I personally think DRM just causes piracy to get worse.

Anymore I think it's part of the intended effect so they can justify the need for more DRM

Watch dogs is Okay though!! My Uplay seems to be working Correctly?

Hot damn, I didn't know half of that! Ubisoft is a really shitty company!

I wouldn't worry, I'm sure they'll fix that.

Are you guys even serious? Locking gamer out of content because of lack on achievements?

I always felt a strong hate for achievements because its not the core of gaming and it was never the reason for playing games. The games i enjoyed the most had ZERO achievements and im so glad!

But the binding of achievements into a game at a level of critical game mechanics and game content is outside common sense and its striking far in the heart of the gamers that do actually enjoy the essence of a game, not the competition nor any of the so called achievements. The essence is driven by heart, not skill nor effort... its a race of the heart. Many of the beloved games, i was playing them and i wish it would never stop and at some point it was over and felt bit sad but i never cared a single achievement, i was simply cruising with my heart until the very end... and it was the best experience ever.

Nowadays, everything became so "materialistic", so "number-crunching-related", its so heartless... a plain world full of numbers and counters... DOKI, the beat of the heart, died long ago.

Thats just shocking....

Just glad i never used a Ubisoft game on my PC. In term i ever get one of those DRM games i demand my money back, and wont accept license. I dont care what game i have to pass for, there is enough of other games to play. For example Witcher 3 and probably the only game i would make a preorder because i know that im gonna get the added bonus content for free when its released, so its a deal worth it to make "investment". What people have to understand: There is different levels of license: A DRM locked license with tons of expensive bonus content, is the "lowest" of all license and its never worth a investment.

Garme jurnalizm, as he likes to mock it himself, at it's best. Picking every wrong turn they took, throw in some marketing claims that didn't held true because it looks meatier, then throw it all into one pot and stir it.
Completely failing to even mention one positive aspect or game, making them look as if it's a freakin' wonder how they're still a running business and not bankrupt.

Take any other bigger dev / publisher, be it Activision, Blizzard, EA, Square, Take 2, etc. and tell me you couldn't make the same only twice as big.... and no, CDPR isn't (yet) in that league and if you insist, still just the exception to the rule.

You claim that you never used a Ubisoft game on PC and frankly put, it shows. So allow me to point out what we're talking about...

Far Cry 3 comes with 4 "actions" where you can get points.
10 points for finishing the tutorial
20 for creating 25 needles
30 for unlocking 50 entries in your ingame notes
40 for reaching the southern isle
None of it is hard, difficult or even something you need to have in the back of your head. In fact, it's hard to miss these on purpose.

It comes with 5 possible "rewards" for which you can spend those points on.
0 points - High Tides DLC. 2 additional coop missions and 4 skins
10 points - Wallpaper
20 points - some exclusive tattoos for the tattoo-editor in multiplayer
30 points - a special gun for singleplayer
40 points - an additional singleplayer mission

Best of all: if none or not all of those strike you as "I want that", you'd still get the points which you can then use later on rewards for other games.

If this is considered cut content or something so integral that it should be available for everyone (which it is) from the very start of the game, then someone explain me please what still qualifies for the category "bonus" and why.

Bought a single uplay game early last year, hated the system, haven't bought anything from Ubi since.

Word, when I first got AC1 there was none of those shenanigans...picked up AC2 after YEARS of wanting it and just telling myself "next sale" only to be faced with a wall of bs just to play via Steam. Last AC game I'll be buying, I daresay.

1.
Ubisoft is still one of the worst companys, but indeed almost any of the bigger company is a money grabbing self centered black hole with lack of "long term view", although its almost failproof that the biggest of them are always bad ethics (not sure if there is any exception) because simply way to powerful, they are able to mind control a customer. Thanks for bringing it up, i should probably buy even lesser games, and in the last 2 years the amount of games i got is drastically reduced.

Although, most of the awesome games i enjoyed a lot is neither from Activision, nor Blizzard, nor EA (EA as good as impossible, i hate Sport Games), nor Square-Enix nor Take 2. Actually Square-Enix is the only one i used to buy lot of games from, but it has been drastically reduced because to much franchise content and no heart for the real stuff anymore. In the past when Square was still allone without Enix, they generally had much better games. At some point they was merging with Enix, and the result was a even bigger company and at that point the general quality of the content was reduced and it became even more mainstream and franchise-like... sad stuff.

Some people say a company need to be huge in order to provide AAA games, but thats not entirely true. The hard truth is that nowadays a "indie dev" can rarely provide AAA games (with rare exceptions, because gameplay isnt necessarely a matter of sheer human ressources, but graphics always is), but there is a limit on how much a good game truly is in need of. At some point it can be "bloated" with so much conflicts that the game becomes a crashing hole either as a piece of art or as a stable software, or as a masterpiece as a whole including ethics and support for minoritys. So there is a certain limit, its not true that a AAA game is in need of endless human ressources, but instead a motivated team of true creators.

The saving up on cash for games was a good benefit to my body health, so i was able to buy the most expensive food i ever had. My mental health improved too because lesser "junk" invading my brain, instead i was only focusing on a few of the real games, mainly outside "common mainstream"; for example "Tales of Xillia".

2.
I really dont care how easy it is to get the achievement points because its still not able to get ride of the main issue, the core of all the meanie. I DONT WANT ACHIEVEMENT POINTS TO HAVE EFFECT ON GAMEPLAY OR CONTENT.

Are you trying to protect a companys mentality or something? In the past the gamers had fun without achievements and they are still allowed to have fun and full content without achievements, whats the issue? The gamers having fun without achievements paid the same such as the ones having fun with achievements, so both are allowed to get full content for the grade of fun. Implementing achievements into gameplay mechanics is free choice but should never be forced. Content is part of gameplay-mechanics, new (prehaps enjoyable) levels or new (prehaps supreme) weapons or whatever, its something affecting either gameplay or mechanics, if you like it or not. If you say "no its not affecting anything", then i simply can not agree.

Why do you think people preorder? Company XY: "I give you a new bodywear baby, i give you a new weapon, new sunglasses just for the ones preordering it". Now lets look into the brain of most gamers "OH OH OH... I NEED TO HAVE IT... i may become mentally ill without having it... buy buy buy buy."

They hand out a crapload of money just so they can put theyr hand on a "small item", but its the stuff that matters to them... they want a complete game... they want all the content inside... its understandable. The issue simply is: A company is heavy abusing that attitude... consumers becoming a slave... as a result, and they are allowing it.

I just want you do understand this matter, its no easy matter and its heavely abused... gamers do care for small content. You cant put it down to a "hilarious or minor matter" you know the truth!

Do you think they do preorder in order to "support" a company? In order to support some kind of mentality, attitude or a "higher believe"? Nope... people care nothing about companys and companys care nothing about people, the company simply is seeking for as much cash as possible and the consumer is seeking for as much content as possible. There is no ethics, no moral and nothing, just greed and cash. GOG/Project Red is probably one of the rare exceptions because there could be more than just "greed and cash".

How the whole issue started? To big of a story... prehaps another time.

But fact is, as a result of that issue i will not pay the full price of games anymore in term there is bonus content on launch, because i will put a clear punishment on such a mentality, and i hope someday more people like me are handling it that way and are bringing such companys down to the kneels. That way i pay the price the game is actually worth, it: Half the price for missing content. not a cent more than that. I can wait... because i got enough to handle in my life... i am always busy, im never without work, fun or study.

But in term one of the few companys isnt using any "DLC content" bound on launch but offering a full package instead, i will pay full price and even TWO games at once. The second game is either for collection or i give it away as a present, prehaps even selling it in term price is skyrocketing* at some point (of course selling wont work for digital content but i can still hand them out as a present).

*But i can almost certainly say: A game with launch-DLC or missing content (very common) will never be able to skyrocket, because such games are designed in order to make mainstream-junk lovers happy, not "collectors", and the only one paying "skyrocket-prices" are collectors! Just to say one hidden secret. But the worst value of all games is a DRM locked PC game with incomplete content and account binding, it got a collectors value of exactly zero, yet many companys are bringing out such stuff in the name of "collectors" and many people still buying it.

GOG and Project Red is a exception because even if some content may be missing on the DVD (as soon as new content added), a owner of a hard DVD copy is allowed to get a free (and DRM free) backup of the newest and updated content, so every owner of a Project Red CE is able to get full content, thats very essential in order to have the name of a "collectors item".

Yeah! I mean I can use the Carrot Type ship and the banana guns without completing Tyrian first, it's not as if completing the game is an achievement.

Please do refrain from making fun of mentally ill people. It is in bad taste.

What do you mean by skyrocket?

You can see it that way and I won't try to convince you otherwise. Though why you bother at all about them then, is beyond me - but that's something i don't have to understand.

My reply however was directed at the Jim Sterling video that bashed Ubisoft. Again, you can see it that way, but the amount of crap thrown at Ubi compared with any other of the bigger companies (except maybe EA), is way beyond reasonable or justified.

I'm certainly not trying to protect Ubi or any other company, but pointing out how it is / works and using those facts against hearsay, should still be allowed.

If that one unlockable car (out of 100) in Driver: San Fransico is enough for you to not wanting the game, despite that you can unlock it easily by just playing the game - ok. But claiming foulplay, incomplete game or cut content.... yes, I consider that as exaggeration and overreacting.
And again, I'd still like to know what then qualifies for the category "bonus" and why or how.

Everyone knew Skyrim would be Steamworks only and have DLCs after launch, but it sold better than every other game from Bethesda before.
Everyone knew Watchdogs would have Uplay binding and DLCs coming with the available season pass, yet it sold 4 million copies in the first week, making it not only the company’s best-selling game in that amount of time, but also the best-selling new IP across the entire video game industry.

If you dismiss that just as "mainstream-junk" - ok. But it fails pretty much any definition of not skyrocketing....

I hate achievements. I hate forcing an online connection to play a single player campaign.

However thinking logically achievements force OCD ridden players ( a large portion of casual gamers) to buy DLC so as not to drop off from 100% complete on a game in their library.

Forcing the online connection reduces the number of pirated copies of the games... in theory at least. We ill not debate the number of times I may purchase a game if I liked it, but do not have access to a playable demo so I am not shelling out full price for it. THe number of games that I myself have no desire to play multiplayer itself makes me hate a lot of this type of DRM.

That said what they said about 'having enough online content' to make me WANT to connect to their servers is key. If I can go through the single player campaign in offline mode that would rock. If they have enough multiplayer missions that increase my overall character or profile to make the overall gameplay awesome, and maybe the right kind of social aspect, I can see myself WANTING to connect to the game servers and therefore having to have a legit key.