«

[TotalAnarchy]

I think you guys are missing the point by one million light years. Ubisoft specifically reiterated that they will keep focusing on consoles. Secondly, why do you believe Pachter? He's a financial analyst, and you don't really trust those. To give you an example, here's the percentage of PC software sales by year from the total of Ubisoft sales:

2007-2008: 7%
2008-2009: 9%
2009-2010: 8%
2010-2011: 4%

So at first sight, the PC would lose 50% of its sales compared to 2009-2010... But wait there's more! In 2009-2010, Ubisoft's sales represented 870,954,000 euros, while in 2010-2011 - 1,038,826,000 euros, which means a 19% increase. Now let's count how many euros the PC takes out of that: in 2009-2010, PC sales (8%) were around 70,000,000 euros, while in 2010-2011 (4%) - 42,000,000 euros. The reduction is not even close to 90%, it's only 25%.

But screw these stupid numbers. Who cares about them? You know what's really hilarious? The fact that Ubisoft never stopped using DRMs. Think about it. Before 2006 it was Starforce, after that came Tages, and now it's their own DRM. And thus I ask where is the logic behind all this? Starforce and Tages are even more draconic DRMs than the current one. Why would sales go down now that they introduced the Always-Online DRM when millions of others are already playing online games, which are already DRMs in their own way?

[DarthHelmet86]

People don't see it like that TA. The older DRMs upset people as well, but always online upsets people who don't or can't get internet connections. And people who have very slow internet connections. And there are still plenty of places even in America that have issues getting broadband.

And I would guess more of those people who pirated would have brought it with a change to the DRM. I don't believe the 90 percent loss of sales but I do trust his point. Either the loss (any loss they are having that is) is from pirates and their DRM doesn't work or pirates are not the major factor and Ubisoft is barking up the wrong tree.

[Expack2]

Related to this topic is a curious bit of research highlighted in this featured Member Blog from gaming industry website Gamasutra. The original research findings can be found in this PDF. (On a side note, you'll see the author has to keep pointing out that this is the most objective piece of piracy research he's found, even though it clearly doesn't cover piracy channels other than BitTorrent).

An interesting correlation which is made by the above-linked research is that the better a game's Metacritic score, the more unique peers (e.g. not repeat peers) download the game. Ergo, the better-received a game is, the more people pirate it.

[TheChosen]

Pachter the kind of guy who goes saying every other week that Nintendo is doomed, so I wouldnt really take him seriously.

Ubisoft cant seem to handle their DRM though. Even worse was when their servers went down and no one could play their games.

How many of the people who pirated those games would have bought them in the first place? I'm betting just as few as would have bought them after pirating.

Yeah, right. There are those kind of guys, but I think most people are pirating just for the sake of pirating.

[Lulu_Jane]

Originally Posted by The Fifth Horseman

How many of the people who pirated those games would have bought them in the first place? I'm betting just as few as would have bought them after pirating.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I've not only bought games that I've enjoyed after originally acquiring them mysteriously, but more to the point, I've then gone on to buy countless titles from the developers afterwards when a particular game has impressed me.

[Expack2]

Originally Posted by TheChosen

Patchers the kind of guy who goes saying every other week that Nintendo is doomed, so I wouldnt really take him seriously.

Umm...to whom are you referring?

[The Fifth Horseman]

I'd like to point out the fact that DRM is getting more elaborate, expensive and a pain in the ass for the end users... with what results, exactly? A few days of amusement to the crackers once they get going?
The publishers are facing a sunken costs fallacy here: About every form of DRM so far has been broken or circumvented in one way or another, meaning that the existing DRM has proven worthless. So they will invest MORE in NEW AND IMPROVED snake oil DRM... wait, that's going to end up cracked regardless, so what exactly are they hoping to achieve and more importantly who's getting rich on the publishers buying into the DRM scam?
I mean, seriously. Once cracked, the DRM doesn't hurt the pirates one jot but the LEGIT customers are getting a face full of it despite doing nothing wrong (apart from, you know, paying for having the DRM inflicted on them).

I know this is a bit off topic, but I've not only bought games that I've enjoyed after originally acquiring them mysteriously, but more to the point, I've then gone on to buy countless titles from the developers afterwards when a particular game has impressed me.

Not just you. On certain occasions, though, it ended up the other way around for me when the legitimately bought original turned out to be unbearable (Tomb Raider Legend: Bought the Polish release from Cenega? Well, no English menus or subtitles for you! Manual says they're all there, but it turns out Cenega in their undying eternal genius left four other European languages intact and merrily went on to replace the English text with Polish translations. Blargh.)

[TheChosen]

Originally Posted by Expack2

Umm...to whom are you referring?

Pachter. Little typo there and you immediately think Im referring to someone else?

[DarthHelmet86]

That is kinda my point Fifth. Gamers aren't children any-more (not that they ever really were) and they don't like being thought of as pirates or thieves by the company they just gave money too. Some will go on to pirate out of spite or because they feel ripped off or are just angry but don't want to deny themselves a game they think they have a stake in. No matter what gaming does there will be pirates but they shouldn't be treating all gamers as pirates. I have pirated games and then gone on to buy them, I have nearly every Sierra game yet still buy them from GoG as well. I tend not to pirate new games but I still get annoyed at being thought of as a pirate and having to be online all the time to play my games or go through putting in 3 different codes and having to register online before I can get to play my game.

Gaming companies are like the music companies they like to blame the users for their stupid ideas. And their actions to stop the naughty pirates are only driving away more people who would have brought their games.

[Lulu_Jane]

DRM is a fine tightrope to walk I guess. I understand the need for it, but when it becomes difficult for the consumer then it's pointless.

A personal example is that I no longer buy music from the Gorillaz. I bought 3 of their albums from their website about 5 years ago, the files were so crippled that I basically threw money down a hole, being unable to move the files from one machine to another among other things. I ended up having to download the music illegally afterwards so I could actually play the damn stuff.

It actually felt insulting, and I've no urge to ever give them money again. To be fair though, this was years ago and last I looked their website and online purchasing it wasn't so retarded. Too late for me though.

I feel similarly about Ubisoft, the only difference being that I can't be bothered to get tangled up in it to begin with.