| JEMC said:
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: 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.
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.
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?
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.
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. |
1. You were fully aware that CDPR owns and manages GoG, as well as CDPR, just like Ubisoft acts as it's own publisher and owner of it's own studios and games, therefore the two owners (pinning it to storefront only and not the owner/name in the first place is childishly stupid, please don't play that playground pin game, it doesn't suit this conversation).
What they do as game publishers also becomes a part of their publishing, which like it or not involves them publishing said games on PC to respective storefronts, their own included. What they do as publishers also includes pricing competitively, otherwise your publication discussion would only involve the small fine print details for their publication process, but you're not talking about that, no one here is at all, so it has to do with the storefronts and the pricing, not the publication process.
All of those publishers listed have taken their own varying risks, from loading their games with MT's, to publishing to a specific platform first, and another later on down the line (take T2 with XCOM and their PR logic of what "fits best for each platform", which itself is a load of rubbish, but we may as well take that as a point and at face value). Open world games aren't much of a risk anymore, not when indie devs were taking it to the next steps with procedurally generated biomes and content (take Minecraft for example, and that paid off in spades). We've also got RSi taking more risks with their game than Ubisoft could even dream of, where's their pat on the back, or are we going to limit risk taking to just Ubisoft and others that don't take risks, in order to paint Ubisoft in the better light?.
2. Why do they have to be unique?. I'll ask you, why does anything have to be unique?. We'll use your logic and just dismantle why anything has to be unique at all and see how far that takes us. Why do products have to be unique at all?, why can't everything and everyone be exactly the same?.
Why do we have to do things differently?. Why do we have to set ourselves apart at all when everything can be the same as everything else?.
There are a good deal of publishers out there who contain more than 1-2 genres and you know this well. I'm not going to waste time listing said publishers, because I'm quite frankly not up for having details tossed aside, just to paint Ubisoft with praise. I'm sorry, but like it or not, a French company, one of which who is currently excusing themselves from showing MT's in their games onto us as the sole reason of blame, called an entire platform a load of pirates some years ago, people just don't forget that kind of remark. I know you've likely let it go, but not everyone has. No need to fob me off for not forgetting. I choose to stand on the principle, that if a company mocks it's userbase, it should have it's arm rightfully twisted all the way round, until it snaps.
You may be used to companies openly mocking and putting the blame on you, while defending their behavior, but I'm not. None of them are our friends, they exist to make money, that's all publishers have ever wanted. Just look at the great lengths EA is going towards, to stave off multiple countries from bringing down the law upon them, my island included. EA knows it'll lose massively, if they have their golden goose taken away from them by force. They'd rather take on the law and countries, than to admit they screwed up, just like Ubisoft refusing to apologize for calling a platform and it's entirety as pirates, as well as recently pinning all blame on MT's entirely on the people, even before the people knew of MT's core conception (you know how this works, you know how the R&D for these sorts of services works, don't side with the company on this one. Do not be so woefully foolish to think we know everything before it even happens, because we didn't, the companies who designed these MT's did).
3. Yet you can still see price drops from indie devs, even out of good gesture, but surely showing good gesture isn't beholden to just indie devs?. Do you cite price drops of any sort based solely on failures alone?. Origins is now just over a year old, which of course means sales were bound to happen, you again know how this works, but you fail to see the short term sales that could have happened, yet it had to be during many months down the line, rather than the first 2 weeks to 2 months.
I'd rather talk about a myriad of things, but as it stands, we're talking about Ubisoft the company, not Ubisoft the publisher that sorts out publishing contract paperwork, and nothing more.
4. I had issues, and going by the PC wiki and Steam, so did other folk, so I'm not alone on that issue.
Why limit the variables to just AAA devs?. What ultimate path does that take us?. Why not toss more into the pot than just AAA?. TW3 is over 3 years old now. I chose the most recent examples to go against two of Ubisoft's recent Creed titles, making it two for two, not one on one.
No, long term support is objective. If a dev decides to support it via patches or free/paid content, then it counts as long term support. The subjectivity of it is if you think it's good enough or not, but that itself doesn't factor into this discussion, because we're not talking about how great it is to pay more for MT's and cutting room floor content (or do no AAA devs in the history of gaming do that?, because I've even seen indie devs doing it, like dropping promised goals for instance, wiping them from dev timeline planagrams).
5. More publishers could stand to learn from the likes of GoG, being DRM free, which is a nice approach, rather than desiring to cage you up and bog down your system with 4 layers of DRM, treating you constantly as if you are a pirate, despite paying full price for a game that can easily become a digital paperweight when one of those DRM systems goes offline or it's certificate expires and is not renewed (pro consumer right?). They could also stand to learn from Steam as well. Steam has been changing over the years and continues to do so. I've yet to see the other clients change so drastically like GoG/Steam have in their years of existence. Take this chart for example:
Yes, Steam has taken a page or two from other clients like Origin with the refunds system, yet it still holds the most feature-set for consumers by far. If anything, Ubisoft should be taking those feature-sets from Steam and implementing them into their own client/storefront. They already have the Uplay points system, but unfortunately, so does Nintendo with their Nitny coins, which also shave off the prices of games in the same sort of manner that Uplay points do, so they are no longer unique in that field, hence why you must evolve as a company, not stagnate and stay the same for years to come.
EA's old games are on Steam, we'll use that as an example to your focus of Ubi selling their old games elsewhere as well.
I wish I could see the future, I truly do, because then I'd be able to avoid all the negative things in life, or simply do something about them ahead of time, but I can't, so in turn I've lost both parents one year after another, no thanks to me not being able to see the future, but you think I can, don't you?.
It must be nice to defend a company that regards you as scum and never apologizing for it, but they don't need to, nor does any company for insulting us, do they?.
Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.
