Not sure why anyone is bringing up the Ubi DRM system as a reason for their financial issues. Like StingingVelvet, I highly doubt that the PC market is that big a piece of the pie for Ubi anyway. And secondly, this is a report for fiscal 2009...the Ubi DRM system didn't even exist for the vast majority of fiscal 2009.

Definitely a one-shot, but worthy of a mention.
Not an exact figure (which is why I didn't quote it), but from a reputable PC gaming magazine in Australia.
What about returns? Though I guess it wouldn't matter depending on the release date.
I didn't mean to imply the gifts attributed to the losses, more the fact that it was a bandaid solution. Which, if they actually offered a sincere apology and the reason being that it was due to their service, then that would be better.
I've never said such a thing. ;)
EA was looking to cash in on the wave of The Sims mania with Spore, and their DRM measures couldn't have come at a worse time, when gamers were starting to pay attention to such ridiculous things as limited machine activations.
To me, that's the lesson that perhaps taught EA something. To seriously think that one title would send EA, of all companies, bust? They've got the capital backing, established franchises and keep snatching awesome IP.
That's one side to the argument. And even with no DRM, and cheap prices, you won't be able to stop pirates. If there's a product, ANY product, there will be a cheap knock-off.
But the more intrusive and annoying the DRM, the more likely you are going to force people to pirate. Pay $100AU for a new game with limited activations/always on internet required/starforce/whatever or spend a few hours downloading something for the cost of an internet connection that has no DRM. That's the other side that doesn't feel like the major publishers are even considering.
I fail to see how that DRM method looked good on paper. Sadly, still, not all PC gamers have an internet connection. You're effectively cutting out potential customers, and who knows how many.
IF it was the DRM (disregarding the new Ubi services, but rather taking into account limited activations, and other measures they have previously used), then yes, they did take the easy way out. They found a scapegoat and latched on firmly. Is there a clear cut indication it was because of the economy? That article in itself was pretty vague, but then again, only an accountant would know in a definitive way that the economy was to blame. I mean, which one of us will pour through all of those logbooks checking the numbers?
But in the end, you're right, we won't really know either way. The "evidence" to prove anything would unlikely ever be released. Their account keeping is none of our business, and since they aren't under any fraud investigation, they don't need to make that information public. And if it was DRM, or hell, just crappy games, it's going to stay an internal thing also.
I think that as far as the DRM issue is concerned, we both see it a different way, but the conclusion would be the same - major publishers gradually ignoring the PC market.
Limited activations (Far Cry 2 for instance), Starforce (though I think they abandoned that quickly) and so on. Limited activations really caused a stir for the PC release of Far Cry 2. And I'm not sure it fared well on PS3, I picked mine up for $28AU not long after release, which is a few dollars over a quarter of what games go for around here.

Console piracy is getting harder and harder to avoid though. It seems like every third ad on my local craigslist video game section is about modding an Xbox 360, Wii or PSP.

Again, what about all the other companies that used these models?

They also feel the effects. EA, as mentioned. And yes, EA didn't go bust, neither will Ubisoft as they still made $80 million euros that year. Which, I can't remember from the article, was profit?
Surely we're allowed to gloat at a giant faltering after perceived wrongs - the worm will turn, after all. ;P
Yes, it is mean-spirited, but PC gamers shouldn't be treated as the largest, unified force of criminals since <insert favourite oppressive system here>.

Ubisoft are the only company that makes you log in. C&C4 uses something like that but EA never cared about C&C

I read this news yesterday, but from a different source which claimed that while Ubi saw an overall loss, they actually reported a gain in terms of PC game sales -- which is most likely why they aren't blaming piracy for losses this time.

And if you had read the thread, instead of just butting in to once again complain about ubi-drm, you would see we are talking about the previous fiscal year :p
There is noting wrong with a bit of gloating. But people here are acting like this is the greatest news ever. And honestly, it isn't. Because even if it is 100% because people knew Ubi-DRM would be coming in the following fiscal year, that is still bad for PC gaming.

I remember someone showing me that EA's only profitable platforms last year were the Wii and PC, the two platforms they show arguably the least attention to.
The whole blockbuster AAA $100 million dollar game for the Xbox sales plan is flawed if you ask me... sure, some games like Modern Warfare and Assassin's Creed sell so much you make a large profit, but it seems like most games are duds and you end up losing more than you make overall, as these financial releases show.
We need to get back to the core of gaming, the root of things. We need to stop this extravagant "we can be like the movie industry too!" B.S. and just make good games. The sales will follow.
No one seems content to be a smaller industry with good sales, all the publishers want to be the next Warner Bros. I talked about this with a developer from Obsidian on formspring (talking being perhaps way to grand a word for such interaction) and his basic summary of the situation is that publishers are not interested in million dollar projects that make 5 million dollars, they all want hundred-million dollar projects that make a billion dollars.

Did read the thread. Enjoyable. If you are going to try and make me feel sorry for Ubisoft it's an uphill struggle.

Not trying to make you "feel sorry for Ubisoft". Just pointing out that there is a difference between "Yay, the people I don't like are not doing as well as they could be for reasons completely unrelated to the reasons i don't like them" and "Yay, they are going to die! Ha ha ha! They deserve it!".
Again, like it or not, but if Ubi goes down, it will be HORRIBLE for PC gaming. Why? Because they have pretty much had a foot equally in both PC and console camps for something like ten years or so (I forget when they really came into being). And even if they die purely because of DRM, that is going to be a massive blow against PC gaming, and another example of why not to bother with designing games with the PC in mind.

I agree with this. The whole "I'd rather they leave the PC all together" thing really makes no sense to me... the PC losing more games to consoles completely will only make PC gaming even less popular.
Ubisoft announcing it will not support the PC anymore would be a tremendous blow to the PC gaming platform. It would almost surely not recover completely and lose many more people to the consoles.

Too many people have too much invested in PC gaming to allow it to collapse; ATI, Intel and Nvidia, for example, and most glaringly Microsoft. Without gaming the market for 3D graphics chips would basically collapse along with the market for high-power CPUs and the perpetual upgrade cycle that sustains Windows sales.
I have two Atom systems here running Linux with integrated graphics and another with a low-end Nvidia graphics chip. If it wasn't for gaming and video editing, why would I need any more than that?
The funny part is that Microsoft's loss-making console division has been instrumental in screwing the PC gaming market that provides much of the support for its high margin Windows sales.

Are you insinuating the average Windows user is anywhere close to that?
The loss of gaming on Windows will never happen anyway, that is not what I meant. PC gaming will NEVER die. But without publishers like Ubisoft and EA considering it worth putting hardcore games on it, all we will get are facebook, popcap and World of Warcraft games.
That is not enough to sustain a platform as a real gaming base. People would game on their Xbox and PS3 and either ignore the PC or use it as a WoW machine. Hell, that has already happened for a ton of people... I see people on forums constantly who have GTX 280 video cards and yet game almost exclusively on consoles, because that is where the "experience" is right now. Losing Ubisoft would ratchet up that trend like a firecracker.

Why? Ubisoft made it clear they are interested in consoles. PC is the last on their mind. Let them die and enjoy it.