (increased prices, less content across more and more services, ads creeping back in etc), that value proposition won't last long.

The benefits are not meant for the consumer.

We even have the current streaming services as examples, that's why Ubisoft are greedy for getting people to subscribe.

Game streaming services will eventually be:

  • Fragmented: You will need to have multiple subscriptions to play the games you want.
  • Games will disappear without notice (We already see this on app-stores).
  • Prices will be jacked up at a whim, and premium tier plans will be added.
  • And as the pièce de résistance: Full of ads.

THIS. This right here is the problem.

If Ubisoft wants consumers to give them a chance, they should call up Netflix and Disney and Hulu and politely ask them to not demonstrate what the fuck happens if players put trust in the platforms that we're assured will be reliable and consistent places to store games for years and years to come.

The problem really isn't streaming games and cloud storage as a concept. The problem is that the people trying to implement it have demonstrated over and over and over how both untrustworthy and incompetent they are. That's it. If the platforms had credibility and accountability, this probably wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.

I dunno man, I get a pretty solid sense of pride and accomplishment after pirating a thing, so I think I’ll stick with that.

The hard work of crackers is admirable, they are the unsung heroes! Take from the rich and give to the poor!

Every time I pirate a ubisoft game I regret it, I never play more than maybe an hour with them and then I have to seed them to get > 1.0 ratio (private site rules). So I just stopped pirating them lol.

Honestly had slight hopes for Avatar because the art team really outdid themselves, but I knew in the back of my head that the actual game would be shit.

The fact that some people are ok with, "subscriptions taking off" in this very post is troubling.

The future, where you own nothing, pay a subscription for everything.

The only games I'm comfortable with having a subscription. Is a game like WoW where they are supporting a large server farm/infrastructure for the game.

Thing is that it has been shown that the cost doesn't add up. Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 are both games you only pay the cost of the box, no on going subscriptions and they are able to continue running the servers and infrastructure just fine. 15$/mo just doesn't make sense.

It made sense in 2006 when the technology was new and the concept was novel, in 2023 where server upkeep costs are astronomically low if present at all and cloud technology is the norm, the only thing justifying it is "We've been doing it this way for years"

Honestly the only reason why consoles have subscription fees for online services is because Xbox Live Gold proved that people were dumb enough to full for this bullshit, so Sony and Nintendo just stooped down to Microsoft's level for the free payday.

1 more...

I could say that about Destiny 2 but I still feel dirty about giving any sort of money to Bungie

1 more...

I'll be perfectly honest.

I love and strongly prefer physical media games.

However, I also love Game Pass at least as a concept.

I've had it for several years now thanks to Live Gold conversion and VPN...

That said, regardless how much "value" it may provide, I will NEVER pay full price for it... I just don't feel like it's worth the price they're asking to me personally.

It's great for trying out the occasional game I'd never have bought or played otherwise though... And sometimes it introduces me to games that I feel like are worth buying that I hadn't heard of anywhere else.

For example, I bought Aragami 2 because I tried it on Game Pass and enjoyed it but I wasn't finished with it yet when rumors appeared that it was leaving the service.

I also played and thoroughly enjoyed Cocoon and High on Life thanks to Game Pass and feel like they're both worth buying at the right price.

I personally don't enjoy watching YouTubers and I rarely read reviews so I wouldn't have known much about most of those if I didn't have the chance to try them.

It's almost like it's replaced the demos that used to be so common but we can play the whole game now if we want.

Editing to add:

Also, fuck this Ubisoft exec... Subscription models should NEVER become the default way that we are expected to "consume" games (or any other entertainment really for that matter) and it's arrogant as hell for this prick to presume that we'll all just be okay with it.

Holy shit are you me?

Damn... You're also commenting on a thread about shit going on in Georgia and separately about DRSing GME?

Maybe?!? 😂

1 more...

I am quite comfortable with not owning any ubisoft games. It's a kind of comfort that comes easily when one doesn't pay ubisoft any money for anything.

After the bore fest which was division, which I pre-ordered, I finally uninstalled Ubisoft launcher, the name of which is can't be bothered to recall. Someone gave me a free game code for division 2, I still could not bother to reinstall the unnamed launcher.

Their reasoning is that consumers have gotten used to it in other media forms like music and video.

  1. It doesn't make it right.
  2. The hell we have.

Lol. I started pirating again because of this shit. We don't have to get used to anything. Give us the product we want or we will get it anyway but without the part where you get paid.

Honestly I love it. I don't typically rewatch things often enough to justify the price they charge to purchase a copy, and I have a shitload of stuff at my fingertips with streaming services.

With music it's a little different by because I do re-listen a lot, but streaming lets me just listen to music I might like instead of relying on reviews to guess what might be worth buying. I listen to way more different things than I would if I had to buy it all.

Most people have gotten used to it with music, so far anyway. As long as most of what they want to listen to is available through a single service, and the price isn't prohibitive, most people I've talked to seem to be okay with streaming music.

Streaming video is a fucking dumpster fire that no one wants. All the streaming services fought to get the biggest catalog for the cheapest price than folded over on themselves like somebody turning the switch off on a flailing tube man. Now the prices are all cable level and the catalogs are all crap.

There was an old quest communications commercial back in the day. Guy rolled up in a old car to a motel in the middle of nowhere. Ask the guy at the desk where they had on TV, He responded back everything ever made. That's what I'm expecting to see from streaming video now. It's all sitting around, it's all available. For the price of cable we should be able to afford everything over 6 months old that was ever made.

Screw these guys.

Why can’t they release the server code or whatever so the community can keep playing the games. I’ve got a bunch of games that I can no longer play because there’s no servers. There was a community attempt at putting something together, they were working from scratch, but it seems to have failed.

The devs won’t support it, but they won’t let anyone play with the abandonware either. Took their ball and went home.

It seems they've explained exactly why they won't (not can't, but won't) release the server code: They need you to not own your games in order to sell you subscriptions.

Having access to the source so you can maintain a thing is a much more profound kind of ownership than simply having access to a copy. If they let you have that, you might get ideas in your head about not giving them money forever, and they can't have that.

i'm so excited for the fucking subscription fad to die. people have gotta get sick of it at some point right? what could be enticing enough to replace it for both corps and users?

It won't. Normies just see their franchise like Assasins or any Tom Clancy's and they buy. It does not matter to them what bullshit payment model it is. Look at Fifa games for example. Litearaly the same game year after year with the tiniest adjustments possible but they still break a sales record on a almost yearly basis.

It's not a fad, it's just the tail-end of unregulated capitalism. They will sacrifice everything anybody cares about to squeeze just a little bit more profit out of everything. Blood from a stone...

ubisoft should get comfortable with people just not buying their crap at all.

I'd rather remain comfortable not buying games from Ubisoft and EA.

I refuse to waste a single dollar on every game from both companies, since we were all bent over and continue to get bent over because they just don't care about anything but making more money.

A good example from Ubisoft is the handling of the Driver series. They kept on releasing the games in the series in a near unplayable state before when most people had dial up.

A good example with EA was the failed DRM with Spore. They only let you install the game 3 times, which glitched out to the point where people had to turn to piracy (warez and crackz) to play a game they paid for.

We vote with every dollar spent, which gives me hope when people rally around good companies that do the right thing.

gamers will need to get “comfortable” not owning their games before video game subscriptions truly take off.

So subscriptions won't take off if we demand to own what we buy? I accept those terms.

If it ain't a sale, it's not piracy.

I like how in this article the greedy cunt is talking about consumers just getting used to the idea of not owning the game being okay because they'll keep their progress and can come back to their game any time. Like we haven't seen media disappear off streaming services all the time. Like nobody has ever fallen on hard times and had to cut ongoing costs. Fuck off.

Literally the debate is happening because games and media have vanished... including Ubisoft games!

Gamer here. Go fuck yourself Ubisoft. You can quote me on that.

If a service isn't doing me any kind of good, I don't pay. This is just showing piracy will win, cause it's a service issue not a pricing issue.

But no money isn't lost revenue, because you weren't getting my money anyway.

Counterpoint: I dont fucking want subscription services to take off. I want to pay for the game I'm gonna play and only the game I'm gonna play.

Game Pass is going gangbusters. A monthly fee to play shitloads of games, including first party titles at launch, with a discount on purchasing those games if I decide I want them? Awesome.

I think the problem is you, Ubisoft. No one trusts you. And you keep releasing the same game.

You know what's fucking ironic? Ubisoft might as well be Abstergo and me Rayman. I like Watch_dogs and Anno, I really do, but I'm not a goddamn Les Collaboateurs. Good concepts do not excuse greedy implementations, and unlike Rayman I've never defended Ubisoft before I have begun criticizing their practices - ever since Anno 1800 and Watch_dogs Legion were Epic Games exclusive - so take it from me; Fuck this guy and Ubisoft should crash and burn.

On a totally unrelated, I swear dude no connection at all, note: Anyone ever see the intro to Nitrome Must Die!?

Someday I think "Maybe I'll play the Assassin's Creed games"

Then I remember that I played the first one, meaning I already have.

I do recommend Black Flag. It’s at least a little different (you spend a lot of time on a pirate ship sailing around sinking other ships) and really fun.

Yeah if I go back and play any of them Black Flag's kind of THE one I'd touch

deleted

How dare gamers not accept our consumer hostile payment structure!

I don't know what planet he's on but we already don't really own our games. Hell if Steam goes down I'm going to lose access to pretty much everything.

The problem is more that I don't trust Ubisoft to not change the terms of the agreement halfway through. I can totally see them pulling a rockstar and getting rid of an old version of the game if they decide they want to do an HD release.

Steam has a clause where if they shut down you will have access to all of your games still.

Kind of, not really

There will be lawsuits around it when it happens that will prevent it

The worst part is Rockstar admitted the HD Remakes were shit, and fired the company responsible, but still didn't restore the good versions (Thank God I got those while I could)

Fuck there were rumors that company was gonna remake Max Payne next, made me grab the fucking Steam version while I could... best god damn advertising for the original Max Payne possible.

But yeah, I dread the day Gaben dies and his successor says "Let's make this a publicly traded company!"

Ubisoft exec, you should get comfortable sucking our collective dicks

And if anyone needed to know whether these companies are run by entitled idiots, this is the proof.

We show them with our wallets how out of touch they are! It's to the high seas, yarr!! 🏴‍☠️

There may be enough of a super fan base to keep their titles alive even if they never innovate again.

That's funny. It's been years since I gave Ubisoft any money and I'm perfectly comfortable.

Ubisoft executives need to get comfortable being unemployed.

Fucking, brain dead tool.

Thank whatever is sacred to you that these mindless drones picked video games. Have no doubt that it this same person hadn't flunked out of medical school, they'd be running a chain of hospitals somewhere saying, "patients need to just get used to bleeding more and for longer to support our profit model".

As a medical student, I have a negative amount of trust in and/or respect for anyone in the healthcare sector that has a business degree.

The world is run by people who claim to have business degrees and then they make decisions that even a drunk would think are erroneous.

My country is run by someone with a business degree and he's an utter moron.

Medicine has been corrupted for just as long as video games, if not longer, unfortunately. These soulless husks in business suits are everywhere, unfortunately.

The problem are the investors and executives that are there solely to suck money, that don't care about quality or sustainability and will instantly jump ship as soon as they finish destroying the company, to latch on the next thing.

To them it's not good enough for a business to be stable, it's not good enough for it to be profitable. No, it has to be always more profitable than before, infinitely. If they reached the limit, then they will take it apart to get more money.

Yeah I've never really understood this mentality of business types. Invariably their attempts to get more money lead to them getting less in the long run. They all suffer from an inability to delay gratification.

Far apart from anything else if you've got 10 billion dollars just put it in the bank and live off the interest, you're still making money, even though profits are stable.

Feels like at some point it's like an addiction. Folks got enough money to enjoy the rest of their lives doing anything they want and leave plenty to their families, but they gotta make number go big. They should go play Cookie Clicker or something, instead of ruining society.

As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don't lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That's not been deleted. You don't lose what you've built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it's about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.

Yeah, you know I don't lose my game either saved on my CPU or Xbox with a copy of the game I don't have to pay for more than once for a predetermined value.

Also, he never mentions that the game will still be there, just the progress file. Why doesn't he address being uncomfortable with games disappearing from the subscription?

Seriously

I played a ubi mobile game for 2 years, and then they just flat abandoned it. Stopped support. No new content. Nothing. No warning either

They never fixed unity's networking on PC and quietly shut down the servers. Dick move.

If I don't own the games I bought them piracy isn't stealing. It goes both ways fuckers.

Once again we see how piracy is justified! These corporations can only see their greed when it hits their bottom line!

This slogan needs to be adopted by everyone really.. The future seems to be "You will own nothing and like it!"

Well, the present needs to tell that future "If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing!"

I really don't need a subscription service to give me access to even more games that I'll just launch and play for about 20 minutes before I go back to playing battlefield 4

I’m already VERY comfortable not having any Ubisoft games! ☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️☺️

Not really, Ubisoft.

Much like music, movies and TV, you just need to make sure your content is both available for purchase for people who don't want a subscription and consistently available on a subscription service for those that do.

It's when you start fucking around and taking them off again because somebody else is offering you more for exclusivity that we get pissed off and just pirate things. You can't expect Assassin's Creed Black Flag to still be making you a noticeable amount of money, but a subscriber can rightfully expect it to be on your service.

I'm of the opinion that if a game is on a subscription service, be it PSN or Game Pass, then it should stay there except in very extreme circumstances. A game can take weeks to play through, and it's only going to take one large game going AWOL at 90% completion for me to sour on the whole idea.

I’m already confident with having 0 Ubisoft games in my library.

I love hearing these stories of big gaming companies being shitty as usual, knowing I only play indie games and I'm not giving theme a dime

Subscriptions are taking off, just not Ubisoft subscriptions because most of their games are derivative shit.

And personally I don't have an objection with the concept of subscription as an option. It's no worse than streaming music or videos, or renting a DVD / VHS back when. But whatever the service is will have to have a LOT of content, not just back catalogue but new stuff too with fair & reasonable terms for people to want to subscribe. If Ubisoft wants to ever see its stuff streamed it will have to be as part of some other, better service than the one they offer that's for sure.

Gamepass just got Farcry 6 and AC: Valhalla and both games are exactly as you said, derivative shit, but it surprised me because I know ubi has their own sub. I wonder if they are abandoning it already.

The first Assassin's Creed was kinda cool, but everything else has pretty much just been the first game in a different setting, played one ya play them all.

Absolutely and it's so lazy a series. While some entries did raise the bar a little bit in terms of world building or graphics, they are still the same crap in a new skin. There is a side by side comparison between the first game and the latest on YouTube and while there are changes you'd be forgiven for not knowing there was a 16 year gap between the two games. Even some of the same bugs remain such as feet clipping into the horse during mount / dismount because they couldn't be bothered to fix the animation.

I would be surprised if their sub service was not a failure. In fairness the service has hundreds of games but most in the last 5 years has been garbage and beyond that, where is the value? As a consumer I might as well buy old games on GOG, Steam or wherever at my discretion rather than be locked in to a sub that costs the same and have nothing to show for it afterwards.

These services need thousands of games, across a range of publishers. Even better if they support downloads or streaming as options. So basically I don't see subs working unless it is large platform owner who can incentivize publishers and thousands of titles to partake in it.

I mean I'll buy a new Rayman game if they release one that isn't a phone game, but I'm not paying a subscription for it.

Shit ever wonder why Captain Laserhawk seems to be a Furry Story taking place in a world more closely resembling Cyberpunk 2077 than Blood Dragon? Because Ubisoft doesn't have any IPs anyone cares about other than Rayman (which they do nothing with) and the three people who still think Beyond Good & Evil 2 will actually come out someday, or not be a repeat of DNF 2011 if it does....

That said don't mistake that for me talking shit about Captain Laserhawk, that show is fucking amazing.

I think even implementing such an option allows companies to get more aggressive in their pricing, arguing that if you don't like the price, you can pay subscription (which obviously also accumulates to astronomical numbers, it's just that monthly payment doesn't seem equally scary)

Ubisoft needs to get used to me never buying their repetative lazy games every again.

What a shame. FC3, 4 and primal are some of my favorite games..

Ubisoft and EA are the only games I pirate. Fuck those shitty cancer companies.

Corporate greed has gotten completely out of control. The only way we can force these companies to give to their users is by us collectively voting with our wallets. To the torrents we must!

Pretty easy to not own a Ubisoft game. Assassin's Creed and Far Cry series are pretty boring IMO.

I think they're fun but their games are not the kind of games I stick around for after the story ends.

Ubisoft doing God's work.

And by that I mean not having their games available on steam so I cannot purchase them.

That's okay, you just need to get comfortable with me pirating your games... Then again that's Ubisoft, I don't think I even want to pirate their stuff.

It's hard to not be cynical about this pattern. To me, it's starting to look like a lot of companies are setting up long-term plans to weather a recession, and patiently wait for baselines to shift in order to normalize stuff like this.

Another way to frame it is, given enough time, a business will ultimately engage in rent seeking behavior if they see no alternative to adding value. Which kind of makes sense, as Ubisoft now builds absolutely monster sized games (e.g. Assassin's Creed 22 - Find all the Things Edition), with all the DLC, online content, and cosmetic bolt-ons imaginable; they've saturated that market. There's literally nowhere else for them to go, unless they take on much bigger risks like building a whole new franchise or two.

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

A shifting baseline (also known as a sliding baseline) is a type of change to how a system is measured, usually against previous reference points (baselines), which themselves may represent significant changes from an even earlier state of the system.
The concept arose in landscape architect Ian McHarg's 1969 manifesto Design With Nature  in which the modern landscape is compared to that on which ancient people once lived. The concept was then considered by the fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly in his paper "Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries". Pauly developed the concept in reference to fisheries management where fisheries scientists sometimes fail to identify the correct "baseline" population size (e. g. how abundant a fish species population was before human exploitation) and thus work with a shifted baseline. He describes the way that radically depleted fisheries were evaluated by experts who used the state of the fishery at the start of their careers as the baseline, rather than the fishery in its untouched state.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^

oh, i forgot that it's 2024 and video games haven't really "taken off" yet

This is one positive about the Switch, cartridges are still a thing and I hope this trend continues with future Nintendo releases. Other than that fuck this, if that's their stance I will be comfortable to sail the high seas.

These guys need to remember they are selling a novelty...a toy. It's not an essential good. Their consumer can just "stop" seeking new games

UbiSoft needs to get comfortable with execs not making sales targets.

Just downloaded the original Assassin's Creed from JC141 and I'm having a blast.

It's crazy how much ubisoft games have fallen.

I’m not necessarily against one subscription service having a ton of games from a lot of developers. The problem is that a ubisoft service isn’t gonna have games from everyone and that playing a full game takes me 2-3 months with the time I have. Just buying the game is probably cheaper for me and gives me more guarantees.

What's funny to me is the streaming model for media already has shown this won't work out well for gaming companies. When a new game drops people will sign up for a month, binge it, then cancel their subscription. They could try and trickle out DLC to get people to stay subscribed, but unless the DLC is significant people will probably just wait a while until a bunch of DLC is available then binge it again.

Personally I can only focus on one or maybe two major games at a time so I'd be happy to only pay a small monthly fee to one major game company at a time over paying for several $80 AAA titles a month.

The only way it works is if it's a large company making deals with other companies.

If Sega had a subscription service, I wouldn't use it, I'm a huge Sonic fan and I like Persona sure, but.... most of their other IPs get the Banjo Kazooie treatment: IE: They just stand around, pose for merchandise, say "Hey remember when?", while starring in exactly zero games.

Since I already own most of the Sonic games (I don't have Sega Super Stars because I'm saving up for surgery and that seems more important than some loop de loops, sides I never finished Frontiers or Origins), all their other games are so old that if they're not on some kind of pre-existing collection or re-release, they're incredibly easy to emulate.. meaning I'd probably just fire up dolphin instead of pay a subscription fee on the off chance that MAYBE they have Billy Hatcher, Sonic Heroes, and Shadow The Hedgehog, three titles that the average consumer doesn't care about.

I can say this about any company really - Imagine Capcom did this, most of their old games are re-released in collections and the IPs that I really care about are Dead Rising (Dead IP and I already own them all on Steam), Resident Evil (Most of the games are old and easy to emulate whereas the newer games are mostly watered down remakes), Devil May Cry (already own them all on Steam), Mega Man (IP on life support and All of them are on Steam except for Legends and a few of the spinoffs), and Darkstalkers (Dead IP, already on Steam in multiple collections)... so I wouldn't buy a subscription, and the casual gamer doesn't have any real reason to want only Capcom games.

Microsoft's gamepass makes sense because it's a low price for a LOT of games, many of which aren't even owned by Microsoft, and you can play them on platforms that aren't the original platform (Wanna play the Rare Replay? This is the only way! Think they even have Enchanted Arms which... has no Steam Port... since it was released at a time when PC Gaming was dead due to the industry being afraid of pirates)

AND I STILL DON'T USE IT, BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE RELIABLY PURCHASABLE OR EMULATABLE! AND THAT'S EASIER THAN MAINTAINING A SUBSCRIPTION FEE ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT I'LL FINALLY GO BACK AND FINISH DOOM 2016 SOMEDAY!

breathes

And that's not even getting into the fact that video games are an investment, I'm pouring energy into actually finishing them, I'm going back to older ones to see if I can do it better this time or find something missed, and after a long enough session even though I'm having fun, I'm actually tired because what I've done took effort on my part and if it was difficult it might even have triggered some kind of stress signal in my brain...

Meanwhile, a MOVIE based subscription service makes sense, because I'm probably just going to throw something on and kick back, there's no investment on my part outside of what I'm paying....

I think in general, people forget this, Video Games demand something of the player. Movies do not.

A movie isn't going to suddenly stop the story in order to challenge what you know about the film, then go "Sorry buddy, if you wanna watch the rest of the movie you'll have to do better than that", a video game? Well I guess you can look up the ending on Youtube... but that's called giving up (Or acknowledging that the final stage is pure unbalanced bullshit that wasn't properly tested... looking at you Freedom Planet and Manual Samuel... yeah even the Indie Scene has this problem...)

Of course a lot of modern games ARE movies, so what's the point in actually playing Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed when you can save yourself the endless glitchfest and dull gameplay by just watching a Let's Play lol, so maybe that's why executives are getting confused...

I think the direct parallel was Netflix. It used to be the only platform of it's kind with an extensive catalog, so it was a far easier sell for people to sign up and stay subscribed. Even at it's peak though, Netflix never managed to kill off physical media because there are still fans who want to own that disc of their favorite TV show or movie that they could watch anywhere, anytime. Then when other media companies wanted to grab their share of streaming revenue by clawing back their stuff from Netflix and setting up their own smaller catalogs, thinking they would get the same retention that Netflix achieved, instead people started to play the subscription hopping game. In the wake of this, sales of physical media are even seeing an increase too.

I feel like Steam comes close to being the "Netflix" of games because even though it's not literally streaming games and doesn't use a subscription model, it still has an extensive catalog and acts as an alternative to owning physical copies of games which comes with both benefits and drawbacks. I'm pretty sure that if publishers keep trying to claw their stuff away from Steam though, that we'll see a similar uptick in people returning to buying physical copies as a result.

Can you even get physical PC games anymore? I have an official flash drive with Psychonauts 2 on it, but that's just because I was a backer for hte game

Yeah that's true, I was thinking more of consoles but I suppose Steam doesn't really have any bearing on that market. I guess the better equivalent for PC would be DRM free games where it's downloadable, and could be backed up to physical media (not provided). 😅

Indeed, and we honestly have Steam to thank for there even being a PC gaming market, there was a period of time where PC ports basically didn't exist, and developers when asked why basically turned around and said they want the game to be bought with money instead of being downloaded off of limewire... and before Steam came along, there really wasn't an answer to that question as piracy really was more convenient than the actual PC market at that time.

I dont want to pay a subscription for a bunch of games I'm not interested in. I want to buy and own the specific games I want to play. Fuck off ubisoft

We need time get comfortable trusting games companies that have the track record they do not to fuck customers that have trusted they'll continue to provide access to their games rather than arbitrarily removing them, adding game-ruining monetisation, fucking with subscription prices gating access to their libraries and generally acting like shady arseholes?

Suuure - sign me up.

I think he said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet....

The last game I bought was Outer Wilds in 2022, on sale, for like ten bucks. Maybe I bought Firewatch in 2023 as a rebound, but I don't remember. After that, I decided to finally play through the MCC for most of 2023, which I'd bought years earlier for like 50 bucks, maybe. And how much would I have to have paid to keep acces to these games for so long with a subscription model? Well, just to keep acces with Ubusoft would have cost me nearly 300 dollars since late 2022, for less than 80 dollars worth of games. Of course they want us to have subscriptions.

Fuck subscriptions. I pay you $5 for groovy Zilean as a magnificent hippy grandpa and you change him into a cranked out meth head because the Chinese government told you to. Fuck you for your control over what you took my money for!

I genuinely hope this guy doesn't get "comfortable" not having a job.

And of course they won't compete over which service provides the better app\features\catalogue but will try the same exclusivity game the video streaming platforms started... No thanks!

Hey now, that's they're prerogative -- just like it's my prerogative to never give them a cent of money again.

If the way things are going is no one owns anything they buy, then the incentive to buy things drops significantly.

This is why digital media corporations make up convoluted agreements but they don't ever change the little button saying "Buy". If more people realized they are not actually purchasing and getting to own it, they wouldn't spend their money.

But it's even more revolting that the law and governments validate this obvious false advertising.

People don’t have a problem with subscriptions, they have a problem with companies like Ubisoft charging ridiculous sums to play low quality games.

Subscriptions would take off just fine if they were reasonable and fair, and not trying to exploit their customers.

Is Ubisoft just like…. Enjoying shooting itself in the foot? Haven’t they suffered enough scandals?

My dream is that everyone gets fired, and the janitor walks in and says "Well, I guess if no one else is here to stop me, Rayman 4?"

Love app stores pay to play and subscription models? Coming soon to every platform as fast as they can shove it down your throat.

I like subscriptions, skins, and microtransactions. I wish they'd stop with all the skill based stuff though

I feel like this post belongs under c/gaming rather than c/technology....

Things do not exist in a bubble. If gaming can get away with taking your ownership of games, it will come to another industry next. Games are one of the most profitable industries in the world now, as much as people like to treat it as a "thing children do" - it is actively participating in writing the playbooks of other industries. People need to be made aware of the scummy shit the industry has gotten up to without any of the proper regulations to curb it.

I agree with that, but this just doesn't scream "Technology" worthy news to me.

But I think I'm just at the point where I need to find another community that's a bit more focused on new up and coming technology rather than the latest drama about something that uses technology.

And PoP has already been cracked. Piracy remains a service problem.

In this thread: People that disagree and then turn around and play games they don't truly own on Steam

👍

My argument against this is that at least I own a license to the game rather than just a subscription. Steam still has and updates games that were made unpurchasable a decade ago. Hell, people still play rocket league on steam.

This is a separate argument altogether. Theres "own physically" and theres "own a license" to. If you own it physically and your physical media corrupts (which happens often to digital discs) did you own it any more than if you had it on steam? It's also illegal to make a copy of a console disc, btw.

What the article is talking about is not even obtaining a license for at all and games just being attached to a subscription

Yup. Physical media has its own disadvantages.

If I scratch a disc, or my house gets robbed, burns down, etc, it's gone forever and I need to buy a new game (or hundreds!) If I have a digital copy, I still have it.

I actually had to contend with this when my house was robbed and I lost all my DS, GBA, Dreamcast, and N64 games.

Plus, this idea that physical media doesn't have DRM is a complete falsehood. Discs and cartridges come with copy protection, region-locking, forced always-online DRM, etc. If that's not digital rights management, I don't know what is!

DRM is not the same as a subscription.

And a lot of games on steam don't have the DRM, you can just buy and keep the game files. I do wish they'd make it clear on the store page or give me the option to filter out DRM games though.

"A lot"

How many? Because I think the actual % might surprise you quite a bit.

Can you play the games by purchasing them and then not having to ever download them using Steam?

The only DRM free games are physical copies, otherwise you rely on a specific service to be able to play, even if it's only once (like with GOG), it's a form of DRM.

"A lot"

Yes, a lot.

Can you play the games by purchasing them and then not having to ever download them using Steam?

Yes.

The only DRM free games are physical copies

No. Evidently you don't know what Digital Rights Management is.

If you can run it with no launcher, no software verifying purchase, you can back it up, copy it, distribute it, etc, then it's not DRM.

otherwise you rely on a specific service to be able to play, even if it's only once (like with GOG), it's a form of DRM.

Wait, what? You think buying a DRM-free game from a storefront is a form of DRM?

Ok then, let's use that logic. Buying a physical game from a shop is therefore also DRM, because you have to buy the game from them.

Proportionally it doesn't look too great

https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games_on_Steam

`>Can you play the games by purchasing them and then not having to ever download them using Steam?

Yes.`

Tell me how do you buy a game on Steam and play it without downloading it from their servers? 🤔

Wait, *what?* You think buying a DRM-free game from a storefront is a form of DRM?

It is, you depend on a digital storefront to have a proof of ownership and to download the game in the first place.

Buying a physical game from a shop is therefore also DRM

What's digital about physical copies?

That list doesn't have literally every DRM free game, almost every VR game I have doesn't have DRM and they are not on the list.

Tell me how do you but a game on Steam and play it without downloading it from their servers? 🤔

Downloading a DRM-free game from a web store is not DRM no matter how much you repeat that it is.

It is, you depend on a digital storefront to have a proof of ownership and to download the game in the first place.

It isn't. The files can be copied and distributed any way you like. Same goes for GOG. A DRM-free game is a DRM-free game. It can be copied.

What's digital about physical copies?

It's still digital. It contains digital data... come on, you can't seriously be unaware of this. Is a digital camera not digital because it stores the data on a physical SD card?

Physical media has DRM too. CDs, DVDs, BluRays, game cartridges all have DRM.

Your argument that buying something means it's DRM is nonsense. Buying something from a physical shop and buying something online isn't different. They both require you to hand over money to get the game files. They're either both DRM or neither are.

Which is the only way you can own and play a game without an internet connection?

That's the only true DRM free and true ownership experience.

You're moving the goalposts again?

Downloading a game isn't DRM.

Yes it is as you depend on the goodwill of a digital platform. If Steam bans you how do you prove that you own the "DRM free" games you've bought from them and haven't simply pirated them?

Why would you need to prove anything? The whole point of DRM free is that you don't need to prove anything, you just run it.

By saying that you want a mechanism for proving ownership, you're essentially saying you want DRM.

If steam bans me, I run the executables that I've downloaded. Same as I would if I pirated it.

Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft can block you from playing your physical media, and yet you claim that isn't DRM, because the data exists on a disc/cartridge, rather than stored on an SSD.

You are showing a fundamental cluelessness of what DRM actually is.

Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft can block you from playing your physical media

Only if there's an online component to the game. If I go buy a brand new Switch and a physical copy of Mario Kart, there's nothing Nintendo can do to stop me from playing the game.

Not true. Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo can and do brick peoples systems, e.g. when they're reported stolen or someone modifies their system. You rely on their goodwill every time you use the system or launch a game.

And Switch game cartridges literally contain DRM lmao

Nice job ignoring the rest of my comment.

2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...
2 more...

I pirate, and also pay for games I think the devs should make money on. I happen to like bioshock and la noire enough to pay for them on steam, with cracked copies to keep.

Why not buy from a DRM free platform or one where the devs make a bigger share of the profit?

You literally said in another comment that DRM-free storefronts are still DRM. Which is it?

"you rely on a specific service to be able to play, even if it's only once (like with GOG), it's a form of DRM."

Still better than the alternative which is 100% dependence on the platform you bought from. Even the backups you can create from Steam require Steam to unpack, if it stops existing or they stop supporting it then your backups are useless.

No they don't, not for the DRM-free games on steam. I can copy the files and run the executable, just as I can from GOG.

2 more...

You can't say that and keep it off the only subscription model that is making any waves. Honestly, if you want subscription options to take off, you need to ride the gamepass wave until it subsides and then build up from their when people are lost with all their games gone or on a subscription that is way too expensive.