Ubi DRM: Their Side of the Story

[Samwise]

That doesn't mean a lot in a vacuum.  Can you find the numbers by platform for Ass Creed 1?  (My Google-fu is failing me.)

(edit: Mind you, the REAL test will be the same numbers for Ass Creed 3 if it ever exists.  A lot of people didn't realize the implications of the DRM until after they'd bought the game; that impact won't be felt until the next time they have a choice whether to buy a game in the same franchise.)

[UnSub]

Good point.

Assassin's Creed sold 4.86m on Xbox 360 and 3.73m on PS3 for a total of 8.59m on the main consoles.

Ubisoft has announced that AssCreed had over 8m sales, but that appears to not include PC sales (which it may not, given that it released 5 months later on the PC). Or, if it does, VGChartz is overestimating sales figures. AssCreed did pop up as a top seller on the PC for the month it came out and hung around for a while, but didn't make it into the top selling PC games of 2008 list... so maybe it didn't sell enough to push the total sold over 9m (but I doubt that AssCreed sold less than 500k on the PC).

Funnily enough, AssCreed did pop up as one of the most pirated titles on the PC for 2008.

[Samwise]

So, no PC sales figures?  I couldn't find any either, except a quote from Ubi where they said that PC sales were very good and had "exceeded expectations".  Before they decided to sue someone or other for piracy losses, that is, at which point their story changes and AC becomes the worst selling PC title of all time.  Nothing resembling an actual number either way, though.

[UnSub]

Problem is that NPD doesn't report PC sales any more, probably because they look so pathetic. And the direct distributors don't make their sales public either.

[Musashi]

And because of that lawsuit, they have probably made an effort to make whatever numbers were available disappear.

Someone should look through this.  Not me though.  I'm not inclined for that sort of business.

[Paelos]

And because of that lawsuit, they have probably made an effort to make whatever numbers were available disappear.

Someone should look through this.  Not me though.  I'm not inclined for that sort of business.

Only 9% of their sales are for the PC. That's roughly $95M. Take that and divide it by $40 average (high and low costs) on a sale, you'll looking at ~2.4M units. They released 16 PC games on the year, three of which were heavy hitters. Assassin's creed came in late, so it's probably not a big part of the numbers.

Take into account games from 2008 & prior selling in 2009, moving some of the numbers forward and making some estimates, you can probably estimate that Assassins Creed 2 would push .75-1M units on the PC, but not much beyond that.

[tgr]

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episode-118-pach-attack/100545

I love how this guy is apparently only focusing on people stealing games, he's apparently ignoring all the people who are/have/will have issues because of this system.

quote: "So I think anything the publisher does to make sure you don't rip off their game is their right, and if you don't like it, great, go find something else to do with your time. Do I think they made a mistake? I wish all games were like that, because I think people who steal should be in jail. And I welcome the flamer's comments on this one, because if you think that's right, good for you, we don't have any interest in YOUR business, since you don't pay for stuff anyway."

[Paelos]

Yeah, good plan. Tell your customers when they complain to find something else to do with their time instead of actually evaluating the problem.

[Samwise]

The guys that ran BitTorrent are in jail; it's against the law.

  

[tgr]

Vote with your wallet, it is the only effective option.

this is, in effect the problem. Pirates are effectively voting with their wallet, by not opening it. Every time they pirate a game imnstead of buying it, they send a market message that says "this game sucked, no more like this".
This is why pirates complain that all modern games suck. They actively killed off the style of games they liked, by not buying them, so all they can do now is pirate games they don't like.
Simple economics.

Meanwhile the super minority among us who choose not to buy and pirate a game is all but forgotten. I've not purchased and pirated any games from Ubisoft and a few other publishers as a way of protesting their insane DRM. Instead the problem has only worsened. I'm beginning to think the few of us who ethically protest have no voice any more.

Found this on bluesnews (where I found the vlog to begin with), and I have to agree with kxmode. I, and as many of my friends as I could educate on ubisoft's new take on DRM, have more or less completely stopped buying and playing ubisoft's games. It's literally the only recourse we have, since sending emails to them is most likely just going to get sent to /dev/null and ignored, and I fear that the "lost sales" are just lumped in with "them thar ebul piwates".

[Azazel]

/shrug

Opinionated guy with an online journal/blog gets all straight-arrow and misses the point entirely along with passing on some incorrect information/misinformation. BFD.

tgr, this guy is basically trying to drive some controvery with the flamebait. How many of use looked at at least some of that guy's vlog because of his "extreme" comments? Ad-views, baby. Paelos, he doesn't work for Ubi. He's just some random opininated tool. Pretty much like all of us.

I don't even bother railing against the worst of DRM anymore. I just spend more on Steam and console games, and don't buy the DRM-fucked stuff. (With the caveat that if I ever really really wanted to play any of the DRM-fucked stuff, I'd pirate it, but honestly I have too much shit to play anyway so will just never bother to get around to Spore, et al.)

[tgr]

He may be an opinionated fuckwad just trying to drive some controversy, but how much would you bet he's at least somewhat representative to how most publishers think these days?

I too have too much shit to play to bother with piracy these days, but Spore is probably not the game I would use as an example of something I have to get. In fact, DRM probably saved me from buying what I probably would've thought of as a shit game. Oh the irony.

[NiX]

Found this on bluesnews (where I found the vlog to begin with), and I have to agree with kxmode. I, and as many of my friends as I could educate on ubisoft's new take on DRM, have more or less completely stopped buying and playing ubisoft's games. It's literally the only recourse we have, since sending emails to them is most likely just going to get sent to /dev/null and ignored, and I fear that the "lost sales" are just lumped in with "them thar ebul piwates".

I don't think it really matters what the rate of piracy is when it comes to your point. Devs/Publishers will lump lack of sales in with whatever justifies them being given money to make a go at another game. Boycotting a game by not buying doesn't have the impact you think it should and it never will.

[tgr]

So basically, we're fucked.

[Lantyssa]

Not really.  They're fucked.  If it has the impact of the only people who play their games are pirates, their sales will be non-existent and they'll go out of business.  Someone else with good games who realizes DRM isn't the answer will prosper.  It'll all work out in the end.

[tgr]

Actually, I'm fairly certain that "they" will just stop developing for (or having any significant sales on) the PC, which means the PC market will be more open to indie people who'd rather go for gameplay than glitz (because, well, they're tiny).

I can hope, but I'm so not holding my breath for the next 5 years. :P

[UnSub]

UbiSoft has five F2P MMOs (the Might and Magic one and Trackmania are known) in development and looks to be developing that DRM as part of a larger online service platform ala Steam. They are shifting their PC strategy in that direction.

[Azazel]

I don't think it really matters what the rate of piracy is when it comes to your point. Devs/Publishers will lump lack of sales in with whatever justifies them being given money to make a go at another game. Boycotting a game by not buying doesn't have the impact you think it should and it never will.

I don't think it has any particular impact, and I'm quite in agreement that they'll call it a lost sale due to piracy whether I'd have bought the game or not. I pretty much don't care anymore though, which is kinda my point. If I could be arsed to really want to play their games, I'd pirate them. Usually this point of view devolves into an internet slapfight with one of a few people on f13 who have never taped a song off the radio and consider applying a no-CD cracked .exe to a game you bought and paid or can't get to work for whatever reason for as exactly the same as carjacking. But who can be fucked with that argument again, anymore? tgr can take up that particular mantle next time around, I'm pretty much done with caring. 

[tgr]

Usually this point of view devolves into an internet slapfight with one of a few people on f13 who have never taped a song off the radio and consider applying a no-CD cracked .exe to a game you bought and paid or can't get to work for whatever reason for as exactly the same as carjacking. But who can be fucked with that argument again, anymore? tgr can take up that particular mantle next time around, I'm pretty much done with caring. 

I'll be fucked in the ear five ways till the cows come home before I'll ever start a moralistic piss-fight over that particular subject. I'm not a saint, but I'm far from a demon either in this regard, and if someone's never taped a song off the radio, pirated any games or applied a no-CD cracked .exe, ever, in any way, shape or form, good for them. Have a cookie.

[Paelos]

UbiSoft has five F2P MMOs (the Might and Magic one and Trackmania are known) in development and looks to be developing that DRM as part of a larger online service platform ala Steam. They are shifting their PC strategy in that direction.

Given their track record I'm not in favor of that at all. Steam is already Steam, and it works well. They would just be trying to reinvent the wheel in order to cut out a middle-man margin, which I can't imagine is that huge on digital only content.

If you stacked up the possible gain of running your own shit vs. all the losses you take by being totally over-protective on Steam, I'd imagine it's no-where near break even.

[LK]

Steam has shown that everyone wants a Steam.

[Malakili]

Steam has shown that everyone wants a Steam.

Funny, considering how badly it was received when it was brand new.  I remember thinking, I don't know how I feel about this, however it really and truly revolutionized how I get and play games, and I don't say that lightly.

[Azazel]

Both good points. The thing is that Steam is already here, set up, developed well, and has everyone's games already on it. It's like iTunes in that regard, but with a lot more consumer goodwill. 

[tgr]

The difference is, steam rode on the coattails of halflife, and hasn't gone too gay since then.

Not like ubisoft and EA's initial offering (I'm assuming EA will be trying to do the same thing), which started off by stopping people from playing (and losing progress) the instant they lost the connection to the server, with no way of circumventing that.

[Malakili]

and hasn't gone too gay since then.

Ok, I'm not trying to pull one of those "don't say gay" holier than thou things here, but I seriously have no idea what the hell you mean.

[tgr]

What I meant is that it hasn't become too unreasonable since then. It's always available (at least I haven't seen it go unavailable, although I'm going to to admit to not being the heaviest user of the service the past few years), it has an offline mode so you can drag the laptop to a no-internet cabin if you want and still play (you just have to prepare), it has regular sales of tons of games, it has tons of games, etc etc etc.

What would ubisoft and EA have to compete with that? They start off by requiring that you're always online, and you lost progress when you lost the connection. If you ignore the fact that this is literally 6 years behind steam already, that's still not the greatest way of starting off a games distribution scheme.

If steam had required that you be online at all times, or that you upload your savegames to their "cloud" to even be able to use the savegames, then that would be grounds for me calling steam "too gay". Or if anyone's of the persuasion that "gay" is a bad word, fine. "too unreasonable".

[Musashi]

If they're going to put their multi-player games on a social network, that's one thing.  But they're putting single-player games on there and requiring you to be logged in to play.  They don't need this for those F2P multi-player games.  You have to use their server for those already anyway, and that's fine.  But if I have to be logged in to play a single player game, I'm just going to buy one that doesn't require that.  Validate installs when you issue patches or something.  I know it doesn't work 100%, but it's better than taking away the ability for your customers to play your games offline.

[UnSub]

The problem with giving everything to Steam puts UbiSoft into a similar position as they are with GameStop - they give a lot of power to the distributor. Valve is always going to prefer its own titles over 'competitor' titles. Plus it is pretty clear in direct distribution it is better to control your own channel than be subject to the whims of others.

UbiSoft's DRM can use some work, of course, but there is a sweet spot where people will accept it (or at least accept it more willingly than they do now).

[tgr]

"Some work"?

Personally, if they'd replicated steam, that would've been a much better start than the half-wit cousin they spawned.

[Lantyssa]

If steam had required that you be online at all times, or that you upload your savegames to their "cloud" to even be able to use the savegames, then that would be grounds for me calling steam "too gay". Or if anyone's of the persuasion that "gay" is a bad word, fine. "too unreasonable".

Since we've brought it up, I would prefer "too unreasonable" for future usage.  Thanks.

[Musashi]

The problem with giving everything to Steam puts UbiSoft into a similar position as they are with GameStop - they give a lot of power to the distributor. Valve is always going to prefer its own titles over 'competitor' titles. Plus it is pretty clear in direct distribution it is better to control your own channel than be subject to the whims of others.

UbiSoft's DRM can use some work, of course, but there is a sweet spot where people will accept it (or at least accept it more willingly than they do now).

Another factor to consider is the benefit Steam's install base has.  You might not get all the control you'd like, but it's worth a fair bit of goodwill just for the extra exposure your game will get on Steam.  If UbiSoft is going to pull an Orange Box out of their ass and get their version on that many systems, I'll be happy to slurp them too.

[Azazel]

The problem with giving everything to Steam puts UbiSoft into a similar position as they are with GameStop - they give a lot of power to the distributor. Valve is always going to prefer its own titles over 'competitor' titles. Plus it is pretty clear in direct distribution it is better to control your own channel than be subject to the whims of others.

UbiSoft's DRM can use some work, of course, but there is a sweet spot where people will accept it (or at least accept it more willingly than they do now).

Not sure what you mean by "prefers" their own games, since Steam as a distribution service is pretty neutral. I read an interview not too long ago with the devs behind Killing Floor where they said that Steam had been really good to work with despite the similarities between KF and some zombie-survival game that Valve owns, and that they had no issues whatsoever. After all, it's in Valve's higher interests to not show any favoritism to their own stuff, since I'm sure that they make more money from distribution these days than from sales of their own non-prolific output...

Also, with Gay, Ghey, Fags, "fagging up the thread" etc - I don't mind it on South Park, but it's pretty much the domain of idiot teenagers otherwise. Use more generic swearing instead. :)

[LK]

Valve releases like, what, one game every year or two? Much more in their interest as a distributor to make it as easy as possible for the hundreds of other developers out there to release their games through their service.

[Threash]

Steam is popular because it sells greatly discounted software, i didn't start using it until they started having some of those great 5 dollar sales and since then i haven't bought a single game at full price.  Having a distributing system "just like steam" ain't going to do shit if you are still charging 50 bucks for your games.

[tgr]

Actually, the funny thing about steam and their discounts is apparently that while it does sell more copies while the discount is there, the increased sales continues for a while even after the discount has expired.