Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[JEMC]

Ok, let's go by parts:

Chazore said:

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.

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

You compared Ubisoft with GOG, not Uplay with GOG nor CD Projekt (if it doesn't have the Red moniker it's the publisher, it's that simple) to Ubisoft.

Now, is UPlay good? Of course not!, but I wasn't talking about their store but what do they do as game publishers. I don't want this discussion to become another comparison between stores.

And now, the different replies:

Chazore said:

JEMC said:

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.

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).

I won't disagree that indie and AA developers that mostly publish their own games have proven time and time again that publishers can take more risks when it comes to videogames. Now tell me how many AAA publishers like Bethesda, Warner, EA, Microsoft, Take two, etc. take as many risks and try new IPs as Ubisoft. The rest of the publishers you don't mention, are the ones that could take a page from them.

Chazore said:

JEMC said:

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.

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.  

Why do those have have to be unique? Because you say so? The thing is that, unique or not, they still publish games from several genres, something that not many publishers do.

Chazore said:

JEMC said:

3-The quick drop in price of their games.

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.

Well, of course Odyssey won't drop as much nor as soon as Shadow of the Tomb Raider or Fallout 76, but that's mostly because the former has been a success and the other two have been a big failure.

I could point out that AC Origins that launched a bit more than 1 year ago, has been on sale ten times on Steam since its launch despite selling very well, and the latest one was this Autumn sale with a 60% discount. Or that Far Cry 5, launched 8 months ago, has been on sale four times and up to 50% off, again despite selling very well.

Still, why don't we forget about game to game comparions and move it to how other publishers work, to see if they also put their games on sale, and with big discounts, as soon as Ubisoft does with theirs?

Chazore said:

JEMC said:

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.

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. 

You had problems with the gamepad and AC2. I didn't and apparently Conina also didn't.

And why didn't you use CD Projekt again to prove you point about long term support with what they did with The Witcher 3? Why did you go with two recently launched small games, one of which the first of the devs, who may want to give a good impression to us to gain our trust and support?

But you know what? The "long term support" thing is entirely subjective, so there's no point arguing about it.

Chazore said:

JEMC said:

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.

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). 

I didn't said that Ubi was unique, just that more publishers could learn from them. Neither EA nor Valve sells their games through GMG, Fanatical or the Humble Store, for example. But sure, let's focus on Ubi not having their newest games on GOG, becaue the old ones sure are.

 

By the way, one of these days you could lend me that crystal ball of yours to see the future, because while I haven't been able to find a single preview for Anno 1800, you already know that it will be dumbed down and demanding. It must be nice to see the future.