9 ms·

It's worth going to the source here because this is being widely misinterpreted: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-new-ubisoft-and-getting-gamers-comfortable-wi

It's worth going to the source here because this is being widely misinterpreted: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-new-ubisoft-and-getting-gamers-comfortable-with-not-owning-their-games https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-new-ubisoft-and-getting-ga... "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." He could just as well be telling the rest of Ubisoft (and the games industry) that in order for customers to be comfortable you need to not delete things and allow people to keep what they invested in the game, and that if you take things away from them then people won't be comfortable.

Volundr 3y ago
As much as I hate to defend Ubisoft on basically anything... Yeah reading that article it's very clear he's discussing this in the context of their subscription service. It's no crazier than someone wouldn't own their games through acquired via Ubisoft subscription than movies via Netflix or music via Spotify. Is the trend of non-ownership a good thing? I don't think so. And yet I also begrudgingly admit that I listen to a much wider variety of music via streaming than was ever available in my cd/mp3 collection...
- devjab 3y ago
  I don’t mind steam, but it’s not like you really “own” your library even on that platform. So it has probably been a while since most of us actually owned a video game the way it was 30 years ago. Sure, the subscription services are taking it even further, but as long as you’re not in total control of the stuff you own, it’s not really yours. At least in my opinion.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    As a practical matter, if I had a 30+ year old game still up in my attic, it would probably take more time/knowledge/money in many cases to get it running usefully than most people would reasonably put in.
    - pierat 3y ago
      That would be in the realm of Total Annihilation (middle 1990s). I installed that a few weeks ago from the CDs provided on archive.org It took a few minutes to download AND install. What it really boils down to is the ever-downward trend to destroy ownership by converting as much as possible to a service or hidden rental. Me? I prefer to own games that work now or 30 years from now.
      - robinsonb5 3y ago
        > What it really boils down to is the ever-downward trend to destroy ownership by converting as much as possible to a service or hidden rental. The phrase I use for that is "erecting toll-booths".
    - bobmaxup 3y ago
      Not if you still had the original system as well. I imagine it is not the norm though.
  - tokai 3y ago
    Yes you do. You can backup and run (most[0]) games without steam. [0] when you can't its because of publishers purposefully blocking it.
    - TillE 3y ago
      Yeah tons of games on Steam have zero DRM, many have trivially weak Steam DRM, and a handful have serious third-party DRM. Whatever the specific license may say about your rights, it's usually easy to make a completely portable backup.
  - worble 3y ago
    Honestly, as talking about "ownership" in terms of the law I find to be an argument that just goes round in circles. Like yes, you don't own the game because the EULA says so, but no EULA's aren't legally binding, but yes because they can revoke the game without recourse, etc etc. What's more interesting is ownership in practical terms, in my opinion. And I don't think you can really blanket all the game in Steam under one rule here - some have absolutely 0 DRM and you can back them up and run them just fine anywhere and some have Steam DRM which is trivial to crack; these games you practically own. And then there are games which use Denuvo or other DRM means, where unless its one of the rare games that get a crack. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, regardless of anything else, digital ownership to me boils down to "Can I copy these bytes to a hard drive, and then 20 years later still use them?"
    - ufocia 3y ago
      You're really talking about digital possession not ownership.
- RajT88 3y ago
  Streaming does let you discover lots of new music which I like. But musically for my "daily driver" playlist I want to go way down a particular rabbit hole and find new stuff. It is less good for that. I am happy streaming exists. On PC I am totally digital download. Consoles, I am more of a collector, so I prefer physical games which I actually own. Eventually having a disc will be the only legal way to play those games if you did not download them. (Some not even then like Destiny)
- jstummbillig 3y ago
  > Is the trend of non-ownership a good thing? I would argue, on average, it actually is. Because it's not that we are getting nothing in return: We are getting stewardship. Let us at least acknowledge this part of the equation: Hosting things securely and reliably is only naively easy and cheap, and on top only like drawing a picture is easy, if you are Picasso. Sure, you can put those years of professional devops experience to use to maintain a private data haven – but that's not something that will work for most people and it is fairly obvious that, on average, our collective data would be a lot less safe if rolling hosting became everyones favorite passion project.
  - howenterprisey 3y ago
    That is certainly a convenience that is gained by renting something, but (1) the significance of that convenience is minimal compared to the threat of the company taking away what you've bought, intentionally or not, and (2) paid backup services exist. It is far from obvious that people renting things instead of owning them makes our collective data a lot more safe. It seems to me that the data would be a lot more vulnerable to companies deciding to make (more) money.
    - jstummbillig 3y ago
      > It is far from obvious that people renting things instead of owning them makes our collective data a lot more safe. You would probably reconsider if you spent more time around the, to this day, ocean of outdated and unmaintained-until-physical-failure-windows-2000ish-servers sprinkled throughout fairly touchy parts of our society, connected to the, gasp, internet. > It seems to me that the data would be a lot more vulnerable to companies deciding to make (more) money. If I have to chose between Google and a free ticket to built vast botnets on perpetually legacy, unmaintained infra, I will, until further notice, gladly have the former every time and let legislation take it from there.
      - howenterprisey 3y ago
        I'm confused. We're talking about video games and other digital media. You would put those on an external drive or similar. Why would the vulnerabilities of such a solution have any overlap with windows 2000-era servers used for infrastructure? What does infrastructure have in common with personal backups?
- palata 3y ago
  > It's no crazier than someone wouldn't own their games through acquired via Ubisoft subscription than movies via Netflix or music via Spotify. Which doesn't say it is not crazy :-). > Is the trend of non-ownership a good thing? At least with movie/audio it's easy to download. I tend to be okay paying their subscription if I can download it on BitTorrent later. For games it may be a bit harder? Not sure.
- ufocia 3y ago
  It's not a non-ownership tend. There never was ownership of the content. It was a dillusion. Content was licensed. The thing that's changing is the licensing model, from, arguably, perpetual to a short term with indefinite options for renewal.
- georgeecollins 3y ago
  If streaming were a better deal for consumers than ownership do you think streamers would push it so hard? Every time I try to buy an MP3 I hit a bunch of anti-patterns trying to get me to click on get this with a subscription. People think of it as the price of a subscription today vs the price of ownership today. The problem is that every service model business has learned to boil the frog slowly.
rdedev 3y ago
"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" This is the longer context. I understand where he is coming from but people like to own things so that they can enjoy them later without getting the company involved again. Sure the save files are there but if the company changes their terms and services it just straight up stop offering them in their subscriptions what good are they? The guy claims that they support multiple mediums now but at the end of the day that's a business decision and they could decide to not sell DVDs or things like that anymore.
- zdw 3y ago
  The difference here is that Game makers they want the video model - entirely DRM encumbered on DVD or BluRay (trivially broken, but still...) or streamed with an ongoing cost, as opposed to the audio model where you have the option of downloading DRM-free content from multiple sources (Bandcamp, Bleep, Qobuz, etc.) or buying it without DRM on CD. There are some DRM-free gaming - GoG for example, and while Valve still has DRM, Steam hasn't been caught up in forcing people to go to perpetual streaming models. From a preservationist standpoint, I really want media available in ways that will last through corporate shenanigans, and platform DRM limited or streaming-only isn't it.
  - highwaylights 3y ago
    I see both arguments here. Games just aren’t the same as music or video - when an album or a movie is finished, what you get can be frozen in time and still work without the film or record company again. Games used to be entirely this way, and some still are, but any manner of live-service game can’t realistically work in that model for an indefinite period of time like movies and music can. This is also true to a lesser extent for patches and DLC, although they shouldn’t be necessary (but day one patches are a thing, I imagine the games companies aren’t unhappy about this, as there’s an incentive to release a broken game with a day-one patch as a future copy protection measure).
nazgulsenpai 3y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. I had only heard about this in passing and assumed there had to be more to it. It's always good to do your own research on these things, because sometimes you realize its not as bad as an out-of-context clip makes it sound. But then on the flip side, sometimes its Unity's Runtime Fee and it is as bad as it sounds.
chrisan 3y ago
Isn't the fear that the game will go away and unable to be played? I'm not super interested in if a game is rented or not, but the argument I've always heard was "online services shut down and unable to play - or requires internet connection" never whether or not the save progress would still be there
- magicalhippo 3y ago
  That would be my fear. My Steam library has over a dozen titles which can no longer be bought. Thankfully Steam still provides them for those who have purchased it before they were pulled from the store. Though IIRC some have been fully removed (with refund).
  - bbradley406 3y ago
    While I definitely like (and mostly trust) Steam, there are some issues like songs being removed from GTA games due to licensing that make me want to hang onto pirated copies, just in case.
- Glant 3y ago
  Yes, such as the Ubisoft game "The Crew" which will have its servers deleted on March 31st and can never be played again.
bobmaxup 3y ago
> this is being widely misinterpreted It sounds like Ubisoft wants their streaming and subscription services to grow, but reality doesn't line up with their vision. They are purchasing long term streaming rights from other companies like Activision Blizzard. "Ubisoft recently announced the completion of the transaction with Activision Blizzard giving Ubisoft the perpetual cloud streaming rights for Call of Duty and all other existing Activision Blizzard Console and PC titles as well as those releasing over the next 15 years. These rights will further strengthen Ubisoft’s content offering through its subscription service Ubisoft+ as well as allowing Ubisoft to license them to third parties." It seems they are betting on a speculative market. They assume people will treat owning games like owning DVDs in the past. From what is said in the article, it sounds like they are probably worried about losing a lot of money on this bet. They reported a net loss of nearly half a billion euros last year.
beeboobaa 3y ago
I invested my money in ownership of the game.
ptx 3y ago
Users will lose what they non-bought eventually if they don't own it. It's just a matter of time. Even if the company earnestly believes, at this time, that they will continue to provide access forever, circumstances will inevitably change in the future and might cause a change of plans. Or the company might be acquired by another with different ideas, or bring in new management that decides to refocus on different business opportunities. Or the technology they use to lock down the product will fall out of support. Or they just go out of business. Something will inevitably happen, and users will lose access.
xg15 3y ago
Or it could be the usual self delusion inherent in corpospeak where he tries to frame the issue as one simply about progress files and not about control or ownership. Even this framing makes no sense: You don't lose what you've built as long as the game is still available to you. Should you end the subscription or should Ubisoft at any moment decide to discontinue your game then your savegame file will help you exactly nothing.

Volundr 3y ago

As much as I hate to defend Ubisoft on basically anything... Yeah reading that article it's very clear he's discussing this in the context of their subscription service. It's no crazier than someone wouldn't own their games through acquired via Ubisoft subscription than movies via Netflix or music via Spotify. Is the trend of non-ownership a good thing? I don't think so. And yet I also begrudgingly admit that I listen to a much wider variety of music via streaming than was ever available in my cd/mp3 collection...

devjab 3y ago
I don’t mind steam, but it’s not like you really “own” your library even on that platform. So it has probably been a while since most of us actually owned a video game the way it was 30 years ago. Sure, the subscription services are taking it even further, but as long as you’re not in total control of the stuff you own, it’s not really yours. At least in my opinion.
- ghaff 3y ago
  As a practical matter, if I had a 30+ year old game still up in my attic, it would probably take more time/knowledge/money in many cases to get it running usefully than most people would reasonably put in.
  - pierat 3y ago
    That would be in the realm of Total Annihilation (middle 1990s). I installed that a few weeks ago from the CDs provided on archive.org It took a few minutes to download AND install. What it really boils down to is the ever-downward trend to destroy ownership by converting as much as possible to a service or hidden rental. Me? I prefer to own games that work now or 30 years from now.
    - robinsonb5 3y ago
      > What it really boils down to is the ever-downward trend to destroy ownership by converting as much as possible to a service or hidden rental. The phrase I use for that is "erecting toll-booths".
  - bobmaxup 3y ago
    Not if you still had the original system as well. I imagine it is not the norm though.
- tokai 3y ago
  Yes you do. You can backup and run (most[0]) games without steam. [0] when you can't its because of publishers purposefully blocking it.
  - TillE 3y ago
    Yeah tons of games on Steam have zero DRM, many have trivially weak Steam DRM, and a handful have serious third-party DRM. Whatever the specific license may say about your rights, it's usually easy to make a completely portable backup.
- worble 3y ago
  Honestly, as talking about "ownership" in terms of the law I find to be an argument that just goes round in circles. Like yes, you don't own the game because the EULA says so, but no EULA's aren't legally binding, but yes because they can revoke the game without recourse, etc etc. What's more interesting is ownership in practical terms, in my opinion. And I don't think you can really blanket all the game in Steam under one rule here - some have absolutely 0 DRM and you can back them up and run them just fine anywhere and some have Steam DRM which is trivial to crack; these games you practically own. And then there are games which use Denuvo or other DRM means, where unless its one of the rare games that get a crack. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, regardless of anything else, digital ownership to me boils down to "Can I copy these bytes to a hard drive, and then 20 years later still use them?"
  - ufocia 3y ago
    You're really talking about digital possession not ownership.
RajT88 3y ago
Streaming does let you discover lots of new music which I like. But musically for my "daily driver" playlist I want to go way down a particular rabbit hole and find new stuff. It is less good for that. I am happy streaming exists. On PC I am totally digital download. Consoles, I am more of a collector, so I prefer physical games which I actually own. Eventually having a disc will be the only legal way to play those games if you did not download them. (Some not even then like Destiny)
jstummbillig 3y ago
> Is the trend of non-ownership a good thing? I would argue, on average, it actually is. Because it's not that we are getting nothing in return: We are getting stewardship. Let us at least acknowledge this part of the equation: Hosting things securely and reliably is only naively easy and cheap, and on top only like drawing a picture is easy, if you are Picasso. Sure, you can put those years of professional devops experience to use to maintain a private data haven – but that's not something that will work for most people and it is fairly obvious that, on average, our collective data would be a lot less safe if rolling hosting became everyones favorite passion project.
- howenterprisey 3y ago
  That is certainly a convenience that is gained by renting something, but (1) the significance of that convenience is minimal compared to the threat of the company taking away what you've bought, intentionally or not, and (2) paid backup services exist. It is far from obvious that people renting things instead of owning them makes our collective data a lot more safe. It seems to me that the data would be a lot more vulnerable to companies deciding to make (more) money.
  - jstummbillig 3y ago
    > It is far from obvious that people renting things instead of owning them makes our collective data a lot more safe. You would probably reconsider if you spent more time around the, to this day, ocean of outdated and unmaintained-until-physical-failure-windows-2000ish-servers sprinkled throughout fairly touchy parts of our society, connected to the, gasp, internet. > It seems to me that the data would be a lot more vulnerable to companies deciding to make (more) money. If I have to chose between Google and a free ticket to built vast botnets on perpetually legacy, unmaintained infra, I will, until further notice, gladly have the former every time and let legislation take it from there.
    - howenterprisey 3y ago
      I'm confused. We're talking about video games and other digital media. You would put those on an external drive or similar. Why would the vulnerabilities of such a solution have any overlap with windows 2000-era servers used for infrastructure? What does infrastructure have in common with personal backups?
palata 3y ago
> It's no crazier than someone wouldn't own their games through acquired via Ubisoft subscription than movies via Netflix or music via Spotify. Which doesn't say it is not crazy :-). > Is the trend of non-ownership a good thing? At least with movie/audio it's easy to download. I tend to be okay paying their subscription if I can download it on BitTorrent later. For games it may be a bit harder? Not sure.
ufocia 3y ago
It's not a non-ownership tend. There never was ownership of the content. It was a dillusion. Content was licensed. The thing that's changing is the licensing model, from, arguably, perpetual to a short term with indefinite options for renewal.
georgeecollins 3y ago
If streaming were a better deal for consumers than ownership do you think streamers would push it so hard? Every time I try to buy an MP3 I hit a bunch of anti-patterns trying to get me to click on get this with a subscription. People think of it as the price of a subscription today vs the price of ownership today. The problem is that every service model business has learned to boil the frog slowly.

rdedev 3y ago

"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" This is the longer context. I understand where he is coming from but people like to own things so that they can enjoy them later without getting the company involved again. Sure the save files are there but if the company changes their terms and services it just straight up stop offering them in their subscriptions what good are they? The guy claims that they support multiple mediums now but at the end of the day that's a business decision and they could decide to not sell DVDs or things like that anymore.

zdw 3y ago
The difference here is that Game makers they want the video model - entirely DRM encumbered on DVD or BluRay (trivially broken, but still...) or streamed with an ongoing cost, as opposed to the audio model where you have the option of downloading DRM-free content from multiple sources (Bandcamp, Bleep, Qobuz, etc.) or buying it without DRM on CD. There are some DRM-free gaming - GoG for example, and while Valve still has DRM, Steam hasn't been caught up in forcing people to go to perpetual streaming models. From a preservationist standpoint, I really want media available in ways that will last through corporate shenanigans, and platform DRM limited or streaming-only isn't it.
- highwaylights 3y ago
  I see both arguments here. Games just aren’t the same as music or video - when an album or a movie is finished, what you get can be frozen in time and still work without the film or record company again. Games used to be entirely this way, and some still are, but any manner of live-service game can’t realistically work in that model for an indefinite period of time like movies and music can. This is also true to a lesser extent for patches and DLC, although they shouldn’t be necessary (but day one patches are a thing, I imagine the games companies aren’t unhappy about this, as there’s an incentive to release a broken game with a day-one patch as a future copy protection measure).

nazgulsenpai 3y ago

Thanks for pointing this out. I had only heard about this in passing and assumed there had to be more to it. It's always good to do your own research on these things, because sometimes you realize its not as bad as an out-of-context clip makes it sound. But then on the flip side, sometimes its Unity's Runtime Fee and it is as bad as it sounds.

chrisan 3y ago

Isn't the fear that the game will go away and unable to be played? I'm not super interested in if a game is rented or not, but the argument I've always heard was "online services shut down and unable to play - or requires internet connection" never whether or not the save progress would still be there

magicalhippo 3y ago
That would be my fear. My Steam library has over a dozen titles which can no longer be bought. Thankfully Steam still provides them for those who have purchased it before they were pulled from the store. Though IIRC some have been fully removed (with refund).
- bbradley406 3y ago
  While I definitely like (and mostly trust) Steam, there are some issues like songs being removed from GTA games due to licensing that make me want to hang onto pirated copies, just in case.
Glant 3y ago
Yes, such as the Ubisoft game "The Crew" which will have its servers deleted on March 31st and can never be played again.

bobmaxup 3y ago

> this is being widely misinterpreted It sounds like Ubisoft wants their streaming and subscription services to grow, but reality doesn't line up with their vision. They are purchasing long term streaming rights from other companies like Activision Blizzard. "Ubisoft recently announced the completion of the transaction with Activision Blizzard giving Ubisoft the perpetual cloud streaming rights for Call of Duty and all other existing Activision Blizzard Console and PC titles as well as those releasing over the next 15 years. These rights will further strengthen Ubisoft’s content offering through its subscription service Ubisoft+ as well as allowing Ubisoft to license them to third parties." It seems they are betting on a speculative market. They assume people will treat owning games like owning DVDs in the past. From what is said in the article, it sounds like they are probably worried about losing a lot of money on this bet. They reported a net loss of nearly half a billion euros last year.

beeboobaa 3y ago

I invested my money in ownership of the game.

ptx 3y ago

Users will lose what they non-bought eventually if they don't own it. It's just a matter of time. Even if the company earnestly believes, at this time, that they will continue to provide access forever, circumstances will inevitably change in the future and might cause a change of plans. Or the company might be acquired by another with different ideas, or bring in new management that decides to refocus on different business opportunities. Or the technology they use to lock down the product will fall out of support. Or they just go out of business. Something will inevitably happen, and users will lose access.

xg15 3y ago

Or it could be the usual self delusion inherent in corpospeak where he tries to frame the issue as one simply about progress files and not about control or ownership. Even this framing makes no sense: You don't lose what you've built as long as the game is still available to you. Should you end the subscription or should Ubisoft at any moment decide to discontinue your game then your savegame file will help you exactly nothing.