this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
627 points (98.8% liked)

Games

16812 readers
854 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Larian director of publishing Michael Douse, never one to be shy about speaking his mind, has spoken his mind about Ubisoft's decision to disband the Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown development team, saying it's the result of a "broken strategy" that prioritizes subscriptions over sales.

Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown is quite good. PC Gamer's Mollie Taylor felt it was dragged down by a very slow start, calling it "a slow burn to a fault" in an overall positive review, and it holds an enviable 86 aggregate score on Metacritic. Despite that, Ubisoft recently confirmed that the development team has been scattered to the four winds to work on "other projects that will benefit from their expertise."

This, Douse feels, is at least partially the outcome of Ubisoft's focus on subscriptions over conventional game sales—the whole "feeling comfortable with not owning your game" thing espoused by Ubisoft director of subscriptions Philippe Tremblay earlier this year—and the decision to stop releasing games on Steam, which is far and away the biggest digital storefront for PC gaming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Gamers be like "We don't mind not owning our games as long as we don't own them through the monopoly that we like, ok?"

[–] narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

If you're talking about Steam, while it provides its own DRM system, games can be published on there without any DRM whatsoever, so you can do whatever you want with the downloaded files and then play the game without Steam.

[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

And baldur's gate 3 is one such game, it only runs the steam service (which includes a check that you actually can play the game either through ownership or family sharing) when steam is actually running so you can join multiplayer properly.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Valve has a good track record, and you’ve never owned a game in your life. They’ve always been a license, with few exceptions. Even physical media.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The difference being that I can resell a physical media, even at a profit if there's enough demand for it, and to most people that's the definition of ownership.

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Defining ownership as "can I sell this" is ridiculous

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

If you can't dispose of it by selling it to someone else, your don't own it. Notice how even DRM free games are just the purchase of a license and the distributor can revoke your right to use that license? Yeah, do you don't own DRM free games either.

[–] inlandempire@jlai.lu 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Indeed but being able to dispose of something by selling it does not automatically means you owned it

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Unless you're acting as a proxy for the owner, yes it does.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

If you buy something out of some guy's trunk in a parking lot, it does not mean that guy owned it before selling it to you.

[–] Squirrelanna@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If that's the definition of ownership we're going with, does the fact that I can sell my steam account mean I do actually own every game on it regardless of DRM? Also, does a lack of a demand for a game degrade your ownership?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You can't though (not by following the terms you agreed to) and Valve can ban you or remove your right to use the license you paid for whenever they want.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Mostly yes, especially if you're a big AAA publisher, so your game won't get buried under cheap shovelware and the latest AAA slop. Also don't forget that Steam barely does any moderation, especially once you become a power user, so hate groups will buy your game, leave a negative review, then refund it, because a YouTuber named Prof. Chud called it anti-white and anti-male...

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Ya I trust Steam more than Ubisoft. I feel like that's pretty reasonable?

[–] v0rld@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Sure that's reasonable at the moment. And while it seems Gaben would never sell out, he is going to die at some point. What's going to happen to steam / valve after that?

[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Lets fight the battles we've got, man.

The inner-circle at Valve might be tighter than we assume. The next three or four in line might be just as aligned with Gabe. There's a chance they aren't, but Gabe made it this far with the people he's working with, I'd say he probably picks people he trusts.

[–] v0rld@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hope you're right. I'm future proofing anyway by preferring DRM-free stores when possible.

[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Let Joy have the console for a while, Anxiety.

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

I wouldn't know. We'd probably have to re-evaluate the situation when it comes to that.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Just pointing out the hypocrisy

[–] lowleveldata@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago

Do you really find no difference in buying games (or the license to play them) and subscription services?

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

You don't know the definition of monopoly then

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

Yes I do and yes one platform is in a monopolistic position and people keep defending them.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Let me guess, Windows also not a monopoly, because Linux exist, and it's just a loud minority that doesn't like their data monitored by third parties for "ad" purposes.