Ubisoft Says Out Loud: We Want People to Get Used to Not Owning What They Bought
Ubisoft’s stated goal of getting players “comfortable not owning their games” prompts a wider examination of how subscription and streaming models are reshaping digital ownership. Commenters weigh the convenience and lower upfront cost of game subscriptions against loss of control, long‑term access, resale rights, and cultural preservation, drawing parallels to music and video streaming and to other platforms like Steam and Game Pass. Many argue that if purchases are really revocable licenses rather than owned copies, this weakens the moral case against piracy and should trigger stronger consumer protection and clearer labeling of what is being sold.
Ownership vs Licensing
- Many argue “buying” most digital games is really buying a revocable license, not true ownership.
- Several see using the word “buy” for what is functionally a lease as deceptive and want clearer labels (“rent/lease” vs “buy”).
- Others say this has long been the case for music and software (CDs, DVDs, Adobe, SaaS); what’s changing is that licenses are shorter and easier to revoke.
- Some propose legal reforms: stronger consumer rights, explicit “digital ownership,” right to jailbreak when services end, or mandated source/server escrow.
Piracy, Theft, and Morality
- Recurrent debate whether piracy is “theft”:
- One side: copying doesn’t deprive the owner of a copy; it’s copyright infringement or financial harm, not theft.
- Counterpoint: IP is still private property; stealing trade secrets or proprietary files can be prosecuted as theft in some cases.
- Moral views range from “piracy is civil disobedience against abusive licensing/DRM” to “you’re still taking something without paying, breaking the social contract.”
- Some explicitly link Ubisoft‑style non‑ownership to greater moral justification for piracy (“if buying isn’t owning, pirating isn’t stealing”).
Subscriptions and Non‑Ownership Models
- Defenders of subscriptions:
- Cheaper access to many titles; good for “play once, move on” games.
- Analogies to Netflix/Spotify and Game Pass; convenience and variety outweigh lack of ownership for many.
- Critics:
- Fragmentation into many separate subs (Ubi, EA, MS, etc.) raises total cost.
- Loss of resale, gifting, and long‑term access; perceived as pure revenue extraction.
- Concern that “needs to happen” language is corporations reshaping consumer behavior for profit.
Preservation, Nostalgia, and Longevity
- Strong concern about game preservation and future nostalgia when services shut down or licenses expire.
- Examples: Stadia, Ouya, Rocket League platform drops, The Crew server shutdown, audio being removed from games, Audible content disappearing.
- Many call for offline installers, DRM‑free copies, or release of server code when support ends.
Platforms, Trust, and Consumer Response
- Steam is seen as relatively trustworthy but still not true ownership; GOG and physical media are favored for permanence.
- Ubisoft Connect and other launchers are widely criticized as buggy and anti‑consumer.
- Some respond by boycotting, returning to retro hardware, using emulators/Everdrives, or pirating content they can’t reliably “own.”