this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024

630 points (98.8% liked)

Games

18659 readers

281 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

630

Baldur's Gate 3 publishing chief calls out Ubisoft's 'broken strategy': If gamers need to get used to not owning games, 'developers must get used to not having jobs' (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Larian director of publishing Michael Douse, never one to be shy about speaking his mind, has spoken his mind about Ubisoft's decision to disband the Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown development team, saying it's the result of a "broken strategy" that prioritizes subscriptions over sales.

Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown is quite good. PC Gamer's Mollie Taylor felt it was dragged down by a very slow start, calling it "a slow burn to a fault" in an overall positive review, and it holds an enviable 86 aggregate score on Metacritic. Despite that, Ubisoft recently confirmed that the development team has been scattered to the four winds to work on "other projects that will benefit from their expertise."

This, Douse feels, is at least partially the outcome of Ubisoft's focus on subscriptions over conventional game sales—the whole "feeling comfortable with not owning your game" thing espoused by Ubisoft director of subscriptions Philippe Tremblay earlier this year—and the decision to stop releasing games on Steam, which is far and away the biggest digital storefront for PC gaming.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Flash news: you dont own your steam games and you're use to it. This "Ubisoft is the bad guy" but we all lick steam and others capitalist business's ass is getting ridiculous. Steam has 78 employees lol. Dont buy ubi's games and stop crying.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago

lol ubisoft publishes a good game once in a blue moon and when they do they disband the team that does it. seriously these motherfuckers need to be jailed.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

This is to bad, I really enjoyed this game one of the better platformers to come out in a long time.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago

That's every publisher's wet dream. AI's almost ready, right?

god I wanna see them fail so badly.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's all a distraction from the truth that you already don't own games.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Except Battle for Wesnoth and Pingus.

Maybe OpenRCT and Osu! a little further down the line.

[+] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

It depends on your definition of ownership. If having perpetual access to a product is enough then yes. But we aren't allowed to, say, disassemble a game and use it's assets to make something of our own. As opposed to say a spoon. Nobody can tell me how I can and can't use my spoon.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You can make mods for many games and many people do.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but you can't use their assets to make other games or products.

You can add whatever you want to Skyrim, but you can't add Skrim to whatever you like.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You can. If your project gets big enough, they’ll take legal action. But you can definitely get away with fan projects.

Also with physical objects, you can’t legally do whatever you want either. There’s nothing physically stopping you from taking a piece of wood and carving it into any shape you like. But if you make a big enough project out of it, you may eventually run into legal issues. It could be related to IP like patents, trademarks, or copyright, or it could be something like safety.

It’s ok to make a hamburger for your friends at a cookout, but if you start selling your burgers or distributing them in mass, your government may expect you to follow food safety laws, and you can’t market your burgers as “McDonalds”.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Believe it or not, "It's only illegal if you get caught" isn't how copyright works.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Having to fly under the radar or risk financial ruin doesn't sound like ownership to me.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then I guess none of us really own anything in a society.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

That's their goal. "You'll own nothing and be happy."

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not realistic to demand to own games in the same way as a spoon any time soon. It is, however, pretty reasonable to demand you own games like you'd own a book. You can chop up a book and use it to make a paper maché dog, but you can't chop up the words within to make a new derivative book (or just copy them as its to get another copy of the same book except for a single backup that you're not allowed to transfer to someone else unless you also give them the original). The important things you can do with a book but not a game under the current system, even with Gog, are things like selling it on or giving it away when you're done with it and lending it out like a library.

About a hundred years ago, book publishers tried using licence agreements in books to restrict them in similar ways to how games and other software are restricted today, but courts decided that was completely unreasonable, and put a stop to it. In the US, that's called the First Sale Doctrine, but it has other names elsewhere or didn't even need naming. All the arguments that applied to books apply equally well to software, so consumers should demand the same rights.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, I understand. I was just trying to describe the difference between ownership and a perpetual license in overly simplified terms. Also, can you think of any examples of digital goods that retain first sale doctrine? With physical disks at least a second hand market still exists for that very reason, but I can't think of any digital media that allow resale. I would love to be wrong!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Microsoft actually was going to allow that starting with the Xbox One.

IIRC, the way they were going to implement it would be to make a license transferrable X times a year. They were also going to allow free sharing of digital games to friends that had been on your friends list for at least 30 days.

But then people freaked out over it when they showed it off at the Xbox One reveal due to the fact that digitally-purchased games would have always-online requirements to keep people from duplicating games by installing them, disconnecting from the internet, then logging in elsewhere and sharing the game with a friend.

So after the backlash they pulled the plan. And that really stinks because they still have always-online requirements for digital games. You just can't sell or share them now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Sorry to necro this but I just saw in the latest LTT vid that apparently Microsoft did go through with this plan? They were talking about it in the context of the diskless xbox that just released. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/xbox/forum/all/how-to-transfer-content-licenses/7ac76f4e-c7e4-4153-8824-1e424478b02d

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I know you didn't ask, but may I volunteer a car engine instead of a spoon. There's still IP involved in a car engine, but nobody is going to tell me I cant put my VW engine in Honda and sell it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's more comparable. I was mostly just trying to state the difference between ownership and a perpetual license but I'm thinking I oversimplified lol.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Haha, I just happened to be watching engine swap videos earlier today and thought it fit well!

[–] [email protected] 55 points 5 months ago

My favorite thing is Ubisoft blaming something and then gaming companies going, "Uh no? That's just you."

load more comments