Ubisoft has a message for PC Gamers

[Humbug]

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.

Valve takes a cut on steam.

Ubisoft takes a cut on uplay.

EA takes a cut on origin.

CD Projekt takes a cut on GOG.

Microsoft takes a cut on Xbox.

Sony takes a cut on PS4.

Nintendo takes a cut on wii U.

That's how stores operate. Should be a surprise to nobody. If you sell retail copies it's probably even more. The difference on PC is that devs have a choice of stores, or to bypass the stores entirely and sell using direct downloads. But that requires some bravery as you miss out on advertising and you have to figure other methods of auto-updating and handling your server infrastructure with adequate capacity etc. A few big devs like Blizzard and RSI (Star Citizen) can pull it off.

[PerfectTemplar]

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.

1. Steam had no competition before, the platform didn't exist. We installed games from discs and used gamespy for multiplayer. (Which was terrible and I'm glad it's over, although no DRM was nice)

2. I am not blaming them for being good and popular, I am just saying that doesn't remove a publishers right to operate outside of Steam.

3. The cut is often pretty unreasonable and can be more than what Microsoft and Sony ask. If people want games on PC, they should accept companies want to make the money from them on their own platform.

4. I didn't just write them off, but I provided an example as to why the console market is so dominant with games even though PC used to be so much larger. Publishers simply don't see Steam as a lucrative investment, it's the reason why Microsoft stopped making games on Windows and the only reason why they're releasing some of them such as ReCore on Windows 10 is because they've developed a platform on Windows they can use. Just like Origin, Uplay, and GOG.

 

This is not me defending Ubisoft or attacking Valve. This wasn't even a problem created by Valve, it's the consumers inability to accept other platforms. Personally I think that people had a reason to reject Ubisoft's games after what Uplay has been like (and to a certain extent still is) in terms of performance, quality and security. The conversation should not be about why Ubisoft doesn't use Steam. It should be about how Ubisoft can improve Uplay and expand on PC without using Steam, just like EA did.

 

The PC is fortunate enough to provide consumers with choice, we don't have a single platform. PC is a house for a number of platforms that allow games of many many different varieties. We should be supporting ANY company that is trying to create their own services to compete with others. The better Origin and Uplay get, the better Steam gets. I want all these platforms to be great and offer something unique. I don't mind using Xbox on Windows 10 to play Fable Legends. I don't mind using Origin to play EA games or Uplay to play Ubisoft games like The Division and Assassin's Creed. 

 

Again, I don't excuse Ubisoft's poor performance on PC in recent years. I simply raised the point that from a business perspective, they didn't value PC because the expectation was to give money to Valve. If they don't have to do that and if PC is suddenly 20% more lucrative for them, they're much more likely to invest in the platform.

[Humbug]

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.

I mean they can ask devs to only sell the game through their store. Or provide incentives to do that. But non of them do so. If a dev wishes to they can sell through multiple stores.

[bobhays]

I mean they can ask devs to only sell the game through their store. Or provide incentives to do that. But non of them do so. If a dev wishes to they can sell through multiple stores.

That's what I thought but that's exactly what EA is doing. They won't put their games on steam because they want to sell them through origin, and ubisoft games you buy through steam still require uplay. That's my problem, not that they exist but they require you to use them.

[PerfectTemplar]

 

That's what I thought but that's exactly what EA is doing. They won't put their games on steam because they want to sell them through origin, and ubisoft games you buy through steam still require uplay. That's my problem, not that they exist but they require you to use them.

Ubisoft is likely to stop using Steam entirely once more people start using Uplay. Sales numbers for Uplay are already increasing and they already stopped selling steam keys for their new games through GMG and Amazon as well as retail copies. They're all Uplay keys now. I think that people should be asking for a way to play games outside of Steam,Origin and Uplay altogether. Not that one platform should gain priority.

 

Btw, I think this conversation is good and important. It's interesting to hear what other's thoughts on the matter are.

 

EDIT:

 

Cloud Imperium Games (Star Citizen developer) actually get constantly asked if their game will be on Steam. Time and time again they've said no because it will take a large chunk of their revenue, yet people still expect it. It's a problem and they're lucky enough to have a playerbase to support them regardless, but it's clear that people think Steam is somehow always the right answer and Valve deserve to make ludicrous amounts of money off games they didn't develop by basically just being a CDN (which makes much less).

[Humbug]

1. Steam had no competition before, the platform didn't exist. We installed games from discs and used gamespy for multiplayer. (Which was terrible and I'm glad it's over, although no DRM was nice)

There was very shitty DRM at the time. CD keys were an issue. Lost discs were an issue. Scratched discs were an issue. Lot of games despite being installed asked you to insert the disc as a form of DRM. Updating and patches were a mess.

Life is infinitely bette now IMO

[PerfectTemplar]

There was very shitty DRM at the time. CD keys were an issue. Lost discs were an issue. Scratched discs were an issue. Lot of games despite being installed asked you to insert the disc as a form of DRM. Updating and patches were a mess.

Life is infinitely bette now IMO

Yeah I am very glad it's not like that any more. I remember those days.

[bobhays]

1. Steam had no competition before, the platform didn't exist. We installed games from discs and used gamespy for multiplayer. (Which was terrible and I'm glad it's over, although no DRM was nice)

2. I am not blaming them for being good and popular, I am just saying that doesn't remove a publishers right to operate outside of Steam.

3. The cut is often pretty unreasonable and can be more than what Microsoft and Sony ask. If people want games on PC, they should accept companies want to make the money from them on their own platform.

4. I didn't just write them off, but I provided an example as to why the console market is so dominant with games even though PC used to be so much larger. Publishers simply don't see Steam as a lucrative investment, it's the reason why Microsoft stopped making games on Windows and the only reason why they're releasing some of them such as ReCore on Windows 10 is because they've developed a platform on Windows they can use. Just like Origin, Uplay, and GOG.

 

This is not me defending Ubisoft or attacking Valve. This wasn't even a problem created by Valve, it's the consumers inability to accept other platforms. Personally I think that people had a reason to reject Ubisoft's games after what Uplay has been like (and to a certain extent still is) in terms of performance, quality and security. The conversation should not be about why Ubisoft doesn't use Steam. It should be about how Ubisoft can improve Uplay and expand on PC without using Steam, just like EA did.

 

The PC is fortunate enough to provide consumers with choice, we don't have a single platform. PC is a house for a number of platforms that allow games of many many different varieties. We should be supporting ANY company that is trying to create their own services to compete with others. The better Origin and Uplay get, the better Steam gets. I want all these platforms to be great and offer something unique. I don't mind using Xbox on Windows 10 to play Fable Legends. I don't mind using Origin to play EA games or Uplay to play Ubisoft games like The Division and Assassin's Creed. 

 

Again, I don't excuse Ubisoft's poor performance on PC in recent years. I simply raised the point that from a business perspective, they didn't value PC because the expectation was to give money to Valve. If they don't have to do that and if PC is suddenly 20% mo

re lucrative for them, they're much more likely to invest in the platform.

I misunderstood point 1, but now it's clear.

 

2. That's not really what you said the first time. You said they're limiting options. Any game on steam is free to be sold on another platform.

3. Steam is free to charge whatever cut they like. Obviously charging an extremely high cut isn't great for developers or them, but as long as they aren't increasing the cut I think it's fair.

 

Lastly, I understand your overall position, but from a consumer position it's just so much easier to have everything on steam. It's a great platform, very convenient, and often they actually charge higher prices on steam to counter the cut. For example GTA on Steam vs from Rockstar cost more for months. Same with EA games on Origina and ubisoft with uplay. That way they are making a bit closer to the same amount per copy. 

 

My problem is that after I pay the extra amount to have it on steam (which I would usually gladly do), I still have to have the other platforms. I think that's just absolutely terrible on their part. If I have to pay extra to get it on my platform of choice, fine, but don't make me pay extra and then not actually have it on that platform.

 

EDIT: After reading some other posts I think that's a great solution would be an open source standard, but there are a lot of problems with doing that.

 

1st there will be server, update, account sync, security etc maintenance costs so where will they get that from. If it's a small cut (5%) of the sale then people might still say, no i'll use my own platform and take 100% at which point we're back at square one. Assuming that major developers agree and decide to take the 5% hit, then we'd have to bring all the platforms together which is a huge challenge, but if it does happen it would be amazing for PC gamers.

 

All of that being said... I still absolutely love steam, not because of valve or Gabe N or whatever, I just things it's a great platform with awesome features (in home streaming, big picture mode, etc.) but at the same time I HATE that they haven't fixed some of the most basic functionality. For example you can't import playlists into steam music.

[Kamina]

They care?

 

 

I highly doubt that. Phew. Funny, Ubisoft. I hear this kind of lie every year from them.

[Paragon_X]

Lets hope they wont fuck it up, The Division is one of the few promising new MMOs.

[MrDynamicMan]

sorry but am i  the only one who  is callin bullshit?

 

 

other than the keyboard lights and the flixable HUD these should be standard in all AAA games, hell all PC games in general, its not press release material

 

though i do have a beta key and will play this next week

too true. "We're really going the extra mile, we even added mouse and keyboard support" had me in stitches.

[MrDynamicMan]

R

They care?

 

 

I highly doubt that. Phew. Funny, Ubisoft. I hear this kind of lie every year from them.

but, but, for real this time! We'd never ever lie to get people to buy the game! You can see from our perfect track record!

[Dabombinable]

Ok. Read the article and it can be summed up as Ubisoft saying this to gamers. "Fuck you, and if you believe us, your an idiot."

[ShadowCaptain]

"Praise us for doing the bare minimum requirements of a PC game"

[PortentousLad]

Its almost as if they want PC gamers to play the game.

Seriously though aren't all of these points kinda the norm that they themaelfs went away from?

Nothing in there sounds like something special to me.

[Briggsy]

 

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.

 

 

If steam actually had a monopoly, there would be no competition. Valve did digital gaming first (as a platform), and they did it right. People take for granted that valve do refunds now. Steam refunds required a lot of work to get the system in place, and probably cost valve millions in legal costs to iron it all out - where there are hundreds of publishers they have to be on the same page with. Valve likely had to force their hand with most publishers to get the system in place, pissing off some and making enemies with others. Warner Bros was probably just delighted when Batman Arkham Knight was refunded by hordes of gamers. Lesser platforms would not have had the clout to do refunds, the publishers would have stopped them.

 

On the other hand, Origin is just a platform for EA games. to refund their own game requires little effort on their part. If Origin sold games from other publishers like Steam does, they would not have been able to do store-wide refunds, they wouldn't have enough sway to keep other publishers from pulling out. In that light, Steam is very good for gamers, because they have enough leverage to go against the wishes of greedy publishers and implement systems that help gamers.

[Flashport]

There is a technical limitation. The reason cross platform play is a nightmare is because of how Sony and Microsoft handle updates for consoles.

 

Lets say, for example, a patch is put out for PC, since PC almost always gets updates first. Before I make my next point, the reason PC gets updates first is because we don't have to wait on anyone to push them out but Blizzard (or whomever the developer may be for any game you're wanting cross platform play on).

 

Now the PC version is out of sync with the console versions. Blizzard submits the new builds for Xbox and Playstation. Sony "certifies" the Playstation build before M$ certifies the Xbox build. But wait, Sony took way too long and now PC had a bug fix patch released, so now it's on yet another more recent version compared to the one PlayStation is on. Meanwhile, Xbox just got the one Sony had certified a while ago. 

 

Then Blizzard ships out new builds to Sony and Microsoft for the consoles with the bug fix.

 

Then the cycle repeats.

 

That's why we can't have cross platform play.

misunderstanding. I didn't mean crossplatform play, I just meant offline-couchplay from my PC -- no technical limitation there.

[xentric]

I don't know about you guys but: "There’s even support for certain LED keyboards. For example, the button mapped to your medkit will begin to flash when you’re low on health. You can also map a key for teammates, and that will flash too when they are in need of support."

 

That sounds really cool to be honest. could add some cool like decryption element during games using the LEDs on each key switch.

[PerfectTemplar]

Its almost as if they want PC gamers to play the game.

Seriously though aren't all of these points kinda the norm that they themaelfs went away from?

Nothing in there sounds like something special to me.

The market potential of PC is several times that of console for a game that they're proposing like this. If it's as they say and has a heavy element of persistent multiplayer they might one to create an ongoing content delivery to keep a playerbase. Like other looters/survival games on PC.

[DXMember]

wow... Ubisoft says "We care about PC"???

what a complete contrast to the quote from November 2013 when AC4 released, if I have to go from memory it was something like "On PC, we don’t really care about the performance, because if it’s not running fast enough, go buy a bigger GPU."

 

http://www.pcinvasion.com/ubisoft-trolls-pc-users-buy-bigger-gpu-comment

 

something changed in the marketing department... I hope the same something changed in the technical department as well, oh and will they stop rehashing the same AC game engine from the very first AC that has seen no updates since Ship introduction in AC3 ??

[ShadowCaptain]

something changed in the marketing department...

 

Hopefully they were all fired and replaced with actual humans

[DXMember]

Hopefully they were all fired and replaced with actual humans

pointing out features like unlocked framerate and multi-resolution with keyboard and Mouse support and video settings like it's something to be amazed at and some kind of fascinating feat or feature for a game to achieve.... like c'mon... I don't believe they care about anything more than the dosh, what herritage? what pedigree?

bullshit i'm  telling you

if it runs any better than Batman did they will act like they are the merciful gods that gifed you with this game and that we all should be thankful for it

#PCMasterRace has become a joke for gaming industry

 

!!!!!! STOP PRE-ORDERING GAMES AND GAMES WITH DAY ONE DLCs !!!!!!

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

"hey everyone, we did the minimum amount required for a game on PC"

[DXMember]

"hey everyone, we did the minimum amount required for a game on PC"

"they game is pretty much the same as last year"

"you can preoder it starting now for only $59.99 with colletors edition for $89.99"

"The upcomming DLC will cost you $14.99 or you can get a season pass for only $69.69"

--Like every Battlefield or Call of Duty, or AC for that matter

 

 

Like have you seen the Hitman business model???

[ShadowCaptain]

Like have you seen the Hitman business model???

 

Actually the Battlefield one I dont find too offensive, but they could still do it 10000000x better!!! since it fragments the play base

 

 

The new hitman game is dead to me, Hitman should be a single player, linear story driven game with sandbox elements.. this new game is a monstrosity