I’m glad it’s highlighted on Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown in particular, because that was the first game I’d bought from Ubisoft in years, and the extra launcher deterred me from considering buying any of their other games for a long while still. EA still has launchers on older games like It Takes Two and A Way Out and Dragon Age II and Inquisition that create obstacles for LInux compatibility and offline play, but newer titles like Split Fiction and The Veilguard no longer have the extra launcher problem. It’s good to see Ubisoft following this trend, and hopefully they can stop standing in the way of their own success.
You must log in or register to comment.
- Arcane2077@sh.itjust.worksEnglish2 months
Great news! Now remove denuvo and undisable family sharing, and I’ll remove Ubisoft from my no-buy list
- 2 months
I might consider it. On the other hand Ubisoft has been pretty shitty to their developers and customers, so IDK…
2 monthsFully agree. I think that Steam should make it a platform requirement that external launchers cannot be used on the platform.
It makes zero sense for me to hit play just to have a third party launcher open, and I have to hit play in that third party launcher as well. and I have to hit play in that third party launcher as well. At that point, I’m better off just buying it through the third party launcher.
The whole third-party launcher update process is also obnoxious… Every gatcha game does it. what’s the point of using steam at that point
- Ludicrous0251@piefed.zipEnglish2 months
At that point, I’m better off just buying it through the third party launcher.
Which is exactly why companies like Ubisoft are so dead set on forcing 3rd party launchers down everybody’s throats. They want to drag you out of the Steam ecosystem so they can pocket a bigger piece of the pie and infect your computer with god knows what.
Yeah, which is why I think it doesn’t make sense that Steam allows it in the first place. Like, it’s actively letting a direct competitor use your platform. You get none of the benefits and all of the upkeep.
- BigPotato@lemmy.worldEnglish2 months
They get a 30% cut of every sale and also get to say “we’re not a monopoly.” In the business world, that’s a win win.
- 2 months
I might actually buy some Ubisoft games again, pirating is 1000x better for their shit. Some stuff is literally unplayable the way they want you to do it, like Far Cry 3.
It’s sorrowful to know you, or that “pirates”/people like you have guts to admit your sorrow on public.
Piracy is never ever good unless for history/archiving, and still is questionable.You? You are a simple infant robber, a spoiled child, who stole money, or just did not pay people for their life work. A work on ineffably magnificent art…
- AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zipEnglish2 months
Nobody who actually made the game is gonna see a dime of the money from your sale. Hell, they’re getting laid off whether the game succeeds or not. Why the fuck do I give the slightest shit about contributing to some Ubisoft exec’s yacht?
The artist still got paid for their work. They don’t get a bonus if more copies are sold. The only one not getting money is Ubisoft corporate executives and shareholders.
- Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish2 months
I find he’s dramatizing the dichotomy, but I always found this arranged argument lacking.
Imagine you have a budding farmhand, a hard-working local, in mind when you go to the local farmers’ market to “support local farms”. But that’s wrong, isn’t it? Because the farm owner pays that hand a static salary. Their exact success or revenue off one extra bag of apples isn’t going into that hand’s pocket.
But it’s also related; that farmhand has better job stability, more chance of a bonus, less pressure to advertise well, if the farm is making a comfortable salary.
Now, the one part I’ll admit is this logic doesn’t work as well in corporate atmospheres; where CEOs fire as many people as possible, reward no one for good performance, and would rather fudge numbers than sell a good product.
But I’d also wager a lot of commenters shortcutting their logic to “company bad, pirate games” aren’t always taking a critical investigative eye to how companies treat their people. After all, “I get free game” is a strong motivator to believe a certain way.
The videogame industry specifically is a bit unique I think I’m that most of the time the majority of the artists just get laid off after a large project gets released so there really isn’t any job stability, chance of bonuses, loyalty, etc.
I would never pirate an Indy game but Ubisoft, EA, rockstar, fuck em.
Now, the one part I’ll admit is this logic doesn’t work as well in corporate atmospheres; where CEOs fire as many people as possible, reward no one for good performance, and would rather fudge numbers than sell a good product.
So you agree with the person you’re replying to, and the two paragraphs before this one are irrelevant to what’s being talked about?
- Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish2 months
Are you prepared to assert and prove that every single company over a certain revenue is exactly the same?
I’ve come into conversations with preconceived “large company slop” feelings towards a large brand, only for a person there to remark “My brother works for that company. He says they get great benefits, and are generally treated very well.”
Sometimes the bullshit is only on the consumer side, in which case it only makes sense to avoid them because you’re getting a bad product. If you insist the product is bad, and that you’re stealing the bad product that you somehow want, in order to support the mistreated employees, who are actually being treated okay, then maybe it turns out there’s not much logic behind the protest action of pirating?
I’ve seen pirates use the same generic excuse for midsize indie publishers that have no such reason to be hated - so it’s disappointing to see people don’t actually think those things through.
Are you prepared to assert and prove that every single company over a certain revenue is exactly the same?
So in this conversation about a specific company, and how this specific company behaves, and someone commenting on pirating from this specific company, why am I being expected to extend that to every compy?
- musubibreakfast@lemmy.worldEnglish2 months
I’m so tired of your shit Mr Guillemot. There’s no need for you to come in here and talk down to us. You’re the CEO of Ubisoft, you can literally do anything you want. Go fly a kite, go hug your family, go do something that brings you joy and please leave us poors alone.
its bait.
Even the stupidest motherfucker wouldnt be all “Woe poor ubisoft”
- mohab@piefed.socialEnglish2 months
I’m glad it’s highlighted on Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown in particular, because that was the first game I’d bought from Ubisoft in years, and the extra launcher deterred me from considering buying any of their other games for a long while still.
This is like the only good game they put out in forever. Great combat, I had fun coming up with combos in it, but I dropped it eventually because it dragged on for too long, and the further I progressed, the fewer enemies I could juggle, so I was having less and less fun.
That clone fight was peak though. Reminded me of an almost identical fight in F.I.S.T: Forged in Shadow Torch—yet another metroidvania with awesome combat and combo system.
- otacon239@lemmy.worldEnglish2 months
Hoping to see this update come to Watch Dogs and Assassin’s Creed. Currently can’t get it to work in Linux and can’t be bothered to troubleshoot when I have other games to play.
- 2 months
Doesn’t sound like they’re going to backport this unfortunately. Damn shame: I absolutely love The Division but having it on Steam means I have to run two launchers to play it. It usually works… usually.
- NocturnalMorning@lemmy.worldEnglish2 months
I remember a time when games were just installed on my computer. No external launcher
I still don’t understand the point of making every game have a shitty launcher. I mean, I can understand MMO’s for updating the actual game and shit, but why the fuck do single player games have them?
- chiliedogg@lemmy.worldEnglish2 months
There was also a time when you also didn’t need Steam. You would buy a game, install it, and play it without having to connect to the internet at all. Growing up, a lot of friends had gaming PCs in their bedrooms with no internet connection at all.
And if you did do stuff online, it was secondary and the publisher didn’t want a cut. StarCraft actually let you play online without owning the game - it specifically included an installer (The Spawn) that was for installing the multiplayer for free on friends’ systems. You only needed the disc to play singleplayer.
- InGodWeThrust@lemmy.zipEnglish2 months
That’s why I buy from Gog. No need to deal with launchers, always online requirements or any other bs
- 2 months
I was surprised Cyberpunk 2077 (same owner as GOG) launches through RED Launcher even if bought on GOG. It’s probably possible to disable through a launch parameter though.
- InGodWeThrust@lemmy.zipEnglish2 months
I am surprised about this, I was given it on Steam and never had any need for extra launcher on it I think. I’m curious what would happen with the launcher if it was installed with the offline installers instead of Gog galaxy
- 2 months
The offline installer requires you to download ~28 4GB files manually so I passed on that. I installed on Linux with Heroic Game Launcher so I’m not sure if it installs the “GOG Galaxy version” if there even is a difference. The game is wired to run
redprelauncher.exerather thanbin/Cyberpunk2077.exeso maybe that’s just that.Anyhow, the launcher is skippable if you add a
--launcher-skipparam.You can also tell Heroic “run a different executable than what the game says to”. Works fine.
Using a launcher to launch a launcher to launch a game is dumb as hell.
I come from the time where you just run the game and it, you know, ran. While I think even Steam itself is stupid as hell, at least someone is stopping the idiocy a little bit. Though ubisoft is dead to me, so it’s a participation award, not a real ‘woo, go awful company’ cheer.
