Explain something about the online DRM buisness model.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

[Yak]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Yak

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.

[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....

[jason210]

Originally Posted by 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....

One-offs or monthly payments?

[janh]

Originally Posted by jason210

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.