Ubisoft has a message for PC Gamers

[Snadzies]

They said something like this not long ago, juuust before they released Assasin's Creed: Unity and FarCry 4, so... yeah.

[Coaxialgamer]

I've heard the "we care about consumers" thing far too much to trust it .

[ADM-Ntek]

you should join us in the righteous battle against pirates

nope not if denuvo is part of the deal not going to happen. now i will pirate it out of pure spite.  

[EChondo]

nope not if denuvo is part of the deal not going to happen. now i will pirate it out of pure spite.  

An online only game? So you're going to pirate it and then have it sit on your PC doing nothing because you will literally not be able to play it?

 

Good luck with that.

[Yoinkerman]

if they really cared about PC they wouldn't make me install their uplay garbage

[CatCloud]

All talk no action is what I'm getting from This.

They say one thing but history speaks for itself.

This reminds me of Microsoft's BS about caring for pc gaming and blablabla.

All talk no action...

Will division finally be the first step in right direction for ubisoft? Time will tell. But for now... I'll take this with a grain of salt.

Uplay is still bad, sure I like the reward system... But I also hate it because content is locked behind it...

[ethconmeg]

As much as I agree there is left to be desired. I played the alpha on xbone and had to break my self imposed no preorder rule. I bought for the PC, so we shall see how they do. As much as I've seen, this game looks very promising. I just hope they don't go all carebear with the darkzone.

[Snadzies]

 

 

No it does not look as good as E3, No game ever does.

 

Wow, bullshit much, Ubisoft?

Many games look just as good as their E3 demos and some games actually look better.

 

"No it does not look as good as E3. None of our games ever do."

Here, Ubisoft, I fixed that statement for you to make its more accurate and does not lump competent developers and publishers with your sorry asses.

[Klerk]

Sadly Ubisoft's word holds no value to gamers in general. Ubisoft is too ignorant to see that if you lie to people on the internet sooner or later they will find out and yet they still keep doing it. 

 

To give some credit to Ubisoft though they have stopped/slowed down on digging.

[bobhays]

Uplay itself isn't a terrible idea. Attempting to escape from the clutches of Valve's monopoly just like EA did is not a bad thing. It's good for competition and it leads to improvements to all platforms. Including Steam.

 

Ubisoft just let Uplay suck for too long, they seem to have recently made significant improvements to it as well as their servers. (Mostly due to the release of Rainbow Six:Siege and The Crew.)

 

Look at what EA has done with Origin, it's a great platform and I look forward to seeing Uplay evolving into something better than it currently is. Provided Ubisoft is sincere and actually wants to expand and improve on PC as one of their main platforms that is.

Which is fine and great, but I hate that they require it, and EA doesn't release on steam anymore. It's really annoying at least for the consumer when they take a game away from a much greater platform (steam). Of course people have their own opinions but steam is insanely convenient and has great features like big picture.

[PerfectTemplar]

Which is fine and great, but I hate that they require it, and EA doesn't release on steam anymore. It's really annoying at least for the consumer when they take a game away from a much greater platform (steam). Of course people have their own opinions but steam is insanely convenient and has great features like big picture.

Steam is insanely convenient and I would love to support just that if it was a not-for-profit platform. The fact is, Valve own it. They take a cut of every game sale and they have monopolised PC. Which is BAD for consumers.

[PerfectTemplar]

AMD cards seems to suffer a lot with PCSS, so I always just use the option that is below PCSS. In Unity, GTAV and Arkham Origins I get a 10FPS reduction and stuttering on a R9 290 with PCSS on.

Not a negative addition to the game for AMD users though.. Just don't turn it on. I do believe that Nvidia are purposefully crippling gameworks performance on AMD, however it is their technology and it is a selling point for their cards. So it's honestly not a big deal, you're not forced to use it.

[bcredeur97]

I have the strangest feeling they are sugarcoating something bad.

[Briggsy]

Steam is insanely convenient and I would love to support just that if it was a not-for-profit platform. The fact is, Valve own it. They take a cut of every game sale and they have monopolised PC. Which is BAD for consumers.

 

The two biggest problems with any monopoly is overpricing, and stifled innovation.

 

Based on that criteria, Steam have not monopolized PC. Not only do they have some of the best sales - multiple times per year - where you can buy triple A titles for pocket change, but they provide a platform for Indie developers to be seen and sell their games, to innovate on small budgets without the hassle of advertising and promotion.

[PlayModeOn]

Not a negative addition to the game for AMD users though.. Just don't turn it on. I do believe that Nvidia are purposefully crippling gameworks performance on AMD, however it is their technology and it is a selling point for their cards. So it's honestly not a big deal, you're not forced to use it.

You made it sound like a big deal earlier.

[bobhays]

Steam is insanely convenient and I would love to support just that if it was a not-for-profit platform. The fact is, Valve own it. They take a cut of every game sale and they have monopolised PC. Which is BAD for consumers.

I don't understand what's so bad, and what they're doing wrong?

 

They are a very successful business that are very popular. I understand that choice is good for the consumer, but it's not really a choice when the games aren't available on various platforms right? If you want an EA game you HAVE to use origin. I know it's legally different since it's their own games but it still locks consumers into their software.

 

Even though having options is good for the consumer, it's only actually beneficial if the platforms actually compete, but uplay and origin aren't even close to being as good as steam. Not because they lack features or support, but simply because they don't have enough games.

[Arcmanov]

Well, Ubisoft...my 2 GTX 970s are waiting patiently.  The 'proof is in the pudding' so to speak.

 

We'll see.  <_<

[Virtual01]

inb4 the launch is an absolute shitfest

[PerfectTemplar]

I don't understand what's so bad, and what they're doing wrong?

 

They are a very successful business that are very popular. I understand that choice is good for the consumer, but it's not really a choice when the games aren't available on various platforms right? If you want an EA game you HAVE to use origin. I know it's legally different since it's their own games but it still locks consumers into their software.

 

Even though having options is good for the consumer, it's only actually beneficial if the platforms actually compete, but uplay and origin aren't even close to being as good as steam. Not because they lack features or support, but simply because they don't have enough games.

The only reason Steam is so much better than it used to be is because competition and developers pushed them to be.

 

What their doing bad is limiting options for publishers and developers. The fact that indie games really only have a chance by being on Steam and then Valve still takes a sizeable cut of their revenue is pretty clear cut if you ask me.

 

 

The two biggest problems with any monopoly is overpricing, and stifled innovation.

 

Based on that criteria, Steam have not monopolized PC. Not only do they have some of the best sales - multiple times per year - where you can buy triple A titles for pocket change, but they provide a platform for Indie developers to be seen and sell their games, to innovate on small budgets without the hassle of advertising and promotion.

 

The biggest problem Steam has is it's customer support. The only way they get away with it is the fact they have a monopoly in the market. If EA had similar customer support, Origin would be hated far more than it is now. The refund program was only introduced after Origin's refund program. This is the sort of stuff that competition drives.

 

FYI - Anyone who thinks Steam's refund program is because of legal threats to do with certain regional consumer laws is kidding themselves. Steam's current refund policy is still in violation of those consumer laws by the countries that had been threatening them. Legal proceedings in the UK, EU and Australia are still ongoing.

 

Also, just wanted to mention that one major reason publishers like Ubisoft were always so reluctant to push for the PC platform is they had to use Steam. To a certain extent they still have to because people didn't accept the mess that Uplay was. The reason some of their PC ports have been so bad could boil down to the fact they'd be investing money to launch on a platform that profits one of their competitors.

[N_Bot]

I can't trust Ubisfot when they say they genuinely care about their PC community. In almost all of the games they have made in the past, the PC port has been terrible. So now all of a sudden they care about this community? It doesn't add up.

[Fetzie]

They have about 5 years of 'messages to gamers', so I'm not really in the mood for giving ubisoft the benefit of the doubt.

[lkarej]

I want the Division, but I'll wait for TB's port report.

[Humbug]

Which is fine and great, but I hate that they require it, and EA doesn't release on steam anymore. It's really annoying at least for the consumer when they take a game away from a much greater platform (steam). Of course people have their own opinions but steam is insanely convenient and has great features like big picture.

Steam is great, and steam saved PC gaming.

But as PC gamers we should remember our greatest strength is that PC is an open platform. Which means there is no gatekeeper and multiple companies are free to operate their own stores and take their own cuts. They have their own strengths and drive the industry forward. We should b glad that all these stores conduct themselves in an ethical manner. unlike their console counterparts they do not ask / encourage /incentivise devs to sign exclusivity agreements.

[bobhays]

Steam is great, and steam saved PC gaming.

But as PC gamers we should remember our greatest strength is that PC is an open platform. Which means there is no gatekeeper and multiple companies are free to operate their own stores and take their own cuts. They have their own strengths and drive the industry forward. We should b glad that all these stores conduct themselves in an ethical manner. unlike their console counterparts they do not ask / encourage /incentivise devs to sign exclusivity agreements.

I don't understand what you mean by the last point. How can they sign exclusivity agreements? It's all on the pc platform, unless you mean like only for amd or only for nvidia.

[bobhays]

 

The only reason Steam is so much better than it used to be is because competition and developers pushed them to be.

 

What their doing bad is limiting options for publishers and developers. The fact that indie games really only have a chance by being on Steam and then Valve still takes a sizeable cut of their revenue is pretty clear cut if you ask me.

 

 

 

The biggest problem Steam has is it's customer support. The only way they get away with it is the fact they have a monopoly in the market. If EA had similar customer support, Origin would be hated far more than it is now. The refund program was only introduced after Origin's refund program. This is the sort of stuff that competition drives.

 

FYI - Anyone who thinks Steam's refund program is because of legal threats to do with certain regional consumer laws is kidding themselves. Steam's current refund policy is still in violation of those consumer laws by the countries that had been threatening them. Legal proceedings in the UK, EU and Australia are still ongoing.

 

Also, just wanted to mention that one major reason publishers like Ubisoft were always so reluctant to push for the PC platform is they had to use Steam. To a certain extent they still have to because people didn't accept the mess that Uplay was. The reason some of their PC ports have been so bad could boil down to the fact they'd be investing money to launch on a platform that profits one of their competitors.

 

1. This is not a disagreement, i'm just wondering what competition steam had before?

2. You can't blame steam for being good and popular. That's like saying it's unfair someone makes a really good pizza and no one wants to buy the other pizzas... boohoo monopoly.

3. Taking a cut out of game sales is how Valve makes money through steam... that's business. Honestly the audience you can potentially reach via steam is probably worth the cut.

4. You cannot just write off ubisoft's terrible ports because they were launching a platform. That's honestly one of the most bullshit excuses i've ever heard, something i'd expect to hear a ubisoft spokesperson say.