Are you you rooting for failure for SH5?

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

I see you as the one to start a crap thread.

First of all, that's a personal attack. I see you as one who made one of those.

I also see you have not read any SH5 posts I have made regarding the DRM, which I provisionally endorsed, probably the only one who has gone that far in accepting that means of protecting Ubi's interests. But don't confuse the issue with the facts when there is a good attack to be made there. It is very entertaining.

My point is that what you are willing to pay for, you will receive more of. If you are willing to put out your cash for a bad game (fill in the blank here, I think we've all been burned at one time, not only by Ubi), the game company who made that game will adjust its marketing plan to substitute publicity and puffery for game quality. If the biggest proportion of buyers are those who pre-order, there is no incentive at all for a game company to produce a great game--their money is already made. To them only, the game is a raging success and their next game will be a repeat of the same customer ripoff. And why shouldn't they? We paid them to do it!

Two inviolable rules of economics, exemplified by Apple and Sony: what you pay for you will get more of, and people tend to do exactly what they are paid to do. In both companies' cases, people have been willing to pay exhorbitant prices for increasingly restrictive and intrusive DRM schemes. Now if you buy an Apple iPad (I'm holding out for the MaxiPad) you can't even choose what browser to run on the machine. Imagine paying a company good money to violate your rights! Imagine what future products will do when you do!

Economic actions have consequences. Ininformed, knee-jerk economic actions, like pre-ordering SH5 when it is flying danger flags all over, has unintended consequences that would lead Ubi to believe that they are moving in the right direction and putting even more resources toward a course that would give us more and more inferior products.

The argument that "this is the best we are likely to get" recalls the American automobile manufacturers of the 1970's, producing junk cars that rusted out in three years, had lousy styling, terrible drivability, abysmal fuel economy and no reliability. Yup, as long as we were willing to pay for it, they created more lousy cars. Didn't the Japanese and Europeans jump into the market and clean their clocks? Another law of economics is that producers love to exploit a vacuum. Any vacuum will be filled quickly by a better producer able to meet the needs of the consumer.

I say economic responsibility demands that we evaluate the product before we lay out the money. But I guess that's all crap. I'm just daft. Fire away.

[martes86]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Probably not. The game does not need to phone home anymore. Perhaps the last patch would provide the MP capability. Maybe in a pay for addon with additional content. It worked for SH4. Lets do the math logically. The game gets released. There is the initial glut of purchases at $49.99 or whatever. This goes on for say 6 months. Meanwhile, there are patches made for a fix or a "thanks from UBI' boat added. Others are still making purchases at full price. Eventually the price drops to $19.99 and then $9.99. Does not take long. Does it make financial sense to run, have upkeep and staff this server for DRM? In the long run I would say no. It is diminishing returns on the sales of the games that overrides the cost to keep this server up and running. So really, at $9.99 for a game most will just buy it instead of pirating a copy I would think. What does UBI really get to keep this DRM going for years? I can't think of reason to do that. What is your thoughts? I could be way off base but that is how I see it.

Well, EA is currently shutting down online capabilities for games that are just one year old and beyond. If online support is dropped eventually, they'd sure have a DRM fix ready for us, to at least allow us for SP play, but I doubt they'd go through the trouble of programming a bypass for their MP servers, specially if the stock SH5 doesn't include LAN/IP/Ded. server/client creation capabilities, which could be bound to have bugs too which would require fixes if critical.

However, EA's server are much complex than what Ubi might have planned, because EA uses them not just for authentication, but for data transactions with the games, all the time. OSP/DRM might be as fast as a single server ping, and just having 1 machine for it would suffice and not get overloaded (at least, with SH5)... what would happen with the savegames issue is a different matter, probably independent from OSP, and that's probably what will be the most costly to mantain. But money is money of course, so I wouldn't exclude any possibility.

Cheers

[Seafireliv]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

First of all, that's a personal attack. I see you as one who made one of those.

I also see you have not read any SH5 posts I have made regarding the DRM, which I provisionally endorsed, probably the only one who has gone that far in accepting that means of protecting Ubi's interests. But don't confuse the issue with the facts when there is a good attack to be made there. It is very entertaining.

My point is that what you are willing to pay for, you will receive more of. If you are willing to put out your cash for a bad game (fill in the blank here, I think we've all been burned at one time, not only by Ubi), the game company who made that game will adjust its marketing plan to substitute publicity and puffery for game quality. If the biggest proportion of buyers are those who pre-order, there is no incentive at all for a game company to produce a great game--their money is already made. To them only, the game is a raging success and their next game will be a repeat of the same customer ripoff. And why shouldn't they? We paid them to do it!

Two inviolable rules of economics, exemplified by Apple and Sony: what you pay for you will get more of, and people tend to do exactly what they are paid to do. In both companies' cases, people have been willing to pay exhorbitant prices for increasingly restrictive and intrusive DRM schemes. Now if you buy an Apple iPad (I'm holding out for the MaxiPad) you can't even choose what browser to run on the machine. Imagine paying a company good money to violate your rights! Imagine what future products will do when you do!

Economic actions have consequences. Ininformed, knee-jerk economic actions, like pre-ordering SH5 when it is flying danger flags all over, has unintended consequences that would lead Ubi to believe that they are moving in the right direction and putting even more resources toward a course that would give us more and more inferior products.

The argument that "this is the best we are likely to get" recalls the American automobile manufacturers of the 1970's, producing junk cars that rusted out in three years, had lousy styling, terrible drivability, abysmal fuel economy and no reliability. Yup, as long as we were willing to pay for it, they created more lousy cars. Didn't the Japanese and Europeans jump into the market and clean their clocks? Another law of economics is that producers love to exploit a vacuum. Any vacuum will be filled quickly by a better producer able to meet the needs of the consumer.

I say economic responsibility demands that we evaluate the product before we lay out the money. But I guess that's all crap. I'm just daft. Fire away.

Intellectually well-said!

[col_Kurtz]

I hope I don`t broke any law I think this is important.

http://www.yougamers.com/news/27311_...oing_it_wrong/

[Joe Bob]

I am very new here and have been away from sub simulations for a long time but in reading the SH5 threads I have begun to think perhaps my perspective from a nearly outsider view might have some value so here goes my second post.

I am a hard core flight simmer. years ago I was also big into AoD. Those were the pre-internet days for me though. I purchased SH2 and it was not what I had hoped it would be.

I believe at the time I read that the developers were not happy with the linear nature of it but it was the best they could do within the restraints of the business. I tossed the disk and assumed that the market was not going to get any better for such a niche category game. I never even gave SH3 a look until this Xmas. Needless to say I was stunned that in this day of disposable adrenaline junkie games, one like this has been made. So few companies attempt so really simulate anything these days.

The current unpleasantness over SH5 reminds me very much of the flight sim community over MS Flight Simulator X. It is the result of people who are passionate about a simulation and that can be a good thing if you keep it in perspective.

I and the communities I frequent have spent thousands of dollars in add on payware and hardware for MSFS. Flight sim has been a pet project for some at MS for many years. It always made money. And yet the large company drops the franchise because in reality it is a small niche market that was not worth the bother. The Submarine simulation community is a much smaller market than that. Sometimes when you frequent a community dedicated to a sim you can forget that it does not represent the majority of a games market. Like it or not if the casual gamer does not buy the game then it does not get made. I am very glad that enough folks bought SH2 so that SH3 was made. I sure did not expect it.

I am not suggesting anyone should buy games for the good of the franchise. In fact I will vote with my dollars over the DRM issue. But as far as the actual sim goes, I feel comfortable in saying that developers who made a sim as detailed as SH3 has their heart in the right place and what ever SH5 is or isn't is going to be the best that can be done within the restraints of the business.

I hope the Subsim community can keep that in perspective when judging the passion (and target) you apply to our concerns. Someone will come along and make a new flightsim. I am not so sure about a new sub sim.


Anyway, pleas forgive the new guy butting in

I'm Joe Bob and thats the way I see it

[pythos]

Joe Bob,

Very well said.

I remember the flap with FS when virtual cockpits were coming out. "oh, it's just eye candy, why waste time with something so unimportant". These whiners were obviously NOT wanting a simulation of the real thing.

I was sad to hear MS dropping FS. That is just a perfect example of how crappy depending on consumerism is. Flight sim, is head and shoulders better than most aircraft sims out there short of a full motion simulator used by the big boys. It is the only mainstream simulator that can be autorized by the FAA as a training tool for actual pilots. I keep sharp with my instrument approaches using flight sim.

As I have said before on these forums, people seem to confuse games with simulators. First person shooters are highly un realistic. How so? Well I watch my friend play modern warfare, when his character gets so injured he can't do anything, my friend hits a button and his character blows himself up. Instead of being kicked out of the match which would be close to realistic, he instead gets a fresh new character and is back in the fight.

When your boat gets sunk, you have to restart from your last save, which is hardly realistic, but acceptable for continued game play.

I think the first trailer for sh5 worked on this point. "Oh no, this is no game.". It is'nt a game.

IT IS A SIMULATION of something thankfully none of us will experience in real life.

[Jimbuna]

Welcome aboard Joe Bob

[FIREWALL]

Welcome Joe Bob Excellent 1st post

Same to you Pythos on your response.

This is the kind of posts I like to read.

[scrapser]

A good point about the niche market we are in. I would like to add that because it is a niche market and the developers and publishers KNOW this (how could they not?)...it is all the more reason why they should be creating what we want and not what they want to sell us if they want the highest number of sales. If they choose not to, they are shooting blanks in a dark room and hitting nothing because what they produce will not appeal to the hardcore niche market and the casual gamer market will end up a mere roll of the dice.

Personally I think this is the driving force behind the reason SH5 is not a full simulation of the entire war with all submarines available. They are trying to change the nature of what a submarine simulation is to attract the "casual" gamer and expand the market at the expense of the hardcore fan base. In short, they are cutting corners to save expenses and maximize profits. Quality goes out the window yet again.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by tater

You are probably correct. I tend to see the visual stuff the way I see everything related to SH—does it increase or decrease the quality of simulation?

What is immersive for me is to have the targets, sub, world, and enemies behave realistically (and look appropriate).

I remember seeing mod changelogs with stuff about the uniforms, etc, and chuckled 'cause I'd paid as much attention to my XO's hat as I do to any guy's shoes I meet in RL—which is none at all. My wife, OTOH, she'd notice stuff like that.

tater

PS—yes, I'm saying that anyone who notices uniform problems probably pays a lot of attention to men—not that there's anything wrong with that!

I hear ya. I remember the first time my GF saw me playing SH3. I went into the command room and she went "ooo, nice graphics". I was surprised. Normally she couldn't care less, and I've played better looking games that she didn't comment on. So I said "yeah, look" and panned the camera around (away from the CE) to show her the rest of the sub. She sighed and said "the graphics were better when you were facing in the other direction". That's when the penny dropped.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by urfisch

SH4 was going to fail...this was no surprise to many of us, right?

And it was not only due to bugs...the STRATEGY didnt fit the exspectations. Many players waited for SH3 v2.0 and NOT for a pacific theater. So the game sold badly. Clear to me. If they would have done it the other way round...SH4 with a better looking atlantic theater AND monsun boats...and AFTERWARDS release the u.s. subwar in pacific theater as an addon...this would have worked better!!! 100% sure.

Says you. I and other people fond of the PTO waited a little over 11 years for that buggy piece of crap. let me say that again....

OVER ELEVEN YEARS WAIT!

The real reason why it didn't do so well is because it was a rush job and was released with a ton of bugs, many of which are still unresolved. First impressions are everything, and when Ubi drew back the curtains to show a bucktooth freckled redhead with pigtails and pigeon toes instead of a hot blond with big firm breasts, that pretty much killed the game right there.

It was LONG over due for a PTO game. Infact, this series was STARTED by a PTO game.

[Ishigami]

Are you you rooting for failure for SH5?

Yes I do.
Actually I'm rooting for failure of UbiSoft and it just happened to be connected.

[Schultz]

As I said it before pesimism is contagious , let's be optimistic, did you know that pesimistic people die earlier ?(some researchers reached this conclusion)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Joe Bob

I am very new here and have been away from sub simulations for a long time but in reading the SH5 threads I have begun to think perhaps my perspective from a nearly outsider view might have some value so here goes my second post.

WELCOME ABOARD!

We have something in common.

I was also big into AoD. Those were the pre-internet days for me though. I purchased SH2 and it was not what I had hoped it would be.

Same here. The SH2 thing was what led me here in the first place.

Anyway, pleas forgive the new guy butting in...

At least you're polite about it. And more than welcome to do so anytime. It's how you get to not be the new guy.

[evan82]

Originally Posted by infernos

As I said it before pesimism is contagious , let's be optimistic, did you know that pesimistic people die earlier ?(some researchers reached this conclusion)

Who is pessimist? Good informed old optimist.