The gawd-almighty merged DRM in Silent Hunter V thread

[Ships-R-Us]

I want to thank Neal for sharing this with us. Ubisoft is clearly stating that they are only trying to stay alive in the "pc gaming market financially, and have been forced to implement DRM. In short I support the DRM requirement.

If my money was on the line with reference to a major investment, I certainly would take all reasonable and necessary steps to insure my investment, and I believe likewise all members here share this same view.

Ubisoft is taking these measures only because they were forced to.

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Ships-R-Us

I want to thank Neal for sharing this with us. Ubisoft is clearly stating that they are only trying to stay alive in the "pc gaming market, financially and have been forced to implement DRM. In short I support the DRM requirement.

If my money was on the line with reference to a major investment, I certainly would take all reasonable and necessary steps to insure my investment, and I believe likewise all members here share this same view.

Ubisoft is taking these measures only because they were forced to.

While I can see the point you are making, I offer a contrary point:

What happens to your business if you feel the only viable strategy is to implement measures your customers absolutely will not accept?

Seems to me you are acknowledging that you are unable to develop a strategy that allows you to remain viable, as a significant drop in sales due to your 'solution' means your chosen medicine is as bad, if not worse, than the disease.

[As an aside, I recommend you avoid statements such as I believe likewise all members here share this same view. People here never have the same view on anything; claiming otherwise is either naiive or arrogant.]

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

to implement measures your customers absolutely will not accept?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but DRM had already been used in other games before.

Did the average customer accepted it?

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Méo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but DRM had already been used in other games before.

Did the average customer accepted it?

I can't speak for ALL titles that might have a DRM equivalent.

What I meant was the specifics of this system when applied to an off line, single player game.

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that a lot of single player devotees are not inclined to accept this system when there seems little to recommend it from potential customers' perspectives. That's why I suggested the business model, applied to this particular title, seemed potentially to be problematic at best.

An alternative is using Steam for verification, with a monthly requirement for re-verification, otherwise allowing off line play between those times. I suspect most players would not have anywhere near as many objections to such a scheme vs. the current proposed OSP.

That's before we consider the issue of consumers being forced to have a different account etc. for each publisher, which again flies in the face of customer-friendly thinking.

Cheers

[Ships-R-Us]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

While I can see the point you are making, I offer a contrary point:

What happens to your business if you feel the only viable strategy is to implement measures your customers absolutely will not accept?

Seems to me you are acknowledging that you are unable to develop a strategy that allows you to remain viable, as a significant drop in sales due to your 'solution' means your chosen medicine is as bad, if not worse, than the disease.

I understand your viewpoint. However, the consumers that will not accept DRM simply will not be purchasing the game with DRM being only a minor reason. I believe there will be a large majority of Subsim that will never play SH5 for those reasons. However I''ll bet that SH5 will now be a financial success for Ubisoft.