If I had a penny for every time I saw this quote decontextualised. I’d have enough to buy a Ubisoft game.
Which is kinda sad that it’s been that often.
Listen, I’m super smart and I definitely know what the right context is, but could you explain it for our dumber friends here?
The exec said that in order for subscription gaming to be profitable, then customers would have to be okay with not owning their games. It was posed more of a hypothetical instead of a sinister plan. Now would they prefer subscription model? Absolutely. Do they expect it to work rn? The exec doesn’t think so.
Too bad you won’t own it after buying it!
Thank you Valve
Yes please ubisoft make another generic assassin’s creed game that is like all the others and charge me for it on a subscription based model.
This simulation of a simulation of a game is as important as office365 with teams at least.
I think they have a solid business case there, congrats ubi.
I can’t wait to find towers to unlock the map collectathon.
I still really want to play Black Flag, ngl. I think I have a weakness for sea songs. Maybe I should play more Sea of Thieves instead.
Next year Ubisoft is complaining how people start a subscription just before the holiday and cancel after the holiday, with people playing dozens of games in a short period. This destroys their cash flows and shows great disrespect for the developers.
The developers are already paid, and they only do what they are told to do.
How do you see the future?
Everyone here will balk and biych about it and rightly so, but this will happen, unfortunately. Why? Because Ubisoft is on the path of enshittification, and most of humanity are dumb and don’t care and will walk willingly like sheep to the slaughter.
Looks like late stage capitalism is taking away people’s right to personal property.
I’m not much of a gamer anymore…
Might have to visit some torrent sites anyway. Maybe I can find someone who likes Ubisoft games but can’t afford them and doesn’t know how to acquire them…
The term “If purchase isn’t ownership” has no relationship to the article quote. The suggestion of not owning games refers to having subscription-based access to them; as of yet only ever offered as a suggested alternative to purchasing games, which is still very much an option.
These memes are always using terribly structured logic to justify piracy.
I can live with that, I mean, subscription for games, but once a game enters the catalog, it can never be removed.
The suggestion of not owning games refers to having subscription-based access to them; as of yet only ever offered as a suggested alternative to purchasing games, which is still very much an option.
That is exactly the problem though. How long will it be until the subscription model is no longer an option but the only option? Because i would bet money on that being the actual goal.
That is already the case for many mobile games, so why the person you’re talking to doesn’t think it will happen overall, I’m not sure.
And I would bet money against that.
Look at the reaction in these comments. Even if some games get attention from Game Pass, each individual game gets its renown through major fans that play 50 hours a month. What would any of these publishers have to gain from suddenly denying that revenue flow for JUST the people subscribing? Even a single game attempting that model would likely receive major backlash.
Regardless, I’m going to continue judging memes and arguments like these as pathetic - as they’re already fully assuming at-present a situation we haven’t even started to move towards.
How have we not started moving towards it when every company is trying their damnedest to get subscriptions? Look at new vehicles, they are paywalling features on an already purchased car, I bet you would have “bet against this” too before it happened. The problem is companies are slowly changing things over time hoping consumers don’t notice until it’s too late.
“Publishers will remove purchase options” does not follow from “Publishers want to add subscription options”. The logic is not there.
If you can name more than a few games that removed their option for purchase due to something other than music licensing problems, that suggest it’s part of a move to encourage people to use subscriptions, you have a case. Otherwise, it’s fantasy. I can’t even think of a single game that’s done that.
He’s basically threatening to move to a subscription-instead-of-purchase model. They’ve toyed with this idea for years, and have been trying to normalize it.
These memes are always using terribly structured logic to justify piracy.
Agreed. Nobody needs to justify piracy. Piracy is automatically justified because the reasons people justified banning piracy were bad-faith. Digital IP is theft whose only purpose has failed.
I like game pass as an option for playing games that I don’t want to spend $60 on. But I also want the option to own it forever.
Subscription models are great when they’re not trying to fuck you. There are upsides and downsides, but if you have options between subscribing with a one-click unsub or buying games and you choose subscribe, it might just be for good reason.
I got Game Pass because I wasn’t sure I’d like Starfield. I now have 20 games installed (including Starfield) and just pause game pass when work is too busy for me to get value out of it. I’m at about $70 total spend. Yeah that’s more than starfield, but I’ve enjoyed close to $500 in games, some of which I either wouldn’t have bought and love or WOULD have bought and am glad I didn’t.
But if somebody makes you pay $20/mo for Dildo Simulator, and colors and sizes are paid DLC, then they’re just trying to fuck you.
“commies don’t want you to even own your toothbrush”
I just borrow my games for a little while then I set them free… like a butterfly if you will…
Software piracy isn’t theft because you’re not taking anything away from someone else.
That said, this meme makes no sense. You don’t own a car you rent. The car can still be stolen.
But not from the person renting it.
You pay for it, sure, but I’m not sure you “purchase” a rental car. Imho there sould be a legistlation that says you can’t use wording like “buy” or “purchase” for digital media that you don’t own. Like “buy license” or “start rental”… IDK
Sure? Stealing from a rental car company is still theft. If software piracy was theft, making that software a rental instead of a purchase doesn’t change that fact. You would still be stealing something.
Knowledge theft just can’t be compared with object theft like that. If you had a device that could perfectly replicate a car just by sitting in it, that would be closer.
Alternatively, car companies that can grenade your car’s engine if you drive somewhere they don’t like, or otherwise prevent you from using the car, while still asking for $50k+.
None of that has to do with the definitional distinction the meme is making. I’ve already said it’s not actual theft, my problem is that the argument presented is bad. Even if a customer transaction does not confer ownership, it is possible to steal the thing transacted upon. So piracy WOULD still be theft, if it was theft in the first place. The argument doesn’t work, unrelated to whether or not I agree with the conclusion.
Alternatively, car companies that can grenade your car’s engine if you drive somewhere they don’t like, or otherwise prevent you from using the car, while still asking for $50k+.
Any car that exists can be stolen. That describes a car I wouldn’t want to buy or rent, it does not describe a car which could be taken without that taking being theft.
A device that destroys itself when stolen can’t be stolen successfully. The metaphor still fails somewhat as making a new car isn’t free.
I think I see your point though; theft isn’t defined by ownership, so ownership status is not a case for theft (although they do tend to be caused by the same things). “If the plane wasn’t flying, then I didn’t crash”; crashing is not defined by flight worthiness, or even being in the air.
The logic of the idiom is in the simile though, “buying ≠ owning” has the same logical flaw; there are lots of things we buy that can’t be owned, chiefly services. Yet the expectation of the saying is that buying to own is not owning. Perhaps more explicit would be “If not giving what was payed for isn’t stealing, then taking what should be given isn’t stealing either”, or “If you take our right to own, we’ll take your right to own”.
Like most sayings, being snappy is more useful that being correct, but there’s also an important meaning there if we take the snap out of it.
Hey I’ve seen this one before!
Ubisoft needs to “get comfortable” with gamers not giving them any money.
Never was
I mean Ubisoft doesn’t make good games who gives a shit.
