Ubisoft Wants to "Improve" Its Relationship With PC Community.

[Spook187]

Surely this is a lie, like Dice said about BF3.

http://www.t3.com/news/pc-is-lead-platform-for-watch-dogs-reveals-ubisoft-boss

 

[linwelin]

only way ill buy another ubi game is if they ditch that stupid always on DRM (or has that already been done?)

 

[Angilion]

only way ill buy another ubi game is if they ditch that stupid always on DRM (or has that already been done?)

Already been done. They said it was due to customer feedback, which was probably part of the reason. When the majority of customers say a company policy sucks and as a result they're buying competitor's products instead, it's a good idea to change the policy. Although they never said it, I suspect they realised that it was decreasing sales and increasing piracy because of something really rather obvious - Ubisoft's DRM policy annoyed most potential customers and made pirated copies greatly superior to legit copies.

But whatever the reason, as of late last year Ubisoft's publically stated policy is that they no longer use always-on DRM.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/ubisoft-drm-piracy-interview/

The Ubisoft people bend over backwards to avoid saying it was a mistake or that previous comments from Ubisoft were mistakes (they describe them as "unfortunate comments"), but they are clear about it being ditched.

They also, perhaps unintentionally, clarify that the widely publicised very high figures about piracy are wrong in that they only apply to some parts of the world and for some games. Or so they claim - like every publisher they refuse to provide any evidence for any claims about piracy. For all we know they're just making numbers up.

 

[linwelin]

Already been done. They said it was due to customer feedback, which was probably part of the reason. When the majority of customers say a company policy sucks and as a result they're buying competitor's products instead, it's a good idea to change the policy. Although they never said it, I suspect they realised that it was decreasing sales and increasing piracy because of something really rather obvious - Ubisoft's DRM policy annoyed most potential customers and made pirated copies greatly superior to legit copies.

But whatever the reason, as of late last year Ubisoft's publically stated policy is that they no longer use always-on DRM.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/ubisoft-drm-piracy-interview/

The Ubisoft people bend over backwards to avoid saying it was a mistake or that previous comments from Ubisoft were mistakes (they describe them as "unfortunate comments"), but they are clear about it being ditched.

They also, perhaps unintentionally, clarify that the widely publicised very high figures about piracy are wrong in that they only apply to some parts of the world and for some games. Or so they claim - like every publisher they refuse to provide any evidence for any claims about piracy. For all we know they're just making numbers up.

ahh ok then that's good guess i can get there new game watch dogs when it comes out

 

[[TW]Fox]

It's surprising how many people don't realise it.

A physical copy has these costs as an absolute minimum even if the supply chain is perfectly optimised to reduce the amount of stuff being moved around as much as possible:

The disc.
The box.
The cover.
The cost of moving each of those items to the place that makes the boxed game.
Pressing the game into the disc.
Printing the cover.
Putting the disc and the cover in the box.
Transporting the boxed game to the shop or warehouse. This cost is greatly increased by the fact that you need to supply thousands of shops and warehouses.

On top of that, some or all of the following will apply. It's possible for the publisher to own some of this chain, which would remove the need for seperate profits for each link in the chain (but not the actual costs of doing it, above).

Profit for the manufacturer of the disc.
Profit for the manufacturer of the box.
Profit for the manufacturer of the cover.
Profit for the transport company that moves those items to the companies that process them.
Profit for the printer of the cover.
Profit for the company that presses the game onto the disc.
Profit for the company that combines the parts to make the boxed game.
Profit for the transport company that takes the boxed games to the numerous shops and warehouses.

It's also worth emphasising that every one of those costs applies whether or not a copy is sold.

Which makes it all the more amazing that more often than not, new release games are cheaper in store than they are on Steam...

 

[Gimpymoo]

Which makes it all the more amazing that more often than not, new release games are cheaper in store than they are on Steam...

Becasue if they were the same as digital distribution, less copies would be sold and such stores would make less money.

They do not sell them for less out of warm hearted generosity.

They ripped us off for years, remember when EVERY new release was always sold at full RRP and publishers were ripping off developers at any given opportunity.

 

[varkanoid]

Game are now selling games on steam in store.

I was a bit shocked. Saw it in Hull the other week. They had games like Aliens CM and Far Cry 3. You took the DVD case to the till, paid for it, and you get the Steam code no DVD.
Aliens CM was £39.99 and was shown as pre-release as in not yet out. Far Cry 3 was £29.99. Kind of goes against the arguement that games are cheaper in store.