Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get ‘Comfortable’ Not Owning Their Games for Subscriptions to Take Off
Ubishit’s showing what’s most important to them as a company (Suprise suprise it’s not about making games)
Shareholders want those regular subscription fees rolling in.
I wish you had kept the original title, because that has significantly more content than yours.
Anyhow, getting back to:
Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get ‘Comfortable’ Not Owning Their Games for Subscriptions to Take Off
That’s hilarious, because as usual Ubisoft is blaming anybody but themselves. Subscriptions did take off. GamePass is quite popular overall. Not owning your games is completely normal, look at how many games everyone has on platforms such as Steam et al.
It’s just that Ubisoft’s absolutely shitty subscription for their absolutely shitty games, Ubisoft+, has not taken off, because surprise, you only get Ubisoft’s shitty games with that, not all kinds of games like on GamePass. It’s almost like they’re trying to jump the enshittifcation-process that video streaming sites were and still are going through, jump straight to single-publisher services with tiny catalogues, then wonder why nobody would want to pay for that when the service where you get games from ~everyone still exists as a competing service.
It’s just an exec trying to justify why they want their bonuses despite failing to meet targets. And blaming gamers, of course. They’re always at fault, never the bad execs making stupid decisions that completely fail to capture the amrket.
Just the way they go.
Steam is a success. Well we can too! We’ll force our launcher on them and they’ll love it like they love Steam. Forget that people hated Steam when it first came out and that they had years to work out the bugs and they offer more than just Valve games and it’s not always required. Also the remember me button actually works!
GamePass was a success. Well we can too! We’ll force our subscription on them and they’ll love it like they love GamePass!
They just keep repeating this same cycle of copying the other guys, wanting the pros that come with it but not thinking about the small parts that made theirs work and Ubisoft’s suck.
Point taken, I’ve updated the post to include the headline
I don’t know why everyone is so angry at this comment. The question was about what will it take for subscriptions to increase and become dominant in industry, the guy answered that. The interview was with the guy about Ubisoft’s subscription service, what else people expected?
If anyone talks to the guy in-charge of Gamepass, and they ask them how will gamepass increase, they wont’ say, well, if everyone keeps buying physical, that will be great for us.
I think the Ubisoft guy is pushing for subscriptions when a lot of people are not keen. See any of the recent articles about NatGeo pulling videos from Sony, etc etc.
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.
If I buy a game I want to be able to play whenever I feel like it.
I completed Fallout New Vegas last year, graphics were a bit dated but the game it still great.
My point is that I don’t trust Ubisoft to do what’s good for gamers.
First of all, not here to defend Ubisoft, I completely agree about not trusting them to do what’s good for gamers.
So, my point was, everything said in this interview, is pretty much same thing you will hear from any “head of subscription” of any company. I think MS is currently the most aggressive one, with their Gamepass. Keep in mind this interview is specifically about their subscription service, and the changes they made it isn’t about anything else. Sony is currently (or well last I read about it) most defensive with subscription, often talking about how it’s bad for the industry, but if you ask whoever is incharge of PS+, and ask them, what needs to happen before subscription will really take off, he would probably say the same thing.
As for closing down of online servers, it’s always sad when that happens. That’s a valid reason to blame a company, but pretty much all companies do that. As a patient gamer, I don’t even remember how many times I have come across a game where I would find out you can’t get all trophies because online servers have shut down. So, all companies should be blamed for this.
Heh, this reply went on longer than I expected. 😀
Guy in charge of subscriptions thinks subscriptions are the future.
It’s kind of his job to say this.
That’s not exactly what he said. Also, he’s being a little bitch bc Ubisoft+ is a dumpster fire compared to game pass. Finally, the way you say a thing is important. It reveals, character, motivation, etc of the person saying it.
I don’t think a single publisher platform has any future, AAA games are taking longer and longer to make, there’s no benefit to stay subbed when you can go months without a new game, compared to gamepass that has deals with other devs and publishers so there’s new things to play every month.
I already saved a lot of money just by playing cocoon, jusant and like a dragon Gaiden in the last months since games in Brazil are 10x more expensive than a gamepass sub, and can’t wait for the Persona 3 Remake.
Ubisoft Exec Says Gamers Need to Get ‘Comfortable’ Not Owning Their Games for Subscriptions to Take Off
I’m already comfortable not owning any Ubisoft games.
Seriously, I will be quite happy missing a game or franchise if there’s a lack of physical media in their lineup of releases. I know it doesn’t make sense for every game, but if it’s to push me towards a subscription service, then I’m just not going to be a customer.
Somewhat ironic is the pitch for IGN+ at the bottom.
Why would gamers want to be comfortable with a scheme where:
- Ubisoft decides when you can and can’t play a game
- Ubisoft sets the terms of the deal (i.e. how much they can extort you each month, what data collection you must agree each time you play, etc.)
- Ubisoft determines the quality of what you get, and its variety (if it’s some gamepass-like bundle)
I haven’t touched a Ubisoft game in years. I don’t even want to pirate that crap, let alone pay monthly for it.
I tried to pick up Rayman Legends when it was I’d cheap over Christmas. I ran the game from Steam was greeted with the UPlay launcher asking me to make an account to access my game, and immediately closed and refunded the title.
Enshittification is real.
It’s 100% moral to pirate Ubisoft games. I exclusively play Anno, since 2070 I DON’T pirate them.
I love the series, but I’d be happy if Ubisoft went belly-up tomorrow and never saw another game in the series. It’s a fair exchange to see a bloated, rotting corpse of a monster finally die.
I guess Ubisoft is gonna have to get comfortable with nobody paying for their stuff and their company going under.
The one and only Ubisoft game I’ve legitimately bought was Anno 1800, and even then I bought it from Steam. But I think that will be the last.
I think I’m perfectly comfortable with not using subscriptions.
I’ve replayed mass effect a dozen times. Cyberpunk 2077 4 times. Witcher at least 6 now. Why would I want to start renting my games over buying them?
Yeah, me too. The majority of my very limited playtime these days usually lands on Minecraft lol
Ubisoft, I remember buying the animus pack and few years later the dlc of my game getting stolen from me.
I’m still paying for anno stuff but after that it’s over, if I want to play another assassin’s creed, it would be the pirate way.
Once again Ubisoft is desperate to make money and tries to push a narrative that won’t fulfill. At least no thanks to their effort or innovation. Remember when their leadership claimed that Steam was not a sustainable platform to sell games on because they wanted players to use their garbage UPlay launcher? Well, now Ubisoft games are available on Steam once again because no one cares about UPlay.
