I see you haven't changed since coming back. I sincerely hope you're a 14 year old, because if you're an adult, my faith in mankind is definitely lost.
Not that I had any to begin with.
Ubisoft exec: get used to not owning your games !!!! |UP| with Larian Studios response and Concerns.
- Thread starter Kx11
- Start date
I see you haven't changed since coming back. I sincerely hope you're a 14 year old, because if you're an adult, my faith in mankind is definitely lost.
Not that I had any to begin with.
He's wrong. Gamepass doesn't have the same problems as Ubisoft+, and the 'ownership' issue is the same there. Ubi is failing because they've got a publisher-specific subscription that doesn't offer good value for the money.
I agree that the option should always be there in general, however, I see next generation as being the last for physical games. Publishers simply don't want to spend the extra money and with digital being like 85% or some crap like that, it's only going to grow. For me, I rarely replay games, prefer to keep my money than give it to a billion or trillion dollar company for a game that im only going to play once and then move on. Also, some games just aren't worth buying. For example, I played and completed AC Mirage and Avatar for a combined $36 where as buying them would have cost me $120 minimum day one and it's highly unlikely that I ever re-install those games again. I will however subscribe to Ubi+ for Outlaws and AC 2024. May give Persia a chance but im not a metroidvania guy so I would never buy that game regardless.
I'm 45. The main difference is that I adapted and learned to take advantage of publishers as opposed to letting them take advantage of me. Why would anyone want to give Ubisoft which is my #1 publisher and developer by the way $50 for Mirage day one or $70 for Avatar when I have the option to play and complete them both for $36?
Do you not subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, etc.? Like, none of them? I have YouTube Premium and subscribe to others for a month or two when there's new seasons of shows I want to watch and once completed, I cancel just like I do with Ubisoft+ and Game Pass.
Just like people accepted Digital despite saying it sucks and it won't last two generations ago and just like people said no one plays online, blah blah blah a generation ago, it's the same shit now. People will bash subscriptions now and within a decade, it will be the main way to play games along with mobile and free to play.
But hey, here's a positive for those who prefer buying their games and think that everyone should do that, I will be buying Rebirth. So not only am I buying the game, im buying it digitally day one on PSN. But am I going to buy games if/when I don't have to? Hell no. If you or others want to do that, more power to you.
Last edited:
I don't subscribe to any of the services you mention except for Amazon and I don't use it prime at all... Just the delivery services.
I don't think everything can or should be a subscription.
I agree that subscriptions shouldn't replace buying games (or movies, etc.) but it should be an option for those who want to access the games and content that way.
You're 45 and you still don't understand that they are the ones taking advantage of you. It's fascinating.
Nope, I don't subscribe to any of them. I subscribe to Amazon Prime because I make full use of their delivery service, but that's it.
If people don't have a choice, they will adapt.
Contrary to you, I only buy games I want to play.
I'm saving money that stays in my pocket as opposed to it going to a billion or trillion dollar company so how exactly are they taking advantage of me? LOL
Fair enough.
I never said for subscription to be the only choice but it SHOULD be an option for those like me who want and prefer that option.
Every game I play are games that I want to play but some games are definite while others are of interest but not definite. If I can try out a game that im not 100% sure on, why wouldn't I do that?
Alright folks differences in opinions and all tht. Many good points on here even if polarizing and that's OK. Remember some ppl will just think differently than others and thts fine. Don't get stuck on trying to change someines or trying to demean.
Lets move things along.
Lets move things along.
The anti post...
Swen Vincke, Head of Larian Studios, Shares Doubts and Concerns over Subscription Services Potentially Becoming the Dominant Gaming Model
Then his job security should be tied to how thier prescription service performs. I bet almost nobody subscribes, but they are in bed with Microsoft so I'm not surprised at the comment.
It seems like the main ones who hype up sub services only do it because that's what MS is doing.
It's hard to believe the money people are simping so hard for a business model that destroys profits like no other.
This is another case of people in forums and social media falling and buying a clickbaity sensationalist headline of an incomplete reply to a baity question cut put out of context, that when you go to read the full original interview see that he was really meaning it's a totally different thing.
In this case, this guy -director of subscriptions- isn't saying he expects or wants to happen things as people not owning the games they bought or that he wants subs to replace aquired games, he's just replying the question "but what is it going to take for subscription to step up and become a more significant proportion of the industry?"
His full reply is:
"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.
There are multiple behaviours. There are definitely a lot of people who come in for one game and then decide to buy it after [the subscription ends]. That's part of the reality and that's ok with us."
Read the full interview to get the full context: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-n...amers-comfortable-with-not-owning-their-games
This tweet is a dumb take from someone who didn't read the interview.
In this case, this guy -director of subscriptions- isn't saying he expects or wants to happen things as people not owning the games they bought or that he wants subs to replace aquired games, he's just replying the question "but what is it going to take for subscription to step up and become a more significant proportion of the industry?"
His full reply is:
"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.
There are multiple behaviours. There are definitely a lot of people who come in for one game and then decide to buy it after [the subscription ends]. That's part of the reality and that's ok with us."
Read the full interview to get the full context: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-n...amers-comfortable-with-not-owning-their-games
He never said or meant that, see below.
This tweet is a dumb take from someone who didn't read the interview.
- This director of subscriptions never said that players need to be comfortable with not owning their purchased games.
- He never suggested that the shift needs to (or that he wants to) happen.
- "Ubisoft services and games remain accessible and that they won't go anywhere" is a totally retarded claim, Ubisoft is one of the top publishers in the world selling games and in the interview he says they got millions of news subbers in recent years who collectively played over half a billion of hours. Plus also mentions they are growing with a new tier and platforms (and soon they'll have the ABK games there).
Last edited:
He's spitting
People like Satya, Phil, Netflix execs, etc all have their bonuses tied to subscription growth, they couldn't care less if their businesses lose or make money as long as they get that $50m check at the end of the year. They don't care about the health of the gaming/film industry at all or the art behind them, all they care about is lining their own pockets. Thankfully we still have people like Larian
You are so naive if you if think companies are in the subscription game to lose money per head. Really naive.
That's fine, but like physical being abandoned even when people still buy physical games, subscriptions are being shoved up our ass even if we don't want them.
You could vote with your wallet and ask companies to provide you with trials, instead of throwing money for a subscription service to test games. But I'm sure you think you're very smart.
I never said that the company would lose money. Every company is in business to make money. But here's an example, let's say I buy Hellblade 2 for $70 on disc or $70 via digital or I pay $11 and complete it within 30 days for what will be a monthly rental and then cancel the subscription which I have done every time. Digital, Microsoft will make $70, Game Pass, $11 and Disc would be probably around $30-$40 after the fees the retailers, distribution, etc. get. So I never said anything about the company losing money but when it comes to me and how I choose to play games, they'll make less money off me than those who'll buy the game. Game Pass will make Microsoft more revenue and profit if everyone stays subscribed after signing up but I don't since I cancel before it renews.
Every business/company is going to push what they prefer customers to choose. People keep talking about physical when it's basically dead and the best part is, two generations ago when digital started on Xbox 360/PlayStation 3, everyone said, it won't last, it will die. But the opposite happened. Vast majority of consumers will do what is better for themselves and at the end of the day, there's no cheaper way to play a game day one than via a subscription service especially if you're like me and cancel before the subscription renews.
Majority of companies aren't going to give you a trial/demo and in some cases, that hurts game sales which is why publishers rarely do it. Indies are more likely to do it than AA/AAA publishers. You think I'll spend money to try out the game? You do realize im cheap, right? lol
For example, Prince of Persia The Lost Crown is a game im interested in and want to try out but I will wait until Outlaws or AC 2024 is released and on Ubisoft+ so when that happens, I will play the game I want to play 100% for a cheap $18 monthly rental while also being able to try out the full game of POP as opposed to a demo.