![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
It has never made sense to me. If the game doesn't have any kind of licensed content and you're still in control of the IP, then why throwaway the chance to earn more money, however little that may be?
I agree with what you're saying but I can see why they're doing this. My most recent experience with one of the games in question(Far Cry 3) it quite noticeably takes a second or two at launch to log into your account even though it launches from the Ubisoft launcher already, if it can't connect(like when their server is down, ahem) you can't access any of the dlc(ask me how I know). It's basically another layer of drm and one of the reasons those games have quite a few DLC weapons that come with most versions of the game. Now they've obviously decided to take another approach and don't want to maintain the servers these games use to authenticate that content.
I'm sure they just forgot to mention these important details, and not because of all the negative backlash they received. The sad thing is they most likely just postponed this, so this isn't so much a win for consumers as a delay of the inevitable. For now, it is a win.
not sure if serious
I can have my steam library on a USB drive and go from machine, to machine, to machine and play the same games w/o re-downloading them. You used to be able to do that back in the day. But Windows games pre-steam? Let me know if you could do that.
Ja, registry shenanigans in modern Windows really kills that method.
I think it has to do with support. If they are still selling a game they have to provide support for it and make sure it is compatible with newever OS versions and HW.
That is demonstrably untrue. LOTS of games are still sold by publishers that never get further official patches to add support for newer hardware and operating systems than they were initially released for.
Which games are you talking about? If there are lots, you can surely name some examples.
A LOT. Since you asked, here is a sampling off the top of my head:
So none of these games actually work on a modern system when you purchase them? I didn't know that if that is the case, but there are a ton of dos games here, I assume those come prepackaged with dosbox, as I've seen with many?
That wasn't the original statement. None of the games I listed receive official support and haven't for many years after their release. A retailer bundling a game with DosBox is not official support. Some of these games still install and run fine on modern machines with modern OS, but they were never designed or updated to do so. Video cards today do not have hardware support for many rendering methods used in DX9 and older, and so they are not rendered properly. "Newer" games like Fallout 3 and New Vegas have issues running on Windows 8 and newer without some modification.
A classic--and widespread--example was all those old DOS games that had timing loops specific to the processors they were designed on, which were totally messed up by faster CPUs, in many cases making the game run so fast it was literally unplayable. For a while there were a bunch of TSRs you could run that would just eat CPU cycles to throttle the game; later, I think dosbox added support for slowing the games down more directly (I think; I may be remembering that last part wrong.)
Could they also not simply issue a patch disabling the "phone home" technology and allowing people to continue to play the game(s) offline? This always seems like a simple, sensible solution, but it never seems to happen.
Removed from sale. If you already own it then you can continue to download and play it.
Seems incorrect based on: https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/...r-ubisoft-games-october-2022-update/000102396
For Assassin's Creed, at least.
Well color me surprised. It's a little confusing that this post is different from their documentation.
I should have read this before I tried to play coop Splinter Cell Blacklist with my friend. Very disappointed. I play most of my games coop. That used to be a favorite game. Remember the days when we didn't need Ubisoft or steam in order to play a game with people? They took independent servers away from the new games and in my opinion ruined the games in a lot of ways. I'm done grumbling for now.
I couldn't imagine paying for an Ubisoft game when they treat their customers this way. There's a certain word that rhymes with "Ubisoft" that comes to mind...
I realized with Valhalla that I don't even need to. I signed up for uplay+ for one month, completed the game then unsubscribed. Why pay 60+ for a game, when I can pay 15 and have the deluxe / ultimate edition?
Yeah, but only 1 for the first month, and there is nothing in particular that I want to play now so why bother?
really? why don't I know this?