Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2010, 06:31:
I think you're giving them waayyy too much credit. If they had some sense, they would do the following:

Prez wrote on Apr 17, 2010, 14:28:

Beamer wrote on Apr 17, 2010, 10:18:
I'm curious to know what metrics you'd want to use in order to figure this out. You'd have to filter out all the other variables.


In short - it's completely and utterly impossible to have "facts" here. The best you can hope for is educated assumptions.

I've been thinking about this, and I'm of the opinion that the best way to gauge the effect of the DRM on sales is by comparing the sales ratio between the 360 and the PC with the typical ratio you always see with major releases, particularly with previous Splinter Cell games, but only with those that had concurrent releases.

For example, I constantly hear how the 360 will typically outsell the PC by a ratio of 5:1, 10:1, blah blah. Ubisoft knows exactly how much of its products sold on each platform, so it has hard numbers to compare. If the ratio changes to become virtually the same between PC and 360, then it could easily be stated that this DRM, however unpopular, worked as intended. Conversely, no significant change in the sales ratios between PC and 360 would basically prove all this scheme did was piss off paying customers and drive potential customers away.

Admittedly, this is also not perfect, given the higher price point and the ignorance of DRM by the gaming public at large. The real test will be to compare how the next generation of titles sell. My suspicion is that many of the people who were previously oblivious to the DRM debate but have had to put up with Ubisoft's idiotic DRM scheme will apply the "fool me once..." principle.

Really? So if Ubisoft did all this, you'd be first in line to buy their games right?

Beamer wrote on Apr 17, 2010, 10:18:
I'm curious to know what metrics you'd want to use in order to figure this out. You'd have to filter out all the other variables.


In short - it's completely and utterly impossible to have "facts" here. The best you can hope for is educated assumptions.

Yosemite Sam wrote on Apr 16, 2010, 16:00:
How about they back up thier BS with some facts. Has this new DRM resulted in more sales?

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2010, 06:31:
It's really not that hard to understand this stuff but Ubisoft is apparently clueless. A consecutive release with minimal DRM and standard pricing is going to sell a lot better than a delayed release with excessive DRM and unreasonably high pricing. If EA, of all companies, has the sense to do this, why can't Ubisoft?

Yosemite Sam wrote on Apr 16, 2010, 16:00:
How about they back up thier BS with some facts. Has this new DRM resulted in more sales?

Jerykk wrote on Apr 17, 2010, 06:31:

Same kind of goes for DRM, these companies know all the upsides and downsides, the idea that they haven't thought of every anti-DRM statement in this thread is ridiculously stupid.

I think you're giving them waayyy too much credit. If they had some sense, they would do the following:

1) Don't delay ports for 6 months and then get disappointed when they don't sell as well as the console versions.
2) Don't continue to use a DRM scheme that has not only garnered tons of bad press but has pissed off legitimate customers so badly that Ubisoft actually had to give away free games to compensate.
3) Don't charge $60 for ports when the vast majority of PC games cost $50 or less.

It's really not that hard to understand this stuff but Ubisoft is apparently clueless. A consecutive release with minimal DRM and standard pricing is going to sell a lot better than a delayed release with excessive DRM and unreasonably high pricing. If EA, of all companies, has the sense to do this, why can't Ubisoft?

Same kind of goes for DRM, these companies know all the upsides and downsides, the idea that they haven't thought of every anti-DRM statement in this thread is ridiculously stupid.

DukeFNukem wrote on Apr 17, 2010, 04:40:
$60 is a good price for a game? LOL. I used to pay $60 for games until I realized that if I sit back and wait patiently that almost all games drop to reasonable prices after they have been out long enough. $60 is not a good price for an average hard working person.

Titus wrote on Apr 17, 2010, 03:41:
I think it's a shame Ubi did this. They used to be one of my favourite publishers. I own a majority of episodes in the following series, but won't buy with this DRM in place:
Anno Series
Assassins Creed
Beyond Good & Evil
Blazing Angels/HAWX
Brothers in Arms
Rainbow Six
Prince of Persia
Settlers
Splinter Cell

spindoctor wrote on Apr 16, 2010, 11:33:

gilly775 wrote on Apr 16, 2010, 10:15:
Really? Vital? And how come this DRM isn't vital to companies like StarDock and yet they are selling games well with no DRM???

Because Stardock games cost 20-50 times less to make and subsequently the sales required (and obtained) are significantly less? Half a million sales of a game is a success for Stardock. Half a million sales for the high budget games would result in the studio being shutdown and the employees being fired.

ASeven wrote on Apr 16, 2010, 22:31:
You mean by taking away all our control of playing a game and implementing draconian, terrible DRMs? We sure have no idea! You can keep the DRM, I'll keep my rights. I won't bend over and take it up like many corporate whores who only want to play the latest derivative POS and will sacrifice anything in the name of playing the latest.