I never bought The Crew, so I couldn't join in even if I wanted to, but it will definitely be interesting to see how this goes.
Personally, I would never expect any online-only game to be available forever, so Ubisoft will probably argue the same. Of course all these stores use the word "Purchase" or "Buy", instead of "Lease" and "Purchase/Buy" have a very specific meaning that is different from "Lease".

I agree. Weneed more ubisoft games.

Iwould luke to see more Assasins creed games (not that ac chronicles garbage, the real one 3d) . Iwoul like to see Ghost Reacon WILDLANDS and R.U.S.E strategy game or Might magicHeroes 6

I commented with some wishes from my side to be here on GOG, if it was for me I'll love to have everything here for all people to buy, but it would be an empty promise from my side.

Sometimes I become curious about understand great companies executive's decision-making process. So I read things like this and lose all my interest.

You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't force him to drink.

The leadership should try jumping on the DRM-Free trend once in a while. It worked out for Larian.

Otherwise if they do lay people off, they should lay some decision makers too. We desperately need new leadership and ideas.


As for the new POP and AC Mirage, avoiding Steam is not doing them any favours either.

I wouldn't buy these on Steam anyway, I got them on UPlay.

They seem to have a close parthership with Epic.
I guess without Steam, all that remains are their Sales on Epic, Uplay, XBox and Playstation.


I don't have any hopes that they sell new games without DRM, that train is long gone.
But I would like to see some of the old games, first of all PoP Forgotten Sands, followed by a PC Port of XBox360s Prince of Persia Classic and of course the original Amige/DOS/Nintendo versions of PoP (if they have the copyrights for them. But I would also not mind to get something similar to "The Making of Karateka").

And the same thing goes for their subscription. Why would I subscribe if I already have everything I want from them purchased. The only way to get more money out of me is by publishing on GOG.

Almost certainly due to the lower cut Epic takes. They still publish on Steam, just with a ~3 year delay.


Assassin's Creed 2 will be 15 years old in November. If they could publish their 10 year old games here at the very least, I would be very happy.

At the same time, no game stays new forever, so I doubt they will keep paying for Denuvo for their new-old titles indefinitely... though we never know I guess.

As much as I'd like to see Classic Ubi stuff hit GOG from the Uplay-and-on DRM-laced era (i.e. since probably AC2 and on) - eh, I doubt it. Same goes for EA too.

These two (EA and Ubi) both have monthly sub-services on their respective services. They keep stuff on their backlog there to give it more value.

I also believe a lot of their stuff's on Epic too, since Epic often takes 12% only for sales and Ubi can keep their DRM and client-app junk in their games over there.

So, yeah - I don't really see them sadly spending $, time, resources, and employee-power on re-working their games and removing DRM just to get some of their Uplay-required classics (from AC2 up to everything now) to hit GOG, when it ain't going to do gangbusters like their PC games likely would see on their own services and Steam.

Sure they probably do think that way, but this mindset fails to account for people who:

1) Only buy DRM-Free.

2) Have already bought these games on UC / Steam / Epic, but would GLADLY re-buy them on GOG, because they value DRM-Free games more.

Therefore publishing more old games on GOG will not lose Ubisoft potential money. It will earn them more actual money.

Also many Ubisoft games sell well on GOG, so much so that Ubisoft sometimes even gets their own section on the homepage. Ubisoft games often sit in the top 10 recent bestseller list and HOMM3 is the #1 bestseller on GOG of all time. I think if Ubisoft published more of their old games, they'd sell like hotcakes too. Ubisoft needs to realise that just because UC and Steam sales may have dried up for old titles, that does not mean that the same will apply to GOG, because GOG offers something that "nobody" else does.

a segment so tiny it is not worth going after

will not be in the target audience they are going for

if they are holdign these games back to inccrease the value of their stores and subscriptions, then exlusitivty is the best (possibky only) way of promoting that

keep in mind that if publishing the games on gOg do indeed get the money from (a) the DRM free people, offering them for sale there will also take away from the (b) people who do not care about DRM who might have wanted to subscribe for a bit to play a classical game they cant get elsewhere. My suspition is that the people in group (b) will be larger than group (a), so while they do get the money from DRM free people, it would be less than the moeny they would get from group (b) by keeping the games exlusive and drive up the value of the subscriptions

There is no game that's exclusive to subscriptions that's not for sale.

If I already have AC2 on UC. Why on earth would I subscribe? I can already play AC2. I'm certainly not the only person who bought AC2 either. Subscription will never become the only way of monetising games, regardless of GOG.

Not unless they intentionally stop selling games and make them subscription-exclusive, but I think everyone knows that it would be a massive PR disaster and not very financially viable. Even Sony can't afford to put their new releases on subscription day one. If they made a game sub-exclusive, people would sub for a month, or get some trial code from Doritos or whatever, play that one game and never sub again.

The best way to maximise income to to approach all potential monetisation methods, rather than focus on on few, or even worse, sacrifice some for the sake of others.

no, this is false. All potetnail monetisation methods have a cost associated with them. What you should do is go after the methods that gives you most profit. Going after ALL methods, means you will have some that makes a profit and some where the cost is higher than the profit they make, i.e. a net loss for those methods. So maximising income means selctive methods. .

edit - this is actually one of the reasons why many startup fails. They spread themselves to thin to start with, instead of focusing their effort on one proftable stream.

This is the thing: they only care about their mind-set. That's my point.

They also probably want to cut-out any of the likely standard 30% fee or whatever GOG takes, when they can instead take 100% from UbiSoft Connect via game-purchases (and I use that term loosely for game with DRM/client-app requirements) and/or UPlay+ Subs (or whatever they might be calling their subs now).

I doubt Ubi cares much for the small percentage here on GOG here, since it likely ain't doing Steam-like percentages of sales here in the PC gaming digital download market.

EDIT - Ubi is say not Sony. Sony wants to hit every avenue they can they ain't Microsoft-owned walls b/c they like to sell their games wherever now - i.e. PS4, PS5, PC (except Microsoft Store on PC and Microsoft Xbox console). Even Sony is bringing their stuff to GOG, of all places too - which is great and I love to see this! They seem to care more about actual game-sales than say game-library monthly subs and/or yearly subs, unlike say Microsoft and Ubi.

Sony didn't buy Nixxes (expert PC-porting company) for nothing.

EDIT 2 - About HOMM3, there's nothing for Ubi to rework here to get it onto GOG. There's no Achievements, no client-app requirements, or any of that junk from the old-era. They can basically more or less straight port that to GOG, Steam, anywhere on PC without nobody really caring about any of that modern-stuff. That would be the case for any Ubi games since AC2 that required Uplay/UbiSoft Connect, as anything since then (except Prince of Persia: Cel-Shaded on PC) was laced w/ that junk.

And PoP: Cel-Shaded Reboot (2008) went to retail without DRM and didn't sell well. Ubi said they'd try it (DRM-FREE) b/c gamers big-time asked for a Ubi game without DRM at retail - well, this sadly proved Ubi's point, so they went to releasing junk with Uplay. Nobody really bought POP 2008 at retail. Probably the only reason that's one of the few PC versions of somewhat modern Ubi games around AC2 era on GOG b/c it was painless and easy to port b/c it was DRM-FREE and bare-bones. Nothing to re-work client-app wise (it wasn't there), no need to implement Achievements (that stuff wasn't super-common on PC everywhere yet), and/or anything of that modern sort.

Exactly. Why would I join Ubi's service for its library, if I already "own" this stuff say on GOG, Steam, Epic, Retail Disc, any/or anywhere else?

Buying games actually devalues the aspect of UPllay+ or whatever they are calling their monthly/yearly subscription service these days. I think more so, I'd want to try Uplay+ for modern games I'm missing that are super-pricey and I think in a month or so, I can bang a new expensive title out fast, which is often why I was on PC Game Pass when it was dirt-cheap in its sales (sometimes it's $1 a month or $5 on month).

Playing The Outer Worlds PC on Day 1 for the $1 or $5 I spent for the PC Game Pass sub-fee then was great - banged it out quick and it beat spending $60-70 MSRP on Day 1. I just collected the game for its DLC's later, when it was on Humble to replay it and especially to play Gorgon and Eridanos DLC's. Same went for Wasteland 3, also - as I bought the Humble GOG RPG Bundle to get that with all DLC's for good (and to own it DRM-FREE, since this was a GOG-key Bundle) and b/c I was missing stuff in there (such as KC: Deliverance - and I then bought the Royal Upgrade DLC's on GOG).

Since I'm on Game-Pass topic: since Microsoft jumped it to $10 - and I un-subbed and threw Game Pass for now right in the trash bin. Give me another $1 per month or $5 month sale or charge those prices forever - and yeah, I'll gladly stick w/ PC Game Pass and not quit probably ever.

I already "own" so many games on Steam, GOG, Epic, etc - eh, a lot of times, it's just best to look into my backlog now and grab from there. It's not like modern-titles in many instances - especially of late in AAA or AAA space - release in a Complete Form and without bugs/issues anymore. This is a DLC-crazy world and fix-games-later world; it's 2024, not 1995...sadly.

Uh huh... Why does anyone bother with GOG at all then? If this was truly False, then Bethesda wouldn't have bothered releasing Skyrim for every platform imaginable.

There are even rumours going around now that Microsoft is about to release more of their games for the PlayStation. Taking 100% of the sales cut does not make up for the losses you make by avoiding other platforms, except maybe if you are CrapTendo, but even they are slowly expanding to mobile phones. Exclusivity is dumb and thankfully it is dying. Ubisoft is also not some small indie company that would "Stretch themselves too thin". They already have a presence on GOG too, they just need to expand it and I will NEVER stop asking.

You wouldn't. But they are not stopping sales, are they?

And I already made this point myself.
I already purchased everything I want from them on their own paltform years ago. I have zero reasons to subscribe. If the goal is to push subscription numbers, rather than maximise profit, then they are competing with themselves first of all, before we drag Steam, Epic and GOG into this. Of course I do not believe in the concept of "competing with oneself". Some people will prefer to buy and that is fine. Some people will prefer to subscribe and that is also fine. Appease both and you will maximise your profits.

The only way to extract more money from me for those same games is to release them on GOG.