His belief is that if you make a paying customer have access to things a non paying customer doesn't, piracy will reduce
And the industry agrees. That's why Ubisoft's DRM effectively allowed paying customers to play the game a month earlier than pirates - several months if they bought the game on a console.
I submit that playing the game earlier is an incentive.
If playing the game earlier is an incentive then piracy still sadly won. The 360 game leaked almost a week before retail.
Which makes putting such a consumer unfriendly DRM scheme on this game even less understandable.
If this scheme was used to keep pirates from playing the game on day 1 it would make more sense, but after 6 months I'm guessing potential pirates are more patient.
No they didn't. The fine print on the Steam version still says 10 activations. Unless they changed that after launch.
Yeah, but disc checks is unlimited, as far as I can tell. So there's effectively no limits.
Which is only an option if I actually had a disc version.
But Loki mentioned they removed it from Steam so that's fine. Seriously, anything on Steam should not have any other DRM on it.
I'm sure Valve probably agrees with you, but that ball just isn't in their court. Not if they actually want to do business with other publishers and developers anyway.
some developers complain that Steam's DRM check is weak and easily cracked
which, well, it is
I know Valve doesn't like to release sales numbers for Steam games, but doesn't this show that a game easily cracked can still sell well? People want Steam for its UI and MP action, right?
No they didn't. The fine print on the Steam version still says 10 activations. Unless they changed that after launch.
Yeah, but disc checks is unlimited, as far as I can tell. So there's effectively no limits.
Which is only an option if I actually had a disc version.
But Loki mentioned they removed it from Steam so that's fine. Seriously, anything on Steam should not have any other DRM on it.
I'm sure Valve probably agrees with you, but that ball just isn't in their court. Not if they actually want to do business with other publishers and developers anyway.
some developers complain that Steam's DRM check is weak and easily cracked
which, well, it is
I know Valve doesn't like to release sales numbers for Steam games, but doesn't this show that a game easily cracked can still sell well? People want Steam for its UI and MP action, right?
absolutely
it's an argument against stupidly restrictive DRM, if anything
No they didn't. The fine print on the Steam version still says 10 activations. Unless they changed that after launch.
Yeah, but disc checks is unlimited, as far as I can tell. So there's effectively no limits.
Which is only an option if I actually had a disc version.
But Loki mentioned they removed it from Steam so that's fine. Seriously, anything on Steam should not have any other DRM on it.
I'm sure Valve probably agrees with you, but that ball just isn't in their court. Not if they actually want to do business with other publishers and developers anyway.
some developers complain that Steam's DRM check is weak and easily cracked
which, well, it is
I know Valve doesn't like to release sales numbers for Steam games, but doesn't this show that a game easily cracked can still sell well? People want Steam for its UI and MP action, right?
absolutely
it's an argument against stupidly restrictive DRM, if anything
Going by Ubisoft logic here, Steam should have collapsed in upon itself years ago, and Valve should never have been unable to make any title post Half-Life 2.
It's sad really, Assassin's Creed 2 was widely lauded as game of the year by a tonne of different publications. Yet I'd be genuinely surprised if the PC version of it even managed to outsell the Witcher. And no matter what, Ubisoft are sure to lay the blame for that anywhere they can other than themselves.
If you cannot establish any reliability in terms of sources, then you cannot give a probability estimate worth anything. Seriously this is statistics (and common sense) 101.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of pirated copies translate to lost sales. Would you say this probability estimate is worthless? Do you think it outlandish of me to suggest this? Would you take a bet against me for this guess?
In any event, even if you still give up this number as completely unknowable, why would you then go on to make decisions that assume the number is 0%? What statistical law tells you to do that?
This has all along been about the mistaken attitude that including DRM is always a bad business decision.
Then I have no fucking idea why are you so intent on disagreeing with me, because I said several times that "normal", unintrusive DRM like cdkeys and simple disk checks (not fucking Starforce) are fine.
Let me clarify: the attitude that including DRM is always a bad business decision if it has even if it causes a tiny number of people to not buy due to the DRM. Anyway I'm pretty sure even "unobtrusive" DRM like disc checks and CD keys have caused at least a few people to pass on the games. An extra bit of work and annoyance on something will lower the number of people who put up with it. Also you said that one lost sale to DRM is worse than 10,000 people pirating. And I've been hearing garbage like "you can't make decisions on money you might get, because it's imaginary." This is just wrong.
And the link is irrelevant. I never supported those exact, industry-wide numbers for losses from piracy.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of pirated copies translate to lost sales.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of your brain actually works. Seriously dude, you obviously know nothing about probability, statistics and estimation when you make the statement above with a straight face. Maybe you should read that statement a few times, think about it in depth, and then explain to the rest of us why it is nonsensical.
travathian on
0
Options
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
No they didn't. The fine print on the Steam version still says 10 activations. Unless they changed that after launch.
Yeah, but disc checks is unlimited, as far as I can tell. So there's effectively no limits.
Which is only an option if I actually had a disc version.
But Loki mentioned they removed it from Steam so that's fine. Seriously, anything on Steam should not have any other DRM on it.
I'm sure Valve probably agrees with you, but that ball just isn't in their court. Not if they actually want to do business with other publishers and developers anyway.
some developers complain that Steam's DRM check is weak and easily cracked
which, well, it is
I know Valve doesn't like to release sales numbers for Steam games, but doesn't this show that a game easily cracked can still sell well? People want Steam for its UI and MP action, right?
absolutely
it's an argument against stupidly restrictive DRM, if anything
Going by Ubisoft logic here, Steam should have collapsed in upon itself years ago, and Valve should never have been unable to make any title post Half-Life 2.
It's sad really, Assassin's Creed 2 was widely lauded as game of the year by a tonne of different publications. Yet I'd be genuinely surprised if the PC version of it even managed to outsell the Witcher. And no matter what, Ubisoft are sure to lay the blame for that anywhere they can other than themselves.
Didn't the Witcher sell over 1.5 million copies? Or am I thinking of some other PC game?
If playing the game earlier is an incentive then piracy still sadly won. The 360 game leaked almost a week before retail.
This isn't as big a deal as you'd think, because the installed-base of mod-chipped 360s is extremely low compared to the install-base of PC pirates. For a 360 game, you get about 15 units sold per copy pirated. For a PC game, you get about 10 units pirated per copy sold.
There are a number of reasons for this. Mod-chipping a 360 requires equipment and technical expertise that the vast majority of users do not possess. Mod-chipping a 360 is dangerous, in that trying to log into Live with a flashed bios causes Microsoft to permanently blacklist your console's ID, effectively removing the use of Live from that system. Voiding your warranty is also a problem on a system with an inherently high failure rate. The end result is a system with a 5% piracy rate, which is perfectly acceptable in a software business model.
Regarding simultaneous releases - the primary reason most companies don't do them is because you don't know if the game is worth releasing on PC until after you've seen its console sales. The PC market is a lot smaller (or at least, it has fewer paying customers), so a game has to do comparatively better on PC in order to recoup its development costs. Games with middling sales can break even or make a profit on consoles, but they'll lose money hand over fist on PC.
Yeah, uh, the smart publishers that use good middleware, be it Capcom with their own tools or any of the many companies that license UE3, developing a PC port of a console game really doesn't cost a tremendous amount of money. Additionally, a publisher does not lose out on $12 per sale due to console licensing fees, although they make up for a small portion of that in cutting the price by $10. For many current PC publishers, they very likely save even more from sales accrued through digital distribution, as they cut out the physical production costs and materials costs, as well as distribution costs.
In other words, a PC game may take quite a bit less money to port from a multiplatform standpoint, and bring in more sales per copy sold than a console game...
...however, the general consensus in the industry still seems to be that game software sales on the PC are very low compared to console game sales. Significantly. Publishing for a console typically nets you a great so many more sales that the overall amount of money you get, though less per copy, is outweighed by the sheer volume of sales you acquire through console software sales as opposed to PC game sales.
Yeah, uh, the smart publishers that use good middleware, be it Capcom with their own tools or any of the many companies that license UE3, developing a PC port of a console game really doesn't cost a tremendous amount of money. Additionally, a publisher does not lose out on $12 per sale due to console licensing fees, although they make up for a small portion of that in cutting the price by $10. .
Unless of course you're Activision, in which case you're making some crazy profit margins there.
If playing the game earlier is an incentive then piracy still sadly won. The 360 game leaked almost a week before retail.
This isn't as big a deal as you'd think, because the installed-base of mod-chipped 360s is extremely low compared to the install-base of PC pirates. For a 360 game, you get about 15 units sold per copy pirated. For a PC game, you get about 10 units pirated per copy sold.
There are a number of reasons for this. Mod-chipping a 360 requires equipment and technical expertise that the vast majority of users do not possess. Mod-chipping a 360 is dangerous, in that trying to log into Live with a flashed bios causes Microsoft to permanently blacklist your console's ID, effectively removing the use of Live from that system. Voiding your warranty is also a problem on a system with an inherently high failure rate. The end result is a system with a 5% piracy rate, which is perfectly acceptable in a software business model.
Regarding simultaneous releases - the primary reason most companies don't do them is because you don't know if the game is worth releasing on PC until after you've seen its console sales. The PC market is a lot smaller (or at least, it has fewer paying customers), so a game has to do comparatively better on PC in order to recoup its development costs. Games with middling sales can break even or make a profit on consoles, but they'll lose money hand over fist on PC.
Umm, you can buy pre-modchipped 360's you know?
The recent banination of one million 360's from live were for modchipped consoles, to take that in perspective there were about 20 million 360s on live at the time of the banhammer. That's still pretty damn big. And that's just the modchipped 360's that MS can detect. (makes you wonder how many people who haven't signed up to live who use modchipped 360's)
I've yet to see real solid numbers for pc piracy along those lines. It's pretty much mostly conjecture and guess work.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
If you cannot establish any reliability in terms of sources, then you cannot give a probability estimate worth anything. Seriously this is statistics (and common sense) 101.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of pirated copies translate to lost sales. Would you say this probability estimate is worthless? Do you think it outlandish of me to suggest this? Would you take a bet against me for this guess?
In any event, even if you still give up this number as completely unknowable, why would you then go on to make decisions that assume the number is 0%? What statistical law tells you to do that?
This has all along been about the mistaken attitude that including DRM is always a bad business decision.
Then I have no fucking idea why are you so intent on disagreeing with me, because I said several times that "normal", unintrusive DRM like cdkeys and simple disk checks (not fucking Starforce) are fine.
Let me clarify: the attitude that including DRM is always a bad business decision if it has even if it causes a tiny number of people to not buy due to the DRM. Anyway I'm pretty sure even "unobtrusive" DRM like disc checks and CD keys have caused at least a few people to pass on the games. An extra bit of work and annoyance on something will lower the number of people who put up with it. Also you said that one lost sale to DRM is worse than 10,000 people pirating. And I've been hearing garbage like "you can't make decisions on money you might get, because it's imaginary." This is just wrong.
And the link is irrelevant. I never supported those exact, industry-wide numbers for losses from piracy.
And, this is the final nail in the coffin. Copy pasting from an unsavory blog:
▀▀▀ ░ █ While we worked on this release, we noticed that several news █ █
▒ █ webpages, forums, blogs etc. posted information, including a █ █
█ █ screenshot of a Ubisoft server attack message, which showed █ █
█ █ our group name. █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ First of all, that picture is a fake, nor would any member of █ █
█ █ Skid Row cause such riot, as we're only here to compete with █ █
█ █ our game release competitors, nothing else. █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ Neither do we encourage anyone to take such actions, no matter █ █
█ █ how much we agree, that DRM's like this one, are only hurting █ █
█ █ those that do want to buy the game or have bought it. █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ Another point is those news medias, we mentioned before, post █ █
█ █ anything these days, no matter if it's a joke or not. Beware █ █
█ █ what you're posting, just because you want to prank someone. █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ This release is an accomplishment of weeks of investigating, █ █
█ █ experimenting, testing and lots of hard work. █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ We know that there is a server emulator out in the open, which █ █
█ █ makes the game playable, but when you look at our cracked █ █
█ █ content, you will know that it can't be compared to that. █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ Our work does not construct any program deviation or any kind █ █
█ █ of host file paradox solutions. Install game and copy the █ █
█ █ cracked content, it's that simple. █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ Since we don't want to see cheap imitations, we protected our █ █
█ █ work with a solid shield. Not because we want to deceive the █ █
█ █ majority, like certain people out there, but because we have █ █
█ █ in the past been an open book of knowledge for our competitors.█ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ Real cracking is done by The Leading Force! █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ _______ __ ___ _____ /\__ █ █
█ █ \ / |/ /_/\_| \ \ _ \ / /_ \/\ /\ █ █
█ █ /\ \/| / / \/\/| |\ \ \//_// / / / / / / █ █
█ █ / \ \| \ \ / \| |_\ \ / / \/ /_/ / /// / █ █
█ █ \____/|_|\_\\__/|___/ / /_/\_/\__/_/\____/ █ █
█ █ twice the fun \/ double the trouble █ █
█ █ Special Notes: █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ Thank you Ubisoft, this was quiete a challenge for us, but █ █
█ █ nothing stops the leading force from doing what we do. Next █ █
█ █ time focus on the game and not on the DRM. It was probably █ █
█ █ horrible for all legit users. We just make their lifes easier. █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ Special greetz to our friends in GENESIS, you guys are amongst █ █
█ █ the very few who still manage to do this with the scene spirit █ █
█ █ intact. Well done guys! █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ █ █
█ █ Support the companies, which software you actually enjoy! █ █
Completely cracked in the conventional manner, through and through, just as we have speculated earlier in the thread.
Ubisoft's latest claim was that they're 100% behind their system, and that it is essential to their business.
█ █ Neither do we encourage anyone to take such actions, no matter █ █
█ █ how much we agree, that DRM's like this one, are only hurting █ █
█ █ those that do want to buy the game or have bought it. █ █
That's rich coming from a cracking group.
Then again, if I'd bought the game, I'd probably download the crack myself too. Heck I did when I bought Dead Space.
Anyway, the DRM's been out for a while now. Presuming that it held for all that time and that Ubisoft's predictions about the nature of piracy and its damage to their game sales are correct (I'm going to ignore idiot PR claims of 1-to-1 correlation in favour of a little realism though), copies of SH5 and Settler's 5 must have done much better than they were expected to ordinarily. I'd be interested in seeing some figures for their vast new sales numbers.
I'm guessing here but Assassin's Creed 2 was probably downloaded a tonne, even the non-working versions. But assuming the DRM has held all this time (about a month and a half?), then AC2 in particular must have done exceptionally well. After all, it was a huge seller on the consoles, and none of the other things they did to the game (releasing months late, lack of PR for new release, DRM controversy) will have had any negative effect on sales. So what negative impact on sales was down to piracy. With that premise, and the premise that no effective piracy took place, I'd love to see what numbers AC2 did.
Splinter Cell Conviction will be the real test case here, as now that the architecture has been defiled, one wonders how much time it will take until the rest built on it fall down.
As mentioned before, the first time a game holding SecuROM came out, it took quite a while to crack. After that it was a matter of copy pasting and simply editing lines (which makes the process that much more expedient, ie 0 day).
I'm totally with them though, the only ones that got hurt with the DRM are the paying consumers.
And yeah, I'd be interested in seeing the sales numbers for the bracketed time the DRM did function for as well. I seriously doubt any of those games sold more than they would have had this DRM not existed. At the very least by any really noticeable amount.
BlackDove on
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
█ █ Neither do we encourage anyone to take such actions, no matter █ █
█ █ how much we agree, that DRM's like this one, are only hurting █ █
█ █ those that do want to buy the game or have bought it. █ █
That's rich coming from a cracking group.
Cracking groups / communities have always stood on the grounds that people should purchase the games they pirate and enjoy.
█ █ Neither do we encourage anyone to take such actions, no matter █ █
█ █ how much we agree, that DRM's like this one, are only hurting █ █
█ █ those that do want to buy the game or have bought it. █ █
That's rich coming from a cracking group.
Cracking groups / communities have always stood on the grounds that people should purchase the games they pirate and enjoy.
Of course, that's what they say.
Cracking groups are hella crazy. They HATE HATE HATE the peer-to-peer networks, pirate torrent trackers and people who pack the cracks along with the games. They swear on their dead mothers' grave that they don't want games to be pirated, they just like to tackle the challenge.
And, well, I'm thankful of them, because I got Blazing Angels on Steam (as a bonus for HAWX), and the only way to make it work on Win 64 bits is cracking it. Because the DRM won't work on 64 bit systems. Funny, Blazing Angels is also an Ubisoft game... and R6 Vegas 2 is another one. Something of a pattern is emerging.
Many people who bought AC2 are probably gonna get the crack, considering the awful track record of the UBI servers.
And, well, I'm thankful of them, because I got Blazing Angels on Steam (as a bonus for HAWX), and the only way to make it work on Win 64 bits is cracking it. Because the DRM won't work on 64 bit systems. Funny, Blazing Angels is also an Ubisoft game... and R6 Vegas 2 is another one. Something of a pattern is emerging.
And let's not forget before that they were the biggest proponents of Starforce. Nothing says "System Stability" like re-writing your DVD player drivers to give the DRM ring zero access whilst simultaneously blocking a tonne of software.
Had to reformat just to get rid of that crap and stop my system repeatedly crashing.
█ █ Neither do we encourage anyone to take such actions, no matter █ █
█ █ how much we agree, that DRM's like this one, are only hurting █ █
█ █ those that do want to buy the game or have bought it. █ █
That's rich coming from a cracking group.
Cracking groups / communities have always stood on the grounds that people should purchase the games they pirate and enjoy.
Of course, that's what they say.
Cracking groups don't really give two shits about the game and just derive enjoyment from racing each other to be the first to properly break a new and interesting DRM system.
Ubisoft essentially spent eleventy hundred thousand dollars on developing a meta-game for SkidRow to play against whatever the other current groups are (I've been out of that neck of the woods for a while and couldn't name them off the top of my head.)
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of pirated copies translate to lost sales.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of your brain actually works. Seriously dude, you obviously know nothing about probability, statistics and estimation when you make the statement above with a straight face. Maybe you should read that statement a few times, think about it in depth, and then explain to the rest of us why it is nonsensical.
Well, you're banned now, but I'll respond anyway.
I think the reason you're so confused is that this type of problem doesn't fall within the realm of statistics. Or rather, only so shallowly that both involve percentages. It's just estimation based on limited data and information theory. When I say "I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance", I'm saying I have enough data that I'm willing to put down a 10:1 bet with you that the actual number is under 99%. That's what they're doing when the decide to pursue DRM or not. Making a bet based on their estimations of how much money it will get them.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of pirated copies translate to lost sales.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of your brain actually works. Seriously dude, you obviously know nothing about probability, statistics and estimation when you make the statement above with a straight face. Maybe you should read that statement a few times, think about it in depth, and then explain to the rest of us why it is nonsensical.
Well, you're banned now, but I'll respond anyway.
I think the reason you're so confused is that this type of problem doesn't fall within the realm of statistics. Or rather, only so shallowly that both involve percentages. It's just estimation based on limited data and information theory. When I say "I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance", I'm saying I have enough data that I'm willing to put down a 10:1 bet with you that the actual number is under 99%. That's what they're doing when the decide to pursue DRM or not. Making a bet based on their estimations of how much money it will get them.
No, I haven't lost nearly enough neurons to fall that horribly.
I mean, I won't waste my time arguing with someone who so blindly refuses to see the obvious consequences of such a fucking retarded move by Ubi.
Regardless of all your bold claims about business management, it's pretty clear you have no idea of what you're talking about... You accuse me of handwaving and promptly pulls crap out of your ass. At least I have 20 years of experience with pc gaming and all possible kinds of piracy, thanks to being a Brazilian gamer. You know, there was no other way to actually get the games back then. Thankfully i can do that now and I have bought most, if not all of the games I played along those 20 years, but at least I have the least bit knowledge about the whole issue, unlike you.
So yeah, keep lonely clapping your hands to the huge fiasco Ubi built for themselves, because, unfortunately for you, reality doesn't seem to agree with your wild baseless guesses.
This is complete crap, unlike computers (generally) consoles aren't as likely to be connected to the internet all the time.
Take my friend for example, single Dad, lives on his own, hasn't got an internet connection (other than a laptop dongle). For all his downloads/updates he takes his PS3 to his parents house and uses their wifi. He buys games, downloads them to his PS3 and takes them home to play. Hopefully this won't become the norm or he'll be screwed.
Situation #2: I'm off on my stag night in Edinburgh soon and we've rented a huge flat. It's got a tv so we're taking a few consoles up with us to keep people occupied when we get back drunk/before we go out to get drunk. I'll be taking my PS3 with me. The flat doesn't have internet access. I can't play local coop Final Fight.
Situation #3: My ps3 isn't connected to the PSN at the moment as I'm still using my linux install and don't want to upgrade to 3.3. I can't connect to the PSN. Fair enough I can't download new PSN games. However what happens in the future if, like has just happened with v3.30, Sony change the terms and conditions of usage and people decide they don't want to upgrade and can live without the PSN? Final Fight and any other games that decide to use this check won't work.
Utterly ridiculous idea, I hope we don't see any more of it.
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
I'm with Subedii on this one. And I'll go one further. One day, the majority of console games (if not all of them) will require you to be connected to a paid subscription online service to play any of your games. Oh, you don't think you need Xbox Live? Think you can live with out it? Mwahaha
I'm with Subedii on this one. And I'll go one further. One day, the majority of console games (if not all of them) will require you to be connected to a paid subscription online service to play any of your games. Oh, you don't think you need Xbox Live? Think you can live with out it? Mwahaha
Nah, the market will never tolerate that. Look how much shit Ubisoft got just requiring an internet connection for a single-player game. Requiring a paid subscription, on top of the initial cost of the game, just to play a single-player campaign will be enough to sink the first company that tries it.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
I hope your faith in the intelligence and discernment of the average consumer isn't misplaced. The key will be if Ubi can pull this one off on the PC market. You better believe the other big players are watching this closely. If they start to see this as a success story, it'll probably get picked up by the big publishers, and they will implement it every where and every way that it will make them money.
I hope your faith in the intelligence and discernment of the average consumer isn't misplaced. The key will be if Ubi can pull this one off on the PC market. You better believe the other big players are watching this closely. If they start to see this as a success story, it'll probably get picked up by the big publishers, and they will implement it every where and every way that it will make them money.
I really hope I'm wrong about that.
If there's one thing your average consumer is super critical of, it's being forced to pay more money than what's on the price tag. Take your average blockbuster AAA game, and say it sells 1 million copies. If even 10 percent of the people that buy it get pissed off, that's 100,000 consumers all complaining directly to Microsoft or Sony or Activision or whatever company is stupid enough to try this scheme first.
I'm with Subedii on this one. And I'll go one further. One day, the majority of console games (if not all of them) will require you to be connected to a paid subscription online service to play any of your games. Oh, you don't think you need Xbox Live? Think you can live with out it? Mwahaha
Nah, the market will never tolerate that. Look how much shit Ubisoft got just requiring an internet connection for a single-player game. Requiring a paid subscription, on top of the initial cost of the game, just to play a single-player campaign will be enough to sink the first company that tries it.
I think you're hilariously overestimating the average consumer. I would say look at the sales numbers for any of the new games with Ubisoft's thing. Every single one of those people would buy a game even if it needed a subscription. If they don't care enough about what they buy to balk at Ubi's DRM, I'm sure an extra few bucks a month is nothing to them.
I'm with Subedii on this one. And I'll go one further. One day, the majority of console games (if not all of them) will require you to be connected to a paid subscription online service to play any of your games. Oh, you don't think you need Xbox Live? Think you can live with out it? Mwahaha
Nah, the market will never tolerate that. Look how much shit Ubisoft got just requiring an internet connection for a single-player game. Requiring a paid subscription, on top of the initial cost of the game, just to play a single-player campaign will be enough to sink the first company that tries it.
I think you're hilariously overestimating the average consumer. I would say look at the sales numbers for any of the new games with Ubisoft's thing. Every single one of those people would buy a game even if it needed a subscription. If they don't care enough about what they buy to balk at Ubi's DRM, I'm sure an extra few bucks a month is nothing to them.
Then you're one of the lucky few who have never worked retail, and don't understand just how fucking cheap the average person is.
The average consumer is a lot of things; moronic, unprepared, uneducated and belligerent. But they are not flippant with their money.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
FiggyFighter of the night manChampion of the sunRegistered Userregular
I hope your faith in the intelligence and discernment of the average consumer isn't misplaced. The key will be if Ubi can pull this one off on the PC market. You better believe the other big players are watching this closely. If they start to see this as a success story, it'll probably get picked up by the big publishers, and they will implement it every where and every way that it will make them money.
I really hope I'm wrong about that.
What signs are they looking for, exactly? The outcry on discussion boards? The mocking from the cracking community? The fact that their game is now bargain priced 5 months after release?
This was not a success, and in no way would another developer look at what Ubi has done and say, "That's for me!"
Like any kid will look at the box before they buy it. Plus, I imagine most parents would rather get someone's nerdy kid to set up the connection on the console for them than live with Little Jimmy's whining because he can't play that awesome game he's been waiting forever for.
Posts
Which makes putting such a consumer unfriendly DRM scheme on this game even less understandable.
If this scheme was used to keep pirates from playing the game on day 1 it would make more sense, but after 6 months I'm guessing potential pirates are more patient.
I know Valve doesn't like to release sales numbers for Steam games, but doesn't this show that a game easily cracked can still sell well? People want Steam for its UI and MP action, right?
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
absolutely
it's an argument against stupidly restrictive DRM, if anything
Going by Ubisoft logic here, Steam should have collapsed in upon itself years ago, and Valve should never have been unable to make any title post Half-Life 2.
It's sad really, Assassin's Creed 2 was widely lauded as game of the year by a tonne of different publications. Yet I'd be genuinely surprised if the PC version of it even managed to outsell the Witcher. And no matter what, Ubisoft are sure to lay the blame for that anywhere they can other than themselves.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of pirated copies translate to lost sales. Would you say this probability estimate is worthless? Do you think it outlandish of me to suggest this? Would you take a bet against me for this guess?
In any event, even if you still give up this number as completely unknowable, why would you then go on to make decisions that assume the number is 0%? What statistical law tells you to do that?
Let me clarify: the attitude that including DRM is always a bad business decision if it has even if it causes a tiny number of people to not buy due to the DRM. Anyway I'm pretty sure even "unobtrusive" DRM like disc checks and CD keys have caused at least a few people to pass on the games. An extra bit of work and annoyance on something will lower the number of people who put up with it. Also you said that one lost sale to DRM is worse than 10,000 people pirating. And I've been hearing garbage like "you can't make decisions on money you might get, because it's imaginary." This is just wrong.
And the link is irrelevant. I never supported those exact, industry-wide numbers for losses from piracy.
So I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance that over 99% of your brain actually works. Seriously dude, you obviously know nothing about probability, statistics and estimation when you make the statement above with a straight face. Maybe you should read that statement a few times, think about it in depth, and then explain to the rest of us why it is nonsensical.
Didn't the Witcher sell over 1.5 million copies? Or am I thinking of some other PC game?
This isn't as big a deal as you'd think, because the installed-base of mod-chipped 360s is extremely low compared to the install-base of PC pirates. For a 360 game, you get about 15 units sold per copy pirated. For a PC game, you get about 10 units pirated per copy sold.
There are a number of reasons for this. Mod-chipping a 360 requires equipment and technical expertise that the vast majority of users do not possess. Mod-chipping a 360 is dangerous, in that trying to log into Live with a flashed bios causes Microsoft to permanently blacklist your console's ID, effectively removing the use of Live from that system. Voiding your warranty is also a problem on a system with an inherently high failure rate. The end result is a system with a 5% piracy rate, which is perfectly acceptable in a software business model.
Regarding simultaneous releases - the primary reason most companies don't do them is because you don't know if the game is worth releasing on PC until after you've seen its console sales. The PC market is a lot smaller (or at least, it has fewer paying customers), so a game has to do comparatively better on PC in order to recoup its development costs. Games with middling sales can break even or make a profit on consoles, but they'll lose money hand over fist on PC.
In other words, a PC game may take quite a bit less money to port from a multiplatform standpoint, and bring in more sales per copy sold than a console game...
...however, the general consensus in the industry still seems to be that game software sales on the PC are very low compared to console game sales. Significantly. Publishing for a console typically nets you a great so many more sales that the overall amount of money you get, though less per copy, is outweighed by the sheer volume of sales you acquire through console software sales as opposed to PC game sales.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Unless of course you're Activision, in which case you're making some crazy profit margins there.
Umm, you can buy pre-modchipped 360's you know?
The recent banination of one million 360's from live were for modchipped consoles, to take that in perspective there were about 20 million 360s on live at the time of the banhammer. That's still pretty damn big. And that's just the modchipped 360's that MS can detect. (makes you wonder how many people who haven't signed up to live who use modchipped 360's)
I've yet to see real solid numbers for pc piracy along those lines. It's pretty much mostly conjecture and guess work.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
▀▀▀ ░ █ While we worked on this release, we noticed that several news █ █ ▒ █ webpages, forums, blogs etc. posted information, including a █ █ █ █ screenshot of a Ubisoft server attack message, which showed █ █ █ █ our group name. █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ First of all, that picture is a fake, nor would any member of █ █ █ █ Skid Row cause such riot, as we're only here to compete with █ █ █ █ our game release competitors, nothing else. █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Neither do we encourage anyone to take such actions, no matter █ █ █ █ how much we agree, that DRM's like this one, are only hurting █ █ █ █ those that do want to buy the game or have bought it. █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Another point is those news medias, we mentioned before, post █ █ █ █ anything these days, no matter if it's a joke or not. Beware █ █ █ █ what you're posting, just because you want to prank someone. █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ This release is an accomplishment of weeks of investigating, █ █ █ █ experimenting, testing and lots of hard work. █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ We know that there is a server emulator out in the open, which █ █ █ █ makes the game playable, but when you look at our cracked █ █ █ █ content, you will know that it can't be compared to that. █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Our work does not construct any program deviation or any kind █ █ █ █ of host file paradox solutions. Install game and copy the █ █ █ █ cracked content, it's that simple. █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Since we don't want to see cheap imitations, we protected our █ █ █ █ work with a solid shield. Not because we want to deceive the █ █ █ █ majority, like certain people out there, but because we have █ █ █ █ in the past been an open book of knowledge for our competitors.█ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Real cracking is done by The Leading Force! █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ _______ __ ___ _____ /\__ █ █ █ █ \ / |/ /_/\_| \ \ _ \ / /_ \/\ /\ █ █ █ █ /\ \/| / / \/\/| |\ \ \//_// / / / / / / █ █ █ █ / \ \| \ \ / \| |_\ \ / / \/ /_/ / /// / █ █ █ █ \____/|_|\_\\__/|___/ / /_/\_/\__/_/\____/ █ █ █ █ twice the fun \/ double the trouble █ █ █ █ Special Notes: █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Thank you Ubisoft, this was quiete a challenge for us, but █ █ █ █ nothing stops the leading force from doing what we do. Next █ █ █ █ time focus on the game and not on the DRM. It was probably █ █ █ █ horrible for all legit users. We just make their lifes easier. █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Special greetz to our friends in GENESIS, you guys are amongst █ █ █ █ the very few who still manage to do this with the scene spirit █ █ █ █ intact. Well done guys! █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Support the companies, which software you actually enjoy! █ █Completely cracked in the conventional manner, through and through, just as we have speculated earlier in the thread.
Ubisoft's latest claim was that they're 100% behind their system, and that it is essential to their business.
That's rich coming from a cracking group.
Then again, if I'd bought the game, I'd probably download the crack myself too. Heck I did when I bought Dead Space.
Anyway, the DRM's been out for a while now. Presuming that it held for all that time and that Ubisoft's predictions about the nature of piracy and its damage to their game sales are correct (I'm going to ignore idiot PR claims of 1-to-1 correlation in favour of a little realism though), copies of SH5 and Settler's 5 must have done much better than they were expected to ordinarily. I'd be interested in seeing some figures for their vast new sales numbers.
I'm guessing here but Assassin's Creed 2 was probably downloaded a tonne, even the non-working versions. But assuming the DRM has held all this time (about a month and a half?), then AC2 in particular must have done exceptionally well. After all, it was a huge seller on the consoles, and none of the other things they did to the game (releasing months late, lack of PR for new release, DRM controversy) will have had any negative effect on sales. So what negative impact on sales was down to piracy. With that premise, and the premise that no effective piracy took place, I'd love to see what numbers AC2 did.
As mentioned before, the first time a game holding SecuROM came out, it took quite a while to crack. After that it was a matter of copy pasting and simply editing lines (which makes the process that much more expedient, ie 0 day).
I'm totally with them though, the only ones that got hurt with the DRM are the paying consumers.
And yeah, I'd be interested in seeing the sales numbers for the bracketed time the DRM did function for as well. I seriously doubt any of those games sold more than they would have had this DRM not existed. At the very least by any really noticeable amount.
Cracking groups / communities have always stood on the grounds that people should purchase the games they pirate and enjoy.
Of course, that's what they say.
Cracking groups are hella crazy. They HATE HATE HATE the peer-to-peer networks, pirate torrent trackers and people who pack the cracks along with the games. They swear on their dead mothers' grave that they don't want games to be pirated, they just like to tackle the challenge.
And, well, I'm thankful of them, because I got Blazing Angels on Steam (as a bonus for HAWX), and the only way to make it work on Win 64 bits is cracking it. Because the DRM won't work on 64 bit systems. Funny, Blazing Angels is also an Ubisoft game... and R6 Vegas 2 is another one. Something of a pattern is emerging.
Many people who bought AC2 are probably gonna get the crack, considering the awful track record of the UBI servers.
And let's not forget before that they were the biggest proponents of Starforce. Nothing says "System Stability" like re-writing your DVD player drivers to give the DRM ring zero access whilst simultaneously blocking a tonne of software.
Had to reformat just to get rid of that crap and stop my system repeatedly crashing.
Cracking groups don't really give two shits about the game and just derive enjoyment from racing each other to be the first to properly break a new and interesting DRM system.
Ubisoft essentially spent eleventy hundred thousand dollars on developing a meta-game for SkidRow to play against whatever the other current groups are (I've been out of that neck of the woods for a while and couldn't name them off the top of my head.)
Well, you're banned now, but I'll respond anyway.
I think the reason you're so confused is that this type of problem doesn't fall within the realm of statistics. Or rather, only so shallowly that both involve percentages. It's just estimation based on limited data and information theory. When I say "I'd estimate that there is less than a 10% chance", I'm saying I have enough data that I'm willing to put down a 10:1 bet with you that the actual number is under 99%. That's what they're doing when the decide to pursue DRM or not. Making a bet based on their estimations of how much money it will get them.
Glad you see it my way.
No, I haven't lost nearly enough neurons to fall that horribly.
I mean, I won't waste my time arguing with someone who so blindly refuses to see the obvious consequences of such a fucking retarded move by Ubi.
Regardless of all your bold claims about business management, it's pretty clear you have no idea of what you're talking about... You accuse me of handwaving and promptly pulls crap out of your ass. At least I have 20 years of experience with pc gaming and all possible kinds of piracy, thanks to being a Brazilian gamer. You know, there was no other way to actually get the games back then. Thankfully i can do that now and I have bought most, if not all of the games I played along those 20 years, but at least I have the least bit knowledge about the whole issue, unlike you.
So yeah, keep lonely clapping your hands to the huge fiasco Ubi built for themselves, because, unfortunately for you, reality doesn't seem to agree with your wild baseless guesses.
Hopefully this is just a weird bug.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Despite the fact that it's a Sony sanctioned feature
Hahaha!
I WARNED you console gamers, I TOLD YOU this was COMING toYOU!
They called me mad! MAD! WELLwhOSE MAD NOW?!
hehehehehehehe
*Ahem*
Anyway yeah, is there piracy of PSN games? What about lending (which according to publishers, is just as bad)?
You can log in to up to four PS3s and download your PSN content. You can also deactivate stuff to get a license back too.
This means 4 people can very easily share stuff and only pay 1/4 each, as long as you trust other people to have your log in details on their PS3.
This is complete crap, unlike computers (generally) consoles aren't as likely to be connected to the internet all the time.
Take my friend for example, single Dad, lives on his own, hasn't got an internet connection (other than a laptop dongle). For all his downloads/updates he takes his PS3 to his parents house and uses their wifi. He buys games, downloads them to his PS3 and takes them home to play. Hopefully this won't become the norm or he'll be screwed.
Situation #2: I'm off on my stag night in Edinburgh soon and we've rented a huge flat. It's got a tv so we're taking a few consoles up with us to keep people occupied when we get back drunk/before we go out to get drunk. I'll be taking my PS3 with me. The flat doesn't have internet access. I can't play local coop Final Fight.
Situation #3: My ps3 isn't connected to the PSN at the moment as I'm still using my linux install and don't want to upgrade to 3.3. I can't connect to the PSN. Fair enough I can't download new PSN games. However what happens in the future if, like has just happened with v3.30, Sony change the terms and conditions of usage and people decide they don't want to upgrade and can live without the PSN? Final Fight and any other games that decide to use this check won't work.
Utterly ridiculous idea, I hope we don't see any more of it.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
Nah, the market will never tolerate that. Look how much shit Ubisoft got just requiring an internet connection for a single-player game. Requiring a paid subscription, on top of the initial cost of the game, just to play a single-player campaign will be enough to sink the first company that tries it.
I really hope I'm wrong about that.
If there's one thing your average consumer is super critical of, it's being forced to pay more money than what's on the price tag. Take your average blockbuster AAA game, and say it sells 1 million copies. If even 10 percent of the people that buy it get pissed off, that's 100,000 consumers all complaining directly to Microsoft or Sony or Activision or whatever company is stupid enough to try this scheme first.
IT KEEPS HAPPENING
I think you're hilariously overestimating the average consumer. I would say look at the sales numbers for any of the new games with Ubisoft's thing. Every single one of those people would buy a game even if it needed a subscription. If they don't care enough about what they buy to balk at Ubi's DRM, I'm sure an extra few bucks a month is nothing to them.
Then you're one of the lucky few who have never worked retail, and don't understand just how fucking cheap the average person is.
The average consumer is a lot of things; moronic, unprepared, uneducated and belligerent. But they are not flippant with their money.
What signs are they looking for, exactly? The outcry on discussion boards? The mocking from the cracking community? The fact that their game is now bargain priced 5 months after release?
This was not a success, and in no way would another developer look at what Ubi has done and say, "That's for me!"
Currently playing: GW2 and TSW
The simple fact that there are still a lot of console owners who don't even hook their systems up to the Internet puts a monkey in your prediction.
"Internet connection required to play."
"MOM! We need to buy a router!"
"No, pick another game."