Ubisoft Bringing EA's Games To Its Uplay Service

Well I can't say I saw this coming, but it makes a whole lot of sense. While EA is still restricting the sale of its games on Steam, it's now allowing Ubisoft to sell certain games on Ubi's Uplay service. According to a statement from Ubisoft, games from Warner Bros and a handful of other publishers, will also be made available.

"We’re thrilled to be bringing EA titles to Uplay and Ubisoft titles to Origin – the more choice for consumers, the better in today’s gaming world," said Michael Blank, Vice President of Production for Origin at EA. "Offering games like Dead Space 3, Need for Speed Most Wanted and more on Uplay is a great opportunity to reach even more PC gamers worldwide."

This means that in addition to Ubi's catalogue gamers will be able to purchase games from EA's back catalogue and put down pre-orders on upcoming games such as Sim City.

"Ubisoft is committed to continually improving Uplay and making it the most rewarding set of services available to our customers," said Stephanie Perotti, Worldwide Director of Uplay at Ubisoft. "Adding excellent titles from EA, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment and many other top developers to Uplay shop means that players now have more choice in where and how they purchase games online."

Previously consumers were being forced to sign up to Origin if they wanted to play games such as Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3, so this is an interesting move from a publisher that very publically removed its games from Steam. It'll be interesting to see whether this is part of a long terms strategy for EA to begin releasing its games on other services, or if it's simply a one-off deal.


    "the more choice for consumers, the better in today’s gaming world" Unless your choice is Steam...

    Anyone actually use Uplay? Only reason im on there is cause you have to log on to play Farcry 3. And its annoying as fuck. Steam FTW.

      I've used it for Far Cry & From Dust. Just as a launcher though. Switched off the uPlay in-game interface coz its annoying.

      But the funny thing about uPlay I've noticed, is that when I click on the 'buy our games' button, it links to the Steam store page.

      Edit: spelling

      Last edited 20/02/13 3:04 pm

        Lol. Yeah i bought Farcry 3 through steam but it makes you log onto uplay to play. So annoying.

    this makes no sense. why would EA have its products sold on a platform that has even fewer users than Origin?

      Origin doesn't look so bad by comparison?

        that could work for the 0.0002% of PC gamers who haven't already got Steam installed.

    uplay is the reason I don't play anno 2070 anymore.

      The Ridiculous Australia tax on Anno 2070 is why I haven't bought it...

      ...and Ubisoft DRM

        I loved 1404 but they can go to hell before I buy 2070 with all that DRM.

        bought a key from an international site.. $18 on sale.

    Well that's just more childish behaviour by EA. If you're going to let one online competitor sell your games, why not the other(s)? .. just shows how pathetic (and petty) EA executives really are.

    Last edited 20/02/13 3:09 pm

    Here is how much I care for UPlay or Origin when it comes to buying games:


    Anything but Steam, right? Uplay is just annoying.. Especially when it has to update once a week for 10 minutes when all you want to do is play a single player game which I bought on Steam...

    At least the offline mode fucking works in uplay and origin.

      Offline mode works in Steam as well. I don't know where this notion it doesn't comes from. All I can imagine is that the people making these claims are 'less' than computer savvy.

        It was very buggy a few years ago... Well maybe a bit more than a few years ago.
        I think 2008 or earlier offline mode just didn't work ~90% of the time.

        I build my own PC and am pretty savvy. Offline mode really doesn't work properly. I'm a big steam fan, but more than once I've had steam offline mode go bananas - had to tether my laptop to my mobile, log in, and then mess with the offline mode setting. You can read numerous forum posts about it - it seems to be a really common problem.

    as much as I dislike this kind of thing...it looks like everyone has steam stockholm syndrome

    Dear publishers other than Steam:

    You lost.

    I'm sorry. But you guys really came too late to the party. You see, back when you were all abandoning the PC in droves in order to focus on the consoles, Valve was working on a way to make DRM and digital distribution work on PCs, instead of simply screaming "OH, THEY'RE ALL PIRATES! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A PROFIT ON PC!" like you guys did, despite most of you seemed to manage just fine making games for PC for the decade preceding its launch.

    Oh, you might say it's Stockholm syndrome. Or that Steam's basically winning by default, because it was there first. That's part of the truth, sure. Last thing we PC gamers need, really, is another processing sitting in the background taking up resources, and another login/password to remember, and another place to have to trust our credit card details to.

    Besides, didn't most of you guys do fine selling your games on Steam, anyway? Or was that just a test run before you tried to steal its ideas and methods and (poorly) implement them on your own networks? Letting Steam do all the legwork, then implementing it yourself?

    Anyway, I digress. Steam does what you guys wish you could do, because it's been doing them for years, and they put effort into, not merely just chucking up an ersatz DD network and expecting player to come to them. It would not be too bold too suggest that Steam is probably the biggest thing to happen to PC gaming during the dark ages of the last gen of consoles.

    So, I'm sorry, but I just don't care about your DD systems.

    - Lith.

    (PS: it doesn't help that neither Ubi nor EA have any games I really want to play, either.)

      Do you really want to live with the consequences of Steam "winning" and no one trying to unseat them though?

      In the Browser Wars Microsoft "won", and decided that there was no reason to continue development of Internet Explorer after 6.0. They only started improving the browser again when Firefox and Safari started to present a credible threat. Would we have been better off if everyone gave up when they lost?

      Steams competitors are clearly not on the same level yet, but that won't always be the case. They could certainly narrow the gap if they stopped trying to be a closed ecosystem with their own friends lists and chat systems. For example, if they linked to a user's XMPP account (e.g. a GMail account) they could automatically get a populated friends list and messaging system.

        I agree that there needs to be competition, but it is only needed to keep prices down. and there are plenty of places that do that, gog, greenman, humble, ozgame, etc. I very rarely buy games off steam save for summer/was nter sale and some others. I use steam as a launcher/updater for alot of my games.

        With regards to your IE statement, IE was never good the only reason it was used so much was that the average person was just starting to use computers everyday. So they were content to sit in microsofts little fantasy world of thinking their OS is anything but shit.

        If game devs started getting their hands on the info google has, I'll be very worried. The amount of info google has about an individual is scary.

          Are you saying that because there is token competition, no one else should try to compete with Steam?

          And price isn't the only place where competition can occur. Price wasn't an issue during the browser wars once Microsoft started giving their browser away for free. Consumers were still worse off when browser innovation stalled for a number of years.

          So I'd prefer a situation where Valve can't sit on their laurels, and needs to continue innovating to maintain their position.

            For me the issue isn't that they have their own store. The issue is that you're required to use it.
            If you buy the game on Steam, Steam should be the only level of DRM.
            It's frustrating to launch a game, then have to sign into Origin/Uplay/other online 'services' to run it.

            Not to mention EA aren't even selling a lot of their newer games on Steam anymore, and the ones they are are stupidly overpriced.

        Well, there's a couple of key differences which are important, and make the "IE 6" comparison ludicrous.

        * IE 6 doesn't involve having to remember a user/pass every time you fire it up. So no password fatigue, nor does it require important personal details (credit card, name and address, etc,) to use, which could be easily breached. Yes, steam could be hacked, but having your details in one hackable place is better than having it in three. Or four. Or five. Or...

        * A browser is only used when you want to browse the internet. It is not a requirement to be run in the background so that other programs may run, unlike Steam or Origin or whatever. Granted, this is a small point, but a valid one.

        * And, most importantly - Valve is a privately-held company. They're only out to impress us, the customer, not a bunch of anonymous shareholders who have no idea as to how to run the business but who still want and get a say as to how to run the business...unlike EA, MS, or Ubi. That's where most of the crap stuff comes from: merchant bankers and stockbrokers screaming "MORE PRE-ORDER DLC AND MICROTRANSACTIONS!!11!"

    right about now, I'd take (the heaping pile of shit that's) GFWL over uPlay and Origin. There's no pre-game launcher, it gets in my way less (though i accept that that could change at the drop of a hat, wtf was with bf3 dropping to desktop when switching to the driving mission, the first few times it froze when doing that)
    Steam may not be perfect but it's pretty damn close.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now