This statement was made by Ubisoft’s director of subscriptions, Phillipe Tremblay, who recently spoke to Gamesindustry.biz about the digital future and Ubisoft Plus specifically. Tremblay states that people eventually “got comfortable” with not owning their CD or DVD collections, and that a similar shift in attitude “needs to happen” in gamers.
Even buying a game digitally from most storefronts doesn’t mean you actually own it. You simply buy a license to play it. Look what happens if your Steam account gets permanently banned for violating their ToS, you’ll lose access to any game you paid for on that account. Same thing with Microsoft or Sony. I think GOG might be an exception to this, where they will never revoke access to the games you previously bought, but I am not 100% sure of their policies.
Regardless, all gamers will never fully embrace subscription purity. There are so many games that require a lot of time to complete, especially so if you’re an adult with lots of responsibilities who can only game here and there. For example, Baldur’s Gate 3 is massive and I’ve owned it since launch. I’ve only gotten to Act 2 with like 60 hours clocked in and I still want to play it to finish. However, if it was on a subscription service, I’d be constantly stressed that it’d be leaving the subscription any day.
And what about classic games (includes new games that become instant classics) I’ll know I’ll always treasure and want to be able to play whenever I’m in the mood? To this day, my wife will randomly bust out Mario 64 or even a more niche game like Fable 2 and just have them be her comfort food for a lazy weekend. Hell, just a few months ago we got our our original Xbox to play some Fuzion Frenzy for nostalgia sake. Can’t do that with subscription models.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I just absolutely loathe this crushing pressure by corporations to force our entire economy into being rent based. Every expert economist has been warning us about the dangers of this for at least the last 10+ years, and yet consumers keep blindly marching towards it because it’s “convenient,” totally ignoring the long-term consequences.
Ouch 😂 I remember playing the shit outta Fable 2; it’s a great game and holds up pretty well even today, easily one of my favourites. I always thought that Peter Molyneux got treated too harshly for overpromising, and I stand by that to this day. Dude made good games, just not as good as he said they were gonna be.
Ill wager it was just Molyneaux was a bad dev in a better age, before all games were released unfinished and had an online component, and dlc was truly dlc, like horse armor, not a part of the game deliberately withheld during development.
Games were expected to be finished products that lasted as long as you didn’t break the install disk.
If you’re old enough to remember horse armour then that reference has to be tongue-in-cheek. Nobody thought it was a good idea at the time I got weeks of mockery of Bethesda out of that nonsense 😂
I don’t think Molyneux was a bad developer, he just overhyped his games to a level nobody else has managed before or since. Like I said, the Fable games do actually hold up pretty well, and Black And White is iconic. I don’t recall encountering any bugs in Lionshead games, nobody T-posed randomly, and nothing that broke the game for me. But, I’m just one dude of course and the nostalgia is strong.
Im not being super serious but its true, molyneauxs promises became a punchline but i loved the games he made. Black & White was buggy, even had a game breaking bug (wolves or something, it happened to me too) but i still lived the shit out of it, fable i played 2 times thru back to back (super, super fun but not what he promised)
That’s what i mean. A broken promise back then was a game that wasn’t as great. Not a game that didn’t even run like that Batman fiasco, or many online only games that don’t even run stable at launch, etc.
He was a simple “problem” in a better age of gaming
and yet consumers keep blindly marching towards it
Consumers are being frog-marched friend, we have absolutely no control over market forces. Voting with your wallet only works in highly competitive markets
I think GOG might be an exception to this, where they will never revoke access to the games you previously bought, but I am not 100% sure of their policies.
They are, when you buy a game from gog they send you the installation files. You install and run it with your own hardware whereas with Steam and other digital gaming companies you are just getting access to the game on their servers. By sending you the installers and letting you play independently from their servers gog gives up the ability to lock you out. It’s the primary reason that they should be the first choice for where to buy a digital version of a game. The upside is that it’s the closest you can get to actually owning a digital copy of a game; the downside is that playing on another device requires that you transfer files and reinstall rather than just logging into a remote server.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Even buying a game digitally from most storefronts doesn’t mean you actually own it. You simply buy a license to play it. Look what happens if your Steam account gets permanently banned for violating their ToS, you’ll lose access to any game you paid for on that account. Same thing with Microsoft or Sony. I think GOG might be an exception to this, where they will never revoke access to the games you previously bought, but I am not 100% sure of their policies.
Regardless, all gamers will never fully embrace subscription purity. There are so many games that require a lot of time to complete, especially so if you’re an adult with lots of responsibilities who can only game here and there. For example, Baldur’s Gate 3 is massive and I’ve owned it since launch. I’ve only gotten to Act 2 with like 60 hours clocked in and I still want to play it to finish. However, if it was on a subscription service, I’d be constantly stressed that it’d be leaving the subscription any day.
And what about classic games (includes new games that become instant classics) I’ll know I’ll always treasure and want to be able to play whenever I’m in the mood? To this day, my wife will randomly bust out Mario 64 or even a more niche game like Fable 2 and just have them be her comfort food for a lazy weekend. Hell, just a few months ago we got our our original Xbox to play some Fuzion Frenzy for nostalgia sake. Can’t do that with subscription models.
Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I just absolutely loathe this crushing pressure by corporations to force our entire economy into being rent based. Every expert economist has been warning us about the dangers of this for at least the last 10+ years, and yet consumers keep blindly marching towards it because it’s “convenient,” totally ignoring the long-term consequences.
Ouch 😂 I remember playing the shit outta Fable 2; it’s a great game and holds up pretty well even today, easily one of my favourites. I always thought that Peter Molyneux got treated too harshly for overpromising, and I stand by that to this day. Dude made good games, just not as good as he said they were gonna be.
Ill wager it was just Molyneaux was a bad dev in a better age, before all games were released unfinished and had an online component, and dlc was truly dlc, like horse armor, not a part of the game deliberately withheld during development.
Games were expected to be finished products that lasted as long as you didn’t break the install disk.
We’ve gone a long way down since I’ve been gaming
If you’re old enough to remember horse armour then that reference has to be tongue-in-cheek. Nobody thought it was a good idea at the time I got weeks of mockery of Bethesda out of that nonsense 😂
I don’t think Molyneux was a bad developer, he just overhyped his games to a level nobody else has managed before or since. Like I said, the Fable games do actually hold up pretty well, and Black And White is iconic. I don’t recall encountering any bugs in Lionshead games, nobody T-posed randomly, and nothing that broke the game for me. But, I’m just one dude of course and the nostalgia is strong.
Im not being super serious but its true, molyneauxs promises became a punchline but i loved the games he made. Black & White was buggy, even had a game breaking bug (wolves or something, it happened to me too) but i still lived the shit out of it, fable i played 2 times thru back to back (super, super fun but not what he promised)
That’s what i mean. A broken promise back then was a game that wasn’t as great. Not a game that didn’t even run like that Batman fiasco, or many online only games that don’t even run stable at launch, etc.
He was a simple “problem” in a better age of gaming
Consumers are being frog-marched friend, we have absolutely no control over market forces. Voting with your wallet only works in highly competitive markets
They are, when you buy a game from gog they send you the installation files. You install and run it with your own hardware whereas with Steam and other digital gaming companies you are just getting access to the game on their servers. By sending you the installers and letting you play independently from their servers gog gives up the ability to lock you out. It’s the primary reason that they should be the first choice for where to buy a digital version of a game. The upside is that it’s the closest you can get to actually owning a digital copy of a game; the downside is that playing on another device requires that you transfer files and reinstall rather than just logging into a remote server.