Is there a community list of VG company not to buy from?

Kir@feddit.it to Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com – 171 points –

After reading today EA's takes on AI and strategies about boosting user monetization promoting and exploitation of user's gambling addiction, I asked myself "How can someone defend those company agains boycotting and piracy?".

So here I am: is there somewhere a curated list of VG companies to absolutely avoid giving money too? If not, do you thing we should do it? It would be nice to have a list with arguments and sources in order to make more publicly relevant the ethical and strateical reasons behind piracy.

p.s.I think it's ok if you pirate things even without a moral stand behind, especially if you can't afford games and other media at all, but the arguments still apply

52

Ubisoft.

https://www.ign.com/articles/ubisoft-exec-says-gamers-need-to-get-comfortable-not-owning-their-games-for-subscriptions-to-take-off

High on the list for sure, near Nintendo BTW

I’m already not much of a Ubisoft fan, but wasn’t this just a response to a question about what would need to happen for subscriptions to take off? What should have been said? In context, it’s more of a hypothetical than an imperative.

Context doesn’t make for good clickbait, though.

Context is that Ubisoft is pivoting their entire business model to subscriptions, so this isn't merely "a response to a question", but their actual expectations of their users for their business model to succeed.

Are you saying that Ubisoft doesn't actually believe that people shouldn't own their games and that this was a hypothetical discussion that was taken out of context? Because my impression was that this was sort of a response to people complaining about subscription-based games and DRM content that makes the concept of owning games blurry.

Because if this position doesn't really represent Ubisoft, then what should have been said is whatever does represent Ubisoft. Ideally they should agree that people have the right own the games they purchase.

In my opinion someone should generally own what they buy. That's why I like GOG, which distributes DRM free games, and part of why I often pirate games especially from large companies. In my opinion the take that people should only have a license representing permission to use a product that is actually owned by a company is delusional if not dystopian, and Ubisoft should be made fun of for having that position, and their games should be pirated.

Here's an explanation/rant/opinion I more or less agree with by Louis Rossmann if you're/anyone's interested

Are you saying that Ubisoft doesn't actually believe that people shouldn't own their games and…

No

that this was a hypothetical discussion that was taken out of context?

Yes

if the statement does accurately represent the position of Ubisoft as a company, why is the context important? What is the context that would improve peoples' perception of Ubisoft telling their customers that exchanging your money for their products doesn't grant you ownership of the products?

I apologize, this is a bit of an extreme comparison: If I were to ask you what needed to happen for Nazi Germany to have won WWII, and you gave an honest answer, would it be fair of someone else to take your answer as proof that people on the internet wanted the nazis to win? It shouldn’t matter how your quote is used because there are certainly Nazi supporters on the internet, which is the primary concern of the claim. Right?

I would like to know what the original question was.

I see what you mean, I don't think I've ever seen the context of the question that prompted the statement, and yes when you put it like that I can see how the context can be important. So I did a bit of Googling to see what I could find after I read your reply, and here's what I found:

From what I can tell this is the first article that broke the news, and it's a conversation with Philippe Tremblay, the director of subscriptions at Ubisoft. Here's a long excerpt of the relevant portion:

The question remains around the potential of the subscription model in games. Tremblay says that there is "tremendous opportunity for growth", but what is it going to take for subscription to step up and become a more significant proportion of the industry?

"I don't have a crystal ball, but when you look at the different subscription services that are out there, we've had a rapid expansion over the last couple of years, but it's still relatively small compared to the other models," he begins. "We're seeing expansion on console as the likes of PlayStation and Xbox bring new people in. On PC, from a Ubisoft standpoint, it's already been great, but we are looking to reach out more on PC, so we see opportunity there.

"One of the things we saw is that gamers are used to, a little bit like DVD, having and owning their games. That's the consumer shift that needs to happen. They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection. That's a transformation that's been a bit slower to happen [in games]. 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.

"I still have two boxes of DVDs. I definitely understand the gamers perspective with that. But as people embrace that model, they will see that these games will exist, the service will continue, and you'll be able to access them when you feel like. That's reassuring.

"Streaming is also a thing that works really well with subscription. So you pay when you need it, as opposed to paying all the time."

Streaming is a distribution method that appears to lend itself to the subscription model, although currently it remains a very niche corner of the business. Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot told GI in June that Ubisoft believes in streaming, but that it needs time. "It's getting there," he told us. "Just not as fast as we thought. When you are in a good city with good internet, it's fantastic. But it's not the case for everyone. The Nvidia experience, for example, is fantastic, but we thought it would go faster. We've learned a lot by working with these services, and we're using that experience to enhance what we're doing,"

So yeah it sounds to me like the journalist directly asked how subscription models could become more accepted and normal. It sounds like Philippe Tremblay wants, in particular, for Ubisoft to get in the streaming market, like if you don't have a powerful enough computer to run a game, pay to stream it from a computer that is.

I'm on your side now I think, but I would maintain that Ubisoft would probably love a future where all games are subscription based, but that would just be speculation on my part only based on my bias against corporations ;3

So yeah I get you now, sorry for pressing you, thanks for bearing with me

For simplicity, I have it in regex format

.+

Jokes aside, Nintendo, EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo, Activision-blizzard and Nintendo are the ones that come to mind.

If indi and plays well on deck, I'm generally on paying.

If it's publicly traded, just don't.

The one exception I have is id, but I also don't preorder, so if they fuck up the next Doom or Quake, I'll know before I buy anyway.

This, publicly trading means your company is now the product, games are just a way to make the stock price go up, so they need to sell gazillions and have the broadest possible audience.

This inevitably leads to flavour of the month design by committee garbage gameplay, enshittified business models like "live service", and writing catering to "global audiences" with cookie cutter quips and insufferable millennial "humour".

All that or whatever the fuck cod writers are mainlining alongside taurine and the tortured soul of Chris Benoit.

For me its Ubisoft, EA and Nintendo.

Do you not know about Sony's sordid past?

Google 'Geohot ps3'. Then google 'Sony rootkit CDs'.

George Hotz was the first person who jail broke a ps3. and taught others how to do it, until Sony sued him. Then anonymous fucked Sony, hard. like really hard.

https://youtu.be/66A4zcJaPLk

Then google 'Sony rootkit CDs'.

I get so excited anytime someone else remembers this shit. Thank you.

Never forget, Sony CEO response was basically "The people who had a rootkit installed on their machine don't even know what a rootkit is; why should I care."

Well, fuck around and find out.

I'm not a fan of any corporation, so they can get fucked too I won't buy sony hardware but if they port a game to steam I want I'll get in on sale.

I support valve with purchases on steam as it supports linux. There was also the fact that sony took the linux install option away from the ps2 (or was it ps3) .

Weren't they the people who hid threats in the code aimed at geohot?

Add ActiBlizz and Epic for me.

What's wrong with epic?

Sent from my pile of free epic games.

From a Linux user's point of view, Epic refuses to support Linux. They also refuse to support their own games using EAC on Linux (via Proton) despite EAC being Linux-compatible.

EDIT: Grammar.

Additionally, instead of actually trying to compete and gain users but making a platform that isn't trash, they insist on instead trying to trick users with temporary free game offers. And if that doesn't work, they try to strong arm users into going to their platform by buying exclusive sales rights to games, bringing exclusives to the PC gaming space.

Their CEO is a loud clown who is always spouting nonsense on Twitter. They buy games studios and rip their games off of the platform where users bought them (see Rocket League), and discontinue mac/Linux versions that were fully functional.

Their flagship game preys on children via micro transactions. They lack so many features on their platform that (I believe) they have endorsed using Steams community features for games bought on Epic.

I could probably go on, but I think that's probably sufficient.

To each their own, but Linux makes up 4% of PC OS market share. Can't blame a company for not supporting such a small percentage.

Fair but you also can't really judge someone for not using epic and disliking them when they can't use epic because they won't support their OS. Also the percentage is growing, steam is supporting and improving, and Epic is going to be far behind when they realize they should have supported linux too.

Not allowing reviews on the storefront seems minor, but is in fact an aggressively anti-consumer move given the standards of the industry. They've got other issues too, but that one gets ignored way too often for me to not mention

I have a bunch, but off the top of my head: Ubisoft, EA, Microsoft, Tencent, anything that's Epic exclusive. I should really have Take-Two on there as well but realistically I'm never not going to play Civilization so my principles fail me there.

EA, Ubisoft, Nintendo, Sony(particularly, Sony if youre buying digital, Sony doesnt give a shit if your purchases suddenly go ”missing")

Unless it's a structured, concentrated effort, I'm afraid that individuals boycotting won't do much except saving you a few bucks. I don't see that happening, considering the track record of gamers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI6BNvxmWD4

If you live in Europe/Australia and bought tne Crew, there's something going on about creating a precedent that would forbid games as a service getting killed by Ross Scott.

That would be a pretty long list and also highly subjective. I'm a big fan of Paradox Interactive but can see how many feel their business model of multiple paid dlc, for what are often core features, to be highly predatory. The obvious ones being EA, Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard spring to mind though.

For me, its almost all the big studios.

One exception being FROM, and a few of the Sony owned studios.

I literally don't buy anything I can get for free.

If you only consider monetary cost, you can get anything free.

If you consider risk, opportunity, and effort, nothing is free.

For your statement to be literally true, you must either buy literally everything or literally nothing depending on your perspective.

Based and petrol siphon pilled

Or A really rich friend that wants to play games with you

Sugar daddies fall under "effort"...at least if you want them to keep paying for your games.

Do you really need a list to tell you what to buy and not buy?

I mean it really doesn't take that much effort to avoid those companies you don't like.

Keeping a community list seems stupid, everyone has different things they like and don't like, and the gaming community isn't a personal army, despite what others might think.

Eh with the amount of bs companies do it gets pretty hard to keep track of

Plus most people don't really have the time to dig into all of that

I think the point I was more getting at is that the bullshit that companies do is extremely subjective, and everyone has their own different things that they feel are important issues. But you're not wrong. There is a lot of BS to keep track of.

And I'm thinking that if it's related to something you do actually care about, you should be digging into it. Plenty of people are trying to mislead people all the time, and it's so easy to get swept up in fake outrage if you don't actually stop to question things.

That's why a bunch of people are angry at a consulting firm for a bunch of different game studios right now. Because somebody literally just made a list of things for people to be mad at.

Damn, man. Are you alright? Why are you so stressed?