By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Ubisoft commit commercial suicide

Rath on 27 January 2010
AnthonyW86 said:
ChichiriMuyo said:

As has already been said, no one has proven there is a negative impact from piracy and the reason they haven't is because they can't.  If they could, they would.  Statistical data on piracy would be everywhere, the math would be testable, and the results would be reproducable.  The fact is, though, that piracy has a statistically insignificant impact on their business.  Most people who pirate would love it if they could afford to buy legitimate copies, they don't because they can't. 

Do take note, that they are also using this system to stop used sales.  What they are doing is fighting tooth and nail to show some kind of improved profit margin.  They do not care if you buy their game legitimately or not, they care if they get the money for it.  They hate used sales just as much as piracy and this is a mover to fight used sales just as much as it is to fight piracy. 

If they get their way they actually won't have any impact on pirates, since the game can be hacked to avoid the security altogether, but it will have a severe impact on people who buy games second-hand.  What they are really doing is squeezing the middle market, which will only have the effect of making used buyers in to new buyers or pirates.  This is not something that deserves praise.

Hell, the fact that people actually think this move is about piracy is laughable.  They can't kill piracy, they know it, and you'd have to be completely naive to think this will slow the pirates down even one bit.  This is about the used market, and you're going to miss it when it is gone.  Trust me.

Like i said you should have checked the bittorrent numbers that were released recently. For example: The game Prototype was downloaded more times than it was sold on PS3 and X360 COMBINED. And that's just Bittorrent, and only downloads since it could have been copied multiple times after.

So don't go saying it doesn't impact the bussiness because it does.

And i hounestly won't miss the used game market one second, since iv'e resold only a handfew of games in my entire life, and those i did were for like $10 to friends. And to be honest, nobody complaints if they pay like $10 to watch a movie of 2 hours in the theater, why complain when paying $40(PC average new price) for 10-20 of game entertainment?

 

On-topic: Ass said above, you probably need to online to access your savegame and maybe to save your game aswell. And again in future optimations games could be programmed to get parts of the game code online.

...

Just because a lot of people have pirated the game does not mean that piracy has reduced the sales of the game. Thats the point you're missing, badly.



Around the Network
ChichiriMuyo on 27 January 2010
ZenfoldorVGI said:
ChichiriMuyo said:
Zen - Wow has been pirated many, many times. Clone servers have been put up, allowing people to play their pirated copies 100% for free. You have to be incredibly naive to think the devs/publishers have a shot in hell at stoping piracy.

Miguel - I'll spare the attitude if you stop being lazy. All the information in the world at your finger tips and you want people to post sources on wide-spread information? Come on, dude.

I never thought of clone servers as piracy. In WoW, the gamecode is freeware. It's the community that you log in and pay for.

With AC2, perhaps, the code could be piratable, but maybe the boss interactions and phase changes would be streamed from their servers.

It might not stop piracy, but it would reduce it by a huge margin.

Also, it's extremely naive to believe that developers will never stop piracy. They could. The question is, how much hardship is the consumer willing to accept due to modern technology, and does it keep things nice and profitable?

One way to prevent piracy, is to send a ninja with every copy of the game sold, to watch you while you play. When you're not playing, the game will be handed back to the Ninja. Once you've beaten it, the Ninja destroys the game, and flys off into the night. You are never left alone with the game, and your computer blows up after it's over.

See, easy. I just stopped piracy. Problem is, not everyone is willing to live with a ninja, and ubisoft can't afford them.

Point is, there is a way to do anything. However, when preventing videogame piracy, publishers are limited by what is financially prudent, and also by what their customers are willing to put up with, in the name of playing their game. You get it?

Ubisoft is pushing the boundries on the latter.

Blizzard sure thinks of a lot of them as piracy, which is why they've sent cease and desist orders to many of them.

I already pointed out exactly how to get over streamed data.  Once somebody streams that data and cracks it, that's the end of that anti-piracy method

No, they can't.  It's not within their power.  They keep spending more time and resources developing tougher security and the hacker community just keeps breaking it faster.  Piracy is so much more powerful than these corporations now that you can get the pirated version of many games before the legitimate one.  If pirates can get your product out into the market (and break your security) before you've released it, you know it's time to throw in the towel.  As it is they are already throwing everything they can at the pirates and they are losing, they are losing by more than they were 5 years ago and that was more so than 10 years ago.  Why is this supposed to suddenly reverse?  The fact is, the harder they make the more fun is to try for a hacker, and even using hardware to stop piracy has limited impact at best.

So the best thing you can come up with would add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of each game, and even then it's not airtight security?  Even if it were cost effective, if even one of those ninja were to die or get bought off the whole system fails utterly.  And, uh, how much did you want to pay to play a video game?

No, you didn't stop piracy.  As I said, if the security system is compromised even once the whole thing goes to waste.  What would you like to suggest next, that we post a gaurd next to every operable piece of computer hardware in the world?

Oh, I get it.  The thing is, it won't stop piracy even one bit.  It's an inconvenience to the paying customer and has no impact on pirates.  Is this something they deserve praise for?



You do not have the right to never be offended.

Twistedpixel on 27 January 2010
daggy said:

This is not true. Nowadays there are more laptops being sold than desktop PCs, and the large majority of them don't have an internet connection ready at thand. It will add another explanation as to why AC2 will fail on PC in sales.

Yep but there aren't any laptops being sold without wireless. Also the majority of laptops are bought for their compactness and not portability, in other words they mostly sit on desks.

 



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

AnthonyW86 on 27 January 2010
ChichiriMuyo said:
AnthonyW86 said:
ChichiriMuyo said:

As has already been said, no one has proven there is a negative impact from piracy and the reason they haven't is because they can't.  If they could, they would.  Statistical data on piracy would be everywhere, the math would be testable, and the results would be reproducable.  The fact is, though, that piracy has a statistically insignificant impact on their business.  Most people who pirate would love it if they could afford to buy legitimate copies, they don't because they can't. 

Do take note, that they are also using this system to stop used sales.  What they are doing is fighting tooth and nail to show some kind of improved profit margin.  They do not care if you buy their game legitimately or not, they care if they get the money for it.  They hate used sales just as much as piracy and this is a mover to fight used sales just as much as it is to fight piracy. 

If they get their way they actually won't have any impact on pirates, since the game can be hacked to avoid the security altogether, but it will have a severe impact on people who buy games second-hand.  What they are really doing is squeezing the middle market, which will only have the effect of making used buyers in to new buyers or pirates.  This is not something that deserves praise.

Hell, the fact that people actually think this move is about piracy is laughable.  They can't kill piracy, they know it, and you'd have to be completely naive to think this will slow the pirates down even one bit.  This is about the used market, and you're going to miss it when it is gone.  Trust me.

Like i said you should have checked the bittorrent numbers that were released recently. For example: The game Prototype was downloaded more times than it was sold on PS3 and X360 COMBINED. And that's just Bittorrent, and only downloads since it could have been copied multiple times after.

So don't go saying it doesn't impact the bussiness because it does.

And i hounestly won't miss the used game market one second, since iv'e resold only a handfew of games in my entire life, and those i did were for like $10 to friends. And to be honest, nobody complaints if they pay like $10 to watch a movie of 2 hours in the theater, why complain when paying $40(PC average new price) for 10-20 of game entertainment?

 

On-topic: Ass said above, you probably need to online to access your savegame and maybe to save your game aswell. And again in future optimations games could be programmed to get parts of the game code online.

I've seen them, but they are simply meaningless.  Prototype could have been downloaded a billion times and that doesn't mean piracy had any impact on sales whatsoever.  The number of downloads doesn't have any correlation to the number of legitimate sales potentially lost. We can sit here all day pouring over Gamestop's numbers too, but at the end of the day we can't just say they sold X used games so the devs sold X (or Y) less copies than they could have.  That's simply not how it works.  Just look at MW2, which had more piracy than Prototype's legit sales and pirated sales combined.  Did that massive piracy stop it from being one of the biggest entertainment launches in history?  NOT AT ALL.  That's because success or failure has nothing to do with the avilability of pirated data.  If a company is going to be a success, they'll do so within the realities of the market, not by fighting it.

Piracy, as has been said all too many times, is by and large something done by people who would happily buy legitimate products if they could afford to.  They don't because they can't.  China and Brazil are places where piracy is really rampant, and the cost of a game in those countries is easily twice what it'd cost in the US despite people making only a 10th of what an American makes.  They can't afford it, so they don't buy it.  That's also the leading reason why the PC is the target of the vast majority of piracy - consoles are luxury goods and pirates typically can't afford luxuries (PCs are utility goods).  Any argument about how much harder it is to pirate on a non-PS3 console is coming from someone that has never actually involved themselves with piracy.  It's easy as hell, you just need to be able to afford the hardware in the first place and most pirates can't.

Also, given the fact that pirates can and have worked around the dial-in restriction before by setting up fake authentification servers, what is stopping anyone from settign up a fake save data server on their own PC once a pirate cracks Ubisoft's system?  Absolutely nothing, which is how much impact this will have on piracy.

If you really think that those millions of downloads don't impact overall sales thenn i don't think i can make my point clearly anyway(i just hope you don't have a job witch involves economics).

As for the unaffordable part, that really isn't a valit point. If i can't afford something, it doesn't mean i should just get it without paying no does it? I used to save up my $10 allowense to buy 1 great game every half year, and man did i enjoy those games. And if people can't afford any luxuries and can barely get around, i don't think playing videogames is a priority for them either(and again not being able to afford something doesn't mean you should be able to get it without paying).

But i've shared my opinion(thats what forums are for) and really have nothing more to add here. I really hope this knew approach works and puts and end to piracy. Because i love PC gaming and they way hardware keeps improving every year.

And if it works, than maybe we will finally get alot of really good PC developed games again. Maybe just maybe will can get back to the glory days of Half-Life, Unreal etc. were PC games weren't just console ports for the most part...



daggy on 27 January 2010
AnthonyW86 said:
daggy said:
AnthonyW86 said:
daggy said:

How about the third option: Make good games and sell what PC gamers want?

PC gaming has been increasing well, and right now there are more game developers on PC than in all consoles combined. Indie games (which are mostly single-player) are rising extremely fast on PC.

You dont really believe that do you? No matter how good a game is, if people can get it for free by pirating it most of them will.

And again this kind of system could eventually work. If they program PC version to get tiny parts of the game online during gameplay, it would be as piracy proof as WoW.

It doesn't matter. What developers want is their games to be successful, and if they have to allow dozens of millions of piratesin order to sell well, they'll do it. Do you really believe that Dragon Age would've sold better if it weren't on PC? Or Left 4 Dead? or...

I can tell you that if I were a developer, I would rather sell 100k and have my game pirated 100 millions, than sell none at all.

I think you don't get the point here, because it's very likely that a PC version can actually HURT overall sales. Don't you think it's very likely that alot of people will pirate the game for PC instead of buying it on a console? Looking at the total of millions of downloads don't you think that number is way higher than that of 100k copys actually sold?

 

It's possible that piracy can hurt sales for OTHER platforms, like Xbox 360 and PS3. But then again, one thing we know for sure is that if you don't release it on PC it will destroy all sales in that platform. In one hand it might affect the sales on consoles, but in the other it 100% destroy sales on PC.

If some games are expect to make pretty much all sales not on PC, then go ahead and don't sell it on PC (or release it very late). But then, if a game can make a significant sum on PC, then it's best to release it along side the consoles.

How many hundreds of thousands of sales did Bioware lose by releasing Mass Effect 1 late on PC? They must've lost alot, because EA went to the point tto renegociate with Microsft in order to allow ME2 to come out same time as the X360 version. Right now, ME2 is occupying 2 places on Steam's top 10, and is also in Impulse and D2D's top 10 last week. What does that tell you?



Around the Network
jlauro on 27 January 2010
daggy said:
jlauro said:
Personally I prefer always online to play over CD required on PC games.

Who goes anywhere without an internet source? Seriously, it happens occasionally but pretty rare these days. This is a plus for PC games.

I find it funny how the majority of the people complaining about this don't have any PC games listed by their avatar. CD is a bigger pest than being online for most PC gamers.

I have over 50 games bought on Steam, and tomorrow I'm going to buy Psychonauts on Steam for only $2.

Most PCs bought nowadays are laptops, which means there is an expected travel period while being used, and during that time you won't be able to play AC2.

 

Exactly my point.  You have to be online to purchase via Steam.  You just proved you are online and you don't like to deal with CDs.  Most games purchased via steam only use Steams DRM instead of what is otherwise on the CD.  Most people while they travel are at a remote site or hotel that has wireless, so even if Steam doesn't trump the standard DRM like I suspect it would it doesn't matter.  Wireless is available pretty much everywhere I have ever traveled in the past 5 years on a daily basis or on special trips.  It's available inside and outside all over work and school and most of the city.



daggy on 27 January 2010
jlauro said:
daggy said:
jlauro said:
Personally I prefer always online to play over CD required on PC games.

Who goes anywhere without an internet source? Seriously, it happens occasionally but pretty rare these days. This is a plus for PC games.

I find it funny how the majority of the people complaining about this don't have any PC games listed by their avatar. CD is a bigger pest than being online for most PC gamers.

I have over 50 games bought on Steam, and tomorrow I'm going to buy Psychonauts on Steam for only $2.

Most PCs bought nowadays are laptops, which means there is an expected travel period while being used, and during that time you won't be able to play AC2.

 

Exactly my point.  You have to be online to purchase via Steam.  You just proved you are online and you don't like to deal with CDs.  Most games purchased via steam only use Steams DRM instead of what is otherwise on the CD.  Most people while they travel are at a remote site or hotel that has wireless, so even if Steam doesn't trump the standard DRM like I suspect it would it doesn't matter.  Wireless is available pretty much everywhere I have ever traveled in the past 5 years on a daily basis or on special trips.  It's available inside and outside all over work and school and most of the city.

You don't need to be online for you to play Steam games, that is the difference and the real issue.

I can go offline and just play whatever Steam I have installed, no worries. Steam is perfect for laptops. What Ubisoft is trying to do isn't.



jlauro on 27 January 2010
daggy said:
jlauro said:
daggy said:
jlauro said:
Personally I prefer always online to play over CD required on PC games.

Who goes anywhere without an internet source? Seriously, it happens occasionally but pretty rare these days. This is a plus for PC games.

I find it funny how the majority of the people complaining about this don't have any PC games listed by their avatar. CD is a bigger pest than being online for most PC gamers.

I have over 50 games bought on Steam, and tomorrow I'm going to buy Psychonauts on Steam for only $2.

Most PCs bought nowadays are laptops, which means there is an expected travel period while being used, and during that time you won't be able to play AC2.

 

Exactly my point.  You have to be online to purchase via Steam.  You just proved you are online and you don't like to deal with CDs.  Most games purchased via steam only use Steams DRM instead of what is otherwise on the CD.  Most people while they travel are at a remote site or hotel that has wireless, so even if Steam doesn't trump the standard DRM like I suspect it would it doesn't matter.  Wireless is available pretty much everywhere I have ever traveled in the past 5 years on a daily basis or on special trips.  It's available inside and outside all over work and school and most of the city.

You don't need to be online for you to play Steam games, that is the difference and the real issue.

I can go offline and just play whatever Steam I have installed, no worries. Steam is perfect for laptops. What Ubisoft is trying to do isn't.

 

Did you read my reply?  You don't even know if you have to be online if you purchase the game from Steam!  That DRM is for CD purchases, and it may or may not apply to Steam..  If you don't like the DRM, don't buy it.



ChichiriMuyo on 27 January 2010

AnthonyW86 - If those people couldn't afford to buy the game then it didn't impact sales. You're assuming those people could have actually bought the game which is a huge mistake. Even assuming they had the money, it's a mistake. One in four people in the Western industrialized world (which already only makes a tiny fraction of the whole pirating pie) who pirates also buys worthwhile products afterwards. For many, piracy is like a demo, and without that they wouldn't willingly commit their limited resources at all. Also, if you listen to the executives at MS piracy can lead to loyal customers later. While ideally they don't want any piracy, they'd rather build brand loyalty by allowing it than to have their products go unused.

Really, though, if YOU had anything to do with job in the Economics section you'd understand that the lost sales are statistically insignificant. There is no evidence whatsoever that piracy has a negative impact, let alone what the extent of that may be if it truly does. Oh, and I've already posted three links that mention at least 4 different studies that suggest piracy has had a net benefit. So, again, the fact is that piracy has no real impact on the sales of a game. There is no tangible proof that any harm is done at all, and the companies that complain the most about piracy also put out the worst games. Top-notch developers like Valve and Blizzard have themselves come out and said piracy has not had a noticeable impact on them at all

Also, when it comes to the deeply impoverished, don't talk about priorities. You got a $10 a week allowance, there are people in this world that bust their asses off for a $10 a week salary. There are KIDS busting their asses at a full-time job to make $10 a week. You have not lived that life, and you can't even begin to imagine it apparently. Try living like that and then tell me if their priorities are wrong when they want to sit down and escape their lives by means of media. Yeah, they can't afford it, so should they live that bleak, miserable existence without anything to dull the pain? Should a kid in Taiwan work in a factory from sunrise to sunset to buy bread just so you can tell him he's not allowed to watch the movies or play the games you take for granted? You need to get some perspective on purchasing power parity (PPP, if you know ANYTHING about economics) before you go around acting like you earned those games but people that work harder than you ever will haven't.

 

Oh, and FFS, don't go around acting like you know things you don't.  If you knew anything about economics you wouldn't be making the hard-line argument that you have, and your implication that I don't have an understanding of it just goes to show that you're not even remotely qualified to make that assesment.  Maybe try pulling that off on a subject that you have some actual expertise in, next time.  At least then you'll only look like a jerk instead of an ignorant jerk.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

irstupid on 27 January 2010
daggy said:
jlauro said:
Personally I prefer always online to play over CD required on PC games.

Who goes anywhere without an internet source? Seriously, it happens occasionally but pretty rare these days. This is a plus for PC games.

I find it funny how the majority of the people complaining about this don't have any PC games listed by their avatar. CD is a bigger pest than being online for most PC gamers.

I have over 50 games bought on Steam, and tomorrow I'm going to buy Psychonauts on Steam for only $2.

Most PCs bought nowadays are laptops, which means there is an expected travel period while being used, and during that time you won't be able to play AC2.

this right here.  i buy all my pc games now online through downloading so i dont' have a cd.  that problem is gone already for me.  I don't even have a single pc game cd in my house right now.  i have some older games at my parents house, but all games i play on my pc right now are cd free (non pirated fyi). 

 

now why am i forced to connect to the internet to play a game?  that is stupid.  i hate how dragon age does that and check's my online account before it is able to load my PURCHASED downloadable content that i have already bought and installed. 

if i don't have internet at the time I can't load my games because they have the dl content on them and it won't let me play without internet.  and now ubisoft is trying to make all games require internet acess?  that is bad.  well i was going to get assassins creed 2, but now i'm not sure, probably won't.