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?

_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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

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.

One-offs or monthly payments?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.