Originally Posted by FIREWALL (Post 1270180)

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1271514)

Probably not. The game does not need to phone home anymore. Perhaps the last patch would provide the MP capability. Maybe in a pay for addon with additional content. It worked for SH4. Lets do the math logically. The game gets released. There is the initial glut of purchases at $49.99 or whatever. This goes on for say 6 months. Meanwhile, there are patches made for a fix or a "thanks from UBI' boat added. Others are still making purchases at full price. Eventually the price drops to $19.99 and then $9.99. Does not take long. Does it make financial sense to run, have upkeep and staff this server for DRM? In the long run I would say no. It is diminishing returns on the sales of the games that overrides the cost to keep this server up and running. So really, at $9.99 for a game most will just buy it instead of pirating a copy I would think. What does UBI really get to keep this DRM going for years? I can't think of reason to do that. What is your thoughts? I could be way off base but that is how I see it.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins (Post 1271818)

First of all, that's a personal attack. I see you as one who made one of those.

I also see you have not read any SH5 posts I have made regarding the DRM, which I provisionally endorsed, probably the only one who has gone that far in accepting that means of protecting Ubi's interests. But don't confuse the issue with the facts when there is a good attack to be made there. It is very entertaining.http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/a...leys/winky.gif

My point is that what you are willing to pay for, you will receive more of. If you are willing to put out your cash for a bad game (fill in the blank here, I think we've all been burned at one time, not only by Ubi), the game company who made that game will adjust its marketing plan to substitute publicity and puffery for game quality. If the biggest proportion of buyers are those who pre-order, there is no incentive at all for a game company to produce a great game--their money is already made. To them only, the game is a raging success and their next game will be a repeat of the same customer ripoff. And why shouldn't they? We paid them to do it!

Two inviolable rules of economics, exemplified by Apple and Sony: what you pay for you will get more of, and people tend to do exactly what they are paid to do. In both companies' cases, people have been willing to pay exhorbitant prices for increasingly restrictive and intrusive DRM schemes. Now if you buy an Apple iPad (I'm holding out for the MaxiPad) you can't even choose what browser to run on the machine. Imagine paying a company good money to violate your rights! Imagine what future products will do when you do!

Economic actions have consequences. Ininformed, knee-jerk economic actions, like pre-ordering SH5 when it is flying danger flags all over, has unintended consequences that would lead Ubi to believe that they are moving in the right direction and putting even more resources toward a course that would give us more and more inferior products.

The argument that "this is the best we are likely to get" recalls the American automobile manufacturers of the 1970's, producing junk cars that rusted out in three years, had lousy styling, terrible drivability, abysmal fuel economy and no reliability. Yup, as long as we were willing to pay for it, they created more lousy cars. Didn't the Japanese and Europeans jump into the market and clean their clocks? Another law of economics is that producers love to exploit a vacuum. Any vacuum will be filled quickly by a better producer able to meet the needs of the consumer.

I say economic responsibility demands that we evaluate the product before we lay out the money. But I guess that's all crap. I'm just daft. Fire away.:up:

Originally Posted by tater (Post 1271637)

You are probably correct. I tend to see the visual stuff the way I see everything related to SH—does it increase or decrease the quality of simulation?

What is immersive for me is to have the targets, sub, world, and enemies behave realistically (and look appropriate).

I remember seeing mod changelogs with stuff about the uniforms, etc, and chuckled 'cause I'd paid as much attention to my XO's hat as I do to any guy's shoes I meet in RL—which is none at all. My wife, OTOH, she'd notice stuff like that.

tater

PS—yes, I'm saying that anyone who notices uniform problems probably pays a lot of attention to men—not that there's anything wrong with that! ;)

Originally Posted by urfisch (Post 1271810)

SH4 was going to fail...this was no surprise to many of us, right?

And it was not only due to bugs...the STRATEGY didnt fit the exspectations. Many players waited for SH3 v2.0 and NOT for a pacific theater. So the game sold badly. Clear to me. If they would have done it the other way round...SH4 with a better looking atlantic theater AND monsun boats...and AFTERWARDS release the u.s. subwar in pacific theater as an addon...this would have worked better!!! 100% sure.

Originally Posted by Joe Bob (Post 1272240)

I am very new here and have been away from sub simulations for a long time but in reading the SH5 threads I have begun to think perhaps my perspective from a nearly outsider view might have some value so here goes my second post.

Originally Posted by infernos (Post 1272386)

As I said it before pesimism is contagious , let's be optimistic, did you know that pesimistic people die earlier ?(some researchers reached this conclusion)