Explain something about the online DRM buisness model.

[SteamWake]

Now please just leave DRM bashing out k thanks...

okay so you sell a product that requires an online connection to a server to be able to play as a protection from piracy.

You sell a couple of 10 thousand or so units right off the bat, a couple thousand or so more later down the road (at a discounted rate). Thats a one time income source.

Two years down the road sales drop because most everyone that is going to get the game already has. They may sell a few here and there but nothing like when it was released.

Regardless the servers (and people whom run them) are there from day 1. I would assume the cost to maintain and run these servers is a BIG upfront costs but the cost curve probably declines a bit over time.

Still you have to pay salarys and replace the occasional piece of hardware. Not to mention bandwidth providers etc. These are ongoing expenses. Yes they will reduce a bit with time but there on going.

How... do you continue to pay for those ongoing costs once the sales of the product begin to dry up?

[mcarlsonus]

Like the original intent of such, "always connected" entities (NOTE: not necessarily with the same intent!!!) such as the US-based General Motors OnStar service, the original one-way configuration (from your car to GM) at product launch was intended to serve additional functions of a more two-way nature, fee-based service in the future. Your car's basic health would be monitored by OnStar and the driver could be advised to take the car to a dealer for service, for example. Don't know about today, but, originally OnStar was a fee-based service after the first year.

Maybe?

[mookiemookie]

This is precisely why I believe that the DRM will be removed at some point. If it's fulfilled its stated goal of protecting sales, then there's no reason to keep it in effect if it starts costing more than the revenue derived from sales of the product.

[Brag]

Excellent analysis, Steam! And without DRM bashing.

This reveals that a hidden agenda exists. No biz will ever promote such a simple business truth as you describe unless they have something to gain.

Well done :salute:

[captainprid]

Agreed. Great piece of analysis there:up::up:

Personally I would agree with the previous poster. When the game drops down to 2.99 and can be found at the local BP fuel stop, the DRM will be removed. Alternatively, they plan to bring out SHVI on the same server then SHVII and so on negating the original purchase cost.

Finally, did you see anything on your digital agreement that said they couldn't start charging for bandwidth after a year or two???? Also don't forget DLC which will also fund on-going DRM

[KiwiVenge]

This is precisely why I believe that the DRM will be removed at some point. If it's fulfilled its stated goal of protecting sales, then there's no reason to keep it in effect if it starts costing more than the revenue derived from sales of the product.

This ^

I would guess their servers will be set up such that they will accommodate their newest games. As games grow old they will remove the need to log onto the authentication server.
They probably are looking at how many users do they want to be able to sustain on their servers and how many of their games that will represent. As new games come online the older ones will be slid off the back side of the servers and have the DRM removed.

[kylania]

How... do you continue to pay for those ongoing costs once the sales of the product begin to dry up?

By the fact that with DRM people can't resell games, so those people who want to buy the game after a year must buy it at cost from the manufacturer rather than cheaply or even free from a friend.

[Placoderm]

How... do you continue to pay for those ongoing costs once the sales of the product begin to dry up?


You don't need to. The servers are not dedicated to just one game. SHV uses the same servers as Assasins Creed 2 which uses the same servers as Settlers 7. There is no ongoing cost that increases with each title, nor is there any unfunded maintenance needed as older titles become less popular...since new titles continue to be released that will use the same servers.

As an analogy, The internet does not need to be changed every time you buy a new computer, or every time Microsoft releases a new operating system...because the internet is a self-supporting entity that is not dependent upon any one specific application accessing it. In the same sense, it costs nothing for Ubisoft to leave DRM in older titles as newer ones are released, since it is the sale of the newer titles that will support the servers and their ongoing maintenance.

When SH6 or AC3 or Settlers8 are released sometime in the future, the server load from the previous titles will have decreased anyway, and so the cost of removing the DRM could very well outweigh the benefit of any saved bandwidth in doing so. In other words, Ubisoft could very well be better off just letting the older titles die slowly and fade away as new replacement title sales cover the cost of the servers into perpetuity.


...When the game drops down to 2.99 and can be found at the local BP fuel stop, the DRM will be removed.

That may not necessarily be the case. From a business standpoint, as long as the servers are already operating and serving other games, the minimal impact of a title that is selling for $2.99 may not justify the cost of removing the DRM at all. Patches cost the publisher money, and if the title is already selling below the profit threshold, it would take a lot of server impact to justify such an investment on their part.

It would be cheaper for Ubisoft to just forget about the paltry server impact of a game that is past it's prime and move on to newer releases. At best, they may decide to pull the plug on future sales of a given title to insure that the product life is somewhat controllable, but by that time funding a DRM removal patch would be nothing but a financial loss.



:salute:

[THE_MASK]

Its a useful tool to gather player feedback . Also in a years time when a bashed out SH6 comes along they can just stop support for SH5 and support SH6 only .

[Arclight]

This is precisely why I believe that the DRM will be removed at some point. If it's fulfilled its stated goal of protecting sales, then there's no reason to keep it in effect if it starts costing more than the revenue derived from sales of the product.
:agree:

No point in keeping it around if it costs you money, and running a server always does. Even if it serves other purposes as well, the resources needed for serving SH5 still cost money.

[mookiemookie]

By the fact that with DRM people can't resell games, so those people who want to buy the game after a year must buy it at cost from the manufacturer rather than cheaply or even free from a friend.

Yeah, but how many sales are you, as Ubisoft, really going to gain here? Enough to offset the server costs? I would highly doubt it.

[theluckyone17]

...but by that time funding a DRM removal patch would be nothing but a financial loss.
:salute:

How costly is it to point users to a "DRM removal patch" funded by a third party (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/07/ubisoft-drm-snafu-reminds-us-whats-wrong-with-pc-gaming.ars)?

[BarjackU977]

You wish, I wish, we wish.
No guarantee, though. Removing DRM is still work to do, as a new patch has to be issued.
And like already stated above, DRM servers are not only used by SH5. It's similar with Securom online activation servers.
The part very specific to a game is just some storage.

Already mentioned before, on this forum. Only two cases of DRM removal that I've personally read about: Bioshock, in which the DRM was actually not removed, but activation servers would always reply "OK" to activation requests (thus online activation service still required), and I've read about SH... was it 3 or 4... where a "pirate EXE" version was officially distributed to remove the DRM.

EDIT: ooops, from the link above, seems they did so with R6 Vegas 2, too.
Note that this "option" is only available to a publisher if a such a file exists for its game.


This is precisely why I believe that the DRM will be removed at some point. If it's fulfilled its stated goal of protecting sales, then there's no reason to keep it in effect if it starts costing more than the revenue derived from sales of the product.

[Placoderm]

How costly is it to point users to a "DRM removal patch" funded by a third party (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/07/ubisoft-drm-snafu-reminds-us-whats-wrong-with-pc-gaming.ars)?


Seriously? :hmmm:

Do you really seriously think that they (Ubisoft) will direct people to a third-party site to acquire a program (i.e.: hack) designed to disable the software that Ubisoft themselves supposedly implemented to prevent piracy in the first place?!? C'mon...get real.


"Costly" is not just a measure of immediate cost anyway. Not in business. It would not be a matter of just pointing customers to another site to get the DRM removed, since doing so would negate the supposed "protection" of the DRM that they have installed in the newer titles (and I guarantee you that DRM system was very costly to produce, which is why you will see it in everything they publish, so as to spread out the R&D costs). From a security standpoint, that would also be about the most asinine thing that they could do, since Ubi would have no control over what additional hacks or content that third party site could conceivably offer. The cheapest thing for them to do is to just let the older titles slowly die out and fade away...thus they do not need to do anything at all, and they do not have to concern themselves with additional hacks or damage to their more recent titles that sending thier customer base to a third-party site would or could cause.


:cool:

[kylania]

Seriously? :hmmm:

Do you really seriously think that they (Ubisoft) will direct people to a third-party site to acquire a program (i.e.: hack) designed to disable the software that Ubisoft themselves supposedly implemented to prevent piracy in the first place?!? C'mon...get real.

They've done it before (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/857101043/m/5941041408)...

[BarjackU977]

Seriously, then. Got real :-)

They've done it before (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/857101043/m/5941041408)...

[Spartan]

Hmmm... So has the DRM on SHIII or IV been removed yet? :06:

Also look at all the DRM servers that were shut down in other markets such as music and TV shows. Those people did not get the DRM removed and lost access to stuff they purchased and in fact some where flat out told to buy new stuff.

A recent case in point in the gaming market is that M$ decided to turn of DRM support for the original X-box and all its titles this week. I wonder how long it will be before the people that still play those games get any updates.... :nope:

DRM is pure evil dont ever believe otherwise. It is properly called digital restrictions management. It has nothing to do with rights... :know:

[Zedi]

Geeez.. another drm thread :yawn:
As Placoderm said, these are not dedicated servers, there is only one that support all their games. When these games will get old, they may release a drm removal patch, maybe in a year or so. I can't believe how much energy is waisted on these anti drm crap topics.. over and over again.

[BarjackU977]

If you read more of the above posts, you'll find that there are people who doubt that the DRM will ever be removed by Ubi from its games.

Anti-DRM crap? Waisted energy?
I suppose you expected the coming of "can't believe how much energy is waisted replying to topics they don't want to read, and claim to be crap" in the next reply.


Geeez.. another drm thread :yawn:
As Placoderm said, these are not dedicated servers, there is only one that support all their games. When these games will get old, they may release a drm removal patch, maybe in a year or so. I can't believe how much energy is waisted on these anti drm crap topics.. over and over again.

[Zedi]

No, the issues is that this drm bashing and "SH3 si better that SH5" is really old story and uber-boring. I thought we are done with it and ppl can move on. But no, almost every day, or at least once a week this topic come up in a form or another again and again where ppl keep repeating the same thing.. drm suck, SH3 rulz. If is not a dedicated topic, than someone will get offtopic in other threads where we talk about SH5 bugs and remind us that dmr suck/sh3 rulz. Over and over again.

Maybe the moderators should make a new forum for those who enjoy to keep up endless talks about how evil drm is and how cool SH3 was.

And yes, drm will get removed, but not now, so get over it.

[HundertzehnGustav]

How... do you continue to pay for those ongoing costs once the sales of the product begin to dry up?

You dont...

you remove the DRM, let the users play without the connection
or
unify the server system with the one from assasins creed II (can be done because players moved on to ACIII and SHVI, or because there are less players)
or
remove the support and tell the players to ******!!

The MOMENT that income is less than cost, you change either number, either increasing income or cutting costs.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Maybe the moderators should make a new forum for those who enjoy to keep up endless talks about how evil drm is and how cool SH3 was.

what about the freedom to post your anger of a game you got right there?
not saying anyting, or shutting up after a while is the same as "taking that stick right up wour wazoo"

Back to topic...

-Servers will be removed,
-unified with other systems because of less players,
or
-drm will be removed.

[Placoderm]

They've done it before (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/857101043/m/5941041408)...

:o :o

OMG...





:o

(nevermind...)

[Sgt. Emren]

How... do you continue to pay for those ongoing costs once the sales of the product begin to dry up?

You sell add-ons. Pipeline extension. Extend SHV to 1945. Make SHV Pacific. Etc.

[BarjackU977]

Well, personally, I keep on coming here because I keep hopes.
I've been seriously tempted to buy SH5. I try to stick to my principles, but should Ubi change its DRM plans or announce that it will be removed after x months, I'll buy it, even if I that means can't temporary play the game on my laptop whenever I travel.

The issue does not get old for me. This DRM is still new, a recent change. And it applies to SH5, so it's discussed here too.

No, the issues is that this drm bashing and "SH3 si better that SH5" is really old story and uber-boring.

[Spartan]

No, the issues is that this drm bashing and "SH3 si better that SH5" is really old story and uber-boring. I thought we are done with it and ppl can move on. But no, almost every day, or at least once a week this topic come up in a form or another again and again where ppl keep repeating the same thing.. drm suck, SH3 rulz. If is not a dedicated topic, than someone will get offtopic in other threads where we talk about SH5 bugs and remind us that dmr suck/sh3 rulz. Over and over again.

Maybe the moderators should make a new forum for those who enjoy to keep up endless talks about how evil drm is and how cool SH3 was.

And yes, drm will get removed, but not now, so get over it.

Yeah and some fellow named Jesus will return after 2k years of being dead....

Please lets not troll. Back up your position with facts - K? :yep:
Ubi has a long history of not doing right towards its paying customers. So people are well within reason to doubt promises of the "it will happen - one day - trust me.." nature.

So has the DRM been patched out of SH3 or SH4 yet? One would think that given a whole new version of the title was released that surely such a thing would have been done for the prior versions.

[Zedi]

Just after few hours, we have another drm topic launched on SH5 forum.. with a "slightly different viewpoint"... now you see my point?

Most of us come here to discuss about SH5, not to read about drm and other personal issues, like not buying the game. We/I don't care if ppl buy or not the game, if they think that sh3 was better or if drm suck, I really don't care. All I care here is to make SH5 better and bug free, so we can enjoy it more.

Barjack, my personal advice for you is to buy it. If you have a stable internet connection, there is no reason to not buy it instead of joining the "omg drm suck" group. SH5 has a huge potential to become best in the series and these great moders here on subsim already solved many problems through some excelent mods.

[Ablemaster]

Hell im sick and tired of DRM threads, we all know about it and are well educated in its use. Cant all this DRM S*IT go in one bucket. Its bad just got to live with it for now.

[Der Teddy Bar]

Hell im sick and tired of DRM threads, we all know about it and are well educated in its use. Cant all this DRM S*IT go in one bucket. Its bad just got to live with it for now.

To the best of my knowledge no one is forcing you to read these threads.

[SteamWake]

I figured this would happen even when I asked kindly to refrain from the bashing of DRM and simply discuss the buisness model some of you cant help yourselfs.

If you continue to bash or even praise DRM I will ask for this thread to be closed.

Now back on topic please... Is it a viable buisness model?

[mookiemookie]

I'm as sick and tired of DRM threads as anyone, but I think this one has been pretty well behaved and ideologue-free. It's just a discussion of the business and economic model, as SteamWake said. Not a discussion of it's moral or ethical merits. So my personal opinion is I'm ok with it. :cool:

I'm not very clear as to how it would work if the same servers were authenticating multiple games. That might be what screws up my prediction - if the marginal server load for authenticating SH5 is a pittance because you're already running it on the authentication server for the latest and greatest Assassin's Creed game, then I guess you could theoretically keep it going for as long as you like without eating into the profits of the SH product line.

[janh]

I'm not very clear as to how it would work if the same servers were authenticating multiple games. That might be what screws up my prediction - if the marginal server load for authenticating SH5 is a pittance because you're already running it on the authentication server for the latest and greatest Assassin's Creed game, then I guess you could theoretically keep it going for as long as you like without eating into the profits of the SH product line.

I recall I read that they are using the same servers for multiple games already, i.e. that's why there were outages and playing problems for Silent Hunter V gamers when Assassins Creed II was releases, and less so, but too when Settlers 7 came out. I think they have much underestimated the data transfer on release days, as well as weekend in their initial planning of their server infrastructure. This is likely also the reason why there were serious problems on the first two weekends (peak playing times) with Silent Hunter V, since the whole DDoS stuff was never confirmed by any 3rd party other than Ubisoft.

I assume the DRM servers cost them dearly, not only in the upkeep, upgrading and maintainance, but also in customers. As we will hopefully see confirmed with their sales reports of the next 2 or 3 quarters. I really dislike this kind of business model where legal customers are worse off than pirates, and logically the latter would be the best thing to do if you don't want to screw yourself.

What I can't understand is why the Software industry still follows the opposite policy that music and movie industries have by now adopted about DRM: It served to increase losses by driving off legal customers, and now most companies refrain from intrusive DRM that limits the use of your MP3s etc. Instead, they have started to refocus on deliviring quality again and the flood of nasty poor quality boy bands and braindead Hollywood movies that only cost fortunes for worthless 3D effects has been reduced.
Why, dear Ubisoft, are you planning the exact oppisite: DRM & shorter development cycles, meaning even less will be delivered for the same price? This only can go wrong, and it will be all but pirates: bad marketing and strategy decisions.

[Bilge_Rat]

everyone will be happy when they remove DRM.

[daft]

They are using servers running DRM software that really couldn't give a rats ass about what game it is that the server has to authenticate. All they care about is the interface the game uses to talk to the server with. That means there are no hard SHV servers that can only be used with SHV (that would be crazy) but servers that can deal with any game implementing the correct interface to talk to the server side DRM software. So in theory they can scale their server park up or down by adding more server (when they have lots of DRM-protected games on the market) or down (when they have few DRM-titles on the shelves or old games become less popular). This is most probably done with virtualization, spooling up new virtual servers as needed and shutting down others as needed. If UBI's sales decline, they will probably have to cut back on staff, but that would also mean less of a load for the authentication servers to deal with, so see it as natural selection if you will.

[TwistedAdonis]

Apropos of nothing perhaps.

It strikes me that World of Warcraft (and all MMORPGs) has always online requirements built into the gameplay and it has a bazillion players. Perhaps those without a decent connection or those on the road with a laptop are too small a demographic (revenue-wise) for a modern company to worry about.

[Zedi]

Apropos of nothing perhaps.

It strikes me that World of Warcraft (and all MMORPGs) has always online requirements built into the gameplay and it has a bazillion players. Perhaps those without a decent connection or those on the road with a laptop are too small a demographic (revenue-wise) for a modern company to worry about.

Is true, but there is a massive difference. WoW is build to be online, to join an online community and do stuff together. That's why is a mmorpg. But SH5 is solo play and we get s*** being online. Actually, SH is the only game that has no rewards from this drm system. Those who play AC2 have some awesome rewards, like new maps and content, cloth and all kinda stuff that really makes you to get over the drm thing and have total fun with the game. I mean.. oke, I have to play online, but at least is not in vain.. my game gets unlocked as I play revealing nice surprises, content and rewards. We, get sh1t.

To be honest, first time when I heard about SH5 and drm.. I tough.. oke, if this is not a joke, then there should be some awesome rewards just to keep you play connected. I was hoping that there will be a massive multiplayer option, but the multiplayer is a total fail. SH5 gets no attention at all, patch is delayed without any real explication, nobody from their side keep contact with us, the support is a total joke and this drm crap is no use for us in any way. Few sub skin and 2 map as a reward being online non-stop when playin.. c'mon. We are sailing in dark here.

Anyway, even so I will not loose my energy in anti drm bitching as this is my smallest problem with the game. There are many other problems with SH5, drm is on the bottom of the list.

[Arclight]

I'm no more excited about the Uplay crap for AC2 than for SH5. :-?

New maps? Got new missions for SH5. New clothes? Got new skins for SH5.

I take it you don't own AC2? :hmmm:

[tommyk]

You sell add-ons. Pipeline extension. Extend SHV to 1945. Make SHV Pacific. Etc.

I think that will be the way. just look at the best mods, rebuild them into DLC together with new ships and what you said... there is no need to ever remove the drm since when nobody sends requests to the servers, the costs are low...

[Der Teddy Bar]

SteamWake (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/member.php?u=215050),

The always online business model is about forcing the gamer to buy new version of the software every 12 to 18 months and to restrict 2nd hand sales which is your legal right.

EA is as always the leader in all things DRM and their take the piss out of the paying customer web page called "Online Service Updates (http://www.ea.com/2/service-updates)" outlines what you can expect of Ubisoft.

Ubisoft has proven again and again they have customer focus will I am sure cut SH5 free after a year with no patch to enable people to play it offline.

Look at how many games a only a year or two old and even the older ones are mostly less than 4 with only a handful older than that.


I have never read a more patronising piece of garbage in my life as this below.

As background information, the games scheduled for shutdown in March and April 2010 represent less than 0.3% of all peak online players across all EA titles. Despite some people's perception, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes work involved with keeping these older games up and running. We would rather our hard-working engineering and IT staff focus on keeping a positive experience for the other 99.7% of customers playing our more popular games. These decisions to retire games is never easy. The EA development teams and operational staff pour their hearts into these games almost as much as the customers playing them and it is hard to see one retired. We hope you have gotten many hours of enjoyment out of the games and we appreciate your ongoing patronage.


May 11th, 2010 Online Service Shutdown
FIFA 08 for PC
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07 for Playstation 3 and Xbox 360
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 for PC, Playstation 3 and Xbox 360
UEFA Euro 2008 for PC

April 15, 2010 Online Service Shutdown
Burnout 3: Takedown for PlayStation 2
Army of Two for PlayStation 3 (Asia only)

Additionally, the shutdown of Xbox LIVE for Original Xbox consoles and games (scheduled for April 15, 2010) will retire online services for the following titles:

Battlefield 2: Modern Combat for Xbox
Burnout 3: Takedown for Xbox
Madden NFL 09 for Xbox

Previously Shut Down Online Service
Arena Football for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Arena Football™: Road to Glory for PlayStation 2
Armies of Exigo for PC
Burnout Revenge for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Burnout™ Dominator for PlayStation Portable
Def Jam for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
FIFA 2005 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
FIFA 06 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, Xbox and Xbox 360
FIFA 07 for PC, PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
FIFA World Cup 2006 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, Xbox and Xbox 360
Facebreaker for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3
Fantasy Football 09 for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3
Fight Night Round 2 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Fight Night Round 3 for PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable and Xbox
Godfather for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
Goldeneye: Rogue Agent for Nintendo Game Cube, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Lord of the Rings: Conquest for PC, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
MVP Baseball™ 2005 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
MVP™ 07 NCAA® Baseball for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Madden NFL 05 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Madden NFL 06 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, Xbox and Xbox 360
Madden NFL 07 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, Xbox and Xbox 360
Madden NFL 08 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, Wii, Xbox and Xbox 360
Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Medal of Honor Pacific Assault™ for PC
Medal of Honor Rising Sun for PlayStation 2
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames for PC
NASCAR® 05: Chase for the Cup™ for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NASCAR® 06: Total Team Control for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NASCAR® 07 for PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox and Xbox 360
NASCAR® 08 for PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
NASCAR® 09 for PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 (Europe Only)
NBA Live 05 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NBA Live 06 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, Xbox and Xbox 360
NBA Live 07 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, Xbox and Xbox 360
NBA Live 08 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable and Wii
NBA Live 09 for Wii (Europe only)
NBA Street (2007) for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
NBA Street V3 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NCAA® Football 05 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NCAA® Football 06 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NCAA® Football 07 for PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable and Xbox
NCAA® Football 08 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NCAA® Football 09 for PlayStation 2
NCAA® March Madness 06 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NCAA® March Madness™ 2005 for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NCAA® March Madness® 07 for PlayStation 2, Xbox and Xbox 360
NFL Head Coach for PC, PlayStation 2, Xbox
NFL Street 2: Unleashed for PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NFL Street 3 for PlayStation 2
NFL Tour for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
NHL® 05 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NHL® 06 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
NHL® 07 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, Xbox and Xbox 360
NHL® 08 for PC
NHL® 08 for PlayStation 2
Need for Speed: Carbon for PlayStation Portable
Need for Speed: ProStreet for PlayStation Portable
Need for Speed: Underground for PlayStation 2
Need for Speed: Underground 2 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Need for Speed: Most Wanted for PlayStation Portable and Xbox
Simpsons for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360
Tiger Woods PGA TOUR® 05 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
Tiger Woods PGA TOUR® 06 for PC, PlayStation 2, Xbox and Xbox 360
Tiger Woods PGA TOUR® 07 for PC, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable and Xbox
Tiger Woods PGA TOUR® 08 for PlayStation 2 and PlayStation Portable
TimeSplitters 3: Future Perfect for Xbox and PlayStation 2
Total Club Manager 06 for PlayStation 2
UEFA Champions League™ 2004-2005 for PC, PlayStation 2 and Xbox
UEFA Champions League™ 2006-2007 for PlayStation 2 and PlayStation Portable
UEFA Champions League™ 07 for PC and Xbox 360

[BarjackU977]

All the essence is in this sentence.
Of course, nobody would complain about having to be online to play MP. Except those few who value LAN games (there are still such people) without Internet connection. Problem with LAN is that pirates can always abuse this feature for online games too. That's why it often got cut from MP, leaving Internet games only.

Is true, but there is a massive difference. WoW is build to be online, to join an online community and do stuff together. That's why is a mmorpg. But SH5 is solo play and we get s*** being online.

[Nicolas]

How... do you continue to pay for those ongoing costs once the sales of the product begin to dry up?

Easy, they will release a patch to play offline. I'm 90% sure of that.
Was a bad move. Internet its not reliable like your hard drive, and some people dont even have internet... :88)

[Uber Gruber]

Thanks Teddy for your excellent posts. You've managed to capture the reality of DRM perfectly.

An excellent well debated topic...mostly:hmmm:

[robbo180265]

Thanks Teddy for your excellent posts. You've managed to capture the reality of DRM perfectly.

An excellent well debated topic...mostly:hmmm:

I agree - a very interesting and well debated thread.

I also agree with Teddy, I would have more faith in a non drm patch being released once the servers go offline, if UBI had shown any signs of a decent customer service.

Remember we heard about the patch delay from a German forum:o

[Spartan]

Not much of a debate. DRM = epic fail.

If Ubi has not released a DRM removal patch for SH3 or SH4 what makes people think one will be released for SH5? :hmmm:

[Arclight]

Copy protection was removed from both SH3 and SH4.

[Iron Budokan]

Back to the original topic. Can DRM be a viable business model?

I wonder if Ubi isn't looking at SH5 as a test case. If nothing else you can bet lots of publishers are watching this and will make their own decisions accordingly.

We know the game ends in '43. Maybe Ubi is looking to release an add-on which will finish the war, add new boats, etc. That way, once initial interest wanes, they can come out with SH5.2 and hope to get people interested again. In other words, build on what they already have.

It seems to me, if they or some other publisher does that, then maybe DRM can work to their benefit. Of course, they have to have good sale numbers for the first game to validate an add-on.

Maybe this was always in the back of their minds. Dunno. Do I think it's going to happen? Probably not. Word of mouth makes games best sellers and it sinks games. We already see the trend with SH5, for good or ill.

But for a game everyone loves, and is a big hit, DRM might work if you keep adding content and make the customer believe he is getting a good value for his dollar. Even so, it does seem you approach diminishing returns and one day have to pull the plug on the game.

So, yes, DRM perhaps is a viable business model in some cases. But it appears to me those parameters are pretty restrictive both for the publisher and the consumer.

[Arclight]

For 1 time purchase kind of games, you need to release DLC when interest is high (3 months after release), or people won't care anymore. The longterm DLC only works for subscription-based models.

You can release add ons after interest has faded a bit, but they really need to be fairly substantial (expansion pack vs DLC). Think this is 1 of the reasons Ubi incorporated the final patch for SH4 into the expansion pack; it was a little light on content. :hmmm:



Must admit I don't understand the "DRM is a viable business model" stuff. DRM is there to protect digital property, it's not a business model. And apart from that, it's been here for ages, and there was copy protection before it.

Are we actually discussing whether or not OSP is a viable DRM solution? :doh:

[Der Teddy Bar]

Back to the original topic. Can DRM be a viable business model?

I wonder if Ubi isn't looking at SH5 as a test case. If nothing else you can bet lots of publishers are watching this and will make their own decisions accordingly.

We know the game ends in '43. Maybe Ubi is looking to release an add-on which will finish the war, add new boats, etc. That way, once initial interest wanes, they can come out with SH5.2 and hope to get people interested again. In other words, build on what they already have.

It seems to me, if they or some other publisher does that, then maybe DRM can work to their benefit. Of course, they have to have good sale numbers for the first game to validate an add-on.

Maybe this was always in the back of their minds. Dunno. Do I think it's going to happen? Probably not. Word of mouth makes games best sellers and it sinks games. We already see the trend with SH5, for good or ill.

But for a game everyone loves, and is a big hit, DRM might work if you keep adding content and make the customer believe he is getting a good value for his dollar. Even so, it does seem you approach diminishing returns and one day have to pull the plug on the game.

So, yes, DRM perhaps is a viable business model in some cases. But it appears to me those parameters are pretty restrictive both for the publisher and the consumer.Hi Iron Budokan,

I think you are confussed about what DRM does as DRM is not an enabling technology and every thing you have described does not require DRM and has been done by Stardock time and again with Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civilizations II & Demigod and Paradox with their quintillion games.

DRM certainly does not add value over time as Ubi has demonstrated time and again with 1/2 finished releases that also do not fix the underlying issues i.e. Silent Hunter SH4; the add on and now SH5.

As to 'build on what they already have'; this requires that you have a solid product that people want to give you more money for new content because they feel they are getting what they have paid for, this is not SH5.

I would also add I think the SH franchise is probably dead due to self inflicted wounds. In my view the SH series has reached the tipping point where people are tired of all the underlying issues not being addressed and moders are tired of doing the same mod over and over as often it does not always work in the next version and if we fixed it or made a excellent work around with a mod why is it not fixed in the next version?

Because DRM does not enable anything in either a technology or business sense and what you have described above is being done by companies who do not use DRM such as Stardock (my Anti-DRM poster child) and Paradox then DRM is not a business model.

In closing I would like to recommend Techdirt (http://techdirt.com/index.php) as an excellent source of reason and understanding.

[Brag]

Der Teddy Bar,

That article on Techdirt is an excellent example of defining one's business and using the core base to expand that business.

It is a breath of fresh air after Ubi's paranoid and self destructive policy.

Thanks for the link :salute:

[Spartan]

Hi Iron Budokan,

I think you are confussed about what DRM does as DRM is not an enabling technology and every thing you have described does not require DRM and has been done by Stardock time and again with Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civilizations II & Demigod and Paradox with their quintillion games.

DRM certainly does not add value over time as Ubi has demonstrated time and again with 1/2 finished releases that also do not fix the underlying issues i.e. Silent Hunter SH4; the add on and now SH5.

As to 'build on what they already have'; this requires that you have a solid product that people want to give you more money for new content because they feel they are getting what they have paid for, this is not SH5.

I would also add I think the SH franchise is probably dead due to self inflicted wounds. In my view the SH series has reached the tipping point where people are tired of all the underlying issues not being addressed and moders are tired of doing the same mod over and over as often it does not always work in the next version and if we fixed it or made a excellent work around with a mod why is it not fixed in the next version?

Because DRM does not enable anything in either a technology or business sense and what you have described above is being done by companies who do not use DRM such as Stardock (my Anti-DRM poster child) and Paradox then DRM is not a business model.

In closing I would like to recommend Techdirt (http://techdirt.com/index.php) as an excellent source of reason and understanding.
A most excellent post! :salute:

BTW: A recent article on TD about the econ of DRM is a worthy read. You can read it here (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070301/005837.shtml).

[Brag]

A most excellent post! :salute:

BTW: A recent article on TD about the econ of DRM is a worthy read. You can read it here (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070301/005837.shtml).

A most excellent definition. Without added value for the customer you can't sell a thing in any market. Since OSP/DRM reduces the perceived value, any business based on that business model is bound to fail.:|\\

[LtCmdrMaverick]

The only thing that is going to answer any of the questions raised in this and other similar threads is...

Time.

It seems to me that if their intention is to limit the piracy of the game and to effectively force people to purchase the game in order to be able to play it, that would suggest that they will have to compare 'like for like' sales figures and that could take 12 months for them to have enough data for them to make a reasonable comparison. The only comparision they will be able to make is...are the sales figures the same or close enough to be viable. If they are, then in their minds, the system has worked, if the number of units sold has drastically reduced then the system could be considered a failure.

I do not know what the costs of continuously running their servers are, but if the system is proved to be effective then it could leave the door open for them to remove the DRM on a particular title after a period of a year or when a new title is due out and the 'load' on their servers will remain approximately the same and the sale of the new game will meet their running costs and they will have prevented the piracy of the original title for a period of 12 months.

Maverick

[McBeck]

My personal opinion is that their business model is based on more sales because of less illegal copies.
I don't to start a discussion on weather or not that is possible :shucks:

I also expect that they will remove it down the road and then there will be less load on the Ubi servers, that can then be used for other games.

[janh]

Is OSP/DRM a viable business model? For me as a customer, presently of course no. If they turned their model into some "netflix" like "download & play any game at a time" service for a small monthly fee (say also $10 for 1 game at a time, $15 for having two simultaneous installs etc), then I might buy it.

Then I could just focus the really good ones. And I could just try the ones that down look great, without being annoyed afterwards or angry about wasting my $$. In the end, however, it would probably not be cheaper (assuming I play one game like ARMA2 intensely for 5 years, that would be 60x$10...; so the true rate per game should be about $1-2 per month, i.e. 5-10 games on your hdd at a time per $10). Maybe the system is already best as it is?

[Iron Budokan]

Hi Iron Budokan,

I think you are confussed about what DRM does as DRM is not an enabling technology and every thing you have described does not require DRM and has been done by Stardock time and again with Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civilizations II & Demigod and Paradox with their quintillion games.

DRM certainly does not add value over time as Ubi has demonstrated time and again with 1/2 finished releases that also do not fix the underlying issues i.e. Silent Hunter SH4; the add on and now SH5.

As to 'build on what they already have'; this requires that you have a solid product that people want to give you more money for new content because they feel they are getting what they have paid for, this is not SH5.

I would also add I think the SH franchise is probably dead due to self inflicted wounds. In my view the SH series has reached the tipping point where people are tired of all the underlying issues not being addressed and moders are tired of doing the same mod over and over as often it does not always work in the next version and if we fixed it or made a excellent work around with a mod why is it not fixed in the next version?

Because DRM does not enable anything in either a technology or business sense and what you have described above is being done by companies who do not use DRM such as Stardock (my Anti-DRM poster child) and Paradox then DRM is not a business model.

In closing I would like to recommend Techdirt (http://techdirt.com/index.php) as an excellent source of reason and understanding.

Thank you, but I understand exactly what DRM does. I was merely attempting to answer the OP's question in how this might possibly be redeemed and made viable from a business POV. I wasn't defending the practice, only trying to discover a way it MIGHT be viable.

But thanks again for the condescension on your part.

[Iron Budokan]

A most excellent definition. Without added value for the customer you can't sell a thing in any market. Since OSP/DRM reduces the perceived value, any business based on that business model is bound to fail.:|\\

This appears to me to be the main obstacle for viability as well. :yep:

[Brag]

This appears to me to be the main obstacle for viability as well. :yep:

Amazon sales figures for SHV are pretty dismal its sales ranking this afternoon is 2062

Assassin's Creed 2 is not doing that much better with a ranking close to 750.

Settlers 7 is ranked at 1071

Considering the equally dismal sales for ALL their latest releases, this should be sending a strong signal to Ubisoft that they are doing something very wrong. :nope:

[Der Teddy Bar]

Thank you, but I understand exactly what DRM does. I was merely attempting to answer the OP's question in how this might possibly be redeemed and made viable from a business POV. I wasn't defending the practice, only trying to discover a way it MIGHT be viable.

But thanks again for the condescension on your part.

Iron Budokan,

I will take your word that you "understand exactly what DRM does" because your post proposed this form of DRM could enable Ubi to do X, Y & Z because of it and implied without this DRM Ubi could not. I hope I demonstrated is not the case.

As to being condescending, that was not the intention of my post.

[Nisgeis]

Amazon sales figures for SHV are pretty dismal its sales ranking this afternoon is 2062

Assassin's Creed 2 is not doing that much better with a ranking close to 750.

Settlers 7 is ranked at 1071

Considering the equally dismal sales for ALL their latest releases, this should be sending a strong signal to Ubisoft that they are doing something very wrong. :nope:

I'm assuming you mean Amazon.com, the US branch of that retailer. But you didn't say. You also don't say whether that's rankings in their respective groups or not... I mean statistics don't mean anything without the context. Is that sales rank of 2062 among all software titles? Or sales rank or 2062 among all things being sold on amazon?

Amazon.co.uk sales ranks are:

SH5 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 573 in PC & Video Games
AC2 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 150 in PC & Video Games
Settlers 7 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 183 in PC & Video Games

Is SH5 four times more popular in the UK than in the US?

On Amazon.de:

SH5 - Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: Nr. 341 in Games
AC2 - Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: Nr. 39 in Games

Even more popular in Germany, or countries serviced by Amazon Germany.

How does that stack up in terms of popularity? I mean what's a 'good' ranking for a company to take notice of? Number 1 obviously would be good, but that's idealistic, but is a ranking of 39 that bad? Does it have to be number 1? What are the financial implications of those rankings?

[kylania]

Is SH5 four times more popular in the UK than in the US?

The average America's attention to history can be summed up with these two images:

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/5242/americanhistory.jpg

So it's no wonder a game about German u-boats sinking British ships would be more popular in the UK than the US. :DL

[Nisgeis]

Well, clearly the wardrobe malfunction incident is a matter of global concern and quite rightly was analysed by the experts, and expanded beyond the limitted microcosm of the initial context of the sporting event that it initially occurred in, to occupy its place in history. I think we can all agree that although it took place in the context of a sporting event, the repurcussions of that event were much more severe than anyone could have imagined.

But what's that other picture of that monkey for?

[Brag]

_QUOTE=Nisgeis!3B1364649]I'm assuming you mean Amazon.com, the US branch of that retailer. But you didn't say. You also don't say whether that's rankings in their respective groups or not... I mean statistics don't mean anything without the context. Is that sales rank of 2062 among all software titles? Or sales rank or 2062 among all things being sold on amazon?

Amazon.co.uk sales ranks are:

SH5 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 573 in PC & Video Games
AC2 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 150 in PC & Video Games
Settlers 7 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 183 in PC & Video Games

Is SH5 four times more popular in the UK than in the US?

On Amazon.de:

SH5 - Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: Nr. 341 in Games
AC2 - Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: Nr. 39 in Games

Even more popular in Germany, or countries serviced by Amazon Germany.

How does that stack up in terms of popularity? I mean what's a 'good' ranking for a company to take notice of? Number 1 obviously would be good, but that's idealistic, but is a ranking of 39 that bad? Does it have to be number 1? What are the financial implications of those rankings?[/QUOTE]"

The figures I mantioned come from Amazon US in the category of video games. The figures you offer, though different, show pretty weak if not dismal sales in Europe.

It is quite obvious that Ubisoft's grand strategy is not working, at least on the PC side of the business.

I certainly don't expect Ubisoft to be in a position of declaring any great sucesses in the next few months. Their next quarterly report is due out soon. It will make interesting reading.

[jason210]

At Amazon.co.uk it's rank is 792 in PC and Video games. I just compared it to ArmA 2, which is another, very specialised, niche market game, that didn't sell very well. That was released in June 2009 and even that manages to score 702.

[Yak]

Now back on topic please... Is it a viable buisness model?

Absolutely.

The DLC model is the way all developers will want to move.
They have openly stated they want micro-transactions to the the future of gaming on the PC and console.

[Immacolata]

DLC is indeed very lucrative - if it works. You tie in the gamer per product, no more 2nd hand trade-ins. You also get a game to generate income after its sell-by date has expired by "juicing" up with new content.

The business model will fail if people say "Bogus! I ain't paying for the game twice!". Some games you can see really bad "speculant" DLC, in other games it works better. Strategy games and multiplayer shooters can sell mappacks, just look at the phenomenal success of MW2 map pack (according to Activision at least).

I'd never buy an extra character or mission for a game like Mass Effect or Dragon Age once I completed it. Why would I bother? Same with Fallout 3. I just didn't see the point with it once I had completed the game.

[jason210]

Requiring a permanent, online connection doesn't really work for single player games since there is no benefit to the player - it affects gameplay only negatively - as we have seen from the countless comments here. It doesn't work for the developer in the long run because it requires permanent resources at their end that cost money. Also, because of the energy required to run such servers, and support the increased Internet traffic, it is not an environmentally friendly practice, and environmental concerns are becoming increasingly incorporated into businesses nowadays.

The only DRM systems that seem to work well -- and that people find acceptable -- are systems like Steam. You buy the game, paying once, then you play it. And there is an offline mode also. Seems reasonable to me.

As for Pay to Play, it won't work if they charge for every game like World of Warcraft because people don't want large number of subscritions. It's complicated to manage and they don't have the money to pay for the all. It would need to be coordinated to work. What we are likely to see in the future is an oligolpoly (a form of cartel) where the market is dominated by a few large companies - comparable to TV companies like SKY, offering DRM platforms like Steam and selling game packages and deals for monthly subscription. It's already happening and we will see the same thing with films and music. Everything will be controlled this way, and traditional CDS & DVDS will disappear. Blu Ray is not going to catch on.

It won't happen yet because the Internet infra-structure is not robust enough, but it's coming. When bandwidth has increased substantially, PCs will probably change too - becoming more like diskless terminals and more interactive peripherals such as touch screen and so on. Our grand-children and great grand-children will look back on our old computers as curiosities - rather like we look back on old typewriters and adding machines!

If you grew up with computers like I did, you'll remember there have been certain eras in game history. The first micro-computers in the 1980s, then the Atari ST and Amiga systems, and then the MMX games for Windows 95. Each time these eras end, it's quite sad, but hell, I wouldn't want to go back to my old ZX Spectrum and play Psion Flight Simulator, or back to 1995 and play Quake. I can't even look at Operation Flashpoint anymore, and Silent Hunter III is also showing its age. You just have to accept that it's going to change.

The only scary thing is if that Oligopoly's set the price, rather than let the market determine the price. This is exactly what's happening with the big software companies now, and why we are force to pay $500 for Photoshop and other professional software. Piracy has prevented a division arising between those who can afford and those who cannot, making the technology accessible to all. Effective DRM will put an end to that creating yet another social divide. Games are the least of our worries.

[Phantom Mark]

Nicely said Jason.....

The company where I work are focusing on micro payments as the next "big" thing.........if its fair and delivers a good product or service I have no problem with it, Ubi sollution is not something I can stomach tho sorry....

[janh]

This is exactly what's happening with the big software companies now, and why we are force to pay $500 for Photoshop and other professional software. Piracy has prevented a division arising between those who can afford and those who cannot, making the technology accessible to all. Effective DRM will put an end to that creating yet another social divide. Games are the least of our worries.

Try opensource, GIMP is awesome and in some senses better than Corel of Adobe products. Such as Openoffice has reached a level at which is compares well with Microsoft stuff. Both, as just a two examples, don't suffer portability problems if you work on different systems (say Unix and Windos), which is a major plus to me. (I get upset if I get a powerpoint from a mac version of office and the font sizes and arrangements are all messed up -- really annoying for commercial software) And both are more suitable in terms of long-term data security, i.e. if someone would want to read files in two decades from know, when possibly no compatible version of the programm would exist anymore. OO used a well-documented, gzipped xml format, that you'd still be able to extract data from or even write your owen reader for. Not so with MSO. One major factor why many companies and goverment office have switched already.

[jason210]

Nicely said Jason.....

The company where I work are focusing on micro payments as the next "big" thing.........if its fair and delivers a good product or service I have no problem with it, Ubi sollution is not something I can stomach tho sorry....

One-offs or monthly payments?

[jason210]

Try opensource, GIMP is awesome and in some senses better than Corel of Adobe products. Such as Openoffice has reached a level at which is compares well with Microsoft stuff. Both, as just a two examples, don't suffer portability problems if you work on different systems (say Unix and Windos), which is a major plus to me. (I get upset if I get a powerpoint from a mac version of office and the font sizes and arrangements are all messed up -- really annoying for commercial software) And both are more suitable in terms of long-term data security, i.e. if someone would want to read files in two decades from know, when possibly no compatible version of the programm would exist anymore. OO used a well-documented, gzipped xml format, that you'd still be able to extract data from or even write your owen reader for. Not so with MSO. One major factor why many companies and goverment office have switched already.

Yes, good point. A word processor is such a simple, basic program - who wants to pay loads for it when you can it for free?

[Yak]

The other big thing people seem to miss is that this must be seen as a viable business model, since such a wide ranging decision to put in place the constant online requirement isn't a tech security decision, but one that would have to have been okay'ed by Ubi corporate.

They made an active decision to knowingly shed a very large minority of their customers because they thought they would be able to recoup their sunk costs and make a profit via another route.

DLC is indeed very lucrative - if it works. You tie in the gamer per product, no more 2nd hand trade-ins. You also get a game to generate income after its sell-by date has expired by "juicing" up with new content.

The business model will fail if people say "Bogus! I ain't paying for the game twice!". Some games you can see really bad "speculant" DLC, in other games it works better. Strategy games and multiplayer shooters can sell mappacks, just look at the phenomenal success of MW2 map pack (according to Activision at least).

I'd never buy an extra character or mission for a game like Mass Effect or Dragon Age once I completed it. Why would I bother? Same with Fallout 3. I just didn't see the point with it once I had completed the game.

I think it is pretty obvious that Ubi's strategy is to release deliberately crippled games content wise to sure up it's DLC sales.

I mean seriously, after a month of playing the game does anyone really believe that they didn't model the war past 1943 or more than one type of submarine so they could ensure super-duper levels of accuracy and realism?

Everyone that bought SH5 paid $50us for a shareware game that they have to pay more to get the rest of it later.

[jason210]

I think it is pretty obvious that Ubi's strategy is to release deliberately crippled games content wise to sure up it's DLC sales.

That would be pretty a dumb strategy for a business. People are not prepared to pay premium prices for broken things, nor are they prepared pay to more than once for a single player game. If Ubisoft took this approach they'd quickly find themselves out of business. There has to be value for money or punters will go away.

[janh]

Yes, good point. A word processor is such a simple, basic program - who wants to pay loads for it when you can it for free?

If you had ever had a look at the source codes of OO, you'd probably have been impressed as I was myself that a community can develop and maintain such a monster so effectively. It competes very well with MSO, and I like using it because it is very portable and allows me to use older files or those of collaborators and students without any issues. And its developement is driven by users and user wishes directly, which is exactly what a program needs. Anyway, enough postscriptum, back to topic.

[Yak]

That would be pretty a dumb strategy for a business. People are not prepared to pay premium prices for broken things, nor are they prepared pay to more than once for a single player game. If Ubisoft took this approach they'd quickly find themselves out of business. There has to be value for money or punters will go away.

Yet that is precisely what we see in SH5 with a game that is deliberately gimped to limit the war at 1943 and only one type of submarine for no explicable reason that is believable with a month of experience of the game.

You really don't think Ubisoft won't, or at least didn't plan on releasing a 1944-45 DLC and DLC for Type IX's and XXI's?

Why would they remove it from the game?
They obviously didn't do it because of concerns about accuracy.