It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)UK Ubisoft DRM Assassination(129 posts)(129 posts)
(129 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 27, 2010
I find it hilarious how simple minded the community managers are:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/1801042338?r=2061038538#2061038538
"the DRM is there to protect PC gamers, and to help them "
Post edited February 27, 2010 by Tantrix
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Wishbone: He's referring to this story.
avatar
Gundato: Just skimming through there: They aren't saying that Finnlandish people have a "Right to Entertainment". I really don't think this is about making sure everyone can look at cute little kitty cat pictures when they aren't at work. This is about finding jobs and communicating with people. Plus, it makes the country look fancy.

Are you thick? Yes, that law isnt about gaming or entertainment at all, it was about fast access to the net. I was making a comparison. DUH. And they say americans arent dimwits.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
drmlessgames: Are you thick? Yes, that law isnt about gaming or entertainment at all, it was about fast access to the net. I was making a comparison. DUH. And they say americans arent dimwits.

And they say little pissant trolls aren't capable of having a discussion without showcasing their nationalistic prejudices...
Now, would you care to explain how this was a valid comparison? Or are you just going to keep being a little pissant troll who wants nothing more than to turn every discussion he is losing into a soapbox to rant against something he doesn't like?
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
StingingVelvet: We can go back and forth as much as you want but I know my facts, thanks. I don't feel a need to prove it to you. STALKER CS certainly had TAGES, the latest X game certainly had TAGES, The Witcher certainly had TAGES, though it did not have online activation. All of them had it patched out, as did Dawn of Discovery.

What going back and forth?, did you read my posts?
I never said that Witcher or X3 (retail version not Steam version) didn't had copy protection I said they never had online activation.
Witcher (retail version not Steam version ) had TAGES but no online activation.
X3 (retail version not Steam version ) had TAGES but no online activation.
Stalker SoC (retail version not Steam version ) had no copy protection for the US version and used Securom for the Euro version but didn't had any online activation. Clear Sky on the other way used TAGES but still no online activation (once again retail version) and I have no idea what protection CoP is using.
I will re-check for Anno and FC2 because, as I said before, I only have second hand info for those as I don't own them.
Post edited February 27, 2010 by Gersen
Posted February 27, 2010
http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-demands-high-assassin-s-creed-2-review-score--154456.phtml
Now that's low.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Tantrix: http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-demands-high-assassin-s-creed-2-review-score--154456.phtml
Now that's low.

I don't normally take Destructoid's word for things. But if that's true (and we know it has happened in the past, as with Gamespot and Eidos) then it paints a clear picture of just the kind of depths Ubisoft has sunk to.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Crassmaster: I will note that the retail version of Anno 1404 (Dawn of Discovery) has had the DRM removed (the patch notes for the retail version mentioned DRM removal)...any copy bought online still uses Tages, though.
drmlessgames : Are you honestly saying that you consider COMPUTER GAMES an instrinsic right? You put them up there with food and water and shelter? If so, do everyone a favor and grow up. I am sick and tired of PC gaming drama queens crying about how their games have been taken from them like it's comparable to blood in terms of necessity to life.
avatar
drmlessgames: Entertaintment is something we all need. Some countries like Finland recognized broadband internet access as a right, like food and shelter. They wrote it in their regulations. So maybe they're not needed for sustaining life, but they are important. And they are certainly NOT a paid service for hire.

First of all, having read up on what the Finns said, the move towards broadband internet access was made to improve quality of life for people in extreme rural areas and to boost business and banking access. There's no mention of "And let little Timmy (or the Finnish equivalent) play him some Counterstrike."
Secondly, food and shelter are not rights so much as life necessities if you want your life to continue. Comparing food, without which you will die, to entertainment is downright simplistic and stupid.
Third, even IF Finland was all about the gaming, uhhh...did they put a DRM-free stipulation in there? No? So then, how exactly has Ubisoft's server system defied it? Oh, it hasn't at all? So that argument doesn't even make sense in the context of the overall discussion? Great!
And yes, entertainment is most definitely a paid service for hire. Do you pay for TV? movies? music? games? A night out? All of these things cost MONEY, as in you have to HIRE them to entertain you.
Again, can we please stop whining like a two year old having a fit and blowing the issues of the PC community completely and wildly out of proportion? It's tiresome and it's pathetic.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Tantrix: http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-demands-high-assassin-s-creed-2-review-score--154456.phtml
Now that's low.

Obviously I can only base the following off the two news articles involved:
The first is a generic website. I personally don't know what Destructoid is about, but I have heard it's name before so I will assume it is popular.
So we have Destructoid citing a random website that cites the promo for a new issue of a magazine. I am not of the Germanic persuasion, so I have no idea if that is a popular magazine. But this reeks to me of publicity.
Also, I kind of find the site Destructoid linked to kind of suspicious. Look at the attached image and see if you can spot the hinky. I'll give you a hint: This is the year of my favorite Street Fighter game, not 2009 :p
So what I suspect is that this is either purely a publicity stunt (we are against the evil Ubisofts who only want your money! So can we have your money?), a mass misunderstanding (there is a reason nobody trusts online translators :p), or the most rational explanation: Ubi knows that people are going to bash this for the DRM. So they probably were just demanding that the DRM not affect the review score, which is quite reasonable for a company to ask before giving pre-release review copies out.
Attachments:
weirddating.png (305 Kb)
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Gundato: So what I suspect is that this is either purely a publicity stunt (we are against the evil Ubisofts who only want your money! So can we have your money?), a mass misunderstanding (there is a reason nobody trusts online translators :p), or the most rational explanation: Ubi knows that people are going to bash this for the DRM. So they probably were just demanding that the DRM not affect the review score, which is quite reasonable for a company to ask before giving pre-release review copies out.

It's actually pretty common for companies to withhold early review copies unless there's an understanding that the reviewer will be giving it a positive score. The only thing newsworthy about the linked story is that it seems Ubisoft was a bit more explicit in their request than most companies are. Most of the time there's just an implicit quid pro quo with the understanding that if a company provides a review copy and the game then gets a poor review then that reviewer won't be getting any future review copies. Just another reason to not trust professional reviews of games.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Gundato: So what I suspect is that this is either purely a publicity stunt (we are against the evil Ubisofts who only want your money! So can we have your money?), a mass misunderstanding (there is a reason nobody trusts online translators :p), or the most rational explanation: Ubi knows that people are going to bash this for the DRM. So they probably were just demanding that the DRM not affect the review score, which is quite reasonable for a company to ask before giving pre-release review copies out.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: It's actually pretty common for companies to withhold early review copies unless there's an understanding that the reviewer will be giving it a positive score. The only thing newsworthy about the linked story is that it seems Ubisoft was a bit more explicit in their request than most companies are. Most of the time there's just an implicit quid pro quo with the understanding that if a company provides a review copy and the game then gets a poor review then that reviewer won't be getting any future review copies. Just another reason to not trust professional reviews of games.

Oh, fully agree on that. I wasn't saying Ubi didn't imply it. But this itself is probably either a publicity stunt by the mag or just a misunderstanding.
Posted February 27, 2010
avatar
Gundato: Oh, fully agree on that. I wasn't saying Ubi didn't imply it. But this itself is probably either a publicity stunt by the mag or just a misunderstanding.

Eh, just as likely that the PR person dealing with the magazine had all the subtly of a sledgehammer to the face. Not much point in speculating about it though.
Posted May 16, 2010
Been lurkiing on Pirate bay.
PSP and XBOX version of Prince of Persia TFS are being heavily pirated.
Feels somewhat good man.
Posted June 22, 2010
In case someone is wondering how long Ubisoft will continue the DRM campaign, I guess until they call insolvement OR change their whole head staff.
The latter is not the most realistic option:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4811054957/m/6811098728?r=7401089868#7401089868
Hmm the chances of the people at the top of Ubisoft being sacked are basically zero and there is a good reason for this all you need to do it look at who the top 5 people are:
Yves Guillemot, age: 49, Position: Chairman of the Board, Managing Director.
Michel Guillemot, age: 51, Position: Appointed Managing Director of Development, Strategy and Finance, Director.
Claude Guillemot, age 53, Position: Appointed Managing Director of Operations, Director.
Christian Guillemot, age 44, Position: Appointed Managing Director of Administration, Director.
Gerard Guillemot, age 48, Position: Appointed Managing Director of Publishing and Marketing, Director.
Notice anything, Yeah they all have the same sir name, probably I suspect they are all brothers, at the very least they are all members of the same family. I would probably suspect that not all of them are the best people to be in the job that they are in, but when a family runs a company there is nothing you can do about it, as they probably hold over 51% of the shares in the company, so they hold the voting majority.
Post edited June 22, 2010 by Tantrix
Posted June 22, 2010
avatar
Tantrix: <snip>

There is no news there, it's well known that Ubisoft is run by the five Guillemot brothers. It pretty much gives Yves the freedom to take the company in whatever direction he likes within reason. They are still a PLC after all with shareholders to account to however as the brothers control the voting majority of the stock none will be ousted anytime soon.
Posted June 22, 2010
Ubisoft . . . proving every day that nepotism works!
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)UK Ubisoft DRM Assassination(129 posts)(129 posts)
(129 posts)