Massive Price Drop!

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I don't see anyone being forced into a position of supporting Ubi.

Ubi are the only game developer with their hat in the ring regarding WWII U-boat simulations.

I accept your description regarding the icompleteness of recent releases but I would also point out that people aren't taking it 'lying down'....there are many threads and posts on view that show the disdain at the quality of the SH5 release. There are however, many of the opposite opinion/viewpoint.

In the main it has been left to post release patches and the efforts of the modding community to make each release more enjoyable/complete/immersive (insert your own description).

What you would like to see is a culture change....a new or different beginning.

That will only come about if and when Ubi withdraw from the genre or a new games developer arrives on the scene.

I'm trying to maintain a neutral stance (difficult at times addmitedly) because of my previous involvement but am prepared to support anything or anybody who enhance the sub simming experience.

I understand your position well, and I know you and other folks made GREAT GREAT things for this community cleaning Ubi's mess, and I know you can't say all that you have in mind or all that you feel. But I can afford this "luxury", I am not a disruptor of the "order", it's just that I am not so happy with the direction things are going, and I know that I am not the only one here.
I want you to understand, I play SH3 GWX mainly because of you and others like you , with the stock Ubi product I've played one hour and it was enough for me...
But I hope you are clever enough to know that without myself telling you that. I suppose you know that GWX, LSH, WAC teams made the game playable for a lot of members here.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Sonarman

As was Dangerous Waters, but I don't see Sonalysts breaking their neck to make another do you? And neither is any other game company. Why bother when you can make a cute puppy dog game with a third as many devs in a third of the time and sell ten times more copies?

And much as I admire DFTD and all other indie developments they are still along way from being comparable to the SH series. Only Jutland & Distant Guns are cohesive and complete enough to be on the same level and they are truly wargames rather than first person simulations.

The real problem is that companies like EA & Ubi (not the devs but the suits) have stopped listening to their customers and in the economic downturn are focussed on delivering "value" to their shareholders rather than quality product to their customers, big mistake.

Agreed. Much as I like the SH series, I can't help feeling SH5 is the last of the line. If you examine SH5, its hard not to see that its an orphan at Ubisoft.

On the one hand, it contains many true sim improvements the community has wanted for a long time: full 3d interior, wolfpacks, U-tankers, enemy subs, better moddability, scripting, better mission editor. It has many under the hood tweaks: AI scripts, apparently better underwater sonar modelling, underwater drag, etc. All of these elements have the potential (with a lot of TLC) to turn SH5 into a great sub sim.

On the other hand, it contains a crew management/RPG model which appears to have been tacked on and obviously does not belong in a subsim.

You can sense a war between the people at Ubisoft who really want to make a sim and those who just want to dump the project and move on to more profitable projects they can sell on consoles. Its obviously the non-sim execs who came up with the idea of trying to turn it into a RPG clone that could appeal to a more casual crowd.

The result is the worst case scenario we see now: SH5 is rejected by the casual gamers and the subsim community, reviews are poor, sales are poor, the game is dumped on the market. The next step is for Ubisoft to shut down the franchise and exit the sim market.

As for someone else coming into the market and producing a new subsim, I personally don't see it. The market fo sims is small and the biggest market share is in flight sims followed by land combat sims. The market for subsims is very small. None of the existing small developpers have the interest to develop naval war sims or even the capacity to produce something as good as SH5 is in its current state without a major investment.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Gunnodayak

I understand your position well, and I know you and other folks made GREAT GREAT things for this community cleaning Ubi's mess, and I know you can't say all that you have in mind or all that you feel. But I can afford this "luxury", I am not a disruptor of the "order", it's just that I am not so happy with the direction things are going, and I know that I am not the only one here.
I want you to understand, I play SH3 GWX because of you and others like you mainly, with the stock Ubi product I've played one hour and it was enough for me...

Then we share a clear understanding of each others position and viewpoints.

Mutual respect and understanding is one of the foundation blocks that makes this community such a great/special place.

SINK EM ALL!!

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Gunnodayak

I agree with you, the things are not so simple, but I think we have no reason to continue go in the direction that some of us agree is already proven wrong. And this is the moment the community can unite and go into another direction, and even CREATE another one. it's not easy, on the contrary, it's hard, but not impossible. I am giving just a simple and at hand example, accesible for everybody, showing some interest towards Danger From The Deep forum would probably make the developers more motivated.

Yes i agree but the "community" will have to become a commercial dev team because you can not produce an SH game on a part-time amateur night in dixie budget.

Folks working on such a high end title need to be paid WELL, so they fully commit to the project. They need to know the money is there for wages and to keep it all going until the day a good finnished product can be released.

I dont see that happening with a community of modders, no matter how talented.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

I dont think it says anything at all about the PC sim market. It says something about the disasterous DRM backfiring because Assasins Creed 2 is also being reduced in a big way, and that is a perfectly populist genre.

I suspect that this is the real reason we have seen prices plummet so soon after release. Regardless of the consistently negative reviews SH5 has received, I seem to remember SH3 and 4 being just as incomplete and bug ridden, yet becoming immensely popular despite their numerous issues. In fact, I could hardly play either until the mod community started to work their magic. Frankly, I suspected nothing would change with SH5, that's just the way it's always been with this title. Granted, they could have done a lot better, but then again, I tend to feel like that with a lot of games these days (especially so called simulations).

Some people are claiming that poor sales will mean the end of Silent Hunter, yet I'm sure SH4 was not as popular as SH3, yet they clearly made enough money, and thought that there was enough demand for another game. Don't forget the expansion, which while small in nature, still demanded time and effort from the developers. Therefore, I see no reason why this should be the end, assuming money can still be made (they are a business after all).

The real clincher in all of this, despite claims to the contrary, was definitely the net connection fiasco. I have spoken to friends of mine, who have outright refused to buy any games coupled with such a system, and these are people who have previously put up with StarForce and SecuRom without complaint. Obviously the negative press surrounding this issue has not done anything to help their sales, and honestly, they only have themselves to blame. Many of us called this situation before it was really known about, and sadly we were proved right. I'm surprised they didn't realise the trouble it would cause, but I suppose they misjudged the unpopularity of such strict requirements.

If this is to be the last Silent Hunter, then that's just the way it is. Nothing we could have done would change Ubi's mind, because at the end of the day, they are only concerned with profit. This is something which is far more complex than the oft repeated "buy the game, or they won't make more!" argument.

In any case, we now have three sub games, two of which have already been heavily modded, and another which has 'potential'. That should be more than enough to keep most of us occupied should Ubi decide to pull the plug once and for all.

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Nordmann

Some people are claiming that poor sales will mean the end of Silent Hunter, yet I'm sure SH4 was not as popular as SH3, yet they clearly made enough money, and thought that there was enough demand for another game. Don't forget the expansion, which while small in nature, still demanded time and effort from the developers. Therefore, I see no reason why this should be the end, assuming money can still be made (they are a business after all).

Ubisoft would not continue making the games if there was no money in them. SH5 even with poor sales will probbaly make a reasonable profit. Do remember that dev costs in Romania are very cheap compared to the same costs in Western Europe or US/Canada.

A 1 or 2 million dollar budget in Romania will buy you alot of devs and artists.

So the idea that Ubi are doing us all some favour by producing a loss making game is typical corporate pr bunk.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Ubisoft would not continue making the games if there was no money in them. SH5 even with poor sales will probbaly make a reasonable profit. Do remember that dev costs in Romania are very cheap compared to the same costs in Western Europe or US/Canada.

A 1 or 2 million dollar budget in Romania will buy you alot of devs and artists.

So the idea that Ubi are doing us all some favour by producing a loss making game is typical corporate pr bunk.

Yes exactly, that's my point. If there was no money in this genre, then they would have stopped with SH3. Clearly that is not the case, so why should SH5, despite it's current problems, be any different is that respect?

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Ubisoft would not continue making the games if there was no money in them. SH5 even with poor sales will probbaly make a reasonable profit. Do remember that dev costs in Romania are very cheap compared to the same costs in Western Europe or US/Canada.

A 1 or 2 million dollar budget in Romania will buy you alot of devs and artists.

So the idea that Ubi are doing us all some favour by producing a loss making game is typical corporate pr bunk.

Stay chill, they didn't invested that much in SH5, they invested a few hundreds of thousands euros from my sources. With 2 millions you would make a simulator for NASA in 6 months.

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Nordmann

Yes exactly, that's my point. If there was no money in this genre, then they would have stopped with SH3. Clearly that is not the case, so why should SH5, despite it's current problems, be any different is that respect?

Ya good point They;ve released 3 sub sims since 2005. Hardly signs of a dead market :-)

The only reason they might drop the franchise is if they werent satisfied with the profit margin , based on what they were spending on dev and marketing. So whereas Ubi might think a 20% margin on a spend of $3million ($600,000) is pittance compared to what some games return, to a smaller dev house that would be a decent outcome. All devs and artists well paid and profit to boot.

[Adam84]

Yeah noticed the price drop this morning. This ALMOST makes me want to go buy the game! I was so close to buying it at full price too when it first came out, under a month later and the price has plummeted...not sure whether to be happy or sad.

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Gunnodayak

Stay chill, they didn't invested that much in SH5, they invested a few hundreds of thousands euros from my sources. With 2 millions you would make a simulator for NASA in 6 months.

If you are correct with that figure then that blows my mind, because 200,000 sales at $50 per sale is $10million. Ubisoft would have a great margin in that case and the fact they complain is unbeleivable. It also indicates the blatant profiteering they have engaged in by releasing these games early. There was clearly no need as the profit marguin was huge. They could have simply taken 2 more months to QA the game. At the rates you menntioned that would have cost them an extra few tens of thousands, nothing compared to the ROI.

PS: Do you know the devs? If so, seriosuly ask them if they have ever considered going off on their own. If they sound interested, please let me know.

[TDK1044]

I think the reality is that Ubisoft's arrogance finally caught up with them with this release.

This Publisher has a history with this franchise of throwing unfinished, buggy games onto the market, which then need significant patching in order to get them to where they should have been at release.

With Silent Hunter 5, Ubisoft took their arrogance to a new level. Not only is this game the usual buggy mess, it also requires that you connect to totally unreliable Ubisoft servers in order to play it. Add to that the fact that the game is targeted at a new demographic that doesn't seem very interested in buying it, and you have the perfect storm....something that ironically Ubisoft has been unable to create in any of the Silent Hunter games

For some to claim that the current fiasco it is the fault of those of us who have been critical of Ubisoft, is nonsense.

If this game is the final offering in the Silent Hunter series....so be it. Give us a patch to allow us to play it offline, and we'll heavily mod it just like we modded SHIII and SHIV.

I'm so over this 'be nice to Ubisoft because they are the only Publisher producing subsims' argument. It looks to me like SH5 is very modable...we just need to be able to play it offline in order to really enjoy it.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Adam84

Yeah noticed the price drop this morning. This ALMOST makes me want to go buy the game! I was so close to buying it at full price too when it first came out, under a month later and the price has plummeted...not sure whether to be happy or sad.

At £12.98, despite the net requirement, I'd say it's probably worth buying. I went ahead and ordered myself a copy, just in case Amazon do not replenish their stocks. If prices continue to drop here and elsewhere, I see no reason why Ubi would need to continue using Uplay for this product, there would really be no point. In fact, I expect it will be gone in a few months time, just as with SH3 and StarForce.

I don't like DRM, but for £12.98, it's less of an issue for me. My stance was based on value, as such a system is not in my opinion worthy of a £20 price tag. Ubi have done themselves no favours, but it may all blow over in 6 months time (here's hoping).

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

I'm so over this 'be nice to Ubisoft because they are the only Publisher producing subsims' argument. It looks to me like SH5 is very modable...we just need to be able to play it offline in order to really enjoy it.

I automatically assume this is directed to me (and that's fine), but I do want to point out that I have always maintained that we should be nice to any publisher that makes a decent submarine game, not only Ubisoft. And by "be nice", of course no one means "unconditional love". But we should try not to adopt a hostile, unreasonable attitude. We should separate ourselves as subsim enthusiasts from the militant consumers that judge everything purely on the weight of their hard earned money© It is possible to be critical AND nice....

I like to "be nice" to everyone!

(When possible).

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Ya good point They;ve released 3 sub sims since 2005. Hardly signs of a dead market :-)

The only reason they might drop the franchise is if they werent satisfied with the profit margin , based on what they were spending on dev and marketing. So whereas Ubi might think a 20% margin on a spend of $3million ($600,000) is pittance compared to what some games return, to a smaller dev house that would be a decent outcome. All devs and artists well paid and profit to boot.

I wonder how much impact there is on the aspect that there are some really fanatical history buffs and submarine-loving devs in Bucharest.... You know what I mean? If the guys in Ubi Romania that are passionate about submarine warfare were not around, would Ubi have made SH3, 4, 5 ? Or, did those games, especially SH4 and 5, see the light of day mainly because Ubisoft knows they have a valuable resource and decided to utilize it? I imagine there is a big fixed cost in getting educated about the millions of historical details a sub simulation like SH3-5, and now that the FC has been invested, Ubi thinks they should keep it invested....

Just a thought.....

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Nordmann

At £12.98, despite the net requirement, I'd say it's probably worth buying. I went ahead and ordered myself a copy, just in case Amazon do not replenish their stocks. If prices continue to drop here and elsewhere, I see no reason why Ubi would need to continue using Uplay for this product, there would really be no point. In fact, I expect it will be gone in a few months time, just as with SH3 and StarForce.

I don't like DRM, but for £12.98, it's less of an issue for me. My stance was based on value, as such a system is not in my opinion worthy of a £20 price tag. Ubi have done themselves no favours, but it may all blow over in 6 months time (here's hoping).

I bought the game for full retail and i still think its worth it (even with all the problems), so yeah at £12 its an absolute steal. Of course that is if one is sort of obsessed by submarine sims like US :-)

But frankly its an insult to the devs who clearly poured hours and sweat into the game that their work is already being offed at more than 50% price reduction just because Ubi's insitence on the DRM and releasing it early.