The Needles: You Only Have Yourself To Blame

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I think the expectation was that, as ridiculous as the system was, it would at least work as advertised.
It hasn't. Not at all. And it shows no signs of working for many users in the near future. I think the level of outrage has been well justified, both now and when Ubisoft first announced the system.

AC10:
Exactly. Ubisoft knows exactly how we feel, they know we're all pissed off at this legendary grade of bullshit DRM. However, if the game still sells Ubisoft's upper management (the ones who make these decisions) won't care. If you want to let Ubisoft know how you feel bitch on the forums. If you want to SHOW them how you feel don't buy the game. Hell, don't buy any of their games - I know I won't be.

I don't care a rat's ass about Ubisoft's games, not AC2 and definitely not SH5. I didn't buy either of them, and I never will. I only enraged by the sheer lack of responsibility that company is showing regarding this whole issue and the way they treat their own fucking customers. It's insane! But bitching on the Ubi forums is totally useless. I know they are aware how angry the whole gaming community is, but they aren't doing anything other than trying to shift the blame and lying shamelessly. What the fuck has the world come to...

So... wait. Ridiculous DRM schemes are gamer's fault for being gamer's and wanting to play games?

Gee, thanks.

The problem is, people like to make their decision over whether to buy a game based upon the quality of the game, not on its security methods. UbiSoft makes quality games and I wish it would just get it together so anti-DRM peoples such as myself wouldn't have to toss the consideration of buying their games.

Playbahnosh:

Susan Arendt:

Playbahnosh:

Most of them bought AC2 and other Clusterfuck™-ed games very well aware of they are getting into, but what else could they do? Either put up with it, or not play (or pirate it, yes, but that's not the point here).

Odd that not buying the game isn't in your list of options.

Don't like the DRM? Don't buy the game. Period. Or, if you make the choice to deal with the DRM because you simply can't live without playing the game, then accept that you've made your choice.

It's in there, look!

Don't get me wrong, but your stance on this doesn't make any sense. Put up with the DRM and accept responsibility for it's failure or don't buy it? If there is a game you really wanna play, there is not much of choice there, isn't it?

Gamers shouldn't have to choose between not buying a game or getting on the wrong end of the sucked dick if they do. This is just wrong. Hell, these people actually pay for the game with real money. They should have the right to play the game whenever they damn well want to, and the company holding the DRM should be fucking maintaining their stupid servers, because that's what the players' paid for. If they are not doing that, they are literally robbing their customers.

Now, I'm not saying people who willingly paid money for a game like this, knowing the implications of the DRM, are totally home free in the matter. But expecting a company to live up to it's own end of the deal is only natural, since they are enforcing all kinds of crap on the player and are willing to sue the fuck out of them if they brake the rules. This should be true in reverse. I say, if the company breaks the rules, the players have all the fucking right to be enraged, and this case, this is what happened. It's not the players who came up with this fucking DRM scheme and it's not the players who promised it will work and promised to maintain the servers 24/7, it was Ubisoft. So if they are not living up to their end of the deal, it's not the player's fault. Period.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not for one moment saying that Ubisoft isn't just sucktastic for everything it's done to this point. I'm not letting them off the hook at all, or trying to absolve them of their culpability. Just saying that if you buy something knowing that a very real possibility exists that it's going to be rendered inoperative...freaking out when that happens seems a bit unreasonable.

No, it's not the players who came up with this DRM scheme, or who'd promise it would work...but it is the players who made the choice to bet $60 that Ubisoft would live up to its end of the bargain from day one.

I'm not even saying they had to swear off the game forever, but how about holding off for a few weeks to see how things shook out?

ClockworkDC:
So... wait. Ridiculous DRM schemes are gamer's fault for being gamer's and wanting to play games?

Gee, thanks.

That's the thing, ultimately people who bought the game knew (or should have known) what they were getting into when they bought it. However it is UbiSoft's fault for not keeping their servers up to par.

AC10:

Exactly. Ubisoft knows exactly how we feel, they know we're all pissed off at this legendary grade of bullshit DRM. However, if the game still sells Ubisoft's upper management (the ones who make these decisions) won't care. If you want to let Ubisoft know how you feel bitch on the forums. If you want to SHOW them how you feel don't buy the game. Hell, don't buy any of their games - I know I won't be.

Y'know, right or wrong, the worst victims of this whole sorry mess . . . at least the ones I feel bad for on their side of the fence - are the artists and developers of the game. The ones that might have a cot nearby, or even two chairs to push together so they can go horizontal when they need to. Any of them that put their heart and soul into the game, only to watch management (or management company, producer, whatever) cripple it before sending it out into the world.

I'm a programmer, why they have my sympathy.

As far as the forums go, it's not enough. A previous poster was right in that a lot of sites are, if not outright deleting&banning complaining consumers, routing their posts to obscure areas away from the "general" forum population. I've even caught a few "editing" people's posts.

AC10:

squid5580:

AC10:

squid5580:
Now if it stated on the back/ side top or bottom of the box a quick explanation like "will require a constant internet connection and our servers to work to play" then yes you would have a point.

It does. Hell, it's even right on the steam store:

3rd-party DRM: Ubisoft’s Online Services Platform. Ubisoft requires a permanent Internet connection to play this video game at all times.

And no, this isn't hidden away in some little fine print on the bottom of the store page, it's above the fold and in the "game details" section on the right which almost every steam user (I at least assume) checks.

Fine that is great for Steam but how about a brick and mortar retail copy? And note the one very important piece of information lacking in that description. Nowhere does it say thier servers going down will effect your game. You just need an online connection.

I don't have a retail copy (as I said, I'm never buying this game). But yeah, the description doesn't state it Ubi's servers go offline. However, it's titled "Ubisoft's Online Services Platform" you should probably look up a DRM system you've never heard of.

But really, is steam supposed to cover EVERYTHING that could possibly go wrong with the DRM service (not to mention that Ubisoft itself writes the description). If a DRM needs to constantly have an internet connection you should SURELY be savvy enough to know it's talking to some server somewhere.

Not neccassarily. I would expect it to be talking to serverS. That they would have back ups and contingency plans that if something were to happen like thier server gets attacked that would be a problem on thier end. Not mine. That I would never know unless I was surfing the net and came across some article about it. Not find out by popping in my game and it not working. Or it shutting down in the middle of my play session.

I'm left to wonder why I haven't heard anyone say this before.
Ofc they're not gonan give a shit as long as people keep buying their games.

But i guess people doesn't have teh willpower to boycut stuff. I've boycut my local McD about every third time i used the drive through due to them beeing too useless to give me everything i paid for. But I end up there again and again anyways.

I totally agree. I had 50 bucks lined up to play it (since I've finished Mass Effect 2, which has DRM albeit less-horrid DRM), but they can keep their game.

The question, though: if the game tanks how do we make sure that Ubisoft realizes it's because we chose to avoid it and its DRM, not because it was pirated? I'm not going to play it, period. Not now, not on the discount rack, not _ever_ unless they change their tune and patch it to not require this crap.

But we all know the publisher: if it's a hit it'll be despite piracy, and if it tanks it'll be because of it. How do we tell them?

What I want to know is, was this DRM advertised on the retail copies? If you buy a copy of WoW at EB it has a sticker on it saying "Internet Connection Required to Play", and on top of that the staff are supposed to ask you if you are aware it is an online game. Given that AC2 is basically in the same boat, was it advertised as such?

zehydra:

ClockworkDC:
So... wait. Ridiculous DRM schemes are gamer's fault for being gamer's and wanting to play games?

Gee, thanks.

That's the thing, ultimately people who bought the game knew (or should have known) what they were getting into when they bought it. However it is UbiSoft's fault for not keeping their servers up to par.

So thats it, then? Suck it up, or move on?

The problem I have with laying the blame at the consumer's feet, is that I fail to see what the hell gamers could do to correct the problem. By the time the DRM was announced, it must have been a company-approved accepted method that was always going to happen irregadless of the outcry. So whether I buy Assassin's Creed 2 or not - or whether anyone buys Assassin's Creed 2 or not - there it is with its online-all-the-time DRM. What can I do to change that? If I want to play Assassin's Creed 2, I can't buy a non-DRM version. I have no power at Ubisoft to make a corporate-executive decision. I could hope that, if enough people don't buy it out of DRM protest that Ubisoft *might* change its mind but there is no garuntee of either of those things happening. This 'choice' that gamers are claimed to have is a false one: if they want to play AssCreed2, they have to deal with the DRM; if they don't want to play it, they don't buy it. The people who want to play it but don't want to play with the DRM don't get the option and are always going to be unhappy, whatever happens. Given the alternatives, if I was one of those people I'd probably prefer being happy playing AssCreed 2 whilst being unhappy about DRM, than being unhappy about not playing AssCreed 2 but happy about not dealing with DRM. That's hardly the fault of the gamer who, by definition, WANTS TO PLAY GAMES. Circular logic, much?

Its like saying its the rain's fault for it being a rainy day. The rain is always going to be there, but it is the prevalent weather conditions that dictate where, when and how it rains.

For that matter, am I not allowed to purchase the game with the expectation that it will work as promised, and then rage when it doesn't? Whilst we all could probably guess that something was going to go wrong somewhere, there was no thundering voice from the sky that told us it was DEFINATELY going to happen. Its all well and good laughing at the chumps in hindsight, but what if it hadn't happened? Ubisoft's servers had miraculously stayed up? Would that have been down to the gamers, too?

TBH, when I first saw this I began to get angry. At first I thought it was blaming the consumers for the DRM, but luckily it was more about the ignorance of consumers so I can calm down a little.

People were complaining for a long time about how "popular" games get all the hate and how people shouldn't complain about losing things like dedicated servers, Wiimote controls or how the rumblepack isn't used.

Then something like this happens. Whatever Ubisoft was thinking, this is equivalent to only being able to use your purchase when you're on the phone to your dealer.(Analogy deliberate)

Like I said before, if you promote something as unassailable, all you are doing is saying "Crack goes here".

Wake up people. Even if Ubisoft are doing this purely to fight piracy, they have not only failed, but recruited new consumers to piracy.

I stick to my principles. Anything with that level of DRM (including StarCraft 2) will see no playtime from me. And if I get it as a present, I'll return it.

Unfortunately, gamers are quick to anger when they don't get things they way but slow to do anything about it. The people who wanted to play AC2 but didn't want to mess with Ubi's DRM said that either Ubisoft should take it away or that they should pirate it on principle. 'Not buying the game' apparently never crossed their minds.

I don't mean something like the ridiculous boycotts. I mean just not buying a game. I haven't played any game that came out since Q3 2009 and I haven't burst into flames. But someone who considers themselves a hardcore gamer thinks it's their right to have the game they want when they want and how they want. Then companies ignore them because they don't have the self-control to wait a week until they buy it, they preorder it months before it's sold.

I frankly don't understand this mindset. I tried to keep up with latest releases, and had to give up after less than a month. I have neither money nor time for it. I played Dead Rising last month, used, and it was not a bit worse than it would have been three years ago.

Susan Arendt:
No, it's not the players who came up with this DRM scheme, or who'd promise it would work...but it is the players who made the choice to bet $60 that Ubisoft would live up to its end of the bargain from day one.

I'm not even saying they had to swear off the game forever, but how about holding off for a few weeks to see how things shook out?

Bet? BET? For gods' sake, since when is purchasing a video game a freggin gamble? When I pay for a product, I do fucking expect it to work as advertised, and if it doesn't I take it back to the store for a substitute or a refund. But neither of these options are viable in this case. Substituting for what? Another copy of AC2 that won't work either? They don't even give refunds, and that is outrageous. Not even refunds, but anything to compensate their customers for their loss. They only give apologies and blames. What good that does for the people who can't play the game they payed $60 for?

I do get your point. Some of these unlucky bastards did know what they were getting into, but IMHO it does not make them responsible in any way, they paid for a product and they naturally expected it to work as advertised (no matter how idiotic that DRM is, it's still a freggin video game), yet it didn't. I fail to see where is the blame on the customers, really...

As for holding off buying the game to see "how things shake out" might be a good idea, I'm certainly doing that with all my games, I don't believe in hype and especially not in publishers. But enforcing it as a policy could be bad for the industry since most video game purchases are impulse buys.

While I have not yet encountered any problems with the DRM, I, as the consumer am not to blame for any of this bullshit because:

1. I have never pirated a game. Ever. So I have not, am not, and never will contribute to Ubisoft's justification for DRM.
2. I did not, in any way give Ubisoft the idea for this idiotic scheme.
3. I loved the original Assassin's Creed, and since I can't really get my hands on a console right now, I have to get the PC version if I want to play AC2.
4. After a few months of this bullshit, after Ubisoft realizes how expensive maintaining servers for this is, they will most likely ditch the whole idea entirely.

You can blame everyone in general for everything. I believe that's quite a light excuse really.

I agree, but I will say this much. If we stop buying their product they won't think "Oh, that idea failed, time to fix the mistake we made last time!" Instead they will think "The PC is an awful system for us to put games out on, we make no money and is a waste of our time. Lets just focus on consoles!

That is what kills PC gaming. Look at how different MW on PC is compared to MW2. MW2 has no dedicated servers which cripples the game, no modding tools what-so-ever and less of a community feel. Game companies are destroying PC as a gaming platform and us refusing to buy games on it is doing nothing but making it happen faster. Makes me sad...

I want to point out that even though Ubisoft did not go arround pointing guns at out heads to force us to buy their games, they did spend thousands of advertising dollars on AC2. To some of the more trend following gamers out there this is almost equivelent. I fogot how long the game was hyped, but I am sure the thaught going through many player's heads on release date wasn't "I hope the DRM on this does not come arround and screw me." We shouldn't blame people for their impulse buys, for without them the game industry would not be where it is now.

I'd like to thank the hackers who took the servers down, and here and now express my fond hope that those servers continue to die until Ubi gets sued for breach of contract. I hope those poor deluded souls who bought the game thinking "it can't be that bad" lose their minds with impotent rage and dedicate their husks of lives to hunting down Ubisoft execs with bricks. Me? I won't stand to be treated in this manner by a company that relies on me and people like me for its existence. Fuck you Ubisoft, I hope you go bankrupt. I won't be buying ANY of your products until your dumb asses drop this retarded DRM. In the meantime, all you bored internet hackers, if you're fapped out, and want to make a (different) old hand happy, crash Ubi's servers for me eh?

The fact that buying software is a bet is somewhat of a problem in the first place. If the point is that it is unwise to buy such software for that reason then the point is well taken, but that reasoning doesn't make it the case that "you have only yourself to blame." Any reasonable expectation that a company's service will not work as advertised is somewhat irrelevant; if a company makes a claim about the quality of its service, it is solely its fault for not living up to its own claims. When that happens, it is basically a breach of an informal contract. If you promise me the moon and I "fall for it", that still makes you the con artist.

I can proudly count myself among the rare few who saw this coming and stepped out of its way.

Its funny with DRM like this nowadays, before when I bought games it was a process of; Whats the companies track record with titles like this, who is the company that made it, is it in the style of games I go gravitate towards. Now, at the very top of the list is; How crippling is the DRM?

PopcornAvenger:

AC10:

Exactly. Ubisoft knows exactly how we feel, they know we're all pissed off at this legendary grade of bullshit DRM. However, if the game still sells Ubisoft's upper management (the ones who make these decisions) won't care. If you want to let Ubisoft know how you feel bitch on the forums. If you want to SHOW them how you feel don't buy the game. Hell, don't buy any of their games - I know I won't be.

Y'know, right or wrong, the worst victims of this whole sorry mess . . . at least the ones I feel bad for on their side of the fence - are the artists and developers of the game. The ones that might have a cot nearby, or even two chairs to push together so they can go horizontal when they need to. Any of them that put their heart and soul into the game, only to watch management (or management company, producer, whatever) cripple it before sending it out into the world.

I'm a programmer, why they have my sympathy.

As far as the forums go, it's not enough. A previous poster was right in that a lot of sites are, if not outright deleting&banning complaining consumers, routing their posts to obscure areas away from the "general" forum population. I've even caught a few "editing" people's posts.

Thank God somebody here thinks like me. There is really a distinction to be made between Ubisoft Paris, the douche that took such a stupid decision, and Ubisoft Montreal, the talented dudes and ladies that made the game.

Believe me, a few people back here in Montreal must be really pissed at that decision made in freaking France. Anyways, I'm not a PC gamers so I'll still buy their games for XBox (can't wait for Splinter Cell) but please direct your rage at the guilty party and do not bundle all of Ubisoft's people all together.

Andy Chalk:
The Needles: You Only Have Yourself To Blame

Ubisoft may have loaded the gun but you, dear gamer, pulled the trigger, so maybe it's time to stop crying about how unfair it is when it goes off in your face.

Read Full Article

You draw a baseless assumption, in thinking that anyone saavy enough to complain on the forums about thier game not working is also saavy about DRM. Plenty of people know how to go to company website and complain when things aren't working but not all PC gamers troll the escapist, or ign all day reading about DRM Details. Alot of people just go to work, cook dinner, and sit down to play thier new PC game. The last thing this consumer thinks about is something on the internet stopping them from playing thier game that they have a legitimate copy of. It's not as though this kind of DRM is par for the course.

The blame falls on Ubisoft for building a paper guard, and the script kiddies for setting it on fire. I'll grant you that a customer who purchased the game knowing about the DRM was somewhat naive if they thought this was not going to be a bumpy ride, but they are blameless for the system failure, which is the actual problem. Ubisofts attempt to stop pirates effects on thier profits have instead passed some of the damage on to the paying customer. It was a rubbish idea, and some jerks exploited it for cheap laughs.

Slice it how you want but here are the components:

-PC's Open Form makes it relatively easy to pirate any software, regardless of DRM.

-Publishers Attempt to survive in the PC market by developing DRM that stops pirates.

-Ubisoft has taken the DRM vs Piracy escalation to a point that it threatens the enjoyment of the customer with a legitimate physical copy.

Now for my own assumption I'm going to guess that most anyone that did understand the DRM does not own the game. Assuming that, credit for the public outcry goes to people that went to the store, bought a retail copy of Assassins Creed 2, loaded it to thier PC, and found that they were not allowed to play, because somone attacked the system that gives them permission. These people might be naive but they're not to blame. When you buy a game you expect to be able to play it, Ubisofts decision to use this kind of DRM puts thier responsibilty to garuntee that at risk. They loaded a gun and set it at the front door, and left said door unlocked. Was only a short matter of time before some jerk picked it up and pulled the trigger.

In short. Ubisoft made a dangerous weapon, griefers used that weapon, customers suffered.
I'll grant you that anyone who knew about the DRM and bought the game is braindead.
Otherwise I'm left only to wonder if your proposal that it's the victims fault is a weapon of mass trolling. If so nicely done, you got me to type a page up...

I guess the lesson is:

If you come up with a cool song, and you sing it, and it becomes popular, and other people who can sing go on and sing that song, and become popular themselves, and eventually it's nationally recognized, to the point where Family Guy steals it, it's kind of stupid to never sing again because YOU DIDN'T GET PAID!

Money feeds you for a day. Popularity keeps you employed forever. Methinks the quality of games would increase substantially if more developers had to go the Cave Story route. Like minstrels and such, actually depend on donations rather than straight single paid performances.

The people who actually reap the benefits of DRM are rarely the designers. And so far the only 'good' DRM scheme I can think of has to double as a digital delivery system for as many classic games as possible. And most of those old ones use DOSbox, a goddamn free online program, in order to make them run!

Valve was the only one that got it-many of the Steam games merely need Steam to be running, not necessarily connected to the Internet. It should be all, but baby steps.

Piracy killed PC gaming, cost of gaming rigs helped a little.

ClockworkDC:

zehydra:

ClockworkDC:
So... wait. Ridiculous DRM schemes are gamer's fault for being gamer's and wanting to play games?

Gee, thanks.

That's the thing, ultimately people who bought the game knew (or should have known) what they were getting into when they bought it. However it is UbiSoft's fault for not keeping their servers up to par.

So thats it, then? Suck it up, or move on?

The problem I have with laying the blame at the consumer's feet, is that I fail to see what the hell gamers could do to correct the problem. By the time the DRM was announced, it must have been a company-approved accepted method that was always going to happen irregadless of the outcry. So whether I buy Assassin's Creed 2 or not - or whether anyone buys Assassin's Creed 2 or not - there it is with its online-all-the-time DRM. What can I do to change that? If I want to play Assassin's Creed 2, I can't buy a non-DRM version. I have no power at Ubisoft to make a corporate-executive decision. I could hope that, if enough people don't buy it out of DRM protest that Ubisoft *might* change its mind but there is no garuntee of either of those things happening. This 'choice' that gamers are claimed to have is a false one: if they want to play AssCreed2, they have to deal with the DRM; if they don't want to play it, they don't buy it. The people who want to play it but don't want to play with the DRM don't get the option and are always going to be unhappy, whatever happens. Given the alternatives, if I was one of those people I'd probably prefer being happy playing AssCreed 2 whilst being unhappy about DRM, than being unhappy about not playing AssCreed 2 but happy about not dealing with DRM. That's hardly the fault of the gamer who, by definition, WANTS TO PLAY GAMES. Circular logic, much?

Its like saying its the rain's fault for it being a rainy day. The rain is always going to be there, but it is the prevalent weather conditions that dictate where, when and how it rains.

For that matter, am I not allowed to purchase the game with the expectation that it will work as promised, and then rage when it doesn't? Whilst we all could probably guess that something was going to go wrong somewhere, there was no thundering voice from the sky that told us it was DEFINATELY going to happen. Its all well and good laughing at the chumps in hindsight, but what if it hadn't happened? Ubisoft's servers had miraculously stayed up? Would that have been down to the gamers, too?

The idea is that if we all decide not to buy it because of the online DRM, then we as consumers send a powerful message of profit loss to Ubi Soft.

All of this is speculation until we know one good fact: What percentage of customers who buy their games even know what DRM is.

Until that point? We don't even know if a boycott of those who did would affect them one bit anyway.

Huh...

I don't want to call you an idiot, but this article is full of stupid.

I wonder how much in kickbacks The Escapist gets every time the rush to the defence of DRMs and how great and wonderful they are. I mean, damn, now it's "Well, it's a failed experiment, but YOU! You who wanted to actually pay money to enjoy this product, YOU'RE the reason why this happened! Give more money to the industry Gods and quake in fear! Demanding you actually get product for what you offer your cash for is an unreasonable request." So, yes, woe to the PC gamer who decided to actually buy the game that they wanted to play. Obviously if they actually wanted to play this game, they should have pirated it, oh, but then the Escapist will wail about how the evil pirates are ruining everything and just causing this DRM fiasco...

So, yeah, way to be a dick, Andy

zehydra:
The idea is that if we all decide not to buy it because of the online DRM, then we as consumers send a powerful message of profit loss to Ubi Soft.

NO. Bullshit. That cannot ever possibly happen. "Consumers" are not an organised group - they are all individuals. Some of the people who take the time to read the label (on something which doesn't normally have lethal information on the label) will decide to not buy it, and everyone else won't, and will buy it. It's not like it's written in bold letters on the front of the box. You cannot say "Well, if they do bad things, don't buy it" and expect it to make a difference. It means that you don't suffer the problem. But what if you want the next game more? Or the next one? And the DRM keeps getting worse? Consumers have zero power in this scenario. In fact, why am I spelling this out to you? Someone did it above! Go read this post.

And flipside - let's say we DO all not buy it. Awesome! Now, Ubisoft reckon that because more people downloaded copies than people bought it, that their DRM wasn't up to scratch, and they'll try for something more invasive.

This is a LOSE-LOSE situation. We cannot win. They do not see reason or logic or kindness. All that is known by Ubisoft, by Activision, etc, is money. Do not expect anything you do to work.

Playbahnosh:
Bet? BET? For gods' sake, since when is purchasing a video game a freggin gamble? When I pay for a product, I do fucking expect it to work as advertised, and if it doesn't I take it back to the store for a substitute or a refund.

This is absolutely correct. Not even getting into the business of being assumed to be a criminal, and having to prove our innocence every tick of the computer, this is exactly how buying something works. If it does not work, you get your money back. This is not unreasonable. If you want to flip it around, and simply sell me a license, that's fine! But how about when you fail to uphold your end of the license, you compensate me, or I get to take legal action. Isn't that fair, too?

For me, this isn't really about what's legal; what they can get away with. It's about what's ethical. It's unethical to provide a product that can and will break, and then say that you have no responsibility for that, irresponsible to uphold no responsibility to compensate people who paid for it when your system broke.

What frustrates me incredibly is that thre are working options out there, options that people LIKE to see. Steamworks, for one. Put that on Assassin's Creed 2, or Splinter Cell: Conviction, and people will flock to it, and DEFEND UBISOFT for it. "They chose the high ground! The working option that doesn't punish us!" There's no real disadvantage to them. They're already supporting Valve by selling on Steam, so there's no argument that it's helping their competitors succeed when they pay for their DRM.

So, reading this article all I got was "People who buy into Ubisoft's stupid DRM have only themselves to blame, so if you want to play that new game just pirate it.". Because really, voting with my dollars is all well and good, but I still want the game without the ugly DRM.

How else am I going to get it then?

Gildedtongue:
I wonder how much in kickbacks The Escapist gets every time the rush to the defence of DRMs and how great and wonderful they are.

[...snip...]

So, yeah, way to be a dick, Andy

Dude. Fucking read what Andy said. I think he said something like three times: "Ubisoft are huge dicks here, this is an awful goddamn system."

The point he was making is that people need to take responsibility for their actions, do some research, and apply common sense. Don't try even for a second to say he was promoting outrageous DRM. You're either ignorant of what he actually said, or dishonest and have no respect for the authors here.

JaredXE:
So, reading this article all I got was "People who buy into Ubisoft's stupid DRM have only themselves to blame, so if you want to play that new game just pirate it.". Because really, voting with my dollars is all well and good, but I still want the game without the ugly DRM.

How else am I going to get it then?

I think you have to take this one as a loss, and hope they'll fix it for the next one. That's the idea. You can live without one game. If it works well enough, they'll repeal their DRM on older games. Especially if they shut down the servers.

Otherwise, yeah, you can't play this because your ideals are too strong. Kinda sucks, but it makes you a good person. It made me $130AUD richer when I cancelled my collector's edition preorder, too.

Fenixius:

zehydra:
The idea is that if we all decide not to buy it because of the online DRM, then we as consumers send a powerful message of profit loss to Ubi Soft.

NO. Bullshit. That cannot ever possibly happen. "Consumers" are not an organised group - they are all individuals. Some of the people who take the time to read the label (on something which doesn't normally have lethal information on the label) will decide to not buy it, and everyone else won't, and will buy it. It's not like it's written in bold letters on the front of the box. You cannot say "Well, if they do bad things, don't buy it" and expect it to make a difference. It means that you don't suffer the problem. But what if you want the next game more? Or the next one? And the DRM keeps getting worse? Consumers have zero power in this scenario. In fact, why am I spelling this out to you? Someone did it above! Go read this post.

And flipside - let's say we DO all not buy it. Awesome! Now, Ubisoft reckon that because more people downloaded copies than people bought it, that their DRM wasn't up to scratch, and they'll try for something more invasive.

This is a LOSE-LOSE situation. We cannot win. They do not see reason or logic or kindness. All that is known by Ubisoft, by Activision, etc, is money. Do not expect anything you do to work.

Playbahnosh:
Bet? BET? For gods' sake, since when is purchasing a video game a freggin gamble? When I pay for a product, I do fucking expect it to work as advertised, and if it doesn't I take it back to the store for a substitute or a refund.

This is absolutely correct. Not even getting into the business of being assumed to be a criminal, and having to prove our innocence every tick of the computer, this is exactly how buying something works. If it does not work, you get your money back. This is not unreasonable. If you want to flip it around, and simply sell me a license, that's fine! But how about when you fail to uphold your end of the license, you compensate me, or I get to take legal action. Isn't that fair, too?

For me, this isn't really about what's legal; what they can get away with. It's about what's ethical. It's unethical to provide a product that can and will break, and then say that you have no responsibility for that, irresponsible to uphold no responsibility to compensate people who paid for it when your system broke.

What frustrates me incredibly is that thre are working options out there, options that people LIKE to see. Steamworks, for one. Put that on Assassin's Creed 2, or Splinter Cell: Conviction, and people will flock to it, and DEFEND UBISOFT for it. "They chose the high ground! The working option that doesn't punish us!" There's no real disadvantage to them. They're already supporting Valve by selling on Steam, so there's no argument that it's helping their competitors succeed when they pay for their DRM.

You'd be surprised what the masses can achieve. You're right though, consumers are not organized, though we could become organized if we wanted to. Why don't we?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here