The Needles: You Only Have Yourself To Blame

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

nametakentwice:

Meanwhile, I disagree with your point, Susan. I note the following two statements you have made.

Susan Arendt:

The single best way for gamers to make sure Ubisoft - or anyone else - doesn't have DRM like this again is to simply not buy the game. Your dollars speak louder than any comment on any forum ever will.

Susan Arendt:

I'm very aware that most folks buying games don't know a tenth of what someone on this site does...

My comments about not buying a game with insidious DRM are directed solely at people who a) know what it is, and b) have a problem with it and/or don't want Ubi to continue making games with it.

As you note yourself, "most" people don't know about the DRM. This refutes your earlier point about the best way for gamers to take a stand is not to buy the game. Gamers not buying the game would be a dramatically powerful statement to the company if and only if a vast number of them act in concert in not buying this game. Plus, console gamers would have to act in unison, or the company would likely just stop making the PC port and concentrate on the consoles. These are theoretical concepts that currently have a very low probability of happening. There are better actions for individual gamers to take. Not buying the game is an anonymous action that the company will not even be aware of, unless a statement is made to the company at the same time.

An excellent argument. Then what *should* gamers do? Commenting on forums, even bitching at Ubisoft directly is unlikely to have any impact for the very reasons you brought up. So what recourse is there?

nametakentwice:

As for the car statement

Susan Arendt:

Also, I'm a bit confused by one point you made. "We're buying a game, not a car." I just don't follow your point...sure, one purchase is a great deal larger than other, and one is a luxury while the other is a necessity, but a purchase is a purchase, no?

No, not all purchases are equal. A car isn't simply "a great deal larger", it is a product that involves the safety of your and other people's lives.

Well, yeah, I know that, for crying out loud. Sheesh. But is the point really that you shouldn't care about purchases that can't potentially kill you? I'm guessing not, so I'm just sort of baffled why it got brought up in the first place.

Susan Arendt:
Then what *should* gamers do? Commenting on forums, even bitching at Ubisoft directly is unlikely to have any impact for the very reasons you brought up. So what recourse is there?

What gamers *should* do is exactly what they're doing. What is happening is exactly what *should* be happening. What's happening is not necessarily good but this could not have been prevented by anyone but Ubisoft. I have no doubt that some people did not buy the game because they knew the risk but the fact that so many people did buy it just means they didn't know they needed to be worried. Well now they know and if they're smart they'll look out for it in the future. When a kid burns his hand on the stove after you told him not to do you scold him? No, the stove already did that. Put a band-aid on it and tell him not to touch the stove again.

Well then, I preordered Ass2 without reading the small print at the bottom of the page even though it was in capital letters (kudos to Gamesplanet), but who bothers scrolling past PREORDER button? And here comes the punchline... Apart from 10 minute wait for the game to log in on Monday, I had absolutely no problems with this evil new horrible DRM. No stuttering (the game will pause when connection is bad), no drops to desktop (it will exit when connection is lost). I'm completely satisfied with my purchase. I'm not defending Ubisoft, but I just want to point out that most posts on this and other similar forums are made by people who claim they haven't bought the thing, moreover, they make a pledge never to buy another Ubisoft title (author of the article included). So my point(s) is/are this:
1. Whole thing is overblown
2. People who actualy had problems are too ashamed to admit they bought the bugger
3. It's less fuss than motherfathering Starforce (I had headaches over that beauty)
4. It IS a great game and it does look and sound best on a PC connected to a 32 inch TV and 7.1 speakers
5. Firefox spellchecker doesn't work as well as it used to...

If you buy a game called "crappy computer game" then you should expect a crappy computer game and not complain when it is crap. If you buy a came called "great computer game" but it turns out to be crap, then there is nothing wrong with going to the forums to point out why it is crap despite promises of being great.

*tiptoes around the blame game* Whew! Dodged that!

Right, well, I don't entirely agree with the article, but not for the same reason as many of the posters here. I've only seen it mentioned a couple of times at most. Why don't I agree? Well, because the "don't buy the DRM PC version" option doesn't leave me any leeway whatsoever. My PC is the beginning and end of my home entertainment. If I choose not to buy a PC title, I will not be buying that game in any other form because I have no desire to lash out mo' monies on a console.* For the lucky people that have the choice, more power to you. But I can imagine that, when Ubisoft (or whoever) come to look at their balance sheets with the profits from each platform, they'll see a big hole under "PC" and most likely attribute it to piracy or the fact that the PC platform is "dead" - or probably both - and the suits will look at each other and decide to scrap PC releases altogether. After all, a PC can have an almost infinite number of possible configurations with shedloads of non-standard architecture, drivers and software. It's an absolute minefield and a total time and money waster to try and sort that mess out - what's the point of supporting it if it doesn't pay its way? MUCH better to concentrate on those nice consoles with their carbon-copy configurations that we can easily control and check up on. Time, hassle and money saved in one easy, painless** stroke and we even get out of explaining to the shareholders how that expensive DRM was a complete failure! Woooooo! *round of high-fives*

That's what I'm worried about - the total disappearance of the PC format. I haven't bought AC2 (although I hadn't really considered buying it either, so I doubt it counts as a lost sale). I didn't buy Spore, or pirate it either. I only bought Bioshock in a moment of weakness when I saw it bundled with Oblivion for 20 quid after most of the DRM furore had died down on it. I happily paid full price for World of Goo. I haven't pirated a game since my Uni days - I have a decent job now so I can't plead cheapness and I want to look after my pride and joy, which means not loading it up with potential spyware and trojans. I don't like DRM, and I try to avoid titles that come bundled with more extreme versions (yes, I do use Steam), but it's becoming an increasingly difficult task to find mainstream, big-title games that don't come packaged with a DIY millstone for your neck and your system. The only sensible suggestion I've seen so far is the one about writing a letter to the company to state your reasons for not purchasing their game, but I'm pessimistic about even that having any effect - it's rather like a petition, and I never heard of one of those having any effect whatsoever. Am I going to face a time in the (near) future when I'm going to be forced to buy a console if I still want to call myself a gamer? Because that will suck hard.

Or maybe I'll just say "screw you, electronic games!", dig out my RPG rulebooks and hit the table. Yay for friends, pizza, beer, dice and a fun evening pretending to be a Dwarven stripper! :p

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* No diss on the consoles, just that I don't have the money and inclination to get one if I don't need to; my PC has pretty much everything covered, plus the mouse+keyboard thing. Love my mouse and keyboard. I don't own a TV either, so it's not just the cost of a console that needs to be considered. :/

** Except to me and other PC-only gamers. :(

Amazon warrior:
I can imagine that, when Ubisoft (or whoever) come to look at their balance sheets with the profits from each platform, they'll see a big hole under "PC" and most likely attribute it to piracy or the fact that the PC platform is "dead" - or probably both - and the suits will look at each other and decide to scrap PC releases altogether.

This is something I thought about too, even if I didn't bother to mention it.
If PC sales aren't up to snuff they'll just scrap the medium altogether and focus on consoles like you said.
It also seems that not everyone had the same problems, so it's hard to say that all of this isn't just empathetic in nature, and the real problem isn't actually very widespread.

Also, almost every game is called 'best game ever' by the developer, and if it's garbage then we have every right to complain about it; but not if we had the foresight to look first to see if it really was bad. Then our complaints are general and no longer righted by saying that the game should have been good because the developer said so.
You wouldn't sell a scrap box as a 'luxury car' if you didn't want to sell it.

Ubisoft could have stopped and said "Hey, we messed up, here's a patch that makes the online a check rather than a constant monitor". They could have researched their DRM methods even more before implementing them, or even forgo DRM and focus on getting people to buy the game on it's merits and not because it won't work if you don't.

One of the issues at hand related to all this is;
Not everyone thinks the same thing is good for the same reasons, and the same goes for the things people think are bad. Nor do people think the same of certain things at all.
Everyone has a different opinion, and many times people end up riding on a big controversial opinion even if it's not their own, until it gets overblown.

Note my own hypocrisy for even participating.

Susan Arendt:
An excellent argument. Then what *should* gamers do? Commenting on forums, even bitching at Ubisoft directly is unlikely to have any impact for the very reasons you brought up. So what recourse is there?

Indeed. What recourse is there? There's none. I'm dead serious in this. We, the consumers, have no power in this relationship.

Pessimistic though it is, we have to seriously consider this possibility. We cannot change their mind.

Buyers are responsible for researching the quality and reputation of a product beforehand.
Sellers are responsible for delivering a product that works as advertised.

This Ubisoft DRM does not work as advertised, a significant portion of the time, despite buyer's compliance with all provisions of the agreement. It should therefore be able to be returned.

The buyer is not responsible for "knowing" about the DRM scheme for a particular game, unless it is provided on the back of the box as a system requirement.

Chargebacks send a MUCH stronger message to Ubisoft than not buying or pirating the game. They show up directly on the spreadsheet at Finance HQ.

"Strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

But let's be fair; PC gamers are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. They can buy an A-list game and put up with the egregious demands of whatever passes for the current fad in DRM, or they can not buy an A-list game and contribute to the unlikelihood that the next A-list game will be ported to the PC at all. Or they can complain, or try to stage a (largely ineffective) public boycott, and most likely get called whiners.

Just what exactly are gamers supposed to do? And for that matter, as stupid as this last turn was, what is Ubisoft supposed to do?

Both sides are to be blamed.
Sure, the heavy toll on the server didn't help.
but, Ubisoft can also be blamed for there DRM system is pretty much promoting piracy to some people.

Also, I can understand the anger of the consumer. If you buy a game, you almost always expect to be able to play it when they want to...

I'm just wondering why developers make games for PC anymore. PC gamers seem to love to pirate, nit-pick, and complain about the everything, from the lack of graphically perfect grass in the far corner of the map, to the protection of the games that they forced upon themselves.

Susan Arendt:

Nothing at all, so long as you're willing to accept the potential consequences of that decision. As you say, it all boils down to "buyer beware." It's certainly not the consumer's fault that Ubisoft instituted this DRM or that the servers went down, but it is your fault if you put yourself in a position to be affected by it.

Also, I'm a bit confused by one point you made. "We're buying a game, not a car." I just don't follow your point...sure, one purchase is a great deal larger than other, and one is a luxury while the other is a necessity, but a purchase is a purchase, no?

To start with the "game vs car" issue I am going to assume as someone working on this site that you see video games as art, as a form of entertainment or a hobby. A car is a facilitator that serves a practical function. It is a necessity in life so a person SHOULD definitely be informed about their purchase. If you buy any car that you see you really don't have any right to complain when the engine catches on fire or the brake lines trip out and you go crashing into your neighbor's fence, unless of course it was a really shifty salesman.

A video game, no matter how revered does not hold weight to the practical function of an automobile. It is a piece of entertainment and you're going to have to forgive the average person if they did not go online and read months of criticism aimed at DRM. A purchase is a purchase yes, but they are in two completely different leagues. Buying a game does not require the same level of consumer awareness that we have when buying a car.

Now to the first point

A key relationship between a buyer and a seller is that there has to be a certain level of trust between them. In order for the seller to sell a product which has flaws they have to ensure the product will function as best at it can. If the buyer may often still want the product even after they are aware of the risk.

As with the car salesman analogy above, Ubisoft at least in my view are not exactly what you call the "shifty" car salesman. Their name is pretty well known even among non gamers. A lot of the times much of the criticism directed towards a game or company is just empty ranting from the internet (which of course is in abundance). As I said in an earlier post we have a fair right to trust a well established seller even if we are aware of the risk. Of course there has to be a limit to our outrage, but so far as calling us responsible is highly unfair.

In a free market the seller always has an advantageous position. Did you know that when you buy McDonald's, very few people realize how unfairly treated local farmers are or how much they are getting screwed over. When you buy free trade coffee you're essentially supporting the exploitation of South American coffee traders, when you buy Shell brand petrol for your car you just acknowledged the death of protesters in South Africa the company had "neutralized", even when you buy insurance there is a litany of fine print you maybe unaware even if you do your homework. But do we boycott everything? No. We all play the market despite the risks and obvious ethical issues behind the scenes.

First you ask us to boycott and if we still continue to buy that's our own choice and you should respect that. We knew the risks. But when you accept that it's our choice and then Andy come around to say we're 'culprits in this. An accomplice, a cohort, whatever." IS a judgment. One that comes from a highly morally presumptuous position that is contradicting and condescending.

While I appreciate Andy's "balls" to say what he has to say which makes him who he is and quite frankly makes him an interesting read, in this particular case, no I strongly believe that he is wrong to judge us so harshly.

Andy Chalk:

DoW Lowen:
I think I speak for many of us when I say we're offended that we're somehow in your eyes seen as "culprits" in all of this.

You are a "culprit" in this. An accomplice, a cohort, whatever. You supported Ubisoft's DRM by giving them your money. That's not a judgment, that's a fact. Being offended because I had the temerity to point it out doesn't change anything.

I suppose I could use the Nuremberg defense and argue that we have no choice in the matter. It's not as if people CHOSE the DRM to be implemented, it's just an unavoidable part of the game that people have to put up with to play a genuinely good game.

And I'm sorry to say, yes it IS a judgment. Pointing out that we bought it is a fact. Calling us responsible for Ubisoft's mistake is a judgment.

And as Silk_Sk said this is the first time this system has been implemented. It would be tempting to jump up say I told you so, but you can't hold such a contemptuous position for people who expected it to work despite hypothetical situations that have come true.

The second time it happens I'll join you in the ridicule. But until then, I hope you see your judgments are not reasonable.

DoW Lowen:
[(game vs car)

Ahhhhhh, ok, now I see where you're coming from. Thanks for spelling that out, makes much more sense now.

BlindChance:

Susan Arendt:
An excellent argument. Then what *should* gamers do? Commenting on forums, even bitching at Ubisoft directly is unlikely to have any impact for the very reasons you brought up. So what recourse is there?

Indeed. What recourse is there? There's none. I'm dead serious in this. We, the consumers, have no power in this relationship.

Pessimistic though it is, we have to seriously consider this possibility. We cannot change their mind.

This is how I've felt for a long time about it. There is no solution that can come from us. Ball is not in our court. This is true on many issues - from politics, to economics, to civil rights, to war, to diplomacy - 99.99999% of people have absolutely zero power in a vast number of situations which affect them deeply.

It's horribly unfair, but it's how it is. I think the better question to ask is "What else can we do, but complain?"

Well, piracy is to blame for this... but not all gamers are stealing games. They should try to find a better way than making gamers hate them. They have now personally challenged hackers to break their code. Nice.

Actually piracy is the scape goat of this situation Ubisoft would rather use this DRM to kill off the second hand market, the problem with openly saying that is it makes them looking like total and utter douche bags, another user here said this

How many people that buy pre-owned games are aware that none of the money they're spending has gone to the people that made it?

Well the same is true of any second hand market. I buy a second hand VW from a Ford dealership, how much of that cash will go to VW? These software companies believe they are owed money from a section of the industry that traditionally offers very little return to the original creator of the product and like my example shows that is the case across pretty much ALL forms of second hand markets.

Pirates or the scapegoats here would normally never have bought the game in the first place and chances are that this DRM won't change that. What it does do though is paint a massive target on the back of Ubisoft. Ubisoft literally stuck a 'kick me' sign on their backs and the pirate sector decided to put on their size 12 steel toe capped boots.

As for blaming knowledgable gamers for complaining about the service provided by the DRM. Well given that Ubisoft have been breathlessly arrogant about this DRM they have every right to complain. A knowledgable gamer will know that server maintenance will happen but most developers will announce such service and usually it only lasts a short period of time. Their servers have been on and off for the last few days and for more than a short period so, yes the people complaining have every right to do so.

Ubisoft made bold claims about this DRM and it has failed, not only that it is failing the people who, which ever way you slice it, pay Ubisoft's wages. So doesn't matter how much you did or do not know about the DRM involved you have EVERY right to complain about it.

On a personal note I pre ordered Silent Hunter 5 prior to this DRM being confirmed, the second I heard SH5 would use it I cancelled my pre order. I have strong objections to paying for something that may or may not work at the behest of someone else and over which I have no control and I have no desire to pay £40 for the privelage of spending my time on Ubisoft's forums telling them that their DRM is a shite pile and that they are a bunch of moronic douche bags, oh and maybe occasionally getting to play the actual game, when their servers are actually working.

DoW Lowen:

Every time some troll post arrives about the benefits of PCs over consoles some PC evangelist talks about how much more tech savvy, in touch with software developments and generally more intelligent PC gamers are than console gamers. That PC gamers know their machines and are superior for this.

Following that it is not entirely honest to say most PC owners had no idea about the DRM and the risks involved, as numerous people (not including Lowen) have tried to put forward, on this thread, as an argument.

If I the DRM restrictions for the PC version of Asscreed applied for my 360 I would not buy it (I still didn't BTW). That would be my choice as a consumer as I don't think it is a good deal for my money.

Plenty of other publishers produce games without the draconian DRM used by Ubisoft, take your business to them. Moving away from cars, if Sony had some horrific lease scheme where you "bought" the TV but didn't ever own it then you would buy a Phillips. Go with Valve, there are lots of other publishers and games out there (although I don't like steam).

Yes a car is functional but you buy lots of things in life, if you buy something with a question mark over it (and as a console gamer who wasn't planning on getting AC2, even I was aware of the shifty DRM on the PC version) you cannot be shocked when it blows up. A bit like being upset when those 50p batteries only last 5 minutes in you wii-mote. Should have seen it coming and bought another brand.

The fact is if AC2 sold 4 copies on the PC then they would have to re-evaluate the DRM. If you buy it you are saying everythings peachy and get used to seeing this sort of DRM more often, you are supporting it. I like your McDonalds example but its a little off. Imagine if McDonalds burgers were 40% poisonous fish, it was common knowledge and advertised as such (say on steam, before you order it, pay for it, then they deliver the food to your door). It would be silly of me to complain if I then became sick after 3 burgers. I knew before I started eating.

Wait... a second.

A game I had no interest in playing. A game I had no interesting in BUYING. A game I had no interest in even pirating and it's MY FAULT as a PC gamer Ubisoft couldn't spec hardward properly, shoved an obtuse DRM scheme down peoples throats and then decided "meh, good enough"?

Two words for you son. The first begins with an F and the second is Off.

Ever since Penny Arcade did it's comic I've loudly said that this game needs, in fact, ALL Ubisoft games with this DRM scheme need to flop. Preferably on all formats released. Hell the torrent sites and we all know them, need to have the counters sat at 0 seeds and 0 leechers, just the torrent there so everyone knows that this scheme worked just as well as all those that went before it.

Remove Ubisofts ability to blame piracy for lack of sales. Punish them with the bottom line because that's all a company cares about. When the pocket books starts to fail and there is no obvious way to blame evil video game pirates for it, they'll either behave or go bankrupt. Bankrupcy wouldn't be that bad either as all we care about are the games themselves. Would Splinter Cell be any better or worse if it were published by EA? Not really. Perhaps a Microprose Mk2 could appear to do Silent Hunter again.

But noooo, you morons had to go out and buy the samn thing didn't you? Had to pirate it to punish Ubisoft didn't you? Bunch of ignorant morons the lot of you.

Not my fault and not my problem nobody listened, shame about your Splinter Cell. Enjoy the bag of jelly lighthouses.

And no, I don't for a second believe that the servers are going down due to an attack. That's more "evil pirates" FUD. Ubisoft can't cope with the demand, which everyone said would happen.

I am sure most people at the Escapist by now know that I have very strong feelings about DRM. Just as I am sure people know that I am more than willing to call out (In a civilized fashion) the journalists of the escapist should they write nonsense or something that I strongly disagree with.

I mention this because I do not want people to think I say this lightly, but I absolutely, unequivocally agree with you 100%.

While Ubisoft may be the big bad wolf, gamers knew what was waiting for them under the convers before they got into the bed. People need to take responsibility for their part in the DRM battle and speak loud and clearly with their wallets by not buying into these harebrained scemes and sending the message to Ubisoft and others like them "Do whatever you want to us, we will buy any crap you sell us."

While we are on the subject of fables, I just had a great idea for a protest.

Instead of doing an online petition of something of that ilk, I think it would be rather affecting if everyone instead, e-mailed Ubisoft a version of The goose that laid the golden egg.

Imagine if instead of seeing 100,000 signatures of a web page that is easily dismissed, you got 100,000 e-mails all of slightly different versions of the same Aesop fable?

Edit: That didn't sound like too bad an idea, so I went off and organized it. If anything comes of it, know that it started here on The Escapist and was inspired by good old Andy ;)

This article is stupid. Blaming gamers for buying a DRM protected game is the lamest argument I've ever heard. That's like saying gamers shoulda known when they were getting into when they bought a PS3 and they all crapped out for a day. Or that Xbox users should have known they might get a RROD so it's their fault MS released a product with questionable reliability. So when it breaks we have no right to complain or demand satisfaction? Please.

Should we not expect quality control? Do we have much of a choice? If you want to play a game that's protected by DRM, what are your options? If you have a console, you could get a console version if it's available, and have your preferred control scheme cast aside for a controller, and/or wallow in lackluster graphics easily trumped by the power of modern PC's. So it's the gamers fault that companies are offering products that force us to play by the rules? Are you saying we should pirate instead? Come off it.

I feel this article hits the nail on the head. The knowing people are the people who suckered themselves into it, while Ubisoft suckered in all the other people. I've known about this for a good while, and neither me or any of my console-less friends have any interest in this game merely for the DRM. Though we are relatively informed. But at least in terms of the PC community, it tends to be a relatively more informed group, just because it is smaller and a bit more specific, compared to consoles.

And as for people saying damned if you do, damned if you don't on the outcome of buying it, this isn't completely true. If enough people get around to not buying the game, there will be a huge difference in what Ubisoft says, compared to a Valve game for instance. They can decide that it was because people hate it and not develop for the platform anymore, or perhaps they will realize that it was their DRM killing their sales, and they will move to a more conventional system. Ubisoft may be a bit delusional about their DRM system, but they aren't stupid if they actually look at the numbers. The flaw is a few games have to be released to actually see any numbers.

It really boils down to one thing: baby wants its toy, and when toy breaks, baby will cry. Why there is this fixation that gamers have to play everything that comes out is a bit beyond me. But then I haven't had the resources of many, be it parents, trust accounts, credit cards, what have you. Even if I didn't have the resources of The Escapist at my disposal, I still scrutinize the requirements and specs of every game that perks my interest. As a gamer should do. Seeing the DRM requirements for AC2 would have set off alarm bells in my head, and I would have just put it back on the shelf. Andy is quite on the mark when saying people should know better when buying something. The DRM is not a secret, even Steam publishes it for both Assassin's Creed 2 and Silent Hunter 5. Not to mention that gamers know other gamers. If you know someone who has expressed interest in a heavy-DRM'ed game like AC2 or such, let them know what they might be getting themselves in for. Frankly I am doubtful Ubisoft would change its tactics even if sales went poorly for either of their current games. They would blame that on piracy as well, as they did the server failures.
As for Ubisoft's part, if I am going to plunk at the least half a hundred dollars for a game, I am going to consider that at least an investment, if not total ownership of that software. With my investment I expect to be treated like a decent customer and not get ripped off by the people who are giving me a gaming experience. Ubisoft's DRM is comparable to a car dealership putting a GPS and governor into the vehicle I buy from them. They would then track my movements and if I did things with the car that they didn't like, they could just kill the engine. As I am sure Ubisoft has done with their account system. There is more than just an online link going on there. What's to stop them from deciding to just cancel your account, leaving you SOL with a shiny frisbee? In my mind that is borderline criminal.
Yes, people create something. Yes, they take pride in their work. But once that item is sold, it is no longer theirs. Copyright law merely protects sales of an item. It does not protect the item sold.
"If you don't want Japanese company to buy it, don't sell it." -Mako, Rising Sun

I don't understand what the fuss is here. If you really want a game but aren't willing to buy anything with DRM on it then just pirate it. It's that simple. Why should you feel bad about 'stealing' (I say 'stealing' but let's not do the whole "stealing vs sampling" argument here) a product that's been deformed by third party tampering?

If you still feel bad, mail some cash to the game's developer. That way you get the game, the developer gets paid and the publisher gets squat. Maybe then publishers will see that games with DRM are pirated more than those without and hopefully they'll stop putting it on their games.

Bakery:

If you still feel bad, mail some cash to the game's developer. That way you get the game, the developer gets paid and the publisher gets squat. Maybe then publishers will see that games with DRM are pirated more than those without and hopefully they'll stop putting it on their games.

Or more likely they will see that there is a market for the title but its filled with parasites so they will work on more draconian forms of DRM. Piracy doesn't seem to have convinced anyone to ditch DRM, Pirates are not Robin Hood sticking it to the man they are leeches who want to play a game without paying for it.

Its one thing to get a crack for a game you've bought or to try it out to see if it works on your system but you are not talking about this sort of person.

braincore02:
This article is stupid. Blaming gamers for buying a DRM protected game is the lamest argument I've ever heard. That's like saying gamers shoulda known when they were getting into when they bought a PS3 and they all crapped out for a day. Or that Xbox users should have known they might get a RROD so it's their fault MS released a product with questionable reliability. So when it breaks we have no right to complain or demand satisfaction? Please.

Should we not expect quality control? Do we have much of a choice? If you want to play a game that's protected by DRM, what are your options? If you have a console, you could get a console version if it's available, and have your preferred control scheme cast aside for a controller, and/or wallow in lackluster graphics easily trumped by the power of modern PC's. So it's the gamers fault that companies are offering products that force us to play by the rules? Are you saying we should pirate instead? Come off it.

How about don't buy it and play something else? There are thousands of games out there. If you bought this title you have let Ubi know you don't mind their idiotic DRM. As a none PC gamer (with the odd exception) I knew about the DRM, its stated clearly on Steam etc about the DRM, you had plenty of warning. Everyone knew this was coming, I just didn't think so soon. I will not buy any title with this sort of DRM. Its my choice. If you choose otherwise you have no grounds too piss and moan if it bites you on the arse.

If AC2 sold 4 copies Ubi would have to reconsider their DRM. Also good luck if you want to play this game in 10 years time, I hope the servers are still up and running. Who will be paying for it?

Going back to your earlier examples; no one saw the PS3 thing coming and the RROD, although its meant to be sorted now, you knew you were buying a console with reliability issues, you have the options of buying something else. It's why I will never buy a console at launch, they are untested.

braincore02:
Do we have much of a choice?

Of course you have a choice. That's the whole point. You made your choice, informed or not, and if you chose to buy the game then you chose to support Ubi's DRM. So stop whining about it.

(This is, of course, referring to the Royal You, and not necessarily you.)

Andy Chalk:

braincore02:
Do we have much of a choice?

Of course you have a choice. That's the whole point. You made your choice, informed or not, and if you chose to buy the game then you chose to support Ubi's DRM. So stop whining about it.

(This is, of course, referring to the Royal You, and not necessarily you.)

Yeah, you said all that in your article already. And I can't help but feel that accompanying monetary influence on a company with a vocal reaction is perfectly acceptable. The wise gamer will choose the former, the more impulsive will choose the latter. There's a lot of whining on the internet (including whining about whining). You chose to be here, sooo... well nevermind.

Andy is right. If we do not want games with DRM we have to stop buying games that have it. The most complicated DRM I am willing to tolerate is needing to have my CD in the drive and needing offline activation (where you type in the code that comes with the game when you install it, but you do not have to go online to make it work). Anything more than that (Starforce, Steam, limits on the number of installations, etc.) and I simply do not buy the game. I have had to go without a lot of games because of my refusal to support DRM, but DRM continues to get worse and worse because people do not stop buying the games. Assassins Creed 2 should have had epically horrible sales given what we knew about the DRM. It should have been the flop of all flops. But it wasn't because gamers do not care enough about DRM to do without. As long as that is the case we can expect to screwed over like this again and again.

Thankyou. I didn't buy it. Much as I want to, I'll just wait until I get a PS3. I think the games work best on console anyway. Although, I am getting very tempted to buy the game, then download a crack. But that still encourages their scheme.

Great article.

I loved AC, but until Ubisoft change their implementation of DRM I'm just not going to buy any of their games. It's a lousy system which makes it irrelevant how good AC2 may or may not be. There are plenty of other developers around who are using less intrusive DRM options, so I'm happy to buy their games instead.

On that note - kudos to Bioware (and EA) for reducing the intrusiveness of the DRM from Mass Effect 1 to ME2. I hated the limited installs issue with ME, I'm delighted to see my copy of ME2 doesn't have those same problems.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

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