Ubisoft Reports Losses..

[Raithe]

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6262887.html

 

Well, they shipped 9 million AC2... and still ended up with a major turnaround compared to last year.

 

But it had nothing to do with that crappy DRM they've started using on their games.. No, its just the "lagging industry" alone that caused it...

[Syraxis]

They could just admit their attempt to push into the NDS/Wii casual market was a failure. Of course that would imply they were wrong about something and they just couldn't tell their investors that.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Syraxis

[Gorgon]

Does Assassins Creed 2 need 'always on line' on console ?.

[Slowtrain]

"to release new iterations of our major franchises on a more regular basis and guarantee high quality levels."

 

It's like they're selling fastfood hamburgers. No wonder video games freaking suck so bad these days.

[kirottu]

They freaking do, don

[213374U]

It's like heroine. You know it's bad for you, you know you can't get caught admitting you do it, you know it'll eventually turn you into a wretch of a human being... but you can't help it.

 

 

Not really.

 

[Thorton_AP]

Unless their DRM affects the consoles as well, I doubt that's a significant cause of their losses.

[Orogun01]

It's like heroine. You know it's bad for you, you know you can't get caught admitting you do it, you know it'll eventually turn you into a wretch of a human being... but you can't help it.

 

 

Not really.

They removed it, Youtube is really anal these days.

 

Anyway, unless they do a 180 I see them going down this road. Their last two AAA releases didn't met expectations and with the amount of money spent on promotion I say that's a significant loss.

[Nemo0071]

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6262887.html

 

Well, they shipped 9 million AC2... and still ended up with a major turnaround compared to last year.

 

But it had nothing to do with that crappy DRM they've started using on their games.. No, its just the "lagging industry" alone that caused it...

OMG this is good news. Not that I have a problem with Ubisoft or their games, mind you. I just can't feel sympathy for them because I'm glad they'll see their little "experiment" didn't work out as they planned, so their customer-abusing DRM can finally go away. I hope.

 

Actually, one of the comments in that article mentioned something about a "GOTY edition with the DRM removed". I would be all over it, if it happens. I doubt it though.

 

Does Assassins Creed 2 need 'always on line' on console ?.

I'd like the answer to that as well, preferably from a console gamer who has the game.

[vault_overseer]

Does Assassins Creed 2 need 'always on line' on console ?.

 

No. I played through it offline.

[Thorton_AP]

I just can't feel sympathy for them because I'm glad they'll see their little "experiment" didn't work out as they planned, so their customer-abusing DRM can finally go away

 

Well, this loss is hardly because of the DRM method, as lame as it is. I doubt they'll see it that way. They could (hopefully not!) still conclude it worked based upon their PC sales targets for those games. But the console sales is where the $$$ is.

[Nemo0071]

I just can't feel sympathy for them because I'm glad they'll see their little "experiment" didn't work out as they planned, so their customer-abusing DRM can finally go away

 

Well, this loss is hardly because of the DRM method, as lame as it is. I doubt they'll see it that way. They could (hopefully not!) still conclude it worked based upon their PC sales targets for those games. But the console sales is where the $$$ is.

 

Yeah, I know all that. But if they go to the trouble of making a PC version anyway, why hinder their own sales with the annoying stuff? It's almost like whenever a potential customer complains about their DRM, they plug their ears and go "LALALALALALA"

 

Their loss, I guess... And a sad fact is that they'll only lose "customers". Pirates will keep piratin' (and enjoying) the game, anyway.

[Thorton_AP]

The only thing I can think of is that somewhere they have data (valid or not) that concludes that the benefit of the DRM outweighs those that feel too restricted by it.

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't even care about persistent online type DRM as a policy. If a company makes a decision like that, then I do not feel that people have much of a leg to stand on with respect to complaining about it because you they have bad internet, or inconsistent internet, or a laptop, or whatever. A company that chooses to go with a DRM like that is clearly stating that their target market are people that have consistent, stable internet. So I don't care for the "it's not fair" type comments. It's the same as it not being fair that a game requires DirectX 11 as far as I'm concerned.

 

The issue is, of course, when the target market is ****ed over because the servers bomb out and whatnot. That part is inexcusable, and why I am not a fan of Ubisoft's DRM policy.

 

At the same time, I obviously have no issue with people that feel this DRM is not for them and they skip out on a game that they would otherwise pick up.

[HoonDing]

I guess this means more Assassin's Creed & Prince of Persia crap, and no Beyond good & evil 2?

 

[WorstUsernameEver]

I guess this means more Assassin's Creed & Prince of Persia crap, and no Beyond good & evil 2?

 

 

In a nutshell, yes.

[Nemo0071]

To be perfectly honest, I don't even care about persistent online type DRM as a policy. If a company makes a decision like that, then I do not feel that people have much of a leg to stand on with respect to complaining about it because you they have bad internet, or inconsistent internet, or a laptop, or whatever. A company that chooses to go with a DRM like that is clearly stating that their target market are people that have consistent, stable internet. So I don't care for the "it's not fair" type comments.

And I said it's them losing / pissing off customers.

 

It's the same as it not being fair that a game requires DirectX 11 as far as I'm concerned.

Just to be clear, that's not the same. You see, if we were talking about a multiplayer-only game, then a stable connection would be a requirement.

 

What you're they're saying is like this:

A game (read: DRM) wants you to have DX 11, but it actually runs on DX 9.0c.

- Then why do I need DX 11?

- Because we say so. If you don't have (stable) DX 11, you're not worthy of playing our awesome DX 9 game. Go f*** yourself. *evil laughter*

 

 

Seriously, I can't respect that.

[Slowtrain]

That

[Thorton_AP]

Just to be clear, that's not the same. You see, if we were talking about a multiplayer-only game, then a stable connection would be a requirement.

 

What you're they're saying is like this:

A game (read: DRM) wants you to have DX 11, but it actually runs on DX 9.0c.

- Then why do I need DX 11?

- Because we say so. If you don't have (stable) DX 11, you're not worthy of playing our awesome DX 9 game. Go f*** yourself. *evil laughter*

 

 

Seriously, I can't respect that.

 

 

I disagree. Any business is free to determine their own target audience and market it however they want. I think the people that claim "no fair" are just being whiny because they really want to play the game, but have other reservations about the product (i.e. the DRM).

 

Business is never fair.

 

How "fair" was it that Glide was proprietary and the shiny ATI 3D Graphics card I got didn't support it. Didn't stop games from coming out that were Glide only, or Glide optimized. The PC gaming industry is littered with bull**** like this over the past 15 years or so (and perhaps even farther along).

 

I never played Halo 2 because it required DirectX 10. I'm pretty sure that they could have done the game in DirectX 9 if they wanted, or surely supported a DirectX 9 rendering path (given the differences between it and Halo 1 were miniscule).

 

 

Want to play a game but don't like the mandatory internet requirement? Then by all means do not buy it and play it. Stick to your principles! But don't cry that it's not "fair" because it's no different to you than if the game had never been made at all.

[Tigranes]

You're not actually answering him though - you're sort of going past his arguments and answering something else.

 

I mean, there are degrees of 'fair'. I could argue that it's not fair people with expensive computers keep wanting fancier graphics and forcing us to keep up and spend $. Or, I could argue that it's not fair that, say, a single-player game requires me to connect to the internet all the time or I can't play.. even though it doesn't do anything. You can't throw the same answer at both complaints.

[Thorton_AP]

You can't throw the same answer at both complaints.

 

Yes I can. You're not the target audience. People don't make decisions like "Mandatory internet access" and say "Well, hopefully we'll get some strong sales from the people that don't have internet access." The target audience for a game like Assassin's Creed for PC is people that own PC's with consistent internet connections (I could even go further, and state that it's also the subset of these people that are willing to agree with such a DRM).

 

 

It is the same thing. I contend that, however, because you want the game, but are unwilling to agree to the restrictions the DRM which therefore impairs your ability to purchase the software, you become bitter about it (the "royal" you, not you specifically).

 

I do not see it as being different at all. Especially given that games are a non-essential good. Really, all the "unfair" cries for something like this is the jaded response of someone that really wants something, but cannot have it.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Thorton_AP

[Tigranes]

See, the world today doesn't work like that. Companies don't go "Here are our terms, take it or leave it", then consumers go "OK" or "no". Companies do market research. Companies do read (or have analysis firms read) forums like these. Companies do gauge responses. Perceptions of fair and unfair do matter in company image, the decisions companies make, etc; and of course those perceptions do change.

 

For instance, no, the target audience of AC2 for Ubisoft is not people who have persistent internet connections AND agree to the DRM. The target audience is as many gamers as possible. They're trying to argue it IS fair, trying to make people buy the game because they want it even if they dislike the DRM, trying to shift the thinking. They're playing the same game as, say, Nemo is.

 

It's obviously not as direct and willy-nilly as "It's not fair!" "OK, it's gone", but unless you're willing to throw all thsoe very basic truths about contemporary capitalist societies...

[Humodour]

Suck it Ubisoft.

[Nemo0071]

Any business is free to determine their own target audience and market it however they want. I think the people that claim "no fair" are just being whiny because they really want to play the game, but have other reservations about the product (i.e. the DRM).

 

Business is never fair.

Just in case you're referring to me, I never said "no fair" and I sure as hell didn't whine about it... I mean, what's the point?

 

Now we got that out of the way, the rest is pretty much like Tigranes said. Businesses have to be fair if they want to "stay in the business". I'm the target audience, because I'm +1 customer. Yes, on my own I may be worth, say, $40 for that company? $50 maybe? But the more customers they shoo off with their DRM stick, thinking they're repelling pirates, the more this number grows. I'm not even going to talk about company image.

 

And finally, yes, I want that game. Hell yeah I want it. I have no doubt it's an awesome game and I'm a sucker for stealth games. But I'm not going to buy it because of their DRM. If Ubisoft managed to lose a definite customer like me, good job then. Like I said over and over again, it's their loss. If they remove the DRM, I'll buy it; if not, I'm not going to cry over it. Simple as that.

[Malcador]

Disappointed that their losses aren't higher.

[J.E. Sawyer]

I'm pretty skeptical/don't think there's evidence to support suggestions that Ubisoft's losses are tied to their DRM policies.

 

I guess this means more Assassin's Creed & Prince of Persia crap, and no Beyond good & evil 2?

 

Assassin's Creed 2 was one of the best games of 2009 (IMO).