Screw you Ubisoft, screw you!

[Rheinmetall]

that's the thing. I know steam is DRM, but they aren't as bad as Ubisoft. instead of smacking their DRM in your face they kind of hides it behind a good service.
and can't you play games on Steam in offline mode? or did they remove that?

Actually you can, but there is a trick to do it. If you are all the time online the system will automatically direct you to your Steam account and if you decline to sign in you can't play the game. But if don't have internet connection, either because the line is dead, or pulled off the cable, switched off wi-fi, or whatever, then the Steam service will assume that you have a connection problem and it will let you play the game on offline mode.

 

[Galen Marek]

PC games cost less then their console counter part. Consoles usually don't have a DRM as complicated nor as frustrating as a PC, Ubisoft is one of the worst in this case. Console games earns more money for the company and has a larger market and is harder to pirate.
I think Ubisoft is trying to hint something here, they don't want you buying their games for the PC, they want you to shift over to console gaming by making their DRM a pain in the ass.

EA's new DRM (Origin) is a hunk of junk as well (I've been told its annoying for console players as well as PC players but I haven't tried it for myself other then what I saw in the ME3 demo (which didn't please me tbh).

Steam is also pretty lame,
but interestingly enough they don't want to be a pain,
because they want you to stick with PC games.

 

[Dys]

really? well that sucks. I really thought valve were the good guys, but as it turns out their just like the rest of them.

I wouldn't go so far as to compare them to, say, ubisoft. They just have an inherently flawed platform, that has core design flaws that could be fixed and have not been. No doubt their success has clouded their vision, but realy valve develop games, not DRM

They do genuinely seem to try to connet with customers (promotions, free games etc), so it isn't that they don't understand their customers, it's more than restrictive DRM is an inherently flawed concept and they haven't yet abandoned it.

 

[Cyfu]

really? well that sucks. I really thought valve were the good guys, but as it turns out their just like the rest of them.

I wouldn't go so far as to compare them to, say, ubisoft. They just have an inherently flawed platform, that has core design flaws that could be fixed and have not been. No doubt their success has clouded their vision, but realy valve develop games, not DRM

They do genuinely seem to try to connet with customers (promotions, free games etc), so it isn't that they don't understand their customers, it's more than restrictive DRM is an inherently flawed concept and they haven't yet abandoned it.

well yeah. I know i started this thread by bashing on DRM, but Steam I actually don't mind. because they hide their DRM behind such an amazing service. but i don't like the "need to be connected to internet to play" shit they have going. it's so unnecessary. it's still many times better than ubisoft's DRM though.

 

[Rheinmetall]

really? well that sucks. I really thought valve were the good guys, but as it turns out their just like the rest of them.

I wouldn't go so far as to compare them to, say, ubisoft. They just have an inherently flawed platform, that has core design flaws that could be fixed and have not been. No doubt their success has clouded their vision, but realy valve develop games, not DRM

They do genuinely seem to try to connet with customers (promotions, free games etc), so it isn't that they don't understand their customers, it's more than restrictive DRM is an inherently flawed concept and they haven't yet abandoned it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Steam-Valve weren't the first ones that introduced the DRM thing to a wide audience? Not saying that they invented it, but they were the first to embrace it. While all honest and customer friendly video games companies should had renounced this monstrosity. Only for doing that I will never approve of Steam. Good Old Games (gog.com) on the other hand are indeed the "good guys" in this business. They sell digitally distributed games at low prices, and then they let you play your game forever with no conditions, or restrictions, and re-download it as many times as you wish from any computer.

 

[Dys]

really? well that sucks. I really thought valve were the good guys, but as it turns out their just like the rest of them.

I wouldn't go so far as to compare them to, say, ubisoft. They just have an inherently flawed platform, that has core design flaws that could be fixed and have not been. No doubt their success has clouded their vision, but realy valve develop games, not DRM

They do genuinely seem to try to connet with customers (promotions, free games etc), so it isn't that they don't understand their customers, it's more than restrictive DRM is an inherently flawed concept and they haven't yet abandoned it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Steam-Valve weren't the first ones that introduced the DRM thing to a wide audience? Not saying that they invented it, but they were the first to embrace it. While all honest and customer friendly video games companies should had renounced this monstrosity. Only for doing that I will never approve of Steam. Good Old Games (gog.com) on the other hand are indeed the "good guys" in this business. They sell digitally distributed games at low prices, and then they let you play your game forever with no conditions, or restrictions, and re-download it as many times as you wish from any computer.

As far as I know steam were the first company that forced you to verify the game online before being able to launch or install it. I agree that all other companies should have avoided this model, but hey haven't. The fact is that steam is a flawed service, but there are still others that are worse. Valve at least try to understand the customer, they at least give something as a trade off for abiding their DRM (tf2 is free 2 play, regular sales keep people distracted from the reason they use the platform). They could do it a lot worse, other companies do.

If I may offer my opinion on why Steam gets less hate than the DRM of Ubisoft or EA: They aren't fucking evil.

Yeah, Steam is technically DRM. But here's the thing: if you know how to use it, it's not only completely unobtrusive, but also really useful.

This attitude is exactly why steam is allowed to be as bad as it is. You'd have to be somewhere beyond "computer illiterate" to not know how to use steam, however ability to use it properly has no bearing on the inherently flawed way steam:
-installs updates (incrementally installing before they have been downloaded).
-resets update settings after every platform update.
-the regular "game not available" errors that come up (especially if an internet connection cuts out).
-redownloads entire games after they have been installed from a backup
-etc (this is by no means an exhaustive list of the inherent flaws in the steam client).

What's more, they actually fixed the ball-biters involved. Previously, it used to be that you had to log on and make it turn to "offline mode". Nowadays it just straight-up offers the option on startup, probably because they noticed, "hey, this makes it so that sometimes, you can't use your games".

I honestly don't know where you're getting this from, but that's flat out not how it works. Yes, there is an option to start in offline mode if you don't have an internet connection present, but it will not let you use it unless you have logged in to offline mode last session (and allowed the system to shut down-if it crashed you cannot log in). In the sake of making sure this hasn't slipped in in a recent update, I presently tried on an up to date version of steam. It is, in fact, as it as always been.

Yes, from what I've heard, every once in a blue moon, you have to go back online to log in again... But in general, Steam just doesn't break the cardinal rule of DRM: "Let me play my game".

Clearly you've had limited experience with the service when your connection is down or choppy. As soon as you don't have a stable, DSL or better connection, steam goes tits up. There's no ifs, buts or counter arguments, it simply does not work in an unobtrusive way, unless you consider the (bad[footnote]Anyone who has tried impulse or GOG will tell you that their DRM service is superior, but publisher support is far inferior.[/footnote]) alternatives (GFWL and ubisoft are pretty generally hated) are also "unobtrusive" as they, too, can be unobtrusive under the right circumstances (well...not so much GFWL, but the always on internet connection is fine so long as you have an always on internet connection and they aren't doing server maintanence).

 

[CoL0sS]

DISCLAIMER (oh how I fucking hate these): I don't endorse or support piracy in any way

My stance on this. Games are experiences. I should be allowed to improve my experience. If there's anything getting in the way of my enjoyment I'm well within my rights to remove it. Even if that means using no-DRM/no-CD cracks (no one who's lived through the days of disc-swapping can tell me that was fun). I didn't steal that game, I bought it with my hard earned money. If your perception of "way it's meant to be enjoyed" doesn't coincide with mine, I'll just assume you're wrong.
I can agree that games are a privilege and not a right when discussing spoiled,entitled fans bitching about changes you've made to their beloved series. But not when I can't borrow my game to a friend because I only have one more fucking installation left. Not when I can't access my games because Internet is down or you're switching servers. Not when I have to enter 16 digit code on my controller to unlock a core part of a single-player game. Not when it only inconveniences paying customers.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

Bought a disk copy of Assassins creed revelations, Had to crack it to play it.

 

[Dogstile]

That you vote with your valet is great, but please dont ask me to be angry on your behalf.

You don't vote with your valet. You send him/her to fetch your car.

I think the last Ubisoft game I got was Sacred 2. It merely required verification once, then I was free to play it, even without any internet connection.
What are they up to these days, since everyone are so up-in-arms about it?

DRM where you have to be connected to the internet and if it goes down or they mess with their servers (which they've done, but I really don't want to go find a link, but its on this site) you can't play your game.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

snip

First they came for the people with crappy Internet connections...

Invokes a nazi reference to make their argument carry weight....

Well done....

Please show yourself out.

It was more that it's the easiest shorthand for caring only when something affects yourself and not others, because everyone immediately recognizes it from a single sentence or less.

Regardless, I'll get me coat...

 

[RustlessPotato]

That you vote with your valet is great, but please dont ask me to be angry on your behalf.

You don't vote with your valet. You send him/her to fetch your car.

I dont understand that analogy. could you explain it to me?

It's a joke. The first poster said Valet instead of walet. a Valet is like a butler of sorts.

 

[redisforever]

I think Ubisoft are trying to justify their earlier statements about PC being a hotbed of piracy, by releasing games with stupid amounts of crap DRM, so people pirate them, and they get an excuse to say, "See?! We were right!" and stop making PC games. My biggest problem with this is that most of their games are available on Steam, and while it is DRM, it works so well, that I've never had a problem. My problem with this is that I really like many of their games. I love the Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six, and Brothers in Arms, and so on. I think they're trying to become a console dev, which, theoretically, I like, because that means they won't have this shit, and just make games that are fun. Also, my PC sucks, and I can't run newer games.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The real truth of the matter is we just witnessed economics in action. He voted with his wallet.
When publisher meddling begins to interfere significantly with the practicality of doing business (and such a simple transaction as this), this is the most sensible thing to do.
It's also an example of consumer ignorance; well, the best-remembered lessons are the most harsh.

If you're fine with the DRM, then good for you. That's also economics.
I'm just saying this because I see an awful lot of smug assholes pointing fingers and whining about this process in the topic.

 

[Steampunk Viking]

What's really ticked me off about UbiSoft is that fact that, in order to play Assassin's Creed Revelation on multiplayer, I need to buy XBox Live Gold AND a UPlay Pass.

Yeah, screw you UbiSoft. I think I found a company I hate more than EA.

 

[Cyfu]

really? well that sucks. I really thought valve were the good guys, but as it turns out their just like the rest of them.

I wouldn't go so far as to compare them to, say, ubisoft. They just have an inherently flawed platform, that has core design flaws that could be fixed and have not been. No doubt their success has clouded their vision, but realy valve develop games, not DRM

They do genuinely seem to try to connet with customers (promotions, free games etc), so it isn't that they don't understand their customers, it's more than restrictive DRM is an inherently flawed concept and they haven't yet abandoned it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Steam-Valve weren't the first ones that introduced the DRM thing to a wide audience? Not saying that they invented it, but they were the first to embrace it. While all honest and customer friendly video games companies should had renounced this monstrosity. Only for doing that I will never approve of Steam. Good Old Games (gog.com) on the other hand are indeed the "good guys" in this business. They sell digitally distributed games at low prices, and then they let you play your game forever with no conditions, or restrictions, and re-download it as many times as you wish from any computer.

As far as I know steam were the first company that forced you to verify the game online before being able to launch or install it. I agree that all other companies should have avoided this model, but hey haven't. The fact is that steam is a flawed service, but there are still others that are worse. Valve at least try to understand the customer, they at least give something as a trade off for abiding their DRM (tf2 is free 2 play, regular sales keep people distracted from the reason they use the platform). They could do it a lot worse, other companies do.

If I may offer my opinion on why Steam gets less hate than the DRM of Ubisoft or EA: They aren't fucking evil.

Yeah, Steam is technically DRM. But here's the thing: if you know how to use it, it's not only completely unobtrusive, but also really useful.

This attitude is exactly why steam is allowed to be as bad as it is. You'd have to be somewhere beyond "computer illiterate" to not know how to use steam, however ability to use it properly has no bearing on the inherently flawed way steam:
-installs updates (incrementally installing before they have been downloaded).
-resets update settings after every platform update.
-the regular "game not available" errors that come up (especially if an internet connection cuts out).
-redownloads entire games after they have been installed from a backup
-etc (this is by no means an exhaustive list of the inherent flaws in the steam client).

What's more, they actually fixed the ball-biters involved. Previously, it used to be that you had to log on and make it turn to "offline mode". Nowadays it just straight-up offers the option on startup, probably because they noticed, "hey, this makes it so that sometimes, you can't use your games".

I honestly don't know where you're getting this from, but that's flat out not how it works. Yes, there is an option to start in offline mode if you don't have an internet connection present, but it will not let you use it unless you have logged in to offline mode last session (and allowed the system to shut down-if it crashed you cannot log in). In the sake of making sure this hasn't slipped in in a recent update, I presently tried on an up to date version of steam. It is, in fact, as it as always been.

Yes, from what I've heard, every once in a blue moon, you have to go back online to log in again... But in general, Steam just doesn't break the cardinal rule of DRM: "Let me play my game".

Clearly you've had limited experience with the service when your connection is down or choppy. As soon as you don't have a stable, DSL or better connection, steam goes tits up. There's no ifs, buts or counter arguments, it simply does not work in an unobtrusive way, unless you consider the (bad[footnote]Anyone who has tried impulse or GOG will tell you that their DRM service is superior, but publisher support is far inferior.[/footnote]) alternatives (GFWL and ubisoft are pretty generally hated) are also "unobtrusive" as they, too, can be unobtrusive under the right circumstances (well...not so much GFWL, but the always on internet connection is fine so long as you have an always on internet connection and they aren't doing server maintanence).

damn, did not know steam was so bad. I don't have a choppy internet connection so steam works great for me. i feel bad for those that have a bad internet connection

 

[Legion IV]

I find it really hilarious and have a tough time taking someone seriously when they have this very respectable standpoint BUT THEN say they will pirate or find other ways of playing the game....

Comon man, i could respect you if you just would have balls and say theres no way am ever playing any of theres games anymore regardless. I've done it, its not that hard.