• JJROKCZ
        link
        fedilink
        1410 months ago

        Ubisoft should get comfortable with the idea of going out of business. I refuse to buy anything of theirs or interact with their shit launcher. Bad practices and bad products combined mean bankruptcy and i hope it happens soon so decent companies can get ahold of their IPs and make some good games out of them because Ubisoft is clearly not interested in doing so

          • @Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1210 months ago

            It doesn’t make a difference. He still wants you to get comfortable with that. It doesn’t matter how he dresses up his sentences his thought process is the same, thats how he got to CEO.

            • WillBalls
              link
              fedilink
              1210 months ago

              But he’s not CEO. He’s the director of subscriptions at ubi, so of course he’s going to push this line of thinking; his job depends on it!

              The good news is that Ubisoft’s stock fell ~10% once this soundbite took off, so hopefully other publishers read the room

            • @FishFace@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              510 months ago

              The point of the dishonest article is to make you believe the CEO feels entitled to gamers becoming OK with subscription models. What he actually feels is a hope that subscription models will take off. It’s rage-bait. Did it work?

              • @grue@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                810 months ago

                …you believe the CEO feels entitled to gamers becoming OK with subscription models. What he actually feels is a hope that subscription models will take off

                That sounds like a distinction without a difference to me.

        • @FierroGamer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          210 months ago

          Thanks, I just linked the first article I found assuming it would be enough to get the point across, did it say something incorrect?

        • deweydecibel
          link
          fedilink
          English
          8
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          People keep pointing this out like it’s some kind of misinformation.

          The Ubisoft executive is saying gamers need to get comfortable not owning their games before subscription services will take off.

          The Ubisoft executive would also very much like subscription services to take off.

          QED the Ubisoft executive is saying “I’d really like gamers to get used to idea of not owning their games so our subscription service can take off”.

          It comes back to the same thing: Ubisoft is saying aloud what they want the future of gaming to be.

          And please don’t tell me you’re giving them the benefit of the doubt, here.

          The problem is people apparently haven’t figured out yet how to read what the CEO of a for-profit company means when they say shit publicly about their services. Learn to read between the lines.

          • @FishFace@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            110 months ago

            There’s a mile of difference between saying “consumers need to get comfortable not owning their games” and “we want consumers to get comfortable not owning their games (but using subscription services instead)”.

            The former statement is extremely arrogant. The latter is just obvious. And it’s reasonable even if you or I personally don’t want to get our games on a subscription model - millions of people get their music through Spotify and it suits them just fine even though other people don’t want that. So it’s a way of straw-manning the people pushing subscriptions so you can hate them.

      • @leave_it_blank@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        510 months ago

        So you only buy a license? Like on Steam, Epic, and all the others? Shocking.

        I think modern gamers are comfortable with this, they just haven’t realised it yet.

        Or they buy on gog. Then they really have ownership.

      • IWantToFuckSpez
        link
        fedilink
        47
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Ubisoft should get more comfortable with losing any significance they had in the industry. Compared to others in the rest of the industry they are small potatoes. They definitely don’t hold enough power to force a subscription service on to the market. Their market cap is less then $3 billion even Zynga is worth more.

    • @sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      410 months ago

      Are streaming services that different from cable TV? You’re paying for access to new content. If you want specific content to own, don’t they all let you buy them? I know I was able to buy GoT discs when I wasn’t willing to pay for an HBO subscription. Has that changed?

      • @echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        610 months ago

        yup, the very popular stuff you can usually (but not always) buy on disk. the less popular stuff you can sometimes (but not often) buy on disk if the creator really pushes for it

      • JJROKCZ
        link
        fedilink
        310 months ago

        Difference is that most games made anymore are online access dependent even if they aren’t dedicated multiplayer only games. What happens when subscriptions get so low that upkeep is unprofitable? You lose access to a game that you’ve paid a lot of money for, for no good reason as online isn’t necessary but the studios rarely patch it out at game sunset

    • Ann Archy
      link
      fedilink
      610 months ago

      Oh they expanded that? I remember when it was just “You will own nothing”.

      • qaz
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The saying comes from an opinion piece that was sponsored by the WEF. You can read more about it on the Wikipedia page. The article presented a future where the climate problem was fixed because the entire economy was based on services instead of the production of goods. It certainly has some elements that could work, but also has relied heavily on the neoliberal “the market will fix it” mentality.