What's so outrageous about Uplay?

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,464
3,005
118
I'm asking because I'm playing Far Cry 3 and only just now do I fully understand what Uplay is and is for (I played a bunch of Assassin's Creeds before but never paid much attention).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically it's a glorified trophy/achievement system, right? You collect Ubi-whatevers in Ubisoft games and exchange them for silly DLC like wallpaper or a weapon/skin for a game? And also you have to sign up whenever you install a game? Is that it? I'm asking earnestly. What's so awful about it? I've read posts from people who make it out to be some sort of third-world dictatorship, and it turns out it's just 1) logging in once to install a game and 2) trade Monopoly money for DLC, if you want.

I'm not challenging anyone to convince me Ubisoft is or isn't the AntiChrist (spelling?), just let me know from your own experience what's so abominable about Uplay.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
The problem is (or was, it's gotten much better since its launch with was so bad it made Origin's launch look like a picnic) that for many games you needed to be online all the time, even for offline games. You also can only save to the cloud, the system lags offline games because of the always online, game save files get corrupted on a regular, many games which use it are unplayable for long periods of time, when the servers will eventually go down the games will be unplayable, starting the games the first time is overly and unjustifiably complicated, and this is on top of the fact that a LOT of people bought the games in question suffering from all these problems on Steam, which make Uplay not only redundant but another case of legitimate customers being treated as criminals.

Uplay is basically the single largest reason why Ubisoft games are pirated.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,464
3,005
118
From what I've read there hasn't been an always-online mandate since 2011, and Ubi patched every game released before that so it wouldn't render them unplayable. I see a lot of historical bluffs and mishaps but nothing that has carried over to today, other than bad rep.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,316
1,492
118
I always wondered what the huge deal was too. I thought that people were complaining about some stupid achievement system and I questioned why in the world is this such a big deal? I suppose it sucks to have to sign up for something but is it really THAT bad?

Then...I found out what it's like for PC Gamers (I was on my 360 for those of you wondering)

Maybe it's changed since then and UPlay is being shat on by its reputation but Ubisoft in general just seems to hate PC Gamers for some reason with their bloated and broken games. Maybe everyone just mixes the two into one big toilet of hatred?
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
From what I've read there hasn't been an always-online mandate since 2011, and Ubi patched every game released before that so it wouldn't render them unplayable. I see a lot of historical bluffs and mishaps but nothing that has carried over to today, other than bad rep.
A bad rap on launch can be all it takes. Origin has improved a great deal since it launched, but you don't see people praising EA. Valve was lucky with Steam, most of its users joined after they got the kinks out of the system. EA and Ubisoft didn't have that luck.

Really the only really erkson problem I've had with it is that back when I was into Anno 2070 I had to open and run Uplay despite buying and using the game through Steam.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
18,464
3,005
118
tippy2k2 said:
Maybe it's changed since then and UPlay is being shat on by its reputation but Ubisoft in general just seems to hate PC Gamers for some reason with their bloated and broken games. Maybe everyone just mixes the two into one big toilet of hatred?
But wouldn't this be Ubisoft's fault rather than Uplay's, specifically? How does Uplay impair PC gamers, and why blame a silly trophy system rather than the actual dev/publisher?
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
Zontar said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
From what I've read there hasn't been an always-online mandate since 2011, and Ubi patched every game released before that so it wouldn't render them unplayable. I see a lot of historical bluffs and mishaps but nothing that has carried over to today, other than bad rep.
A bad rap on launch can be all it takes. Origin has improved a great deal since it launched, but you don't see people praising EA. Valve was lucky with Steam, most of its users joined after they got the kinks out of the system. EA and Ubisoft didn't have that luck.

Really the only really erkson problem I've had with it is that back when I was into Anno 2070 I had to open and run Uplay despite buying and using the game through Steam.
Indeed. The first time I heard of Steam was back around '03 or '04, when this gif was making the rounds:


The service was widely panned by early users, and jokes like "Steam-ing pile of shit" were bandied about. Luckily many of the most egregious bugs had been ironed out by the time I started using it in 2007.

I've never used Uplay before, so I can't personally comment on the situation. However, the most common complaint I've heard about the service nowadays is how Ubisoft titles bought through Steam also use Uplay, requiring the user to jump through two separate DRM services just to play the game.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
Really the simplest way to describe it at this point is to say that it's not Steam. Not to say that it does things particularly different from Steam (in fact, much of what it does isn't that different from Steam) but just that it's not named Steam and isn't made by Valve.
 

Disthron

New member
Aug 19, 2009
108
0
0
Not to mention that it's yet another digital distribution system that I have to install and run, clogging up my hard drive and probably my CPU cycles as well. All for a very small handful of games that I'm interested in. Having to remember all the different log ins is just a complete pain in the ass. Much of the time it's not worth the hassle.
 

A-D.

New member
Jan 23, 2008
637
0
0
The problem with Uplay is that it is essentially redundant in its functionality. As a digital distribution platform, it lags behind steam because it has a much smaller portfolio, much like Origin. However Origin has EA Titles almost exclusively, or rather every EA title is bound to it and cannot be purchased from the direct alternatives such as Steam or Uplay, so Origin has function.

Uplay's issues stem from a few things, partially its always-online DRM that Ubisoft tried to push a few years back, coupled with their general disdain for the PC market. So right away, they had a bad reputation going for them, but what does Uplay really offer? Ubisoft Titles can be purchased anywhere, including Steam, which would be its direct competitor in the digital market. Verification against piracy is done by Steam as well, which also sell their games, but really piracy isnt stopped by that either, it may take a while before something is cracked, but really its a question of When, not If.

So when it comes down to it, Uplay is not really needed, at least not in such a manner as to be forced down your throat. It has a small portfolio compared to general distributors such as Steam and GOG, the latter being DRM-free even, its functionality can be provided by other clients, i.e. Steam Client, maybe GOG Galaxy (havent really paid much attention there) and to be honest, the only real reason to have it is for physical copies, you could make the argument there at least, but Ubisoft still forces it on everyone, regardless of where its purchased.
 

Morgoth780

New member
Aug 6, 2014
152
0
0
Disthron said:
Not to mention that it's yet another digital distribution system that I have to install and run, clogging up my hard drive and probably my CPU cycles as well. All for a very small handful of games that I'm interested in. Having to remember all the different log ins is just a complete pain in the ass. Much of the time it's not worth the hassle.
In addition - why should I have to be using uPlay and Steam at the same time for one game? I'm not a fan of having to use one of the DRM platforms for a game, but two for a single game? Sorry, that's a bit excessive. Unless, of course, I buy a game on uPlay instead of Steam.

But yes, hate for uPlay definitely blends in with hate for Ubisoft.

Edit: Since I have yet to buy an Ubisoft game on PC, my statement about Steam copies still requiring uPlay might be wrong. Correct me if it is.
 

theSovietConnection

Survivor, VDNKh Station
Jan 14, 2009
2,418
0
0
Back when it came out, I picked up Anno 2077 on Steam, thinking it looked really cool. I got it downloaded (which is no small feat for my connection, took me a good 3-4 days), installed it, and booted it up for the first time. Which was when I started encountering the "Server not responding" error through Uplay. I tried for the better part of 2 months to get it working, and all Ubisoft technical support offered as a solution was to change ports on my router.

I should not have to go through that much trouble to get a legally purchased single player game functioning, and that is why I have hated Uplay ever since.
 

G00N3R7883

New member
Feb 16, 2011
281
0
0
I've got 6 games on Uplay - Far Cry 3, Blood Dragon, FC4 (literally just installed this), Splinter Cell Conviction, Blacklist and Watch Dogs.

Never had a problem of any kind with Uplay.

I also have around 4 games on Origin and over 150 on Steam, never had a problem with those either.

The only service I've had any problems with is GFWL, in multiple games (crashes, failed patch installs, laggy menus).
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,790
0
0
I don't use Uplay or Origin.
I prefer to collect my games on one service, and that service is Steam.

Also, that they force me to use it to play Steam games makes me not want it at all.
I'd rather not play Ubisoft games.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
Neverhoodian said:
Zontar said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
From what I've read there hasn't been an always-online mandate since 2011, and Ubi patched every game released before that so it wouldn't render them unplayable. I see a lot of historical bluffs and mishaps but nothing that has carried over to today, other than bad rep.
A bad rap on launch can be all it takes. Origin has improved a great deal since it launched, but you don't see people praising EA. Valve was lucky with Steam, most of its users joined after they got the kinks out of the system. EA and Ubisoft didn't have that luck.

Really the only really erkson problem I've had with it is that back when I was into Anno 2070 I had to open and run Uplay despite buying and using the game through Steam.
Indeed. The first time I heard of Steam was back around '03 or '04, when this gif was making the rounds:


The service was widely panned by early users, and jokes like "Steam-ing pile of shit" were bandied about. Luckily many of the most egregious bugs had been ironed out by the time I started using it in 2007.

I've never used Uplay before, so I can't personally comment on the situation. However, the most common complaint I've heard about the service nowadays is how Ubisoft titles bought through Steam also use Uplay, requiring the user to jump through two separate DRM services just to play the game.
Yes. I remember a period when pretty much everyone online was saying steam was absolutely horrible and broken. If we had had a conversation like this back then, we all probably would've concluded steam is terrible, and will never catch on, and is completely useless. (Except of course, that it was a first of it's kind distribution platform back then, which the others don't have going for them)

So it is in fact possible to get past an initial horrible impression, but it doesn't seem to be easy.
 

babinro

New member
Sep 24, 2010
2,518
0
0
Neverhoodian said:
The service was widely panned by early users, and jokes like "Steam-ing pile of shit" were bandied about. Luckily many of the most egregious bugs had been ironed out by the time I started using it in 2007.

I've never used Uplay before, so I can't personally comment on the situation. However, the most common complaint I've heard about the service nowadays is how Ubisoft titles bought through Steam also use Uplay, requiring the user to jump through two separate DRM services just to play the game.
I remember wanting to replay Half-Life 2 back in the day and then giving up on it because Steam was too much of a hassle. At the time it was the only game I owned in history that required some garbage program running in the background so naturally I hated it.

It took a few years but I eventually got used to steam and since then I've come to accept all similar services. In my experience, u-play and origin both had a more positive start than steam and as such they never got on my bad side. They were simply inconvenient through sheer existence.

The only service of this nature that I genuinely dislike is games for windows live. Why? It requires an xbox to do administrative level account changes even for PC exclusive changes. I've never owned an x-box so I can't modify certain things...even when going through customer support. wtf Microsoft?
 

Tayh

New member
Apr 6, 2009
775
0
0
It's not steam, so it's the devil's work, obviously.
Just like Origin, I suspect it garners a lot of hate simply for being a competitor to steam.
It doesn't help that Ubisoft generally is know for being kind of anti-PC jerks, and there has indeed been legitimate problems and concerns with uPlay in its early days.
Bad rep takes a long time to die.
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Oct 25, 2009
3,301
982
118
UK
Gender
He/Him
The original complaints usually stemmed from Ubisoft's terrible DRM that locked you out of your games if you were not connected to the internet, or if the Uplay servers were down (which happened a lot more often than it should have), and even if you were playing your games when this happened, it would kick you off it. I never really had any of these issues, however, because I never really had a burning desire to play an Ubisoft game when my internet pooped out, but it was still a horrible DRM practice. I've heard that it might be fixed now, but i'm not really sure.

My issues with the service come from the horrible download speeds that would slowly tick down to 0b/s if you were not tabbed into Uplay, and the fact that Uplay games would have to launch through the service no matter how you buy your games. ie, if you bought a Ubisoft game through Steam, you could download it through Steam, but when you played it, it would then open up Uplay, then launch the game through that too so you would end up with both Steam and Uplay open (the latter of which ended up being a huge performance hog), and the game would shut down if you closed either. The service also wouldn't update your game unless you try to play it, so you never know if there is going to be an update until you really feel like playing that game, which can be somewhat problematic if you are into the multiplayer (not that Ubisoft games have ever had a great multiplayer anyway).

The storefront was also absolutely useless too as search results would constantly show up what seemed like everything but what you were searching for. You want Assassin's Creed 4? Well let me show you all the console versions of the game, all of the special editions, all of the other games in the frachise, and all of the expensive statues that you can get (which are also all sold out, but we'll keep them up on the storefront anyway.). That being said though, the storefront is strangely absent from Uplay now, and whenever I click on a game that I don't own, it now redirects me to the Steam store, so I guess that is a better way of handling it than having their own shitty store that downloads things at a snail's pace. You still have to redeem codes through Uplay though.
 

AT God

New member
Dec 24, 2008
564
0
0
My only problem with Uplay is that it is included with Steam games, which means that Steamworks is disabled. I don't think Uplay is evil or wrong, I just think that it should remain independent of Steam. I personally like to hunt achievements, but I made a decision to limit this to Steam achievements so I would never be tempted to rebuy a game on a different platform, and Uplay being required for Steam Ubisoft games basically means I can't hunt achievements. If Uplay was just another digital storefront to compete with Steam and other services I would have no problem with it, I wouldn't use it because I prefer Steam but the fact that Uplay is forced into another similar service is sort of cheap and frustrating.

That said, I do prefer Uplay+Steam integration over complete isolation, like Origin which has basically made me completely ignore EA's future releases. But I think that forcing Uplay through Steam merely angers users and is detrimental to many people.
 

Pr0

New member
Feb 20, 2008
373
0
0
The issue with Uplay is the same as the issue with EADLM...which evolved, eventually into Origin.

For those that remember, EA had a downloadable content service in place for a long stretch previous to Origin. But previous to Origin, EADLM was not an exclusive content store front, it was simply a way of delivering content to a user, regardless of how they had purchased it.

Origin grew out of EADLM, and became an exclusive store front where all games produced by EA eventually got stuck behind it and the only way to access those games is by using a different digital content delivery system than the one you may have all your games on already (In most cases for PC users, that would be Steam).

UPlay is already several steps ahead of where EADLM was, and while its not an exclusive content delivery system yet, youc can tell Ubisoft wants to go that direction because instead of simply accepting content authentication through Steam they want that next layer of authentication by requiring Steam to launch UPlay and then have your game content authenticate there.

So overall its a needless complication of systems which leads eventually to exclusively gating content based on forcing users to only use UPlay for certain titles. Its really where these "digital storefronts/content delivery services" want to go.

Eight years ago these very companies were pushing hard copy ownership and subsidized/co-opted Gamestop to attempt to market PC gaming into an early grave by making physical game stores arrange their stock display to seem as if PC games were irrelevant (PC games usually ended up stocked on one back shelf, usually sharing one side of a two sided shelf and the other side almost ALWAYS had console accessories on it, and that was the side facing the store entry, not the PC games) and console games were what everyone was buying. This was their gambit to control gaming, through console DRM and the highly fabricated illusion that PC gaming was a dead genre....and the people that were spearheading that charge? EA and Ubisoft...the usual suspects.

Once they lost that particular argument, largely because Valve and Steam proved them demonstrably wrong on all counts and PC gaming was actually surging, not slumping, they cut their losses at Game stores though they still lease huge swathes of shelf space in major game retailers to this day, but then focused their efforts on trying to control access to their titles through their own DRM systems....to combat piracy, or so the party line goes. But in all fairness these companies lose more money to internal overhead and production waste than they'll ever lose to piracy, piracy is a hugely convenient boogeyman that gives under-performing titles an excuse to pawn off to investment boards in regards to why the title possibly made less money than it could have made....and being able to control the point of access to that content, or the authentication of it, allows a company like Ubisoft or EA to reliably manufacture their own metrics to support their arguments.

Also, its just annoying that everyone needs their own CDAS solution these days. I mean, no one says that Steam and Only Steam may be our god of "Deliverance" (har har, smarmy pun)...but why does a company with a catalog of PC titles that is small enough to be counted on the fingers of one hand...for example, need its own CDAS solution? Simple facts are is it doesn't and just letting Steam do what Steam already does would be more than acceptable. I find it to be unnecessary waste of CPU cycles to have to run multiple content delivery/authentication systems, simply to appease some other billion dollar failures board of investors.

So its not that Steam was fantastic but at least it grew into what it is today by doing solid justice to the community it attempted to serve, the CDAS systems that have come up behind it are late to the party, and aren't just trying to sell you games, they're trying to control your access to games...and that is an extremely concerning point in the difference between Steam...and anything else.