As reported by The Hustle, in a revealing statement earlier this year, Philippe Tremblay, director of subscriptions for the prominent video game publisher Ubisoft, expressed a rather disturbing outlook on the evolution of digital ownership in gaming. He suggested that consumers need to get “comfortable” with the concept of no longer owning the games they purchase.
Tremblay's remarks came during a discussion about the challenges facing Ubisoft’s subscription service, Ubisoft+—a model similar to Netflix but tailored for fans of iconic franchises like “Assassin’s Creed.” However, these comments resonated beyond the scope of the company, casting a shadow over the future of digital media ownership as a whole—or the illusion of ownership, to be exact.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) emphasizes that when it comes to digital purchases, consumers typically do not acquire true ownership. Instead, they are often granted a license to utilize a movie, music album, video game, or mobile application, a license that can be revoked at the discretion of the provider. While reputable digital storefronts generally refrain from doing so without valid justification, the uncertainty remains.
In response to these ownership concerns, a newly enacted California law aims to clarify that digital retailers should not mislead customers into believing they are purchasing a product when they are, in fact, buying merely a license. Steam, the immensely popular digital marketplace for PC games, has already taken steps to comply. The platform recently revamped its checkout page to specify that users are buying a “license” for a game rather than an actual permanent copy, a move intended to enhance transparency in digital transactions.
However, not all digital retailers are following the same path. Competing platform GOG took a more playful approach, asserting in a frank tweet that it sells offline installers that “cannot be taken away from you,” setting itself apart from the licensing model.
Focusing on another gaming behemoth, Microsoft, one can see its Game Pass subscription service serves as a pivotal player in the conversation surrounding digital ownership—or the lack thereof. Microsoft has made a strategic decision to place all its published games on Game Pass, pouring substantial resources into gaming studios to boost its offering. Nonetheless, troublingly, U.S. subscription revenue has remained stagnant since 2022.
For instance, Tango Gameworks, which Microsoft acquired in 2021, released the critically acclaimed “Hi-Fi Rush” on Game Pass in 2023, garnering millions of downloads. While gamers largely welcomed this model—seemingly unconcerned with the notion of not "owning" the game—the lack of significant sales conversions for Microsoft ultimately led to the shutdown of Tango and several other studios that contributed to Game Pass titles just months later.
This predicament suggests that Microsoft’s gaming division may find stable footing only through a model that encourages consumers to pay for the services provided by industry titans like Game Pass, in addition to purchasing digital games that they do not truly own.
The trajectory Tremblay predicted appears to be manifesting at a rapid pace, and intriguingly, it seems that consumers are increasingly at ease with this new reality.
Comments