The Needles: You Only Have Yourself To Blame

[hyperdrachen]

Piracy killed PC gaming, cost of gaming rigs helped a little.

 

[zehydra]

So... wait. Ridiculous DRM schemes are gamer's fault for being gamer's and wanting to play games?

Gee, thanks.

That's the thing, ultimately people who bought the game knew (or should have known) what they were getting into when they bought it. However it is UbiSoft's fault for not keeping their servers up to par.

So thats it, then? Suck it up, or move on?

The problem I have with laying the blame at the consumer's feet, is that I fail to see what the hell gamers could do to correct the problem. By the time the DRM was announced, it must have been a company-approved accepted method that was always going to happen irregadless of the outcry. So whether I buy Assassin's Creed 2 or not - or whether anyone buys Assassin's Creed 2 or not - there it is with its online-all-the-time DRM. What can I do to change that? If I want to play Assassin's Creed 2, I can't buy a non-DRM version. I have no power at Ubisoft to make a corporate-executive decision. I could hope that, if enough people don't buy it out of DRM protest that Ubisoft *might* change its mind but there is no garuntee of either of those things happening. This 'choice' that gamers are claimed to have is a false one: if they want to play AssCreed2, they have to deal with the DRM; if they don't want to play it, they don't buy it. The people who want to play it but don't want to play with the DRM don't get the option and are always going to be unhappy, whatever happens. Given the alternatives, if I was one of those people I'd probably prefer being happy playing AssCreed 2 whilst being unhappy about DRM, than being unhappy about not playing AssCreed 2 but happy about not dealing with DRM. That's hardly the fault of the gamer who, by definition, WANTS TO PLAY GAMES. Circular logic, much?

Its like saying its the rain's fault for it being a rainy day. The rain is always going to be there, but it is the prevalent weather conditions that dictate where, when and how it rains.

For that matter, am I not allowed to purchase the game with the expectation that it will work as promised, and then rage when it doesn't? Whilst we all could probably guess that something was going to go wrong somewhere, there was no thundering voice from the sky that told us it was DEFINATELY going to happen. Its all well and good laughing at the chumps in hindsight, but what if it hadn't happened? Ubisoft's servers had miraculously stayed up? Would that have been down to the gamers, too?

The idea is that if we all decide not to buy it because of the online DRM, then we as consumers send a powerful message of profit loss to Ubi Soft.

 

[BlindChance]

All of this is speculation until we know one good fact: What percentage of customers who buy their games even know what DRM is.

Until that point? We don't even know if a boycott of those who did would affect them one bit anyway.

 

[Odoylerules360]

Huh...

I don't want to call you an idiot, but this article is full of stupid.

 

[Gildedtongue]

I wonder how much in kickbacks The Escapist gets every time the rush to the defence of DRMs and how great and wonderful they are. I mean, damn, now it's "Well, it's a failed experiment, but YOU! You who wanted to actually pay money to enjoy this product, YOU'RE the reason why this happened! Give more money to the industry Gods and quake in fear! Demanding you actually get product for what you offer your cash for is an unreasonable request." So, yes, woe to the PC gamer who decided to actually buy the game that they wanted to play. Obviously if they actually wanted to play this game, they should have pirated it, oh, but then the Escapist will wail about how the evil pirates are ruining everything and just causing this DRM fiasco...

So, yeah, way to be a dick, Andy

 

[Fenixius]

The idea is that if we all decide not to buy it because of the online DRM, then we as consumers send a powerful message of profit loss to Ubi Soft.

NO. Bullshit. That cannot ever possibly happen. "Consumers" are not an organised group - they are all individuals. Some of the people who take the time to read the label (on something which doesn't normally have lethal information on the label) will decide to not buy it, and everyone else won't, and will buy it. It's not like it's written in bold letters on the front of the box. You cannot say "Well, if they do bad things, don't buy it" and expect it to make a difference. It means that you don't suffer the problem. But what if you want the next game more? Or the next one? And the DRM keeps getting worse? Consumers have zero power in this scenario. In fact, why am I spelling this out to you? Someone did it above! Go read this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.179864-The-Needles-You-Only-Have-Yourself-To-Blame?page=2#5259025].

And flipside - let's say we DO all not buy it. Awesome! Now, Ubisoft reckon that because more people downloaded copies than people bought it, that their DRM wasn't up to scratch, and they'll try for something more invasive.

This is a LOSE-LOSE situation. We cannot win. They do not see reason or logic or kindness. All that is known by Ubisoft, by Activision, etc, is money. Do not expect anything you do to work.

Bet? BET? For gods' sake, since when is purchasing a video game a freggin gamble? When I pay for a product, I do fucking expect it to work as advertised, and if it doesn't I take it back to the store for a substitute or a refund.

This is absolutely correct. Not even getting into the business of being assumed to be a criminal, and having to prove our innocence every tick of the computer, this is exactly how buying something works. If it does not work, you get your money back. This is not unreasonable. If you want to flip it around, and simply sell me a license, that's fine! But how about when you fail to uphold your end of the license, you compensate me, or I get to take legal action. Isn't that fair, too?

For me, this isn't really about what's legal; what they can get away with. It's about what's ethical. It's unethical to provide a product that can and will break, and then say that you have no responsibility for that, irresponsible to uphold no responsibility to compensate people who paid for it when your system broke.

What frustrates me incredibly is that thre are working options out there, options that people LIKE to see. Steamworks, for one. Put that on Assassin's Creed 2, or Splinter Cell: Conviction, and people will flock to it, and DEFEND UBISOFT for it. "They chose the high ground! The working option that doesn't punish us!" There's no real disadvantage to them. They're already supporting Valve by selling on Steam, so there's no argument that it's helping their competitors succeed when they pay for their DRM.

 

[JaredXE]

So, reading this article all I got was "People who buy into Ubisoft's stupid DRM have only themselves to blame, so if you want to play that new game just pirate it.". Because really, voting with my dollars is all well and good, but I still want the game without the ugly DRM.


How else am I going to get it then?

 

[Fenixius]

I wonder how much in kickbacks The Escapist gets every time the rush to the defence of DRMs and how great and wonderful they are.

[...snip...]

So, yeah, way to be a dick, Andy

Dude. Fucking read what Andy said. I think he said something like three times: "Ubisoft are huge dicks here, this is an awful goddamn system."

The point he was making is that people need to take responsibility for their actions, do some research, and apply common sense. Don't try even for a second to say he was promoting outrageous DRM. You're either ignorant of what he actually said, or dishonest and have no respect for the authors here.

 

[Fenixius]

So, reading this article all I got was "People who buy into Ubisoft's stupid DRM have only themselves to blame, so if you want to play that new game just pirate it.". Because really, voting with my dollars is all well and good, but I still want the game without the ugly DRM.


How else am I going to get it then?

I think you have to take this one as a loss, and hope they'll fix it for the next one. That's the idea. You can live without one game. If it works well enough, they'll repeal their DRM on older games. Especially if they shut down the servers.

Otherwise, yeah, you can't play this because your ideals are too strong. Kinda sucks, but it makes you a good person. It made me $130AUD richer when I cancelled my collector's edition preorder, too.

 

[zehydra]

The idea is that if we all decide not to buy it because of the online DRM, then we as consumers send a powerful message of profit loss to Ubi Soft.

NO. Bullshit. That cannot ever possibly happen. "Consumers" are not an organised group - they are all individuals. Some of the people who take the time to read the label (on something which doesn't normally have lethal information on the label) will decide to not buy it, and everyone else won't, and will buy it. It's not like it's written in bold letters on the front of the box. You cannot say "Well, if they do bad things, don't buy it" and expect it to make a difference. It means that you don't suffer the problem. But what if you want the next game more? Or the next one? And the DRM keeps getting worse? Consumers have zero power in this scenario. In fact, why am I spelling this out to you? Someone did it above! Go read this post [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.179864-The-Needles-You-Only-Have-Yourself-To-Blame?page=2#5259025].

And flipside - let's say we DO all not buy it. Awesome! Now, Ubisoft reckon that because more people downloaded copies than people bought it, that their DRM wasn't up to scratch, and they'll try for something more invasive.

This is a LOSE-LOSE situation. We cannot win. They do not see reason or logic or kindness. All that is known by Ubisoft, by Activision, etc, is money. Do not expect anything you do to work.

Bet? BET? For gods' sake, since when is purchasing a video game a freggin gamble? When I pay for a product, I do fucking expect it to work as advertised, and if it doesn't I take it back to the store for a substitute or a refund.

This is absolutely correct. Not even getting into the business of being assumed to be a criminal, and having to prove our innocence every tick of the computer, this is exactly how buying something works. If it does not work, you get your money back. This is not unreasonable. If you want to flip it around, and simply sell me a license, that's fine! But how about when you fail to uphold your end of the license, you compensate me, or I get to take legal action. Isn't that fair, too?

For me, this isn't really about what's legal; what they can get away with. It's about what's ethical. It's unethical to provide a product that can and will break, and then say that you have no responsibility for that, irresponsible to uphold no responsibility to compensate people who paid for it when your system broke.

What frustrates me incredibly is that thre are working options out there, options that people LIKE to see. Steamworks, for one. Put that on Assassin's Creed 2, or Splinter Cell: Conviction, and people will flock to it, and DEFEND UBISOFT for it. "They chose the high ground! The working option that doesn't punish us!" There's no real disadvantage to them. They're already supporting Valve by selling on Steam, so there's no argument that it's helping their competitors succeed when they pay for their DRM.

You'd be surprised what the masses can achieve. You're right though, consumers are not organized, though we could become organized if we wanted to. Why don't we?

 

[Fenixius]

You'd be surprised what the masses can achieve. You're right though, consumers are not organized, though we could become organized if we wanted to. Why don't we?

Problem right there. "Why don't we?" You say it like "we" is a thing. It's not. There's no such thing as "we" in this sort of scenario. There are only a large number of "I"s. There's no coordination. Plenty of communities exist. Not everyone subscribes to one. Not all of them act in unison. There's no "Gamer's Union". There will never be, either, because many people game in different capacities, for different reasons, with different levels of involvement, and Ubisoft can target them all individually. They make their money off of people who don't care, call it a success, and move on. Intelligent people who recognize the bullying and unethical treatment and horrible DRM don't number enough to matter. Simple as that.

 

[zehydra]

You'd be surprised what the masses can achieve. You're right though, consumers are not organized, though we could become organized if we wanted to. Why don't we?

Problem right there. "Why don't we?" You say it like "we" is a thing. It's not. There's no such thing as "we" in this sort of scenario. There are only a large number of "I"s. There's no coordination. Plenty of communities exist. Not everyone subscribes to one. Not all of them act in unison. There's no "Gamer's Union". There will never be, either, because many people game in different capacities, for different reasons, with different levels of involvement, and Ubisoft can target them all individually. They make their money off of people who don't care, call it a success, and move on. Intelligent people who recognize the bullying and unethical treatment and horrible DRM don't number enough to matter. Simple as that.

By "we" I meant consumers, but I suppose we could also be referring to the members of the escapist.

 

[Fenixius]

By "we" I meant consumers, but I suppose we could also be referring to the members of the escapist.

And that's precisely what I meant. "We", referring to the sum total of consumers, does not exist. It is not a "group" which can be defined in that way. It's too disparate. The ONLY thing which we all have in common is that we wanted to buy this game. That's it. That's not enough to organise a political movement around.

You can't get coherency out of it. There is no "group". There are only many independent individuals who buy this game.

 

[nametakentwice]

I agree with what a lot of the forum-posters are saying against this article. The server outages may not surprise me, but the angle that The Escapist is coming at this from does.

This is the tagline for this article at the start of this thread:

Ubisoft may have loaded the gun but you, dear gamer, pulled the trigger, so maybe it's time to stop crying about how unfair it is when it goes off in your face.

It's all well and good for the writer to say a few times in the article that he doesn't like the system, but the main connotation is still anti-gamer, which is a surprising view for a gaming magazine to take.

Then, a senior editor steps in. Her first point was simple defence of her writer, fair enough. But then in conversation things again go somewhat pro-activist, anti-gamer.

Don't like the DRM? Don't buy the game. Period. Or, if you make the choice to deal with the DRM because you simply can't live without playing the game, then accept that you've made your choice.

(I would mention the possibility that the response was particularly strong due to a reaction to the swearing of the previous poster, but this is an Editor on the *Internet*, and the article and editor already dismissed the validity of people being surprised by things that they should theoretically be aware of).

Although she does the same thing as the writer later, saying it's a bad system, she is also putting the onus on the gamer, and as a Senior Editor. I know this isn't exactly the world of newspapers here, but a Senior Editor's backing still lends some added official weight to the opinion, I think. (This may be partially because I was a writer and co-news editor at my University's newspaper, so I have a reader's, writer's, and editor's perspective to this.)

So, what about other ways to get Ubisoft to take notice? The writer and editor basically said the only option was - Don't buy the game. There's other ways to speak out besides simply not buying the game, especially if you find the problem after you've already bought the game. You could return the game for a refund, and tell Ubisoft you're doing it and why. If certain staff of The Escapist wanted a message to be given to Ubisoft, they could advocate a mass return. This is both respectful to gamers, allows activism, and is anti-DRM. Or, gamers who have legally bought it and suffered an outage could crack it, and (if they really wanted to take a stand) tell Ubisoft what they've done and why.

And 'shouting out on the forums', as much as the writer may dislike it, seems a perfectly valid response as well.

Jon Stewart recently did a bit on Fox News and their cross between News and Opinion. I am reminded of this as I think about how the Escapist is both News and Opinion. This article is clearly in the Opinion section (proper news would be far more objective), despite the fact it's written by a News Room Contributor and posted in the News section. (The description of the column starts out: "The Needles by Andy Chalk is an ongoing look at the news and events that shape the hobby and the industry we know and love, shot through with occasional outbursts of randomness..." [emphasis mine])

Yet, if this is opinion, why does it seem so aimed against The Escapist's own community? I mean, the writer and editor might have these views, but one would think the editor might temper it against the feelings of the community she both depends on and represents. To analogize, what's happening here feels as if Nancy Grace on CNN Headline News, with their News and Views shows, were to report on something bad happening and then blame her own viewers for it because they weren't vigilant enough. (I don't watch Nancy Grace a lot, but when I flip by she always has her righteous indignation aimed squarely at suspects and those defending suspects.) If she did that, I think her ratings would tank pretty quickly. I think this site has more resilience in that respect, as only a subset of users will read the whole article and this forum thread, and these are only two members of The Escapist, not the entirety of it. But that's effectively the feeling I'm getting from this particular Escapist article and the administrative presence in the thread. I get the feeling from the other comments that others feel similarly. There's probably others who got that vibe and didn't even bother finishing the article.

As for what I'm personally going to do about this situation, in case anyone's wondering - I bought the first Assassin's Creed used for PS3 when I first got my PS3, and I'll likely get the new one used when it becomes cheaper, possibly getting some DLC as well. Might borrow it from a friend before that if the opportunity arises. If I did want to play it on PC, I'd likely get it legally and then crack it at the first server malfunction, as I suggested above. As forum-posters said earlier, why should the gamer, or the artists and coders of the game, suffer because the administration decided on an insane method of DRM? True artists want to eat, but they also tend to want people to experience their works and are probably less bothered by piracy, especially by those on tight budgets or having problems with Draconian DRM, than the rich people at the top.

 

[baconfist]

Whats going to be really pleasant is when Ubisoft simply decides to no longer support their "Online Service Platform" and shut it off. Then everyone that bought it on PC will no longer be able to play the games they have.
As a person who may have pirated a game or two in the past I can say that I have never pirated a game that I would ever have paid for. Now with that said I did want to buy AC2 but their DRM stopped me. So in my experience piracy doesn't cause a company to lose sales but I know DRM has cost them at least 1 lost sale.

 

[Aries_Split]

snip

I think you might be misinterpreting what Andy and Susan are trying to say mate.

This is not, from what I gathered, an attack on gamers. Nor is it a blaming of them. What it is, is that most people KNEW the DRM was invasive. Most people KNEW it was a load of hay. Most people KNEW there was a chance the game would be rendered unplayable by a mistake on Ubisofts part.

Are all of those things Ubisofts fault? Yes.

But when you know all of the above, and you purchase the game, you have to accept the consequences of taking that risk.

It'd be like smoking cigarettes, and then suing the company for getting cancer. Sure, its the companies fault for manufacturing them, but the actual act of using them is always going to be the consumers choice.

Yeah?

 

[coldshrike]

I don't think it's fair to say that everybody who got the game should have known. I had no idea about Ubisofts new DRM until everything stated going wrong. Sure, if people continue to go out and buy the games now that they've been hit, you can shift some of the games. But there's every chance if a random person walked in and picked up a copy of AC2, they haven't looked into what kind of DRM it's got attached to it. Out of context, it's a fairly random, trival thing to be concerned about.

 

[Andy Chalk]

They are the victims - shame on you Andy.

Sorry, dude. People who get caught in earthquakes are victims. People who bought Asscreed 2 for the PC are consumers who either made an informed choice or couldn't be bothered to make an informed choice. Either way, sow, reap, etc.

 

[ScottocS]

This is a growing trend that is the future of PC gaming. You will get nowhere complaining for something that can not be changed by a larger majority that exists in the troll-universe.

http://i956.photobucket.com/albums/ae43/XxScottocSxX/internetdickwad.jpg

Several people have mentioned that "We Should do something" and in response to that, like a few others, I say NO. No amount of petitions/forum posts or outrage is going to change there mind. Using your dollar to "dent" their sales of a product is useless. A Larger proportion of the Gaming Demographic go one of these ways;

- Buy the game knowing the risks involved with the ever growing DRM being enforced
- Buy the game not aware of the risks involved with the ever growing DRM being enforced
- Don't buy the game at all
- Buy the game aware of the issues at hand and still complain when the outrage occurs

You need to reflect on which category you fit into and accept it or just be a very vocal clown about it all.
I have seen countless games introduced over the last few years with DRM, and yet it still prevails today. I bought Dawn of War 2 when it came out despite Steam (steam hater at time) and GFWL (hideous), MW2 and the horrible matchmaking, Battlefield BC 2 and the horrible horrible launch with menu functions worse than beta and now Assasin's Creed 2.

I bought all the above games despite the DRM involved and even embrace Steam for what it is. Criticise me for my actions, we're are on the internet after all, but if I, "the consumer" want to play a game for the game, as is my right I will play it. I don't complain anymore, because I have seen the tired and wasted effort of a near decade of rights being ignored/supressed by people that believe there way is the only way. Getting shafted by politicians/developers/distributors and publishers is common in this day and age. Its about time you got used to it.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

They are the victims - shame on you Andy.

Sorry, dude. People who get caught in earthquakes are victims. People who bought Asscreed 2 for the PC are consumers who either made an informed choice or couldn't be bothered to make an informed choice. Either way, sow, reap, etc.

Victims was hyperbole on my part sure, but is it really so unreasonable to believe people can simply purchase games that looked enjoyable and expect them to function as advertised? I hardly think a "reap what you sow" is applicable - the only sin of the paying customers who purchased this game is "wanting to play a fun title on their PC". Not everyone even knows to be mad about DRM, let alone what it is and why they should be angry, and (this part is key) they shouldn't have to.

It's easy to point and laugh at the ignorant masses who stumble into the trainwreck us nerds all predicted, but really, nobody should need to know the ins and outs of the DRM bundled along with the software they actually wanted to run, and the fact that a situation like this one exists is Ubisoft's fault, not theirs. Customers shouldn't need to know about DRM because publishers should not include DRM with the obvious horrific vulnerabilities that this one has - I'd suggest they shouldn't use DRM at all, but at the very least colossal screw-ups like this shouldn't be something quite so easy to predict.

Making informed choices about games should refer to properly researching whether or not you will enjoy it, whether you meet the system requirements, etc - not whether the extraneous software grafted on to keep people from copying it will thwart you from playing the game in some way.

And whether or not customers knew there might be problems at some point going in, telling them their woes are their own doing is like telling somebody who received a letter filled with anthrax that it's their fault for having a mailing address - clearly everyone who has one of those knows you could potentially receive dangerous items via their post, so there's no sense complaining about it now, is there? You knew the risks going in!*

Suggesting that any part of this is the customers fault is just plain insulting, and indicative of how screwed up the PC game industry is that you can actually make that claim in the first place.

[hr][small]*Or for a less ridiculous scenario, consider the customer who buys an X-Box 360 even though they know there have been issues with those consoles encountering the 'red ring of death', only to then have their purchase die in precisely that manner. I suppose they have only themselves to blame and shouldn't bother getting angry at Microsoft for knowingly manufacturing hardware with shitty fault tolerances, hmm? Of course not![/small]