| JEMC said: Why are you comparing a publisher with a store? What kind of comparison is that? Unless you mean CD Projekt, in which case I'll just tell you that they not only launch their games DRM free on GOG, but they also put them in stores like Steam that does have DRM. They may not like DRM, but they also care about business and aren't affraid of putting their games on a store that uses it. But I don't have to defend Ubisoft from all the wrong things the they've done, which are a lot, only from what I said: "publishers could learn a thing or two from them", like: 1-Trying new IPs every new console generation, something that other publishers rarely do. 2-As a consequence of the above, having a diverse range of games that catter different genres, from FPSs to open world, racing, strategy, fighting, platform, etc. 3-The quick drop in price of their games. 4-Long term support of their games, even if at first they fail to succeed. 5-Launch most of their games on every platform and on every store, even if that means that you can buy their games for less on another store rather than on its own one. And nowadays they even do it with no delays between the console and PC versions.
Are they perfect? Of course not, but there's not a single publisher that is, and looking at what they do, they're certainly far from being the worst. |
Ubisoft own and run the store and publishing their own games. Trying to separate the two is woefully silly. That's like me trying to separate the Steam machine failure from Valve, because they happen to run a storefront.
CDPR are the devs, CDP are the ones running the GoG store. Yes I am comparing one storefront to another, that's perfectly allowed, just like it is with Steam, run by Valve, who also happen to make games like Ubisoft and CDPR (the devs).
They also don't require your game run via another layer of DRM, unlike Ubisoft who does, even for older games like Creed II and Anno 2070
1. We've seen countless indie devs showing AAA devs that risks can be taken. Undertale is one such game that's done what modern AAA games completely avoid (If you've read into the game you'd know, but I'm not going to waste time explaining for someone who's bound to counterpoint right off the bat). We've even seen NT do something for the AA industry, which AAA devs again don't touch upon much at all (like Psychosis and it's effects on a person).
2. We already have publishers with multiple categories worth of game genres, nothing truly unique that only comes from Ubisoft, to make it absolutely must have for being noteworthy for the entire industry.
3. I'll be keeping my eyes peeled on that latest Creed's standard edition to drop in price. I know it won't be anywhere near what Shadow of the TR dropped at, in 1-2 weeks time. I know how publishers operate, if it sells well "why drop the price"?. Ubisoft has full control of their own store, as does EA for theirs, and it either has to be a complete and utter disaster of a game to actively twist their arm into submission, to force an actual price drop, or it has to be close to a year later, not 1-2 weeks.
4. Long term support doesn't involve it being a primarily created GaaS game, which is why I pointed out my Creed 2 gamepad support issue, for a game that still lacks support for it years later, as do the limited Anno installs. Not really long-term support that makes me love Ubisoft. I've seen indie devs with far better support practices, like the devs behind Frostpunk and Two-point Hospital, one of which has added a mod into being baseline for their game (for ease of use reasons) and the other, deciding to release more content/DLC for free, without asking for more hoops to jump through.
Two games that released this year have done something for the community without asking for more money, both of which get regular patches (which are needed believe it or not for any game, so that is the norm and expected, not a *clap clap* "well done for your expected support"), meanwhile Ubisoft have multiple price gouging versions of their watered down AAA game, that asks for far, far more power on the PC side than console, yet looking hardly that much different, all while having a grind with MT's involved. The other two games don't even have that issue either, let alone no 4 layers of DRM, or needing two clients to run said game.
5. We've been seeing devs already releasing on multiple client storefronts, GoG included. That is again, nothing truly only unique to Ubisoft to take notes from. They sell to Origin, Steam and other storefronts (besides the DRM free one, because why compete with a store that demands you put down the guns?), yet they require you run the game from the client you bought it from (like Steam), to which they require you to install their client and have that running as well. Hardly pro-consumer and clap worthy. I'd rather it be one storefront operation (not selling), no web based client in design (cough, Origin) and not require you to always be online (looking at most clients out there, besides Steam/GoG Galaxy.
I put Ubisoft below the likes of EA, and EA does some shady shit. At least we're getting two C&C remasters, but with Ubisoft, we're seeing yet another exclusive stab at another dumbed down Anno title, likely to be extremely demanding for stupid reasons (like it was with the previous two creed games).
Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see
So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"
