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

[captainprid]

Agreed. Great piece of analysis there

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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.

Originally Posted by captainprid

...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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by kylania

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]

Originally Posted by Placoderm

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

How costly is it to point users to a "DRM removal patch" funded by a third party?

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Placoderm]

Originally Posted by theluckyone17

How costly is it to point users to a "DRM removal patch" funded by a third party?

Seriously?

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.

[kylania]

Originally Posted by Placoderm

Seriously?

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...