The Needles: You Only Have Yourself To Blame

[spartan_0214]

Interesting point. I personally believe that the PC Gaming community should have spoken up louder against this form of DRM. Most gamers sit idle when they hear news such as EA announcing this type of DRM. Instead of taking action, they wait until catastrophe (inevitably) strikes, then post on forums all over the internet. This occurs after EA can do any significant changes to the DRM. I'm not saying that the forum posters are wrong, but being proactive far surpasses post-action complaining. I look forward to playing Conviction, but with the recent purchase of my 360 Elite and this news, I will forgo my PC roots for the capability of playing the game without Big Brother watching over my shoulder. Hopefully PC Gamers will get their act together next time and force developers and publishers to use less obtrusive and, frankly, more effective DRM.

 

[Weaver]

When I read the title I was ready to get my rage hat on, but upon reading the article I actually fully agree with you. As a PC gamer you've ALWAYS had to be a little more on the ball about things that console gamers did not.

You have to make sure the games will run on your system, for example. You also have to be wary about what you're buying because unlike consoles, you can't return or trade in your PC games - you're stuck with them forever. For this reason I always felt that to be a PC gamer you had to be a bit more connected to the goings on of the industry and now with DRM it's a double whammy. I really dislike install limits and Ubisofts always on thing is about a million times worse, so before I buy a game I check if either of those DRM schemes are used. It's not really that difficult, and if they have them I simply don't buy the game. I don't pirate the game either, I just avoid it and pretend it doesn't exist.

Interesting point. I personally believe that the PC Gaming community should have spoken up louder against this form of DRM. Most gamers sit idle when they hear news such as EA announcing this type of DRM. Instead of taking action, they wait until catastrophe (inevitably) strikes, then post on forums all over the internet. This occurs after EA can do any significant changes to the DRM. I'm not saying that the forum posters are wrong, but being proactive far surpasses post-action complaining. I look forward to playing Conviction, but with the recent purchase of my 360 Elite and this news, I will forgo my PC roots for the capability of playing the game without Big Brother watching over my shoulder. Hopefully PC Gamers will get their act together next time and force developers and publishers to use less obtrusive and, frankly, more effective DRM.

are you kidding me? Look at what happened to Spore. Amazon had the game rated at 1 star, EA started banning people from their forums who made posts about DRM. Even worse, they banned their EA accounts so any games they linked to their EA accounts were essentially gone. Regardless there were tons of posts everywhere, news articles, gaming groups, all raging about install limits. EA damn well knew what it was going into and so did Ubisoft.

Go onto the steam forum or the escapist or anywhere there's AC2 news and you'll see PAGES of threads about the DRM. The reason you don't see DRM threads on the publishers forum is because mods DELETE those threads.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Sure, quite a few PC gamers are aware of some form of DRM. But I wouldn't say that most are aware it exists, or are even aware just what games it comes packaged in. You can't necessarily blame the consumer, some people very likely buy these games and have no knowledge of what DRM is, exactly. In any case, it's no excuse to shift the blame from Ubisoft, as regardless of what platform we wish to enjoy our games on, they are the ones shoving this bullshit down our throats. That's like saying it's the victims fault for getting shot for being in the store when it got robbed.

I think Andy was fairly clear that he's not talking to those folks who genuinely got blindsided by this, which, undoubtedly, many people did. He's specifically referencing those who went into the situation knowing the inherent risks, then shouted to the heavens when the servers went down.

Also, it's not about shifting blame, but rather than owning up to one's share of it. I don't think anyone is arguing that Ubisoft's DRM is anything other than onerous.

What would you have them do instead? Sure, there are soccer moms who bought AC2 for their kids not knowing the included Clusterfuck? DRM, but those are the minority. Many gamers also bought AC2 because they like it, and wanted to play with it, and yes, they were probably aware of DRM, but what other choice they had? Either buy it, DRM and all, or pirate the shit out of it.

You can't blame the honest customers for a failure on the publisher's part. 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). This entire shitstorm is Ubisoft's fault, for putting a shitty DRM on their games AND the failure to live up to their promises of maintaining server availability. Shit got hacked, so what, it's not the customer's fault, it's Ubi's fault, they should go and fix it, the players had no share in that whatsoever. So, no, I disagree with sharing the responsibility of Ubi's mistakes, it's their shit, and no one else's. The players who bought the game and were totally unable to play it because of Ubi's failure have every right to be angry, they payed fucking money for the right to play and now it's taken from them without any tangible reason whatsoever. Of course they are angry and I don't blame them.

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.

 

[LTK_70]

I guess you can say that the people who bought Ubisoft games, and knew about the DRM behind it, had to be at least somewhat aware of the risk that it was going to fail. But I still believe that we are underestimating the ignorance of the general public.

Aside from that, though, there is still human nature involved. Why would the average gamer, one who is aware of the fact that he has to be connected continuously to Ubisoft's servers - and probably slightly annoyed by it - assume that Ubisoft is going to screw things up completely? Face it, they run a multi-million dollar business there. Speaking from the public mind, it is only fair to assume that they will provide the service you paid for, even though they do it in a ridiculous way.

What I'm trying to say here is that by nature, a person expects things to work the way they are supposed to. None of the PC gamers that bought Ubisoft's latest games, including the ones who had a notion of how the DRM worked, said to themselves "Well, I guess I saw that coming" when their game crashes and burns. I don't think you can blame them for how people work. Or don't work?

 

[squid5580]

Wow so to be a PC gamer we now need to constantly check every site of every game to make sure that they aren't pulling something stupid? And if you don't you are to blame? SOrry I don't buy it. 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. You know for those people who have jobs and can't spend 24/7 surfing the web for every detail about an intended purchase.

 

[Weaver]

Sure, quite a few PC gamers are aware of some form of DRM. But I wouldn't say that most are aware it exists, or are even aware just what games it comes packaged in. You can't necessarily blame the consumer, some people very likely buy these games and have no knowledge of what DRM is, exactly. In any case, it's no excuse to shift the blame from Ubisoft, as regardless of what platform we wish to enjoy our games on, they are the ones shoving this bullshit down our throats. That's like saying it's the victims fault for getting shot for being in the store when it got robbed.

I think Andy was fairly clear that he's not talking to those folks who genuinely got blindsided by this, which, undoubtedly, many people did. He's specifically referencing those who went into the situation knowing the inherent risks, then shouted to the heavens when the servers went down.

Also, it's not about shifting blame, but rather than owning up to one's share of it. I don't think anyone is arguing that Ubisoft's DRM is anything other than onerous.

What would you have them do instead? Sure, there are soccer moms who bought AC2 for their kids not knowing the included Clusterfuck? DRM, but those are the minority. Many gamers also bought AC2 because they like it, and wanted to play with it, and yes, they were probably aware of DRM, but what other choice they had? Either buy it, DRM and all, or pirate the shit out of it.

You can't blame the honest customers for a failure on the publisher's part. 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). This entire shitstorm is Ubisoft's fault, for putting a shitty DRM on their games AND the failure to live up to their promises of maintaining server availability. Shit got hacked, so what, it's not the customer's fault, it's Ubi's fault, they should go and fix it, the players had no share in that whatsoever. So, no, I disagree with sharing the responsibility of Ubi's mistakes, it's their shit, and no one else's. The players who bought the game and were totally unable to play it because of Ubi's failure have every right to be angry, they payed fucking money for the right to play and now it's taken from them without any tangible reason whatsoever. Of course they are angry and I don't blame them.

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.

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 ***** 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.

 

[Otterpoet]

Here's a good article about their DRM: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/21783.cfm

Although, I wonder if they 'believe' in their DRM still

Frankly, this is bollocks through and through. Not everyone has constant internet access (yeah, shocking but true). Cutting potential customers out of the loop just seems asinine to me. And - no matter what they say - are they going to keep the servers for all their products running indefinitely?

 

[Weaver]

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.

 

[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.

 

[mythgraven]

Gamers need to step out of the dark ages. Games dont come with detailed instructions anymore? We need to demand them back.
Studios demand retarded efforts to keep piracy down?
Its up to us to stop that.

Nuff said.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

With all this DRM talk...soon the Escapist will be above Wikipedia in Google searches for DRM!

 

[Tharwen]

We're not pissed at Ubisoft for making the game unplayable; we're pissed at Ubisoft for making the game worse. The game itself still outweighs the disadvantages of the DRM, so that's why we buy it. There was no need to limit the game in such a restrictive manner, hence the outcry.

 

[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.

 

[Bagaloo]

In this day and age, if the failure of Ubisoft's DRM caught you by surprise, then I would agree that you don't really have any right to be surprised - you do however have the right to be angry.

If you buy a product that says "Warning: This product will probably explode in your face" and when it does, get angry about it, you're pretty much a moron. If you buy a product that industry analysts warn "looks explosive", but which purports to be perfectly safe, and then it explodes, you shouldn't really be surprised but you darn well better be angry.

This is what it boils down to - Ubisoft did not clearly indicate that "by opening and installing this product you acknowledge that you may have service interrupted at any time because our servers are a piece of shit", ergo anyone who bought their games gets to be angry when that happens. It doesn't matter if everyone on the internet predicted it, the point is Ubisoft told us everything was going to be just fine and then it wasn't.

I don't have much personal sympathy for the people getting locked out of Assassin's Creed 2, as I consider them weak for not taking a stand on principle and boycotting the hell out of Ubisoft forever and ever (amen), but I'm not going to be arrogant enough to suggest they're culpable in this whole fiasco. They are the victims - shame on you Andy.

This is exactly how I feel about this article.

Also, the entire article had antagonistic tones towards the honest consumer, which were unjustly placed. It's their right as consumers to get mad when something like this happens, so instead of effectively telling them to shut up, we should be supporting them in the hopes that Ubi's crappy DRM never gets used again - if nobody is getting pissed at them, then they win.

 

[Weaver]

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.

 

[Alex The Rat]

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.

 

[Playbahnosh]

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 ***** 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...

 

[ClockworkDC]

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

Gee, thanks.

 

[zehydra]

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.

 

[Susan Arendt]

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?