Explain something about the online DRM buisness model.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

Hi Iron Budokan,

I think you are confussed about what DRM does as DRM is not an enabling technology and every thing you have described does not require DRM and has been done by Stardock time and again with Sins of a Solar Empire, Galactic Civilizations II & Demigod and Paradox with their quintillion games.

DRM certainly does not add value over time as Ubi has demonstrated time and again with 1/2 finished releases that also do not fix the underlying issues i.e. Silent Hunter SH4; the add on and now SH5.

As to 'build on what they already have'; this requires that you have a solid product that people want to give you more money for new content because they feel they are getting what they have paid for, this is not SH5.

I would also add I think the SH franchise is probably dead due to self inflicted wounds. In my view the SH series has reached the tipping point where people are tired of all the underlying issues not being addressed and moders are tired of doing the same mod over and over as often it does not always work in the next version and if we fixed it or made a excellent work around with a mod why is it not fixed in the next version?

Because DRM does not enable anything in either a technology or business sense and what you have described above is being done by companies who do not use DRM such as Stardock (my Anti-DRM poster child) and Paradox then DRM is not a business model.

In closing I would like to recommend Techdirt as an excellent source of reason and understanding.

A most excellent post!

BTW: A recent article on TD about the econ of DRM is a worthy read. You can read it here.

[Brag]

Originally Posted by Spartan

A most excellent post!

BTW: A recent article on TD about the econ of DRM is a worthy read. You can read it here.

A most excellent definition. Without added value for the customer you can't sell a thing in any market. Since OSP/DRM reduces the perceived value, any business based on that business model is bound to fail.

The only thing that is going to answer any of the questions raised in this and other similar threads is...

Time.

It seems to me that if their intention is to limit the piracy of the game and to effectively force people to purchase the game in order to be able to play it, that would suggest that they will have to compare 'like for like' sales figures and that could take 12 months for them to have enough data for them to make a reasonable comparison. The only comparision they will be able to make is...are the sales figures the same or close enough to be viable. If they are, then in their minds, the system has worked, if the number of units sold has drastically reduced then the system could be considered a failure.

I do not know what the costs of continuously running their servers are, but if the system is proved to be effective then it could leave the door open for them to remove the DRM on a particular title after a period of a year or when a new title is due out and the 'load' on their servers will remain approximately the same and the sale of the new game will meet their running costs and they will have prevented the piracy of the original title for a period of 12 months.

Maverick

[McBeck]

My personal opinion is that their business model is based on more sales because of less illegal copies.
I don't to start a discussion on weather or not that is possible

I also expect that they will remove it down the road and then there will be less load on the Ubi servers, that can then be used for other games.

[janh]

Is OSP/DRM a viable business model? For me as a customer, presently of course no. If they turned their model into some "netflix" like "download & play any game at a time" service for a small monthly fee (say also $10 for 1 game at a time, $15 for having two simultaneous installs etc), then I might buy it.

Then I could just focus the really good ones. And I could just try the ones that down look great, without being annoyed afterwards or angry about wasting my $$. In the end, however, it would probably not be cheaper (assuming I play one game like ARMA2 intensely for 5 years, that would be 60x$10...; so the true rate per game should be about $1-2 per month, i.e. 5-10 games on your hdd at a time per $10). Maybe the system is already best as it is?

[Iron Budokan]

Originally Posted by Brag

A most excellent definition. Without added value for the customer you can't sell a thing in any market. Since OSP/DRM reduces the perceived value, any business based on that business model is bound to fail.

This appears to me to be the main obstacle for viability as well.

[Brag]

Originally Posted by Iron Budokan

This appears to me to be the main obstacle for viability as well.

Amazon sales figures for SHV are pretty dismal its sales ranking this afternoon is 2062

Assassin's Creed 2 is not doing that much better with a ranking close to 750.

Settlers 7 is ranked at 1071

Considering the equally dismal sales for ALL their latest releases, this should be sending a strong signal to Ubisoft that they are doing something very wrong.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by Brag

Amazon sales figures for SHV are pretty dismal its sales ranking this afternoon is 2062

Assassin's Creed 2 is not doing that much better with a ranking close to 750.

Settlers 7 is ranked at 1071

Considering the equally dismal sales for ALL their latest releases, this should be sending a strong signal to Ubisoft that they are doing something very wrong.

I'm assuming you mean Amazon.com, the US branch of that retailer. But you didn't say. You also don't say whether that's rankings in their respective groups or not... I mean statistics don't mean anything without the context. Is that sales rank of 2062 among all software titles? Or sales rank or 2062 among all things being sold on amazon?

Amazon.co.uk sales ranks are:

SH5 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 573 in PC & Video Games
AC2 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 150 in PC & Video Games
Settlers 7 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 183 in PC & Video Games

Is SH5 four times more popular in the UK than in the US?

On Amazon.de:

SH5 - Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: Nr. 341 in Games
AC2 - Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: Nr. 39 in Games

Even more popular in Germany, or countries serviced by Amazon Germany.

How does that stack up in terms of popularity? I mean what's a 'good' ranking for a company to take notice of? Number 1 obviously would be good, but that's idealistic, but is a ranking of 39 that bad? Does it have to be number 1? What are the financial implications of those rankings?

[kylania]

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Is SH5 four times more popular in the UK than in the US?

The average America's attention to history can be summed up with these two images:



So it's no wonder a game about German u-boats sinking British ships would be more popular in the UK than the US.

[Nisgeis]

Well, clearly the wardrobe malfunction incident is a matter of global concern and quite rightly was analysed by the experts, and expanded beyond the limitted microcosm of the initial context of the sporting event that it initially occurred in, to occupy its place in history. I think we can all agree that although it took place in the context of a sporting event, the repurcussions of that event were much more severe than anyone could have imagined.

But what's that other picture of that monkey for?

[Brag]

_QUOTE=Nisgeis!3B1364649]I'm assuming you mean Amazon.com, the US branch of that retailer. But you didn't say. You also don't say whether that's rankings in their respective groups or not... I mean statistics don't mean anything without the context. Is that sales rank of 2062 among all software titles? Or sales rank or 2062 among all things being sold on amazon?

Amazon.co.uk sales ranks are:

SH5 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 573 in PC & Video Games
AC2 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 150 in PC & Video Games
Settlers 7 Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 183 in PC & Video Games

Is SH5 four times more popular in the UK than in the US?

On Amazon.de:

SH5 - Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: Nr. 341 in Games
AC2 - Amazon.de Verkaufsrang: Nr. 39 in Games

Even more popular in Germany, or countries serviced by Amazon Germany.

How does that stack up in terms of popularity? I mean what's a 'good' ranking for a company to take notice of? Number 1 obviously would be good, but that's idealistic, but is a ranking of 39 that bad? Does it have to be number 1? What are the financial implications of those rankings?[/QUOTE]"

The figures I mantioned come from Amazon US in the category of video games. The figures you offer, though different, show pretty weak if not dismal sales in Europe.

It is quite obvious that Ubisoft's grand strategy is not working, at least on the PC side of the business.

I certainly don't expect Ubisoft to be in a position of declaring any great sucesses in the next few months. Their next quarterly report is due out soon. It will make interesting reading.

[jason210]

At Amazon.co.uk it's rank is 792 in PC and Video games. I just compared it to ArmA 2, which is another, very specialised, niche market game, that didn't sell very well. That was released in June 2009 and even that manages to score 702.