Ubisoft Reports Losses..

[Gorgon]

It's disqualified for not playing fair, well in the case of the PC version anyway. No sane person would/should accept what the DRM is demanding.

[Humodour]

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).

 

Considering you're a libertarian, I hope you didn't buy the PC version.

[entrerix]

go liberty.

 

assassins creed 2 was awesome

 

drm sucks.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Considering you're a libertarian, I hope you didn't buy the PC version.

I haven't been libertarian - in any sense of the word - for several years.

[CoM_Solaufein]

I would like to buy their games like Assassins Creed but I refuse to support any company with absurd DRM. Now they are feeling it where it really hurts $$$. Just do a simple disk check on their games and everyone will be happy.

[Nemo0071]

I just wish some publisher stood up and said:

"Pirates have enjoyed their hassle-free no-restrictions-whatsoever games for about enough! From now on, we will provide our customers with the same peace of mind. No DRM, no restrictions."

 

But of course that could be like saying "it's free, come get some!"

Or, it could be a perfectly reasonable and noble gesture... I don't know, I'm too sleepy to tell which...

[Orogun01]

The best DRM that I've have seen is the "release the PC version a week later"

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

... their DRM has nothing to do with their losses. Or at least it's very insubstantial.

[Gorth]

... their DRM has nothing to do with their losses. Or at least it's very insubstantial.

Maybe it has... just the other way around. I.e. their losses are making them desperate.

[Raithe]

Personally, I was mostly being tongue-in-cheek when I mentioned the horror of their DRM as a reason for their losses. While I know a fair few people (and myself included) who didn't buy AC2 and the latest Splinter Cell purely because of that form of annoying DRM, I do doubt that there was a large majority of people boycotting the product. Especially since the pc game market isn't exactly as huge as the console versions these days...

 

But I do think that the general fuss about the DRM has had an effect on Ubisofts reputation, which can have all sorts of knock-on effects...

[Nepenthe]

... their DRM has nothing to do with their losses. Or at least it's very insubstantial.

Maybe it has... just the other way around. I.e. their losses are making them desperate.

 

Considering how recent the newest DRM is, I don't see how it could have. If it has any results, they'll be seen later.

[Gorth]

... their DRM has nothing to do with their losses. Or at least it's very insubstantial.

Maybe it has... just the other way around. I.e. their losses are making them desperate.

 

Considering how recent the newest DRM is, I don't see how it could have. If it has any results, they'll be seen later.

Uhh...

 

I meant bad results causes them to try new desperate measures, like their recent DRM scheme. I can't for the death of me see how that one is accomplishing anything other than alienating people from their corporate brand. Walks like a desperate company, quacks like a desperate company and all that.

[Thorton_AP]

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.

 

Exactly! Ubisoft DID do their research, and their research concluded that it was WORTH the "unfair" perception that SOME people would have. They didn't just randomly make this decision, which is what I've been saying.

 

Sure they may revise based upon feedback/backlash, but Ubisoft did not cluelessly decide to require internet connection without acknowledging that this will be a deal breaker for some people.

[Thorton_AP]

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.

 

Simply being a potential customer, does not make you the target market. Do you think that people pulling in minimum wage are the target market for Rolex watches or BMWs? Ferrari doesn't look at Thorton_AP and go "how can we bring this car to him, because he's +1 customer." They say "We want to make expensive, exotic cars that only rich people can afford. They are our target market. People that cannot afford our automobiles are not.

 

 

Companies are rarely "fair." I don't know where people get this impression. Some companies don't offer their services to various regions. That's not "fair." Some companies require you to have a credit card (as that's the only method of payment). That's not "fair." Some companies require you to have a guarantor in order to do business. That's not "fair" either.

 

 

Reality and life are not fair. So I feel no sympathy to those (not saying you) that claim "not fair" because they aren't able to play a video game due to a DRM policy that does not work for them.

[Nemo0071]

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.

Exactly! Ubisoft DID do their research, and their research concluded that it was WORTH the "unfair" perception that SOME people would have. They didn't just randomly make this decision, which is what I've been saying.

 

Sure they may revise based upon feedback/backlash, but Ubisoft did not cluelessly decide to require internet connection without acknowledging that this will be a deal breaker for some people.

Of course they're not clueless, we're talking about millions of $$$ here. I'm not the CEO or whatever of a multi-million company myself, so I wouldn't know for sure exactly what they're thinking, as a company.

 

I'm a customer, and from a customer POV I'm not happy with their decision. That's all.

 

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.

Simply being a potential customer, does not make you the target market. Do you think that people pulling in minimum wage are the target market for Rolex watches or BMWs? Ferrari doesn't look at Thorton_AP and go "how can we bring this car to him, because he's +1 customer." They say "We want to make expensive, exotic cars that only rich people can afford. They are our target market. People that cannot afford our automobiles are not.

See, you're missing the point again. I can afford games. I buy games, I play games; I'm a gamer. I even have an internet connection stable enough to let me kick a** in online multiplayer (although it still has it's share of problems sometimes).

 

My problem with their always-online-DRM is..... do I really need to repeat what's been said? In a nutshell, it's;

 

- Unnecessary (it's a single-player game)

- Unsuccesful (doesn't stop piracy)

- [insert a whole bunch of different personal reasons for everyone]

 

As if these weren't enough, our little conversation reminded me that it's also "arrogant" (not required, but desired; the DirectX thing).

 

It's simple. Me customer. Me not like. I could care less about their financial status or company image, to be honest.

[HoonDing]

The best DRM that I've have seen is the "don't develop the PC version"

fixed.

[Mamoulian War]

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.

 

Simply being a potential customer, does not make you the target market. Do you think that people pulling in minimum wage are the target market for Rolex watches or BMWs? Ferrari doesn't look at Thorton_AP and go "how can we bring this car to him, because he's +1 customer." They say "We want to make expensive, exotic cars that only rich people can afford. They are our target market. People that cannot afford our automobiles are not.

 

 

Companies are rarely "fair." I don't know where people get this impression. Some companies don't offer their services to various regions. That's not "fair." Some companies require you to have a credit card (as that's the only method of payment). That's not "fair." Some companies require you to have a guarantor in order to do business. That's not "fair" either.

 

 

Reality and life are not fair. So I feel no sympathy to those (not saying you) that claim "not fair" because they aren't able to play a video game due to a DRM policy that does not work for them.

 

 

Are you seriously comparing Ferrari to a PC game???

 

[Tigranes]

I'm sure that Ubisoft, at the board/management level, felt that they had enough research and analysis to back up their decision, that they thought it was a gamble worth taking. It'd be interesting to see what Ubisoft does over the next few months, because that will start to show whether investors/board felt the losses reported here were contributed to by the DRM. So right now, it's not clear yet whether, business-wise, they've made a good decision or not. Certainly I don't think it was a 'huge catastrophe', which is a pity.

 

On the whole fair thing, Thorton, way too black and white. Companies aren't "fair" in that pure white fair sense you mean, but they still have to pretend to be fair, they still have to play the game.

[HoonDing]

Ubisoft would already have become the new Iron Lore, without their huge sales on console. I wouldn't be surprised to see them stop developing for PC altogether - but hopefully not before BG&E 2.

[Nepenthe]

... their DRM has nothing to do with their losses. Or at least it's very insubstantial.

Maybe it has... just the other way around. I.e. their losses are making them desperate.

 

Considering how recent the newest DRM is, I don't see how it could have. If it has any results, they'll be seen later.

Uhh...

 

I meant bad results causes them to try new desperate measures, like their recent DRM scheme. I can't for the death of me see how that one is accomplishing anything other than alienating people from their corporate brand. Walks like a desperate company, quacks like a desperate company and all that.

 

I have no idea how I managed to completely misread you. Sorry about that, it's either frostbite or sunstroke, depending on the country I was in at the time (Finland or Greece)

[LostStraw]

I remember the angry postings when some game companies started the one time online activation scheme and how it wasn't fair. Then more companies hopped on the wagon and it has pretty much become the norm for many AAA games. If other companies start to pick up the always online DRM I suspect the reaction to be the same and this DRM will seem much more fair when the next more intrusive DRM comes around. It takes one company to really step out and get the ball rolling -- now we just have to see if more companies follow suit and stick with it. EA did it with Command and Conquer 4 so I'm really intrigued to see if they'll implement it in any other titles too.

 

Blizzard is essentially doing the same thing as well but in a much smaller and more subtle way with the removal of LAN multiplayer support in Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 -- taking a feature that was once available offline and making it online only. Activision also tested something like this out by not including any dedicated servers for Modern Warfare 2 but they have since reversed their stance and will be including them in the next Call of Duty title.

[Mamoulian War]

After they rolled one time activation, i stopped preordering PC games altogether... Buying only after i read user reviews... I've gone from buying 10+ PC games/year down to 1-2... This year I only purchased Witcher EE...

[Gorgon]

What's the point of pre ordering PC games. They print 'em according to demand. Actually running out of copies must be pretty rare. Seems to me it's more intended as a sales ploy, get the ball rolling early.

[Mamoulian War]

I know about lot of PC games i missed few years ago and they were sold out pretty fast. For example, I missed Witcher EE, and was able to find UK version of the game jast two month ago on ebay for non-rip-off price... Same goes with the 1st Drakensang... English version of the game is nowhere to be found

Edited May 30, 2010 by Mamoulian War

[Gorgon]

You would think they could just let the store burn a copy for you rather than lose a customer. In a lot of ways we are still doing business like it was the 80s in computer games.