The Needles: You Only Have Yourself To Blame

[Dhatz]

treating customers this way makes me think of ubi as whores who get paid regardless of doing a thing.

 

[DoW Lowen]

I respectfully disagree with most of what you say.

You're putting too much expectancy on the gamer, you expect that any decent gamer should "do their homework" as you say as if it is a requirement. Ignorance is a completely valid reason, games are meant to be increasingly simple and many gamers have the right to expect it to just work. Then when it doesn't, you can't just say "well you knew what you were getting into". That's really an unfair presumption to expect all gamers to follow media, to know what DRM is, to understand the consequences of their action.

People expect technology to just... work. So even if they knew they had to be connected to the internet at all times you can't blame them for not sharing the skepticism that the rest of us hold. When you buy any new technology you assume there are experts who makes it doesn't fuck up, and that's what people are use to. When it does fuck up you can't go up and say "well if you've done your research you'd know that it there was chance it wouldn't work, you shouldn't buy it next time other wise you're just perpetuating the problem further"

I'm sorry but not you, nor anybody for that matter has any right to throw any kind of half-handed political beliefs at people who just really wanted to buy a game, pop it into the computer and enjoy a nice afternoon killing Italians.

Not everybody is a gamer, some people just play games. It's irresponsible thinking to assume everyone thinks like you.

This article is seriously the most obtuse thing I have ever seen on this website, and that scares the hell out of me.

When the hell did playing videogames (or rather, attempting to play, as the case is now) become an exercise in gambling? So suddenly someone who really liked Ass Creed 1 and really wants to play the new game is shit out of luck, and its their own fucking fault?

Yes it is actually quite scary indeed. I never wanted to admit it, but gamers on on the internet piss me off with their one dimensional thinking. Unfortunately this thinking is not limited to just Andy Chalk alone, he represents a fair proportion of a popular consensus.

Since when did gamers become such snobs? Gaming is meant to be accessible but we act like gaming is an elite act. We expect anybody with even remote interest in the matter to share our education and ridicule them if they fail to meet our standards. To the gamers who share this mentality, you should really grow the hell up.

Some people just want to play a game and they honestly with very good reason, couldn't give a shit about all the political, economical and dramatic ongoings behind the scenes.

 

[Killian Kalthorne]

Also, why the hell does buying a piece of entertainment require making an informed choice? What the hell happened to just buying a fucking game, going home, playing it, and not having any fear of being ass raped later on?

Everything requires a person to be informed nowadays and given how pervasive the Internet has become it is easier than ever to make an informed choice. You want to know what happen to those bygone days? It was back when developers and publishers couldn't post patches on the Internet for later downloads. It was back in the day that you actually had to work to get pirated software in social organizations. This is also the fault of the Internet.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Victims was hyperbole on my part sure, but is it really so unreasonable to believe people can simply purchase games that looked enjoyable and expect them to function as advertised? I hardly think a "reap what you sow" is applicable - the only sin of the paying customers who purchased this game is "wanting to play a fun title on their PC". Not everyone even knows to be mad about DRM, let alone what it is and why they should be angry, and (this part is key) they shouldn't have to.

But it is functioning as advertised. "If the servers fail, you don't play." And that's precisely what happened.

And as long as you're promoting willful ignorance in the consumer, do you think it's okay for them to scream like they've been kneecapped if they get home and discover their videocard won't support the game? Or that their processor can't keep up?

 

[Abedeus]

Yes, it's gamers' fault they trusted Ubisoft, found out the DRM is way more intrusive and useless than paper towels on a severed artery, bought original game and suffered from something most of us predicted would happen - server brought down.

I don't defend pirates, but I understand them. And I will download the game once they crack it. You know why? Because every time I walk by my video game store, I see Assassin's Creed 2 and think "Oh, wow, I have cash, and I want to buy it!", but then I remember that if for any reason my internet or their servers crash, I can't play a bloody SINGLE PLAYER GAME!!!

 

[Andy Chalk]

Oh wow. I am disappointed. As someone who is decidedly not to blame for this (ie: non-pirate, non-purchaser of DRM-laden products), I am insulted by you when you try to wake people up and get some accountability going, but then turn around and just laugh when people try to discuss it with you.

Yeah, god forbid we try to inject a little fun into this. It's not like we're talking about videogames or anything.

Get over it.

 

[Nazrel]

Sorry, dude. People who get caught in earthquakes are victims. People who bought Asscreed 2 for the PC are consumers who either made an informed choice or couldn't be bothered to make an informed choice. Either way, sow, reap, etc.

So to take your metaphor to its logical conclusion.

"Sorry mister earthquake victim about losing your house, wife, children, dog, and everyone you ever knew, but you were knowingly living in an area that had a potential to have earthquake. You took the chance, and now you are paying for it, tough shit."

Yup, makes sense.

Also, why the hell does buying a piece of entertainment require making an informed choice? What the hell happened to just buying a fucking game, going home, playing it, and not having any fear of being ass raped later on?

That's not remotely the logical conclusion. If you are walking down a street and you get mauled by a lion, you can hardly be blamed for it. If someone tells you to stick your hand in a lions mouth, you do it and it get bit off, it's your own damn fault.

If anyone actually bothered to read the damn thing, he's not defending Ubisoft, he's just saying "If you knew about this DRM and you still bought it. You have no right to complain, because you knew damn well this could happen."

 

[Susan Arendt]

*snip*

Anti-gamer? Hardly. My entire point is that the consumer has to protect him or herself. Ubisoft isn't going to look after your best interests, only you are. You deserve to get the best experience you can for your hard-earned money, but their are two sides to that equation. The first is Ubisoft's -- in exchange for your $60, they should provide a functional game. You can't control whether they do or not, though. Your side of the equation is being heads-up enough to protect yourself and make smart purchases based on what you know. If you think that by expecting gamers to empower themselves I'm insulting them, then I'm afraid you've grossly misinterpreted my point.

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.

 

[DoW Lowen]

Victims was hyperbole on my part sure, but is it really so unreasonable to believe people can simply purchase games that looked enjoyable and expect them to function as advertised? I hardly think a "reap what you sow" is applicable - the only sin of the paying customers who purchased this game is "wanting to play a fun title on their PC". Not everyone even knows to be mad about DRM, let alone what it is and why they should be angry, and (this part is key) they shouldn't have to.

But it is functioning as advertised. "If the servers fail, you don't play." And that's precisely what happened.

And as long as you're promoting willful ignorance in the consumer, do you think it's okay for them to scream like they've been kneecapped if they get home and discover their videocard won't support the game? Or that their processor can't keep up?

I think you're overstating it.

If this problem were an issue limited to people on say the Escapist alone, undoubtedly you'd be right. We're all here because we're immersed in the culture, it'd be hard to hang around this website and not know what DRM is.

But even then you cannot expect people to share your skepticism. Many people want to believe the creators of a technology will work. Because most of the time it normally does. To blame a consumer for trusting the seller despite obvious risks which they may not even be aware of is unfair.

It's unfair to think that everyone should share your mentality. As for Susan's response of not buying a DRM? I think that's even worse. Why should everyone care? It's easy for you to say since you're in the industry, but do you honestly think that all people who play games is as passionate or even self-aware as yourself.

You can't expect everyone to meet your standards.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I feel like I should clarify some of my points, although honestly I'm not entirely sure how to go about it since most of the counter-arguments seem to focus on the idea that consumers have every right to be as ignorant as they can possibly be about their entertainment choices. And that's fair enough. All I'm saying is, if you put yourself in that position and it doesn't work out real well for you, don't pretend that you have no culpability.

Here's a story I like to tell that I think actually fits this situation rather nicely. Over the summer, some friends and I toddled off to the theater to see Watchmen. Just as the movie was about to begin, a man, I'd say late 30s, maybe early 40s, came walking in with his son - who was maybe late 8, maybe early 9. They had a bag of corn, and they settled down in one of the middle rows, next to an aisle, ready to kick back and enjoy their superhero movie.

I don't know if you've seen Watchmen (and if you haven't, you really should) but it ain't your every-day X-Men-style superhero movie. Lot of peen in that movie. Big, blue peen. A drawn-out sex scene or two. The violence is brief but harsh, although nothing too unusual in this day and age, but man... lot of peen.

Anyway, they put up with it for awhile but the big love scene finally pushed them over the edge, and they were gone before it was over. So what happened? Dude looked at the poster, saw some costumes, figured it would be a good movie to watch with his boy and was probably very surprised when it didn't work out quite like he expected. Who's responsible?

 

[DoW Lowen]

*snip*

The main argument you make is "buyer beware"

Which is a fair enough point. If you know the risks, than you shouldn't be surprised when it happens. Although I think a person still holds the right to complain.

But the feeling I think we're all getting from your article and even Susan's position is that we've done something wrong. Because of ideologies we may or may not hold we are suppose to behave in a certain way. Yes it's true, we're responsible for our entertainment choices. Yes it is true it is better to make an informed choice. However you forget that we're buying a game, not a car.

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. Even if we were aware, and let's assume that we have knowledge down to the letter concerning the AC2 DRM issue, what is so wrong about buying a game we wanted to play?

As for you Watchmen comparison, there are clearly classifications on the poster. It was clearly the man's fault and he was an idiot to bring in his child. But you cannot compare that situation to this one. Classifications are pretty obvious, DRM fine print is not.

 

[Fenixius]

Yeah, god forbid we try to inject a little fun into this. It's not like we're talking about videogames or anything.

Get over it.

I'm sorry if I take this a little more seriously than you do. I made the "right" (ie: pro-consumer) choice, and it doesn't matter because a lot of people didn't. It's not like you're wrong - people need to take some level of accountability. But I know that the reserved collector's edition of AC2 I had preordered was sold before I could come in to collect my refund, after I told the guy on the phone that morning that I didn't want it anymore. And the people you write to, here on The Escapist, aren't really the sorts of people who're causing this problem.

I know I spoke strongly, Chalk, but it's frustrating seeing the medium I like be damaged, maybe irreparably because people are stupid, and then see writers who have the chance to communicate on a larger scale than me, potentially to people who might make a difference take that chance flippantly, even in part.

Doesn't help that I am also very, very angry that I can't play Assassin's Creed 2, and may not be able to play Splinter Cell: Convictions.

 

[Booze Zombie]

So, what, should people ignore a good game because the people who made DRM for it are idiots?

I think that, maybe, just maybe, some people wanted to play the game they've been waiting ages to play so badly they took a chance with Ubisoft's crappy DRM and now they're angry because this stupid system is screwing them over.

It's just not a good way to go running a business, treating all your customers like they're potential criminals.

 

[matrix3509]

I feel like I should clarify some of my points, although honestly I'm not entirely sure how to go about it since most of the counter-arguments seem to focus on the idea that consumers have every right to be as ignorant as they can possibly be about their entertainment choices. And that's fair enough. All I'm saying is, if you put yourself in that position and it doesn't work out real well for you, don't pretend that you have no culpability.

Here's a story I like to tell that I think actually fits this situation rather nicely. Over the summer, some friends and I toddled off to the theater to see Watchmen. Just as the movie was about to begin, a man, I'd say late 30s, maybe early 40s, came walking in with his son - who was maybe late 8, maybe early 9. They had a bag of corn, and they settled down in one of the middle rows, next to an aisle, ready to kick back and enjoy their superhero movie.

I don't know if you've seen Watchmen (and if you haven't, you really should) but it ain't your every-day X-Men-style superhero movie. Lot of peen in that movie. Big, blue peen. A drawn-out sex scene or two. The violence is brief but harsh, although nothing too unusual in this day and age, but man... lot of peen.

Anyway, they put up with it for awhile but the big love scene finally pushed them over the edge, and they were gone before it was over. So what happened? Dude looked at the poster, saw some costumes, figured it would be a good movie to watch with his boy and was probably very surprised when it didn't work out quite like he expected. Who's responsible?

I understand where you're coming from...I really do. But the vast majority of people are like the man in your example.

Many people in this thread keep hammering off how easy to use the internet is and how nobody has an excuse to be ill informed. I'll use and example off of Shamus Young's blog as an example of why this is a logical fallacy:http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=7244

We who call ourselves well informed are in the vast minority. It won't change any time soon, because many ill informed people DO NOT DESIRE to be informed.

 

[awesomeClaw]

Wrong in sooooooooooooooooooooo many ways.

 

[Susan Arendt]

*snip*

The main argument you make is "buyer beware"

Which is a fair enough point. If you know the risks, than you shouldn't be surprised when it happens. Although I think a person still holds the right to complain.

But the feeling I think we're all getting from your article and even Susan's position is that we've done something wrong. Because of ideologies we may or may not hold we are suppose to behave in a certain way. Yes it's true, we're responsible for our entertainment choices. Yes it is true it is better to make an informed choice. However you forget that we're buying a game, not a car.

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. Even if we were aware, and let's assume that we have knowledge down to the letter concerning the AC2 DRM issue, what is so wrong about buying a game we wanted to play?

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?

 

[Andy Chalk]

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.

As for you Watchmen comparison, there are clearly classifications on the poster. It was clearly the man's fault and he was an idiot to bring in his child. But you cannot compare that situation to this one. Classifications are pretty obvious, DRM fine print is not.

I'm just going to quote this because I think it needs to be said twice.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Victims was hyperbole on my part sure, but is it really so unreasonable to believe people can simply purchase games that looked enjoyable and expect them to function as advertised? I hardly think a "reap what you sow" is applicable - the only sin of the paying customers who purchased this game is "wanting to play a fun title on their PC". Not everyone even knows to be mad about DRM, let alone what it is and why they should be angry, and (this part is key) they shouldn't have to.

But it is functioning as advertised. "If the servers fail, you don't play." And that's precisely what happened.

And as long as you're promoting willful ignorance in the consumer, do you think it's okay for them to scream like they've been kneecapped if they get home and discover their videocard won't support the game? Or that their processor can't keep up?

I think we're operating under entirely different interpretations of the word "advertising" here. But as for your question, yes, of course it's okay for somebody to "scream like they've been kneecapped" in that scenario - they just purchased something they almost certainly can't return that doesn't work. What they shouldn't do is rant at the company that publishes the game, unless the reason it doesn't work is the minimum specifications being filthy lies.

Now back to the advertising thing - the 'advertising' says "requires an online connection to play". That's it - Ubisoft's PR spin presented some hypothetical scenarios about what happens if you get disconnected, but they were all from the perspective of your internet connection being patchy or otherwise suddenly unavailable.

There was precisely zero advertising that told prospective consumers the risks of Ubisoft's servers getting attacked and shutting them out of their single player games as a result of those attacks - online naysaying by the likes of us is not actually advertising.

 

[s0p0g]

I agree 100%. While I'm not about to place the blame for what happened anywhere but at Ubisoft's feet, it's the gamers' own fault for being affected by Ubisoft's mistakes.

If you're paying to support and stimulate Ubisoft's retarded schemes, you deserve to reap the consequences. For better or worse.

well, nothing to add there, isn't it? and thus... /sign !!

 

[WindKnight]

Apart from steam, I have consciously chosen to avoid any game that limits my access in any way - whether it be limited installs, 'must connect' DRM or whatever (I still don't own spore or Crysis warhead - two games I would like to play, but won't for that reason).

Its a little depressing this happened as soon as it did, but it is fair to say when the facts are put in front of you, you ignore them at your own risk.