Ubisoft Backtracks After Backlash To Make DLC Permanently Downloadable Despite Server Shutdown
from the putting-the-'d'-in-DLC dept
You may recall that a few weeks back we discussed Ubisoft’s decision to shutdown game servers for several titles, including major AAA titles like Assassin’s Creed 3 and Far Cry 3. While server shutdowns are the norm after some period of time, as is the loss of certain online gaming features, notable in Ubisoft’s announcement was that anyone who bought the PC DLC for those games was simply going to lose all that bought DLC. Making matters worse, updated versions of the game on PC are available for purchase and include all that DLC, making it so that Ubisoft was tacitly telling gamers to just go buy the content all over again.
This, as you might imagine, did not go over well. Much noise and chatter was had online, none of it positive. As often happens, this has caused Ubisoft to relent with a partial change in plans. As the company recently announced, online gaming was still going to be shut down, but those who bought DLC for these games at least have a window where they can grab it and download it permanently to their local machines.
Significantly, previously purchased PC DLC for four impacted titles—Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, Assassin’s Creed III, Far Cry 3, and Splinter Cell Blacklist— will now be available to download and keep permanently. Players will have to activate that DLC on their UPlay accounts before the newly delayed server shutdown date of October 1, however, to maintain access and the ability to redownload the content past that date.
While the online multiplayer portions of those games are still going to be shut down in October, this at least keeps Ubisoft from disappearing DLC content that there was never an online need for. Honestly, this should have been the approach from the jump. If Ubisoft had come out and said they had to shut down servers for its older games but made a point of creating a window for customers to grab their DLC permanently, it would have saved a lot of headaches.
And, notably, at least one game is going to get continued support from the local studio developer.
The developers behind city-builder Anno 2070 weren’t willing to let outdated servers impact their game, though. After the planned shutdown for the game’s server was announced in July, Ubisoft Mainz responded by “dedicat[ing] some of our development resources to work on upgrading Anno 2070’s aged online services infrastructure to a new system.”
On Wednesday, the team confirmed that the effort was successful and that a new, 64-bit version of the game coming in the next week “will allow [players] to continue to play the game past September 1 and hopefully for many more years to come.” It will include full access to multiplayer functions and previous single-player progression, but the developers do warn that “we unfortunately can’t guarantee that old mods etc. are still working in this new version of Anno 2070.”
What this demonstrates is that companies like Ubisoft should put far more thought into planned shutdowns of servers for their games in order to do them in a way that has the least negative impact on their paying customers.
That a sentence like that even needs to be written out is absurd, of course, but here we are.
Filed Under: assassin's creed 3, dlc, far cry 3, game servers
Companies: ubisoft
Comments on “Ubisoft Backtracks After Backlash To Make DLC Permanently Downloadable Despite Server Shutdown”
Why wasn’t the DLC downloadable permanently from the very first day that it was offered? Who the hell thought that limited-time DLC was a good idea?
If a company no longer wants to operate servers for online games, they should be legally required to release the code so that others can run servers if they want.
At the very least, every game with an online component that relies on the parent company operating servers (which I’m guessing is all of them at this point), should be required to carry a prominent warning stating “Online play is subject to the whim of [the company] and may be shut down at at any time.”
Re:
Paranoia over piracy.
Re: Re:
Paranoia promoting piracy.
FTFY. 😉
Re:
“Why wasn’t the DLC downloadable permanently from the very first day that it was offered? Who the hell thought that limited-time DLC was a good idea?”
DLC has always been a thorny subject, given how many of them are already present on the physical disc that has been purchased and required additional payment to unlock what you already bought, in essence.
This seems to be a difference in how PC is treated vs. console. On XBox (and, I believe PS), your DLC is tied to an account with the console provider, and can be redownloaded as many times as you wish even if it’s been removed from the store. If I’m not mistaken, for many games there’s no central repository, so if the game is removed, so is the “store” where you would redownload from.
I assume this varies depending on the game and whether you bought from Steam or elsewhere, but I’d imagine this is just another case of the major publishers not considering what would happen 10 years in the future, rather than a deliberate attempt to limit DLC access. Never attribute malice to something that can be explained by stupidity, etc. Gamers want infinite access to what they bought, corporations don’t give a crap about something 12 months old unless it’s making them GTAV level profits.
“If a company no longer wants to operate servers for online games, they should be legally required to release the code so that others can run servers if they want.”
The argument is probably something like that if people have the code it can be modified, which may reduce the experience for players and harm the brand. Nonsense, really, but perceived control is one of the major drivers for any IP holder nowadays.
I’d imagine the best solution for everyone would be officially licences servers that operate the same as the in-house servers would be run, but where the third party just takes over the overheads. Not ideal, but if there’s demand and the excuse is just that the original publisher no longer finds the game profitable, I don’t see why someone else shouldn’t be able to take over instead of destroying any possible access to the product that has been legally purchased.
Am I reading this right? if those people change computers (for example their current system dies… or they have a forced windows update that breaks their current install of the game), they are screwed, since they can no longer activate the DLC they paid for?
Re:
That should explain it.
“to do them in a way that has the least negative impact on their paying customers”
But we already have their money so why bother?
The DLC is just a sidenote in all this. The reason people were upset is that the games themselves would become unplayable.
Re:
There’s different concerns depending on platform. On PC, there’s a real danger of the game itself not being usable due to DRM. On console, there’s the problem on multiplayer and the related achievements/trophies not being accessible. There’s no danger of DLC not being accessible on console (it is stored and licenced on the MS/Sony servers, not Ubisoft).
But, whatever the concern, it’s just another example of the poison of DRM and how it only damages legally purchased software – people who bought the content risk not being able to use what they paid for, while pirates can continue to play all the DLC they want.
It’s impossible in reality, but I wish there could be a comprehensive study on how much companies like Ubisoft have lost through applying DRM vs how much they’re actually saved. I suspect the real figure in balance of what they gained through the whole fiasco is no higher than $0, and possibly much lower. Some people will buy the games legally, then pirate a copy so they don’t have to jump through the DRM hoops. I very much doubt that someone only intending to pirate suddenly paid full price for the game instead because DRM applied a temporary speed bump.
Ubisoft, anti-consumer for decades. I’m actually surprised they even made this change, it’s unlike them.