Ubisoft the new EA

[Carfax83]

I call BS on the DRM causing low sales. I've never thought to myself that I wouldn't buy a game because I have to install some DRM. If I want to play it, I will buy it.

You're not familiar with Ubisoft's first attempt at implementing DRM then it seems..

Ubisoft made Securom look good. Not only was a constant internet connection mandatory (with no offline mode) in single player games, there was also a limited amount of times that you could activate a game (up to 3 if I remember) and every time you changed your hardware, one activation attempt was used up..

All of that was swept away eventually, and now Uplay is account based just like Steam and Origin.

The problem with PC gaming was piracy. It's still a problem but not as big anymore. I know of friends who never purchased a single game and pirated over 100 games. I'm sure people on this forum pirate as well.

Piracy is a big problem yes, but what Ubisoft did was make piracy worse by punishing legitimate paying customers with their draconic DRM implementation.

The other problem with PC gaming is that it's a platform dominated by a few games. LoL, Dota, Starcraft, Diablo, Counter-Strike, etc. These people play the same games for many years. They're not looking to buy Assassin's Creed 2013, 2014, and then 2015. They are playing the same damn game over and over.

Most of these games have a competitive multiplayer aspect, which doesn't appeal to everyone. Lots of PC gamers (like myself) prefer single player games like the Witcher series, or Batman Arkham series which all have sold very well on PC..

The PC gaming market is very diverse so I think you're incorrect to state that it's dominated by only a few titles..

 

[mikegg]

You're not familiar with Ubisoft's first attempt at implementing DRM then it seems..

Ubisoft made Securom look good. Not only was a constant internet connection mandatory (with no offline mode) in single player games, there was also a limited amount of times that you could activate a game (up to 3 if I remember) and every time you changed your hardware, one activation attempt was used up..

All of that was swept away eventually, and now Uplay is account based just like Steam and Origin.

Piracy is a big problem yes, but what Ubisoft did was make piracy worse by punishing legitimate paying customers with their draconic DRM implementation.

Most of these games have a competitive multiplayer aspect, which doesn't appeal to everyone. Lots of PC gamers (like myself) prefer single player games like the Witcher series, or Batman Arkham series which all have sold very well on PC..

The PC gaming market is very diverse so I think you're incorrect to state that it's dominated by only a few titles..

Not saying that you're wrong but there is clearly a reason why developers spend less money and time on PC ports or ignore PC ports entirely. And it's not because they hate you or hate the PC.

For every one of you who buys all the games, there are probably 2 or 3 others who just pirate them. Nothing discourages any software developer more than to see someone steal all of your hard work and investment.

Console is more lucrative for them and easier to develop for.

 

[yepp]

All of that was swept away eventually, and now Uplay is account based just like Steam and Origin.

Except for Splinter Cell Blacklist, setting Uplay to offline mode disables the games loading and saving functions, so always-on 24/7 DRM is mandatory for that game.

And some of their games like Anno 2070 still comes with activation limits.

 

[BrightCandle]

Console is more lucrative for them and easier to develop for.

Just bare in mind this isn't actually true. Not only the developers/publishers keep more of the money on PC as they aren't paying Microsoft/Sony but the market is bigger. Even a console ported game will typically sell about the same number of units on PC as the combination of the xbox360 and ps3. The actual PC market is vastly larger than that but few games court more than a few million of the total 600 million or so game capable PCs out in the world and the 60 million or so on Steam. But its a special kind of myth that the consoles make more money, they actually don't. But if you churn out a rubbish generic third/first person shooter it will sell better on the console, the PC market is a little harder to get sales in, but the very best PC games sell enormously better than anywhere else.

 

[Aikouka]

They probably just don't want to spend the extra resources to take advantage of PC hardware since financially the ROI for them doing so for the PC is not worth it.

What makes this really sad is that PC games used to cost less because of the lack of a licensing fee, which has been a mainstay in consoles for decades. However, the larger companies have sneakily pushed the PC prices up from $50 to $60. Honestly, that's a bit of a slap in the face when you consider that the PC is supposedly the lead platform yet gets downgraded and the players provide more money to the developer/publisher per copy.

 

[futurefields]

It's more about not making the new consoles look as underpowered as they are. They need to be seen as "awesome" or it makes no sense for them to exist.

 

[BrightCandle]

It's more about not making the new consoles look as underpowered as they are. They need to be seen as "awesome" or it makes no sense for them to exist.

But what I don't understand is why the games developers are participating in that. Ultimately less platforms is good for them, its less development and test effort. If the xb1 or ps4 didn't sell well enough they could ignore it. By pandering to the platform to keep it alive they are actually doing their own business harm while propping up Microsoft's/Sony's while all the time they pay them royalties to participate. That is a little bit crazy.

 

[IntoxicatedPuma]

Consoles are also a PITA to develop for, but the amount of testing that has to go into games to check how it runs on every system also sucks. I remember reading an article on Steam awhile (not tooooo awhile back) about how most systems were still running 9800GT's and Core 2 Duos......so try and remember that companies have to develop to run on older systems. If you're going for maximum sales, why build a game that tests the limit of a 3930k and SLI'd GTX 780 ti's if it means someone with a Pentium Dual Core and R7 250 can't play the game - and hence won't buy it. Plus the customer feedback you'll get will probably be a lot of negative feedback with the people on low end systems complaining about how they can't play the game.

For me personally though, while I love great graphics I would prefer a good storyline first. I still play games that are 10 years old and very rarely pick up a new game. Yes, I'm a bit biased, but I think Ubisoft games in general have much better plots than what EA puts out. The storyline in Battlefield 4 feels like it was written by a 4 year old. - I know a lot of people here are about multiplayer and maximum FPS with the best graphics......but not everyone is about that. That's why consoles are so popular.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The thing I hate about Ubisoft is that you have to use *both* Steam and UPlay. Havent played a Ubi game in a while and got Anno 2070 on the Steam sale. I couldnt get it to run, because I did not realize that you have to install uPlay manually in addition to purchasing the game on Steam. I partially blame Steam for this as well. At least they could have had a message that you have to install uPlay separately to activate the game.

I dont like that EA does not get cheap steam sales, but at least Origin works decently and you dont have to mess with two clients to get their games to run. The quality of their games is another issue altogether though.

 

[BrightCandle]

I personally think that its high time that the types and level of DRM were on the box of every game you bought. The companies certainly aren't willing to do it voluntarily so its going to need law to force it. But we ought to know before we press the buy button, before we walk out the store before we agree to any terms and conditions what those conditions are going to be. The current system is just dishonest.

 

[showb1z]

For every one of you who buys all the games, there are probably 2 or 3 others who just pirate them. Nothing discourages any software developer more than to see someone steal all of your hard work and investment.

This is exactly the kind of argument Ubisoft likes to make.
But there's a big flaw in that reasoning: A vast majority of pirates don't incur a financial loss because they wouldn't/couldn't have bought the game anyway if they hadn't gotten it illegally.
I'm guessing most hardcore pirates are just kids with no cashflow. I haven't pirated a single game since getting a job, it's just not worth the extra time/hassle.

 

[sxr7171]

This is exactly the kind of argument Ubisoft likes to make.
But there's a big flaw in that reasoning: A vast majority of pirates don't incur a financial loss because they wouldn't/couldn't have bought the game anyway if they hadn't gotten it illegally.
I'm guessing most hardcore pirates are just kids with no cashflow. I haven't pirated a single game since getting a job, it's just not worth the extra time/hassle.

Well said.

 

[darkewaffle]

The amount of time people put into convincing other people that the company that makes stuff they like is bad is absurd.

Ubisoft makes games I like. I don't really care about anything else or how they've "offended" "real" "gamers" or "ruined" "your" "niche" industry. None of that means anything to me when I'm having a blast exploring Rook Island, saving Farah from the Sands of Time, fighting the DomZ as Jade, or being "The New Kid" in South Park. They put out some good/great games, everything else is secondary.

 

[BrightCandle]

Ubisoft also decided that in the process of trying to stop the pirates it would hurt all its legitimate customers, every one of them. That didn't work out very well for them, they very nearly lost all their PC sales completely. Its simply not worth hurting your existing customers to stop those that weren't your customers to begin with. Ironically the anti piracy moves of Ubisoft turned many of their legitimate paying customers to piracy and cracking to get the games they bought working. It increased piracy.

Piracy is a quality issue, its a protest vote and the more they work against it the worse that protest vote becomes. We saw how this plays out in MP3's, once they were available without DRM sales out ran piracy. The same will happen in TV, movies and games or they will destroy themselves having turned every customer into suspected criminals. Some companies already realise this is bad business and the so called indies aren't just winning because they are playing with new mechanics but because they also don't treat their customers like these big companies. I owe ubisoft, crytek, whoever nothing at all. They treat me badly I am not required to fund them in any way.

 

[SithSolo1]

I was really interested in the Division but if they gimp the PC version because the consoles are crap I won't be buying it.

Star Citizen may never live up to the hype but at least it will push PC fidelity in the right direction.

 

[mmntech]

Ubisoft also decided that in the process of trying to stop the pirates it would hurt all its legitimate customers, every one of them. That didn't work out very well for them, they very nearly lost all their PC sales completely. Its simply not worth hurting your existing customers to stop those that weren't your customers to begin with. Ironically the anti piracy moves of Ubisoft turned many of their legitimate paying customers to piracy and cracking to get the games they bought working. It increased piracy.

Piracy is a quality issue, its a protest vote and the more they work against it the worse that protest vote becomes.

I think most people pirate because they're too cheap to fork out money for the game at any price. It's not some sort of lofty protest. However, DRM has proven itself to be fairly ineffective against actually stopping it. It just harasses legitimate users. The always-on DRM definitely did cost them sales. Which is why they stopped using it.

The reality is that PC is a niche platform for gaming. Steam has 75 million active users sure. The majority of whom have dual core CPUs and mid-range graphics. The PlayStation 4 is actually a more powerful system than your average gaming rig.

For a company like Ubisoft, there's just enough of a market in PC to keep porting games, but not enough to make them good. It doesn't make a whole lot of financial sense to spend time optimizing games for high end hardware, if only 10% of potential customers have the gear to take advantage of it. So instead, they rely on direct console ports. Which is now easier than ever.

Ubisoft has long had a... difficult relationship with PC gamers. Even back in the the last decade. Games would get released in an untested state, buggy and often unplayable. Then you'd have to wait for a patch, if the issue ever got fixed at all. DRM was just the icing on the cake. I gave up on PC gaming for a 3 year stretch because of that. Wasn't worth the hassle.

 

[mikegg]

I think most people pirate because they're too cheap to fork out money for the game at any price. It's not some sort of lofty protest. However, DRM has proven itself to be fairly ineffective against actually stopping it. It just harasses legitimate users. The always-on DRM definitely did cost them sales. Which is why they stopped using it.

The reality is that PC is a niche platform for gaming. Steam has 75 million active users sure. The majority of whom have dual core CPUs and mid-range graphics. The PlayStation 4 is actually a more powerful system than your average gaming rig.

For a company like Ubisoft, there's just enough of a market in PC to keep porting games, but not enough to make them good. It doesn't make a whole lot of financial sense to spend time optimizing games for high end hardware, if only 10% of potential customers have the gear to take advantage of it. So instead, they rely on direct console ports. Which is now easier than ever.

Ubisoft has long had a... difficult relationship with PC gamers. Even back in the the last decade. Games would get released in an untested state, buggy and often unplayable. Then you'd have to wait for a patch, if the issue ever got fixed at all. DRM was just the icing on the cake. I gave up on PC gaming for a 3 year stretch because of that. Wasn't worth the hassle.

I agree with this. Ubisoft doesn't hate high-end PC gamers. They just love money more.

 

[TeknoBug]

Ubisoft has been neglective to their games after release for quite some time now. I got Trials Fusion on PS4 and it's buggy, I wonder if they'll ever patch it.

I'm guessing most hardcore pirates are just kids with no cashflow. I haven't pirated a single game since getting a job, it's just not worth the extra time/hassle.

Not always the case, a coworker of mine makes 75K/yr and still pirates games, he has since games like DOOM, Medal of Honor and Quake back in the 90's and with the Playstation 1 system too. He even has pirated high end PC software. Just the way some people are, they make money yet they're cheap a**holes.

 

[frozentundra123456]

This is exactly the kind of argument Ubisoft likes to make.
But there's a big flaw in that reasoning: A vast majority of pirates don't incur a financial loss because they wouldn't/couldn't have bought the game anyway if they hadn't gotten it illegally.
I'm guessing most hardcore pirates are just kids with no cashflow. I haven't pirated a single game since getting a job, it's just not worth the extra time/hassle.

Dont want to get off topic and start an argument about piracy, but I have to disagree with this. Have you surveyed the millions who pirate games and determined their economic status?

In any case, being unable to afford a game still does not justify pirating it. Games are not essential to one's life. If you cannot afford a game, then just wait until you can, or find some other diversion.

And piracy is not a victimless crime either. Even if one ignores the damage to the gaming companies, it still harms legitimate purchasers of games by encouraging draconian drm, or at least giving the gaming companies "justification" for using it.

And if you read my earlier post, I am certainly not a fan of Ubisoft, or even Blizzard drm, which has caused me much more problem than any other. I just get tired of the continued attempts to justify piracy.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The amount of time people put into convincing other people that the company that makes stuff they like is bad is absurd.

Ubisoft makes games I like. I don't really care about anything else or how they've "offended" "real" "gamers" or "ruined" "your" "niche" industry. None of that means anything to me when I'm having a blast exploring Rook Island, saving Farah from the Sands of Time, fighting the DomZ as Jade, or being "The New Kid" in South Park. They put out some good/great games, everything else is secondary.

I can see this line of thinking. I like Assassin's Creed and Farcry 3 was pretty fun. Farcry 4 gameplay videos look great so I look forward to trying it out.

The argument that people make about avoiding what is generally considered a good game because it's made by a certain company is insane to me. Am I cautious at times? Yes but when Ubisoft makes Rayman Legends and other games I thought are fantastic, they get some benefit of the doubt in my mind when I haven't seen the game yet.

Dont want to get off topic and start an argument about piracy, but I have to disagree with this. Have you surveyed the millions who pirate games and determined their economic status?

In any case, being unable to afford a game still does not justify pirating it. Games are not essential to one's life. If you cannot afford a game, then just wait until you can, or find some other diversion.

And piracy is not a victimless crime either. Even if one ignores the damage to the gaming companies, it still harms legitimate purchasers of games by encouraging draconian drm, or at least giving the gaming companies "justification" for using it.

And if you read my earlier post, I am certainly not a fan of Ubisoft, or even Blizzard drm, which has caused me much more problem than any other. I just get tired of the continued attempts to justify piracy.

I agree, this is why many people will not buy a game at $60 but will buy it on sale for $20 or so after it's gotten some patches and the kinks worked out. Obviously for online oriented titles this doesn't work in your favor due to the community thinning out over time, but for most single player games I see a lot of people buy games on sale rather than outright protest because there are some good titles that might ship in less than perfect shape and/or someone may disagree with a company's practices.

That's a bit better than saying something like "I'll just pirate it to give the finger to <insert game company here>" What you are doing is hurting PC gaming because they will see that people just pirate the games and it will justify their argument that piracy is a problem and they should focus on console games instead.

 

[IntoxicatedPuma]

Ubisoft also decided that in the process of trying to stop the pirates it would hurt all its legitimate customers, every one of them. That didn't work out very well for them, they very nearly lost all their PC sales completely. Its simply not worth hurting your existing customers to stop those that weren't your customers to begin with. Ironically the anti piracy moves of Ubisoft turned many of their legitimate paying customers to piracy and cracking to get the games they bought working. It increased piracy.

Would you prefer it more if Ubisoft just let anyone pirate their games and you were the only paying customer? Sure, some people won't buy the game anyways, but if nothing is done to prevent it then what about the people who are in the middle? What incentive do they have to buy a game when everyone around them is downloading it for free?

 

[JujuFish]

Would you prefer it more if Ubisoft just let anyone pirate their games and you were the only paying customer? Sure, some people won't buy the game anyways, but if nothing is done to prevent it then what about the people who are in the middle? What incentive do they have to buy a game when everyone around them is downloading it for free?

You say that as if DRM stops anyone who wants to pirate a game.

 

[Fenixgoon]

far cry 3 keeps losing my saves.....sigh. such a great game though.

 

[escrow4]

People are always going to pirate, just like they will always keep going to the local brothel, and just like they will keep on hitting that pipe. Doesn't matter if its 2014 or 3014 when we just might pirate direct to the chips in our heads. Give up, you won't win.

Deliberately gutting your games just because consoles can't hack it is ridiculous. Even CD Projekt isn't immune. The Witcher should have remained PC exclusive. No 2 was consolised and I'd bet 3 will be too, no matter which way you cut it. At least the PC version will likely stand up and not be a sloppy port.

 

[showb1z]

Have you surveyed the millions who pirate games and determined their economic status?

No I didn't do a survey, like I said, I'm just guessing.

I just get tired of the continued attempts to justify piracy.

I don't justify piracy in anyway. It's stealing, simple as that.
But companies, like Ubisoft, have claimed they're losing tons of money because of piracy to justify their bad DRM implementations. And that is just a bullshit argument.