Has Anybody Bothered to Read This

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally Posted by Diopos

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

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[Piggy]

Originally Posted by Justin Case

Its just a game...In fact a pretty crappy one right now..., 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.

[janh]

Originally Posted by RSColonel_131st

... 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.

[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.