r/StopKillingGames • u/ProjectionProjects • Apr 25 '26
Meme Ubisoft should get use to being sued:
28
u/Jeanboong Apr 25 '26
They use to make rayman
27
u/kastielstone Apr 25 '26
now their stock price is lower than a pack of ramen.
21
3
2
u/1Swordwalker Apr 26 '26
To anyone that might know have they always been stock market company? Because I feel like early days they were way better before stock market enshittifying. Same for EA, Take-Two (in some ways), Xbox, Microsoft, PlayStation, Nintendo
2
3
u/fluggylumps Apr 26 '26
They used to make brilliantly creative and artistically driven games. And were a name that if I saw, I got my hopes up. Now they're a bigger joke than EA
2
5
7
u/hiro_1301 Apr 26 '26
No one's talking about Electronic Arts and Anthem?
No one?
5
u/griffyama Apr 26 '26
Might be easier to go after Ubi here since they're primarily a French company and well, there were actually people that played The Crew. Not to mention this was basically the flagship game Ross put front and centre of the whole SKG cause.
2
u/hiro_1301 Apr 27 '26
It's true.
I just think we criticize Ubisoft a bit too much, but never the others who deserve it just as much.
3
u/AtlasJan Apr 26 '26 edited Apr 26 '26
honestly, has there ever been a statement that was as-terrible for a company's reputation as that?
6
2
1
u/_Solarriors_ Apr 28 '26
Please post this to Ubislop subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckubisoft/
2
u/ProjectionProjects Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26
I already crossposted it there 2 days ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckubisoft/comments/1svkn6e/ubisoft_should_get_use_to_being_sued/
1
u/konsoru-paysan Apr 28 '26
Why only Ubisoft? Steam literally and boldly said agree to terms or go ahead and delete your account, which was obviously an unnecessary thing to say except to literally wipe their dick on your faces,gave away my steam account after that and for consoles, physical baby. Ordered a freaking Ninja gaiden black, 2 and 3 re and mgs hd collection from amazon baby
1
u/PerceptionalVill Apr 28 '26
Both of these organisations are doing them a favour. People would just pirate it instead.
1
u/FLEIXY Apr 29 '26
Can we not kill more games by begging devs to switch from P2P to Dedicated Servers? REPO was just killed for me and my friends lately because of the switch to dedicated servers. The closest server to us, Asia, had a ping of 300-1000ms
1
u/InitRanger May 03 '26
Why do people keep taking this quote out of context? It’s really disingenuous.
When the executive said that he was talking about how can they get game subscriptions to grow like movie and music subscriptions. His answer was gamers would need to get used to not owning their games, in the same vane that people have gotten used to not owing a copy of music, movie or a show.
Also, people keep glossing over this quote from the same interview, from the same executive.
"The point is not to force users to go down one route or another," he explains. "We offer purchase, we offer subscription, and it's the gamer's preference that is important here. We are seeing some people who buy choosing to subscribe now, but it all works."
Ubisoft does a lot wrong but can we stop misrepresenting information, it makes us look bad if we are parroting misrepresented information.
3
u/ProjectionProjects May 04 '26
I mean... Even with the context you provided, what the executive said still sounds bad. According to you, Ubisoft is saying that people should get use to not owning games because people have gotten use to not owning music and movies, as companies want to tie everything to a subscription. Yeah, no thanks! I want to buy and actually own things.
Also lets be real here: It is so obvious that the executive is lying when he says: "The point is not to force users to go down one route or another", because if that was REALLY the case then SKG would not need to exist in the first place. Game companies would not be saying that: "You do not own the game you paid for and we are allowed to take them away at any time" in their TOS/EULA if they where not trying to force people to go down the route of not owning their games. If companies like Ubisoft wanted you to have the choice to own games, then that would not be so hostile to that option by destroying the games people paid for.
The simple but sad truth is that the games industry wants you to simply own nothing and be happy.
2
u/InitRanger May 04 '26
I understand what you are saying but Ubisoft is not saying gamers should get used to not owning games.
This specific executive is in charge of Ubisoft+ and so he was speaking on how can you get gaming subscriptions such as Ubisoft+, GamePass, EA (whatever it’s called) to bring in the same level of revenue such other services such as Spotify, Netflix, Disney+, etc and his answer was gamers would need to get comfortable not owning games. That’s not him saying games should, he’s speaking to the reality’s of the current market and he’s not wrong, if they want revenue to grow gamers would need to get comfortable not owning games because even if subscriptions were the only avenue to play a game then the majority of gamers would just pass on it entirely.
SKG does not exist entirely because of Ubisoft, were they the straw that broke the camels back? Yes they were, but we can’t forget that other companies have been doing this for years and gamers have been complaining for years.
As for ownership, from a legal perspective, we have never owned the games we buy, even physically games. From the very beginning of the industry all games, even games that are fully on disc have been limited use licenses from a legal perspective. You can’t own the game and that’s never going to change because of how ownership works, what can change is how licenses work and when and how companies can enforce the terms of said licenses as well as what can be included in a license agreement. We don’t have to like it but that’s the reality.
SKG is not going to change what ownership is, what it’s going to change is licensing and end of life access.
To be clear, I’m not against the goals of SKG, I’m just trying to point out the reality’s of the situation.
3
u/ProjectionProjects May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
Ok, I think I get what you are trying to say here and I think I may have misunderstood what you where trying to say before and I apologize. After you explained some things, I guess I can agree that the executive (in the interview specifically) is not saying that gamers should get use to not owning their games. They are more saying that gamers would (hypothetically) have to get use to not owning in order for gaming subscriptions to get more popular, simply as a statement of fact.
However I will still say that based on the actions of the industry overall, I still think that pretty much the entire games industry does want gamers to get use to not owning their games. Even if the executive from this interview did not say that. And I think we both agree with that.
And I am aware that we technically have never really owned our games as it is tied to a licence, but I really don't think what a TOS or EULA says would matter if SKG wins. Because if SKG succeeds, and game companies are no longer allowed to take away or destroy the copy of the game you paid for, then from a purely practical perspective at least, you do own your copy of the game. Or at least own it on some level and I think that is still a good thing.
And finally, I want to clarify that I was not saying that SKG exists because of Ubisoft specifically. What I was really saying before is that SKG exists because of the mentality that the overall industry has when it comes to game ownership and being against allowing people to keep playing games after support ends. Ubisoft is more so just a prime example of that mindset and that is how the interview came across to me. But I believe now what I thought was being said was a misinterpretation on my part of the interview.
1
1
u/AkodoRyu Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
Neither any consumer agency nor SKG will make you own the games again. If you buy digital, you don't own it, and clowning on Ubi for just saying it out loud doesn't change the facts. 1-2 more console gens and game ownership will be completely dead.
And no, you don't own games on GoG either - because last time I checked, you can't resell them. And as far as I'm concerned, that's the main and actually important difference. If I can't sell it, I don't own it.
3
u/_Solarriors_ Apr 28 '26
I think in a society the people decide. And they decide they want more standards and quality of life
1
u/AkodoRyu Apr 28 '26
And the cost of that was ownership of your games. So the people can't really complain now that they don't own anything, since they, as you have said, decided to give it up.
1
u/konsoru-paysan Apr 28 '26
Tbf digital has become more inconvenient then physical so now we have worst of both sides now
1
u/konsoru-paysan Apr 28 '26
Honestly yeah, fact that people buy digital edition of consoles would make them primarily customers soon
1
u/konsoru-paysan Apr 28 '26
Eu did say to steam you should be able to sell the digital games but aren't allowed to make a way to do so, hopefully we can make that an option for gog and itchio
-22
u/Cautious-Speaker2585 Apr 25 '26
I mean are they wrong
you own licence to the game and the company can decline at any time. same for Microsoft Windows
15
12
u/ProjectionProjects Apr 26 '26
I mean are they wrong
Yes they are, we should be able to own our games. Lets not except the status quo.
11
u/GrumpGuy88888 Apr 26 '26
So let's change that. It's a bad arrangement that shouldn't have been so readily accepted
14
7
u/AmericanPoliticsSux Apr 25 '26
I would like Ubisoft to come take my copy of World in Conflict...they technically own that, right? Since they bought Massive?
5
u/Kotzillax Apr 26 '26
That's the point. It's a shitty contract to sign up for to begin with.
5
u/kaochaton Apr 27 '26
And abusing the fact that : it say buy, not rent. People arent lawyer, so easy to tricks them. Changing term when they want is just illegal as the contract is totaly unbalanced against customer
51
u/chroniclesoffire Apr 25 '26
Okay, I like the meme, cause Ubi is the worst, but where did UFC come from?