Sections

Ubisoft may add third-party games to Uplay to rival Origin & Steam

Wednesday, 12th September 2012 13:11 GMT By Dave Cook

Ubisoft’s Uplay store currently offers digital sales of the it first-party titles. But that could change in future, according to Ubisoft’s Stephanie Perotti.

When quizzed on the issue by MCV, Perotti responded, “We remain open to opportunities. Right now, we’re starting the service with our own games, but as we go forward, we plan to potentially add other titles.”

The Uplay app offers digital downloads of Ubisoft titles, and a slew of social features. Would you like to see it expanded? Let us know below.

Breaking news

19 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. KrazyKraut

    that’s a little bit too much..isn’t it?

    #1 2 years ago
  2. silkvg247

    Yes, I’d love a fourth digital distribution service, because my ultimate goal is to have one digital distribution client per game I own. It’s awesome to have to remember which client you bought which game on, because heaven forbid buying it on one would open it up on each platform.

    I mean that’d be like buying a DvD and expecting it to work on every player.

    Ubi are the last people on earth I think the PC market would be willing to embrace. I mean for us to forgive past transgressions they would have to do something simply astounding. but they won’t. They’ll just offer inflated base RRP games on “sale”, and then they’ll wonder why nothing really sells.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. OlderGamer

    To be honest, I would like to see pubs stop trying to replace Steam. I like Steam. I don’t want several store fronts, UIs, friendlists, etc for my PC games. And then there is the matter of price.

    So now, everytime a pub thinks they can get Moar Monies for themself, I either lose their games from Steam or have to go thru their “service” and they pale in comparison to what i have now.

    So, for me. No. I don’t want a Uplay or Origin. I will only buy their games if they are for sale on Steam.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. zinc

    @2,3… Because competition is bad?

    #4 2 years ago
  5. Kabby

    Exclusivity to one service is bad. Competition is not.

    As for Ubisoft they are are generally inept at managing anything related to the internet, user rights and distribution. Let’s also not forget that whenever their management bods open their mouths it always ends in a PR disaster.

    They have a right to try and do their own thing but I doubt anyone will want to support them unless forced to by the exclusivity of certain titles.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. OlderGamer

    Competition is bad when the product or service suffers because of it.

    Silk has a good anaology with the DVDs. Imagine having to buy a different player for each DVD you own. Or maybe not each, but having one for each studio that releases movies.

    Besides dominance isn’t always a bad thing either. For example iTunes.

    I know some folks inexplicably hate Apple, but I buy all of my music thru their stores. It is easy to manage, fairly priced, and I feel, is an over all great service.

    Same type of thing with Steam.

    Valve has nothing to worry about from UPlay or Origins.

    But when the games splinter off into different store fronts, the comunity loses. And if, like with EA, I stop buying their products unless they are on Steam…EA loses too.

    I know some folks won’t care, but I know a lot of folks that do.

    You guys have any idea how many VG27 readers are on Steam? Lots and lots of us.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. deadstoned

    Uplay is well behind Steam and even quite a bit behind Origin. The service isn’t very good atm, I won’t be buying anything from then until the service gets substantially better.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. NiceFellow

    @3 when it’s crosses with having a nice standard and negatively impacts consumers then yes.

    The problem here is that the storefronts aren’t storefronts, they tie you in and you end up with a stupid spread of titles across multiple sources and a worse not better position regarding managing your games.

    TBH what’s needed are universal trading standards (that are international) for digital sales to separate the consumer from the source. That would push these services back into a normal storefront and they would then compete on other services and would have to be consistent enough to make it easy to use more than one – so for example allowing me to buy from multiple places but only use the best community service for me.

    As it is the embryonic nature of digital sales and game sales growth combined with publisher consolidation is turning into a nightmare of conflicting services for the consumer.

    It’s really becoming a cluster fuck with too little standardization and regulation.

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Talkar

    I welcome Uplay, as i welcomed Origin, and will continue to do so with the inevitable swarm of DRM platforms. The way i see it, we will get burrowed in DRM platforms such as horrible Steam, Origin, Uplay, GFWL and many more no doubt. After a few years only a few, maybe even one will emerge victor, and we, the customers will have received games at favorable prices, and in general better deals because of it. as #5 said “Exclusivity to one service is bad. Competition is not”.

    @2
    Your analogy with DvD’s doesn’t apply here. It would fit if each game you buy had to be played on a different computer.

    #9 2 years ago
  10. roadkill

    What 4, 5 and 9 said. OlderGamer? You are not very smart for your age. Then again people’s wits do tend to regress after they’ve reached a certain age..

    #10 2 years ago
  11. jacobvandy

    I don’t mind competition, but Ubisoft can go suck a dick if they think I’m going to buy ANYTHING from their store for more than $1.

    #11 2 years ago
  12. DSB

    There’s nothing wrong with competition, and Kabby is spot on. Ubisoft couldn’t sell iced water in the sahara. They’ve done everything they can to make themselves irrelevant on the PC, and the idea of a Ubisoft client is little more than laughable.

    The problem arises when people try to make clients into isolated platforms. That hurts the entire market, and that’s especially relevant when it comes to publishers who can leverage a catalogue of possibly hundreds of games.

    A monopoly doesn’t actually benefit the consumer, it only benefits the publisher.

    #12 2 years ago
  13. Talkar

    @12
    What? I can’t believe you just said Steam is bad for gaming o.O
    Kudos sir :P

    #13 2 years ago
  14. OlderGamer

    “The problem arises when people try to make clients into isolated platforms.”

    Period. Stop.

    Because that is it in a nut shell right there.

    “A monopoly doesn’t actually benefit the consumer, it only benefits the publisher.”

    I would agree with you, but one can’t prove Steam has hurt the consumer. Infact I would say the opposite is true.

    I just think markets have changed. If you think in terms of closed off consoles, I would agree. In 16bit days if Sega had been the only platform, things would have stagnated. Or if Nintendo and MS weren’t currently in the console space, then we might well be still playing PS2s. But I don’t think PC works that way.

    Steam doesn’t prevent anyone from selling their products elsewhere. but Steam is so good, that is makes most of its consumers not want to buy their games anywhere else. I think that is a big difference. They are great for consumers and great for pubs, esp smaller indie minded ones.

    Steam does have the lions share of the market because they unfairly muscle others out of the biz. They lead the market because gamers want to use their service.

    I have seen Origin, nothing there makes me want to use it over Steam.

    If Steam pulled a few bone head moves, gamers would just get there games somewhere else. It isn’t like Steam is the ONLY place to shop. It doesn’t have that type of monopoly.

    So I kind of disagree with some of the notions here. And I don’t agree that all competition is good. Or all monopolies are bad.

    I think the openess of the PC market keeps Valve on their toes. They can’t get sloppy, lazy and gouge their users, if they did they would lose marketshare.

    #14 2 years ago
  15. DSB

    Steam isn’t a monopoly. They serve maybe 60% of the market, depending on who you ask, and I’ve personally used something like five other services to buy games.

    @13 Can Steam leverage hundreds of games to subvert the competition? News to me.

    Steams hands aren’t clean when it comes to making deals that are inconvenient for the customer, and bad for the overall competition, but they don’t have nearly the same interest or capacity to do it, that a major publisher does.

    There’s a big difference between proprietary ownership over the games you’re selling, and being a third party retailer. You don’t have to cooperate with anyone if you own the games you’re selling, which means you don’t have to lower prices, or offer a certain standard of service. People have nowhere else to go.

    #15 2 years ago
  16. OlderGamer

    “There’s a big difference between proprietary ownership over the games you’re selling, and being a third party retailer. You don’t have to cooperate with anyone if you own the games you’re selling, which means you don’t have to lower prices, or offer a certain standard of service. People have nowhere else to go.”

    Fully agree with that. Where I get worried is when the mega pubs start talking about store fronts and download services. And it isn’t that I have a problem with them being able to selling their games, it is when they bundle their games into what they think of as services.

    Thinking about it, I have recently bought games from several different souces too. Most recent being Blizzard and ArenaNet.

    #16 2 years ago
  17. zinc

    Steam may not have a monopoly , but it’s evident that a number of it’s clients wish it had.

    #17 2 years ago
  18. DSB

    Yeah, the games industry has to be one of the easiest in the world. You can get away with pretty much anything. Online passes, overpriced DLC, subscriptions. You used to be able to get away with some pretty bad DRM too.

    Gamers are the “om nom nom nom” kind of customers. I don’t think you see that kind of blind dedication anywhere outside of sports franchises.

    #18 2 years ago
  19. viralshag

    I’m definitely one of those “om nom nom nom” customers. But at the end of the day it’s my money, I get enjoyment out of almost everything I buy and gaming is better than drugs. DON’T DO DRUGS.

    #19 2 years ago