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.
I mean given the massive industry layoffs over the past few years developers are already pretty used to not having jobs.
I hate how developers are the ones attributed to game industry problems. Decisions like this almost never fall on the developers shoulders, specifically the ownership quote was from their subscription service director. You know… the guy whose job depends on you not wanting to own games.
Agreed, I’m always saddened by quotes like “well the devs should have” when it’s almost certainly “the execs should have.” Unless a studio is owned by its devs, or they make up some of its leadership, which are few and far between, the devs don’t have the say on the shitty things that happen to the product they’re working on, and often when the devs have more say you end up with like Kingdom Come Deliverance from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhorse_Studios. One of my favorite games, was supported by the studio for long after it came out, and now they’re working on a promising sequel
Fwiw the sequel is supposedly going to have Denuvo in it, which is pretty blatantly an executive meddling decision.
But personally, the phrase “the devs should” never bothers me. It’s pretty transparently referring not to individual developers but to the priorities and decisions of the “developer”: the company in charge of development, as distinct from, say, the publisher or the platform.
As a huge KCD fan (donated to the Kickstarter!) I have very, very low hopes for KCD2.
It will have Denuvo. Warhorse is awesome, but they are already not great at optimization. KCD on launch was rough. Amazing, fun, but rough.
Adding Denuvo is just asking for exceptionally poor performance.
Ah that’s disappointing to hear. And also probably extends my point that now warhorse has grown, and their execs are making bad calls that I’m sure the devs would choose not to make
Worst part is, they got acquired the year after release, so even if KC:D 2 is good, their games in the more distant future are bound to be enshittified.
Even worse that acquisition links back to the Embracer Group. Hopefully KC:D 2 makes it out the door before Embracer full fucks up Warhorse.
Seems they already did. KCD2 will have Denuvo.
Let’s put CPU heavy malware on an already CPU taxing game from a dev team known for not having the best optimization. Wcgw?
The studios owned by the devs almost uniformly don’t put out complete gacha cash grab bullshit
In the past decade, game companies have been releasing devs after a game is finished. I have a few friends in the gaming industry, and it’s brutal as a software engineer.
Yeah I’m really glad I didn’t get on that track even though it had been a childhood dream
My favorite thing is Ubisoft blaming something and then gaming companies going, “Uh no? That’s just you.”
That’s every publisher’s wet dream. AI’s almost ready, right?
god I wanna see them fail so badly.
deleted by creator
You can get it through gog where it’s DRM free. So I would say, yes you can
deleted by creator
Even the Stream version doesn’t require Steam. You can just run the executable. A few folks over on Reddit claim they’ve given the game to their friends just by copying the files from an external drive.
The multiplayer also works no problem without Steam. I own the game on Steam and I did a playthrough with friends who torrented it. They just had to keep the patches up to date manually.
Love how that worked but me and my friends had version issues even though all 3 of us own the game on steam
deleted by creator
Yeah but is that technically purchasing the game, or just a license? Not that they have any means of enforcement if it’s DRM-free but you still might not technically own it.
Practically, outside of second-hand sales, there’s no difference between e.g. GOGs offline installer and a physical copy of the game. No, you don’t technically own it, but for all intents and purposes you do.
Legally it’s still a licence.
You can. There are physical , drm free, releases and drm free releases on gog :p No online required either. So yes, you can :)
All consumer software is only available as a license. That is how the law is written, if you hate that fact you need to lobby for changing the law.
Point me to the EU law which clearly states this, please.
EU is similarly confused about first sale doctrine as the US is. Steam was ordered to allow games reselling by a French court but eventually got it reversed on appeal, for example. https://www.bfmtv.com/amp/tech/gaming/la-justice-se-prononce-contre-le-droit-de-revendre-ses-jeux-video-dematerialises_AN-202210240308.html
This is despite the first sale doctrine being established as part of digital media in the EU with https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=A87D18058F3F93DB5719943E51D3B25F?text=&docid=121981&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6657274
First sale doctrine applies to some software and not to others(often having to do with possessing physical media). Their general argument that it doesn’t is when they say it’s a “license” but that license gets superseded by the first sale doctrine where applicable. It’s a general shit show.
Edit: an example of the shit show nature of this: “Can you modify a copyrighted work you were sold and then resell it without the copyright owner’s permission?” The courts are split on this with one saying yes and another saying no. And mind you that’s just pasting pictures onto things with no EULA involved. What happens if you modify a physical representation of software and resell it? If Nintendo or John Deer decided to place restrictions on the resale of consoles, forcing them to be above a certain value or in violation of their copyright license re the software inside the console/tractor, would that violate the first sale doctrine? Who knows.
It’s all a distraction from the truth that you already don’t own games.
GOG is a slight argument against that
It depends on your definition of ownership. If having perpetual access to a product is enough then yes. But we aren’t allowed to, say, disassemble a game and use it’s assets to make something of our own. As opposed to say a spoon. Nobody can tell me how I can and can’t use my spoon.
It’s not realistic to demand to own games in the same way as a spoon any time soon. It is, however, pretty reasonable to demand you own games like you’d own a book. You can chop up a book and use it to make a paper maché dog, but you can’t chop up the words within to make a new derivative book (or just copy them as its to get another copy of the same book except for a single backup that you’re not allowed to transfer to someone else unless you also give them the original). The important things you can do with a book but not a game under the current system, even with Gog, are things like selling it on or giving it away when you’re done with it and lending it out like a library.
About a hundred years ago, book publishers tried using licence agreements in books to restrict them in similar ways to how games and other software are restricted today, but courts decided that was completely unreasonable, and put a stop to it. In the US, that’s called the First Sale Doctrine, but it has other names elsewhere or didn’t even need naming. All the arguments that applied to books apply equally well to software, so consumers should demand the same rights.
Oh yeah, I understand. I was just trying to describe the difference between ownership and a perpetual license in overly simplified terms. Also, can you think of any examples of digital goods that retain first sale doctrine? With physical disks at least a second hand market still exists for that very reason, but I can’t think of any digital media that allow resale. I would love to be wrong!
Microsoft actually was going to allow that starting with the Xbox One.
IIRC, the way they were going to implement it would be to make a license transferrable X times a year. They were also going to allow free sharing of digital games to friends that had been on your friends list for at least 30 days.
But then people freaked out over it when they showed it off at the Xbox One reveal due to the fact that digitally-purchased games would have always-online requirements to keep people from duplicating games by installing them, disconnecting from the internet, then logging in elsewhere and sharing the game with a friend.
So after the backlash they pulled the plan. And that really stinks because they still have always-online requirements for digital games. You just can’t sell or share them now.
Sorry to necro this but I just saw in the latest LTT vid that apparently Microsoft did go through with this plan? They were talking about it in the context of the diskless xbox that just released. https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/xbox/forum/all/how-to-transfer-content-licenses/7ac76f4e-c7e4-4153-8824-1e424478b02d
I know you didn’t ask, but may I volunteer a car engine instead of a spoon. There’s still IP involved in a car engine, but nobody is going to tell me I cant put my VW engine in Honda and sell it.
Yeah that’s more comparable. I was mostly just trying to state the difference between ownership and a perpetual license but I’m thinking I oversimplified lol.
Haha, I just happened to be watching engine swap videos earlier today and thought it fit well!
You can make mods for many games and many people do.
Yes, but you can’t use their assets to make other games or products.
You can add whatever you want to Skyrim, but you can’t add Skrim to whatever you like.
You can. If your project gets big enough, they’ll take legal action. But you can definitely get away with fan projects.
Also with physical objects, you can’t legally do whatever you want either. There’s nothing physically stopping you from taking a piece of wood and carving it into any shape you like. But if you make a big enough project out of it, you may eventually run into legal issues. It could be related to IP like patents, trademarks, or copyright, or it could be something like safety.
It’s ok to make a hamburger for your friends at a cookout, but if you start selling your burgers or distributing them in mass, your government may expect you to follow food safety laws, and you can’t market your burgers as “McDonalds”.
Believe it or not, “It’s only illegal if you get caught” isn’t how copyright works.
Having to fly under the radar or risk financial ruin doesn’t sound like ownership to me.
Then I guess none of us really own anything in a society.
Except Battle for Wesnoth and Pingus.
Maybe OpenRCT and Osu! a little further down the line.
lol ubisoft publishes a good game once in a blue moon and when they do they disband the team that does it. seriously these motherfuckers need to be jailed.
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?”
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.
Oh so you can resell your used copy?
Plenty of people sell accounts with a specific game activated on it.
I guess you could sell a literal copy, yeah. But ironically, the lack of DRM binding that copy to an account by a user makes a “proof of original ownership” harder, if that’s what you want.
That’s not how it works with digital goods, but that’s a limitation of digital goods really.
It is really both, the law tries way too hard to pretend digital data is goods that can be thought of in individual instances like physical goods can. That is how misconceptions like “owning” or “reselling” are put into people’s heads in the first place.
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.
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.
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…
Ya I trust Steam more than Ubisoft. I feel like that’s pretty reasonable?
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?
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.
I hope you’re right. I’m future proofing anyway by preferring DRM-free stores when possible.
Let Joy have the console for a while, Anxiety.
I wouldn’t know. We’d probably have to re-evaluate the situation when it comes to that.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy
Do you really find no difference in buying games (or the license to play them) and subscription services?
You don’t know the definition of monopoly then
Yes I do and yes one platform is in a monopolistic position and people keep defending them.
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.
This is to bad, I really enjoyed this game one of the better platformers to come out in a long time.
Flash news: you dont own your steam games and you’re use to it. This “Ubisoft is the bad guy” but we all lick steam and others capitalist business’s ass is getting ridiculous. Steam has 78 employees lol. Dont buy ubi’s games and stop crying.
