Ubisoft Says It Out Loud: We Want People To Get Used To Not Owning What They’ve Bought

from the assasin's-plea dept

We’ve done a metric ton of posts here over the years pointing out one unfortunate trend that has come along with the move from physical products to digital purchases: you don’t own what you’ve bought. In some cases, it’s you don’t own what you think you’ve bought, because nobody actually reads EULAs and all the documentation that comes with buying things online these days, and often buried in all of that is where the language about how things are licensed, rather than owned, are. Still, the fact is that the public too often doesn’t understand how it happens that products stop working the way they did after updates are performed remotely, or why movies purchased through an online store suddenly disappear with no refund, or why other media types purchased online likewise go poof. There is a severe misalignment, in other words, between what consumers think their money is being spent on and what is actually being purchased.

And I’ll admit at the onset of this that I think a huge part of the problem is how coy companies selling these goods, digital or otherwise, tend to be about all of this. They’ll often respond when the public gets pissed to explain the why behind all of these altered or disappeared purchases, but the proactive communication is all buried in verbiage nobody reads. And so to that end, I suppose it’s at least a bit refreshing to see Ubisoft come out here and just say the quiet part out loud.

With the pre-release of Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown started, Ubisoft has chosen this week to rebrand its Ubisoft+ subscription services, and introduce a PC version of the “Classics” tier at a lower price. And a big part of this, says the publisher’s director of subscriptions, Philippe Tremblay, is getting players “comfortable” with not owning their games.

He claims the company’s subscription service had its biggest ever month October 2023, and that the service has had “millions” of subscribers, and “over half a billion hours” played. Of course, a lot of this could be a result of Ubisoft’s various moments of refusing to release games to Steam, forcing PC players to use its services, and likely opting for a month’s subscription rather than the full price of the game they were looking to buy. But still, clearly people are opting to use it.

On the one hand, there are realms where it makes sense for a subscription based gaming service where you pay a monthly fee for access and essentially never buy a game. Xbox’s Game Pass, for instance, makes all the sense in the world for some people. If you’re a more casual gamer who doesn’t want to own a library of games, but rather merely wants to be able to play a broad swath of titles at a moment’s notice, a service like that is perfect.

But Game Pass is $10 a month and includes titles from all kinds of publishers. Ubisoft’s service is nearly double that rate and only includes Ubisoft titles. That’s a much tougher sell. And a tougher sell still might be pitching to the wider public that they’re thinking about game ownership all wrong, especially when you can’t even get the verbiage right.

What’s more chilling about all this, however, is when Tremblay moves on to how Ubisoft wishes to see a “consumer shift,” similar to that of the market for CDs and DVDs, where people have moved over to Spotify and Netflix, instead of buying physical media to keep on their own shelves. Given that most people, while being a part of the problem (hello), also think of this as a problem, it’s so weird to see it phrased as if some faulty thinking in the company’s audience.

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.

That last sentence’s thoughts are so misaligned as to be nearly in the realm of nonsense. If it’s my game, then I do own it. The point Ubisoft is trying to make is that the public should get over ownership entirely and accept that it’s not my game at all. It’s my subscription service.

And while I appreciate Ubisoft saying the quiet part out loud for once, I don’t believe for a moment that this will go over well with the general gaming public.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: ubisoft

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Ubisoft Says It Out Loud: We Want People To Get Used To Not Owning What They’ve Bought”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
86 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

And while I appreciate Ubisoft saying the quiet part out loud for once, I don’t believe for a moment that this will go over well with the general gaming public.

mmm. depends on how you define ‘well’. Will Ubisoft experience heavy backlash for being honest? Probably. Will this backlash be strong enough to buck the industries trend? Not a chance.

To do that you’d need a credible threat to many/most C-levels at most relevant companies. And I done not believe this is anything like big enough to generate that.

Anonymous Coward says:

that’s a profitable business model, if one is a bit unethical

local American governments have used a similar scam for almost a century, with property taxes.
You think you ‘own’ your own home, but your local government is the actual de facto owner — fail to pay that actual owner his eternal, annual Rental fee (property tax)… he will seize his property and evict you. Ponder that carefully.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mamba (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Loans work the same way. Stop paying on it, and they take it. But my name is in the title and the oil changes are my responsibility.

Taxes are the trade off for having a police force to help you defend your property rights, a road to access it, and that your next door neighbors don’t flood it with sewage.

But you’re a taxes-are-theft adjacent moron, so you’ll argue all these points on an internet that directly is the results of government spending.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Subsidizing personal medical and transit

Funny, if we stopped subsidizing the profits of big oil and big pharma (say by nationalizing at least half of the returns and all the patents) providing transit and healthcare nationally would be easy.

If we’re not going to provide public services, what is the point of government? We can just let the corporations run things.

Oh wait…I just remembered that autocracy invariably collapses violently or in genocide, which our historians find rather disagreeable.

OGquaker says:

Re: Bank seizes your home in 90 days, County 5 years

In Shays’s Rebellion of 1786, Bankers had moved into Farm communities, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution/creating-a-nation/a/shayss-rebellion
Bankers insisted on the farm land be put up as “collateral”,
illegal under Riba, See https://international.vlex.com/vid/islamic-interest-pakistan-rulings-riba-462630
Of course, an “Islamic Terrorist”® “Airliner Hijacking”© occurred the day after the Supreme Court judgement on bank interest, poisoning the news.
(Spoiler: if a loan is collateralize, charging interest is illegal)
And the Bankers in the West accelerated our 600 year war on Islam….,
and whereas one Job supported a household, now three Jobs. (read the book)

See Henry George, 1879 http://www.rsof.org/quakerlizziejmagie.html

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

The average age of the ones replying to this pointing and crying, “Stupid guy just doesn’t want to pay taxes! What a greedy idiot!” probably doesn’t even reach 20.

Roads and sewers are among the very last things the feds use you tax money for kids. Want to know what they’re spending the majority of it on? Just watch world news for an hour.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: I for one...

I recently said something to this effect when I first heard about this comment. I, for one, have become comfortable no longer buying (or playing) Ubisoft games. The indie gaming sector is robust enough I can find stuff I want to play there, sans microtransactions and dark patterns.

And the worst thing we can do against malicious AAA publishers rather than pirating their games, is not pirate their games.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Noodles says:

Well, of course he wants us to get used to not owning anything. That’s a core part of his business model: circumventing consumer protectionsby shifting ownership and rights from you, to him.

It’s a bit like listening to a shell oil exec, telling us they are going carbon neutral and that we needn’t worry about the environment; they got this covered and are working in our best interest!

How long will it take before the politicians finally realise that they need to extend all consumer protections to include all rentals, leases and subscriptions too?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: That's MISTER Zombie Robot Slave to you.

My staples are currently Deep Rock Galactic and Satisfactory from which I get funny dwarf adventures with my crew, and very pretty, satisfying factories.

Curiously, both of them feature among their themes a capitalist corporate behemoth striving to rip apart a planet for its resources. A sign of the times, maybe.

We imagine Sisyphus happy.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re:

How long will it take before the politicians finally realise that they need to extend all consumer protections to include all rentals, leases and subscriptions too?

In some states, a leased car is also covered under the so-called “lemon law”. If the dealer can’t fix the same issue in three tries, they have to take it back and refund whatever money you’ve already paid. Offering a fresh
vehicle in ‘trade’ and continuing the same lease is not an option, at least not under the lemon laws I’ve seen.

So far, I’ve not seen anything covering rentals, but why should I? A rental is already an agreement that you don’t own the item, the rentor does. The same probably applies to subscriptions, but that’s a really gray area just now. It’ll take several court cases to determine which way the wind should blows.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Offering a fresh vehicle in ‘trade’ and continuing the same lease is not an option, at least not under the lemon laws I’ve seen.

That’s probably allowable as a kind of out-of-court settlement, but it’d be up to the customer to accept or reject it. I don’t think many lemon laws mandate a refund before it’s been explicitly requested.

As for rentals and subscriptions, you’re right that there’s not much for legislators and courts to do, but they may need to intervene in details such as early-termination fees and refunds—none of this “we can change anything at any time and you’re still locked in” business. And of course there’s that problem that companies are misleading people into thinking they’re “buying a game”, when actually they’re paying for a limited license that can be arbitrarily terminated.

(It’s not just “dumb consumers” surprised by that, either. There was that Polish “DRMed train” case in which manufacturer Newag programmed their trains to lock when taken to a competitor, when not used for a while, and in various other cases. A rail operator was surprised to learn they didn’t really “own” their trains, and the Polish government and the public prosecutor’s office are now said to be looking into it—in terms of breach of contract, anti-competitive behavior, and possibly other things. See the excellent 37C3 talk.)

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I don’t think many lemon laws mandate a refund before it’s been explicitly requested.

Actually, it’s not the dealer’s fault, nor the law, but the lending institutions and the insurance companies. They want all of the i’s dotted, etc. Things like VIN, options on the vehicle (increase or decrease the value), that sort of stuff. Sorry if I was unclear on that point.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PeterScott (profile) says:

I can't see them winning.

The problem Ubisoft will have, even if we do shift to a “streaming” like model, will be like exactly like mentioned in the article.

Why would I pay much more for a Ubisoft library, when I can get a much larger, varied library from Microsoft for less money??

Even if there were a Ubisoft “must play” title. I would just get Ubisoft for a month, and play that game until finished, then cancel.

Though I’m very unlikely to subscribe even for a month. I’m old enough that I’m over gaming FOMO.

I’m GoG only for games. I’m confident the games I buy will keep working. GoG doesn’t have everything. But they have good games in every genre. If there is a hot new RPG I can’t get, I’ll just replay one of the ten great RPGs I already OWN…

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Steam is a better deal

Besides, I’ve bought games on Steam where they no longer sell the game in the store and even the studio went belly-up but the games are still in their servers and can be re-downloaded.

That sounds like a far better deal to me because Valve (and especially Gabe Newell) seem to understand the concept of Ownership and how to please their customers so they won’t want to pirate in the first place.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Valve (and especially Gabe Newell) seem to understand the concept of Ownership

Well, they’re better at public relations, anyway. Wikipedia says “Valve retains the right to block customers’ access to their games and Steam services when Valve’s Anti-Cheat (VAC) software determines that the user is cheating in multiplayer games, selling accounts to others, or trading games to exploit regional price differences. … Customers also lose access to their games and Steam account if they refuse to accept changes to Steam’s end user license agreements”.

I’ll bet Ubisoft’s “That’s not been deleted. You don’t lose what you’ve built in the game or your engagement with the game” statement has similar caveats.

Samuel Abram (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Valve retains the right to block customers’ access to their games and Steam services when Valve’s Anti-Cheat (VAC) software determines that the user is cheating in multiplayer games, selling accounts to others, or trading games to exploit regional price differences. … Customers also lose access to their games and Steam account if they refuse to accept changes to Steam’s end user license agreements

Those all seem perfectly sensible to me. It’s basically “Don’t cheat, don’t take advantage of us, and you’ll do fine” which is a far cry from “you’re renting games and not owning them”. Is there a problem with Steam’s DRM’d ecosystem? Yes, there is, and the very fact you can lose access to your games (which you pointed out) is just one of them. It’s just that Valve doesn’t remove your games except for exigent circumstances, whereas Ubisoft removes your games for not paying them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Don’t cheat

It doesn’t say people will be banned for cheating; it says if the “software determines that the user is cheating”. (Also, I recently heard that even something as simple as volume normalization can be considered “cheating”, and gamers are damaging their hearing by not using it—gotta keep the volume loud enough to hear distant footsteps, but then the guns are really loud…)

While prohibitions on selling accounts and trading games may seems “sensible” to you, they’re fundamentally contrary to any concept of “ownership”, which is what we’re talking about. If you can’t sell a thing, you don’t own it.

Anonymous Coward says:

How many books in your bookshelf have your read this last 5 years? And how many are collecting dust waiting the next clean up to be thrown in bin? (No, seriously, never dump books.)
It’s pretty much the same thing with Stream sales, many gamer buy dozen of games waiting to be played, and since collect the dust like hundreds other titles.
“Renting” games, like music or video on streaming services make more sense for many people. The only exception is if you listen to the same album every day or watch the same old movie for ages. For the rest, it won’t miss you like most of the toys you’ve got when you were kid, and it won’t cost you a whole room just to store them.

glenn says:

With music, we’d buy CDs (which we’d own) and then rip them to players and create playlists of what we wanted to listen to. Now, you might instead subscribe to a service but still create a playlist of what you want to listen to. In the end, your actual listening experience hasn’t changed, but how you got there was your decision up front. You knew your path and why you chose it. (At least with music you can easily do both–own and subscribe.)

Kik says:

Well, I hope the videogame industry is getting comfortable not having my money. 😀

I do actually read EULAs, and this non ownership thing was a big part in my decision of moving to playing solo TTRPGs. That’s now my main source of entertainment, I’m having a level of freedom that I’ve never known in videogames, I don’t miss them.

And for the record, if they think they should copy Spotify/Netflix model, they’re getting in there way too late. I’ve been moving to Bandcamp years ago, I’m not interested in anything DRM loaded or streamed, and I know I’m far from the only one going in that direction again (just look at the troubles Netflix is having). Streaming may be mainstream now, but early adopters already moved away, and the rest will soon follow.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

If you ignore all the things he's wrong about he's totally right though

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.“

Left out of that argument because it completely destroys it is the fact that access to a game you’ve paid for in any format other than physical(and even then…) is not nearly as guaranteed as he wants to portray it as.

Whether it’s a company pulling a game from the digital shelves and making it impossible to download or potentially even play, a company no longer willing to spend the money keeping the servers required for a game to run active, an online store shutting down or worse the server that an entire console depends on shutting down there are already a plethora of instances where how he wants to portray digital non-purchases and how awesome they are differ vastly from how things actually work.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

” a company pulling a game from the digital shelves and making it impossible to download”

While I agree for the most part, I’d just add something here that MS tend to be very good about letting you download games you bought after being removed from the store, for licence or other reasons.

It’s not a stable or good thing that you could lose access, and you are screwed if the multiplayer servers go down, but you’re generally OK if it’s just a licence expiring on something you bought. In my experience anyway.

MindParadox (profile) says:

in 15 years, when my kids are old enough to want to look back at their own gaming history, the won;t be able to. they will have to look at MY gaming history instead.

This is because since about 2010, almost everything has required an online component to even work, which means that once the servers are shut down, poof, we just lost over a decade currently of gaming.

Ubisoft has put a big target on it’s back from the gaming community, cause a lot of people were willing to go along with what was happening until some idiot(Ubisoft) rubbed it in their faces.

Personally? I’m gonna pirate everything from them from now on. That company will never get a single penny from me ever again.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: It's a bluff, call it

Personally? I’m gonna pirate everything from them from now on. That company will never get a single penny from me ever again.

No no no, any time you really want to twist the knife in a company like that don’t do what they constantly whine about, do what they say they want but absolutely do not: Do without.

Don’t download their games, don’t play their games, don’t talk about their games or even acknowledge that they exist. Treat them and their games as though they are nothing more than a figment of your imagination and instead spend all your money and/or time on alternative sources of entertainment, playing and talking about those games with friends and family instead.

‘If you don’t like the terms/price do without’ is one of the biggest bluffs out there and it’s one that those saying it desperately hope no one takes them up on because as much as they whine about copyright infringement devastating creativity and profits the real company killer is if people did just that and forgot they exist, going from ‘not paying now but with a chance to pay later and/or get others to pay’ to ‘not paying now, with no chance to ever pay later and a big chance of getting others to follow suit’.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

People are going to read into this what they want, but if you read the actual interview, rather than the blog post about an article about the interview, it is pretty clear he is responding to a question about what needs to happen for subscriptions to succeed.

The guy interviewed is the head of subscriptions, so he is talking about subscriptions, not Ubisoft’s intentions as a whole. Of course he wants people to subscribe.

In fact he says this:

“The point is not to force users to go down one route or another,” he explains. “We offer purchase, we offer subscription, and it’s the gamer’s preference that is important here. We are seeing some people who buy choosing to subscribe now, but it all works.”

Why isn’t that the takeaway from the interview rather than fearmongering over an out of context quote?

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-new-ubisoft-and-getting-gamers-comfortable-with-not-owning-their-games

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Why isn’t that the takeaway from the interview rather than fearmongering over an out of context quote?

Because by and large, the game development industry has frankly been shooting themselves in the foot constantly over this topic.

In a sense you’re right, the Ubisoft guy isn’t saying anything groundbreaking or wrong. And I’ll grant you that the actual quote of “Gamers are used to owning their games. That’s the consumer shift that needs to happen” sounds a lot less egregious. But the underlying point remains the same. He is still saying that gamers need to shift from a model where they own their games to a model where they only own their games as long as they keep paying the subscription fee.

And people are sick and tired of this idea that they pay for something once and then have to continue paying maintenance for it. You’re not buying fuel for a car. You’re paying someone for the permission to interact with software for a limited duration despite already putting up cash at full price up front. Remember the backlash that happened because some company tried to attach a subscription model to the seat warmers in their cars? Why would, or should, anyone have to put up with this when it comes to software? Gamers already know what it’s like when servers are no longer supported for expired MMOs like Classic WoW.

The bulk of comments in the backlash against Ubisoft sum it up quite well. If we have to get used to not owning Ubisoft products, Ubisoft’s going to have to get used to not owning our money.

sumgai (profile) says:

This whole thing is much more devious than spoken of so far.

Using the word “you” in a contract describing a purchase implies a permanence of transfer of assets. That’s basic contract law, and has been upheld in courts for more than 233 years. (Though not formalized until the UCC was drafted in 1892.)

But here, what we’re seeing is not an attempt to redefine the word “you” in a purchase contact, it is an attempt to redefine the character of the agreement itself. Fortunately, the covering subterfuge didn’t work for a minute, we all see it for what it is – a steaming pile of bullshit.

Failure to recognize this lack of success by not changing this wording to something like “you, the renter” (meaning, specifically describing the status of one of the parties) will cause judges to pause as they deliberate the true meaning of such agreements. Other things like specifying a duration of the rental period, and/or conditions surrounding termination will also come into consideration.

This is gonna be a tough nut to crack. It ain’t gonna happen overnight, I can prognosticate that much.

GHB (profile) says:

Great. Players now will OWE nothing and be happy.

If Ubisoft will still plan to have microtransactions in all their future releases, then that is already more than enough reasons not to even pay any money to Ubisoft from this point onwards.

Oh and CEO of Larian (Baulder’s gate 3) hates this as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTB7hgERw8M https://twitter.com/LarAtLarian/status/1747556874562457799

ZeroChaos80 (profile) says:

Just Wait...

I do not understand how people can be cool with paying what these companies ask for games/music/movies/digital files knowing that at any point the item can just POOF! disappear. Especially when we’re talking about non-essentials. What the heck happened to people that they are just willing to go to work and bust their … behinds just to give that money to a company that ADMITS they aren’t selling you the game for $50 (!!!!) and that can also just decide at some point that there are too many choices and delete them. So, you pay some faceless greedy jerk $50 for some intangible object and just trust that they won’t get a hair to delete whatever game before you get done playing it. Then one day when you just happen to think about it, you pass out after adding the amount of money you gave away.
As far as I could see from their website, game DISCS aren’t even an option. My son is much smarter than this and he’s 9!
It’s not just games though. But people will get a rude awakening when they log on wherever one day to find they have had their account locked because they got swept up in a huge move by a company to for people to accept their policies by holding those intangible things over their heads. I have never seen the number of people willing to just give up any autonomy over even simple little things as there seems to be today. And when people are okay with this level of control over what they own/borrow and this amount of intrusion into their lives, they shouldn’t be surprised when it turns out that they are going to work to support the rich while they can hardly get by…. Oh wait.

Ed says:

Interesting Analogy

I no longer stream music. I prefer to buy second-hand CDs, then rip them to a lossless format and store the music on my home server.

Follow the money here… Someone has bought the CD and paid the producer. Then that person has sold his CD to me, no money goes to the producer in that transaction. Now I own the CD, but only use it one time to copy the contents into a format that will not wear out or scratch. Then I enjoy the content as much as I want.

The original producer only gets paid once.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...