First of all, my link is not from Wikipedia, but it's from official statistics made by EU.

Sencodly, you say that people in villages don't play video games, that really, really makes you look like an idiot right now. Just like Ubisoft's PR manager saying that "always-on doesn't impact our customers".


By the way, you said that Developing countries seem to have more internet coverage than developped ones. And EVEN YOUR LINK proves you're wrong.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_users_per_100_inhabitants_ITU.svg]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet_users_per_100_inhabitants_ITU.svg[/url]

Read my post again.

Actually, I'd say the reason is more likely the press account they have with said publisher. Which is just as pathetic as the reason you offer up to be honest. RPS would be a far more meaningful read if they treated everyone the same.

You almost sounded like implying that only grandmas are living in villages.

No. A lot of students , high school and students live in villages. They only come to cities to study. For example, I came back during summer break to my parent's house. I loose my internet connection here like 10 times a day. It wouldn't be a great experience playing Assassin's Creed 2 here.

Also, as I've said again, having money to pay for inet connection is not the case. People living in villages don't have access to broadband , stable connection because THERE'S NO POSSIBILITY of having one there.

And no, people are not moving from their homes for 10 mbps broadband in a city.

Yes, because I was clearly talking about Afghanistan and sub-sarah Africa.

I bet especially Arabs would want to play Assassin's Creed xD

By the way, if we're talking about personal experience, many of my friends from university have to rely on mobile internet with monthly bandwidth limits.

@down post: Thanks for the finding :)

No who is using anecdotal evidence?

Please check page 35

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/scoreboard/docs/pillar/broadband_coverage_2010.pdf

And this is freaking two years old. Look how the countries jumped in the two years before that.

Page 36 covers rural areas. Check the yearly jumps there.

And DSL is more than enough for any "always online DRM".
University students shouldn't spend money on games anyway. They should just pirate them and spend money on booze and cheap ramen. They can (and will) make up more than enough when they are professionals ;-).

Hmm... Interesting find, thanks.

Those numbers are even higher than our Polish research facilities that make them, but thanks, it kinda changes the picture...
I knew I did something wrong during my university studies...

Internet coverage is increasing fast just about everywhere in the world. It is the most cost effective way to make those countries more competitive in the future. Investments into the "digital infrastructure" are just about the best thing you can do for a country (right after legal development, but I might be biased ;-P). GOG.com is the best example of such a success story.

The internet can be the "great equalizer" socially and economically. Therefore I am not that harsh on companies that "force" improvement of that net infrastructure, as it should be a general goal everywhere.

Nice to hear it, but I'm still stuck with the abortion called Conflux.

About time.

Hey maybe before calling people fucking names in an attempt to feel superior you should realize what they're fucking saying. A minority of PC GAMERS have not got stable internet. Did I say general fucking populations? Did I say gamers in general? Fucking no, I did not, I said PC GAMERS.

PC gamers, in the big markets, are filled with people who have had broadband since it first became affordable. 8 million sales of Diablo 3, MMOs being the biggest hardcore PC gaming revenue stream since fucking Everquest. PC gaming and internet go hand-in-hand, and for those without it, who of course do exist, they say "oh well" because the money is being made from those who do have it.

Fucking douche is right, but wrong fucking person you twit.

Ubisoft obviously felt themselves they need to clarify their position. Why, I guess we need to ask Ubisoft.

Since they have changed their mind constantly, going back and forth (and anything between) DRM-free and always-online DRM, I guess many people just like to know beforehand what kind of DRM future Ubisoft games will have, without having to do too much detective work by themselves. Predictability, and all that.

Me neither, as long as I know it before I buy a game so I can vote with my wallet.

Exactly that similar to the "we stop using DRM... but instead you now have to be always online, but it's not a DRM it's a service".

Now it's : "We stop using always online DRM and you can play offline... but still there are several single player feature for which you need to be always online but it's not DRM it's just wonderful "community" features". That's the same kind of BS Activision pulled for Prototype 2.

Personally if anything I find that even more asshole-ish than the always-online DRM, at least with it things were "clear". Maybe because peoples who cased haven't bought Ubi games or used cracks. Personally I haven't bought a single non-GoG Ubisoft games since PoP2008.

good news...