Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Games

Ubisoft's Launcher Broke Its Own Games on Linux and Steam Deck (pcgamer.com) 44

Earlier this week NME reported: With an update to Ubisoft Connect, Ubisoft has broken Steam Deck and Linux compatibility for a number of its biggest games including The Division 2 and Assassin's Creed Valhalla. As reported by GamingOnLinux, the compatibility issues were caused by Ubisoft issuing an update for its Ubisoft Connect launcher. Even if Ubisoft's titles are bought through Steam, they still launch with Ubisoft Connect and require a connection with the third-party launcher to run.
"Thankfully, Steam Deck users have already figured out that updating the device's Proton Experimental version and switching all Ubisoft games to use it resolves the issue," added GameRant.

But Gaming on Linux described the incident as third-party launchers on Steam "once again being a massive nuisance." Why do developers and publishers keep forcing these absolutely useless third-party launchers on us? Never once have I, or anyone I've spoken to, actually wanted them. They only ever cause problems and solve basically nothing that Steam cannot already do directly.
And PC Gamer agrees: This is yet another example of frustrating third-party launchers only making everyone's lives more difficult. I don't even want to know Ubisoft Connect exists, let alone have it flash up in my face and not be able to play my games because it's not working properly. I understand these companies want my data but you're supposed to be sneakier and better at getting it than this by now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubisoft's Launcher Broke Its Own Games on Linux and Steam Deck

Comments Filter:
  • Not Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Sunday February 05, 2023 @01:48AM (#63266349)
    Ubisoft is hemorrhaging cash and has no viable future. Of course they will screw their existing customers to stay afloat as long as they can.
    • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

      So, how worrying is it for its users perception among Ubisofts customers? What percentage of them are under Linux?

      The point that I am trying to make is that they probably don't give "high priority" to this glitch.

      So please stay calm here.

      Disclaimer: I boot Windows at most once a week in a VM when I really need to.

      • Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Informative)

        by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Sunday February 05, 2023 @02:02AM (#63266365)

        It's not only Linux.
        My gaming machine uses Windows 10, and I recently started playing Far Cry 5, bought on Steam a couple years ago or something like that.
        When I launch the game, it automatically opens the Ubisoft launcher, which sits in the background and logs me in to Ubisoft.
        I wouldn't mind, however when I exit the game session, the Ubisoft launcher fires a series of pop-ups and error messages saying my session has expired "due to inactivity", and that cloud synchronization failed. I guess it counts the time playing the game as "inactivity" (fitting for some of their games, I guess).
        Thankfully, my in-game progress is still saved, therefore these error messages are just a nuisance.

        • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

          Thanks for the feedback. +1 informative!

        • The only possible explanations I've been able to come up with for why game companies insist on their own launchers are:
          1) Branding; in other words, they don't want steam/valve to be the only recognized brand on their product in a way that annoying unskippable splash screens don't provide
          2) The ability to advertise DLCs and other games they sell without needing to patch every single game
          Every other use I can think of is already provided to them via the distribution platform.

          • They can advertise DLCs within Steam itself. I bought plenty DLCs for games I liked, directly via Steam, without gibing a rat's arse who the publisher was.
            As for branding, well, OK, maybe that would make sense, but their launchers have the opposite effect on me, especially poorly written ones.

            Worst offenders are Ubisoft and Rockstar Games Launcher. They are slow, buggy and obnoxious.
            Epic Games Launcher is generally fine, but has its own weirdness.
            Another very recent example, Sims 4 was free to get on Epic G

      • There are much more important things I could be worrying about. I suspect it will eventually come down to whether Ubisoft chooses to do the right thing or a class action lawsuit to get them to unlock their DRM.
    • Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Sunday February 05, 2023 @05:55AM (#63266557)

      Ubisoft is hemorrhaging cash and has no viable future. Of course they will screw their existing customers to stay afloat as long as they can.

      Don't misattribute this problem. It happens to be Ubisoft today, but there are plenty of publishers out there who have pushed horrible launchers that have broken games and experiences for users with shoddy updates, even when they aren't haemorrhaging cash.

      The reality is this additional piece of fucking useless middleware sitting between you wanting to play a game and the game actually running is an utter cancer on the industry. In many cases these "launchers" have been added and don't offer a single additional feature. Paradox launcher was a classic one. It did nothing. Fire up the game from Steam, and it launched the Paradox launcher which listed the only Paradox game on the screen and asked me to click run a second time. ZERO VALUE.

      • Fire up the game from Steam, and it launched the Paradox launcher which listed the only Paradox game on the screen and asked me to click run a second time. ZERO VALUE.

        Remnids me of our SAP system which is used for HR proceses (approving leave, approving travel expenses, etc). You click your account, select Sign Out, and another box pops ups in the middle of the screen asking if you want to sign out. No you dumb shit. I selected Sign Out for my health.

  • by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Sunday February 05, 2023 @01:52AM (#63266353) Journal

    Steam itself is a third-party launcher if you aren't playing Half-Life or Counter-Strike. Hasn't it been over a decade since we've had any of those games anyway?

    • by Bahbus ( 1180627 ) on Sunday February 05, 2023 @02:26AM (#63266405) Homepage

      Well, yes and no. It is a third-party launcher in terms of commerce. Ubisoft is seller (first), you are buyer (second), Steam is distributor (third).

      However, if you look at it from the point of view as a library of games launcher and take the commerce side out, then it flows a bit different. Steam launches game doesn't matter who's (first), you are the player (second), Ubisoft has to connect in and watch (third). The only third parties that should be allowed here are ones that you specifically ask for (friends, streamer's viewers, etc).

      Basically, if you are going to take the time to list your game in Steam, it shouldn't need anything beyond Steam and normal gaming things (.NET Framework, DirectX updates, blah blah blah) to work. For example, there are games that are cross-platform between Steam and Epic. I do not have the Epic launcher or an account. However, when I launch of those games through Steam, the game assigns me a valid "anonymous" Epic account that others can use to find me on their Epic accounts, or you can link the Epic account if you have one. Zero fuss, zero problems, zero effort on my part. Ubisoft could have done something like this, but they haven't, and they won't. They just plain don't think that way.

    • by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Sunday February 05, 2023 @03:31AM (#63266447)

      Imagine you have a huge grocery store where you buy everything. Where you CAN buy everything. However, when you buy a particular brand of potato chips the cashier at the counter gives you a coupon and tells you to go to the neighboring store to actually pick up your bag of potato chips. Why? Because. Just ... because. There's no real reason. You've already bought and paid for it, but you have to go somewhere else to get it.

    • FTA > Why do developers and publishers keep forcing these absolutely useless third-party launchers on us?

      The same question applies equally well to the Steam Platform.

      • When Valve launched Steam it offered smaller developers a place to showcase their titles to a larger audience while simultaneously providing anti-piracy DRM that smaller developers with few coding resources could not afford to develop themselves. There were many competitors at the time (2003) and several were quite popular. I believe the reason Steam won out, and this is entirely my opinion, was that their DRM was invisible. I was an early Steam adopter (I also used many of the popular competitors) and had
    • Steam itself is a third-party launcher if you aren't playing Half-Life or Counter-Strike. Hasn't it been over a decade since we've had any of those games anyway?

      From whose perspective? In terms of the companies involved, Steam may seem like a 3rd party. But in terms of the user they are usually the first party. I bought the game on Steam. It's in my Steam Library. I launch the game from Steam (try to) and then ... another completely pointless launcher launches in between?

      For my experience this is a "third party", something pointless sitting between me and the game I started from the launcher I started it from.

      • by Luthair ( 847766 )
        The third-party launchers also break things. I got a Ubisoft game free on Epic some time back, after downloading it and attempting to start the Ubisoft launcher refused to recognize the Epic download and wanted me to redownload the game (50gb) through their launcher. There were posts dating back years for the issue, and of course the support team were worthless. While I have fast unlimited internet I just went and played something else.
    • by znrt ( 2424692 )

      steam is THE launcher. it's the biggest game library there is, with probably the biggest market there is, and offers quite a bit of value to the customer.

      now these other companies just want to be there and tap that market, but they want to impose THEIR launcher as well on the users even though it not only doesn't add any value whatsoever but is a common nuisance and source of problems.

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      You're being intentionally obtuse, the purpose of a launcher is to download and verify purchases. The user purchased from Steam, ergo it is the first party launcher, the third parties provide no value to the user they exist so that the publisher can track you.
  • Coding against Steam APIs is painful and is a lot of extra work if you want things to work outside of Steam.
    • Fuck the the data collection and fuck everyone who thinks companies should except any symphony when they cant.
  • I don't think there is a linux version of ubisoft connect. The title says "Ubisoft's Launcher Broke Its Own Games on Linux " but it should be "a bug in Proton/Wine prevents steamdeck customers from launching latest ubisoft connect version". Unless Ubisoft claims their client works on linux/proton, they broke nothing. You may blame Valve, any windows game may stop working on steamdeck at next game update.
  • The reason they use launchers is because it is effectively a marketplace app. The launcher will include a store for their own apps. And yes Steam does this but when Ubisoft sell a copy of say Assassin's Creed through Steam then Steam, like PSN, XBL, Apple Store, take a not inconsequential 30% cut. So out of a game that sells for say $30 Steam take $10. It doesn't take a genius to work out that for the software developer/publisher that it is in their best financial interests to not sell on these external mar
    • The sad thing is that none of these third-party launcher/stores offer anything except one publishing group's products. Only Epic changed that script a bit. Instead they committed the sin of buying out studios to release exclusively on their platform.

      If Ubisoft wants to compete with Steam, let them actually compete with Steam.

  • People using third party launchers (steam) complain about first party launchers (ubisoft) breaking their games. Steam successfully foisted the whole craptastic launcher system on the industry. There are no surprises here.

    • by self-inflicted ( 6168820 ) on Sunday February 05, 2023 @09:41AM (#63266769)
      Except that, unlike any of the other launchers (AFAIK), people actually *like* using Steam. [Yes, I know this wasn't initially the case.] It streamlines the entire process of game ownership, while also providing a useful forum for everything from reviews to technical support to help when you get stuck.

      Every other launcher I've seen - which is at least four of them - add pointless friction more than they help. Epic has probably gotten the closest to actually competing with Steam with their recent massive investments in the effort, but they're still a long way behind.

      --
      We will soon have the option to harvest our farts, so we can post & comment on stats about them.
      • From what I see the only people who actually like steam are the people who never knew a world without it. Sure there are benefits to having a centralized place to buy games but it comes with a 30% markup and invasive data mining policies. I managed to avoid steam for a good 10-15 years before bowing to inevitability.

        I wonder why if Steam wants to tout LINUX compatibility they don't provide a LINUX native client? Why does it still depend on a third party Windows compatibility layer?

      • The steam launcher fucked me over. I have an ancient PC I use to play ancient games bought from steam. Well, I used to play them, until a launcher update which began to insist on checking CPU features and refused to proceed because they weren't present. This is just to run the *launcher*, not the games themselves which played happily before the steam update began checking.

    • by znrt ( 2424692 )

      semantics. steam just works, is mature software, has a huge (repeat: really huge) library, has unrivalled refund/try-out policies. in a world where "launchers" are a thing, steam is the launcher most people uses.

      ubisoft's launcher is buggy, bloated, has very limited offer, provides no added value except being a gate for ubisoft's few exclusive games, and simply has no reason to exist if ubisoft want's to profit from their games being available on steam too.

      anecdote: i personally uninstalled "the division 2"

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      You can try to redefine it all you want but the purpose of a launcher was to verify purchases, if the game was purchased on Steam then Steam is the first part launcher.
  • Companies like Apple do not need alternative App Stores. The overall customer experience will be horrendous. We all saw what happened when Cydia and others had their unofficial stores: tech savvy users were in awe; regular users bricking their devices. Then, when all begin to fail, who gets the blame? You guess it; NOT the government. Not the user. More the product than the broken App Store Will end up with damaged reputation - as seen by the non-tech savvy eyes. Same as of the average gamer that has not re

    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      This is completely orthogonal and is either intentionally a straw man or originates from someone using a wet noodle for a brain. The argument you're making is that Steam (or perhaps the Windows Store) should be the only way you can purchase games. Apple's iOS store doesn't prevent developers from placing interstitials when launching the application and in fact most major games on iOS do this to download assets independent of Apple's storefront.
  • So, why doesn't Steam get rid of their launcher? It's just as useless as other launchers.

    I always check GOG first for games. They actually operate a proper digital distribution platform with no extra bullshit.

    • That is not a decision Steam can do, the publisher does these decisions.
      • Not really. Most developers would much rather sell direct and cut out the 30% middleman. Steam's monopoly power is used to keep users inside Steam so they can continue to push more revenue streams.

        • Then sell directly, and don't require spyware installed on my computer.
        • Sorry I misread your post as why Steam didn't get rid of the Ubisoft launched while you where talking about Steam itself, which makes even less sense. But in any case, not a single one of the games that caused this trouble due to their own launches exists on GOG. So going GOG does not aid you in playing them either.
    • by Luthair ( 847766 )
      How else are games going to be downloaded and access verified?
    • Steamlauncher adds quite a bit of functionality. Achievements, remote-play, cloud saves, and lots more. If I must have DRM, I'll take steam over pretty much every other "store" out there.

      • There's no reason for a launcher of any kind. If you can't figure out that your OS is the only launcher you need, then think of it like a puzzle game you have to win to demonstrate you've obtained the basic skills necessary to pass the tutorial.

        • Without the steam overlay, I would need to manually move my saves between the 3 devices I game on, and I would not be able to remote from one to the other. I have friends I game with on my steamlist. It's more than a launcher, it adds value.

          You don't have to turn in your nerd card for using stuff. You can even be condescending for no reason and still have nerd cred. It's cool bud. have a beer.

  • 2k broke their Linux and Desk games as well.
    By forcing a bunch of ads into old games with a shitty fucking launcher.
    The drones in the company that thought that was a good idea need a pipe bender to the face.

"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight

Working...