5 ms·

Ubisoft’s ecosystem has always been especially terrible- I don’t know anyone that enjoys using it.

politelemon 3y ago
I suspect this is much like the EA userbase. EA is a terrible company for gaming. Among their many shady and abhorrent practices, they re release the same game every year with minor to no changes: FIFA (now called something else). The userbase that plays these games do not care. They are a sustained revenue source. A majority of them do not overlap with gaming and tech communities online. They simply play the games and move on. It's a large silent community that we don't often interact with. Ubisoft has a similar userbase in its assassin's creed, far cry etc series. To them this won't be any cause for concern.
- Exoristos 3y ago
  The Walmart userbase.
- Daz1 3y ago
  >they re release the same game every year with minor to no changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_(video_game_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_(video_game_series) Please stop spreading disinformation. Aside from the usual graphical changes and annual roster updates you can see a list of major changes under each release. >The userbase that plays these games do not care. So what exactly is the problem if they're clearly meeting the expectations of their userbase?
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I think there is an argument to be made that a game franchise known absolutely to see new, regular annual releases could be better served as a GAAS (Game As A Service) instead of as standalone releases that demand to be purchased each time. Food for thought.
    - fakedang 3y ago
      Paradox Interactive recently did this for the Europa Universalis series, and honestly it's a good deal for new adopters. That being said, it's more expensive than a humble bundle sale (which happens often, at least annually). The EU4 game receives at least 2 DLCs as well as other music packs and sound packs a year, so it makes sense to get the subscription (which could still be more affordable for some people though).
    - SargeDebian 3y ago
      Fifa 23 for PC came out for €60 and dropped to €40 in November 2022, and then jumped back and forth between those prices. That is €5 or ~€3.50 per month, paid annually, and you keep content if you stop subscribing. What would you expect a GaaS model to bring?
    - chupasaurus 3y ago
      Vast majority of profits are from their gacha mode so it wouldn't matter, but traditions™ to reap the harvest each year are stronger for now.
    - oefrha 3y ago
      You mean EA Play? I’ve subscribed for a month or two at a time when I wanted to play some FIFA or another EA title. You certainly don’t need to purchase the standalone titles.
- darkwater 3y ago
  > they re release the same game every year with minor to no changes: FIFA (now called something else). That's just the Switch version (called Legacy)
  - natebc 3y ago
    EA declined to pay the FIFA fee, the new game is called "EA Sports FC" https://www.ea.com/games/ea-sports-fc https://www.ea.com/games/ea-sports-fc
- woutr_be 3y ago
  > The userbase that plays these games do not care. They are a sustained revenue source. A majority of them do not overlap with gaming and tech communities online. They simply play the games and move on. It's a large silent community that we don't often interact with. What's with the need to use such an insulting tone, simply because you don't like a certain type of games? I buy F1 every single year, and I'm an avid gamer and part of the tech community. The game doesn't require massive changes every year, there's simply no need for it. Improved graphics, and an up to date grid, cars, circuits and regulations is what I want from such a game.
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    As a fellow F1 player, I do feel less comfortable buying these games at full price and that's why I don't buy them every year, even though of like the updated grid and tracks. I wish there was a cheaper upgrade option, since I'm clearly not buying a full game. Your point that it doesn't need a full overhaul is completely correct, but we are still paying full price.
    - woutr_be 3y ago
      I do agree with you on the price point. And sometimes I do feel like I'm overpaying just to have the game up to date. Obviously I don't know any of the financials behind making such a game, but I would imagine that licensing makes up a fairly large chunk of the price.
      - cornel_io 3y ago
        I know nothing about this one in particular but typical game license deals are something like 25% of revenue to the IP holder. A strong dev like EA may bump that down a little bit and a mega IP (Harry Potter, Marvel, etc) might bump it up, but it's not going to be super far off.
  - BlargMcLarg 3y ago
    It's not an insult to point out the obvious 'ignorance is bliss'. You can still like bargain bin fast food while admitting such food is garbage. That's the thing happening with these companies, changing things to be more consumer-unfriendly while riding on nostalgia or branding. Pointing it out doesn't make it an insult to those still enjoying the game.
- nperez 3y ago
  I'm a sports fan and I see it as an annual subscription model. They update rosters and make small tweaks, and if I don't care I can stick with the older games. I've seen Jetbrains use a model where you optionally subscribe for continued updates, and I've seen it in audio production software too. Madden for PS5 is $70.00, or just under $6/mo. If you spend half as much time playing Madden as you do watching Netflix or Youtube, then it's not out of line with the average cost of entertainment. There are good points to be made about whether EA are meeting their full potential on quality of updates though.
- gmerc 3y ago
  EA is a bunch of wanna be tech uncles in the bay area who are secretly wishing to fit in with the tech CEOs but don’t have the business model to do it. See Unity (run by an ex EA CEO who spends a fortune on reputation management services wiping a certain lawsuit of the internet to the point obscure NY italian restaurants show up above his name in Google) wasting the opportunity to become the engine company in games and deliver solid value on ridiculous ads plays trying to become an ad tech company. These are companies that could have solid business models and solid value. But greed. EA is actually a parasite. It’s the Vampire Armand from Interview with the Vampire. It takes no risks, it doesn’t innovate because it doesn’t know how and want to - instead it buys already proven ideas, scales them with fat cheques and rides them until they are out of favor, while squeezing the people who build them year after year for 10% layoffs. And thus it keeps itself alive, decade after decade and the people who run it a fat paycheck, the road littered with the husks of sucked dry studios and broken dreams. One of many fun aspects: Many projects run on contingent workers who can only work for months out of a year (otherwise law would make them permanent), paid starbucks wages but without starbucks benefits. These workers are tunnels to EA with deals straight out of overpriced schools which approach young people with “100% placement rate” and “job guaranteed” in the hip game industry - tie them with insane student loans and then funnel them into EA. EA then dangles them the idea that the best performers will be made permanent - appealing to youthful optimism bias - and many of them run 2-3 years with intermittent unemployment before realizing that almost nobody gets made permanent. By then they are so deep in debt and unable to pay their loans, lack appreciable skills and stuck in a low end job that just hoping keeps them going or drives them to work at Starbucks for better benefits. It’s pure evil.
- jon-wood 3y ago
  While I agree with the mechanics of what you're saying, there definitely is a subset of people who don't really play games, they play a game. There's a few big franchises this applies to, EA's various sports games, F1, Football Manager, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, and I'm sure some others. What I don't agree with here is that the users don't care. No one is capable of having such passionate opinions on a glorified spreadsheet than a Football Manager fan. Likewise CoD players - they dared to try something new with whichever one was largely based in space (I thought it was one of the best), and got eviscerated by their player base, who really just want to play Modern Warfare 2 again.

I suspect this is much like the EA userbase. EA is a terrible company for gaming. Among their many shady and abhorrent practices, they re release the same game every year with minor to no changes: FIFA (now called something else). The userbase that plays these games do not care. They are a sustained revenue source. A majority of them do not overlap with gaming and tech communities online. They simply play the games and move on. It's a large silent community that we don't often interact with. Ubisoft has a similar userbase in its assassin's creed, far cry etc series. To them this won't be any cause for concern.

Exoristos 3y ago
The Walmart userbase.
Daz1 3y ago
>they re release the same game every year with minor to no changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_(video_game_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_(video_game_series) Please stop spreading disinformation. Aside from the usual graphical changes and annual roster updates you can see a list of major changes under each release. >The userbase that plays these games do not care. So what exactly is the problem if they're clearly meeting the expectations of their userbase?
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I think there is an argument to be made that a game franchise known absolutely to see new, regular annual releases could be better served as a GAAS (Game As A Service) instead of as standalone releases that demand to be purchased each time. Food for thought.
  - fakedang 3y ago
    Paradox Interactive recently did this for the Europa Universalis series, and honestly it's a good deal for new adopters. That being said, it's more expensive than a humble bundle sale (which happens often, at least annually). The EU4 game receives at least 2 DLCs as well as other music packs and sound packs a year, so it makes sense to get the subscription (which could still be more affordable for some people though).
  - SargeDebian 3y ago
    Fifa 23 for PC came out for €60 and dropped to €40 in November 2022, and then jumped back and forth between those prices. That is €5 or ~€3.50 per month, paid annually, and you keep content if you stop subscribing. What would you expect a GaaS model to bring?
  - chupasaurus 3y ago
    Vast majority of profits are from their gacha mode so it wouldn't matter, but traditions™ to reap the harvest each year are stronger for now.
  - oefrha 3y ago
    You mean EA Play? I’ve subscribed for a month or two at a time when I wanted to play some FIFA or another EA title. You certainly don’t need to purchase the standalone titles.
darkwater 3y ago
> they re release the same game every year with minor to no changes: FIFA (now called something else). That's just the Switch version (called Legacy)
- natebc 3y ago
  EA declined to pay the FIFA fee, the new game is called "EA Sports FC" https://www.ea.com/games/ea-sports-fc https://www.ea.com/games/ea-sports-fc
woutr_be 3y ago
> The userbase that plays these games do not care. They are a sustained revenue source. A majority of them do not overlap with gaming and tech communities online. They simply play the games and move on. It's a large silent community that we don't often interact with. What's with the need to use such an insulting tone, simply because you don't like a certain type of games? I buy F1 every single year, and I'm an avid gamer and part of the tech community. The game doesn't require massive changes every year, there's simply no need for it. Improved graphics, and an up to date grid, cars, circuits and regulations is what I want from such a game.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  As a fellow F1 player, I do feel less comfortable buying these games at full price and that's why I don't buy them every year, even though of like the updated grid and tracks. I wish there was a cheaper upgrade option, since I'm clearly not buying a full game. Your point that it doesn't need a full overhaul is completely correct, but we are still paying full price.
  - woutr_be 3y ago
    I do agree with you on the price point. And sometimes I do feel like I'm overpaying just to have the game up to date. Obviously I don't know any of the financials behind making such a game, but I would imagine that licensing makes up a fairly large chunk of the price.
    - cornel_io 3y ago
      I know nothing about this one in particular but typical game license deals are something like 25% of revenue to the IP holder. A strong dev like EA may bump that down a little bit and a mega IP (Harry Potter, Marvel, etc) might bump it up, but it's not going to be super far off.
- BlargMcLarg 3y ago
  It's not an insult to point out the obvious 'ignorance is bliss'. You can still like bargain bin fast food while admitting such food is garbage. That's the thing happening with these companies, changing things to be more consumer-unfriendly while riding on nostalgia or branding. Pointing it out doesn't make it an insult to those still enjoying the game.
nperez 3y ago
I'm a sports fan and I see it as an annual subscription model. They update rosters and make small tweaks, and if I don't care I can stick with the older games. I've seen Jetbrains use a model where you optionally subscribe for continued updates, and I've seen it in audio production software too. Madden for PS5 is $70.00, or just under $6/mo. If you spend half as much time playing Madden as you do watching Netflix or Youtube, then it's not out of line with the average cost of entertainment. There are good points to be made about whether EA are meeting their full potential on quality of updates though.
gmerc 3y ago
EA is a bunch of wanna be tech uncles in the bay area who are secretly wishing to fit in with the tech CEOs but don’t have the business model to do it. See Unity (run by an ex EA CEO who spends a fortune on reputation management services wiping a certain lawsuit of the internet to the point obscure NY italian restaurants show up above his name in Google) wasting the opportunity to become the engine company in games and deliver solid value on ridiculous ads plays trying to become an ad tech company. These are companies that could have solid business models and solid value. But greed. EA is actually a parasite. It’s the Vampire Armand from Interview with the Vampire. It takes no risks, it doesn’t innovate because it doesn’t know how and want to - instead it buys already proven ideas, scales them with fat cheques and rides them until they are out of favor, while squeezing the people who build them year after year for 10% layoffs. And thus it keeps itself alive, decade after decade and the people who run it a fat paycheck, the road littered with the husks of sucked dry studios and broken dreams. One of many fun aspects: Many projects run on contingent workers who can only work for months out of a year (otherwise law would make them permanent), paid starbucks wages but without starbucks benefits. These workers are tunnels to EA with deals straight out of overpriced schools which approach young people with “100% placement rate” and “job guaranteed” in the hip game industry - tie them with insane student loans and then funnel them into EA. EA then dangles them the idea that the best performers will be made permanent - appealing to youthful optimism bias - and many of them run 2-3 years with intermittent unemployment before realizing that almost nobody gets made permanent. By then they are so deep in debt and unable to pay their loans, lack appreciable skills and stuck in a low end job that just hoping keeps them going or drives them to work at Starbucks for better benefits. It’s pure evil.
jon-wood 3y ago
While I agree with the mechanics of what you're saying, there definitely is a subset of people who don't really play games, they play a game. There's a few big franchises this applies to, EA's various sports games, F1, Football Manager, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, and I'm sure some others. What I don't agree with here is that the users don't care. No one is capable of having such passionate opinions on a glorified spreadsheet than a Football Manager fan. Likewise CoD players - they dared to try something new with whichever one was largely based in space (I thought it was one of the best), and got eviscerated by their player base, who really just want to play Modern Warfare 2 again.