Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I have come out of my Skyrim coma for this breaking news bulletin.

On 23rd of November the creative director of Ubisoft's 'I am Alive' Stanislas Mettra stated "We've heard loud and clear that PC gamers are bitching about there being no version for them," said Mettra. "But are these people just making noise just because there's no version or because it's a game they actually want to play? Would they buy it if we made it?". Mr Mettra also added "It’s hard because there’s so much piracy and so few people are paying for PC games that we have to precisely weigh it up against the cost of making it. Perhaps it will only take 12 guys three months to port the game to PC. It’s not a massive cost but it’s still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game, then it’s not worth it." The statements made by Mettra are fast becoming notorious.

Full Article at IncGamers.com

So, apparently, after effectively killing their own PC market, and driving thousands of users to pirating their own product, Ubisoft has determined that the PC community is to blame not their own market program which made retail PC versions annoying to play, not to mention the consolitis that increasingly gripped them , gradually driving down their sales.

Apparenlty, Ubisoft didn't in fact kill their own PC business. Pirates did. Pirates they created. And PC gamers never wanted their games in the first place...

When companies start to fail, instead of blaming themselves they blame pirates. Just another day.

It's just Ubisoft.

Oh, so because the creative director of one game said something, it's obviously the view of the Board, CEO, CFO, and all employees.

It makes sense if you don't think about it.

Chowderhead wrote:Oh, so because the creative director of one game said something, it's obviously the view of the Board, CEO, CFO, and all employees.

It makes sense if you don't think about it.

A official speaking on behalf of a company concerning a game's development made a statement about development plans, which is a marketing decision. The Creative director doesn't decide platform releases. That's a marketing decision which is tantamount to a company decision. Maybe individuals in the company don't agree, but I'm talking about Ubisoft as a developer and publisher, to which Mettra's statements are very telling.

Ignoring just the bad PR of anyone from the company saying such things.

Besides, this isn't really a shock if you've followed Ubisoft over the years. I called Uplay out as market suicide back when AC2 released 2 years ago (almost 3). Really it's only shocking that someone from Ubisoft actually said it. I figured they'd just quietly let the market slide.

Fine I'll redact my previous statement and replace it with this:

It's just Ubisoft's creative director.

LordofHats wrote:So I have come out of my Skyrim coma for this breaking news bulletin.

On 23rd of November the creative director of Ubisoft's 'I am Alive' Stanislas Mettra stated "We've heard loud and clear that PC gamers are bitching about there being no version for them," said Mettra. "But are these people just making noise just because there's no version or because it's a game they actually want to play? Would they buy it if we made it?". Mr Mettra also added "It’s hard because there’s so much piracy and so few people are paying for PC games that we have to precisely weigh it up against the cost of making it. Perhaps it will only take 12 guys three months to port the game to PC. It’s not a massive cost but it’s still a cost. If only 50,000 people buy the game, then it’s not worth it." The statements made by Mettra are fast becoming notorious.

Full Article at IncGamers.com

So, apparently, after effectively killing their own PC market, and driving thousands of users to pirating their own product, Ubisoft has determined that the PC community is to blame not their own market program which made retail PC versions annoying to play, not to mention the consolitis that increasingly gripped them , gradually driving down their sales.

Apparenlty, Ubisoft didn't in fact kill their own PC business. Pirates did. Pirates they created. And PC gamers never wanted their games in the first place...

But he is right though pirating is killing PC gaming, but not only that but it's killing DVD and music sales as well.

If the Creative Director's view wasn't shared by the other heads of the company, they would have spoken up and said something along the lines of the Creative Director's opinions are not representative of the entirety of Ubisoft.

Either way, it's clear that Ubisoft doesn't care about PC Gaming. They delayed From Dust on PC so that people would buy it on consoles first and so they could have time to shove DRM on it... onto the version on Steam.

Their stocks have been on a steady decline for quite some time, and once their Assassin's Creed overstays its yearly-iteration welcome, they'll be hard-pressed for another cash-franchise to milk. They're doing poorly so they'll be taking less risks. Pissing off PC Gamers and many other gamers is a terrible move.

Cheesecat wrote:But he is right though pirating is killing PC gaming, but not only that but it's killing DVD and music sales as well.

The problem is that it doesn't have to. First off, the internet has radically changed the world market and the music industry and the film industry just refuse to stop living in the pre-Internet world (as SOPA makes very clear). Piracy isn't something you can make go away. It's a reality of the world now. The days where having a good voice and good looks can turn you into an overnight millionaire are over and they need to accept that.

But rather than try to find creative ways to deal with it, most of these companies just seem to think that hating the computer and the internet will solve their problems, which is dumb. Piracy is rampant on consoles too, its just not as widely known.

There are simple things that can be used to combat piracy. Heck you don't even have to do much. Most of the world would rather pay for things than steal them. The problem is that prices for a lot of these products are seen as inflated and the products themselves seen as subpar (which are both the reasons Ubisoft has suffered increasing PC piracy over the years). Switch to different market models (micro-transaction, online-streaming, etc).

Make something worth paying for and people will pay for it. A lot of piracy would end if industries would just adapt to the changes in the market and stop releasing sub-par product.

EDIT: I'm also just not sympathetic to Ubisoft complaining about pirates. They increased pirating of their own product with their release and marketing choices. AC2 and Splinter Cell Conviction became the most pirated games of their release year for not other reason than people on PC wanting to get around Uplay. Likewise, before them, MW2 became hugely pirated on PC over outrage about the decision to remove Dedi's. In many ways on PC, the developers and publishers have created their pirating product from years of leaving the PC market feeling alienated. If you treat people like pirates they will become pirates.

LordofHats wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:But he is right though pirating is killing PC gaming, but not only that but it's killing DVD and music sales as well.

The problem is that it doesn't have to. First off, the internet has radically changed the world market and the music industry and the film industry just refuse to stop living in the pre-Internet world (as SOPA makes very clear). Piracy isn't something you can make go away. It's a reality of the world now. The days where having a good voice and good looks can turn you into an overnight millionaire are over and they need to accept that.

But rather than try to find creative ways to deal with it, most of these companies just seem to think that hating the computer and the internet will solve their problems, which is dumb. Piracy is rampant on consoles too, its just not as widely known.

There are simple things that can be used to combat piracy. Heck you don't even have to do much. Most of the world would rather pay for things than steal them. The problem is that prices for a lot of these products are seen as inflated and the products themselves seen as subpar (which are both the reasons Ubisoft has suffered increasing PC piracy over the years). Switch to different market models (micro-transaction, online-streaming, etc).

Make something worth paying for and people will pay for it. A lot of piracy would end if industries would just adapt to the changes in the market and stop releasing sub-par product.

EDIT: I'm also just not sympathetic to Ubisoft complaining about pirates. They increased pirating of their own product with their release and marketing choices. AC2 and Splinter Cell Conviction became the most pirated games of their release year for not other reason than people on PC wanting to get around Uplay. Likewise, before them, MW2 became hugely pirated on PC over outrage about the decision to remove Dedi's. In many ways on PC, the developers and publishers have created their pirating product from years of leaving the PC market feeling alienated. If you treat people like pirates they will become pirates.

In all honesty though coming up with good ways at combating piracy would be pretty hard I know I'm out of ideas when it comes to fighting piracy.

That's the whole point, don't fight, you'll just alienate more people by doing so.

Easy Fix.

Sell it through Steam, have it linked to a steam account.

Must log on steam account to play it.


Friends using the steam account is no different then somone borrowing a Disk.. or buying it 2nd hand dirt cheap.

There are ways around steam...

Soladrin wrote:There are ways around steam...

True, but when I used to pirate, whenever I saw I needed to go through steam, I just left that game alone.......It was frustrating....

This doesn't particularly surprise me.

Although I don't think their embrace of consoles has 'driven down' their sales. If they were a PC only joint, they'd have no budget for any of their games.

Its like you guys think they shouldn't put DRM on stuff to attempt to mitigate piracy at all. We, as pc gamers, have done this to ourselves.

Cheesecat wrote:In all honesty though coming up with good ways at combating piracy would be pretty hard I know I'm out of ideas when it comes to fighting piracy.

In a lot of ways game companies don't really need to do anything but make a game worth paying for.

The government could end piracy by shutting off access to foreign IP's that are hosting pirated content (which they don't do). Almost every site that hosts pirated content is at a foreign IP that the government can block, but no one is apparently that brilliant. How long has Pirate Bay been online? Sure not everything on there is pirated, but we all know where most of the sites traffic comes from. There are hundreds of sites just like it and most of them operate out of China, but no one is brilliant enough to realize that the easiest and simplest anti-piracy is to make access difficult. Shut off access to all the pirate sites and sure the crafty will still pirate, but the average person will either not buy the product at all or pay for it.

Problem is that these piracy sites actually bring money into the US economy in their own way, so the incentive to actually shut them down is low.

LordofHats wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:In all honesty though coming up with good ways at combating piracy would be pretty hard I know I'm out of ideas when it comes to fighting piracy.

In a lot of ways game companies don't really need to do anything but make a game worth paying for.

The government could end piracy by shutting off access to foreign IP's that are hosting pirated content (which they don't do). Almost every site that hosts pirated content is at a foreign IP that the government can block, but no one is apparently that brilliant. How long has Pirate Bay been online? Sure not everything on there is pirated, but we all know where most of the sites traffic comes from. There are hundreds of sites just like it and most of them operate out of China, but no one is brilliant enough to realize that the easiest and simplest anti-piracy is to make access difficult. Shut off access to all the pirate sites and sure the crafty will still pirate, but the average person will either not buy the product at all or pay for it.

Problem is that these piracy sites actually bring money into the US economy in their own way, so the incentive to actually shut them down is low.

Holy gak, the shitstorm that would occur...

Also, Valve says its a non-issue: http://www.destructoid.com/valve-says-piracy-is-a-non-issue--216582.phtml

So maybe you shouldn't worry about what some dude at Ubi says.

Also, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. What way do piracy sites 'bring money into the US economy'? lol

Chowderhead wrote:Oh, so because the creative director of one game said something, it's obviously the view of the Board, CEO, CFO, and all employees.

It makes sense if you don't think about it.

Just like when melissa posts something crazy I blame all pubecent girls
\o high 5

but really, they are killing themselves, next xbox will run windows 8 iirc, which is cross compatable with pc, non issue.

Although I don't think their embrace of consoles has 'driven down' their sales.

Yes it has. Their games for years now have been clunky, poor implemented, and just run bad of PC. And the worst is that they don't even bother fixing the problems (Rainbow 6V2 still has that machine gun glitch in coop and Conviction never did get a multiplayer set upt that actually worked with Coop). Have you seen Uplay? Do you know what it did before they stopped using the DRM system? There's protecting yourself from pirating and then there's making an anti-piracy system so obnoxious that people stop buying your product.

Pirates aren't forcing publishers/developers out of the PC market. They're rampant anti-piracy is because they've taken it too far. Tack on how poor the products have become and people just don't want to pay for them anymore. Some people will buy the game, and then get a pirated copy to avoid the DRM.

If they were a PC only joint, they'd have no budget for any of their games.

BFBC2 and BF both carry a lot of consolitis in them, yet, they sold twice on the PC what they did on consoles and millions of copies. Every CoD game even with all the pirating of that series has sold millions of PC copies. The problem isn't that the PC market won't pay for games or that it's too small, it's that the products don't work well on the platform. Companies are just as responsible for their problem as the community itself.

Also, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. What way do piracy sites 'bring money into the US economy'? lol

Because blocking an IP address isn't simple. Remember when Pakistan tried to block Youtube and brought down their entire Internet network? Blocking the IP addresses to foreign piracy sites also ends up blocking the IP addresses of a lot of legitimate sites that sell US goods in foreign markets. EDIT: Not to mention all the user traffic that produces income for US ISP's.

LordofHats wrote:
BFBC2 and BF both carry a lot of consolitis in them, yet, they sold twice on the PC what they did on consoles and millions of copies. Every CoD game even with all the pirating of that series has sold millions of PC copies. The problem isn't that the PC market won't pay for games or that it's too small, it's that the products don't work well on the platform. Companies are just as responsible for their problem as the community itself.

Oh?

Xbox 360: 2.2 million
PlayStation 3: 1.5 million
PC: 500,000
(as of Nov 6)


http://bf3blog.com/2011/11/battlefield-3-xbox-360-sales-top-playstation-3-and-pc-combined/

Because blocking an IP address isn't simple. Remember when Pakistan tried to block Youtube and brought down their entire Internet network? Blocking the IP addresses to foreign piracy sites also ends up blocking the IP addresses of a lot of legitimate sites that sell US goods in foreign markets.

So blocking IP addresses would be harmful, not blocking pirate sites. This is a bit different than pirate sites 'bringing money into the US economy'.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Oh?

Xbox 360: 2.2 million
PlayStation 3: 1.5 million
PC: 500,000


http://bf3blog.com/2011/11/battlefield-3-xbox-360-sales-top-playstation-3-and-pc-combined/

Reading comprehension is vital:

The numbers aren’t 100% accurate as some digital retailers, including EA’s Origin, haven’t disclosed their sales numbers, so it’s likely that the numbers for the PC version are higher than reported.

They should have put that in bold, since BF3 wasn't available on Steam, EA cornered the entire digital distribution market on BF3.

That said though 360 sales and PS3 sales are higher than I knew and likely have topped PC which I'm going to guess is somewhere around 1,000,000. That said, 1,000,000 is nothing to scoff at.

LordofHats wrote:

The numbers aren’t 100% accurate as some digital retailers, including EA’s Origin, haven’t disclosed their sales numbers, so it’s likely that the numbers for the PC version are higher than reported.

They should have put that in bold, since BF3 wasn't available on Steam, EA cornered the entire digital distribution market on BF3.

That said though 360 sales and PS3 sales are higher than I knew and likely have topped PC which I'm going to guess is somewhere around 1,000,000. That said, 1,000,000 is nothing to scoff at.

No its not, but you would think if EA was so proud of Origin, they would be touting how amazing it sold on their platform.

Until they release solid numbers, we are just speculating on how well it did on PC.

daedalus-templarius wrote:No its not, but you would think if EA was so proud of Origin, they would be touting how amazing it sold on their platform.

Until they release solid numbers, we are just speculating on how well it did on PC.

I agree actually but this is common on Digital distribution (I don't know why). Digital distribution has almost never been factored into released sales. Steam doesn't even get counted in consumer reports. Why? I have no clue, but the PC market has transitioned to being almost entirely digital sale (which is why you don't find many stores carrying PC copies of anything but the newest releases anymore).

EDIT: It might be because the digital product doesn't need a production process or shipping to reach the market, and companies don't want to publicly disclose how much their making? I always figured Steam maybe just didn't want anyone to know how much money they've been getting over the years for fear someone would muscle in on their quasi-monopoly.

LordofHats wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:No its not, but you would think if EA was so proud of Origin, they would be touting how amazing it sold on their platform.

Until they release solid numbers, we are just speculating on how well it did on PC.

I agree actually but this is common on Digital distribution (I don't know why). Digital distribution has almost never been factored into released sales. Steam doesn't even get counted in consumer reports. Why? I have no clue, but the PC market has transitioned to being almost entirely digital sale (which is why you don't find many stores carrying PC copies of anything but the newest releases anymore).

EDIT: It might be because the digital product doesn't need a production process or shipping to reach the market, and companies don't want to publicly disclose how much their making? I always figured Steam maybe just didn't want anyone to know how much money they've been getting over the years for fear someone would muscle in on their quasi-monopoly.

They already disclose this in their quarterly report/to their shareholders, I'm not sure why it isn't publicly available.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:No its not, but you would think if EA was so proud of Origin, they would be touting how amazing it sold on their platform.

Until they release solid numbers, we are just speculating on how well it did on PC.

I agree actually but this is common on Digital distribution (I don't know why). Digital distribution has almost never been factored into released sales. Steam doesn't even get counted in consumer reports. Why? I have no clue, but the PC market has transitioned to being almost entirely digital sale (which is why you don't find many stores carrying PC copies of anything but the newest releases anymore).

EDIT: It might be because the digital product doesn't need a production process or shipping to reach the market, and companies don't want to publicly disclose how much their making? I always figured Steam maybe just didn't want anyone to know how much money they've been getting over the years for fear someone would muscle in on their quasi-monopoly.

They already disclose this in their quarterly report/to their shareholders, I'm not sure why it isn't publicly available.

daedalus-templarius wrote:They already disclose this in their quarterly report/to their shareholders, I'm not sure why it isn't publicly available.

On which game? Not all consumer reports are made public. Companies can wait years before actually announcing specific numbers. At least as it pertains to shareholders, units shipped is the number that really matters to them. How many were sold ta retail is what they talk less about (EDIT: and is what I'm talking about). It'll probably be another year before we actually see the sales data on BF3 and Origin. It always comes out eventually but I've rarely seen it appear in the immediate sales results which are usually all that ever gets reported. Steam in particular has always been really close to the chest with unit numbers sold (maybe because they don't want their customers they're paying full retail for product Steam can sell with next to no overhead).

I'm trying to remember the last good game that Ubisoft made, and it's escaping me.

Maybe RUSE?

LordofHats wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:They already disclose this in their quarterly report/to their shareholders, I'm not sure why it isn't publicly available.

On which game? Not all consumer reports are made public. Companies can wait years before actually announcing specific numbers. At least as it pertains to shareholders, units shipped is the number that really matters to them. How many were sold ta retail is what they talk less about (EDIT: and is what I'm talking about). It'll probably be another year before we actually see the sales data on BF3 and Origin. It always comes out eventually but I've rarely seen it appear in the immediate sales results which are usually all that ever gets reported. Steam in particular has always been really close to the chest with unit numbers sold (maybe because they don't want their customers they're paying full retail for product Steam can sell with next to no overhead).

I didn't mean a specific game, I was basically just saying what you said there, but shorter

Melissia wrote:I'm trying to remember the last good game that Ubisoft made, and it's escaping me.

Maybe RUSE?

Eh, I've been pretty happy with the AC series. But I always play on 360 trolololololol
and Prince of Persia (although, bit downhill lately)
Oh and Splinter Cell, I have all of those too.

I didn't think RUSE was that good.

Last one I really really enjoyed was GR: Advanced Warfighter, but the PC version (and the XBox version) were downright horrible. 360 version however was epically awesome

I liked AC but not enough to buy the sequel. I liked SC series but Double Agent wasn't so grand and Conviction was just... bad... I bought Ruse on sale this past summer but I didn't like it all that much and went back to CoH. I've pretty much ceased buying Ubisoft over outrage about Uplay and their poor games, but I was never much into them to start with so, shrugs.

I didn't mean a specific game, I was basically just saying what you said there, but shorter

I am kind of long winded.

LordofHats wrote:I didn't think RUSE was that good.

Last one I really really enjoyed was GR: Advanced Warfighter, but the PC version (and the XBox version) were downright horrible. 360 version however was epically awesome

I liked AC but not enough to buy the sequel. I liked SC series but Double Agent wasn't so grand and Conviction was just... bad... I bought Ruse on sale this past summer but I didn't like it all that much and went back to CoH.

Aw, you didn't like Conviction? I thought that one was pretty good compared to the previous one. I think Pandora Tomorrow (I think) was the best one so far. Looking forward to where they go after Conviction though.