Forums - PC Discussion - Something I don't understand about Assassin's Creed 2 DRM complaints

twesterm said:
Rainbird said:
Because people want to play the game, but they don't want intrusive security measures. Yes, you can say "Well fuck that, I'm not getting the game because that there is some stupid DRM", but some people actually want to play the game despite this.

I find it funny that you posted that demotivator on bad analogies, when both your WoW-analogy and your PC requirements analogy aren't too good to begin with. WoW is a multiplayer game where as AC2 is a singleplayer game through and through. The game itself gets zero benefit from being online.
And compairing it to not having a strong enough computer, is like Ubisoft saying that you need a Radeon HD5970 to run the game, and nothing less will do, when in truth, the game will run well enough on a Nvidia 8800GT. Except here, there are actually benefits (better graphics).

Meh, I get yours and blayd's point about analogies, but at least mine are are more similar than being held at gun point. 

In the end, I think this is one of those times where you'll just have to agree to disagree. Some people care, others don't



Around the Network

People who intend/ed to buy the game are being inconvenienced.
People who are going to pirate the game might have a to wait longer for a crack (if ever) possibly with a more complex procedure than cut and pasting an .exe

End result is internet moaning from everyone.



I have to agree w/ bladycor in this little row and add that the premise twestern is working from is absurd on its face.

Nobody cares about whether or not we know the game has DRM (that's about as absurd a strawman as I've come across lately, and I frequent a lot of political blogs where it's something of an art form)--people are pissed because not all of us (most, I daresay) have a net connection that's always up. (This is a key distinction: you likely have *no* idea how frequently your connection actually goes down due to caching, amongst other issues, and this game will alert you, quite acutely, to this fact.) Add in what others have said about laptops, etc., and you have a lot of annoyed people for *no good reason.* (The pirates *will* crack this, just as they *always* crack *everything* and this DRM is just giant red flag being waved in their faces.)

Why you feel the need to try and obviate Ubi for their bone-headed, idiotic, business decisions is beyond me (are you working at Ubi now and/or on a game for Ubi??), but it is, most certainly, a bone-headed, idiotic, business decision that will a. cost them sales, b. massive amounts of goodwill tossed on the fire, c. the pirates *will* get around it so you're only punishing the legit customers, and d. a lot of people have looked forward to this game and, according to you, just because Ubi has foisted absurd DRM on them, they should either suck it up or skip the game altogether. (I'm sure you'd be so dismissive were it a game you very much wanted to play.)

Note: I have zero interest in this game, but Ubi's actions *are* ridiculous/absurd/over-the-top, period much like your terrible argument.




twesterm said:

So I'm basing this on assumptions but I'm betting they're valid assumptions so that's alright.

I'm assuming on the box it says permanent internet connection required and I know on the Steam page it says that so why are people so upset about this?

If it says it right on the box it isn't like you're being duped and if you're buying a PC game there's no excuse for not reading the system requirements so why are people so upset over this?

Is it just because the consoles don't have to have a permanent internet connection?  To that, I say meh?

Yeah, losing 10-15 minutes of progress can be annoying but since the game has frequent checkpoints that shouldn't be the biggest problem.  I don't know, to me, this just seems like getting angry over WoW requiring a permanent internet connection or buying a PC game and then realizing that you don't meet the minimum requirements.

-edit-

Note-- I'm not trying to argue for the DRM, I don't actually care, I just don't understand why everyone is so angry about it when they're upfront about it.  If they were trying to hide it or be deceptive about it I would understand the nerd rage, but they say in pretty plain English permanent internet connection required.

I would even understand if this news came about a week before the game released, but it came out well before a month before release.  Did this news come out with the system requirements?

Sheesh.  It's obvious.  They're angry because it's unreasonable - or at least if what I read is true about the DRM it is.  There is no reason a paying customer should be forced to lose progress on a game they bought because their internet connection drops (unless of course the game is online only, D'Oh).  That's just ridiculous.  If a game released with a bug that could regularly cause lost progress/saves I'd return it immediately and demand my money back.  Putting it on the box doesn't excuse it.  By that measure any unreasonable trading would be 'okay' so long as there was some upfront warning.

It doesn't work that way.  This is plain unreasonable and should be accepted as such.

The anger is also, obviously, because people want the game but aren't willing to accept the terms, which is also annoying.

I don't want to start an arguement or anything, but I'm amazed that you don't understand this, particularly as you often come across fairly heated about stuff on the boards that's unreasonable!

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Because there's no point in it, It's going to get pirated anyway all it's going to do is put off the people who we're going to buy it in the first place, like me who was quite looking forward to it but the drm is making me uneasy about purchasing it.



Around the Network
Reasonable said:

Sheesh.  It's obvious.  They're angry because it's unreasonable - or at least if what I read is true about the DRM it is.  There is no reason a paying customer should be forced to lose progress on a game they bought because their internet connection drops (unless of course the game is online only, D'Oh).  That's just ridiculous.  If a game released with a bug that could regularly cause lost progress/saves I'd return it immediately and demand my money back.  Putting it on the box doesn't excuse it.  By that measure any unreasonable trading would be 'okay' so long as there was some upfront warning.

It doesn't work that way.  This is plain unreasonable and should be accepted as such.

The anger is also, obviously, because people want the game but aren't willing to accept the terms, which is also annoying.

I don't want to start an arguement or anything, but I'm amazed that you don't understand this, particularly as you often come across fairly heated about stuff on the boards that's unreasonable!

 

If its unreasonable, don't buy it. If you hate X service which has exclusive rights to the iPhone but still want an iPhone why would you get angry if the terms are deemed unreasonable (36 month contract or something). Just move on and not worry about it. Its unreasonable to expect that every game or service whether you intend to pay for them or not ought to come with terms and conditions which are acceptable to you. If the DRM sucks then let them rot in it.



This example might be over the top given the issue at hand but;

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If Ubi is successful with this method of DRM, it could spread to other games/consoles...



afi77 said:

This example might be over the top given the issue at hand but;

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If Ubi is successful with this method of DRM, it could spread to other games/consoles...

But it won't be successful. Pirates will pirate no matter what.

And I think the Nazi analogy is a bit extreme...



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

afi77 said:

This example might be over the top given the issue at hand but;

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If Ubi is successful with this method of DRM, it could spread to other games/consoles...

But apparantly it won't be successful cos it sucks. Therefore theres nothing to worry about, is there?



WilliamWatts said:
Reasonable said:

Sheesh.  It's obvious.  They're angry because it's unreasonable - or at least if what I read is true about the DRM it is.  There is no reason a paying customer should be forced to lose progress on a game they bought because their internet connection drops (unless of course the game is online only, D'Oh).  That's just ridiculous.  If a game released with a bug that could regularly cause lost progress/saves I'd return it immediately and demand my money back.  Putting it on the box doesn't excuse it.  By that measure any unreasonable trading would be 'okay' so long as there was some upfront warning.

It doesn't work that way.  This is plain unreasonable and should be accepted as such.

The anger is also, obviously, because people want the game but aren't willing to accept the terms, which is also annoying.

I don't want to start an arguement or anything, but I'm amazed that you don't understand this, particularly as you often come across fairly heated about stuff on the boards that's unreasonable!

 

If its unreasonable, don't buy it. If you hate X service which has exclusive rights to the iPhone but still want an iPhone why would you get angry if the terms are deemed unreasonable (36 month contract or something). Just move on and not worry about it. Its unreasonable to expect that every game or service whether you intend to pay for them or not ought to come with terms and conditions which are acceptable to you. If the DRM sucks then let them rot in it.

Turnabout is fair play.

If you can't understand why some consumers complain when presented with contract terms that they find unreasonable, just move on and don't worry about it. Nobody is forcing you to participate in these threads, so just don't post. It's unreasonable for you to expect every thread to be on a subject which is acceptable to you.

Or are you posting here because you feel that this is a subject worthy of discussion and that there's more to this question than a simple decision on whether or not to participate? You're telling people not to discuss the matter, but simply to vote with their dollar and leave it at that. If we're only meant to vote with our dollars, why the hell does this forum even exist?



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.