Ubisoft won't succeed. Though I wish that all companies could stop piracy for at least 2 year. I can guarantee that there would be no sky rocketing sales due to stopped piracy. It will be a humbling experience.

Best way if your going to charge for a game, but nifty authentic gimmicks in the game boxes. Cloth maps, cheap necklaces, small miniature of Kratos..... and don't increase the costs.

The other way and I suspect will slowly be more common is the free 2 play, but pay for extra model. This won't apply to all games, but will likely apply to highly replayable games; like FPS, MMO and other multiplayer action type games.

Sorta like Battlefield Heroes. Though I suspect that this model will take some time to get use to because it's so culturly different and there have been plenty of free 2 play games that have royaly sucked.

Because that would make too much sense.

People have been burned too many times by buying a crappy game for $50. If I can pirate a game, try it out, and then decide whether or not to buy it, that's MY ideal situation.

Obviously this isn't the case worldwide, some people pirate games with the intent of never buying a legitimate copy. If you're the CEO of a company, to gain public support and put up a "poor starving developer" persona, you say that everyone who pirates is a criminal, and each game pirated is a lost sale. Any form of common sense will tell you this is not the case, but this is about politics here, not the real world.

The harder a company pushes to impose DRM on the consumer, the harder the consumer will push back. See: EA

Battlefield Heroes is actually pretty good for being a free game.

Not trying to make a point one way or the other, I just haven't really seen it mentioned much on this site.

Potentially big profit, and huge market share compared to other companies. 

The problem with the old razor and blades model, is the assumption that customers are idiots who always buy the product with the smallest price tag, and let themselves to be milked forever, without a second thought. While this might be true for some, usually on the long term, people realize the disadvantages of this option. 

It worked with actual razors and blades, because people don't really care about 1-2 $ differences, they are like "Well, there are only a few dollars in my pocket, so I will buy the cheaper razor, even though I know that the blades will cost me a bit more, but I don't care"

But with bigger expenses, I suspect there are millions of potential customers who see the commitment as a barrier, and would prefer one big payment. 

As I'm thinking about it, I'm more and more sure that it would work. A console with $200 production cost (roughly the xbox 360's), sold for 500$ would mean that the cusomer paid for five $50 games that he would have directly payed for in this generation(based on PS3/Wii attachment rates). Of course he would try more games, this is why third parties should get their money for hours of global playtime. This would encourage the development of immersive, and long games, that would directly reward the developers by keeping you at the screen, and directly punish them if you decide that their game is teh shite, and turn it off after two wasted hours.

Also: FREE GAMES!4!OMG!!44!! LOLZ!!four!!!four!!44

1. In game advertiement won't work. Not all games would benefit from it especially the low profile games and the niche games. Do you think someone will bother advertise their products to those games? Even if there is one do you think that will be enough to atleast make them a small profit or break even with it? Just like in television no one will bother to advertise their products to a show with low ratings. Advertisement is not simple as you think.

2. This won't work too. No one will gain from this.

1. It could work automatically, too, like AdSense.

2. Small audience, cheap game. A billboard in GTA might worth a million dollars, and a banner in Plants vs. Zombies might worth 1 000 dollars, but the latter was already planned to be a thousand times cheaper.

3. Wrong analogy. A niche game is not like a show with a low rating. That would be like an AAA game that fails (Too Human, Spore, Damnation).

A niche game is like a small, local TV channel, that still gets its small, local advertisments.

Please elaborate, why not. In my opinion:

1. The gamers would get access for the whole library of a console, for the expenses of this or the previous generation.

2. The first party company would get big marketshare due to #1 having a huge appeal,  and get profits from selling the console. 

4. The third parties would get their money, even after those gamers, who would have been pirates in another system