Ubisoft: ‘Get Comfortable’ With Not Owning Games - You Will Own Nothing

Article (Archive)

In a recent interview, Ubisoft’s Director of Subscriptions, Philippe Tremblay, spoke at length about the state of play in our increasingly digital global landscape. He laid out the present and future of streaming services, particularly covering the recent changes made to the Ubisoft+ service, which has undergone a slight rebrand.

In his words, ‘millions’ of users have flocked to Ubisoft’s cloud-based streaming service since it launched, and there are expectations that the number of users adopting these subscription-based models will swell as time goes on. He stressed that gamers should get comfortable with these services and that despite some users still clinging to physical games, a consumer shift ‘needs to happen’.

Digital Is The Future

In recent years, we’ve seen the concept of cloud gaming and subscription services explode. From PlayStation Now to Xbox Game Pass and from GeForce NOW to EA Play, it seems like there are countless services that you can pay a monthly fee for to unlock a host of ever-changing games. There are tens of millions of people – if not more – with multiple subscriptions, covering the field and gaining access to hundreds of titles.

Ubisoft recently amended its service – Ubisoft+ – with a slight rebrand. The core offering is now known as ‘Ubisoft+ Premium’ and it operates alongside other tiers, such as ‘Ubisoft+ Classics’, which gives players access to back-catalogue games – but nothing brand-new.

In the interview with GamesIndustry, Philippe Tremblay spoke about the usage of Ubisoft+ and how consumer trends have evolved:

There are multiple behaviours. There are definitely a lot of people who come in for one game and then decide to buy it after the subscription ends. That’s part of the reality and that’s ok with us.

He referenced the ‘tremendous value’ of subscription services, pointing out that subscribers of the Ubisoft+ Premium service get access to the latest games from the moment they’re released – and that typically means they’re getting the highest tier of that game, too.

There’s still room for more gamers to get on board, though, as Tremblay explained:

One of the things we saw is that gamers are used to, a little bit like DVD, having and owning their games. That’s the consumer shift that needs to happen. They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection. That’s a transformation that’s been a bit slower to happen in games. As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don’t lose your progress. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. That’s not been deleted. You don’t lose what you’ve built in the game or your engagement with the game. So it’s about feeling comfortable with not owning your game.

Soon, Ubisoft will onboard Activision Blizzard games to its subscription-based offering as part of the recent deal with Microsoft to acquire streaming rights for the games. Over time, subscription services are soaking up a staggering portion of revenue in the games industry – will this peak soon, or is the growth of these services persistently exponential?

For more Insider Gaming coverage, check out the news that GAME in the UK could stop trade-ins

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

The last good game published by Ubisoft has been Anno 1800, before that it was Ass Creed Unity. And that was 5 and 10 years ago. I could very easily go without even accidentally giving money to Ubisoft for a decade. Plus these fuckheads have a track record of running their "live service" games like Rainbow Six Siege and For Honor into the ground to the point nobody sane wants to play them anymore. Maybe Ubisoft should get comfortable with not having a marketshare.

 

[Nod Flenders]

Ubisoft makes shitty games. So why would I want to own one of their games?

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole 2]

Which is a significant drawback of all the "just get it digitally" crap.

"We know you bought Forza to drive your dream car, but our license expired, so you can't anymore." It's ALMOST as infuriating as Nvidia removing game stream from the shield when it's LITERALLY THE MAIN FUCKING PURPOSE OF THE DEVICE.

So how is that on Ubisoft saying that this is the future and they are warning you? Don't kill the messenger, faggot. They're right, MS/Sony/Acti will just present it in another way.

Keep an eye on ubi if you know what.

 

[Barry McKockner]

So how is that on Ubisoft saying that this is the future and they are warning you? Don't kill the messenger, faggot. They're right, MS/Sony/Acti will just present it in another way.

Keep an eye on ubi if you know what.

They aren't the messenger, they are an active participant. Nothing stops them from publishing physical copies, or abandoning updates before digital rights expire. They actively put in the extra work to fuck over the consumers.

There was nothing that forced Nvidia to force-update existing shields to remove game stream, and allowing consumers to continue using it on outdated firmware, but they actually put in the time and effort to erase it all. That's not "I'm just the messenger". That's "I like what everyone else is doing, and I'm going to do it because it makes it easier to screw over consumers."

 

[Super Dilator Duel 3D]

What the hell is this non-sequitur? Why does he start talking about cloud saving in the middle of discussing trying to pull customers away from ownership? I don't even know how to address this. He starts talking about gamers growing slowly comfortable about foregoing ownership of their games, and then jumps to cloud saving, and then caps it off with "So it's about feeling comfortable with not owning your game." What on Earth? Did that Ubisoft robot glitch up? Does he need new batteries?

My interpretation when reading this was that the scumfucker is so out of touch he thinks that the only reason people are averse to not owning physical games is because it means their save data is more likely to be corrupted or lost. Not because of the desire to actually own the media you consume, or disconnect from a DRM-ridden series of horribly run servers and launchers. Nope, it's just because the peasants fear the loss of their save data!

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Nope, it's just because the peasants fear the loss of their save data!

I mean it mostly is. People have no problem with figital as proven with music and films, it’s having them in a format they can always use and transfer so that they aren’t lost.

There being a physical product does not matter to most people. Ease of use and play does.

 

[pot of sneed]

This will only kill off the gaming industry harder than the crash of 1983. Nobody wants to fork out hundreds of dollars just for a temporary right to be able to play a game that can be revoked immediately upon a whim, especially when 99% of those games are micro-transaction shitfests anyway. Physical copies where people can play them whenever they please will always be far superior to digital-only copies where you can get fucked over through hacking or big daddy government simply deciding they can shut you out of your gaming account because you had an opinion they didn't like and you dared post it online.

Get comfortable with not owning games? Fine by me, I've already got classic games and consoles to enjoy and you can pry them out of my cold, dead fingers. Now go make niggerwoke games your intended viewers won't even buy, just virtue signal about online.