Trackmania - Ubisoft Claims Yearly Fee To Access Game Is Not Subscription

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,736
Ubisoft's upcoming Trackmania game requires a yearly fee to continually access the game, yet they claim it is not a subscription. You are just buying the game again every year.

"Actually it's not a subscription model but an access to the game for a limited time. You pay for having access to the game for one period and that's it," a Ubisoft rep wrote. "When the time is over, you have to buy the game again for the time that you want to access it again."

SOURCE

deja_q_hd_046_resized_6484.jpg
 
It's like prepaid phone cards. Technically it's not a sub, but practically speaking the only difference is there are no terms for if you leave early or other things you might have in a contract.
 
The only way I can see the distinction they're trying to make be meaningful is if you lose all your items, progression, standings, and paid MTX at the end of the year and have to start over as a noob with nothing.

I'm not sure if that would be stupider than trying to claim a subscription isn't a subscription; both are almost beyond belief.

7ff219f7c23ae9c9254b372744da5814.jpg
 
as stupid as that idea is it technically isnt a subscription as it doesnt auto-renew or auto-deliver.
 
I'm not defending Ubi as this is pretty dirty, but the base game is free you have to pay to access the track editor every year.
 
Auto renewal isn't a prerequisite for a subscription. Back in the day of print magazines :eek: you always had to explicitly renew at the end of your subscription period.
which is why i added the "auto-deliver" because i knew someone would try to twist it.
 
I think this is stupid for the reasons already stated but on top of that I think it's a poor business model because people are idiots and are willing to pay more if you break it up into smaller monthly auto payments vs the sticker shock of paying for a years worth of service at once.
 
I think this is stupid for the reasons already stated but on top of that I think it's a poor business model because people are idiots and are willing to pay more if you break it up into smaller monthly auto payments vs the sticker shock of paying for a years worth of service at once.
Its sheer lazyness.... Charge me $10 per month sure what ever charge me $80 up front and that is robbery..
 
"Actually it's not a subscription model but an access to the game for a limited time. You pay for having access to the game for one period and that's it," a Ubisoft rep wrote. "When the time is over, you have to buy the game again for the time that you want to access it again."

But that's literally the definition of a subscription, there is no other definition for a subscription, and the only existing definition of a subscription is exactly that.
 
Reminds me of this scene from "The Other Guys"



Ershon:
You could let me go, and i'll give you ten million dollars each. It's not a bribe.

Gamble:
Of course it's a bribe! You're offering to pay us money to not do our job.

Ershon:
(shakes head) Not a bribe.
 
It starts at $10 a year. And the base game is free. Seems reasonable to me.
 
a Ubisoft rep wrote. "When the time is over, you have to buy the game again for the time that you want to access it again."
Ah ha. So it used to be game companies went out of their way to try and claim that when we "buy" a game, we are really only paying for access to connect to their property and we are not allowed to do with it what we will. Now apparently UbiSoft forgot that was the lines they were supposed to use and claims we are buying the game for a 1 year period? So I guess that means I do own it and can do what I want with mods and the like.
 
this is the new model: constant revenue stream is king. They would rather have smaller fees for longer periods then a larger one that users can prolong from 1 to many many years.
E,g, intuit quicken. I buy a version every 4 years or so for home use, never used the online features. Now, they only offer subscriptions yearly. adobe, microsoft 365, many of them are going this way, why not the gaming industry? games like fortnite and others with paid loot boxes have shown enough people are willing to pay for them to make higher profits.

I dont like it as i dont need something new every year. looking at alternatives, but it can be a big trade off.
 
Is there some sort of tax reason for doing this, or just sheer PR incompetence?
Could be some bizarre quirk in corporate tax accounting that treats fee income different from subscription income. Or it allows them to shift money around on SEC filings so the quarterly stock reports look better today vs next year.
 
UBI would of made more money sticking to Steam since The Division 2 is like 5.00 or less now on Epic.
 
I played Trackmania back in the day, stopped playing when n Ubisoft started to blatantly monetize it.

I guess there's plenty of suckers out there? I had just assumed the game was dead for the last decade.
 
EA: Loot boxes aren't loot boxes, they're "surprise mechanics"
Bethesda: Paid-mods aren't paid-mods, they're "mini-DLC"
Ubisoft: A trailer without gameplay in it is a "gameplay trailer"
Also Ubisoft: A subscription isn't a subscription
Also Ubisoft (in their worthless EULA): Paid-for products aren't products you paid for
 
Last edited:
EA: Loot boxes aren't loot boxes, they're "surprise mechanics"
Bethesda: Paid-mods aren't paid-mods
Ubisoft: A subscription isn't a subscription
Also Ubisoft (in their worthless EULA): Paid-for products aren't products you paid for

It's almost like AAA publishers are bad and we shouldn't give them money anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
Back
Top