UbiSoft require that you must have a net connection to play games...

[thatbloke]

Source

Ubisoft are now mandating that going forward, all their games will require that you have an internet connection to play their games.

So is this a good step or a bad step? Pros and Cons?

While I can certainly see it having its good side as I will always have a net connection, there is always the chance that you'll be somewhere without access to the net and then you can't play their games at all, even if they have no multiplayer component.

My main issue with things like this is that you'll probably have some little program going in the background managing all this... so what will happen when (inevitably) other publishers start following suit? In a few years am I going to have to have 20 different programs starting up with my system just so I can play games?

 

[BiG D]

Stupid.

Make it so your players want to be online to play your games. If it's not a value-add, it's just getting in the way of what the player actually wants to do -- play.

 

[Haven]

Anyone that "mandates" how I use my network and what traffic I have to allow can go **** themselves. Thats pretty much my opinion. I've plenty of games that I don't play or wont buy simply because they require me to go put a damn CD in the drive. This is no different.

 

[Ghostwolf67]

This approach is definetly... unique... and a whole bunch of other less polite words too.

Main question I have is will it really do anything other than give ubisoft a tonne of work to do? They have to set up the servers, run the maintenance, write the codes and constantly update their piracy searches as pirates inevitably break them.

It smells indicative of a last straw manouvre, like ubisoft are sick and tired (or rather paranoid) of piracy and are trying quickly to pull the solution out of a hat.

 

[Ronin Storm]

This can only be a bad thing for me. I'm reliant on 3G or paid-for internet when I'm away on site, which is 3-4 days a week currently. If I have to have an internet connection to play an offline game then I'll just not buy that game; after all, if I can't play when I want then what's the point?

 

[Zooggy]

Hulloes,

As individuals, I guess we can all complain till we're blue in the face. I don't suppose there's any one single individual that can claim to be "helped" but this mandatory stuff. Optionally, yes, some of these funcionalities are pretty great, but mandatorily... bleagh.

However, that's really not going to help us any. We might consider whether measures like these help the gaming market as a whole or not. And it's not that easy. Corporate CEOs and board members tend not to be complete morons, despite much evidence to the contrary.

Piracy is a controversial issue. Sales going down, however, is not really where it's at. I don't recall where I heard this, but rumor has it that, for GTA IV, tech support received more requests than there were PC copies sold. That's more or less outrageous.

Personally, nowadays, I tend not to play pirated stuff. But I wasn't always who am I today. However, regardless of who I was, opening a support ticket for a game I didn't pay for is something that would have never crossed my mind. Apparently, though, people do that. A lot of people.

On the other hand, tech support in the gaming market is generally quite crappy.

Are these two related? I don't know. Will these measures contribute to imporved tech support? I don't know either, and cinic that I am, I seriously doubt it.

So, really, what's to be gained by such aggressive anti-piracy tactics?

I seriously can't think of anything, to be honest...

Cheers,
J.

 

[thatbloke]

Also remember that Blizzard has already announced that Starcraft 2 will require an internet connection even to play a LAN game...

 

[Ronin Storm]

Thing is, we the consumers hold power in this situation. Not that we, as a group, ever effectively exercise it because we're not done paying for stuff to scratch a 20 hour itch even if it offends our principles (however loosely held). But we still hold that power.

It is a simple choice: buy or don't. I just don't. Don't like the lack of dedicated servers, or just being delivered a reboot on last year's hit game at full price (or more)? Just don't buy. Don't like DRM, or connect-to-play technologies? Just don't buy.

Surely there is no game so crucial that you "have" to buy it despite it presenting a challenge to personal preferences?

So, while I accept Zooggy's point that the CEOs of these companies aren't morons, and that their technical support load is unreasonable given their base of sales, it really doesn't matter when it comes down to the basic fact that we have and always have had a choice. Buy. Or don't.

I haven't bought MW2. I might borrow it from someone at some point to play the single player. But I won't be buying it. Why not? Actually nothing to do with the whole dedicated server issue, which isn't an issue for me at the moment as I can't realistically involve myself in clan gaming given the time I have available. Purely because I don't see the spark that makes games live for me. Oh, woo, terrorists attack America, the White House is in flames. So what? The icons don't have any pulling power for me, so seeing them threatened, even in fiction, feels uninspiring. My point? That buying the "must have" game of the moment really isn't so much of a requirement in reality. The entertainment market is booming, more so now than I've ever seen. PC games aren't cutting it? Try a console. Console controller getting you down? There's always movies. All spent up? Join a library.

Choice, choice, choice. We always have them. We may not like them, but we always have them and we should not let our principles tarnish nor our power slip away merely because we want our next quick buzz from publishers who are only empowered because we, in the wide sense, make them that way.

 

[thatbloke]

We have the choice and we understand that we HAVE the choice.

How do we explain to people not as technically minded as ourselves who don't go reading internet news sites that this is a bad thing and they shouldn't buy the game because of it to try and protest to the developer/publishers?

 

[Zooggy]

Ahey,

How do we explain to people not as technically minded as ourselves who don't go reading internet news sites that this is a bad thing and they shouldn't buy the game because of it to try and protest to the developer/publishers?

We don't. You see, they too have a choice, based on their own knowledge and preferences. More knowledge is a good thing, and so is more choice, unless said choice is a choice that the would-be chooser doesn't care about.

Claiming that our choice criteria are better than theirs is a tad patronizing, tempting though it may be.

Cheers,
J.

 

[Kasatka]

I personally support piracy of products not worth the money they ask for.
I do however support quality products being payed for.
I dislike not being able to try products, so piracy has a use.
But i dislike buggy rips and so prefer to legally own a copy of something i want to work properly, so i can moan at the developer to fix it or give me a refund.

Piracy/payment is great when balanced


OH and before anyone asks, yes, i bloody well would download a car if i could!

 

[Ronin Storm]

Claiming that our choice criteria are better than theirs is a tad patronizing, tempting though it may be.

See, I don't think that's what this is about.

While TB picked up on my point about choice and acknowledging the availability of a choice, however distasteful, he skipped the part about empowerment.

If one slightly re-interprets what TB says, one can read it instead as a way of looking at taking power back through passionate activism. Imagine that instead of telling people "see, your choices suck ass" we tell them "hey, look, there's something wrong about this and here's what we can do about it".

Subjectively, I clearly believe that my choice is better than theirs or I would have made a different choice. That's not to say that other viewpoints don't have value, or that different situations would require different choices. It is to say that, however, I can't objectivify and effect change simultaneously. Hnece activism. We define a cause -- in this case, the cause of rejecting a constraint on our gaming -- and we seek support for it. Some will come to our cause because they were already with us but hadn't yet risen to support it. Otherwise will convert to our cause realising that their goals are better supported through adopting our perspective or approach. Yet others were already moving on their own brand of rejection but recognise the power in numbers, especially when dealing with market forces.

I'm not saying that we can somehow stop the sale of all products with constraints we dislike. I am saying, however, that we can make a dent in the bottom line of companies whose policies go against what we're looking for, making it undesirable for them to continue with their policies of constraint.

It's activism to encourage support to create and direct the power of collective action. It's not that we're more "right" nor that our choices are somehow more "correct". It's that we're right for us and that we believe that others would be with us if only they could find and identify with our cause.

That said, I have no particular intention to move into activism on this particular subject. I'll remain in the silent refusniks. Make games with constraints that I don't want to bear and I'll just not buy them. Simple stuff, really. I'll not get that game and, I guess, eventually I may have a limited supply. I have other forms of play. They'll get my money instead.

That said, given a sufficiently limited game supply I might just get into serious activism.

 

[BiG D]

I personally support piracy of products not worth the money they ask for.
I do however support quality products being payed for.
I dislike not being able to try products, so piracy has a use.
But i dislike buggy rips and so prefer to legally own a copy of something i want to work properly, so i can moan at the developer to fix it or give me a refund.

Piracy/payment is great when balanced


OH and before anyone asks, yes, i bloody well would download a car if i could!

Simpy: you are what's killing the PC gaming industry.

 

[PsiSoldier]

Simpy: you are what's killing the PC gaming industry.

Oh D. That's just silly!

People who pirate games and do not buy them at all, even if the game is good and they like it? Contributing but not soley the reason. People who don't want to pay for unfinished buggy shit (which most of the time cannot be refunded), so try before they buy? Hardly. I most certainly wouldn't have bought 90% of my current PC game collection if I hadn't been able to try them beforehand.

On topic: My personal view on this is that the "over DRMing" of games only leads to the legitimate users being harmed, as dedicated pirates will most likely find ways around it as they always seem to, leaving all the poor legit people with their PITA DRM.

 

[BiG D]

People who pirate games and do not buy them at all, even if the game is good and they like it? Contributing but not soley the reason. People who don't want to pay for unfinished buggy shit (which most of the time cannot be refunded), so try before they buy? Hardly. I most certainly wouldn't have bought 90% of my current PC game collection if I hadn't been able to try them beforehand.

Rationalize it all you want, but the bottom line is you are stealing from developers, plain and simple.

The sense of entitlement people have with regards to games/movies/etc. is ridiculous. You DO NOT have the right to try before you buy. If you question the quality of a product, DON'T BUY IT. It's simple.

 

[PsiSoldier]

Rationalize it all you want, but the bottom line is you are stealing from developers, plain and simple.

ok.

The sense of entitlement people have with regards to games/movies/etc. is ridiculous.

I know, right?

You DO NOT have the right to try before you buy.

Oh. I had no idea.

If you question the quality of a product, DON'T BUY IT. It's simple.

Combined with your earlier sentence about not having the right to try something before buying it - Surely I'd end up "killing" the PC games industry moreso than you -indirectly- claim I am now, by buying precious little compared to what I do currently?

When it all comes down to it, whether it's morally/legally/etc wrong or not, it's not as if each game downloaded to try (later bought) would translate into a sale, had they (the 'Try-Before-You-Buy' pirate) been unable to try it in the first place. Couple this with the initial download not directly taking money away (cannot take something away if it's not even in their hands yet amirite?) from the developers, and the high chance that they wouldn't have bought it anyway if they couldn't try it (hence resorting to trying before buying), you could almost say it's a positive force for the industry . Just my 2 pence.

For the record: I am against people who just pirate for the hell of it.

Uhm, Somewhere in that mess of characters is my point. I'm too tired to check or give a crap if it makes any sense.

 

[BiG D]

Pirated copies are not lost sales, no argument there. They are still theft. I can't say this any more plainly.

When you're in an industry where the number of products stolen is magnitudes higher than the number of products sold, you look for a better industry. That's exactly what is happening to PC games. The suggestion that pirated copies lead to more sales overall (false, by the way) doesn't even matter. The fact of the matter is the overwhelming attitude of "I'll just pirate it and see if I like it first." Everyone would much rather develop for a platform where they know they're being compensated when people use their product.

 

[Silk]

If I hadn't tried a pirated copy of warcraft on my first PC back in the day, I would never have bought any of the 50 or so RTS games I currently own.. in fact I may have never got into PC gaming full stop. Bear in mind I was 16, had little money and had just used most of it to build a bare bones system which did little to impress me until I played said game.

It's all messed up imo. People like D screaming that pirates are to blame. Pirates defending themselves with sometimes valid, sometimes not so valid arguments.

My 2 cents are - the entertainment industry needs to evolve to accept people's needs. Lower prices - 30-50 pounds for a plastic box and a disc? Are you serious? Give people a reason to buy physical media again - bonus points, extra freebies, nice things in the box, nicer instruction manuals, make it worth it. Embrace the fact people can download games ridiculously easy. Always provide a trial of your game for free. Get them hooked, then offer it at a *reasonable* price for the digital version.

The whole digital vs. retail debate is what's killing PC gaming. The PC market could flourish if digital prices weren't being held back by games companies being tied to retailers and retailers naturally being wary about digital media. They, again, should learn to adapt. Retailers should have a section of their store whcih allows people to try and even buy digital media there and then, on a super fast connection, to their usb stick. Said shop could use special urls to get commission. And boxed copies of games, as said before, could be made extra shiny for those of us who are being asked to pay 40 quid and like to own physical media.

Yes people downloading games for free isn't good for the industry. But they need to stop pissing and moaning and adapt. If I alone can think of the above, why can't the people who matter in the entertainment industry? My logic of retail vs digital applies to all entertainment, not just games.

And for gods sake DRM needs to go.. IT IS ENCOURAGING PIRACY. Jesus even I have been tempted to get pirate copies of DRM games, because I have that many now that have caused me hassle, it's not worth paying for it. The only people who suffer on DRM are the people who buy the damn game.. seriously.. and don't even get me started on the anti-piracy crap and adverts that gets slapped onto purchased dvd's and blu ray. Yes let's punish the people who actually BUY our things, whilst via piracy, said shite can be stripped out! Genius.

 

[Kasatka]

The only people who suffer on DRM are the people who buy the damn game..

Amen to this. Release groups always find a way around copy-protection, so why include DRM and the likes that doesn't affect those you are trying to stop and just aggravates those that legitimately own your product?

And i stick to my point about try-before-your-buy.

Let me list some products you can try before you buy:

Cars (test drive)
Films (adverts)
Shoes and clothes (trying them on)
Food from deli counters in supermarkets (cocktail sticks anyone?)

Oh and to further compound the issue, lots of the direct 2 drive digital download sites don't allow you to cancel your orders and get a refund, which last i heard was kind of against my statutory rights.

When the digital distributors accept that what they are offering me is worth less than a hard copy of a game (and don't even get me started on the golden age of gaming when nothing came in DVD cases but in properly made up boxes with large, rich manuals and plenty of extras) and lower their prices, then the gaming industry will see a massive increase in sales.

Pirates are ultimately a lazy creature. Some do it because of a lack of funds, others because of being impatient, but ultimately they are all too lazy to A) go to a shop and buy something, or B) grind up the money to afford said product. So offer them an alternative that is even less hassle than piracy, even if it costs something, and they'll jump at it.

You only have to look at the massive increase in music download sales since we've had the likes of iTunes. Napster etc. back in the day didn't help, but now we have quick, cheap downloads and digital sales are sky rocketing for it. Also physical sales keep dropping, but the music industry is taking this on-board albeit slowly, and adapting.

 

[BiG D]

Let me list some products you can try before you buy:

In none of those cases are you stealing the product, and then paying for it later if you decide you like it.

As for DRM... Quick question for you: why do we have it in the first place?