• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

ubisoft ditches always on drm for pc titles

Ubisoft has been at war with gamers for some time. It's a small victory but one none the less. The contempt for the PC gaming community still remains. At least I can feel free to add AC3 to my fall gaming list.
 
Assuming they don't move to something worse this is a good move for thee users. Maybe the outspoken opposition to buying any titles with this along with the pirates flaunting its failures had an impact.
 
Step 2 is focusing the time and energies of they spent on drm back into making a quality game, I would say this is a little too late at this point.
 
Short response was they are using a one time activation (probably per install) with unlimited activations.
 
Ubisoft seems almost to be at war with itself. Wasn't it when they made that failed/aborted attempt at a new Prince of Persia trilogy they made a big deal about releasing it without any DRM as an experiment? Then when copies didn't just fly off the shelf, they apparently deemed it a failure. Never mind that the game was kind of lackluster, especially compared to the ones that preceded it.

I do sometimes wonder though... It costs tens of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to license this DRM tech that invariably gets cracked within hours of the game's release. So while I will admit there may well be another angle, or angles, I'm not considering, but it seems like the DRM is just a needless expense. IIRC, piracy rates were effectively unchanged with that PoP game, maybe slightly less. So the DRM is doing nothing to discourage piracy, but it is costing the company whatever the licensing fee is, along with any other associated costs, like running servers for the always-connected DRM, what exactly are they gaining? If they drop the DRM, and piracy rates stay more or less constant with what they are now, they save the $50K or whatever it costs to license the DRM. Ubisoft shareholders should be screaming for the CEO's head on a platter for effectively throwing away that much money.
 
Much of the goodwill earned was negated by the final quote:

"looking at adopting more F2P models in the future to try to recoup lost revenue."

Except for a few exceptions (TF2, Tribes), F2P has a long way to go before it becomes my primary gaming experience.
 
WiseUp216 said:
Much of the goodwill earned was negated by the final quote:

"looking at adopting more F2P models in the future to try to recoup lost revenue."

Except for a few exceptions (TF2, Tribes), F2P has a long way to go before it becomes my primary gaming experience.
Click to expand...

F2P is a viable model though. Look at LoL, Dota 2, HoN. Valve is banking on the fact that everyone wants a full game for free and will pay for hats for characters.

No good will should be lost over this. They are going to be GIVING away their games for free. Now, how these games utilize the F2P model and their gameplay will determine if Ubisoft can die in a fire or not. The Free 2 Win model is terrible.
 
Ubisoft has finally caved. At last I can start to consider their games again. I still hate their guts but I get the distinct impression the feeling is mutual.
 
smackababy said:
F2P is a viable model though. Look at LoL, Dota 2, HoN. Valve is banking on the fact that everyone wants a full game for free and will pay for hats for characters.

No good will should be lost over this. They are going to be GIVING away their games for free. Now, how these games utilize the F2P model and their gameplay will determine if Ubisoft can die in a fire or not. The Free 2 Win model is terrible.
Click to expand...

You mean Pay to win? Like the game is free but the guy with $100 spare money can buy all the weapons and special ammo that is more powerful and rank up in the first day. Others doing it the old fashioned way suffer with useless weapons and no upgrades.

Or the worse method, limited ammo and health unless you have deep pockets and buy packs for $5 a pop.
 
WiseUp216 said:
"looking at adopting more F2P models in the future to try to recoup lost revenue."
Click to expand...

there was a thread a few days back about Ubitsoft going F2P instead of DRM. If this is the point of their "change", I would not be expecting existing software to be back dated to have the DRM removed.
 
smackababy said:
F2P is a viable model though. Look at LoL, Dota 2, HoN. Valve is banking on the fact that everyone wants a full game for free and will pay for hats for characters.

No good will should be lost over this. They are going to be GIVING away their games for free. Now, how these games utilize the F2P model and their gameplay will determine if Ubisoft can die in a fire or not. The Free 2 Win model is terrible.
Click to expand...

I was looking at Gotham City Impostors, as it recently went F2P. When you look at all the DLC it comes to $150. I would rather pay $60 for a complete game. Well, not $60 for GCI, but nickel and dimming adding up to 3 x the retail price is ridiculous.
 
cmdrdredd said:
You mean Pay to win? Like the game is free but the guy with $100 spare money can buy all the weapons and special ammo that is more powerful and rank up in the first day. Others doing it the old fashioned way suffer with useless weapons and no upgrades.

Or the worse method, limited ammo and health unless you have deep pockets and buy packs for $5 a pop.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is what I meant. Look at League of Legends vs Dota 2. In LoL you have to buy heroes with either coins earned from play (lots of play) or real money. In Dota 2, you get all the heroes up front and can choose to buy vanity items.

Childs said:
I was looking at Gotham City Impostors, as it recently went F2P. When you look at all the DLC it comes to $150. I would rather pay $60 for a complete game. Well, not $60 for GCI, but nickel and dimming adding up to 3 x the retail price is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Yeah that isn't ideal, but look at games now. Pay $60 up front and then get nickel and dimed for DLC anyway. At the very least, F2P games can function as sort of a demo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top