I have to wonder if these company heads are all in a meeting where the guys behind Unity and all these other corporations are plotting to screw the consumer in various ways. Unity Engine : NO RE-INSTALLING WITHOUT FEE Capcom : MODDING IS CHEATING Ubisoft : YOU DON'T OWN GAMES so on so on.
@@gucketjug I assume it's going to be the millions of people who buy their games every year. Each AC release sells almost 10,000,000 copies. I assume it will be cheap like EA play $5/month, and might come bundled with Gamepass like EA play.
@@LePedant AC is like COD, a little over half of the player base hates the game and the direction its headed, but buy it because they hope it will get better. AC is on a huge downtrend compared to their previous titles. How many people do you think will give up on the franchise when they're forced into a subscription? It would be a terrible idea for Ubisoft.
@@gucketjug It worked for Madden. EA Plus is $5/month. For people who buy Madden every year, it's a no-brainer to pay $60 for access to all of EA's games for a year. Also, think about it. If you have been paying $70 every year for a new release. Then you are presented with having to pay $60 for a year access to all the publishers games. You would see it as a better deal, than paying $70 for a single game.
@@JimmyNuisance WoW isn't streamed though. If all games were streamed the only way to get hold of the games data would be if a dev or someone who works at the render farm were to leak it.
This shift in the industry's view towards games (them seeing games as products and not as art to be preserved) is what made me start to primarily buy on GOG when I can. More devs should embrace GOG!
@@kingsley3208 Nah, games used to be made by small teams with passions. Now games are made by enormous teams working eternal overtime for the man.. the 80s and 90s were very different than now. The corporate monsters reslly took off around 2010 or so. EA was first out the gate a few years prior to that, then everyone followed suit… titans bought all studios and then they started churning out mass produced soulless buggy shit on a yearly or a two year cycle. Around 2014 or so it took a sharp turn towards games as a service. The last few years have been egregious. Quake didn’t have subs or season passes.. made by like 7 people and was an enormously popular game. Back then, most popular games were made by teams of 10 people or less. Teams larger than that was more or less unheard of. If a game succeeded, devs got rich. Today it’s not uncommon for a dev team to have 100 people.. and if the game sees success, the devs still work for an hourly wage.. if people buy the season pass, the devs still work for an hourly wage. Half aren’t even emplyees, they’re freelance contractors pumping out middling assets for 15 bucks an hour somewhere in india. It’s totally different these days. It’s like the record labels in the late 90s and early 2000s when rock was killed off due to the endless greed of the higher ups and their focus on just making a ton of stuff that sounds like nickelback. We’re seeing the same with games. Spiderman is the nickelback of video games. Absolutely no skill needed, game plays itself, it’s just really pretty and it has a known IP behind it… it’s a quicktime-driven combat system that tells you what to press.. like arkham and asscreed.. And the playerbase is gobbling it up. The Last Of Us is hugely popular, and that game is just a walking sim.. sneak sneak, "press x to execute" and then you press X.. animation plays out, then you keep doing that for hours and hours until the credits roll. Didn’t use to be like this at all. Today, all games are made for the lowest common denominator AKA "casuals" and the rest of us just have to pretend we love it… cause it’s all we’re getting from the big studios. Indies are living that 90s dev dream. AAA devs are company men doing their boss’ bidding with no protest or influence over the product or monetization.
Surprisingly, steam isn't DRM either. The steam utilities can be patched out easily so you don't need steam much like a stock GOG game. The issue is when DRM like denuvo gets added
@@JimmyNuisance You started off fine and then went into rambling about TLOU and "casuals" like some dumbass gatekeeper "gamer™"... Relax, not ALL games are for you, just like they weren't in the 80s, 90s or 00s...
@@DBumpleThis isn't the case for every Steam game though. I have a few Steam games in my library that have no forms of DRM aside from Steam, and I can't just remove Steam's files and run the game. I've tried using a Steam emulator too.
and this is why GOG is #1 In my experience, Ubisoft's subscription service is one of the worst. If it even thinks you've disconnected from the internet (connection could be fine, but some tech goof occurs), it just closes the game, just shuts it down without saving anything (at least on PC). Oh and streaming games? Absolutely not. Well maybe with some instantaneous and extremely stable internet speed (like that would happen).
GOG is certainly the best case scenario that keeps everyone happy. I personally like the convenience of going digital to avoid clutter at home. But I don't like the concept of not owning a game you purchased and being at the mercy of servers possibly shutting down and you no longer having access to the games you buy.
The loss of trading in games is one of many casualties of the all digital future. Being able to trade in old games, for new ones, makes gaming so much more affordable.
That's already happened though. Some new games are digital only (Alan wake for example) and half the time when you buy a physical case it just comes with a code to download it. I don't think that's the main issue they're talking about though, physical sales are already a tiny portion of the market, most players don't mind having digital only. BUT they still want ownership, like on steam I may not have it downloaded yeah, but it'll still be in my library whenever I want to download it. It's not tied to some subscription where they can just remove it month to month
@@snooploops The problem is even with Steam, you don't actually own that game. MOST AAA games have an EULA which allows the publisher to revoke your access to the game at any time. There's also online-only DRM for some single player games alongside various other forms of DRM which tie the game to your Steam account. For now, everything's peachy. But there's a real possibility of Steam going under in the future with everyone losing access to most of their Steam games. Always push for DRM-FREE digital games.
I still buy CDs and DVDs/Blu-Ray. He's correct on one point though. I am already entirely comfortable not owning any Ubisoft products, and with the quality of their recent output makes that unlikely to change any time soon.
My brother in Christ why would you buy cd/DVDs. Wouldn't you be better off downloading them yourself in higher audio/visual format such as FLAC? Keep em on a physical USB? I just worry about disc degradation
@@snooploops I do that as well, but some things in my collection are rare stuff I've found at markets or niche stores, which either is completely or near impossible to find on non-physical media. Signed limited special editions just aren't the same when they're digital ;)
@@Dark_Depresion oh wait that makes way more sense as collectors items you're right. I was more so thinking day to day listening/viewing. When it comes to collections I agree that physical media is king
I love owning physical copies of my games but being able to only afford the Series S I’ve not been able to buy any physical games and then there’s also the fact that physical games just tend to be more expensive compared to buying games from CD Keys for example
Dvd and blu ray sales are on the increase as people can't afford all the subscriptions and are getting sick of having episodes in their favourite shows or in some cases *cough* willow *cough* dissappearing forever.
We have never "owned" any game. We have only ever owned a license to play that game in perpetuity. The only thing Ubisoft is doing here is saying the quiet part out loud. When you buy a digital download, this license situation becomes even more apparent. However, now the idea of a perpetual license is being questioned, not just by Ubisoft. It seems that developers like Ubisoft want to be able to limit the license ownership time to whatever term they deem appropriate at the developer's sole discretion. What this means is that the developers want to be able to revoke your license at any time of their choosing, thus preventing you from launching or playing that game title. Today, this is most commonly done with online games because playing them requires a login ID. Developers of multiplayer games requiring logins means they can invalidate your login at will and thus prevent your ability to play the game. However, it seems developers want to extend this to offline single player games to also invalidate your license and stop you from playing any game you have purchased.
What’s fucked up is you don’t even need a subscription model to ensure people don’t “own” their games. Ubisoft is shutting down the central server for The Crew this year, rendering the game totally unplayable for anyone who owns it. The game was sold with a “perpetual” license, like most any other game you’d buy on Steam. Even the physical discs won’t be usable anymore, they’ll just be paperweights.
Started building my purchased GOG game titles roster to match my Steam library. How else do you inform the game industry about the importance of game ownership but by using their language? Evidence of profit.
No mention of Ubisoft shutting down the servers for The Crew, which needs to be online to play, making it unplayable. They are taking the game from us, physical or digital. So these games won't "always be there". Our progress won't "always be there".
Just because you have a physical disc does not mean you own that game. Your platform of choice can shut access off to any game. It's just a Frisbee that says you're allowed to play the game as long as we allow it.
Dum-bass Ubisoft executives having their "do you not have phones?" moment. Meanwhile Sony and Panasonic are already working the successor to BluRay , 1 terabyte(maybe more) Archival Discs.
And in both cases, gamers blew things out of proportion. Turns out that we do all have phones because Diablo Immortal was massively successful for Blizz and a lot of people are fine with having all their games, movies and music on a subscription service.
@@Mars0War No it wasn't. Immortal has lost half of its player base like Overwatch has and only stu pid casual gamers and the uninformed are fine without owning their media. Going impossible to access them when half the American power grid goes down from strong winters and solar flares.
@@T0asty- How is it inferior to own a disc that allows you to install the entire game to an SSD from said disc rather than slowly downloading it online? Are you a closed minded, ignorant simpleton?
@@T0asty- How is tape and cartridge better? A 128gb flash card that you’d need for a cartridge is like 15-20 bucks for the slowest crap you can find… you cool with paying 90 bucks for games? Or spending something like an hour installing from tape like it’s 1986 all over again? Cool with paying an extra 100 bucks for a tape reader and dealing with tapes being gobbled up by the console? Optical disks are as good as it gets if you want to not pay yet another 20 bucks more per game.
To be fair, in a 5 year time period, their stock price has been falling since Jan 2021 whent was about $21/share. So, the statements didn't help but, Ubisoft has been slipping for years.
I got assassin’s creed VR. It was cool. The previous game I bought from them was For Honor…. Prior to that, rainbow 6 vegas… Probably ten years until I buy another game from them… and in 10 years that probably won’t even be an option, so I’ll pay 12 bucks for a month subscription, finish the game and cancel. 12 bucks a decade… good business…
Been meaning to give you guys props for moving that patrons scroll list to the end, when I first started watching I thought man they roll this so early I bet it hurts their retention!
Accepting a lack of ownership is a sad fact that will most likely spread to every industry as economic discrepancies grow. It will come to a point where nobody but the .1% can afford anything tangible.
Fragmentation is the problem. When Netflix dropped it seemed like it has everything. Now, there are 17+ streaming services which makes it impossible to get everything. Gaming must be similar or worse-which means it’s easier and more affordable to play your live service game(which we all do) and pick the ones you are really hyped for.
Yep. I pay for the Canadian service that has HBO, out of the convenience of not having to take up a bunch of my hard drive space with The Sopranos, The Wire, etc. Once I’m through those series I’m never subbing to a streaming service again. There’s major gaps in distribution here and a lot of movies aren’t available to stream anywhere. I pirate all my movies and if I’m gonna rewatch them I’ll buy a 4K or Blu Ray release.
The "casuals" are the foundation of movies, tv, and music. They will always be there. In gaming, the enthusiasts are the foundation. A "casual" gamer plays maybe 3-5 games a year and they're always at risk of stopping. The enthusiasts play (and buy) dozens of games a year, plus new hardware, and other subscriptions. That is the core audience of games. Companies like Ubisoft hate that fact.
The differrnce is that paying for cable tv never affected buying dvds. People bought dvds because thier favorite shows or movies stopped airing. Subscription is nothing new. Its basically cable tv without the label of cable.
Ownership isn't necessarily what worries me. Art Preservation is. A business makes a game, and if its digital only or streaming only when that company goes under or something... theres a chance that game or movie or book is gone forever. Mass effect legendary edition is a good example of this. The one expansion for it was corrupted, and they couldn't find a version of it to put into the legendary edition. The only way you can play that expansion now is if you have it on an old console from the original release. Things released on both physical and digital better ensure these things aren't lost.
Feel is unfair to compare physical media for games vs films is no competition. Problem is that games are getting so big now that the "physical copy" you purchase has either little to almost nothing in regards to data on the actual disc. No concern of an incomplete product/features advertised as being incomplete when opening the package.
When I was young, I pirated a lot of games. I didn’t have a very good pc, so I downloaded a lot of older games. As soon as I started working, I began buying my games mostly out of respect for devs, first only on sales, then later at full price, as steep as they are in my country. I didn’t have my own console until on my 20s. The way I see, I think most people who play games (I also don’t like the term “gamers”) will prefer buying games just out of good will, so I think GOG has the right strategy here. I ended up buying most games I pirated all those years ago. Yes, even the Ubisoft and EA ones. As bad as Ubisoft is, I’m still an AC and Far Cry collector
I'd honestly be happy to support GOG more if their client wasn't such steaming garbage. Still using an older version of Galaxy to this day because all later ones refuse to download. DRM or not, I'd rather just use Steam because it's smooth and easier to navigate.
I happily shelled out the money for baldur’s gate 3, I have never played dnd before and knew basically nothing, it was the fact there was no microtransactions or battle pass and that I knew I was buying a full complete game.
The only point I can add to this conversation is that I've waited for Alan Wake 2 since playing the original on XBox 360... And I'm still waiting on it because I want a physical edition. Similar case with the recent Like A Dragon: Gaiden, I have a shelf of steelbooks that need the next in the series beside them.
I am so glad you guys fucking exist. It's so weird thinking of people who play games not being interested in the news or I guess... playing games all the time. I dunno... Is this what football fans feel like when they talk to us?
I think as long as it stays with entertainment it's ultimately optional and you can take it or leave it, as well as entertain yourself in unlimited ways. The concerning part is Microsoft and other companies turning their business products into subscriptions and ultimately resulting in consumer cost as companies are inundated with tiered service models to compete with other companies. No self-respecting for-profit is going to shun technology and see their market share drop. The insurance industry is the scariest example, where you can either afford it or your employer can afford it, or you can just drown in medical bills and die due to preventable conditions.
need i remind everyone of Stadia? i dont think cloud is the way to go YET. but possible in the greater future if people actually do want to believe in it.
@@TurboNutterBastard The context was ubisoft guy explaining how people saying "Subscriptions kill gaming market" while overall marketshare is still really small (less than 10% if i remember correctly) and that exact quote comes as an explanation of why is that and why subscriptions will not outgrow regular sales at least in near future
I’m a Game Pass subscriber who also purchases games soooo… Ubisoft would rather me not own my game than me give them more money? Plus an Ubisoft subscription is the last one I’d want so they’d get nothing from me.
Gotta love the two-face act these companies pull off. Ubisoft: Get comfortable not owning games Also Ubisoft: releases Prince of Persia The Lost Crown Square Enix: we're pursuing AI to make our products. Also Square Enix: a few weeks away until the most anticipated game, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth releases.
I was actually contemplating to buy the Anno 1800 since I'm a fan of anno series but this statement made me change my mind. Thanks for reminding me not to buy your games, Ubisoft.
For a different perspective, I'm ok with paying for entertainment but not necessarily owning it. I pay for TH-cam premium because I like not watching ads and knowing some of that money goes to creators that I watch like you guys, I watch Inside Games but I don't own it, I consume it and then I'm done with it. I feel the same about Game Pass, I pay a subscription and play a game that interests me and then I'm done with it and move on to the next game. And I feel the same about the games I buy outright, once I've finished it, I uninstall it and move on. Ownership isn't something that bothers me, I just care about enjoying media in the moment and supporting the people who made it. All of this could go away at any moment and that's something I'm ok with. Nothing lasts forever, even your physical discs will rot overtime and eventually not work anymore. Life is finite and you don't get to take your possessions with you when you die so just enjoy it while you can and worry less about your possessions ❤
Fancy prestige college executive: "Hey guys how about we bring this failed business model to our industry!?" ... Gets millionaire compensation for his genius.
Spotify has a free version and even then you still basically get access to every song ever. Netflix releases new shows and movies weekly as well as access to so many older ones. Ubisoft has like 100 games. Not even close to being the same thing. That and most Ubisoft games are mediocre.
How I use subscriptions is that if there is something on it I want to try I give it a spin, but my digital library is pretty entrenched in Steam. But as new consumers enter the gaming space, you will see the real effectiveness of having an 'instant' library with the subscription models.
Just to throw out a bit of speculation, I wonder if the drop in ubisoft's stock price is related to the fact that so far Microsoft's Game Pass has not turned a profit. If the biggest player with the most resources can't make money on it, why would someone else that is smaller be able to do it?
The first 500 people to use this link and code INSIDEGAMES30 will get 30% off their first subscription with Soylent: bit.ly/41YsXAZ
I have to wonder if these company heads are all in a meeting where the guys behind Unity and all these other corporations are plotting to screw the consumer in various ways.
Unity Engine : NO RE-INSTALLING WITHOUT FEE
Capcom : MODDING IS CHEATING
Ubisoft : YOU DON'T OWN GAMES
so on so on.
Soylent: the world's most people food
I would pay good money to watch/listen to SirLars and The Act Man talk about the gaming industry for an hour.
Used this code!! Thanks gents
So basically the logic is:
1. Buy $70 USD game.
2. Have 50-70 GB of storage to install it in your console.
3. You don't own this.
No they are talking about subscription services
@@kingsley3208 live service games. You don’t own them, once the servers shut down, you can’t play it. You don’t own it.
@@C121F Hell would freeze over before Steam ever allows that, the other ones you're right.
I've been pretty comfortable with not owning any Ubi game from the last 7 years, it's an amazing feeling
I hope Ubisoft gets comfortable with no one owning their games in the near future.
That's exactly what they want... Ubisoft will make more money when people don't own their games, and have to pay a monthly subscription.
idk who would pay every month to play their fucking barf @@LePedant
@@gucketjug I assume it's going to be the millions of people who buy their games every year. Each AC release sells almost 10,000,000 copies.
I assume it will be cheap like EA play $5/month, and might come bundled with Gamepass like EA play.
@@LePedant AC is like COD, a little over half of the player base hates the game and the direction its headed, but buy it because they hope it will get better. AC is on a huge downtrend compared to their previous titles. How many people do you think will give up on the franchise when they're forced into a subscription? It would be a terrible idea for Ubisoft.
@@gucketjug It worked for Madden. EA Plus is $5/month. For people who buy Madden every year, it's a no-brainer to pay $60 for access to all of EA's games for a year.
Also, think about it. If you have been paying $70 every year for a new release. Then you are presented with having to pay $60 for a year access to all the publishers games. You would see it as a better deal, than paying $70 for a single game.
Ubisoft should "get comfortable" with me no longer buying their games.
They need to focus on making good games also
Disgusting that you miss the point@@freepancakessss
I don't think I've bought anything from Unisoft for the past 10 years. The black flag was the last Unisoft game I bought.
@morganwilliams2863 Yea, I only buy AC games personally, but that ship has now sailed. It sailed lowlands away, lol.
Ac mirage was the last game I bought
Ubisoft stock plummeted after this interview?!!?!? That’s impossible! I WOULD’VE NEVER GUESSED!
ubisoft stock? what is that?
I for one look forward to a new wave of hyper-piracy if this happens.
you're not the only one lmao
How can you pirate a game that has no physical or digital release and is only available through streaming services?
@@TurboNutterBastard Happens all the time. There are private WoW servers out there. If they can do it with wow, they can do it with anything.
@@JimmyNuisance WoW isn't streamed though. If all games were streamed the only way to get hold of the games data would be if a dev or someone who works at the render farm were to leak it.
This shift in the industry's view towards games (them seeing games as products and not as art to be preserved) is what made me start to primarily buy on GOG when I can. More devs should embrace GOG!
Has this not always been the case in the industry?
@@kingsley3208 Nah, games used to be made by small teams with passions. Now games are made by enormous teams working eternal overtime for the man.. the 80s and 90s were very different than now. The corporate monsters reslly took off around 2010 or so. EA was first out the gate a few years prior to that, then everyone followed suit… titans bought all studios and then they started churning out mass produced soulless buggy shit on a yearly or a two year cycle. Around 2014 or so it took a sharp turn towards games as a service. The last few years have been egregious.
Quake didn’t have subs or season passes.. made by like 7 people and was an enormously popular game. Back then, most popular games were made by teams of 10 people or less. Teams larger than that was more or less unheard of. If a game succeeded, devs got rich. Today it’s not uncommon for a dev team to have 100 people.. and if the game sees success, the devs still work for an hourly wage.. if people buy the season pass, the devs still work for an hourly wage. Half aren’t even emplyees, they’re freelance contractors pumping out middling assets for 15 bucks an hour somewhere in india.
It’s totally different these days. It’s like the record labels in the late 90s and early 2000s when rock was killed off due to the endless greed of the higher ups and their focus on just making a ton of stuff that sounds like nickelback. We’re seeing the same with games. Spiderman is the nickelback of video games. Absolutely no skill needed, game plays itself, it’s just really pretty and it has a known IP behind it… it’s a quicktime-driven combat system that tells you what to press.. like arkham and asscreed.. And the playerbase is gobbling it up. The Last Of Us is hugely popular, and that game is just a walking sim.. sneak sneak, "press x to execute" and then you press X.. animation plays out, then you keep doing that for hours and hours until the credits roll.
Didn’t use to be like this at all. Today, all games are made for the lowest common denominator AKA "casuals" and the rest of us just have to pretend we love it… cause it’s all we’re getting from the big studios.
Indies are living that 90s dev dream. AAA devs are company men doing their boss’ bidding with no protest or influence over the product or monetization.
Surprisingly, steam isn't DRM either. The steam utilities can be patched out easily so you don't need steam much like a stock GOG game. The issue is when DRM like denuvo gets added
@@JimmyNuisance You started off fine and then went into rambling about TLOU and "casuals" like some dumbass gatekeeper "gamer™"...
Relax, not ALL games are for you, just like they weren't in the 80s, 90s or 00s...
@@DBumpleThis isn't the case for every Steam game though. I have a few Steam games in my library that have no forms of DRM aside from Steam, and I can't just remove Steam's files and run the game.
I've tried using a Steam emulator too.
Hey Ubi "Get Comfortable" with me never buying one of your games
and this is why GOG is #1
In my experience, Ubisoft's subscription service is one of the worst. If it even thinks you've disconnected from the internet (connection could be fine, but some tech goof occurs), it just closes the game, just shuts it down without saving anything (at least on PC). Oh and streaming games? Absolutely not. Well maybe with some instantaneous and extremely stable internet speed (like that would happen).
GOG is certainly the best case scenario that keeps everyone happy. I personally like the convenience of going digital to avoid clutter at home. But I don't like the concept of not owning a game you purchased and being at the mercy of servers possibly shutting down and you no longer having access to the games you buy.
The loss of trading in games is one of many casualties of the all digital future. Being able to trade in old games, for new ones, makes gaming so much more affordable.
BOth for getting new games and then getting to try older ones you didn't have time for at release.
That's already happened though. Some new games are digital only (Alan wake for example) and half the time when you buy a physical case it just comes with a code to download it. I don't think that's the main issue they're talking about though, physical sales are already a tiny portion of the market, most players don't mind having digital only. BUT they still want ownership, like on steam I may not have it downloaded yeah, but it'll still be in my library whenever I want to download it. It's not tied to some subscription where they can just remove it month to month
@@snooploops The problem is even with Steam, you don't actually own that game. MOST AAA games have an EULA which allows the publisher to revoke your access to the game at any time. There's also online-only DRM for some single player games alongside various other forms of DRM which tie the game to your Steam account. For now, everything's peachy. But there's a real possibility of Steam going under in the future with everyone losing access to most of their Steam games.
Always push for DRM-FREE digital games.
If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing.
as if they've published a game worth paying full price for in recent memory
Started going back to getting physical copies whenever I can.
You guys bring a great perspective to gaming news.
Everyone like these videos! Bruce and Lawrence are OGs!
I still buy CDs and DVDs/Blu-Ray.
He's correct on one point though. I am already entirely comfortable not owning any Ubisoft products, and with the quality of their recent output makes that unlikely to change any time soon.
My brother in Christ why would you buy cd/DVDs. Wouldn't you be better off downloading them yourself in higher audio/visual format such as FLAC? Keep em on a physical USB? I just worry about disc degradation
@@snooploops I do that as well, but some things in my collection are rare stuff I've found at markets or niche stores, which either is completely or near impossible to find on non-physical media.
Signed limited special editions just aren't the same when they're digital ;)
@@Dark_Depresion oh wait that makes way more sense as collectors items you're right. I was more so thinking day to day listening/viewing. When it comes to collections I agree that physical media is king
Note is steam did also lose that lawsuit and will have to implement resaling games you own down the road
“Get comfortable with us not paying for them” says Ubisoft customers.
I still use MP3s on my phone. I have a massive MP3 collection burnt from my CDs of yester-year.
spotify doesnt play downloaded songs and somehow has to redownload every single song every time i open the app every day.
I know, right!?!? It’s ridiculous
Yo ho... Yo ho...
If buying a game isn't owning a game, then pirating a game isn't stealing...
It's not even just subscriptions. Baldur's Gate 3 only has limited physical releases. Smh
I had no idea about GOG being DRM free! Going to start using that as my main instead of Steam I reckon!
I love owning physical copies of my games but being able to only afford the Series S I’ve not been able to buy any physical games and then there’s also the fact that physical games just tend to be more expensive compared to buying games from CD Keys for example
That part wasnt even out of context, literally what he meant.
I have been unintentionally boycotting Ubisoft for years and years
*slaps AAA hands out of his wallet
Stop that! Bad developers, bad! You can’t have your hands in my wallet ad infinitum.
I hope they also get "comfortable" with me pirating all their games.
I love how everywhere I see this news everyones like: "Oh dont worry, we are comfortable not owning (buying) your games" 🤣
Taking any corporation's statements in good faith is how you play yourself. Come on guys... They're not your friends.
Dvd and blu ray sales are on the increase as people can't afford all the subscriptions and are getting sick of having episodes in their favourite shows or in some cases *cough* willow *cough* dissappearing forever.
We have never "owned" any game. We have only ever owned a license to play that game in perpetuity. The only thing Ubisoft is doing here is saying the quiet part out loud. When you buy a digital download, this license situation becomes even more apparent.
However, now the idea of a perpetual license is being questioned, not just by Ubisoft. It seems that developers like Ubisoft want to be able to limit the license ownership time to whatever term they deem appropriate at the developer's sole discretion. What this means is that the developers want to be able to revoke your license at any time of their choosing, thus preventing you from launching or playing that game title.
Today, this is most commonly done with online games because playing them requires a login ID. Developers of multiplayer games requiring logins means they can invalidate your login at will and thus prevent your ability to play the game. However, it seems developers want to extend this to offline single player games to also invalidate your license and stop you from playing any game you have purchased.
What’s fucked up is you don’t even need a subscription model to ensure people don’t “own” their games. Ubisoft is shutting down the central server for The Crew this year, rendering the game totally unplayable for anyone who owns it. The game was sold with a “perpetual” license, like most any other game you’d buy on Steam. Even the physical discs won’t be usable anymore, they’ll just be paperweights.
Started building my purchased GOG game titles roster to match my Steam library. How else do you inform the game industry about the importance of game ownership but by using their language? Evidence of profit.
No mention of Ubisoft shutting down the servers for The Crew, which needs to be online to play, making it unplayable. They are taking the game from us, physical or digital. So these games won't "always be there". Our progress won't "always be there".
Thanks for doing what you do
If purchasing is not owning, then piracy is not theft. 🏴☠️
Just because you have a physical disc does not mean you own that game. Your platform of choice can shut access off to any game. It's just a Frisbee that says you're allowed to play the game as long as we allow it.
Soylent Green is people! People!
Players “get used to not owning a large marketshare”
i havent even played an ubisoft game in over 5 years and i will continue to do so
@@nielsmichiels1939 For Honor was pretty good. That was the last one for me.
It won't change a thing.
I own 4 Ubisoft games I paid for, but I also pirated them.
Now I can use them offline whenever I want.
who could possibly imagine scaling *back* a game. imagine that
Dum-bass Ubisoft executives having their "do you not have phones?" moment. Meanwhile Sony and Panasonic are already working the successor to BluRay , 1 terabyte(maybe more) Archival Discs.
And in both cases, gamers blew things out of proportion. Turns out that we do all have phones because Diablo Immortal was massively successful for Blizz and a lot of people are fine with having all their games, movies and music on a subscription service.
@@Mars0War
No it wasn't. Immortal has lost half of its player base like Overwatch has and only stu pid casual gamers and the uninformed are fine without owning their media. Going impossible to access them when half the American power grid goes down from strong winters and solar flares.
Why are you praising Sony for making disks when literally any other format is better? Lol
@@T0asty- How is it inferior to own a disc that allows you to install the entire game to an SSD from said disc rather than slowly downloading it online? Are you a closed minded, ignorant simpleton?
@@T0asty- How is tape and cartridge better? A 128gb flash card that you’d need for a cartridge is like 15-20 bucks for the slowest crap you can find… you cool with paying 90 bucks for games? Or spending something like an hour installing from tape like it’s 1986 all over again? Cool with paying an extra 100 bucks for a tape reader and dealing with tapes being gobbled up by the console?
Optical disks are as good as it gets if you want to not pay yet another 20 bucks more per game.
Well then they should "Get Comfortable Not Getting Any Profit Or Still Having Fans."
To be fair, in a 5 year time period, their stock price has been falling since Jan 2021 whent was about $21/share. So, the statements didn't help but, Ubisoft has been slipping for years.
Next business model is pay to save and transfer your save file.
Hey! Havn't seen you guys in awhile, glad to see you're still making content.
Ubisoft haven’t made anything I reeeeaaaly wanted to buy for like 10 years now.
I got assassin’s creed VR. It was cool. The previous game I bought from them was For Honor…. Prior to that, rainbow 6 vegas… Probably ten years until I buy another game from them… and in 10 years that probably won’t even be an option, so I’ll pay 12 bucks for a month subscription, finish the game and cancel. 12 bucks a decade… good business…
I just dont understand why a company would name their product "soylent" after the "soylent green" cultural importance.
Been meaning to give you guys props for moving that patrons scroll list to the end, when I first started watching I thought man they roll this so early I bet it hurts their retention!
"get comfortable not selling your games then Ubisoft" says consumer
This is what Rockstar Games was talking about when they said you should be charged per hour for games
My question is, what do we do about these games that are releasing that are literally just a key to download?
I see no hope for the future. Every day everything gets worse and worse and worse
Accepting a lack of ownership is a sad fact that will most likely spread to every industry as economic discrepancies grow. It will come to a point where nobody but the .1% can afford anything tangible.
I don’t think anyone wants to own Ubisoft games much these days
I have always been comfortable with not owning any Ubisoft games.
You still have the choice to buy your movies and shows rather than being subscribed to a service.
Fragmentation is the problem. When Netflix dropped it seemed like it has everything. Now, there are 17+ streaming services which makes it impossible to get everything. Gaming must be similar or worse-which means it’s easier and more affordable to play your live service game(which we all do) and pick the ones you are really hyped for.
Yep. I pay for the Canadian service that has HBO, out of the convenience of not having to take up a bunch of my hard drive space with The Sopranos, The Wire, etc. Once I’m through those series I’m never subbing to a streaming service again. There’s major gaps in distribution here and a lot of movies aren’t available to stream anywhere. I pirate all my movies and if I’m gonna rewatch them I’ll buy a 4K or Blu Ray release.
The "casuals" are the foundation of movies, tv, and music. They will always be there. In gaming, the enthusiasts are the foundation.
A "casual" gamer plays maybe 3-5 games a year and they're always at risk of stopping. The enthusiasts play (and buy) dozens of games a year, plus new hardware, and other subscriptions. That is the core audience of games. Companies like Ubisoft hate that fact.
The differrnce is that paying for cable tv never affected buying dvds. People bought dvds because thier favorite shows or movies stopped airing. Subscription is nothing new. Its basically cable tv without the label of cable.
I've been a GOG simp since The Witcher 2 (when we could get the first digitally when we could prove that we had the first one physically)
if physical media does go away then it's on the consumer
Grrrr it's a pirates life for me
Ownership isn't necessarily what worries me. Art Preservation is. A business makes a game, and if its digital only or streaming only when that company goes under or something... theres a chance that game or movie or book is gone forever. Mass effect legendary edition is a good example of this. The one expansion for it was corrupted, and they couldn't find a version of it to put into the legendary edition. The only way you can play that expansion now is if you have it on an old console from the original release. Things released on both physical and digital better ensure these things aren't lost.
Feel is unfair to compare physical media for games vs films is no competition.
Problem is that games are getting so big now that the "physical copy" you purchase has either little to almost nothing in regards to data on the actual disc. No concern of an incomplete product/features advertised as being incomplete when opening the package.
Unisoft isn't saying this out their good hart. They see a awy to get more money out of your pockets.
When I was young, I pirated a lot of games. I didn’t have a very good pc, so I downloaded a lot of older games. As soon as I started working, I began buying my games mostly out of respect for devs, first only on sales, then later at full price, as steep as they are in my country. I didn’t have my own console until on my 20s. The way I see, I think most people who play games (I also don’t like the term “gamers”) will prefer buying games just out of good will, so I think GOG has the right strategy here. I ended up buying most games I pirated all those years ago. Yes, even the Ubisoft and EA ones.
As bad as Ubisoft is, I’m still an AC and Far Cry collector
I'd honestly be happy to support GOG more if their client wasn't such steaming garbage. Still using an older version of Galaxy to this day because all later ones refuse to download. DRM or not, I'd rather just use Steam because it's smooth and easier to navigate.
I happily shelled out the money for baldur’s gate 3, I have never played dnd before and knew basically nothing, it was the fact there was no microtransactions or battle pass and that I knew I was buying a full complete game.
1:49 do you know anyone that has their games out of any storefront?
anything that requires a log in doesn't count.
The only point I can add to this conversation is that I've waited for Alan Wake 2 since playing the original on XBox 360... And I'm still waiting on it because I want a physical edition. Similar case with the recent Like A Dragon: Gaiden, I have a shelf of steelbooks that need the next in the series beside them.
Implying we own our games today.
If anything we're *already* comfortable with this.
I am so glad you guys fucking exist. It's so weird thinking of people who play games not being interested in the news or I guess... playing games all the time. I dunno... Is this what football fans feel like when they talk to us?
We never owned anything other than a license
I think as long as it stays with entertainment it's ultimately optional and you can take it or leave it, as well as entertain yourself in unlimited ways. The concerning part is Microsoft and other companies turning their business products into subscriptions and ultimately resulting in consumer cost as companies are inundated with tiered service models to compete with other companies. No self-respecting for-profit is going to shun technology and see their market share drop. The insurance industry is the scariest example, where you can either afford it or your employer can afford it, or you can just drown in medical bills and die due to preventable conditions.
need i remind everyone of Stadia? i dont think cloud is the way to go YET. but possible in the greater future if people actually do want to believe in it.
Then theres me being a minimalist, not worrying about this at all.
Its fucking insane how everyone just ran with that specific quote ripped out od context while it does makes sense in a full interview
How was it taken out of context?
@@TurboNutterBastard The context was ubisoft guy explaining how people saying "Subscriptions kill gaming market" while overall marketshare is still really small (less than 10% if i remember correctly) and that exact quote comes as an explanation of why is that and why subscriptions will not outgrow regular sales at least in near future
@@KingfishWatch Ah okay. Thank you for the explanation.
Great saying/meme @3:12.
I’m a Game Pass subscriber who also purchases games soooo… Ubisoft would rather me not own my game than me give them more money? Plus an Ubisoft subscription is the last one I’d want so they’d get nothing from me.
Gotta love the two-face act these companies pull off.
Ubisoft: Get comfortable not owning games
Also Ubisoft: releases Prince of Persia The Lost Crown
Square Enix: we're pursuing AI to make our products.
Also Square Enix: a few weeks away until the most anticipated game, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth releases.
Joke's on Ubisoft. I'm _already_ comfortable with not owning their games.
I wouldnt be comfortable around anyone high up at Ubisoft given their documented history.
What, you don’t like rapists and exploiters? Typical woke communist cultural marxist.. /s
I was actually contemplating to buy the Anno 1800 since I'm a fan of anno series but this statement made me change my mind. Thanks for reminding me not to buy your games, Ubisoft.
For a different perspective, I'm ok with paying for entertainment but not necessarily owning it. I pay for TH-cam premium because I like not watching ads and knowing some of that money goes to creators that I watch like you guys, I watch Inside Games but I don't own it, I consume it and then I'm done with it. I feel the same about Game Pass, I pay a subscription and play a game that interests me and then I'm done with it and move on to the next game. And I feel the same about the games I buy outright, once I've finished it, I uninstall it and move on. Ownership isn't something that bothers me, I just care about enjoying media in the moment and supporting the people who made it. All of this could go away at any moment and that's something I'm ok with. Nothing lasts forever, even your physical discs will rot overtime and eventually not work anymore. Life is finite and you don't get to take your possessions with you when you die so just enjoy it while you can and worry less about your possessions ❤
Get ready for me not buying games
Fancy prestige college executive: "Hey guys how about we bring this failed business model to our industry!?" ... Gets millionaire compensation for his genius.
Spotify has a free version and even then you still basically get access to every song ever. Netflix releases new shows and movies weekly as well as access to so many older ones. Ubisoft has like 100 games. Not even close to being the same thing. That and most Ubisoft games are mediocre.
I feel like him confidently saying that because he knows Ubisoft games aren’t worth owning. Which … fair.
What game IP do they have now that isn't over saturated with microteansactions and half bakes games?
Why do people inherently ruin things…
Rich out of touch executives and investors who think they know better than everyone else.
@@dio5731no greed
@@dio5731 Capitalism sure but nobody owning anything is literally communism.
Ubisoft knowing how to get in the headlines while trying to sell a failing company...They shoulda announced Skull and Bones release date right after.
How I use subscriptions is that if there is something on it I want to try I give it a spin, but my digital library is pretty entrenched in Steam. But as new consumers enter the gaming space, you will see the real effectiveness of having an 'instant' library with the subscription models.
Ubisoft should focus on making a game worth owning first.
Amazing video
They're not alone, Microsoft probably agrees.
Just to throw out a bit of speculation, I wonder if the drop in ubisoft's stock price is related to the fact that so far Microsoft's Game Pass has not turned a profit. If the biggest player with the most resources can't make money on it, why would someone else that is smaller be able to do it?