Piracy/DRM concerns mean PC getting F2P instead ?

[101459]

Looks like we're not to far from seeing another one of these on the GRN fourms:

For this very forum...

[Rocky]

What a way to start my day! Although I kind of saw this one coming, it's still disappointing. I understand they're running a

EDIT: Seems like EuroGamer has confirmation from Ubisoft. Oh well...this sucks.

Wow

The publisher told Eurogamer this afternoon that "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier has not been announced on PC"

Why do Ubi always have to be so ambiguous? If the game is canned come out and say it, don't just say "it hasn't been announced yet", that means NOTHING.

Deja Vu again, or is it groundhog day....

Looks like we're not to far from seeing another one of these on the GRN fourms:

For this very forum...

Nice one, if I wasn't ###### off I'd laugh.

It's almost funny, on the official forums they are known to be painfully slow at adding a new forum for new games, but they've had a GRFS PC forum for a while, and now we are to think there isn't even going to be such a game. Oh the irony.

[Operative]

I also think that the original statment about 95% of gamers pirating games has been "lost in translation somewere. I think it may have been ment as 95% of games are pirated Which would make more sence. I dont think even UBI could make a statement like that

Not that it matters we still aint getting FS for PC

After they started to use their abusive DRM, their PC sell dropped 90%. UBI thinks the people that composes the 90% are now pirating their games. They fail to see it's possible simply don't like their games anymore and think the DMR is "not worth".

Huh? Most buy pirated versions? That sounds a little far fetched; though I'm not saying your wrong. What slays me however is after the PSN debacle, and the PS3 in essence being rooted, combined with the general perception that the PS3 is an inferior console; PS3 title piracy now apparently eclipses PC and 360 piracy combined.

If any of this article is a general reflection of the actual thinking going on at Ubisoft corporate -- it wouldn't surprise me as much as disappoint, as I've been employed by a larger company moribund by being out of touch with market reality and sound business practice...

Well, at least where I live, most (when I say this, It's something like 80% or more) people do pirate XBOX games. In the other hand, few people have the PS3, so the pirating is less noticeable, but it may exist aswell.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Operative

[NoQuarter]

Howdy boys...long time long time.

This still going on?

Oh, whom am I kidding, Of course it is, what is surprising however is the level of honesty in those quotes you are all in a huff about.

Surprising in that the reps would so easily give up the golden-goose that is/was GR:FS(PC)...how else to lure in more suckers to purchase their latest unrelated shovelware by baiting them with that illusory :FS beta access.

____

In related news...

If ever there was a time to not cross-post a topic!!!

____

Typical.

[SCΛRECROW]

The publisher told Eurogamer this afternoon that "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier has not been announced on PC"

Why do Ubi always have to be so ambiguous? If the game is canned come out and say it, don't just say "it hasn't been announced yet", that means NOTHING.

Ubisoft's ambiguity is quite annoying, it would be nice if they came out gave us a no BS press release, but I think the rest of the sentence from Eurogamer says it all:

...and that "Ghost Recon Online is the PC equivalent".

[krise madsen]

...GRIN's work on GRAW and GRAW2 was absolutely fantastic...

No it wasn't (hey, you have your opinion, I have mine, and that's fine)

i understand what you are saying, but graphically it was ahead of it's time, so i'm told. i wasn't playing it when it was released.

*shrugs*

Apart from a few minor niggles, the GRAW graphics looked fine and dandy to me, but then I'm notoriously poor at judging whether graphics are particularly better or worse by contemporary standards. As far as I'm concerned there wasn't much that couldn't be solved with more tweaking and development (like the absolutely horrid pathfinding for the MULE in GRAW2), except for the linear gameplay which quite simply ruined the game. I'm no programmer, but I kinda wonder if it wouldn't have required a whole new game engine to fix that problem.

Anyway, I guess the GR franchise as a tactical shooter has been dead for some time now. Let Ubisoft play with their Kinect and cloaking devices while chasing the other Call of Duty clones.

[DarkAuthority]

Hmmm... Again, IGN lists GRFS as a PC game. What are the actual chances they will/will not release the thing for PC? To me it looks like it's on its way.

[NYR_32]

Hey Ubi here's an idea. Make a better PC game and people might buy them again. The reason their PC sales are down has nothing to do with pirates, it's their poor efforts on this platform, and overhanded DRM that people want nothing to do with. Other developers and publishers have no problem selling good PC games, so enough with the lazy excuse of blaming :pirate:

[bogiegraphics]

It is a real shame that we keep hearing this news of no GRFS for PC, just the GR Online - which may be excellent (too early to tell).

I've noticed that this and other forums that discuss GRFS for PC, that the biggest fans (us) are alwasy very critical of the development of these games and come across as being very hostile. Perhaps if we had more facts and presented our case in a more positive fashion to the folks that mattered at UBI, we could potentially get a more positive response in return.

Understanding that most console games do earn more revenue than their PC game counterparts, but the PC gamers seem to have a more loyal following in the genre. However, when your loyal followers do nothing but berate the developers, it makes it hard to continue to accomodate for less money.

I did buy multiple copies of each GR game for my LAN parties. I did buy GRAW2 for Playstation, but console FPS just was not for me nor will it ever. So hopefully when UBI reads these posts, they read between the lines and just see that we are frustrated and want a great game that we can call our own.

[Rocky]

To be fair, both here and at Ubisoft on forum there are numerous examples of exactly that, constructive and valuable feedback in long detailed threads. It is the fact that this information is overlooked and ignored by ubi that has created the hostile atmosphere you note.

[Ronin01]

I had a feeling that when all any of the Rep's, from Ubisoft, could do was laugh and keep repeating that "We listened to the fans".

It was all BS... The fans were the PC Users. The console versions of the Ghost Recon Series hardly sold at all.

PC Users put Ubisoft on the map. They're "Play for Free" Ghost Recon will crap out and you watch, they're "Console only" will

drop off the charts after about two weeks.

Ronin01

Edited November 25, 2011 by Ronin01

[NYR_32]

To be fair, both here and at Ubisoft on forum there are numerous examples of exactly that, constructive and valuable feedback in long detailed threads. It is the fact that this information is overlooked and ignored by ubi that has created the hostile atmosphere you note.

Yup. We've been doing the constructive feedback thing for YEARS now. I mean at one point we had a heavily moderated GR 2 PC wishlist thread that was entirely constructive feedback, and any negativity was immediately removed. What has all of that gotten us? Nothing much really.

[Bota:16]

While I could care less about GR:FS, but the statements made by UBI are just downright ignorant. I don't know if I should laugh at them or just cry because the level of ignorance is astonishing.

[Clone_Ranger]

Awwww, come on UBISOFT - that isn't really the reason is it?

You took one look at BF3 and thought 'Nope, nobody is going to buy GR:FS!' - so you came up with this rediculous excuse...

You'll sell it to console kids so you can recoup some of your development costs and because you know no matter how crap GR:FS is console kids will buy anything just because it's new.

I have been a Ghost Recon fan since the very beginning and lived in hope - like so many others - that you would have a sudden fit of sanity and 'just give us our old GR again' some day, but no - it's now never going to happen and I've finally come to the end of my tether.

This is my last post about Ghost Recon. I finished with it. I no longer care.

....I'm back off to play BF3....You know, the game that sold five million copies in a micro-second.

[NèMó]

""95% of our consumers will pirate the game""

UBIsoft your so stupid.

I, myself bought over the course of years

4 copys on release day for [GR].

4 copys xpansion pack 1.

4 copys Xpansion pack 2.

6 [GR] Gold editions

2 UK versions of the gold edition.

and not to mention 1 of all. on each console.

One Person, who loves to LAN, and has cheap ass freinds that dont have money to pay for them for some reason. but i paid. you all stiffed us on GR2 now your stiffing us on GR:FS red storm should find another publisher cause you SUCK.

Edited November 27, 2011 by NèMó

[Zeealex]

This is my last post about Ghost Recon. I finished with it. I no longer care.

it's a shame that you are leaving

and it's a shame that ubi's idiocy will reflect badly on this amazing site really, it's a shame Rocky has to take the fall for it

[Colin]

Hi, all Happy BD Rocky AND CONGRATS ON 10 YEARS.

I read this first on the BFS site yes its sad if true, so many years to wait for a publisher to try and get it right, but in the end failed.

Red Storm made the original and UBI took it over staff left and I feel so did the idea and game type with it, I don`t think Ubi is capable of doing anything similar or near as good, and over the years they just confirm it with each release.

Ubi and GR just don`t mesh and I really think never did, the fans tried and god have they given enough help over the years but this company just does not get it.

I am hoping that one studio will fill the gap and yes wait for a game as in 2001 GR that resembles what we love to play.

It is still my wish to bring back what has been lost in time and lost by a company that definatley could have done better.

C.

[MeanMF]

Our best hope now is that Ubisoft continues to lose millions each quarter, their stock price continues to decline, and somebody buys them out. Then there would at least be a chance that the company would be run by people who want to make great games instead of people who are just interested in making games cheaply.

[101459]

While it looks like a foregone conclusion that Ubisoft stock price (and value) will continue to decline and Ubisoft will continue to hemorrhage money; it's far from a 'best hope' that a buyout would be good for any of the Clancy franchise ip, unless a Fan (like Tom himself) was involved in the purchase.

Most of the big guns that have the revenue to buy Ubisoft are no more 'in tune' with the reality of PC gaming revenue share then Ubisoft (because they've done litte better at making it work), and are no more in touch with their audience then any top heavy corporate culture beyond easily ascertained and understood statistics. Add to that the way purchased assets get reshuffled after a buyout is typically more akin to disposal and austerity measures...

Realistically the 'best hope' for the Tactical Realism audience looks like it may be best served by smaller, more adroit, and Fan interested independent ventures like BFS, BI, and SRR&D -- these are the only three players I'm aware of that share the same kind if interests and enthusiasm as Ghost Recon Fans with respect to game design and talk to them directly...

[petsfed]

Where the game really faltered was in the linear gameplay. The whole game (maybe the game engine too? I wouldn't know about the software side of the business) simply wasn't geared towards the Ghost Recon play style of go-anywhere-do-things-how-and-in-what-order-you-want. In fairness, no one else seem to have cracked this either and these days it seems developers have simply given up and are just throwing more COD-style playable cutscenes at us gamers.

And I think that resulted from UBI exerting considerable creative control over the GRAWs. I think the concern was that if we really were allowed to do whatever, then all the NARCOM stuff wouldn't occur in the right order, and then UBI would have to pay to make more (as if we actually wanted the squawky guy in the corner to begin with).

[Zeealex]

if the piracy is an issue to ubisoft, then why is assasins Creed revelations on PC? Why has Rainbow six Patriots been announced for PS3 Xbox360 AND PC, Why is Farcry 3 due out on PC?

bit contradictive, don't you think?

I know different studios, but if it was a real issue to ubisoft, surely it would be relayed to ALL studios, no?

[H_White]

Ghost Recon Game Skipping PC Because of, you Guessed it, Piracy

There's a shiny big Ghost Recon game, Future Soldier, coming to consoles. It won't be coming to PC, though. PC users instead get a free-to-play game called Ghost Recon Online. Why? It's Ubisoft. Take a guess.

"We are giving away most of the content for free because there's no barrier to entry", Ubisoft's Sébastien Arnoult told PC Gamer. "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.'"

Right, but why not bring over Future Soldier as well?

"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."

By not releasing the game at all?

I'd point out the fact Ubisoft may have trouble attracting paying customers because their PC games are ported late and crippled with annoying DRM, and that they, like most other publishers, seems to turn a blind eye to piracy on the Xbox 360, but you know, it's getting perilously close to "broken record" territory about now.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Pave Low
Post moved from the "Release date" thread to the thread where that article had already been posted and was under discussion

[spm1138]

Ubisoft are ######ing imbeciles.

Their ownbrand DRM sucks. Really. It huffs ######. I've had games NOT WORKING OUT OF THE SHRINKWRAP because the key is already in use. I've then had their tech support fail to acknowledge that this is even possible.

They should just go with Steamworks. It's tried, it's tested.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-28-valve-piracy-a-non-issue-for-steam

Ubisoft are presently too weak a publisher for drawing me into an "ecosystem" to be in any way a worthwhile thing.

They're also not understanding that to make DRM effective you need to have a compelling MP game.

The SP game, people can and will get round the DRM on. Especially if it's a five hour thing with no replay.

It's MP where you can most effectively police people playing and MP that keeps people coming back. Make the MP a genuinely competitive, differentiated experience and require a Steam account to play and the problem will solve itself.

The last GR game had pretty weak online play. I tried it twice and then gave up.

It's ###### anyway. They just don't think the PC is a worthwhile market to port their games to.

edit

I've noticed that this and other forums that discuss GRFS for PC, that the biggest fans (us) are alwasy very critical of the development of these games and come across as being very hostile. Perhaps if we had more facts and presented our case in a more positive fashion to the folks that mattered at UBI, we could potentially get a more positive response in return.

No.

Edited November 28, 2011 by spm1138

[=SEALZ= Smerg]

Hey all! How's things Rocky? Good to know you are still around keeping the GR flame alive.

Just wanted to pop in and say really short sighted on UBI's end that they can't think outside of 2001 and monetize a PC release. At first I couldn't believe that article but really for the GR PC fanbase, this is been there, done that territory already.

Anyways be good all. All the best Rocky!

[krise madsen]

Where the game really faltered was in the linear gameplay. The whole game (maybe the game engine too? I wouldn't know about the software side of the business) simply wasn't geared towards the Ghost Recon play style of go-anywhere-do-things-how-and-in-what-order-you-want. In fairness, no one else seem to have cracked this either and these days it seems developers have simply given up and are just throwing more COD-style playable cutscenes at us gamers.

And I think that resulted from UBI exerting considerable creative control over the GRAWs. I think the concern was that if we really were allowed to do whatever, then all the NARCOM stuff wouldn't occur in the right order, and then UBI would have to pay to make more (as if we actually wanted the squawky guy in the corner to begin with).

I actually played GRAW1 today, and it was even more horribad than I remembered. For all it's flaws and warts, it did seem to have potential, and many of these wrinkles were ironed out in GRAW2. However, the single most atrocious flaw, the one that kept it from even approaching GR was the inability to deal with the player trying out non-linear gameplay. Merely sending your team one way around a house and you round the other resulted in enemies spawning either right behind you or right in your face. And this, the single most important feature (for single player and co-op) was NOT improved in GRAW2. I haven't seen any indication that anyone involved with GR development since the first game ever understood this. Or cared. This really was where the Ghost Recon franchise died. Funnily enough, much the same thing happened in Rainbow 6 Vegas: In Terrorist Hunt mode (by nature non-linear) enemies simply spawned right in front or behind you so it didn't matter where or how you moved.

Ubisoft are ######ing imbeciles.

Their ownbrand DRM sucks. Really. It huffs ######. I've had games NOT WORKING OUT OF THE SHRINKWRAP because the key is already in use. I've then had their tech support fail to acknowledge that this is even possible.

They should just go with Steamworks. It's tried, it's tested.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-28-valve-piracy-a-non-issue-for-steam

Ubisoft are presently too weak a publisher for drawing me into an "ecosystem" to be in any way a worthwhile thing.

They're also not understanding that to make DRM effective you need to have a compelling MP game.

The SP game, people can and will get round the DRM on. Especially if it's a five hour thing with no replay.

It's MP where you can most effectively police people playing and MP that keeps people coming back. Make the MP a genuinely competitive, differentiated experience and require a Steam account to play and the problem will solve itself.

The last GR game had pretty weak online play. I tried it twice and then gave up.

It's ###### anyway. They just don't think the PC is a worthwhile market to port their games to.

Guess what, the GRAW1 I installed today wouldn't accept the 16-digit code printed on the manual. Turns out I had to be online, but it didn't say so on the box, nor on the error prompt. And the printing of the code on the manual was sufficiently crude to be easily misread ("is that a V or a U and is that a 5 or an S?"). It didn't even have the usual four boxes for 4-letter sequences: I had to include a hyphen between each 4 letters. What was supposed to be a ridiculously simple operation ("Enter these 16 digits and press OK") turned into quite the marathon. And I'm supposed to trust THESE people to have their always-online-DRM authentication servers working at all times? Or not to shut them down after three months? The only ones to have conquered the PC piracy issue are those that have simply ignored it and found ways to make people WANT to pay for the game. It seems the Ubisoft solution is to make sure no one wants to play their games.

I've noticed that this and other forums that discuss GRFS for PC, that the biggest fans (us) are alwasy very critical of the development of these games and come across as being very hostile. Perhaps if we had more facts and presented our case in a more positive fashion to the folks that mattered at UBI, we could potentially get a more positive response in return.

No.

Indeed. Plenty of people, my self included, have tried. It turned out to be utterly futile.

Edited November 28, 2011 by krise madsen