Yeah but... You do get that you don't own any of your games on Steam, Epic, whatever either?
Just GOG is DRM free.
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
988 points (98.8% liked)
Gaming
3313 readers
2157 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Don't you mean.. AAAA company?
I stopped buying games that require online login. It's a real pain in the ass when I'm traveling and offline. I stopped buying anything from Ubisoft, EA and Rockstar. They made their choice, so I did too.
I hate that Halo:MCC requires my like, 28 digit Microsoft password AND 2FA to play a game from 2007. It should allow you to bypass login and just play as your steam account.
Every time I want to play it, it asks for that, and I just quit and play something that is far less of a hassle, particularly offline.
This bugs the hell out of me too. I don't think I've even started it yet for this very reason.
I took their advice and got comfortable not owning Ubisoft games.
They make it so easy: anything they release I've already played years ago already.
i quit after AC4. kept up with the news and reviews, seems I never really missed anything good.
Maybe they should just have fewer avocado toasts for a while?
kinda unrelated but I'd love it if valve sold physical copies of their games to use with the successor to the steam deck
I've hated what ubisoft has done to gaming ever since the fc3. Only shining beacons were early siege and rayman games. They have incredible artists and programmers working at it and could make some great games but the directors completely double down on the most generic, most mindeless wide appeal possible. I regret buying wildlands because the setting is unique. The game is as tactical as far cry which is just mindleslly run into camp, use your overpowered character against deaf and dumb enemies and complete the collectable.
I remember "Far Cry Blood Dragon" as the only entry that really stood out. The gameplay was exactly what you described but dialed to 11 (as it should be).
FC 3-6 ... same game, identical mechanics, less over the top fun more boring and repetitive tasks. Somewhere at Ubisoft there is someone who is responsible for this, including all the consequences.
FC3 was a game changer. It was absolutely wild in its time. It's just a shame that all of its successors went the same road... I stopper playing midgame FarCry V because it was... bad. The scenario was shit. The gameplay was shit. The map was huge but lacked substance.
I don't think i even play Ubisoft games, they can go down for all i care.
But then who’s going to reskin my favourite open world games every year?
I've always thought they do such a good job at building worlds but are absolute shit on story and content. I wish there was a way they'd just build worlds and then hand it off to someone who knows how to make a decent story. Valhalla and Odyssey had amazing worlds that deserved better stories
I'm a very casual gamer. Where can I find out what Ubisoft is doing to get them so much hate?
It is difficult to know where to start, since there have been a lot of unpopular actions. A lot of these are pretty standard for the triple A studios unfortunately. Think DRM with always online and authentication server issues, toxic workplace, decommissioned games by removing the servers for them and not giving ways for people to self host, rehashing existing properties to milk success, having their own launcher so having double layers of authentication, microtransactions, subscription based model pushing, game variants locking out certain content unless more money is payed etc.
decommissioned games by removing the servers for them
The pirated version usually works.
and I was mad when I couldn’t local host StarCraft anymore.
I really try to avoid recreation companies with human right ‘challenges ’ like abusive working environments.
So is Ubisoft worse than most others ? Do they do that junk on console games as well? Like if I got an Ubisoft game for switch would I need a non-Nintendo account?
Based on the words of internet strangers I will not purchase their games. Sounds like way to much to go though just to play a game. Do people really go though all of that to game?
It sounds like way too much effort
A year ago Ubisoft exec gave an interview where he said that the next leap in gaming industry should be fueled by gaming subscriptions, and that gamers should get comfortable playing by subscription as opposed to buying and owning game licenses.
He then proceeded to give an example on how players got comfortable switching from physical media and full ownership to digital licenses.
This caused a massive player backlash on the wave of protests against the migration from ownership to subscriptions (aka "You'll own nothing and be happy"). Ubisoft has got a financial dent as sales and subscriptions dropped, and is now facing a problematic financial future.
Thanks. Is that like how steam or console games need to connect to a server to validate a game before you play, so when the server stops so does your game or is this worse than that? Can't say that idea appeals to me either.
Anything else ? or was that enough
Steam doesn't do that. Some games on Steam do, but it's the games deciding to do that, not Steam.
There are many games on Steam that are DRM free and can be played offline and without Steam running or being installed at all.
That's what happens with DRM and digital licensing, which was considered by the exec to have most players already onboard.
Here, he was talking about gaming subscriptions, i.e. paying a monthly fee to have access to a library of games. Once you stop paying, games become unavailable, and games outside the subscription are not available either. His idea is to make more gamers comfortable with the subscription model despite it taking away any possibility to play when you stop paying.
If only bankruptcy actually meant consequences for those responsible.
I sentence the investors and executives to lives of extreme luxury
Pretty much. The leadership team all have a golden parachute and will be integrated back into an industry and fuck that up too.
It's a shame that they don't have a literal golden parachute.
Gamers say that Ubisoft execs need to get comfortable with not being solvent.
I'm afraid Ubisoft execs won't feel much from that.
Ubisoft execs need to get comfortable flying coach.
view more: next ›