So it might affect you some time at some point but maybe not.
This circular argument is pointless - presumably you will never buy a game with this DRM on it? Ever? Really, we'll see...
EA follows Ubisoft, will sell titles with 'always on' DRM
- Thread starter chaparral
- Start date
So it might affect you some time at some point but maybe not.
This circular argument is pointless - presumably you will never buy a game with this DRM on it? Ever? Really, we'll see...
I still don't see why you're so keen to jump to Ubi's defence, n111ck? This kind of DRM is by no means the only way to sell a game.
Steam seems to be doing very well, despite being easily cracked.
Stardock are doing OK aren't they? With no copy protection at all?
Isn't all this just Ubi's way of making excuses for lacklustre sales? Mainly caused by shovelling dross onto the market year after year?
Steam seems to be doing very well, despite being easily cracked.
Stardock are doing OK aren't they? With no copy protection at all?
Isn't all this just Ubi's way of making excuses for lacklustre sales? Mainly caused by shovelling dross onto the market year after year?
I think PC piracy is so rampant now that we are having to put up with sub standard ports, dumbed down console nonsense and delayed releases.
If Ubi have a solution and that solution (eventually) means we start to get decent games again due to better investment then I am all for it.
If Ubi makes crap games and those games dont sell then they will have nothing to hide behind so why would they bother investing in this system?
Its obvious something needs to change and if that affects a very small minority thats tough really.
So its got nothing to do with the console been generally better for making wads of cash rather than quality games?
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 540
i havent bought a ubisoft game since splintercell pandora tomorrow (god that was good)
i havent stolen any of their games either, but i have to say recently they have just released naff games after naff games (and yes i know ac is interestign but lets be honest after playing it for 20 mins on a mates copy you knew youd played enough of it)
thats why their sales are low. not pirating.
also n111ck its pretty obvious which is cheaper spend huge quantities of time making a really good game.. or slap on a really bad drm
plus of course bad ports etc are another way of these big companies saving cash!
i havent stolen any of their games either, but i have to say recently they have just released naff games after naff games (and yes i know ac is interestign but lets be honest after playing it for 20 mins on a mates copy you knew youd played enough of it)
thats why their sales are low. not pirating.
also n111ck its pretty obvious which is cheaper spend huge quantities of time making a really good game.. or slap on a really bad drm
plus of course bad ports etc are another way of these big companies saving cash!
so you want people to buy games that don't always work because that will make future gaming better(according to you) ? problem is the arguement you have put forward so far isn't very convincing.
why not just slate games that don't always work and support the developers who make good working games instead by purchasing their games ?
AC2 has worked for me and been a very good game though. I had more trouble with BFBC2.
If you dont like Ubi's games their DRM is irrelevant to you.
If the DRM is really so poor other companies wont use it so again its irrelevant to you.
(theukmoog, Ignore = very passive agressive.
)
I don't have a flaky connection, but I live in a house where the woman who owns it keeps disconnecting the broadband internet wireless modem. She thinks broadband is like dialup and that it's using up bandwidth even if a computer isn't switched on. I've tried many times to educate her but she still
does it. Annoying as f*ck but I can't do anything about it as it's her house. And for that reason, me buying AC2 isn't viable. Ubisoft think we live in a time that's still a decade in the future. There are people in rural areas that can't even get broadband, lord knows what it's like for them.
no it isn't irrelevant, this is the mistake you keep making.
if people dont stand up against this crap then this will become the norm. people need to express their views on whichever games forums they visit so these ubisoft employees can't just go around attempting to brainwash people telling them that if they accept this then the future will be more rosey.
2 scenarios
scenario 1: my game always works and i can play it when i want
scenario 2: my game doesn't always work and may not ever work in the future depending on what the game company decides.
you are trying to convince people that scenario 2 will improve the future of pc gaming but just failing badly.
as for it not concerning some of us, you may aswell have typed ' can you please leave this thread if you disagree with me'.
Last edited:
Ironic that you're posting that in a thread about EA adopting Ubisofts DRM method. AC2 just gets mentioned because its the most known. Its even more ironic that you keep telling everyone to get some perspective when you're the most narrow minded imbecile in the thread.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 9,262
- Location
- Saudi Arabia né Donegal
Unfortunately it's not as it sets a new standard for invasive DRM, if we as customers roll over and accept it then something like this could potentially become the norm which is a bad thing. I agree that some DRM is required because there are, unfortunately, immoral people in this world but this DRM is overkill.
Stardock do use copy protection. It's called Impulse and it's similar to Steam.
I'm not disagreeing with you in general, I'm just disagreeing with the prevailing inaccurate description of Stardock's policy regarding DRM. It's not bad DRM, but it does exist.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,332
- Location
- Aotearoa
Oh thank God for that! I forgot the ignore feature. This thread is much more palatable without his verbal diarrhea.This thread is so much better with judicious use of the ignore function... you get to ignore the UBI/ES rep's guff
So its got nothing to do with the console been generally better for making wads of cash rather than quality games?
consoles have no piracy and microsoft doesnt ban hundreds of thousands of chipped xboxs from xbox live each year
(sarcasm not at you btw its at the guy you replied to)
consoles have no piracy and microsoft doesnt ban hundreds of thousands of chipped xboxs from xbox live each year
Ps3 still pretty much pirate free.
And yet the games are still a fortune.
So I really wouldn't believe any company when they say high prices are due to piracy
think PC proves that piracy causes low pricesPs3 still pretty much pirate free.
And yet the games are still a fortune.
So I really wouldn't believe any company when they say high prices are due to piracy
You can load games you bought from impulse without loading impulse.
I can agree with points from both sides but I think a lot of people in this thread are unwilling to listen to the other side of the argument regardless of what anyone else posts and while it's fine to disagree with what other people are saying there's no need for a lot of the snide remarks and personal attacks that are being posted.
I still think it comes down to whether the individual finds the level of DRM acceptable to them and whether they think they can enjoy the product without being overly inconvenienced by it. It doesn't matter if it's being employed on a single player game or a multiplayer one because it's not meant to add anything to the experience, it's only purpose is to stop people using the game without having first paid for a legitimate copy.
In it's current guise the system does impose restrictions on the paying customer, espcially those with poor quality internet access or those that game on laptops and this would obviously have to be rectified for it to work successfully in the future. If it isn't then consumers will let the publishers know it's unacceptable by simply not buying future games that have the DRM on them.
While Joe Public might not be aware of this DRM right now they will be if they are repeatedly hindered by it and they will eventually decide to spend their money elsewhere.
As for the games that employ it being pirated already, none of them work 100% and from this point of view the system is a success. I know if I was pirating a game I wouldn't bother if I couldn't play the game as it was intended to be played but maybe I'm in the minority with this one.
I still think it comes down to whether the individual finds the level of DRM acceptable to them and whether they think they can enjoy the product without being overly inconvenienced by it. It doesn't matter if it's being employed on a single player game or a multiplayer one because it's not meant to add anything to the experience, it's only purpose is to stop people using the game without having first paid for a legitimate copy.
In it's current guise the system does impose restrictions on the paying customer, espcially those with poor quality internet access or those that game on laptops and this would obviously have to be rectified for it to work successfully in the future. If it isn't then consumers will let the publishers know it's unacceptable by simply not buying future games that have the DRM on them.
While Joe Public might not be aware of this DRM right now they will be if they are repeatedly hindered by it and they will eventually decide to spend their money elsewhere.
As for the games that employ it being pirated already, none of them work 100% and from this point of view the system is a success. I know if I was pirating a game I wouldn't bother if I couldn't play the game as it was intended to be played but maybe I'm in the minority with this one.