Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier

Though plans for a PC edition of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier was previously confirmed by Ubisoft, PC Gamer has word that the next installment in the Ghost Recon series is for consoles only, and that PC gamers will get Ghost Recon Online instead, which is apparently Ubisoft's new approach to PC piracy following their almost universally despised always-on DRM. Here's word from Ghost Recon Online producer Sébastien Arnoult:

We are giving away most of the content for free because there’s no barrier to entry. To the users that are traditionally playing the game by getting it through Pirate Bay, we said, ‘Okay, go ahead guys. This is what you’re asking for. We’ve listened to you – we’re giving you this experience. It’s easy to download, there’s no DRM that will pollute your experience.’

We’re adapting the offer to the PC market. I don’t like to compare PC and Xbox boxed products because they have a model on that platform that is clearly meant to be €60’s worth of super-Hollywood content. On PC, we’re adapting our model to the demand.

“When we started Ghost Recon Online we were thinking about Ghost Recon: Future Solider; having something ported in the classical way without any deep development, because we know that 95% of our consumers will pirate the game. So we said okay, we have to change our mind.

We have to adapt, we have to embrace this instead of pushing it away. That’s the main reflection behind Ghost Recon Online and the choice we’ve made to go in this direction.

View
173 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >

153. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 16:39 shponglefan
 
ASeven wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 13:39:
The combination of surplus supply, terrible game quality and high prices meant that in 81 people realistically considered the gaming industry was dead, and it came very, very close to death.

And yet:

a) Prices are generall lower than in the past and in some cases vastly lower;
b) Quality gaming exists in abundance; while there is a ton of crap shovelware out there, it's not at all comparable to the 1978 situation;
c) New technology continues to allow for new avenues for gaming (like cell phones;
d) Digital distribution eliminates the need for manufacturing/inventory costs, thus eliminating a huge chunk of costs and associate risks.

So no, this is not the same as the lead-up to the prior crash. Not by a long shot.

This comment was edited on Nov 25, 2011, 16:51.
 
Avatar 54594
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
152. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 16:38 ^Drag0n^
 
Teddy wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 14:05:
No one is arguing whether it's illegal or immoral, so there's no justifying of anything going on, you utter fucking retard, They're arguing the fact that for some reason you (and apparently some other idiot on here) seem incapable of understanding the difference.

And perhaps you should not just read one of my posts and go off half cocked, but rather read the conversation before throwing the verbal filth around. Had you done so, you would have seen I actually acknowledged that, but pointed out my reason for posting that link was more to what the US Attorney said to the media, and the ramifications it has going forward; so if you're going to quote the article, be sure you quote the relevant part:

"'Music piracy is stealing and, unless you want to end up in a federal prison, don’t do it,' said U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg in a statement trumpeting the verdict."

I've pretty much come to expect comments at that level from you, which is why I really don't care about the personal attacks you throw in as well.

QED.

^D^

This comment was edited on Nov 25, 2011, 16:53.
 
Avatar 55075
 
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
151. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 16:36 shponglefan
 
Verno wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 13:26:
Value proposition is inherently subjective, I'm not sure why we're generalizing on behalf of every other consumer in the market but I'll play for one more post. I'd also argue that there is definitely an argument to be made that consumers are paying just as much if not when you factor in other revenue streams that the industry employs now like DLC.

Looking at average new title costs today versus 20 years ago, there's about a $15-20 difference. Plus, back in the day companies would release expansion packs and charge for those. So I don't know if DLC would make up the total difference; but it's a valid point.

A lot of gamers are new, did you even consider that? Many of them weren't around long ago, there are whole new generations of people who weren't paying $90 for an SNES game or whatever you're referring to.

Specifically I wa thinking of paying $40 for King's Quest II and getting maybe 6 hours of gameplay out of it, tops. That would be like paying $75 for the same experience today.

While quantity has grown in terms of game offerings it doesn't necessarily mean quality has too, the Ghost Recon franchise is a great example of that.

On average, I think the overall quality of gaming has gone up or at least stayed the same, mainly as a result of technology. Part of the reason I think people think prior generations worth of games were better is simply because those were "newer" then whereas once you've played everything under the sun, there are less surprises.

There are some great games I feel like I've had for bargains at $60 and there are some real turds that I feel weren't worth $20, let alone the $60 I paid. Whether we have it better in the context of the past is one of those things that will be different for everyone I guess. I certainly wouldn't call people spoiled because they're unhappy about game length as it really depends on the title in question.

Agreed, it really depends on an individual games basis. But the original argument, that an 8 hour game @ $60 is a ripoff is no different than gaming 20 years ago except that it would cost you more than $60 of inflation adjusted dollars.

Generally not a great idea to say "you can't change my mind" in what was otherwise a reasonable discussion but fair enough :)

I could go on forever about how I think gamers are spoiled these days, but mainly it comes down to: a) gaming in aggregate is cheaper (MMO's aside), b) technology, on the whole, is superior, and c) digital distro has made gaming way more convienent.
 
Avatar 54594
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
150. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 16:34 StingingVelvet
 
Devo_N wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 14:07:
Without meaning to derail this highly interesting discussion of piracy theft and so forth -
Ghost Recon has stunk for the last several iterations, and GRO looks to be truly awful. The franchise has pretty much ceded the field to the Battlefield series.
Actually I can't remember a single GR game that was enjoyable. My friends referred to it as "that shooter where you can't jump over a small rock or curb".

GRAW was a pretty good shooter on Xbox. Not amazing or anything, but if you like military shooters with a hint of tactics in them then it was a solid title worth playing. The PC version was a much different game though, and in my opinion and much less interesting one.

Every other game in the series has sucked pretty bad, especially Ghost Recon 2 which also never got a PC version (which people seem to forget).
 
Avatar 54622
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
149. deluge in the paper cup Nov 25, 2011, 15:33 space captain
 
who would have thought hatred and outrage would be such a jackpot for web hits?  
Go forth, and kill!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
148. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 15:17 Creston
 
To the users that are traditionally playing the game by getting it through Pirate Bay, we said, ‘Okay, go ahead guys. This is what you’re asking for. We’ve listened to you

Yes, because the PIRATES are the ones you should be listening to, moron. Ignore the people that actually PAY you for your product and put food on your table.

What a fucking mongrel.

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
147. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 14:29 Tanto Edge
 
Tom Clancy presents Tom Clancy's Tom Clancy: Tom Clancy.  
Avatar 13202
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=705LEH3j2g0&t=0m24s
http://www.youtube.com/user/tantoedge
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
146. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 14:08 Endo
 
Devo_N wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 14:07:
Without meaning to derail this highly interesting discussion of piracy theft and so forth -
Ghost Recon has stunk for the last several iterations, and GRO looks to be truly awful. The franchise has pretty much ceded the field to the Battlefield series.
Actually I can't remember a single GR game that was enjoyable. My friends referred to it as "that shooter where you can't jump over a small rock or curb".
Yeah, that too.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
145. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 14:07 Devo_N
 
Without meaning to derail this highly interesting discussion of piracy theft and so forth -
Ghost Recon has stunk for the last several iterations, and GRO looks to be truly awful. The franchise has pretty much ceded the field to the Battlefield series.
Actually I can't remember a single GR game that was enjoyable. My friends referred to it as "that shooter where you can't jump over a small rock or curb".
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
144. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 14:05 Teddy
 
^Drag0n^ wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 10:54:
And you're wrong on the classification of the crime. It is theft. Again:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/05/guilty-verdict/

So, again, keep rationalizing.

The real point here is "who cares?" The idiots that are running the companies are using this as an excuse to make some of the most retarded marketing decisions north of the RIAA being pulled kicking and screaming into the internet age.

^D^

Jebus, did you even read the link you quoted? Read it again, dope.

"Gitarts was convicted of conspiracy to violate the NET Act (.pdf), which makes it a crime to infringe a copyright "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain"; to pirate $1,000 or more in music within 180 day period; or to distribute any pirated content before its release date. "

He was convicted of copyright infringement, and conspiracy to do so, NOT THEFT. The only one who said anything of theft was the prosecuting attorney, which was nothing more than grandstanding commentary on his part. If it was theft, then the case would have been about theft, the charges would have been about theft and the verdict would have been about theft. None of those were the case.

No one is arguing whether it's illegal or immoral, so there's no justifying of anything going on, you utter fucking retard, They're arguing the fact that for some reason you (and apparently some other idiot on here) seem incapable of understanding the difference.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
143. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 14:01 Endo
 
Wow. I can't believe the level of ignorance exhibited by people insisting that piracy = theft. The only kind of piracy that might qualify is the kind that happens on the high seas.

It's not even up for debate.

Non-commercial copyright infringement is a civil matter, and requires the victim to execute a lawsuit for anything to happen to the perp. Law enforcement has no jurisdiction over this kind of infringement.

Theft, on the other hand, is a criminal matter, and if you get caught law enforcement will throw your ass in jail.

These basic legal definitions more or less hold true in all countries in the world that have any laws at all about copyright infringement.

The MAFIAA-type corps are trying to change this, but they haven't got there yet, and never will as long as any sanity remains in government.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
142. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 13:44 Matshock
 
ASeven wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 13:39:
...

Good post.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
141. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 13:39 ASeven
 
In the end though it wasn't piracy that provoked the first game market crash in 78. The gaming industry may have been booming, though it has been in a downwards spiral for the past 3 years, but back in 78 piracy of games was pretty impossible for the average user. Therefore, to add a bit of context into this piracy discussion, I will remind you all of what really made the 78 crash possible.

The market conditions of 78 are frighteningly a bit like our own now. Gaming was a booming, spectacular business that could get anyone rich pretty fast. However publishers back then thought they could get rich and richer forever no matter what they did, so what they did was jack up the prices, cut development costs like hell (ET for the Atari is a sad reminder of that) and above all they had a brutal amount of games coming out at the same time, most of them of iffy quality. The combination of surplus supply, terrible game quality and high prices meant that in 81 people realistically considered the gaming industry was dead, and it came very, very close to death.

This is important as a context because piracy didn't have an impact in the downfall of the industry in 78, since piracy back then was far more expensive to execute than getting the games legally. The publishers were brought down by their own errors, errors that are repeating almost identically today.

What is fun is that when piracy became less expensive and more widespread, that's when the gaming industry started to really boom. Google any chart of the early 80s to today on gaming growth and piracy and you'll see. Blaming piracy for the failure of the gaming industry is the easiest cop-out ever. It is a problem, yes, but it's a very complex problem, one that doesn't have a simple answer like saying they're thieves, they help games' sales grow or any other argument. Piracy is one of the most complex social and economic events of our age and it can't be explained or dismissed with black and white explanations as I'm reading in this thread a lot.

In the end though, and pretty much like what happened in history almost all the time, the failure of a specific industry comes down not to piracy or any other sort of crimes but in the inability of that industry in connecting with their costumers, losing track of economic reality and crashing down in the process.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
140. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 13:31 Matshock
 
The vs. 90's thing is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Floppies & hard roms vs. online distribution.

Start by understanding what compartmentalizing distribution does to prices- i.e. Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo certification, Origin/Steam, etc.

What I'm seeing is console certification driving up prices and then publishers using that as an excuse to raise the SRPs for PC titles.

I'm also seeing prices stay higher, longer because digital distribution is eating into the used game market.

I'm worried that as publishers each develop their own DRM/distribution software that competition will be further eroded.

Publishers are learning to act like governments because they perceive that consumers are learning to do the same- rule making, "legitimized" theft, surveillance, etc.

Sucks to be us.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
139. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 13:26 Verno
 
It's a perfectly valid argument especially in context of the comment I was responding to: a gamer today complain about an ~8 hour game costs too much @ $60. Yet in times past, you'd still have 8 hour games that actually cost more.

Value proposition is inherently subjective, I'm not sure why we're generalizing on behalf of every other consumer in the market but I'll play for one more post. I'd also argue that there is definitely an argument to be made that consumers are paying just as much if not when you factor in other revenue streams that the industry employs now like DLC. A lot of gamers are new, did you even consider that? Many of them weren't around long ago, there are whole new generations of people who weren't paying $90 for an SNES game or whatever you're referring to. While quantity has grown in terms of game offerings it doesn't necessarily mean quality has too, the Ghost Recon franchise is a great example of that.

There are some great games I feel like I've had for bargains at $60 and there are some real turds that I feel weren't worth $20, let alone the $60 I paid. Whether we have it better in the context of the past is one of those things that will be different for everyone I guess. I certainly wouldn't call people spoiled because they're unhappy about game length as it really depends on the title in question.

So yes, I think gamers today are spoiled. If you have an issue with that, tough cookies; it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Generally not a great idea to say "you can't change my mind" in what was otherwise a reasonable discussion but fair enough
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: South Park, Dark Souls 2
Watching: Enemy, Network, Wer
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
138. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 13:18 shponglefan
 
Verno wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 13:07:
On the other hand it's invalid to say games are cheaper due to inflation and gamers are spoiled because that includes prior factors while ignoring others just to make a point.

It's a perfectly valid argument especially in context of the comment I was responding to: a gamer today complain about an ~8 hour game costs too much @ $60. Yet in times past, you'd still have 8 hour games that actually cost more.

And yes, if we're not ignoring other factors I'd bring up digital distribution and how even more ridiculously cheap gaming has gotten factoring in things like Steam sales. Gamers today, imho, have little to complain about in terms of pricing of games. If want to argue that people value games less now than they did in the past, then I suppose you can go that route. But it's hard to support that argument given, as you have also pointed out, that the games industry has boomed in the last two decades.

So yes, I think gamers today are spoiled. If you have an issue with that, tough cookies; it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
 
Avatar 54594
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
137. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 13:17 Fletch
 
Rattlehead wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 11:05:
It's funny reading these comments and how an average gamer is suddenly a lawyer when it comes to these topics. Keep up the arguments with your pseudo knowledge of law straight from wikipedia!


Why, oh why did I "To view this user's posts click on the username"? Just the same inane, pissy, condescending, self-righteous blather as always.

You know NOTHING about the people on this site. For all you know, they are ALL lawyers AND expert gamers. This is yet another excellent discussion on Bluesnews. Nobody has claimed to be an expert, nor do they have to be in order to have an opinion and contribute to the conversation.

Now, back to my KF, troll.

 
Avatar 10520
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
136. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 13:07 Verno
 
shponglefan wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 12:23:
Except that I'm comparing prices now with prices in the past. My point was that games are cheaper now. That's it. So in that regard, inflation must be factored in. You can't compare a $45 game from 1990 with a $60 from 2011 without adjusting for inflation. People complaining about a $60 game today forget that if prices of games actually kept up with inflation, we'd be paying over $80 a game, not $60.

Prices and consumer valuation don't happen inside of a vacuum so this seems a bit silly but ok. If we're talking about just the price then you can't include other factors either. It's fine to say games are cheaper than they were ten years ago. That's not really saying anything worthwhile, there are many reasons that's the case which are favorable to both consumers and the industry but it's fine to point it out. On the other hand saying games are cheaper due to inflation and gamers are spoiled because of that is not valid. It includes prior factors while ignoring other relevant ones just to make a loaded point.

This comment was edited on Nov 25, 2011, 13:13.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: South Park, Dark Souls 2
Watching: Enemy, Network, Wer
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
135. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 12:59 WarpCrow
 
shponglefan wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 11:52:
For point #2, I can't entirely speak for games pricing. However, $60 for a game today is cheaper than games were 15-20 years ago on an inflation-adjusted basis. And in the past, you'd still get games that would last 8 hours, yet would cost more in today's dollars. I think gamers are a little spoiled in this regard.

A game is worth what your market is willing to pay for it, that's all. Now, I understand the concept of high production values, quality over quantity, etc. Portal 2 was a short experience but it was worth it IMO. Significant inflation may have occurred in the past 20 years, but middle class incomes have stagnated and the market has grown massively, which throws off a purely inflation-based adjustment of price. Piracy is also much easier now than it used to be, both console and PC, and you can't get rid of piracy in its current form without instituting a complete lockdown on the internet and, frankly, killing any spirit and sense of freedom it still contains.

Actually, on the pricing front there was a blog entry by the creators of Avernum, Geneforge, and Avadon, who for the longest time kept their 90's shareware prices and have only recently realized that the market has changed and you can't charge what you used to. Of course there's a big difference between the low budget indie marketplace and the marketplace of AAA games from major studios, but a lot of his points have similar or identical parallels in the mainstream market.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
134. Re: No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier Nov 25, 2011, 12:56 StealthR6
 
Why bother Ubi, this game is crap. We don't want it, even if it's free. You'd have to pay us to play it! I'm charging $10/hr now piss off until you make a proper Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six title, then perhaps (when hell freezes over) I will actaully purchase a Ubi product. As I recall I had no problems PURCHASING Rainbow Six 1,2, Raven Shield and Ghost Recon.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
173 Replies. 9 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo