The Needles: You Only Have Yourself To Blame

[Rathy]

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.

 

[samsonguy920]

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

 

[Bakery]

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.

 

[bjj hero]

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.

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.

 

[Andy Chalk]

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.)

 

[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.

 

[erethizon]

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.

 

[brunothepig]

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.

 

[mikespoff]

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.