You must log in or register to comment.
I took their advice and got comfortable not owning Ubisoft games.
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 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.
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
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 are more 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.
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.
Man Ubisoft could be so great but they just land so meh. Watchdogs, tom Clancy wildlands, the division, farcry. They all have potential but just don’t have that last 15%
Anno 1800 is a masterpiece though
That’s because they fear giving that 15% out for free when they could have monetized it.
This is exactly the problem with capitalism, which is intended to be you do a thing i need/like for me i give you money
But was infiltrated by a bunch of people whose only purpose is to give less and less of what i need for more and more money until i tell them to fuck off, meanwhile they accumulated all the money and roam to greener pastures. it is basically like cut and burn farming, where the crops are all given to very few people and all the rest are to deal with the consequences
And they killed Deus Ex
Embracer killed Deus Ex.
Ubisoft Executives need to get comfortable not eating food anymore.
I’m sure they can wipe their tears with hundred dollar bills.
which they got before running the company into bankruptcy?
Eat shit and die motherfucker
It feels tragic. On the one hand, they made some of my most favourite games especially the Splinter Cell series, and it would be sad to see a once great developer to go. But then on the other, the greedy bastards deserve to go under for ruining some of my most favourite games including the Splinter Cell series.
But seriously though, if Ubisoft do go under, I hope that their IP would go into safe hands, like how Baldur’s Gate franchise has been handed over from Bioware to the competent team of Larian (and I do hope Larian does not enshittify unlike the fate of other companies, such as Ubisoft and EA).
I do hope Larian does not enshittify
They will, as the studio is close to be owned by Tencent now.
If it’s any consolation, probably all the game devs that worked on your favourite titles have left Ubisoft long ago.
Larian isn’t making another Baldur’s Gate.
It’s funny how many times they’ve clearly stated it too lol
The best thing about it is that they’re not making another BG just because they don’t want to. I think it is safe to say say that they won’t enshitify as long as Swen Vincke is at the helm.
They were decent to the Anno series, but honestly that’s probably just because they didn’t see the value in messing with the formula that Anno solidified around the time of the acquisition and it reliably boosts their numbers with strategy gamers who otherwise might not be customers of Ubisoft’s at all
You love to see it
Ubisoft always reminds me of an old pun my Latin teacher taught us: Semper ubi sub ubi. Always where under where.
Semper ubi sub ubisoft
“Company fails to generate infinite revenue even after implementing every abusive tactic known”.
Imagine, about five years ago, they peaked at $82.
It was also during that time when they talked about getting into Crypto, NFTs, and all sorts of other get rich quick schemes.
Now look at them.
More like, company keeps pushing for short-term profits, runs out of goodwill built up in the past.
I want to say the same thing…
But then you have like every other corporation on earth doing the same, and most of them see their stock price soar.
Ubisoft had many long standing issues, but disowning The Crew users was the worst possible move they could have made in their already dire situation.
I played and enjoyed both of them, shutting down the first one instead of giving it offline functionality really pissed me off and was the final straw for me with Ubi. It had a fully offline playable story, NPC vehicles to race etc. and the game would’ve been preserved forever.
Instead we got the crew 2, always online AAA signature garbage.
Part of me is sad because some of my favorite games might get shitcanned as a result, but it’s a loss I’m willing to accept if it kills such a parasitic company.
I’ll be sad if For Honor stops being supported
