It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
WinterSnowfall: A sad story we are bound to see over and over again with most modern games. Any game with a dependency on online components will eventually suffer the same fate. Ubisoft knows this (that they will have to cut support at some point), much like any company that employs this model knows it.

The options when discontinuing the services are:

1) Invest some time and effort to enable the otherwise online-only content for stand-alone offline singleplayer
2) Do nothing and let the games die out or remain in a neutered state

I'll let you figure out which is more financially attractive in the short term...
avatar
NuffCatnip: Sad thing is nobody in management tends to look at the long term benefits. You'd think that's their job, but apparently it's all about embezzling money.
Actually it benefits the company in the long run if they provide games in a service model. Service they can stop to provide or decrease functionality, enforcing purchase of another license (for new game). It looks like backlash after M&M 10 was not high enough to prevent this from happening, gamers still vote for Ubisoft with their wallets. It is harder create new product that will be better than previous one than decreased quality of provided service, while hiding behind legal bindings of EULAs
Post edited July 05, 2022 by Sulibor
avatar
WinterSnowfall: A sad story we are bound to see over and over again with most modern games. Any game with a dependency on online components will eventually suffer the same fate. Ubisoft knows this (that they will have to cut support at some point), much like any company that employs this model knows it.

The options when discontinuing the services are:

1) Invest some time and effort to enable the otherwise online-only content for stand-alone offline singleplayer
2) Do nothing and let the games die out or remain in a neutered state

I'll let you figure out which is more financially attractive in the short term...
Depending on whether solutions (like the "Ghost" middle-ware used for the DRM-free version of Deus Ex: Mankind Divided) would be compatible with Ubisoft's online authentication/verifaction services there's also:

3) Commission GoG to do the work necessary to enable the otherwise online-only content for stand-alone offline singleplayer
avatar
Swedrami: 3) Commission GoG to do the work necessary to enable the otherwise online-only content for stand-alone offline singleplayer
"Have someone else do the work while we still get most of the proceeds" always sounds good, true. But I doubt Ubisoft will be open to it. In fact I doubt they give two hoots about a lot of games in their catalog, so they might just not bother. As Sulibor was saying, they'll just release new games, so play those is the strategy :P.
why removing the dlc? They should update all their game to include all the removed content by default. For the multiplayer it's not a problem if there is not a lot of player playing it but not the dlc.
avatar
Mugiwarah: why removing the dlc? They should update all their game to include all the removed content by default. For the multiplayer it's not a problem if there is not a lot of player playing it but not the dlc.
That's work. Not even "just work", but work that will not get corporations even a single cent; they're used to starve their own employees and draining their customers with dirty tricks, of course they're not going to lift a finger for this!
Post edited July 05, 2022 by Enebias
Forgotten Sands will be literally unplayable now. Nice, Ubi ,nice.

>:(
I would call what Ubisoft and Nintendo && Co. are doing robbery and someone should file suits against them.

They bind you to an online-account and client or paid membership + a console, they keep games up in their store for some years and then games are taken down and stores gets shut at the end of lifetime. In case of consoles, owners no longer get access to promised features, multiplayer and what have you and most important patches and bugfixes! This can render games originally bought completely useless, because without a patch or DLC, only available from servers no longer available, there is no use playing it. Even though someone's bought physical media. A great thing for those who invested serious money into overpriced collector's editions, good luck trying to sell them when servers will be shut-down. Or, as is the case with Ubish*t, can't keep playing your games, because they are now broken and you can only progress so far and no way to access DLC you paid good money for.

As opposed to Ubisoft, with a new hardware generation, there will be new stores and the consoles support older games you already bought and paid for. If you want the old game you just have to pay for it again else - go f. you.

This is one reason I stopped doing business with the likes of Ubisoft or any digital store where a client is necessary to play games. There is no way to backup anything with these fraudsters, because even in case you got backups, when there aren't any servers, what good is it for? You just waste space on the harddisk.

Yet, still, people are willing to accept this and they invest hundreds of millions into games and DLC and item-shops. Lucky we got the bad bad piracy for it to substitute for free and without client that they can shut-down any given day and still enjoy the games instead of wasting more money for the same thing to happen somewhere down the road, just because they - Ubi, Steam and whoever else conducts business the way they do, are getting away with it scott-free. ;-)
Post edited July 05, 2022 by Mori_Yuki
low rated
looks like lots of drm fanboys dvoted , dunno why they are here , probably to troll
high rated
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Games are tied to DRM because people are complacent to eroding digital rights; if only more people were aware of it maybe things would be different. But then again, that's the hope of everyone on the GOG forum and we know its not likely to happen.
"-You can't play these games without Internet!"
"-OK, cool".

It's not that they are unaware; they just don't care. They don't envision a scenario that they don't have Internet or that the servers are down. And if such a scenario comes to pass (Diablo III, Gran Turismo 7), it's forgotten once things are "fixed".
Post edited July 05, 2022 by Grargar
low rated
The biggest problem are the people of sheep mentality, who always support the current thing, who believe that buying games will provide the publishers and developers with more money to make better new games and maintain their online services active for yars. The smart guys are the ones using various means to get them for free. The extra stupid awards go to the people who buy Ubisoft's games. This is just business guys, not a philanthropy.

If the game has the following brands attached to it, don't buy it, and the problem is solved:
Electronic Arts
Ubisoft
Sega
Activision
Bethesda
Kalypso
Blizzard Entertainment
Post edited July 06, 2022 by Wishmaster777
low rated
avatar
Wishmaster777: The biggest problem are the people of sheep mentality, which always support the current thing, who believe that buying games will provide the publishers and developers with more money to make better new games and maintain their online services active for yars. The smart guys are the ones using various means to get them for free. The extra stupid awards go to the people who buy Ubisoft's games. This is just business guys, not a philanthropy.

If the game has the following brands attached to it, don't buy it, and the problem is solved:
Electronic Arts
Ubisoft
Sega
Activision
Bethesda
Kalypso
Blizzard Entertainment
:(
I like my Anno 1800

I would add kagura games or what into the list
low rated
The Age of Ownership is sadly ending...

Terrible idea.

A number of 3rd party devs were caught off guard with this as well (UbiSoft must not communicate well either). Some are rushing to try and make their games playable sans UbiSoft... although they've said there are no promises that it can be accomplished quickly... if at all.

I've been waiting for years for their upcoming Skull & Bones and have always been a fan of Assassin's Creed. But if this is how UbiSoft is now going to run their business (like they weren't pretty bad already), I may actually be done purchasing their product(s) altogether.
low rated
avatar
kai2: The Age of Ownership is sadly ending...

Terrible idea.

A number of 3rd party devs were caught off guard with this as well (UbiSoft must not communicate well either). Some are rushing to try and make their games playable sans UbiSoft... although they've said there are no promises that it can be accomplished quickly... if at all.

I've been waiting for years for their upcoming Skull & Bones and have always been a fan of Assassin's Creed. But if this is how UbiSoft is now going to run their business (like they weren't pretty bad already), I may actually be done purchasing their product(s) altogether.
imho it ended when they took our rights to arm and defend ourselves/family and of course our properties
low rated
avatar
Mori_Yuki: I would call what Ubisoft and Nintendo && Co. are doing robbery and someone should file suits against them.

They bind you to an online-account and client or paid membership + a console, they keep games up in their store for some years and then games are taken down and stores gets shut at the end of lifetime. In case of consoles, owners no longer get access to promised features, multiplayer and what have you and most important patches and bugfixes! This can render games originally bought completely useless, because without a patch or DLC, only available from servers no longer available, there is no use playing it. Even though someone's bought physical media. A great thing for those who invested serious money into overpriced collector's editions, good luck trying to sell them when servers will be shut-down. Or, as is the case with Ubish*t, can't keep playing your games, because they are now broken and you can only progress so far and no way to access DLC you paid good money for.

As opposed to Ubisoft, with a new hardware generation, there will be new stores and the consoles support older games you already bought and paid for. If you want the old game you just have to pay for it again else - go f. you.

This is one reason I stopped doing business with the likes of Ubisoft or any digital store where a client is necessary to play games. There is no way to backup anything with these fraudsters, because even in case you got backups, when there aren't any servers, what good is it for? You just waste space on the harddisk.

Yet, still, people are willing to accept this and they invest hundreds of millions into games and DLC and item-shops. Lucky we got the bad bad piracy for it to substitute for free and without client that they can shut-down any given day and still enjoy the games instead of wasting more money for the same thing to happen somewhere down the road, just because they - Ubi, Steam and whoever else conducts business the way they do, are getting away with it scott-free. ;-)
Im out of the loop here but what is Nintendo doing?

And who is downvoting every post on this thread? Seriously, this is a bad turn for the gaming industry as a whole. Nothing good comes from this becoming mainstream apart from more money in greedy corporate pockets as "gamers" shovel more of their hard earned money into stupid transactions for games with a limited shelf-life. I should be concerning that I can have a more complete experience playing a game on my SNES than I can on my PS3.
avatar
Wishmaster777: The biggest problem are the people of sheep mentality, which always support the current thing, who believe that buying games will provide the publishers and developers with more money to make better new games and maintain their online services active for yars. The smart guys are the ones using various means to get them for free. The extra stupid awards go to the people who buy Ubisoft's games. This is just business guys, not a philanthropy.

If the game has the following brands attached to it, don't buy it, and the problem is solved:
Electronic Arts
Ubisoft
Sega
Activision
Bethesda
Kalypso
Blizzard Entertainment
Unfortunately, EA has bought out a ton of studios and ruined them like Bioware.

I would also add Valve to the list. They tend to be the innovators in implementing crappy stuff that gets past gamers because their games are "so good" (software needed DRM and MTX being two notable examples with Half Life 2 and Team Fortress 2). Also wary of Konami but they havent really produced any good stuff in a while anyway.
Post edited July 06, 2022 by Tokyo_Bunny_8990
avatar
kai2: The Age of Ownership is sadly ending...
Correct. My workplace just shifted to office365. Everything is shifted to the cloud. The kids and IT guy are all "hey it's the future, we'll soon just have terminals and no more problem at home, how cool is that". There is absolutely no value or feel for the need of property and control. I feel like an old crazy survivalist in that environment, bothered at the thought of absurdly working on a server beyond the ocean instead of on my desk, on a support held by some stranger who can yank it away on a whim.

But I realize how far my perception is from today's kids' and how dissing steam's or ubi's online requirement would sound absurd to them.

Not only that, but also, I've always lived in some intemporal culture, always enjoying stuff from different decades and before my time. But what I see around me is very compatible with Ubi's ominous "focus on delivering great experiences for players who are playing newer or more popular titles". People consume an ever shrinking, more instantaneous, present time. And I don't expect of them much regret for the loss of availability of past videogames... movies... books...

So yeah, we live in ubitimes. They know their audience.