I don't understand why people defend these companies that are doing nothing but screwing us (paying customers) over.

I have no interest in this particular game, but I can only hope people will know when to draw the line. I enjoyed watching Spore being made an example of, I'd love to see more.

Dude, it's their frigging game, they can design it the way they frigging want.

You don't like it, don't purchase it, end of story.......

Do you go rant every day in real life each time something you want to purchase is not to your liking ?

Not like the writing wasn't on the wall.

In a few years this most likely become standard for PC games and I woudn't be surprised if the next gen of console decided to go that way either........

Ah but there is the rub, this conversation - this whole line of argument - has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of the games themselves, and barely has anything to do with the ideas of them. We are arguing about Digital Rights Management and how that relates to Ubisoft's relationship with its customers.

What you are actually arguing is not "They can design the game however they want"; remember, this argument is not about the games! I do not give a shit about the design of their games in the context of this argument.

What you are arguing is "They can treat their customers however they please." This is an invalid argument from several respects. Firstly, it does not make sense from a moral perspective, because the moral imperative of any business is to serve its customers in a way that pleases he cusotmers, at least in such a way that will convince customers to continue spending money.

The second - more important one - is that they cannot mistreat their customers because it is an intellectually and financially bankrupt exercise. You claim that it is their right to mistreat their customers. That's fine. Perfectly valid stance, sort of, but it ignores what one calls inevitable consequences.

First inevitable consequence: loss of sales translating to a loss of money. By narrowing their potential user base, they are necessarily cuttign off revenue streams that they might otherwise be able to gain. This is, in itself, a bad idea. They think this part is worth it because this move will cut down on used game sales. They may be right, but it doesn't consider the second, far more horrible consequence:

This iis going to result in much, much more piracy. In doing this, they are not trying to address pirates. They're trying to inconvenience people who pay for their games. They are giving incentives to not pay for their games. What is happening, if you will, is that Ubisoft is courting piracy. When they bed her, piracy will leave them bound and gagged in a closet and walk out with their wallets and the deeds to their house. It will be their own fault, because they have given consumers incentive to pirate instead of to buy.

Will this reaction be necessary, or just, or moral? No. Of course not. But it will happen. Ubisoft has signed their own death warrant with enhanced DRM.

It won't become the standad for PCs or consoles because nobody is going to cut themselves off from that amount of money. There will be at least one console manufacturer, and you have one guess as to which one, which will not support that standard. To pretend otherwise is to deny any sense of business acumen from game producers at large. When they see what happens with Ubisoft's DRM scheme.... it's going to be hilarious.

And please: I can abide by bad arguments, but I cannot abide by hypocrisy. If you want to dismiss my arguments on account of them being, you know, arguments, then please, extricate yourself instead of descending to my level.

Just something I wanted to know :

did you throw a fit the first time a retailer asked you to input your pin for your credit card  because your signature wasn't enough?

And narrowing their potential user ?

Do we live in the same society ?

Do you realize that these days not having a net connection is a lot more penalizing than not being to play AC3 ?

PS : and good luck pirating. 

Ah but there is the rub, this conversation - this whole line of argument - has absolutely nothing to do with the fact of the games themselves, and barely has anything to do with the ideas of them. We are arguing about Digital Rights Management and how that relates to Ubisoft's relationship with its customers.

What you are actually arguing is not "They can design the game however they want"; remember, this argument is not about the games! I do not give a shit about the design of their games in the context of this argument.

What you are arguing is "They can treat their customers however they please." This is an invalid argument from several respects. Firstly, it does not make sense from a moral perspective, because the moral imperative of any business is to serve its customers in a way that pleases he cusotmers, at least in such a way that will convince customers to continue spending money.

The second - more important one - is that they cannot mistreat their customers because it is an intellectually and financially bankrupt exercise. You claim that it is their right to mistreat their customers. That's fine. Perfectly valid stance, sort of, but it ignores what one calls inevitable consequences.

First inevitable consequence: loss of sales translating to a loss of money. By narrowing their potential user base, they are necessarily cuttign off revenue streams that they might otherwise be able to gain. This is, in itself, a bad idea. They think this part is worth it because this move will cut down on used game sales. They may be right, but it doesn't consider the second, far more horrible consequence:

This iis going to result in much, much more piracy. In doing this, they are not trying to address pirates. They're trying to inconvenience people who pay for their games. They are giving incentives to not pay for their games. What is happening, if you will, is that Ubisoft is courting piracy. When they bed her, piracy will leave them bound and gagged in a closet and walk out with their wallets and the deeds to their house. It will be their own fault, because they have given consumers incentive to pirate instead of to buy.

Will this reaction be necessary, or just, or moral? No. Of course not. But it will happen. Ubisoft has signed their own death warrant with enhanced DRM.

It won't become the standad for PCs or consoles because nobody is going to cut themselves off from that amount of money. There will be at least one console manufacturer, and you have one guess as to which one, which will not support that standard. To pretend otherwise is to deny any sense of business acumen from game producers at large. When they see what happens with Ubisoft's DRM scheme.... it's going to be hilarious.

And please: I can abide by bad arguments, but I cannot abide by hypocrisy. If you want to dismiss my arguments on account of them being, you know, arguments, then please, extricate yourself instead of descending to my level.

I cannot see how this is a bad thing. They are taking away a universally hated thing with regards to having to use a CD-check, they are giving people portability of being able to continue their game on multiple different platforms. They are exchanging one bad thing (CD-check) which is almost universally hated with something which has lower negative impact on the average person considering the commonality of an internet connection. The CD-check is an inconvenience, secure-rom is an inconvenience when your game doesn't work, but this is a pretty straightforward requirement.

There is more good here than bad, so why do you see a problem?