Has Anybody Bothered to Read This

[FIREWALL]

http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/index.php?p=59&art_id=60&vars=c2VuZGVyPUFMTCZzZW5kZXJfdXJsPWluZGV4LnBocCUzR nAlM0Q1OSUyNmFydF9pZCUzRCZjb21faWQ9NzMwJmZpbHRlcl9 0eXBlPSZmaWx0ZXJfbW9udGg9JmZpbHRlcl95ZWFyPQ%3D%3D

Comments Anyone ? :-? or :hmm2:

[alexradu89]

I have, and even though their profits have increased from the previous years, this year their profit has decreased a little, and overall they are actually having an overall lower profit(even though almost each year it rises, that's pretty normal and it doesn't mean they're getting filthy rich). With every passing year it's normal for a company to have an increase in earnings if the business runs on a constant path, but seeing UBI's figures, theirs aren't really increasing but stagnating or maybe even decreasing slowly. (most likely 10x to DRM) :up:

[Echo76]

Well, I have experienced the innovative solution for decreasing PC game piracy they have provided.

[FIREWALL]

I have, and even though their profits have increased from the previous years, this year their profit has decreased a little, and overall they are actually having an overall lower profit(even though almost each year it rises, that's pretty normal and it doesn't mean they're getting filthy rich). With every passing year it's normal for a company to have an increase in earnings if the business runs on a constant path, but seeing UBI's figures, theirs aren't really increasing but stagnating or maybe even decreasing slowly. (most likely 10x to DRM) :up:

My thoughts too. :yep: With their release of a batch of more popular Online games, I see the Little Fish, SH5, DOOMED. :yep:

[Diopos]

Quote from the link:
"...
These refocusing measures also comprise a reduction in new creations investments, which will enable Ubisoft to rebalance its existing resources on a constant headcount basis. This strategy will provide heightened visibility and profitability with a lower level of risk, thereby accelerating the generation of cash flow. ..."

Combined with:

"...
− Uplay™, a portal for gamers launched in late 2009 with Assassin’s Creed® 2, which is set to become the online hub for Ubisoft® games.
− A platform of online services for PC titles offering gamers a more in-depth gaming experience as well as providing an innovative solution for reducing PC game piracy. The first games to benefit from this solution will be released in the coming months..."

And combined with the need of permanent connection to UBI to play even a single player game,
equals to:

- SMOKE ON THE HORIZON ! I think it's a PAY per PLAY convoy sir !!!!!

Boy, things are really changing aren't they ?! :hmmm:

[Echo76]

"In line with the announcement January 13 announcement, ***soft continues to refocus its high-end games strategy by concentrating on more regular releases for its major franchises." I guess SH series will be ditched :/

[Bilge_Rat]

what part exactly?

They are losing money this year, but that is not entirely unexpected in a recession. Unnecessary expenses like games is the first thing families cut from their budget.

[RSColonel_131st]

- SMOKE ON THE HORIZON ! I think it's a PAY per PLAY convoy sir !!!!!

Boy, things are really changing aren't they ?! :hmmm:

Congrats for making the connection too. Many seem not to bother about those implications, but I already wrote last year that this is the "future" (rather "backward death") of PC gaming ahead.

Since Constant Online DRM costs a pretty penny to maintain and didn't stop the pirates even a week, it must be good for something else otherwise UBI wouldn't bother. That "else" is what you just pointed out.

[FIREWALL]

I wonder if the prices will rise on Ebay\Amazon for non drm games ?

Of course I mean in the near future if Uplay is the standard.

[janh]

To be honest, for a good titles with high development cost but small audience the price ought be higher. See WITP-AE. It seems to work for Matrix there.

It is all about what you offer. I played SHIII for how many years now? Or Operation Flashpoint for almost 8 years before I switched to Arma2. Especially due to modding capabilities good titles "Live" much longer, and modding has decreased my "need" for new games substantially. I buy much less then before, for sure.

I would think rather than the new Ubisoft strategy of less changes to game engines, reuse of engines for other titles and faster output of franchises with less development time in between (outlined in their 2010 strategy paper), they should start thinking longer term. Sell an expensive game engine that only gets reworked and releases every >5 years, but sell 1-2 small $20 addons every year in the meantime for one engine. Each addon could maybe include some small, customer driven changes to the engine, so that it adds something modders can't provide. That way the original game release could remain below $50 despite large development costs, and companies bind customers by quality and service. And they add to their revenue by the addons.

[Immacolata]

"In line with the announcement January 13 announcement, ***soft continues to refocus its high-end games strategy by concentrating on more regular releases for its major franchises." I guess SH series will be ditched :/
I hope it wont be ditched untill after SHV is done. I mean its been back and forth between the atlantic and the pacific for a decade now, so I could live okay without a SHVI. Perhaps someone else, one shiny day, will come up with a new Submarine simulation game just as inspired - and possibly maybe better supported post release.

[FIREWALL]

I hope it wont be ditched untill after SHV is done. I mean its been back and forth between the atlantic and the pacific for a decade now, so I could live okay without a SHVI. Perhaps someone else, one shiny day, will come up with a new Submarine simulation game just as inspired - and possibly maybe better supported post release.

I gotta go along with you. :yep: I think the " Milche Cow " has been milked dry. :haha:

[Rockin Robbins]

Just a reminder that pay for play isn't necessarily an oppressive and objectionable situation, so long as it is a free choice of informed players. Jagex, Inc. runs Runescape as a pay for play subscription based game. There is no entry cost at all(!). You can play the free version of the game for as long as you want to and only have to pay if you are convinced that they are selling something worthwhile.

Once subscribed for the pitifully low price of $5.95 per month, you have no obligation. You are paying them to maintain and progress a game with no version numbers. It evolves over time and hardly resembles the game I left two years ago, with an entirely new browser and interface, hundreds of mods added, complete change of economy implemented. So I loaded up my saved game from two years ago. Would such a thing work in SH4? Forget about it! But in Runescape my character loaded up without a hitch and played like I left it yesterday, but with all the accumulated improvements from the past two years he had lain dormant.

Why is Runescape a success? They are oriented completely on the happiness of their paying customers. You are paying for one thing and one thing only: the maintenance of the game for your enjoyment. If you decide you don't like what they've done, you have no obligation. You just stop paying. You want to rejoin two years later? Check it out for free and if and only if you're convinced it's worth it, start paying again! These guys are totally focused on making you happy to pay!

Folks, what we object to in SH5 is oppression, not the online stuff in itself. We have a set of expectations about what a game we purchase on a DVD in a store should deliver and Ubi delivers something else against our will. Ubi, further is not focused on developing and improving the SH5 series, but only in completely replacing the game every year or two years to force us to start over. If you've paid your money, you have no remaining standing to ask for any changes. They have the only thing they want, your $50. Game over!

This is what I call FU marketing. If we're willing to pay for it, we'll get a lot more of it. There are great alternatives. When we quit paying for being abused, those alternatives will materialize.

[Ducimus]

I hope it wont be ditched untill after SHV is done. I mean its been back and forth between the atlantic and the pacific for a decade now, so I could live okay without a SHVI. Perhaps someone else, one shiny day, will come up with a new Submarine simulation game just as inspired - and possibly maybe better supported post release.

No it hasn't. Its been over decade in between PTO releases. SH2 and 3 were ATO. Anyway, if it means unshackeling SH5 from DRM, i hope they nix the series. There are never going to do another ground up game build like SH3.. Both Sh4 and SH5 are ultimatly built upon a foundation made of SH3. Any future releases are just going to keep building upon the existing code, inheirting all the old bugs and adding new ones. The game series, can only go downhill from here. Seriously, its time to let it go.

[RSColonel_131st]

The problem is - even at $5.95 a month, given how long we play our sims (usually till the next best simulation of the same genre is released, which can take multiple years) you end up paying a lot more money for something that in the current system would have cost you only 50USD one time.

OTOH you are correct that subscription based gaming also means the companies have to keep their customers happy, whereas with "shove and cash" they only need the initial 50USD.

Personally I would prefer a model where simulations are sold for higher price (see Steel Beasts PE) to account for the smaller market. But sold for "perpetual use", in a reasonable working, bug free state, like for example Arma2 is currently (still some bugs left, but playable for years to come).

I guess, yeah, at 5USD a month for high quality sims, it would come out at about the same rate. 180USD for three years high quality gaming doesn't sound terrible to me. But that still would require that I can play when and where I want, not only if the company servers are up and running.

[Rockin Robbins]

Reading that report, it seems that Ubi is actually coming to a realization of who they are and what they represent. They are not appropriate for the publication of simulations and they are realizing that. I predict that they will go with their strengths and abandon the simulation market as they should for their own and our benefit.

I see some straightforward logical thinking in that report that makes a lot of sense for them. And we win if they do as I posit above.

[RSColonel_131st]

Ducimus, I would say if the modders find SH5 to be as open as has been promised - maybe even able to add the PTO - then would we really need "another sim" in the next five years anyway? The GFX are as good as they get, content, interface and gameplay can hopefully be modded (after a few patches to fix hardcoded functions).

If this engine would be DRM-free and loaded with two, three types of Fleet Boats, three types of German boats, and an acceptable amount of surface ships for both theatres this would be endless. I mean, people are still playing SH3, but THAT one definitly has limits in the engine, like resolution and FSAA support. SH5 with all GFX options enabled will be "current" in looks for many years.

[Ducimus]

As pay to play goes, since i saw it mentioned here, i have to say, i won't go there for a singleplayer games. You have to draw a line somewhere, and there is where i construct a reinforced concrete wall.

An MMO, i can understand, it really is a service, and your playing in an online persistant world. But for a singleplayer game, all for the sake of pretending to stop piracy..... that is a resounding "f*ck no!" from me. I would rather see the entire PC gaming market DIE then pay to play single player games. Id sooner go out and get an Xbox360, and park my ass on the couch. Heck, it would be a boon, i wouldnt have to continualy upgrade my computer anymore, id be saving in the long run.

And speaking of the long run, its entire possible that in the future, the entire nature of the internet will change if Net neutrality goes away like some people want. Thats going to screw things over bigtime, for everyone, including Ubi's DRM.

[Justin Case]

Its just a game...In fact a pretty crappy one right now...:hmmm:, but just a game just the same....

[Piggy]

Its just a game...In fact a pretty crappy one right now...:hmmm:, but just a game just the same....

Aye, to the end user its just a game but the industry is big, very big business these days.

Bigger then music.
Bigger then movies.

About $45 to $50 billion world wide and still growing.

[Nordmann]

If any company believes 'Pay to Play' is the way forward, they are very much mistaken. Yes, people will pay for an MMO, because with the multi-player aspect it is reasonable, but not for single-player. In actuality, anyone running such a scheme will probably make a lot less.

Some claim that this is necessary to keep PC gaming alive, yet to be honest, it doesn't look anywhere near dead. I really cannot understand how many consumers believe consoles to be superior, with their 3 or more years worth of out of date hardware! They are limited is so many ways, and always will be. This is an undeniable fact.

Take for instance the economic recession of last year, the number of console games being sold, and thus profits, fell off drastically. Why? Because £40 to £45 for an inferior product is damned unreasonable, when the same product is available on PC for half that price!

[theluckyone17]

"Pay to Play" (paying a monthly fee to access a single player game) might just work for me, provided certain conditions are met. For example, Ubisoft would have to make me see the value in it... they're not going simply package SH5 up and make me rent it as is on a monthly basis. If they keep adding content, fixing bugs, etc., I'll be more than happy to pay them on a regular basis. I need to see that value first, though. Don't hold it against me when I say I'm not holding my breath. Ubisoft would need to prove themselves to me before I'm willing to commit.

While we're on the track of renting... I'd love to see a single authorization each month to confirm that my "Ubisoft account" is active. Rhapsody does the same thing for my "To Go" subscription. Plug my MP3 player in once a month, and I'm verified for another 30 days. Why can't Ubisoft do the same? Rhapsody's gotten $15 a month from me for the last few years. Ubisoft ought to be drooling at the prospect.

[janh]

... I mean, people are still playing SH3, but THAT one definitly has limits in the engine, like resolution and FSAA support. SH5 with all GFX options enabled will be "current" in looks for many years.

Well, I guess it means that eye-candy isn't the core of a good simulation. I bet you if you made a poll, graphics is ranging far behind any features for most of the "simulation players" at subsim. Realism probably also is much further up on the list. Graphics only has to be reasonable, and SHIII surely still is. If someone managed to add the SHV wolfpacks and dynamic campaign features to SHIII, that probably would be the olymp for most subsim gamers. Better graphics is nice if everything else is in its right place, but the real immersion for a simulation player comes from realism.