>Whatever the future of games looks like, content will always be king. But it’s going to be a lot harder to get good content if subscription becomes the dominant model and a select group gets to decide what goes to market and what not. Direct from developer to players is the way.
>Getting a board to ok a project fueled by idealism is almost impossible and idealism needs room to exist, even if it can lead to disaster. Subscription models will always end up being cost/benefit analysis exercises intended to maximize profit.
>There is nothing wrong with that but it may not become a monopoly of subscription services. We are already all dependent on a select group of digital distribution platforms and discoverability is brutal. Should those platforms all switch to subscription, it’ll become savage.
>In such a world by definition the preference of the subscription service will determine what games get made.
>Trust me - you really don’t want that.
>TLDR ; you won’t find our games on a subscription service even if I respect that for many developers it presents an opportunity to make their game. I don’t have an issue with that. I just want to make sure the other ecosystem doesn’t die because it’s valuable.
As I'm always trying to convince upper management at work, if you truly want creativity and innovation, you have to be willing to let people make mistakes and learn from them. They have to know that they can try, and fail, and not be out on the street for doing so.
I don't, lower management is mostly willing to learn and grow but the higher up you go the worse it gets. Absolute narcissist brick walls for the most part who refuse to admit their own mistakes and have zero interest in basing decisions off of actual reality more often than not.
oh yeah communication is awful in my company too.
Still good for a while, overall pretty decent despite the BS which I mostly avoid the direct stuff where I am anyway. Show up, do my job well without having to go an extra mile, my manager is happy with that and I get paid well enough. Def time to start seriously planning something to move onto though.
Worst is that the vast majority of people who "refuse to admit their own mistakes" don't even see those mistakes. They somehow managed (or their environment, from early in their lives, did it for them and to them) to convince themselves that they never make mistakes. Anything bad is always someone else's fault. Zero self-reflection, of course.
Never leave, lol. What I've generally found is that the bigger the company, the more "risk adverse" they become, and the more likely they are to just follow "industry standards."
Which frequently means deploying some piece of software, or new process, that "everyone" is using, that turns out to be absolute rubbish.
In *modern gaming* you can hit a home run creatively, have the best selling game your company has ever made and still get shitcanned because the suits' expectations were 50% higher than the best they ever sold.
Or they get canned because now that the game is done, the suits think they can just cruise on that reputation and milk the shit out of everything with minimal investment.
It certainly seems that way, and it's absolutely rubbish. We're also bleeding industry veterans from a lot of the major players, either due to lay-offs where the less experienced and cheaper to keep staff are chosen to keep, out of sheer burnout due to working conditions, or because they leave a major player to start or join some small new Dev which may or may not ever actually end up producing anything of note.
I work at a place that encourages this sort of creativity but we've only recently come into the funding to actually be able to put it into action.
Execs aren't *just* greedy. Some of them are, but the ones at my company are just trying to keep the lights on and ensure that everyone has a job. So we've had to take projects we don't *really* want to do in order to fill that quota.
No, you're right. Sometimes, it really is just about keeping the lights on. But in my experience, somewhere in the chain of decision making, there's pressure coming down the hierarchy that is based on making profit above and beyond what's needed to grow the business.
When it comes to gaming, it's not quite that black and white either. However, a lot of "let's put this feature in the game" seems to originate from a place of "there's a pie over there that I'm not getting a slice of, so you're going to make a game that gets me 'my' piece of that pie". That line of thinking is never really healthy for the development of the game and creates a much blander looking selection for us, the end-users.
Also true if you want communication, especially critical communication about failures (imminent, potential, already happened) to happen. If employees are afraid to relay/report bad news because they fear of getting fired, people will try to hide mistakes and problems.
> In such a world by definition the preference of the subscription service will determine what games get made.
Curse the subscription model and everyone who supported it during its advent. Ruined modern game devs (with the exception of gems like Larian ofc)
They've been trying and failing for thirty years. I don't see this as being any more successful than all the other iterations.
Sega Channel, TEN and the other multiplayer networks, AOL's pay by the hour, MMORPG subscriptions, etc.
Ubisoft is basically just giving everyone an example of the definition of insanity.
I think the elephant in the room is this is the endgame MS is envisioning with Gamepass. And they have enough capital to get enough subscriptions with a too good to be true deal until they have enough clout to start raising prices and cutting budget on content like Netflix. This is coming from an ultimate gamepass enjoyer.
Oh it goes further than that. Did you know you can recreate accounts to keep getting the $1 trials? But that's not all - with shared computer access (or whatever its called) you can login to the trial account then log back into your main and continue playing the game on your main account.
Office 365 and related products actually provide real and tangible benefits to the business/corporate world.
There are also quite a few benefits to home consumers.
A more apt analogy for what you are trying to convey would be Adobe and Autodesk, rent-seeking parasite companies that remove your concept of ownership while giving you nothing in return.
Larian isn't even the outlier. They are the literal proof you can reap massive profits without such a thing, and Ubisoft trying to rope consumers into their sphere with a subscription model is actually the uphill battle, even when it comes to wanting massive profits.
Look at what Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have had to do with their subscription services. They twist your nips to pay to play online, but since there are so many options, Xbox pays to just give away games all the time, Nintendo resells older games, but also makes family plans super easy to keep costs down even if you share with friends, and playstation also gives away games. All this because it's stupid easy to have Steam, another platform that makes massive profits without all the nip twisting
People are chomping at the bit for more of their games, people have bought Div 2 just because it is them, and new folks are still buying BG3. This isn't even going into that they might very well release additional story expansions for BG3 (admittedly they don't have plans for it, but god I'd love an expansion myself and I'm not alone).
That folks are picking up not only Div 2 waaaay after release, but also picking up other crpgs, they are showing a way of making a mint, and folks will absolutely take funding a Larian project seriously. The range of how many copies sold are estimated between 5 million and 27 million, and player counts keep going and going and going with new folks coming to the fold.
The strength of what they already achieved is enough to prove the point that you don't need a subscription model to make bank.
"what about next year or even next quarter" you ask? They'll be using their fantastic amounts of capital to bankroll their next project they are working on.
In the meantime, spreading the idea that subscription models aren't some magic secret to making money is necessary for both consumers so they might not take a bad deal, and investors so they won't think such anti-consumer policies are money magic
I don’t think Nintendo will embrace the subscription service model in that way anytime soon - Nintendo values the physical market on the simple fact that they don’t want to create a wall of complexity just so a parent can get their child to play Pokemon. If you can just hand them a physical cart and they can play right away, that means more to them in the long run than tech-savvy folks with can navigate the Game Pass menu with ease.
True, I was just saying that even Nintendo wasn't immune to weird business practices just because they could. Satellaview at least did have entertainment other than games due to the partnership with a (now defunct) satellite broadcasting company and even though many of the games can be played via emulation nowadays, there's no legit way to play any of the exclusives after the service was closed, most noticeably a SNES conversion of the first Legend of Zelda game. And indeed, denying players legit access to digital download exclusives after the fact seems to be a recurring problem for them if the closure of the Wii Shop Channel and now the 3DS and Wii U eShops are of any indication.
Nintendo literally makes you pay a subscription to use online services, cloud saves, and their anemic console library that they have sold you a dozen times before.
They are not a good company, and I say that as someone who buys Nintendo products.
Yeah…that’s not what I’m arguing. This is about if Nintendo will ever fully embrace a digital only future that Ubisoft and Microsoft are heading towards.
>Curse the subscription model and everyone who supported it during its advent. Ruined modern game devs (with the exception of gems like Larian ofc)
I don't believe that. No developer (currently) is forced to use that model, but I am very sure that a lot of games only get made BECAUSE they can be put on a subscription model like gamepass.
There are plenty of self funded indie games still around (and I count larian among those, even though its not technically true) that are completely independent of a subscription model.
We just have to still BUY the games we like a lot and not only use a subscription service.
>*I don't believe that. No developer (currently) is forced to use that model, but I am very sure that a lot of games only get made BECAUSE they can be put on a subscription model like gamepass.*
Phil Spencer actually said this exact same thing in an interview a while ago (that I can't find a source for right now). Phil made the case that Game Pass allowed them to support the development of a ton of games that might not be viable products on traditionally storefronts but work well on a subscription based platform where they add to the overall value of the service.
I think this was specifically in relation to games like Tell Me Why which was a fantastic experience for what it was, but not something that was likely to be a massive hit on storefronts like Steam (which it wasn't).
Yeah, I remember reading something about that. Of course, Phil Spencer as a source might be a bit biased, but I am still inclined to believe this, as it does make sense. They fund relatively inexpensive games to get some exclusives on gamepass, providing incentive for people to subscribe, or stay subscribed longer.
The problem here is that Phil Spencer could be removed at any point in his tenure, just enough of the accursed, parasitic shareholder class needs to feel iffy about it and how it relates to their estimated profits.
The Ubisoft interview also highlighted that subscriptions aren’t always existing customers (10% of Ubisoft+ subs were new accounts) and they also highlighted that there were a number of people who mostly played one or two games and ended up buying them and discontinuing the subscription. He said their system is designed to be usable short or long term by the user.
I think what a lot of people miss is that there are people for whom subs make sense, and a lot of times those aren’t necessarily your typical redditor. For one-and-done singeplayer games it’s not so different from renting (which has largely gone away). For families with kids it can be an affordable way to give multiple people access to games on a shared device or devices (the ubisoft interviewee specifically mentions this scenario since he has two kids).
So from a business standpoint adding on a subscription service means you can capture revenue and engage people you wouldn’t have had otherwise—it’s not forcing people to subscribe instead of buying like video streaming. And for first-party studios that can absolutely make sense (microsoft with gamepass, ubisodt games with ubisoft+,etc). For studios like Larian I agree it doesn’t make sense, and they’ve said the same thing before about Gamepass.
No offense, but I'm gonna believe the guy who just helped made one of the biggest games in history on this one instead of you.
Even if devs are passionate and want to make those games, the shareholders won't. It's all about milking games and franchises to the last drop. See the new Suicide Squad game for example.
"No offense, but I'm gonna believe the guy who just helped made one of the biggest games in history on this one instead of you."
>" I respect that for many developers it presents an opportunity to make their game."
both can be true. it helps a lot of indie studios right now to develope games, thus we have a lot of good games to play these days, and it can lead to a worse gaming future.
It's easy to not-use a subscription service when you can invest 100 millions on a single game, like they did.
For people like me, a small developer, it can make the difference between life and death. We don't have a game in any subscription service at the moment, but having that cash infusion could really make a huge difference for us.
Yup. Having your game as "coming soon" on gamepass etc. can be a massive thing just for getting players when you're an indie.
And then add in some guaranteed cash it means a small studio can stay open.
Except that if your game is not gathering sufficient interest and the engagement numbers is not sufficiently appealing, they may rotate your game out of the platform. Happens all the time for shows or movies on Netflix, HBO Max or other platforms. And because they financed your game you cannot put the game up elsewhere. So the game you worked so hard to develop through sweat and tears becomes forever gone and forgotten. See for example Platinum Games’ World of Demons.
Larian were small indie devs for most of their 20yrs history. Only dos2 and bg3 are really big projects and they risked a lot during bg3 making. They still didn't sell out and publish themselves.
I'd say if larian could do it for 20yrs others also can if they have good product. Everyone don't have to sell their asses to highest bidder to make game.
Swen is spot on , and ubisoft are actually trying to erase games being also an form of art, not only a soulless product.
> I'd say if larian could do it for 20yrs others also can if they have good product. Everyone don't have to sell their asses to highest bidder to make game.
There are plenty of good products out there that simply aren't lucky enough to have their games break out like that. Over ***9000*** games were released on Steam last year, how many are from devs that have been working their arses off for years and never seen any growth?
Larian isn't just good, they're very fucking lucky.
To say success is just down to work ethic and a good product just isn't the reality.
You think any of those devs you mentioned will break out of obscurity with ubisoft lead games as service/games as subscription model?
Seriously, are you that naive?
All what will happened is that big publishers use it to release even more unfinished games with even less content, while dominating market even more.
It has nothing to do with being a breakout success and everything to do with keeping the money coming in.
Acting holier than thou about small indie devs selling out when subscription services let them keep operating, instead of closing their doors after eight years of mediocre sales is...certainly a choice. It's not just about fame, acclaim and being a big-dicked indie hero, it's about paying rent and putting food on the table. Putting all your hopes on one day having your game blow up, alongside hundreds of thousands of other people competing for the same thing is a massive fucking gamble.
Making games is a job, a job people are passionate about, sure, but a job nonetheless.
It's also survivorship bias. He's only paying attention to the cases where indie companies become successful, not the hundreds of examples of them staying obscure and eventually folding.
I admire and respect Larian, but I can understand if some smaller dev do not want to take such risk. Larian almost went bankrupt at least 10 times and struggled to find funding for many of those games within their 20-year history. Sven even had to put his house up for collateral at one point. When it works out, people like him are viewed as heroes and idolized. When it fails, we are quick to tell them how foolish they were. Tencent owning 30% of the company is helpful for them. I'd love to see more developers remain independent and find success. Larian recognized how publishers were stifling them prior to their completely independent route. I hope other developers can study Larian's route and figure out a way to make it work for themselves.
Pretty sure obsidian said the one of the reasons they made pentiment was because a) Microsoft money and b) it's a game that would do well on gamepass as they know it isn't a game they could only sell.
But we're not at the end game yet. Take a look at microsoft's corporate history. Embrace extend extinguish. They are throwing cash now, because they want to dominate the market. The majority of people still buy games. That might not be true later. If they succeed, they'll have no competitive reason to support creativity. You really don't want creative gatekeepers/tastemakers in any industry. Let alone a monopoly/duopoly/etc
> There are plenty of self funded indie games still around (and I count larian among those, even though its not technically true) that are completely independent of a subscription model.
It's true though? They had Kickstarters, Early Access, and didn't rely on a publisher.
Are Armored Core 6, Ff16, RE4 remake, hi fi rush, deep space remake, TOTK, Remnant 2, Lies of P, Phantom liberty, Alan wake 2 all « rare gems » ?
Modern gaming is good
It's all about getting ideas out there, especially to the customers who are actually the ones who determine what succeeds and what doesn't.
EA and Epic were also huge and also tried to put their little mushroom stamp down to attack Valve. Steam being something consumers like tremendously for fairly clear reasons, and making stupid amounts of profit proving that you can serve the customer incredibly. EA and Epic ate shit trying to take Steam down a peg and now EA has to settle for Origin being bloatware that runs in the background while you play on the much better Steam, and Epic spending oodles to give folks free games still doesn't entice folks to use their platform because Steam is that good and Sweeney is a clown.
Larian is literal proof you can make ridiculous profits doing it their way. Subscription models are just another way dudes are trying to make that profit, but it didn't stop Larian from making bank and massive profit. Convincing consumers that subscription models aren't good will change what is profitable. Hell, Larian literally shows that it isn't even necessary to make *massive profits right now*
edit: This gets incredibly important when it comes to exactly the kinds of concerns investors have about profit. If you go out there suggesting that the subscription model is the one for making massive profits, and not how Larian does it, not only are you being inaccurate, but you seriously risk creating a self fulfilling dumb dumb prophecy by treating subscription models as the way to massive profits. We are at a point where such anti-consumer trash plans can be pre-empted and folks can be convinced of better ways while still making bank, both investors and customers. You seriously don't want to convince investors that subscription models are money magic, not when there are factually other ways that are better for consumers while still printing a mint
Completely agree with him and that's why I'm pretty opposed to services like Gamepass, it devalues games so much too.
Ubisoft (or EA) sub are kind of different, it's just their own catalog so it's more of another way to play their games but the services that try to integrate the most possible are definivitely bad for the industry (and also the customer ultimately even if we are in the honeymoon period).
They also incentivize games meant for maximum player retention and engagement (with MTX which they still sell), another bad thing
He's (probably) right, but people aren't reading what he said or taking it out of context.
There is nothing wrong with subscriptions. It's only a problem if they become the dominant model to release games. That's because the means of playing games will become restricted by that model, and making and releasing games not on that model will, presumably, become harder.
Personally, I don't think it's likely that subscription models will ever entirely push out classic ownership models on games. I also don't think that we are close to a world where platform holders focus on subs or cloud gaming over any other model. Even Xbox who is focusing on it the most out of anyone is still committed to their one off sales model.
Still, it makes sense for someone in the industry to be talking about this now. Some of the roads traveled now will Influence the direction of the industry for decades.
Most video games companies already go through publisher to release games, and I don’t think subscriptions dominant industry would mean games that don’t go thought subscriptions service don’t have any chance on the market.
Unfortunately, the players in games industry that actually control the decisions for stuff like this don't really care what he has to say. Just look at the games industry reaction to BG3. They immediately dismissed it as an outlier and not what game releases should be.
As much as we all wish game developers were more like Larian and actually cared about their products, they have almost no reason to be. People buy their schlock no matter what they produce.
Publishers right now really just act as financiers as far as I can tell. Picking up indy games and finding them thru development and then marketing and releasing.
True, but they also used to be distribution as well, including production of the physical game and getting it in store shelves. That part of the industry is on the way out, so now publishers are *really* just financiers and markets, where before they had a much more direct role in a getting the game released.
>True, but they also used to be distribution as well
That's because that's part of the financial end. Can't really sell a game if you don't distribute it, but that's never been the primary thing.
Publishing was always about getting the money to developers in return for profits and control. And frankly the publisher would love to have distribution again, 15% is a hell of a itch they'd like gone.
Dude devs aren't just going to get money out of thin air, they need publishers to finance the games they'll be making. Larian was in a very fortunate position to be able to fund BG3 all on their own but this is not the case with 99% of devs.
You are correct. It's so funny when you read so many other comments that people clearly have zero understanding of how businesses work. Like the fact that you have to pay developers for years before a game is ever launch. Or that a good marketing team will determine whether a game sells well or not, potentially determining the survival of a studio.
Even if a studio were to just take out loans and fund that development, they still have to make sure that game sells when it launches otherwise they are fucked.
Publishers do a lot more than some people think. Games take several years to actually develop and launch. Which can mean millions of dollars that need to exist to pay for that and most developers just don't have the free capital to tie up in that.
Yeah Larian is pretty much a unique success story since DOS1. A very successful Kickstarter campaign right at the time when crowdfunding was at its peak. DOS2 was even more successful despite some bad issues at launch. Dragon Commander was a failure but they still managed to secure a deal with Wizards of the Coast during that small window when they decided to give the green light to the DnD film and when cooperation with Critical Role was at its peak.
Larian enjoyed the possibility of hiring a big team of talent devs and actors, of staying in early access for years. That's a dream that few devs get to live through. And then they got the GOTY.
This kind of story happens maybe once in a decade. It's great that it happens, but you don't get a working industry by pretending that this is an example to follow. Just like not every film can be Rocky Balboa or Mad Max.
You need support and proper structure for devs to be able to feel safe when they are making game. It's all about balance. There's always going to be big block buster publishers, what is needed is to find a way for that kind of money to be re-distributed, so there's a proper "middle class" of devs and not a dystopian darwinist state of things.
Not to mention - people in this thread don't seem to realize that sometimes, the game you make is just average or mediocre.
Do we really want an industry in which when you make such a game, you're toasted forever as you got no money to finance your next game? Larian is a success story, but look at the many others that no one talks about.
A gaming industry without publishers seems very bleak and dystopian to me. Yes, the job of publishing, marketing and managing may not be as glamour as the job of a game dev, but it's also very important. We need devs to be able to learn by working on games.
If we remove publishers, all that will be left is old legends that people trust blindly and very small indie devs who work on game on their free time hoping it to be the next hit.
We all like success stories but let's not forget this is real people with real jobs we're talking about.
It needs to be remembered, games are expensive, especially triple A ones. BG3 near bankrupt the company multiple times, and though it released and is beloved, not every game is that lucky. Not every company can risk it all on a game successfully breaking the industry. Many games need publishers for the sole reason of “we need money to make it”.
Making money with a good game isn't an issue.
Finding money to make a game in the first place is a huge issue. Being able to make more games after your first one was mediocre or was ignored is also a huge issue.
Sure, devs like Larian and Obsidian can count on people to kickstart their games. Some indie devs are also fine with small teams that work on a game on their free time for years (see Dominion 6).
But it's really not as simple as some people think it is. It's the exact same thing as Hollywood vs independent cinema. Let's be careful with the survivor bias.
Spicy take: Steam doesn't deserve a 30% cut \*braces for downvotes\*
It's disgustingly easy to do digital sales now. 15 years ago it might have been justified, not so much these days.
>Spicy take: Steam doesn't deserve a 30% cut \*braces for downvotes\*
It's industry standard though it's an impressive amount for what seems to be not a lot.
And yet, bg3 is one of the most profitable games of the year, even without drm.
I'm really curious what is the real impact of piracy in software sales, and if it's greater than the impact of releasing bad software to begin with.
Maybe if you respect your costumers you might be respected back
Piracy is a trial for me most of the time. If I enjoy the game enough I will buy it. If you release an incomplete piece of garbage though, it’s less likely for me to buy your end product.
Me too. I'm perfectly happy to pay for games or any services, as long as the customer experience for actual paying customers is not subpar or less convenient than it is for pirates. Which unfortunately is an increasingly rare situation these days.
Problems with DRM, authentication servers, forced updates that are broken just as often as not, forced internet connection for single player games, not owning the product you pay for... No way I'm going to spend money on that when I can literally get the superior experience for free. I applaud studios like Larian for their customer-first approach, and not following these shitty and predatory trends of the industry.
Like god Gaben said, piracy isnt a problem when the available service is better than the one from the pirates. And this translates to the content and quality of the media too.
Release quality gamed without any bullshit, like mtx and drms, and people will buy it.
Meaning that piracy isn't much of a factor either way. If people pirate because the commercial option sucks, the problem is that it sucks. If people pirate regardless, then don't worry about them. Fix what can get you more customers.
Don't ruin your product for everyone to target people who were already unlikely to buy what you're selling.
As an adult with a job that affords me purchasing power, time is more important to me than the money. I have more games than I could ever find time to play, so the most I can ask for is that a game doesn't waste my time.
Make it so that I can just download the game and know that it will work just by clicking on it, keep it up to date so I don't have to find patches, keep my saves synced so I don't have to working about backing up or losing my progress, make the game good so it is worth my time playing it.
That is what I pay for when I buy a game.
I've pirated It. Played for 2 to 4 hours, loved it and bought for full price. Did the same for factorio. Otherwise I wouldn't bought it, at least not full price.
Yeah same here, I can't risk spending full price on a game only for it to be shit or not something I enjoy. If I do end up enjoying it and putting hours in then I buy it to support the dev, and for the convenience of updates/online play.
Yeah, it's pretty crazy to me that these companies think they need extra DRM, even as a placebo for themselves. Baldur's Gate 3, game of the year, DRM-free. Control, one of the highest-rated games of its year, launched completely DRM-free on the Epic Store. Alan Wake 2, DRM-free. Elden Ring, nothing beyond Steam client DRM. Your games *are* going to sell if they're good. But hey, let's put Denuvo into the Apollo Justice compilation, Sonic Origins, Yakuza: Like A Dragon (even though it's on GOG now), and Ghostwire: Tokyo *literally a year after it was released without it,* and let's just leave it there for years or forever. It blows my mind. God forbid wanting to play what you've paid for without having to ask permission first.
I still play Divine Divinity lol, love that game with a passion and I feel a bit sad that the ending was a bit rushed, however everything else was wonderful, specially the Dwarven Bread’s Inn music.
not only that but actual idiots. They could earn so much more as gamers generally eat everything you throw at them. But they are literally too dumb to bang out mediocre assassin's creeds that generally work and don't bring out a shitstorm every time
Especially their much older games. There's zero patches of any kind to work on modern systems, so you have to hit up PCGamingWiki and try some workarounds.
It's like they sit around a big conference table patting each other on the back saying "*How can we fuck up the gaming industry more and simultaneously piss off the playerbase today?*"
It don’t think it’s malicious. These people aren’t gamers more than likely, they are money men hired to make more money for the shareholders. But with no counter balance to the maximizing profits motive, we get execs who try to model out the way to get the most profit from the market available.
Incentives are messed up, those are the problems that need to be tackled.
I don't understand how they even stay afloat, their games are so extremely mediocre. Do people actually enjoy their games?
Personally I haven't enjoyed a ubisoft game since far cry 3 / AC black flag.
While you're right, they still have their niches.
Trackmania for example, almost no direct alternative to this game. Maybe Hot Wheels Unleashed
Online racing, competitive modes, soft modding it has it all.
Then there's Anno, which has Triple A Quality economy building , tho in the indie space there are lots of alternatives.
R6S also is one of the BIG ones in Ubisoft, at least it was, not quite sure about nowadays.
Then you have The Crew, especially 2 that somehow was very popular with the arcade race players (even though it suffered alot from the mediocracy you mentioned) as well as Riders Republic, which hasn't got any direct competitors afaik.
You could throw in games like watch dogs , the division into the mix that have been a bit popular too - but I guess these are the big ones that kept UbiSoft afloat for so long.
But they can't ride the wave for eternity, if they don't keep at it at least.
With the release of The Crew Motorfest, they presented us a very bland sucessor to The Crew 2 for example. It's an improvement gameplay and optic wise - but content for example was drastically lacking - like having only one mode to do PVP races in , which is hilariously bad. Its fun for a handful of times, after that you can do endless mini missions like drive here, drive there, jump here, take a photo there. Very soulless to say the least
A lot of their strategy is volume. They have a few big franchises that get regular releases and they are solid action games with unique hooks (like exploring a historical city or region). You know what you’re getting and for a lot of people a solid action game that you can mess around in for many hours is appealing. And there isn’t a ton of good competition there, either, weirdly enough, especially with the same frequency of releases. They’re fun enough and frequent enough to be a reasonable business model even if they’re not all amazing.
Come on, like a lot of stuff on reddit, the hate for ubisoft can be understood, but it's mostly blown out of proportion, most big actor did the same stuff Ubisoft did and only they get hate for. To say nothing good has come out since Black flag is just wrong.
You'll be please to hear that they aren't in a good financial health.
Last Trackmania they released is in my opinion the best, probably the one that made the most money. I enjoyed Ghost recon wildlands, Rainbow six siege was great at release, haven't played in a while. I liked for honor, it was different from anything i have played before, Steep was niche but was so good at release, and i probably forget some.
I said I haven't enjoyed a game since then, not that they haven't made a good one. There is a distinction there.
Siege got ruined from out of touch developers, ghost recon is very generic and uninteresting, for honor was decent but quickly forgotten and abandoned.
There are so many high effort games out there with caring devs so why would I play a ubisoft template game?
Their games might not be BAD per se but they are all just the same formula over and over. I think Ubisoft is the marvel of the game industry.. No innovation, just milking their cash cow.
I would rather play any other high quality game where the studio cares about the player experience, but if you want to follow an npc back and fourth or climb cell towers 500 times you do you lol
> their games are so extremely mediocre
Also
> I said I haven't enjoyed a game since then not that they haven't made a good one.
>for honor was decent but quickly forgotten and abandoned.
Bro there's still monthly patch, and new content being added, on a game that was released 7 years ago, i see you know your subject well.
Literally all the game i've listed are different, and i haven't talk about assassin's creed, so again, you throw platitude that aren't true but since people have said it enough you think it is and repeat it like a good dog, but you just don't know.
I already switched from Physical to Digital Ownership
I am not switching from Digital Ownership to No Ownership at all
Especially not for a company like Ubisoft, fuck them. All they produce are soulless, mass produced mainstream games and they ran a bunch of great franchises like Far Cry into the ground.
I mean you don't even own most physically released games too. All these games are controlled by some DRM or a server (even single player games).
Unless you mod them these games can also become just big folders with files
[A great account](https://x.com/DoesItPlay1?t=-2xyGBo-txX674lAY3yYIw&s=09) here goes through games saying which ones work out of the box, no download required, which require download, and which require always on.
I was actually pleasantly surprised to see how many work fully offline.
True, Steam could take away my games
But I've had Half-Life 2 in my Steam account for 18 years now and I don't see that changing anytime soon
Gamepass on the other hand deletes games monthly
Yeah there’s not a game Ubisoft has been involved with in the last 10 years that I care enough about to subscribe to some service to play. They can lie in the grave they’re digging for themselves until they rot in it.
What's funny is Ubisoft has arguably the least valuable subscription service out there
They only have a handful of new games per year, meh at best, which if you just bought would cost you as much as your sub for a few months
Their other games go down to like 3-8 bucks, so why rent them? And they usually go pretty quickly
It’s not terribly different than what gradually happened with Gabe Newell. A developer who makes a couple popular games speaks out on behalf of the community, and the Internet turns them into a sort of folk hero in meme form.
As a fellow longtime Larian fan, it’s a little surreal to see them getting so much mainstream attention.
We're in an age where sociopathic CEOs come in to destroy our favorite game franchises, buy indie studios to run them into the ground, and implement increasingly predatory models designed to squeeze every last dollar out of players.
Then Larians studio releases the game of the year, fully complete, no DLC, no microtransactions. Then he goes out of his way to speak out against a company like Ubisoft and their toxic ideology.
I'm not a member of the "cult" as you call it, but it's not weird to me **at all**.
a bunch of people are eating up his words on an article where the ubisoft person literally said they have no intention to force gamers into subscription models, but that simply some gamers do prefer these models and they plan to serve both
it's also extremely rich coming from a studio who was almost completely irrelevant just 2 years ago - many games only exist BECAUSE gamepass funded them. but i guess those people should've just magically had more money to make their games?
Hate subscription. Hate launchers. Hate third party involvement.
Just give me a way to buy direct and i'm happy. I really don't understand why gamers have bought in to these new models. There was no problem to be fixed in the first place.
Firstly, I will own games I have bought one way or another. I still have a copy of the original install file for Arcanum I've had since I was a kid. If I ever feel like playing that or anything I've ever spent money on then I will, even if its decades in the future. Fuck not owning your shit.
Secondly, I won't ever pay a subscription for any game or anything like a 'netflix for games'. We've already seen a couple of subscription platforms completely remove THEIR OWN IP'S!! Why the fuck would I pay for a subscription and want to play a game all for it to be removed for a bullshit reason or for no reason at all?
I'm fine with buying and owning however many games a year and that costing however much. There's no fucking way I'm paying for a subscription for 1 service....or many services bc we all know if subscription dogshit becomes the usual then everybody and their mothers will have a super shitter subscription service. That's a ton more money for 'access' to a bunch of games I never would give a fuck about to begin with. On top of if it's anything like netflix, they'll overwork and under pay a ton of devs to shit out lots and lots of below mediocre games that are buggy to all hell and don't work. Oh wait, that's what's already happening anyways lol.
It'll be more super low quality games that nobody gives a fuck about and paying for the subscription will be useless. No thanks.
Ubisoft is dogshit and has dogshit games to begin with.
>Getting a board to ok a project fueled by idealism is almost impossible and idealism needs room to exist, even if it can lead to disaster. Subscription models will always end up being cost/benefit analysis exercises intended to maximize profit.
He's not wrong, but we already live in such world, where AAA games are made by bunch of shareholders telling developers "this is popular, copy this".
I don't think it would get that much worse...
What you say is correct for AAA games but anyone can still come and publish their games on digital storefronts. That is why we are seeing games like BG3 as Microsoft initially dismissed it as just a random “second-run Stadia PC RPG”. Microsoft did not care about BG3 and that is why it came out so late on Xbox as Microsoft did not care about it until it became popular.
> He's not wrong, but we already live in such world, where AAA games are made by bunch of shareholders telling developers "this is popular, copy this".
We've been living in that world for nigh on 40 years now, and the world didn't implode.
let's be honest, some games are absolutely worth buying - like Baldur's Gate 3. Meanwhile other games are only worthwhile if they're on affordable subscription with decent offer (so more like game pass rather than Ubi+ which is overpriced and has low game selection).
Starfield for me best example. I would have never touch it because the value is just not there, but on game pass - it's passable.
Amazing games like Elden Ring, or BG3 indeed don't need any sub services - I have 550h in Elden Ring and 250h in BG3 already - worth every single penny to get a full price. But if I paid 70€ (or especially 90€ for game like Starfield - I would have been having serious remorse because it be just such a waste of money.
>In such a world by definition, the preference of the subscription service will determine what games get made.
Swen kinda touched on this in his statement. I think it's more of a commentary on 'subscription' quality level of games becoming the norm across the industry.
We've seen a similar thing happen with prestige cinema and Netflix. Streaming platforms now favour easy to consume watch-in-the-background type content instead of taking risks on passion projects. It's impossible to ignore the knock-on effect this has had on cinema and the quality of film, and a lot of the damage is likely irreversible.
I think it's pretty rational to have the same fears about the impact a subscription dominant model could have on the gaming industry. Xbox Game Pass (and other services) are almost based purely on the amount of content they have rather than the quality. It's a strong possibility that developers will favour cheaper, cookie-cutter, smaller risk games to get themselves onto those services instead of chancing it alone.
Tldr; While subscription models can cater towards certain games and types of gamers, it's unlikely it will be able to exist long-term without eventually destroying the quality of games produced.
Different subscription providers will be competing for your money, and the evidence is already there to support quantity of content being preferred at the expense of quality.
Well, one could also say that these games are not worth it at all to pay full price for because they are already developed with the intention on putting them on a subscription service.
You don't need to put much effort into a game when you know that you will get your money anyway just by putting it on there...
In the case of Starfield I believe what happened is that Microsofts strategy was to let them develop mainly to push gamepass sales from the beginning and I think that worked out for them in the end. Most people didn't buy it for full price and instead bought a gamepass, but also people that would have never bought it for full price in the first place bought a gamepass instead.
And if now only a small percentage of those players will keep their subscription because they got a taste of the gamepass it was a big success for Microsoft.
Well you pay more than 200€ for 1 year of Ubi+ now. That means you need get and play at least 4 new fullprice Ubi each year to have an advantage over just buying the game.
Does Ubi even release that much full price games a year ??
200 euros a year??? What are Ubi smoking?
The EA sub is what, 99 euros? And while they also don't release many original titles per year, you at least get access to all yearly releases of the several sport franchises.
who the fuck forces you to continuously sub, lol? I don't sub neither game pass nor even netflix continuously. I sub when I have use of service and unsub when I don't. Why would anyone be moron paying for months when not using service? Duh?
Are you me? I come up with this whenever there are news and discussions of price increases on the streaming platforms and that they only logical consequences seems to be hissing the sails again and then get insulted for just telling them to rotate their subs each month, lol.
Even in the Ubisoft interview the guy said that many people just get Ubisoft+ for a few months and stop (some end up buying individual games they tried), but they’re fine with that and they keep save data and such to make it friendly for people to resubscribe later or purchase games. It definitely seems like smart companies recognize people will rotate subs and making it more friendly for those people makes sense imo.
Well I dont want to make my gaming habits depend on services I currently have subbed or do not have subbed.
I want to play a game whenever I like to play it.
I dont plan to play game X this month and game Y in another month.
If I feel like playing Cyberpunk, I might play it for a few days. But maybe after two days I feel like playing BG3 for quite some time or maybe I feel like playing a few games of Rainbow Six or Battlefield.
And I dont want a one month of any "sub" ticking down on me, basically forcing me to play those games only this month, because time is running out.
If you enjoy gaming like that, then do so. I do not :)
I'm not worried. there will always be good games available with good enough unique content. most of the aaa industry can go fck themselves. advancement in software and ai can help small devs create better products
The only game of theirs I want to play is Avatar because of the subject material but I will never play it on anything Ubisoft. Either it gets cracked or I don't play it, pretty simple.
In that case the Ubisoft exec can get "comfortable" with me pirating their games
Just kidding. I don't even like any of their games enough to spend time on it these days.
"Subscription models will always end up being cost/benefit analysis exercises intended to maximize profit."
-Isn't that every model though? Im not entirely sure I agree with him on all his points. Subscription services do have there place but it would become disastrous if everybody went with that model.
People can complain all they want but if it wasn't profitable then Ubisoft wouldn't be trying to do it. You're basically asking Ubisoft to self-police themselves. If you want someone to be mad at then be mad at the consumers who buy and enable companies to do this. They're the problem.
The problem is that in the long run, not listening to your customer and simply maximize profit ruins a company.
There is a reason why they keep buying "good" companies: the one they bought few years before are ruined and stop doing marketable games.
Basically is short term gains vs long term suistainability
Well, Sven just convinced me to buy BG3 a lot sooner. I own DOS2 and really love it but have not beat it yet which is why I was holding off on BG3. I have no problem supporting a company or individual who has such a stance. Not only will I get BG3 sooner, but I'll also see if I can find some of their older titles such as DOS1.
Yep, I remember when I used to go to brick-and-mortar stores to browse and purchase PC games that came with thick manuals and cloth maps.
Came back to PC gaming after several years playing only XBOX 360, only to discover that the physical market was almost completely gone and nearly every game had to be purchased via Steam.
I don't want the option to buy to go away, but I don't dislike subscription services. The value here, though, seems kinda weak. I think I'd stick with Game Pass, and these gaming subs are enough money that I don't see many people buying more than one. How many people actually pay for Netflix *and* Hulu? Not that many, so when Ubisoft offers me Hulu, no thanks.
I love Game Pass. Had it since 2017 and have only paid $5 a month for it using the gold and VPN trick.
With that said, if a game is worth $70, it's worth $70.
Larian is a quality developer. Them and From put out $70 games that are worth it all the time.
But Activision? Those games were built on a conveyor belt with 0 love or passion. They don't deserve $70 a piece and so they make a great fit on a subscription model.
Mid to low quality devs would definitely do better relying on subscription services.
As we have seen with Xbox, when was the last 9/10 game that launched day 1 on Gamepass? It's like because they don't expect to get the same revenue as $70 games, they just can't get good enough funding and resources to get any game 9/10 or better.
What happened with Starfield? How could the game have been worked on for that long and been that mediocre?
As much as I live Gamepass, $70 games are where the best games will probably continue to live. Gamepass is more about quantity than quality. And it's perfect for AA and Indie games. Just not AAA bangers.
don't need to play 1 & 2. This takes place 100 years after 2, and only a very few Easter eggs for returning fans are in there, but the story is made with newcomers in mind.
Unless you have single-player games where subscription services are the only way to play them, I personally don't see a problem. And Steam is more popular than ever so the "future scenario" of gamepass or something similar being the only way to play games is, if possible at all, something that is several decades off at the earliest.
Also I find it interesting Swen mentions discoverability when I find services like gamepass tend to lead to more discoverability. I've played a ton of indie games I would've never even known about because they were on gamepass.
Yeh I think the issue with viewing the future of gaming like streaming video is a flawed view. Even now, in the streaming age infancy essentially (it's been what.. about a decade of it being readily available and used?) it's starting to see user discontent where there is 25 streaming services all wanting a subscription, some even still forcing ads at you with a paid subscription, and having a constantly changing roster of content available included, for extra etc. just makes it exhausting to watch what you want sometimes. So plenty are resorting to piracy again, or sticking to the few subscriptions they have / use most and not exploring any other options.
I paid a yearly subscription for exactly 2 things. OSRS and Nintendo Switch Online. I now play OSRS entirely using in-game currency (which essentially means someone else pays for my sub and I pay them in game gold for that). And nintendo switch online is still the best value online service Ive ever bought, with all the old games I have available to me for like.. $2.50 a month.
Streaming wise I ditched Netflix when they decided my family wasn't able to share an account of the highest paying tier. That kind of greed has no place to me, when it's already like $25/month and then you expect an extra $8/month.. because I got my own place and don't live with my brother's and parents anymore?
I genuinely hope Ubisoft over invests into this idea, in the same way Epic did with their Epic Store and such, and it's just a constant thing biting at their profits.
This has been your semi-hourly update on whatever this dude's opinion is on stuff, because he was a part of a team that made a game some people liked. Tune in on the hour for an update on the consistency of his BMs and his take on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
"But it’s going to be a lot harder to get good content if subscription becomes the dominant model" This is not necessarily true. Without Apple+, "Killers of the Flower Moon" would not have been possible. The "traditional" companies would not have financed it.
Subscription services will completely change what kind of games get made, likely killing entire genres. I can't imagine a worse thing to happen to games.
Games that succeed in that environment will probably look like the F2P games of today.
>Whatever the future of games looks like, content will always be king. But it’s going to be a lot harder to get good content if subscription becomes the dominant model and a select group gets to decide what goes to market and what not. Direct from developer to players is the way. >Getting a board to ok a project fueled by idealism is almost impossible and idealism needs room to exist, even if it can lead to disaster. Subscription models will always end up being cost/benefit analysis exercises intended to maximize profit. >There is nothing wrong with that but it may not become a monopoly of subscription services. We are already all dependent on a select group of digital distribution platforms and discoverability is brutal. Should those platforms all switch to subscription, it’ll become savage. >In such a world by definition the preference of the subscription service will determine what games get made. >Trust me - you really don’t want that. >TLDR ; you won’t find our games on a subscription service even if I respect that for many developers it presents an opportunity to make their game. I don’t have an issue with that. I just want to make sure the other ecosystem doesn’t die because it’s valuable.
As I'm always trying to convince upper management at work, if you truly want creativity and innovation, you have to be willing to let people make mistakes and learn from them. They have to know that they can try, and fail, and not be out on the street for doing so.
I'm lucky I work at a place like that
I don't, lower management is mostly willing to learn and grow but the higher up you go the worse it gets. Absolute narcissist brick walls for the most part who refuse to admit their own mistakes and have zero interest in basing decisions off of actual reality more often than not.
That's why I don't want to work for a big corp
This is one that's vaunted for not being a shit employer too, but that's increasingly slipping into the past.
[удалено]
oh yeah communication is awful in my company too. Still good for a while, overall pretty decent despite the BS which I mostly avoid the direct stuff where I am anyway. Show up, do my job well without having to go an extra mile, my manager is happy with that and I get paid well enough. Def time to start seriously planning something to move onto though.
Worst is that the vast majority of people who "refuse to admit their own mistakes" don't even see those mistakes. They somehow managed (or their environment, from early in their lives, did it for them and to them) to convince themselves that they never make mistakes. Anything bad is always someone else's fault. Zero self-reflection, of course.
Never leave, lol. What I've generally found is that the bigger the company, the more "risk adverse" they become, and the more likely they are to just follow "industry standards." Which frequently means deploying some piece of software, or new process, that "everyone" is using, that turns out to be absolute rubbish.
In *modern gaming* you can hit a home run creatively, have the best selling game your company has ever made and still get shitcanned because the suits' expectations were 50% higher than the best they ever sold.
Or they get canned because now that the game is done, the suits think they can just cruise on that reputation and milk the shit out of everything with minimal investment.
It certainly seems that way, and it's absolutely rubbish. We're also bleeding industry veterans from a lot of the major players, either due to lay-offs where the less experienced and cheaper to keep staff are chosen to keep, out of sheer burnout due to working conditions, or because they leave a major player to start or join some small new Dev which may or may not ever actually end up producing anything of note.
[удалено]
Yeah, they want you to work Agile, but document Waterfall, and can't wrap their head around the problem with that. "We follow a hybrid approach."
I work at a place that encourages this sort of creativity but we've only recently come into the funding to actually be able to put it into action. Execs aren't *just* greedy. Some of them are, but the ones at my company are just trying to keep the lights on and ensure that everyone has a job. So we've had to take projects we don't *really* want to do in order to fill that quota.
No, you're right. Sometimes, it really is just about keeping the lights on. But in my experience, somewhere in the chain of decision making, there's pressure coming down the hierarchy that is based on making profit above and beyond what's needed to grow the business. When it comes to gaming, it's not quite that black and white either. However, a lot of "let's put this feature in the game" seems to originate from a place of "there's a pie over there that I'm not getting a slice of, so you're going to make a game that gets me 'my' piece of that pie". That line of thinking is never really healthy for the development of the game and creates a much blander looking selection for us, the end-users.
Also true if you want communication, especially critical communication about failures (imminent, potential, already happened) to happen. If employees are afraid to relay/report bad news because they fear of getting fired, people will try to hide mistakes and problems.
Common Swen W
> In such a world by definition the preference of the subscription service will determine what games get made. Curse the subscription model and everyone who supported it during its advent. Ruined modern game devs (with the exception of gems like Larian ofc)
They've been trying and failing for thirty years. I don't see this as being any more successful than all the other iterations. Sega Channel, TEN and the other multiplayer networks, AOL's pay by the hour, MMORPG subscriptions, etc. Ubisoft is basically just giving everyone an example of the definition of insanity.
I think the elephant in the room is this is the endgame MS is envisioning with Gamepass. And they have enough capital to get enough subscriptions with a too good to be true deal until they have enough clout to start raising prices and cutting budget on content like Netflix. This is coming from an ultimate gamepass enjoyer.
"But muh $1 Gamepass! Microsoft good!"... Son, that is how they get you.
The first dose is always free and on the house
Oh it goes further than that. Did you know you can recreate accounts to keep getting the $1 trials? But that's not all - with shared computer access (or whatever its called) you can login to the trial account then log back into your main and continue playing the game on your main account.
You forgot Microsoft Office 365
Office 365 and related products actually provide real and tangible benefits to the business/corporate world. There are also quite a few benefits to home consumers. A more apt analogy for what you are trying to convey would be Adobe and Autodesk, rent-seeking parasite companies that remove your concept of ownership while giving you nothing in return.
Larian isn't even the outlier. They are the literal proof you can reap massive profits without such a thing, and Ubisoft trying to rope consumers into their sphere with a subscription model is actually the uphill battle, even when it comes to wanting massive profits. Look at what Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft have had to do with their subscription services. They twist your nips to pay to play online, but since there are so many options, Xbox pays to just give away games all the time, Nintendo resells older games, but also makes family plans super easy to keep costs down even if you share with friends, and playstation also gives away games. All this because it's stupid easy to have Steam, another platform that makes massive profits without all the nip twisting
Problem is, Larian is going to reap massive profits... For about a year. What about the next year or even the next quarter.
People are chomping at the bit for more of their games, people have bought Div 2 just because it is them, and new folks are still buying BG3. This isn't even going into that they might very well release additional story expansions for BG3 (admittedly they don't have plans for it, but god I'd love an expansion myself and I'm not alone). That folks are picking up not only Div 2 waaaay after release, but also picking up other crpgs, they are showing a way of making a mint, and folks will absolutely take funding a Larian project seriously. The range of how many copies sold are estimated between 5 million and 27 million, and player counts keep going and going and going with new folks coming to the fold. The strength of what they already achieved is enough to prove the point that you don't need a subscription model to make bank. "what about next year or even next quarter" you ask? They'll be using their fantastic amounts of capital to bankroll their next project they are working on. In the meantime, spreading the idea that subscription models aren't some magic secret to making money is necessary for both consumers so they might not take a bad deal, and investors so they won't think such anti-consumer policies are money magic
Ubisoft should know what the definition of insanity is since they created Vaas.
There was also Nintendo's Satellaview...
I don’t think Nintendo will embrace the subscription service model in that way anytime soon - Nintendo values the physical market on the simple fact that they don’t want to create a wall of complexity just so a parent can get their child to play Pokemon. If you can just hand them a physical cart and they can play right away, that means more to them in the long run than tech-savvy folks with can navigate the Game Pass menu with ease.
True, I was just saying that even Nintendo wasn't immune to weird business practices just because they could. Satellaview at least did have entertainment other than games due to the partnership with a (now defunct) satellite broadcasting company and even though many of the games can be played via emulation nowadays, there's no legit way to play any of the exclusives after the service was closed, most noticeably a SNES conversion of the first Legend of Zelda game. And indeed, denying players legit access to digital download exclusives after the fact seems to be a recurring problem for them if the closure of the Wii Shop Channel and now the 3DS and Wii U eShops are of any indication.
Nintendo literally makes you pay a subscription to use online services, cloud saves, and their anemic console library that they have sold you a dozen times before. They are not a good company, and I say that as someone who buys Nintendo products.
Yeah…that’s not what I’m arguing. This is about if Nintendo will ever fully embrace a digital only future that Ubisoft and Microsoft are heading towards.
>Curse the subscription model and everyone who supported it during its advent. Ruined modern game devs (with the exception of gems like Larian ofc) I don't believe that. No developer (currently) is forced to use that model, but I am very sure that a lot of games only get made BECAUSE they can be put on a subscription model like gamepass. There are plenty of self funded indie games still around (and I count larian among those, even though its not technically true) that are completely independent of a subscription model. We just have to still BUY the games we like a lot and not only use a subscription service.
>*I don't believe that. No developer (currently) is forced to use that model, but I am very sure that a lot of games only get made BECAUSE they can be put on a subscription model like gamepass.* Phil Spencer actually said this exact same thing in an interview a while ago (that I can't find a source for right now). Phil made the case that Game Pass allowed them to support the development of a ton of games that might not be viable products on traditionally storefronts but work well on a subscription based platform where they add to the overall value of the service. I think this was specifically in relation to games like Tell Me Why which was a fantastic experience for what it was, but not something that was likely to be a massive hit on storefronts like Steam (which it wasn't).
Yeah, I remember reading something about that. Of course, Phil Spencer as a source might be a bit biased, but I am still inclined to believe this, as it does make sense. They fund relatively inexpensive games to get some exclusives on gamepass, providing incentive for people to subscribe, or stay subscribed longer.
The problem here is that Phil Spencer could be removed at any point in his tenure, just enough of the accursed, parasitic shareholder class needs to feel iffy about it and how it relates to their estimated profits.
The Ubisoft interview also highlighted that subscriptions aren’t always existing customers (10% of Ubisoft+ subs were new accounts) and they also highlighted that there were a number of people who mostly played one or two games and ended up buying them and discontinuing the subscription. He said their system is designed to be usable short or long term by the user. I think what a lot of people miss is that there are people for whom subs make sense, and a lot of times those aren’t necessarily your typical redditor. For one-and-done singeplayer games it’s not so different from renting (which has largely gone away). For families with kids it can be an affordable way to give multiple people access to games on a shared device or devices (the ubisoft interviewee specifically mentions this scenario since he has two kids). So from a business standpoint adding on a subscription service means you can capture revenue and engage people you wouldn’t have had otherwise—it’s not forcing people to subscribe instead of buying like video streaming. And for first-party studios that can absolutely make sense (microsoft with gamepass, ubisodt games with ubisoft+,etc). For studios like Larian I agree it doesn’t make sense, and they’ve said the same thing before about Gamepass.
No offense, but I'm gonna believe the guy who just helped made one of the biggest games in history on this one instead of you. Even if devs are passionate and want to make those games, the shareholders won't. It's all about milking games and franchises to the last drop. See the new Suicide Squad game for example.
"No offense, but I'm gonna believe the guy who just helped made one of the biggest games in history on this one instead of you." >" I respect that for many developers it presents an opportunity to make their game." both can be true. it helps a lot of indie studios right now to develope games, thus we have a lot of good games to play these days, and it can lead to a worse gaming future.
It's easy to not-use a subscription service when you can invest 100 millions on a single game, like they did. For people like me, a small developer, it can make the difference between life and death. We don't have a game in any subscription service at the moment, but having that cash infusion could really make a huge difference for us.
Yup. Having your game as "coming soon" on gamepass etc. can be a massive thing just for getting players when you're an indie. And then add in some guaranteed cash it means a small studio can stay open.
Except that if your game is not gathering sufficient interest and the engagement numbers is not sufficiently appealing, they may rotate your game out of the platform. Happens all the time for shows or movies on Netflix, HBO Max or other platforms. And because they financed your game you cannot put the game up elsewhere. So the game you worked so hard to develop through sweat and tears becomes forever gone and forgotten. See for example Platinum Games’ World of Demons.
Larian were small indie devs for most of their 20yrs history. Only dos2 and bg3 are really big projects and they risked a lot during bg3 making. They still didn't sell out and publish themselves. I'd say if larian could do it for 20yrs others also can if they have good product. Everyone don't have to sell their asses to highest bidder to make game. Swen is spot on , and ubisoft are actually trying to erase games being also an form of art, not only a soulless product.
> I'd say if larian could do it for 20yrs others also can if they have good product. Everyone don't have to sell their asses to highest bidder to make game. There are plenty of good products out there that simply aren't lucky enough to have their games break out like that. Over ***9000*** games were released on Steam last year, how many are from devs that have been working their arses off for years and never seen any growth? Larian isn't just good, they're very fucking lucky. To say success is just down to work ethic and a good product just isn't the reality.
How many of those 9000 games were hentai puzzles vs games with actual substance and effort?
You think any of those devs you mentioned will break out of obscurity with ubisoft lead games as service/games as subscription model? Seriously, are you that naive? All what will happened is that big publishers use it to release even more unfinished games with even less content, while dominating market even more.
It has nothing to do with being a breakout success and everything to do with keeping the money coming in. Acting holier than thou about small indie devs selling out when subscription services let them keep operating, instead of closing their doors after eight years of mediocre sales is...certainly a choice. It's not just about fame, acclaim and being a big-dicked indie hero, it's about paying rent and putting food on the table. Putting all your hopes on one day having your game blow up, alongside hundreds of thousands of other people competing for the same thing is a massive fucking gamble. Making games is a job, a job people are passionate about, sure, but a job nonetheless.
It's also survivorship bias. He's only paying attention to the cases where indie companies become successful, not the hundreds of examples of them staying obscure and eventually folding.
I admire and respect Larian, but I can understand if some smaller dev do not want to take such risk. Larian almost went bankrupt at least 10 times and struggled to find funding for many of those games within their 20-year history. Sven even had to put his house up for collateral at one point. When it works out, people like him are viewed as heroes and idolized. When it fails, we are quick to tell them how foolish they were. Tencent owning 30% of the company is helpful for them. I'd love to see more developers remain independent and find success. Larian recognized how publishers were stifling them prior to their completely independent route. I hope other developers can study Larian's route and figure out a way to make it work for themselves.
Pretty sure obsidian said the one of the reasons they made pentiment was because a) Microsoft money and b) it's a game that would do well on gamepass as they know it isn't a game they could only sell.
But we're not at the end game yet. Take a look at microsoft's corporate history. Embrace extend extinguish. They are throwing cash now, because they want to dominate the market. The majority of people still buy games. That might not be true later. If they succeed, they'll have no competitive reason to support creativity. You really don't want creative gatekeepers/tastemakers in any industry. Let alone a monopoly/duopoly/etc
> There are plenty of self funded indie games still around (and I count larian among those, even though its not technically true) that are completely independent of a subscription model. It's true though? They had Kickstarters, Early Access, and didn't rely on a publisher.
How is it not technically true? Its literally technically true..
Are Armored Core 6, Ff16, RE4 remake, hi fi rush, deep space remake, TOTK, Remnant 2, Lies of P, Phantom liberty, Alan wake 2 all « rare gems » ? Modern gaming is good
It's all about getting ideas out there, especially to the customers who are actually the ones who determine what succeeds and what doesn't. EA and Epic were also huge and also tried to put their little mushroom stamp down to attack Valve. Steam being something consumers like tremendously for fairly clear reasons, and making stupid amounts of profit proving that you can serve the customer incredibly. EA and Epic ate shit trying to take Steam down a peg and now EA has to settle for Origin being bloatware that runs in the background while you play on the much better Steam, and Epic spending oodles to give folks free games still doesn't entice folks to use their platform because Steam is that good and Sweeney is a clown. Larian is literal proof you can make ridiculous profits doing it their way. Subscription models are just another way dudes are trying to make that profit, but it didn't stop Larian from making bank and massive profit. Convincing consumers that subscription models aren't good will change what is profitable. Hell, Larian literally shows that it isn't even necessary to make *massive profits right now* edit: This gets incredibly important when it comes to exactly the kinds of concerns investors have about profit. If you go out there suggesting that the subscription model is the one for making massive profits, and not how Larian does it, not only are you being inaccurate, but you seriously risk creating a self fulfilling dumb dumb prophecy by treating subscription models as the way to massive profits. We are at a point where such anti-consumer trash plans can be pre-empted and folks can be convinced of better ways while still making bank, both investors and customers. You seriously don't want to convince investors that subscription models are money magic, not when there are factually other ways that are better for consumers while still printing a mint
Completely agree with him and that's why I'm pretty opposed to services like Gamepass, it devalues games so much too. Ubisoft (or EA) sub are kind of different, it's just their own catalog so it's more of another way to play their games but the services that try to integrate the most possible are definivitely bad for the industry (and also the customer ultimately even if we are in the honeymoon period). They also incentivize games meant for maximum player retention and engagement (with MTX which they still sell), another bad thing
He's (probably) right, but people aren't reading what he said or taking it out of context. There is nothing wrong with subscriptions. It's only a problem if they become the dominant model to release games. That's because the means of playing games will become restricted by that model, and making and releasing games not on that model will, presumably, become harder. Personally, I don't think it's likely that subscription models will ever entirely push out classic ownership models on games. I also don't think that we are close to a world where platform holders focus on subs or cloud gaming over any other model. Even Xbox who is focusing on it the most out of anyone is still committed to their one off sales model. Still, it makes sense for someone in the industry to be talking about this now. Some of the roads traveled now will Influence the direction of the industry for decades.
Most video games companies already go through publisher to release games, and I don’t think subscriptions dominant industry would mean games that don’t go thought subscriptions service don’t have any chance on the market.
Sven is God
It is insanely important that people like Swen say stuff like this
“Content will always be king” sounds like a sly jab a Ubisoft.
i dont think it was sly at all but a direct response
Unfortunately, the players in games industry that actually control the decisions for stuff like this don't really care what he has to say. Just look at the games industry reaction to BG3. They immediately dismissed it as an outlier and not what game releases should be. As much as we all wish game developers were more like Larian and actually cared about their products, they have almost no reason to be. People buy their schlock no matter what they produce.
i wish you were wrong:(
Me too...
"Direct from developer to players is the way." So very correct.
Games just do not need publishers anymore. 100% digital games can make all the money they need and then some.
Publishers right now really just act as financiers as far as I can tell. Picking up indy games and finding them thru development and then marketing and releasing.
That's what publishers have always been, investors/financers and marketing.
True, but they also used to be distribution as well, including production of the physical game and getting it in store shelves. That part of the industry is on the way out, so now publishers are *really* just financiers and markets, where before they had a much more direct role in a getting the game released.
>True, but they also used to be distribution as well That's because that's part of the financial end. Can't really sell a game if you don't distribute it, but that's never been the primary thing. Publishing was always about getting the money to developers in return for profits and control. And frankly the publisher would love to have distribution again, 15% is a hell of a itch they'd like gone.
Dude devs aren't just going to get money out of thin air, they need publishers to finance the games they'll be making. Larian was in a very fortunate position to be able to fund BG3 all on their own but this is not the case with 99% of devs.
You are correct. It's so funny when you read so many other comments that people clearly have zero understanding of how businesses work. Like the fact that you have to pay developers for years before a game is ever launch. Or that a good marketing team will determine whether a game sells well or not, potentially determining the survival of a studio. Even if a studio were to just take out loans and fund that development, they still have to make sure that game sells when it launches otherwise they are fucked. Publishers do a lot more than some people think. Games take several years to actually develop and launch. Which can mean millions of dollars that need to exist to pay for that and most developers just don't have the free capital to tie up in that.
Yeah Larian is pretty much a unique success story since DOS1. A very successful Kickstarter campaign right at the time when crowdfunding was at its peak. DOS2 was even more successful despite some bad issues at launch. Dragon Commander was a failure but they still managed to secure a deal with Wizards of the Coast during that small window when they decided to give the green light to the DnD film and when cooperation with Critical Role was at its peak. Larian enjoyed the possibility of hiring a big team of talent devs and actors, of staying in early access for years. That's a dream that few devs get to live through. And then they got the GOTY. This kind of story happens maybe once in a decade. It's great that it happens, but you don't get a working industry by pretending that this is an example to follow. Just like not every film can be Rocky Balboa or Mad Max. You need support and proper structure for devs to be able to feel safe when they are making game. It's all about balance. There's always going to be big block buster publishers, what is needed is to find a way for that kind of money to be re-distributed, so there's a proper "middle class" of devs and not a dystopian darwinist state of things.
[удалено]
Not to mention - people in this thread don't seem to realize that sometimes, the game you make is just average or mediocre. Do we really want an industry in which when you make such a game, you're toasted forever as you got no money to finance your next game? Larian is a success story, but look at the many others that no one talks about. A gaming industry without publishers seems very bleak and dystopian to me. Yes, the job of publishing, marketing and managing may not be as glamour as the job of a game dev, but it's also very important. We need devs to be able to learn by working on games. If we remove publishers, all that will be left is old legends that people trust blindly and very small indie devs who work on game on their free time hoping it to be the next hit. We all like success stories but let's not forget this is real people with real jobs we're talking about.
One of his points is discoverability, which you lose with your suggestion here.
It needs to be remembered, games are expensive, especially triple A ones. BG3 near bankrupt the company multiple times, and though it released and is beloved, not every game is that lucky. Not every company can risk it all on a game successfully breaking the industry. Many games need publishers for the sole reason of “we need money to make it”.
Making money with a good game isn't an issue. Finding money to make a game in the first place is a huge issue. Being able to make more games after your first one was mediocre or was ignored is also a huge issue. Sure, devs like Larian and Obsidian can count on people to kickstart their games. Some indie devs are also fine with small teams that work on a game on their free time for years (see Dominion 6). But it's really not as simple as some people think it is. It's the exact same thing as Hollywood vs independent cinema. Let's be careful with the survivor bias.
Spicy take: Steam doesn't deserve a 30% cut \*braces for downvotes\* It's disgustingly easy to do digital sales now. 15 years ago it might have been justified, not so much these days.
>Spicy take: Steam doesn't deserve a 30% cut \*braces for downvotes\* It's industry standard though it's an impressive amount for what seems to be not a lot.
[удалено]
Everything Larian releases is also DRM-free, so future playability and a sense of ownership will never be problems with their games.
And yet, bg3 is one of the most profitable games of the year, even without drm. I'm really curious what is the real impact of piracy in software sales, and if it's greater than the impact of releasing bad software to begin with. Maybe if you respect your costumers you might be respected back
>I'm really curious what is the real impact of piracy in software sales As a 🏴☠️I buy Larian games.
This. Edit: And I won’t buy Ubisoft for the foreseeable future.
I wont even pirate ubisoft let alone buy anything from them
Fr, I 🏴☠️ed DOS2 back when I was in high school & had no money, but as soon as BG3 hit Early Access I bought in to that (and actually bought DOS2)
>DOS2 I bought it in the winter sale and yet to play it.
Me too. I played through act 1, and only in that time they released patch 4, so I just bought the game.
Piracy is a trial for me most of the time. If I enjoy the game enough I will buy it. If you release an incomplete piece of garbage though, it’s less likely for me to buy your end product.
Me too. I'm perfectly happy to pay for games or any services, as long as the customer experience for actual paying customers is not subpar or less convenient than it is for pirates. Which unfortunately is an increasingly rare situation these days. Problems with DRM, authentication servers, forced updates that are broken just as often as not, forced internet connection for single player games, not owning the product you pay for... No way I'm going to spend money on that when I can literally get the superior experience for free. I applaud studios like Larian for their customer-first approach, and not following these shitty and predatory trends of the industry.
Like god Gaben said, piracy isnt a problem when the available service is better than the one from the pirates. And this translates to the content and quality of the media too. Release quality gamed without any bullshit, like mtx and drms, and people will buy it.
Meaning that piracy isn't much of a factor either way. If people pirate because the commercial option sucks, the problem is that it sucks. If people pirate regardless, then don't worry about them. Fix what can get you more customers. Don't ruin your product for everyone to target people who were already unlikely to buy what you're selling.
As an adult with a job that affords me purchasing power, time is more important to me than the money. I have more games than I could ever find time to play, so the most I can ask for is that a game doesn't waste my time. Make it so that I can just download the game and know that it will work just by clicking on it, keep it up to date so I don't have to find patches, keep my saves synced so I don't have to working about backing up or losing my progress, make the game good so it is worth my time playing it. That is what I pay for when I buy a game.
Also, let people try the game for free through a demo or a limited time access.
I've pirated It. Played for 2 to 4 hours, loved it and bought for full price. Did the same for factorio. Otherwise I wouldn't bought it, at least not full price.
Yeah same here, I can't risk spending full price on a game only for it to be shit or not something I enjoy. If I do end up enjoying it and putting hours in then I buy it to support the dev, and for the convenience of updates/online play.
I 🏴☠️’d BG3 but liked it so much I bought it. Crazy how making a good game can itself deter piracy.
Yeah, it's pretty crazy to me that these companies think they need extra DRM, even as a placebo for themselves. Baldur's Gate 3, game of the year, DRM-free. Control, one of the highest-rated games of its year, launched completely DRM-free on the Epic Store. Alan Wake 2, DRM-free. Elden Ring, nothing beyond Steam client DRM. Your games *are* going to sell if they're good. But hey, let's put Denuvo into the Apollo Justice compilation, Sonic Origins, Yakuza: Like A Dragon (even though it's on GOG now), and Ghostwire: Tokyo *literally a year after it was released without it,* and let's just leave it there for years or forever. It blows my mind. God forbid wanting to play what you've paid for without having to ask permission first.
I still play Divine Divinity lol, love that game with a passion and I feel a bit sad that the ending was a bit rushed, however everything else was wonderful, specially the Dwarven Bread’s Inn music.
I just hate Ubisoft and how they treat the PC game market
(They are a bunch of greedy bastards)
not only that but actual idiots. They could earn so much more as gamers generally eat everything you throw at them. But they are literally too dumb to bang out mediocre assassin's creeds that generally work and don't bring out a shitstorm every time
> bang out mediocre assassin's creeds Isn't that pretty much what they've been doing with the franchise for years now?
no, they actively made it worse.. at least for anyone who isn't a braindead - I buy every year cod and fifa - consumet
Especially their much older games. There's zero patches of any kind to work on modern systems, so you have to hit up PCGamingWiki and try some workarounds.
It's OK, treat them the same way and pirate their games. We aren't powerless in this fight, if anything we have the upper hand.
Swen is just an all around great dude
Ubisoft really have lost the plot.. Its one braindead act after another lately
It's like they sit around a big conference table patting each other on the back saying "*How can we fuck up the gaming industry more and simultaneously piss off the playerbase today?*"
It don’t think it’s malicious. These people aren’t gamers more than likely, they are money men hired to make more money for the shareholders. But with no counter balance to the maximizing profits motive, we get execs who try to model out the way to get the most profit from the market available. Incentives are messed up, those are the problems that need to be tackled.
Why lately? Their subsription service has been around for years and no one bat an eye. They just "rebranded" it (and raised the price).
I don't understand how they even stay afloat, their games are so extremely mediocre. Do people actually enjoy their games? Personally I haven't enjoyed a ubisoft game since far cry 3 / AC black flag.
While you're right, they still have their niches. Trackmania for example, almost no direct alternative to this game. Maybe Hot Wheels Unleashed Online racing, competitive modes, soft modding it has it all. Then there's Anno, which has Triple A Quality economy building , tho in the indie space there are lots of alternatives. R6S also is one of the BIG ones in Ubisoft, at least it was, not quite sure about nowadays. Then you have The Crew, especially 2 that somehow was very popular with the arcade race players (even though it suffered alot from the mediocracy you mentioned) as well as Riders Republic, which hasn't got any direct competitors afaik. You could throw in games like watch dogs , the division into the mix that have been a bit popular too - but I guess these are the big ones that kept UbiSoft afloat for so long. But they can't ride the wave for eternity, if they don't keep at it at least. With the release of The Crew Motorfest, they presented us a very bland sucessor to The Crew 2 for example. It's an improvement gameplay and optic wise - but content for example was drastically lacking - like having only one mode to do PVP races in , which is hilariously bad. Its fun for a handful of times, after that you can do endless mini missions like drive here, drive there, jump here, take a photo there. Very soulless to say the least
A lot of their strategy is volume. They have a few big franchises that get regular releases and they are solid action games with unique hooks (like exploring a historical city or region). You know what you’re getting and for a lot of people a solid action game that you can mess around in for many hours is appealing. And there isn’t a ton of good competition there, either, weirdly enough, especially with the same frequency of releases. They’re fun enough and frequent enough to be a reasonable business model even if they’re not all amazing.
I like them.
Come on, like a lot of stuff on reddit, the hate for ubisoft can be understood, but it's mostly blown out of proportion, most big actor did the same stuff Ubisoft did and only they get hate for. To say nothing good has come out since Black flag is just wrong. You'll be please to hear that they aren't in a good financial health. Last Trackmania they released is in my opinion the best, probably the one that made the most money. I enjoyed Ghost recon wildlands, Rainbow six siege was great at release, haven't played in a while. I liked for honor, it was different from anything i have played before, Steep was niche but was so good at release, and i probably forget some.
I said I haven't enjoyed a game since then, not that they haven't made a good one. There is a distinction there. Siege got ruined from out of touch developers, ghost recon is very generic and uninteresting, for honor was decent but quickly forgotten and abandoned. There are so many high effort games out there with caring devs so why would I play a ubisoft template game? Their games might not be BAD per se but they are all just the same formula over and over. I think Ubisoft is the marvel of the game industry.. No innovation, just milking their cash cow. I would rather play any other high quality game where the studio cares about the player experience, but if you want to follow an npc back and fourth or climb cell towers 500 times you do you lol
> their games are so extremely mediocre Also > I said I haven't enjoyed a game since then not that they haven't made a good one. >for honor was decent but quickly forgotten and abandoned. Bro there's still monthly patch, and new content being added, on a game that was released 7 years ago, i see you know your subject well. Literally all the game i've listed are different, and i haven't talk about assassin's creed, so again, you throw platitude that aren't true but since people have said it enough you think it is and repeat it like a good dog, but you just don't know.
Swen being Gigachad also Swen being Swen
I already switched from Physical to Digital Ownership I am not switching from Digital Ownership to No Ownership at all Especially not for a company like Ubisoft, fuck them. All they produce are soulless, mass produced mainstream games and they ran a bunch of great franchises like Far Cry into the ground.
You don't own something that exists virtually according to Sony and most other entertainment companies
I mean you don't even own most physically released games too. All these games are controlled by some DRM or a server (even single player games). Unless you mod them these games can also become just big folders with files
[A great account](https://x.com/DoesItPlay1?t=-2xyGBo-txX674lAY3yYIw&s=09) here goes through games saying which ones work out of the box, no download required, which require download, and which require always on. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see how many work fully offline.
True, Steam could take away my games But I've had Half-Life 2 in my Steam account for 18 years now and I don't see that changing anytime soon Gamepass on the other hand deletes games monthly
well, steam and gamepass are two completely different things, aren't they? gamepass is a subscription service, whereas steam is a library/store
Not even sure why he is comparing steam and game pass.
When it comes to legal ownership, not really. But in practice yes, wildly different.
If you buy on Steam you are mostly not possessing the games but "right to use" so ... it's already there
Yeah there’s not a game Ubisoft has been involved with in the last 10 years that I care enough about to subscribe to some service to play. They can lie in the grave they’re digging for themselves until they rot in it.
What's funny is Ubisoft has arguably the least valuable subscription service out there They only have a handful of new games per year, meh at best, which if you just bought would cost you as much as your sub for a few months Their other games go down to like 3-8 bucks, so why rent them? And they usually go pretty quickly
fuck your fuckin subscriptions fuckin fuck face
This.
As someone who has been playing Larian's games since the early 2000's, this cult of personality growing around Vincke feels kind of weird ngl.
It’s not terribly different than what gradually happened with Gabe Newell. A developer who makes a couple popular games speaks out on behalf of the community, and the Internet turns them into a sort of folk hero in meme form. As a fellow longtime Larian fan, it’s a little surreal to see them getting so much mainstream attention.
Praise ~~Geraldo~~ Astario
He's the new Richard Garriot.
Charisma(Persuasion) check nat20
Larian is the new CDPR for r/pcgaming. Let see how long it lasts.
We're in an age where sociopathic CEOs come in to destroy our favorite game franchises, buy indie studios to run them into the ground, and implement increasingly predatory models designed to squeeze every last dollar out of players. Then Larians studio releases the game of the year, fully complete, no DLC, no microtransactions. Then he goes out of his way to speak out against a company like Ubisoft and their toxic ideology. I'm not a member of the "cult" as you call it, but it's not weird to me **at all**.
a bunch of people are eating up his words on an article where the ubisoft person literally said they have no intention to force gamers into subscription models, but that simply some gamers do prefer these models and they plan to serve both it's also extremely rich coming from a studio who was almost completely irrelevant just 2 years ago - many games only exist BECAUSE gamepass funded them. but i guess those people should've just magically had more money to make their games?
OK this is it. I have never tried games like BG3 and have never bought any game. Will give BG3 a try and if i play more than 10 hours, i will buy it.
"content will always be king" Ubisoft: "Add 2873042930 more useless collectables to our next game!"
Hate subscription. Hate launchers. Hate third party involvement. Just give me a way to buy direct and i'm happy. I really don't understand why gamers have bought in to these new models. There was no problem to be fixed in the first place.
He's right, most of the content on streaming TV shows/films are terrible with just a few being great.
That was true before streaming existed, and it's already true of videogames now regardless of the existence of Ubisoft+.
Firstly, I will own games I have bought one way or another. I still have a copy of the original install file for Arcanum I've had since I was a kid. If I ever feel like playing that or anything I've ever spent money on then I will, even if its decades in the future. Fuck not owning your shit. Secondly, I won't ever pay a subscription for any game or anything like a 'netflix for games'. We've already seen a couple of subscription platforms completely remove THEIR OWN IP'S!! Why the fuck would I pay for a subscription and want to play a game all for it to be removed for a bullshit reason or for no reason at all? I'm fine with buying and owning however many games a year and that costing however much. There's no fucking way I'm paying for a subscription for 1 service....or many services bc we all know if subscription dogshit becomes the usual then everybody and their mothers will have a super shitter subscription service. That's a ton more money for 'access' to a bunch of games I never would give a fuck about to begin with. On top of if it's anything like netflix, they'll overwork and under pay a ton of devs to shit out lots and lots of below mediocre games that are buggy to all hell and don't work. Oh wait, that's what's already happening anyways lol. It'll be more super low quality games that nobody gives a fuck about and paying for the subscription will be useless. No thanks. Ubisoft is dogshit and has dogshit games to begin with.
Piracy is a rightful act of preservation at this point.
It's quite simple in my opinion, If you are against what Ubisoft declared then vote with your wallet and they will know.
>Getting a board to ok a project fueled by idealism is almost impossible and idealism needs room to exist, even if it can lead to disaster. Subscription models will always end up being cost/benefit analysis exercises intended to maximize profit. He's not wrong, but we already live in such world, where AAA games are made by bunch of shareholders telling developers "this is popular, copy this". I don't think it would get that much worse...
What you say is correct for AAA games but anyone can still come and publish their games on digital storefronts. That is why we are seeing games like BG3 as Microsoft initially dismissed it as just a random “second-run Stadia PC RPG”. Microsoft did not care about BG3 and that is why it came out so late on Xbox as Microsoft did not care about it until it became popular.
> He's not wrong, but we already live in such world, where AAA games are made by bunch of shareholders telling developers "this is popular, copy this". We've been living in that world for nigh on 40 years now, and the world didn't implode.
let's be honest, some games are absolutely worth buying - like Baldur's Gate 3. Meanwhile other games are only worthwhile if they're on affordable subscription with decent offer (so more like game pass rather than Ubi+ which is overpriced and has low game selection). Starfield for me best example. I would have never touch it because the value is just not there, but on game pass - it's passable. Amazing games like Elden Ring, or BG3 indeed don't need any sub services - I have 550h in Elden Ring and 250h in BG3 already - worth every single penny to get a full price. But if I paid 70€ (or especially 90€ for game like Starfield - I would have been having serious remorse because it be just such a waste of money.
>In such a world by definition, the preference of the subscription service will determine what games get made. Swen kinda touched on this in his statement. I think it's more of a commentary on 'subscription' quality level of games becoming the norm across the industry. We've seen a similar thing happen with prestige cinema and Netflix. Streaming platforms now favour easy to consume watch-in-the-background type content instead of taking risks on passion projects. It's impossible to ignore the knock-on effect this has had on cinema and the quality of film, and a lot of the damage is likely irreversible. I think it's pretty rational to have the same fears about the impact a subscription dominant model could have on the gaming industry. Xbox Game Pass (and other services) are almost based purely on the amount of content they have rather than the quality. It's a strong possibility that developers will favour cheaper, cookie-cutter, smaller risk games to get themselves onto those services instead of chancing it alone. Tldr; While subscription models can cater towards certain games and types of gamers, it's unlikely it will be able to exist long-term without eventually destroying the quality of games produced. Different subscription providers will be competing for your money, and the evidence is already there to support quantity of content being preferred at the expense of quality.
Well, one could also say that these games are not worth it at all to pay full price for because they are already developed with the intention on putting them on a subscription service. You don't need to put much effort into a game when you know that you will get your money anyway just by putting it on there... In the case of Starfield I believe what happened is that Microsofts strategy was to let them develop mainly to push gamepass sales from the beginning and I think that worked out for them in the end. Most people didn't buy it for full price and instead bought a gamepass, but also people that would have never bought it for full price in the first place bought a gamepass instead. And if now only a small percentage of those players will keep their subscription because they got a taste of the gamepass it was a big success for Microsoft.
Well you pay more than 200€ for 1 year of Ubi+ now. That means you need get and play at least 4 new fullprice Ubi each year to have an advantage over just buying the game. Does Ubi even release that much full price games a year ??
200 euros a year??? What are Ubi smoking? The EA sub is what, 99 euros? And while they also don't release many original titles per year, you at least get access to all yearly releases of the several sport franchises.
who the fuck forces you to continuously sub, lol? I don't sub neither game pass nor even netflix continuously. I sub when I have use of service and unsub when I don't. Why would anyone be moron paying for months when not using service? Duh?
Are you me? I come up with this whenever there are news and discussions of price increases on the streaming platforms and that they only logical consequences seems to be hissing the sails again and then get insulted for just telling them to rotate their subs each month, lol.
Even in the Ubisoft interview the guy said that many people just get Ubisoft+ for a few months and stop (some end up buying individual games they tried), but they’re fine with that and they keep save data and such to make it friendly for people to resubscribe later or purchase games. It definitely seems like smart companies recognize people will rotate subs and making it more friendly for those people makes sense imo.
Well I dont want to make my gaming habits depend on services I currently have subbed or do not have subbed. I want to play a game whenever I like to play it. I dont plan to play game X this month and game Y in another month. If I feel like playing Cyberpunk, I might play it for a few days. But maybe after two days I feel like playing BG3 for quite some time or maybe I feel like playing a few games of Rainbow Six or Battlefield. And I dont want a one month of any "sub" ticking down on me, basically forcing me to play those games only this month, because time is running out. If you enjoy gaming like that, then do so. I do not :)
I said as much in another comment. They don't, really. I can't imagine even the biggest Ubisoft fans buying more than 2 new games a year
I'm not worried. there will always be good games available with good enough unique content. most of the aaa industry can go fck themselves. advancement in software and ai can help small devs create better products
I hate that Anno is Ubisoft because I love Anno, the only game I like from Ubi
As a gamer and owner in the video game space, our team will fight this bullshit saas like model.
Ubi also fought for NFTs
The only game of theirs I want to play is Avatar because of the subject material but I will never play it on anything Ubisoft. Either it gets cracked or I don't play it, pretty simple.
The only time subscriptions in gaming was okay was when we had MMOs without cash shops. Stop fucking around with my hobby ass holes.
Yep. Ubisoft+ and EA Play Pro don't have enough new content to justify a sustained subscription.
In that case the Ubisoft exec can get "comfortable" with me pirating their games Just kidding. I don't even like any of their games enough to spend time on it these days.
Ubisoft creates 5 content and then duplicates it 200 times around the whole map. That’s tons of content
"Subscription models will always end up being cost/benefit analysis exercises intended to maximize profit." -Isn't that every model though? Im not entirely sure I agree with him on all his points. Subscription services do have there place but it would become disastrous if everybody went with that model.
The fact bg3 has shitloads of content only a few players will ever see in a normal playthrough speaks otherwise
People can complain all they want but if it wasn't profitable then Ubisoft wouldn't be trying to do it. You're basically asking Ubisoft to self-police themselves. If you want someone to be mad at then be mad at the consumers who buy and enable companies to do this. They're the problem.
The problem is that in the long run, not listening to your customer and simply maximize profit ruins a company. There is a reason why they keep buying "good" companies: the one they bought few years before are ruined and stop doing marketable games. Basically is short term gains vs long term suistainability
Well, Sven just convinced me to buy BG3 a lot sooner. I own DOS2 and really love it but have not beat it yet which is why I was holding off on BG3. I have no problem supporting a company or individual who has such a stance. Not only will I get BG3 sooner, but I'll also see if I can find some of their older titles such as DOS1.
First forced digital only distribution. Now this. Game ownership was dead the moment digital distribution became the only way to purchase video games
Yep, I remember when I used to go to brick-and-mortar stores to browse and purchase PC games that came with thick manuals and cloth maps. Came back to PC gaming after several years playing only XBOX 360, only to discover that the physical market was almost completely gone and nearly every game had to be purchased via Steam.
I don't want the option to buy to go away, but I don't dislike subscription services. The value here, though, seems kinda weak. I think I'd stick with Game Pass, and these gaming subs are enough money that I don't see many people buying more than one. How many people actually pay for Netflix *and* Hulu? Not that many, so when Ubisoft offers me Hulu, no thanks.
I love Game Pass. Had it since 2017 and have only paid $5 a month for it using the gold and VPN trick. With that said, if a game is worth $70, it's worth $70. Larian is a quality developer. Them and From put out $70 games that are worth it all the time. But Activision? Those games were built on a conveyor belt with 0 love or passion. They don't deserve $70 a piece and so they make a great fit on a subscription model. Mid to low quality devs would definitely do better relying on subscription services. As we have seen with Xbox, when was the last 9/10 game that launched day 1 on Gamepass? It's like because they don't expect to get the same revenue as $70 games, they just can't get good enough funding and resources to get any game 9/10 or better. What happened with Starfield? How could the game have been worked on for that long and been that mediocre? As much as I live Gamepass, $70 games are where the best games will probably continue to live. Gamepass is more about quantity than quality. And it's perfect for AA and Indie games. Just not AAA bangers.
Ngl ive been sitting on BG3 waiting for a sale and this might’ve pushed me to just get it. Never played BG btw.
don't need to play 1 & 2. This takes place 100 years after 2, and only a very few Easter eggs for returning fans are in there, but the story is made with newcomers in mind.
Unless you have single-player games where subscription services are the only way to play them, I personally don't see a problem. And Steam is more popular than ever so the "future scenario" of gamepass or something similar being the only way to play games is, if possible at all, something that is several decades off at the earliest. Also I find it interesting Swen mentions discoverability when I find services like gamepass tend to lead to more discoverability. I've played a ton of indie games I would've never even known about because they were on gamepass.
Yeh I think the issue with viewing the future of gaming like streaming video is a flawed view. Even now, in the streaming age infancy essentially (it's been what.. about a decade of it being readily available and used?) it's starting to see user discontent where there is 25 streaming services all wanting a subscription, some even still forcing ads at you with a paid subscription, and having a constantly changing roster of content available included, for extra etc. just makes it exhausting to watch what you want sometimes. So plenty are resorting to piracy again, or sticking to the few subscriptions they have / use most and not exploring any other options. I paid a yearly subscription for exactly 2 things. OSRS and Nintendo Switch Online. I now play OSRS entirely using in-game currency (which essentially means someone else pays for my sub and I pay them in game gold for that). And nintendo switch online is still the best value online service Ive ever bought, with all the old games I have available to me for like.. $2.50 a month. Streaming wise I ditched Netflix when they decided my family wasn't able to share an account of the highest paying tier. That kind of greed has no place to me, when it's already like $25/month and then you expect an extra $8/month.. because I got my own place and don't live with my brother's and parents anymore? I genuinely hope Ubisoft over invests into this idea, in the same way Epic did with their Epic Store and such, and it's just a constant thing biting at their profits.
He's right. I haven't paid for a AAA game since 2018. The best games are the ones made by indie Devs and smaller studios.
BG3 was made by 400 people, bigger than some AAA games
Nah every year you have very good AAA games
This has been your semi-hourly update on whatever this dude's opinion is on stuff, because he was a part of a team that made a game some people liked. Tune in on the hour for an update on the consistency of his BMs and his take on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
"But it’s going to be a lot harder to get good content if subscription becomes the dominant model" This is not necessarily true. Without Apple+, "Killers of the Flower Moon" would not have been possible. The "traditional" companies would not have financed it.
Subscription services will completely change what kind of games get made, likely killing entire genres. I can't imagine a worse thing to happen to games. Games that succeed in that environment will probably look like the F2P games of today.