Ubisoft commit commercial suicide

[Twistedpixel]

Khuutra said:

This is a very clear argument and I want you to know that before I respond.

The thing about this DRM scheme is that, firstly, I believe it will be harmful to Ubisoft. Its primary purpose is to prevent used game sales by tying a unique game access key to your Ubisoft account, which itself is apparently impossible to sell. People are going to respond to this by not spending money on what they can't resell, because they are interested in being able to resell games and uninterested in being told what their rights with software are. Ubisoft's PC games will be crucified because of this, and I don't want to see that happen.

The thing about this DRM scheme for me personally? With SecuROM and CD checks, I could still sell a game that had those things on them if I wanted. They were anathema, but they were still theoretically workable. This is an affront to my rights as a consumer, which is the inability to sell something that I bought in a store.

More, there are cases where customers are unable to have constant internet connections. Soldiers overseas are a commonly cited example, because a lot of them are gamers and they hate the idea of not being able to play games when internet connections are not available. The exclusion of certain customers to me seems outside of the necessary duties of a company, which it so serve as many customers as possible as well as is financially viable.

I have never seen any indication that the used market was significant for PC games. PC games can often be had for a lot lower price than console games, especially when considering Steam sales or equivalent. I don't see how this individual case warrants special attention here when it is common for multiplayer games especially. There have been games that for years have had a unique key for online play and once used thats it for being used except for perhaps the single player part of the game. You can give away the username and password to the game as well if you sell it.

There have always been cases where the terms of sale have proved to be unacceptable for some, take the iPhone for instance. Even a desirable physical product can be saddled with terms and conditions which are unsavoury for many people. I don't see how these terms and conditions are an affront to you, the games they sell can be classified as a service which they have deemed to be non-transferable. I cannot see how your rights are affronted here in that they are delivering the stated goods under the terms and you are free to accept or decline their offer.

As a counterpoint to the people without internet, there are also many people who cannot easily pack a disc with them when they want to play games. It may be limited space, lack of an optical drive or a desire to share the game with another person. These people are already excluded, but you address no time to discuss their needs because their needs have already been affronted as the status quo?

As a publicly traded company Ubisoft has a mandate to give the maximum profit to its shareholders that it is capable of. Since they have invested likely considerable time and effort in producing this scheme, it must stand to reason that they also believe that it will increase their profitability. Outside of an assumption, is there any evidence to contradict the assumption that they are carrying out their mandate in the best way they see fit?