No PC Ghost Recon: Future Soldier [Nov 24, 2011, 2:09 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
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.
Verno wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 12:12:
If we're only looking at end user pricing then we're not looking at inflation.
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.
On that point, there is nothing for anyone to disagree with because it's simply a base fact. So I don't see what you're trying to argue.
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2020 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2020 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 5 July 2020, 07:38.