The Needles: You Only Have Yourself To Blame
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
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.AC10 said:
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.
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.AC10 said:
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.
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?
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?
So thats it, then? Suck it up, or move on?zehydra said:
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.
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.
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.
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?Susan Arendt said:
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.
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.
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...
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?
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?
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.PopcornAvenger said:
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.
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.Andy Chalk said:
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...