you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 4 months ago (13 children)

so they can't play against people on steam?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    It's more complicated than that. Technically, you're right, if the game entirely relies on steamworks for networking you can only play with people on steam. A lot of indies/AA actually just did that for a while because they just connected players P2P (so, no dedicated servers, which would necessarily be "outside" of steam's ecosystem) and crossplay was too complicated, so there are a lot of multiplayer games out there that you literally can't play crossplatform, at least in a user friendly way (shadow warrior 2 comes to mind, where you can actually connect the GOG version to the Steam version by entering a console command and knowing the other guy's IP).

    Big publishers like Ubisoft definitely had the developers and the money to roll out their own crossplay architecture and code very early though, and they absolutely did. Basically, if the game has dedicated servers it most likely has crossplatform.

    Nowadays a lot of UE games just rely on Epic Online Services for crossplay. I think you can actually use it with non-UE games too but there might be licensing shenanigans involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    r6s isn't unreal though, it's anvil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    i was genuinely curious because i didn't know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they're using steam's services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case.

    but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk.

  • source
  • parent