Makes sense, there's been no point getting a UBI game through Steam for a while, just annoying with double DRM/launch.

shaithis
Makes sense, there's been no point getting steam to pay them 70% of the sale price on game and DLC when they can have 100% all to themselves.

FTFY. Also, £50 for a game, Ubisoft? What on Earth are you smoking?

aidanjt
FTFY. Also, £50 for a game, Ubisoft? What on Earth are you smoking?

What's wrong with that? 20 years ago games cost £45 or so. In real terms £50 is still cheaper.

kalniel
What's wrong with that? 20 years ago games cost £45 or so. In real terms £50 is still cheaper.

20 Years ago games weren't broken on release.
20 Years ago unit sales were much lower
20 Years ago there wasn't the tools available to create content easily
20 Years ago they weren't throwing out yearly map-packs and calling them a full product

I could go on……

shaithis
20 Years ago games weren't broken on release.

Some were.

20 Years ago unit sales were much lower

True. Then again, development and support costs were much lower too.

20 Years ago there wasn't the tools available to create content easily

And you didn't need them either - modern environment is far more diverse and complicated, requiring use of those tools.

20 Years ago they weren't throwing out yearly map-packs and calling them a full product

Neither are they today.

kalniel
What's wrong with that? 20 years ago games cost £45 or so. In real terms £50 is still cheaper.

20 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find a new PC game that cost more than £35. And it didn't need a salvo of extra DLC.

aidanjt
20 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find a new PC game that cost more than £35. And it didn't need a salvo of extra DLC.

I disagree - there were tons of games - look at the ones Origin output - Wing Commanders 1-5, Strike commander etc, paid ‘DLC’ just to add bits of speech even! Extra mission packs, all sorts.

kalniel
I disagree - there were tons of games - look at the ones Origin output - Wing Commanders 1-5, Strike commander etc, paid ‘DLC’ just to add bits of speech even! Extra mission packs, all sorts.

Back then, expansions pack extended the game's progression, it didn't amend the original content. Sure, you might find the odd exceptions, but it wasn't the rule in any way at all.

aidanjt
Back then, expansions pack extended the game's progression, it didn't amend the original content. Sure, you might find the odd exceptions, but it wasn't the rule in any way at all.

It's not the rule now either. Back then you could buy speech packs etc. that didn't extend progression. Now you can still buy extensions to the game's progression. Really very little has changed except our demand for more for less and sense of entitlement.

kalniel
It's not the rule now either. Back then you could buy speech packs etc. that didn't extend progression. Now you can still buy extensions to the game's progression. Really very little has changed except our demand for more for less and sense of entitlement.

You could say that, you could also say what was the exception then is now the norm. That alone is a big change.

I've avoided all other recent Ubisoft games on Steam anyway, since like alot of people I don't want to deal with a double-drm situation. I've had too many games, particularly Rockstar tbh, that just haven't worked, or taken alot of messing about to work, on Steam due to the insistance of these companies to use their own DRM too, instead of just having it Steam-only, which I am perfectly fine with.

So is this Ubi wanting to push their own DRM store? or taking cash from Nvidia for “exclusives”?

Either way. retarded move. Just ensured i wont bother with any of it. There will be plenty of other games to choose from.

I'm not sure that I see the point of comments about 20 years ago or how they are relevant now.

I could talk about how Codemaster games used to cost £1.99 just 30 years and would sell thousands of copies but now a new release costs £30 and sells hundreds of thousands of copies. If the point that's being made is that games are too expensive the solution is simple, don't buy them or look for someone that's selling them at a lower price.

If Ubisoft removes their products from the Steam store they also remove the primary route to their product for many of their customers, but not all of their customers, I can only assume that they have looked at their figures and seen they are selling enough units outside of Steam for them to justify the move. Would I buy more Ubisoft titles from the UPlay store at the current prices when it is already possible to buy titles like Assassin's Creed Unity for less than £34, The Crew for less than £30 and even Far Cry 4 for less than £32 on eBay? Of course not, but then I wouldn't buy them through Steam if I could either.

I think it's also fair to say that when we're talking about PC games, 20 years ago they were still cheaper than console games, not at parity.

Strange that you can still purchase these Ubi titles in the UK via EA Origin.

Even having to deal with UPlay I'd still prefer Steam as the game will download via Steam, and those servers are much, MUCH better for big downloads that UPlay's. What I'll do is order the games via a CD Key website and pay £26.99 for each instead of the ridiculous prices they're charging for just the basic versions of the digital SKUs.

KeyboardDemon
I'm not sure that I see the point of comments about 20 years ago or how they are relevant now.

Follow the quote chain ;) It was in response to a ‘how can you charge £50 for a game?’ type comment. Point was, that used to happen quite a lot. If it was ‘how you can you charge £50 for a game today?’ then I'd have a bit more sympathy, though I think there's still quite an argument for it. But at one point in history, and arguably, today as well, the answer is that you can quite easily charge £50 for a game and allow market forces to dictate whether that business model works or not - it worked in the past and seems to be working now. No-one is forced to play the game when it's first released after all.

Best of all today, is that we have a range of games and day one prices - even from within Ubisoft. Child of Light I keep mentioning, both as an excellent game compared to their other offerings, but also great value.

I stopped playing Battlefield games when they decided not to use steam. Having multiple different launchers for the end user is a pain in the bum hole. First of all you need to find all your friends on both, then you need to try to get overlays working, which inevitably they won't. Then you need to have them all running all the time in case a friend contacts you on one preferentially over another…

No. Enough.

I'll not use origin, and I won't buy games that break away from steam. Make those agreements work, ubisoft. No excuses.

As far as I'm concerned, whether it's £40 or £50, it's quite a lot of money for a game, so for me to pay that, it needs to be a game I really want. And if it's a game I really want, then whether it's £40 or £50 is pretty much immaterial.

Of MUCH more interest to me is the implications on DRM of them not being on Steam. What, exactly, do Ubisoft mean by them being available from “retail partners”? And what will the DRM be?

I know I'm the exception not the rule, but if any of these require Steam (or Steam-type online authentication), and my guess is they do, then whether they're £5 or £50 is irrelevant because I wouldn't buy them at either price. But if they can be bought retail, and don't require such forms of online authentication, then I'm very interested. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that that's the case.

kalniel
Follow the quote chain ;) It was in response to a ‘how can you charge £50 for a game?’ type comment. Point was, that used to happen quite a lot. If it was ‘how you can you charge £50 for a game today?’ then I'd have a bit more sympathy, though I think there's still quite an argument for it. But at one point in history, and arguably, today as well, the answer is that you can quite easily charge £50 for a game and allow market forces to dictate whether that business model works or not - it worked in the past and seems to be working now. No-one is forced to play the game when it's first released after all.

Best of all today, is that we have a range of games and day one prices - even from within Ubisoft. Child of Light I keep mentioning, both as an excellent game compared to their other offerings, but also great value.

Ok, thanks, I see how that played out. But to tell the truth, I still think that the RRP/SRP makes no difference anymore, I think people are shopping around and buying keys on places like eBay, Green Man Gaming, Gamefly and others. I think this will continue and grow until the publishers will be forced to look at their pricing policies and bring those in line with what their audience can afford or are willing to pay.

As for the move for Ubisoft to pull away from Steam, this would be more of an issue if I were playing multiplayer titles, but as it is I only play the story/campaign modes in their games, AC series, FC3, Splinter Cell and Watch Dogs (not really played Watch Dogs yet). I have their games have highly immersive stories and worlds, amazing graphics to enjoy and enough going on to keep me entertained for many hours, I have never found the same level of enjoyment from the multiplayer side of the games that I get from playing through the story mode.

As for the MP games that I do play, I tend to only play those alongside a small select group of people, so while I might be on a big BF4 server with 64 people in game, I will only be talking to a handful of those people using Biscuit's TS server and tend to ignore comments and remarks from the rest of them, so I haven't even added any friends to Uplay and have just a few on Origin, plus when I start Steam it has me set to offline so nobody knows when I am logged in unless I want them to.

KeyboardDemon
….

As for the move for Ubisoft to pull away from Steam, this would be more of an issue if I were playing multiplayer titles, but as it is I only play the story/campaign modes in their games, AC series, FC3, Splinter Cell and Watch Dogs (not really played Watch Dogs yet). I have their games have highly immersive stories and worlds, amazing graphics to enjoy and enough going on to keep me entertained for many hours, I have never found the same level of enjoyment from the multiplayer side of the games that I get from playing through the story mode.

As for the MP games that I do play, I tend to only play those alongside a small select group of people, so while I might be on a big BF4 server with 64 people in game, I will only be talking to a handful of those people using Biscuit's TS server and tend to ignore comments and remarks from the rest of them, so I haven't even added any friends to Uplay and have just a few on Origin, plus when I start Steam it has me set to offline so nobody knows when I am logged in unless I want them to.

I have a similar preference, in that I either play single player (presumably, ‘story mode’), or with a select and local group of friends. Most of the time, that mesns two of us, ‘co-op’ mode.

And I'm equipped to do that entirely locally.

Most of my machines, including the ones I use for gaming, don't have a net connection, and they don't have it for several reasons, among which are not needing it, and security. Anything requiring ANY form of online authentication, therefore, is a major headache at best, and a non-starter typically.

Also, I'm just not prepared to spend hundreds or thousands of pounds, over a period, on games where ANY company can decide I've somehow breached it's T&C's and can effectively render that expenditure useless from that point on, at any time between today and some unknown future point in time, by locking my account. I often go back, years later, and replay games I really enjoyed. Like, right now, Thief (v1) and a couple of the Myst series. That might be months, even years later. I still have the (working) hardware necessary to play Apple II games, bought before a “PC” was even a twinkle in IBMs eyes. Hell, that was late 70s. ;)

Yeah, extreme I know, but I'm just not forking out forty or fifty quid a time for games Steam can render useless any time they wish. I have no real objection to effective DRM, however much a pain, like CD check, provided that on buying it, I can install and re-install when I wish, without getting online permission.

So for me, moving away from Steam could be highly interesting provided it doesn't mean substituting one form of online authentication for another equally unacceptable, and probably less polished, form.

If it does, it's back to waiting to see what appears on GOG, etc. And, happily, saving a flipping fortune over release prices in the process. As I'm not really interested in online multiplayer gaming anyway (done it in the past, got bored with it), failing to keep up with the latest releases doesn't bother me.

Very definitely, I suspect, I'm in a minority and probably a small one, or Steam, for all the other benefits, would have died out years ago.

Highly anticipated Ubisoft games return to Steam (except in the UK)
http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/anton-shilov/highly-anticipated-ubisoft-games-return-to-steam/

I will happily buy games through Steam, but I will never buy a game that's uPlay / Origin only.

If Far Cry 4 is uPlay only, I'm not interested. I'd rather have double DRM than uPlay only.

Saracen
I have a similar preference, in that I either play single player (presumably, ‘story mode’), or with a select and local group of friends. Most of the time, that mesns two of us, ‘co-op’ mode.

And I'm equipped to do that entirely locally.

Most of my machines, including the ones I use for gaming, don't have a net connection, and they don't have it for several reasons, among which are not needing it, and security. Anything requiring ANY form of online authentication, therefore, is a major headache at best, and a non-starter typically.

Also, I'm just not prepared to spend hundreds or thousands of pounds, over a period, on games where ANY company can decide I've somehow breached it's T&C's and can effectively render that expenditure useless from that point on, at any time between today and some unknown future point in time, by locking my account. I often go back, years later, and replay games I really enjoyed. Like, right now, Thief (v1) and a couple of the Myst series. That might be months, even years later. I still have the (working) hardware necessary to play Apple II games, bought before a “PC” was even a twinkle in IBMs eyes. Hell, that was late 70s. ;)

Yeah, extreme I know, but I'm just not forking out forty or fifty quid a time for games Steam can render useless any time they wish. I have no real objection to effective DRM, however much a pain, like CD check, provided that on buying it, I can install and re-install when I wish, without getting online permission.

So for me, moving away from Steam could be highly interesting provided it doesn't mean substituting one form of online authentication for another equally unacceptable, and probably less polished, form.

If it does, it's back to waiting to see what appears on GOG, etc. And, happily, saving a flipping fortune over release prices in the process. As I'm not really interested in online multiplayer gaming anyway (done it in the past, got bored with it), failing to keep up with the latest releases doesn't bother me.

Very definitely, I suspect, I'm in a minority and probably a small one, or Steam, for all the other benefits, would have died out years ago.

In the recent past, Ubisoft games bought through steam required you to install, ‘uplay’ which is basically their version of steam. So this was ultimately double DRM… And your worst nightmare.

I don't invisage this removing internet based DRM as Ubisoft love it, just that the game won't be in the Steam store.

Biscuit
In the recent past, Ubisoft games bought through steam required you to install, ‘uplay’ which is basically their version of steam. So this was ultimately double DRM… And your worst nightmare.

I don't invisage this removing internet based DRM as Ubisoft love it, just that the game won't be in the Steam store.

Sadly, I don't envisage it either. I can hope for a while, maybe, but I'd be stunned if you were wrong on that.

shaithis
20 Years ago games weren't broken on release.
20 Years ago unit sales were much lower
20 Years ago there wasn't the tools available to create content easily
20 Years ago they weren't throwing out yearly map-packs and calling them a full product

I could go on……

Some great points all of which I strongly agree with.

Games cost more for one reason and that is greed of the shareholder type.

I have really given some thought to if I will buy either of these titles as I just don't like the business practise of UBI soft and the fact I can't use Steam, although the later part is more cosmetic out of both games I have spent much longer playing AC 4 which I have put well over 140 hrs into as opposed to 60hrs for Far Cry 3.

Suits me fine. I haven't bought an Ubisoft game in years and I doubt I ever will again, even if they somehow make a good one at some point in the future (very unlikely)

£50+ for games that are as badly broken as recent Ubi titles have been? Jog on.

If I decide to buy these then it won't be for at least another three months - because by then we'll have had some of the more obnoxious bugs dealt with and the price will have come down to a level that isn't crazy money. Kids were asking if dad wanted a game bought for Christmas and I've said no.

As someone above said, there's plenty of decent titles to while away the long winter nights with. I've got at least three A rated titles to finish - one of which was last Christmas's Assassin's Creed.

(And if anyone's got a fix for AC:BF locking up on the sea battle stages, then I'll bless you for weeks)

I don't understand the Steam-only attitude. It might be convenient for a user but it's rather anti-competition. It was certainly inevitable that the big publishers would seek to wrest back control of their own distribution and the money they make, once they could build or lease the infrastructure (e.g. CDN) to do so at a cheaper rate than Steam's. I suppose the trouble is that by getting into bed with Steam in the first place they're now having to pay the price for that. I guess Blizzard had the right idea!

Moongrazer
I don't understand the Steam-only attitude.

Nobody said steam only. They said we want steam, as well. That's more competition, not less, or at least as much competition that can be had in the content market.

Moongrazer
I don't understand the Steam-only attitude. It might be convenient for a user but it's rather anti-competition. It was certainly inevitable that the big publishers would seek to wrest back control of their own distribution and the money they make, once they could build or lease the infrastructure (e.g. CDN) to do so at a cheaper rate than Steam's. I suppose the trouble is that by getting into bed with Steam in the first place they're now having to pay the price for that. I guess Blizzard had the right idea!

I know what you're getting at, but I disagree with some of it.
Specifically while you're 100% correct that EA and Ubi both want to bring everything in house, the problem has been that their competing products (Origin and uPlay) haven't been that good. Origin especially has been widely vilified for being bloated and slow. uPlay on the other hand is just obnoxious for the sake of it. Although, to be fair, both are light years better than they were this time last year.

Steam, on the other hand, is a no-brainer much of the time. Apart from fun with initial connection (sometimes it decides I'm not on the net, but restart the client and it suddenly spots that I am) it's invisible - it just works.

Actually there's the core of my criticism of non-Steam systems. None of them seem to have had the wit to look at Steam's strengths and try and match them, while simultaneously dealing with it's drawbacks. Then again, Origin and uPlay are all about control rather than any convenience for the poor users. Although Origin's periodic free deals are pretty good. :)

crossy
Steam, on the other hand, is a no-brainer much of the time. Apart from fun with initial connection (sometimes it decides I'm not on the net, but restart the client and it suddenly spots that I am) it's invisible - it just works.

I have this issue too!

crossy
Steam, on the other hand, is a no-brainer much of the time. Apart from fun with initial connection (sometimes it decides I'm not on the net, but restart the client and it suddenly spots that I am) it's invisible - it just works.

While I'm certainly with you on the reliability front, I'd rather these services exist than simply give Steam total dominance over the digital PC gaming domain.

I've not had problems with Origin but I'm not a heavy user (because Steam still houses 98% of my games collection).

Steam still has some notable imperfections, which I guess are more obvious if you're a developer than purely a consumer. Surrendering control of your updates and extra content to Steam gives you considerably less agility if you have a problem with your product than it does if your distribution is in-house. Only as recently as two weeks ago did Civ: Beyond Earth have a glitch which meant that the free soundtrack that should have been included wasn't unpacked from the game's distribution, and the only way Firaxis have been able to fix this was a week afterwards with a Steam Beta hack (because updating the main game distro will take longer).

Also, Steam's unlock procedure for new games on release is forever a disappointment. I honestly don't know how this compares to other platforms, but when Civilization V came out I was up at midnight eagerly waiting for the release, only to be disappointed because for whatever reason the servers were not activating. Fast forward to Civ: Beyond Earth and Firaxis were promising that everyone's copies would unlock at midnight. Did they? Hell no! The odd person claimed to have gotten in but, despite numerous restarts of Steam, most of us were left high and dry for a couple of hours.

I don't happen to think Steam's UI is that great and I find myself wishing that the social aspect (particularly chat history with friends) was as fully featured as some of the big web social platforms.

These aren't the sorts of problems that make Steam bad by any means, but they're also the reason I want there to be more competition in digital PC distribution.

OMG!!! MOM, they changed the DRM!!!

shaithis
20 Years ago games weren't broken on release.
20 Years ago unit sales were much lower
20 Years ago there wasn't the tools available to create content easily
20 Years ago they weren't throwing out yearly map-packs and calling them a full product

I could go on……

20 years ago:

1) Games couldn't be broken on release as there was pretty much no way to update them. However the advent of the patch is not a new thing.

2) Unit sales were lower. Presumably the basis of a flawed view that this justified higher unit price? Development of games costs millions now, with teams of hundreds, completely dwarfing the budgets and man hours of older games. As an industry the risk is greater. As a capitalist society the purpose is profit, your hobby and enjoyment are a byproduct. Argue all you like, your point will stand alone.

3) Tools to create content easily are born of technological improvement and success of the industry. Quality has improved vastly but so have standards. You couldn't put a game out today to the standard of a 20 year old game and have it sell. Plus it doesn't make content a no brainer to produce, you still need talent else why don't you make your own games instead of buying other people's?

4) The yearly map pack argument is valid but I don't see how it applies here. If you get a game for your money then adding stuff later is just that and you don't have to buy it or indeed the game. Plus if you're really tight just wait 12 months, get it cheaper and complete as a GOTY edition or something.

I have to disagree slightly with point 3. Look at Candy Crush / Flappy Bird etc. Massive money makers but not necessarily high ‘quality’ in the gaming sense. But goes to show that playability is still just as important as graphics etc. Plenty of high budget games have had shocking playability and bombed on release. I still think people are more interested in new and interesting ways of playing, games that have a decent storyline and new interaction rather than just the same old first person shooter just with different clothes for the bad guys and different scenery.

shaithis
Makes sense, there's been no point getting a UBI game through Steam for a while, just annoying with double DRM/launch.

Bought Farcry $ through Origins and only need to run uplay to play. Would that not be case with steam? Dont have any Ubisoft games on steam so cant tell.

Shahman
Bought Farcry $ through Origins and only need to run uplay to play. Would that not be case with steam? Dont have any Ubisoft games on steam so cant tell.

You need both if you order Ubisoft games through Steam.