Do you support on-demand game streaming? Ubisoft says we need to get comfortable with it.

mekhere

The problem I have with this kind of on demand game streaming platform, is that when you uninstall the game, because something glitched or you log out for an extended period of time, the character you have worked on for a year and a half is deleted/wiped and you have to start all over again. Has anyone else noticed this? Or is it just me?  I love the idea of having a TV App to stream my games with a wireless keyboard and mouse. I even think it help with preventing cheaters and hackers. I just can't handle losing my progress. 

TV Steam Game Streaming App or On Demand Game Streaming? Which one do you prefer? I personally prefer the TV Game Steam Streaming App. I think the TV would provide a more secure PII option. 


You don't own your games anymore – ‘get comfortable with it' says Ubisoft (msn.com)

vonryan123

Nope won't be interested. Where I live mother nature often dictates if the entire region has internet.

Kyleran

Partially explains why I never have played an Ubisoft game in over 20 years, they are full of sh!t ideas.

Tiller

Hell no, no more subscription cloud based shite...just sell me the f****ing program and piss off. 

Kinda like Adobe and their Creative Cloud trap. Pay a LOT of money for things you don't use, or pay a WHOLELOTTA money for only the things you want to use.... but if you want to save money you gotta commit to a year of it. Don't you dare cancel early muthaf***ka because we taking your money and giving you nothing, kinda like when you leave the local strip club.  

kitarad

No it's too risky. I have no faith in these platforms.

Scot

Well I play Ubisoft games, but should we be comfortable putting ourselves more in the hand of studios and streaming platforms? They want us to own nothing while making out we own everything. They will push NFT's while making it impossible to play a game offline, push poor performance and call it good performance.

mekhere

Scot said:

They want us to own nothing while making out we own everything.

I never thought the World Economic Forum would try and tell us how to game. I don't understand how deleting my progress saves the virtual environment from pollution or cools off my PC when I play for extended hours, but I will not rent everything and still be happy.    

Quizzical

A whole lot of gamers expect to be able to download and run the games that they want to play.  Ubisoft is the one that needs to get comfortable with that rather than trying to convince gamers to pay more money for an inferior service.  Computer games are a highly competitive market, and if Ubisoft were to abruptly vanish, many gamers would never even notice.

Scot

mekhere said:

Scot said:

They want us to own nothing while making out we own everything.

I never thought the World Economic Forum would try and tell us how to game. I don't understand how deleting my progress saves the virtual environment from pollution or cools off my PC when I play for extended hours, but I will not rent everything and still be happy.    

Green and Fair Trade are brands stuck on all sorts of things, which may or may not be doing what they say they will deliver. If a supermarket is being paid extra money for a product how much investigation of the green initiative do you think they mount? If a government policy changes new storage heaters to supposedly makes them more green how many people do you think will investigate those claims? A box has been ticked, it's green it must be good.

As this has got a bit political that's my last post on the issue here.

cameltosis

I still maintain that Ubisoft is probably the best of the AAA devs/publishers. Ofc, that's not a high bar to clear, and Ubisoft is still guilty of many bad things, just like the others. But, imo they take more risks with their game design than the other big studios, they actually try to make their games better than before. They don't often succeed, but I like that they try.

On streaming games, I can see where the Ubisoft guy is coming from with regards to recent history of music and film. And who knows, maybe one day he'll be proven correct and we'll all be streaming games too.

But I doubt it.

The main reason I doubt it is the way we consume different media.

Music and film is passively consumed and delivered in a linear fashion. This means that you can buffer the media, you can check that buffer for errors and re-transmit any missing data. The user never notices, and if something does go wrong? Well, basically no consequences. Your user might be a bit annoyed at some lag or screen tearing but otherwise it's all good.

Games are actively consumed and non-linear. You can't buffer the next 5 minutes of gameplay because you have no idea what you user is going to do. This means that data-loss or corruption (which are unavoidable) is going to have an immediate impact, as well as a bigger impact. A short lag spike might result in dieing, losing 15mins of gametime or whatever. Gamers won't stand for that.

So, I just don't think that streaming will be able to replace locally-installed games. I also don't think it's a technology thing either. Doesn't matter how fast or reliable your internet connect is, there will always, always, be data loss.

With regards to save games, I don't really care where they are stored. What I care about is control. I want to be able to create, manage, delete my saves as per my own preferences.

For example, I really enjoyed Ubisoft's Steep, a winter sports game. Bloody amazing game! But one day I decided I wanted to restart, go through the whole game again.....but I couldn't, because the save game is tied to my account name and stored in the cloud, but I had no control. Literally no way to restart the game.

More recently, I bought Forza Horizon 4, but my save game got corrupted so I couldn't play the game at all. No way to start a new save game, so I got in contact with customer support. They simply told me "tough luck, we can't do anything either". I got a refund on that one.

Kyleran

cameltosis said:

I still maintain that Ubisoft is probably the best of the AAA devs/publishers. Ofc, that's not a high bar to clear, and Ubisoft is still guilty of many bad things, just like the others. But, imo they take more risks with their game design than the other big studios, they actually try to make their games better than before. They don't often succeed, but I like that they try.

On streaming games, I can see where the Ubisoft guy is coming from with regards to recent history of music and film. And who knows, maybe one day he'll be proven correct and we'll all be streaming games too.

But I doubt it.

The main reason I doubt it is the way we consume different media.

Music and film is passively consumed and delivered in a linear fashion. This means that you can buffer the media, you can check that buffer for errors and re-transmit any missing data. The user never notices, and if something does go wrong? Well, basically no consequences. Your user might be a bit annoyed at some lag or screen tearing but otherwise it's all good.

Games are actively consumed and non-linear. You can't buffer the next 5 minutes of gameplay because you have no idea what you user is going to do. This means that data-loss or corruption (which are unavoidable) is going to have an immediate impact, as well as a bigger impact. A short lag spike might result in dieing, losing 15mins of gametime or whatever. Gamers won't stand for that.

So, I just don't think that streaming will be able to replace locally-installed games. I also don't think it's a technology thing either. Doesn't matter how fast or reliable your internet connect is, there will always, always, be data loss.

With regards to save games, I don't really care where they are stored. What I care about is control. I want to be able to create, manage, delete my saves as per my own preferences.

For example, I really enjoyed Ubisoft's Steep, a winter sports game. Bloody amazing game! But one day I decided I wanted to restart, go through the whole game again.....but I couldn't, because the save game is tied to my account name and stored in the cloud, but I had no control. Literally no way to restart the game.

More recently, I bought Forza Horizon 4, but my save game got corrupted so I couldn't play the game at all. No way to start a new save game, so I got in contact with customer support. They simply told me "tough luck, we can't do anything either". I got a refund on that one.

Both of your examples would have really pissed me off, so the fact that you'll still deal with them afterwards amazes me a bit.

Even though you got a refund, there is no greater "sin" a gaming company can do than waste my valuable time.

Sounds a lot like a recent experience with game server hosting company Nitrado.

We had only been playing 7D2D on their server for about 2 weeks when the server  got corrupted and couldn't be restarted by support, even after a day or two.

Now we did have good backups of the save files, but for some reason the virtual server instance itself could not be recovered. Worse my friends account with them could not be reassigned to a new instance.

They actually deleted his account and he had to create a new one in order for our backups to be restored.

All of this wasted considerable time so with A-21 having just released into beta I contracted a new server with Ping Perfect, and never will recommend Nitrado.

ValdemarJ

I'm not a cloud streaming advocate, but I don't mind it. The setup and functionality can really differ between platforms.

My first was PSNow, which streamed assets to be locally installed. They would be cached for a very short time, encrypted in an opaque file structure that wasn't usable outside of the app parsing it. I didn't like it because it was a huge bandwidth hog, despite the locally cached install. The saves were janky and the game selection would change with poor communication from Sony. The service, at the time, felt more like a begrudging concession rather than an enthusiastic attempt at providing broader access to a limited selection of their games.

Next was Stadia. It worked a lot better, and the tech behind it amazing, but the browser tie-in and poor management of the service by Google really had a negative impact on the experience.

The next real cloud service I've used is Xbox Cloud Gaming. The saves are all stored in their cloud service and can be transferred to the PC or console if the game is installed. Other than occasional queues to access the service, it's really quite solid. Plus, the option to locally install something is a huge plus for me.

I'm unlikely to subscribe to Ubisoft+ or any other studio/publisher specific service like that. I just don't see the value in what they provide for the money compared to Microsoft Xbox or the newer Sony PlayStation Premium+. Rockstar has something like that too and it seems pointless. If they're included in a larger service, like EAPlay is with GamePass, then I'll use it. Other than that, I won't.

Kyleran

Personally I don't really mind, as someone who has played mostly MMOs the past 22 years, many of the sub only, I'm pretty much used to not "owning" my games.

It's been many years since I bought a physical box of anything outside of some console games.

For reasons others have mentioned above I'm not keen on streaming games yet, but as I'm likely to buy a new Samsung game ready TV soon I can probably be convinced if the performance is acceptable.

Quizzical

There is no inherent reason why a cloud streaming game that is single-player or small group multiplayer can't give you control of your own saves.  (An MMORPG is very different, as this creates cheating concerns from people editing the save files.)

The future of gaming is likely to involve a mix of cloud streaming and local rendering.  Many games will be available both ways, with the ability to transfer your saved games back and forth.  Publishers that try to go for cloud streaming only aren't going to find many gamers who bite unless they can use it to make the game better in ways that aren't possible with local rendering.  Which they probably won't.

DRM is the main reason for them to want to go cloud streaming only.  We might see some AAA games go cloud streaming only for the first month or some such, and then allow local rendering later.

Relampago

Larian clapback.

Scot

Quizzical said:

There is no inherent reason why a cloud streaming game that is single-player or small group multiplayer can't give you control of your own saves.  (An MMORPG is very different, as this creates cheating concerns from people editing the save files.)

The future of gaming is likely to involve a mix of cloud streaming and local rendering.  Many games will be available both ways, with the ability to transfer your saved games back and forth.  Publishers that try to go for cloud streaming only aren't going to find many gamers who bite unless they can use it to make the game better in ways that aren't possible with local rendering.  Which they probably won't.

DRM is the main reason for them to want to go cloud streaming only.  We might see some AAA games go cloud streaming only for the first month or some such, and then allow local rendering later.

I only disagree with your last, once they have us on a streaming platform they are not going to let players go.

Ungood

This was an issue many years ago with the EA and the Sims, when there was a rise to demand a Steam account to access the game

Now days Steam is just a part of how we play games, in fact, many of us enjoy the features of playing games through Steam

However, My feelings back then, to today, have no changed on this subject

"If I have to be online anyway, I am going to play a multiplayer game" 

My stand has remained constant with this, and this is a huge reason why I play MMO's in general, I flat out refuse to play a single player game, that I cannot play offline

Now Steam is pretty good with this, where you can play quite a few of their single player games in offline mode, for example, Fallout Shelter

So, as far as this festival of stupid decisions will go with Unbisoft, I think any game company that would require a game be online to play and not at the very least, make it a multiplayer / co-op game, is an incompetent shit for brains moron and deserves to have their company crash and burn due to their stupid decisions

Meanwhile, I'll be logging back into GW2, or some other MMO because, again, if I have to be online anyway, I am going to play a game that excels in that platform

To the people that are fine with subscription based single player games that you have to be online to play.. you do you on that one, enjoy being alone in your online game, LOL.

Theocritus

Its getting to be a problem though when EVERYTHING wants to be a subscription service.....I dont think most people realize how much money they pay out to these kinds of things.

Quizzical

Scot said:

Quizzical said:

There is no inherent reason why a cloud streaming game that is single-player or small group multiplayer can't give you control of your own saves.  (An MMORPG is very different, as this creates cheating concerns from people editing the save files.)

The future of gaming is likely to involve a mix of cloud streaming and local rendering.  Many games will be available both ways, with the ability to transfer your saved games back and forth.  Publishers that try to go for cloud streaming only aren't going to find many gamers who bite unless they can use it to make the game better in ways that aren't possible with local rendering.  Which they probably won't.

DRM is the main reason for them to want to go cloud streaming only.  We might see some AAA games go cloud streaming only for the first month or some such, and then allow local rendering later.

I only disagree with your last, once they have us on a streaming platform they are not going to let players go.

I'm not really making a prediction of how common this or that approach will be.  Some games have eased up on DRM well after launch, once it was no longer meaningfully protecting sales.  Some might give you an offline version when they want to stop maintaining the streaming version, as that would avoid a big hit to reputation without costing any sales at all.

Gorwe

Ubisoft needs to suck a big one. Remember Unity and their bright ideas?

Asm0deus

No..I want to buy a game and then own it and be able to play regardless of having internet or some BS licensing issues two year later.

Which is also why I am not a huge fan of single player games that require you to be online.

Mmorpg are different as you know goin in its an online game but say for example Valhiem or the upcoming Enshrouded heck no......

I want to be able to play solo or MP using my own dedicated server or similar MP function that doesnt require me to be online or depend on the servers of who ever I bought the game from.

I might enjoy some Ubisoft games but on this they can eat a bag of....you know what!

Gorwe

Asm0deus said:

No..I want to buy a game and then own it and be able to play regardless of having internet or some BS licensing issues two year later.

Which is also why I am not a huge fan of single player games that require you to be online.

Mmorpg are different as you know goin in its an online game but say for example Valhiem or the upcoming Enshrouded heck no......

I want to be able to play solo or MP using my own dedicated server or similar MP function that doesnt require me to be online or depend on the servers of who ever I bought the game from.

I might enjoy some Ubisoft games but on this they can eat a bag of....you know what!

Exactly. Recently I wanted to play Heroes VI(I actually find them fun with some good ideas), but given that they required something like Ubi Conflux and given that it's non-functional now, the entire game is half playable or worse.

So, no. Fuck Ubisoft!

Arglebargle

I never buy any Ubisoft game til it falls into the $5-10 range, where a few hours of play makes it worthwhile.  They are a pain in the ass to deal with, and last year their 'launcher' wouldn't work for weeks for me.  No help from support.  Randomly started working again months later.

mekhere

You all inspired me to Google, "Ubisoft Reviews."

Bing Results: Ubisoft has mixed reviews. Some users complain about the company's practices, such as milking game franchises without real effort of evolution, awful launcher with lots of technical issues, and customer support using generated sentences to respond, or not answering at all. They also complain about Ubisoft not listening to their community and doing whatever they want and removing their entire forums instead of assuming mistakes1. However, according to Knoji, Ubisoft earns an overall score of 4.4 out of 5.0 points based on 84 reviews2.

Google Results: Just random links. 

Microsoft was very detailed. They seem a bit critical of other gaming companies since the Blizzard, Activision mergers. This is getting interesting and quite funny. Microsoft is being mean to companies they don't own yet.    
I think Microsoft is mad because TenCent will never sell! LOL

ValdemarJ

mekhere said:

You all inspired me to Google, "Ubisoft Reviews."

Bing Results: Ubisoft has mixed reviews. Some users complain about the company's practices, such as milking game franchises without real effort of evolution, awful launcher with lots of technical issues, and customer support using generated sentences to respond, or not answering at all. They also complain about Ubisoft not listening to their community and doing whatever they want and removing their entire forums instead of assuming mistakes1. However, according to Knoji, Ubisoft earns an overall score of 4.4 out of 5.0 points based on 84 reviews2.

Google Results: Just random links. 

Microsoft was very detailed. They seem a bit critical of other gaming companies since the Blizzard, Activision mergers. This is getting interesting and quite funny. Microsoft is being mean to companies they don't own yet.    
I think Microsoft is mad because TenCent will never sell! LOL

You're quoting TrustPilot, a Danish company, not Microsoft. You do realize that Copilot or other ChatGPT clients are summarizing web results, not formulating their own opinion. This is how misinformation gets spread.

mekhere

ValdemarJ said:

mekhere said:

You all inspired me to Google, "Ubisoft Reviews."

Bing Results: Ubisoft has mixed reviews. Some users complain about the company's practices, such as milking game franchises without real effort of evolution, awful launcher with lots of technical issues, and customer support using generated sentences to respond, or not answering at all. They also complain about Ubisoft not listening to their community and doing whatever they want and removing their entire forums instead of assuming mistakes1. However, according to Knoji, Ubisoft earns an overall score of 4.4 out of 5.0 points based on 84 reviews2.

Google Results: Just random links. 

Microsoft was very detailed. They seem a bit critical of other gaming companies since the Blizzard, Activision mergers. This is getting interesting and quite funny. Microsoft is being mean to companies they don't own yet.    
I think Microsoft is mad because TenCent will never sell! LOL

You're quoting TrustPilot, a Danish company, not Microsoft. You do realize that Copilot or other ChatGPT clients are summarizing web results, not formulating their own opinion. This is how misinformation gets spread.

Listen, I launched Microsoft Edge, and used Microsoft Start to search Ubisoft reviews. It's not my fault they didn't buy an AI company like they buy game studio's or make their own AI chatbot. They were cheap, and therefore they are spreading misinformation, not me.