Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

PC gamer logic:

Ubisoft implements bad DRM: Screw you Ubisoft, you suck! Remove DRM!
Ubisoft removes always online DRM: You still suck!

Honestly, if they removed it, it should be ok to buy their games again right? Pretty sure it was the number one complaint, and they just removed it. What happened is the PC community literally told them to F off and just stay away anyway. PC gamers are entitled, elitist people that are incredibly pessimistic and will stuff developers heads in regardless of actions, judging them on past movements.

I don't blame developers for shutting out the PC community.

What? This statement is somewhat ignorant.

People are still complaining because they don't like their games, that is why some people are telling them to F off. They have every right to do so and should do so if they do not like their games. If there is one thing that has always annoyed me about claiming people to be entitled, or elitist is it is often used:

A) Regardless of their opinion. It is not elitist to dislike Ubisoft, nor is it elitist to talk about disliking Ubisoft. It is not  a form of "entitlement" to dislike DRM, it is not "entitlement" to not want DRM.
B) Applied to every-single person. Here, you have lumped every single PC gamer into one blob and called all of them eitist and entitled. Some of "us" might take offence to having all our opinions ignored, and instead mashed into one gigantic blanket-statement applied evenly to every single one of "us". Your statment seems to imply that there is no such thing as a non-elitist or non-entitled PC gamer.

Its not OK to buy their games for some because said games suck, and these "elitist" PC gamers are under no obligation to spend their money on Ubisoft. It is not elitist, nor does it imply any sence of entitlement to complain and criticize them or their games.

You also seem to have confused developers and publishers when you stated that "PC gamers ... will stuff developers heads in regardless of actions, judging them on past movements." (Again, with the no-exceptions-all-PC-gamers). Ignoring this, 2 Points:

A) This "past movement" only passed a few days ago, you can't honostly expect everyone to go "oh good, I completely forgive them for any issues I had with them in the past and no longer expect that they could do anything similar ever again. Now to start purchasing their games again"
B) It is perfectly reasonable to judge devs/publisers on their past movements. For the same reason we study history. It can be useful to extrapolate what can happen in the future.

So no, its not elitism or any sense of entitlement, just alot of unhappy potential customers which Ubisoft are now only realising are not obligated to hand their money over. Ubisoft must listen to us entitled, elitists because its our damn money, we wont give it to them unless we want to, and they have to make us want to give them money.

[timferius]

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/06/why-might-ubisoft-have-changed-their-minds-on-drm/#more-123351

An interesting look at the DRM thing. The part that particularly makes sense to me is why they haven't apologized, or admited the failure of the DRM. For those who didn't read, essentially, it would be shooting themselves in the foot with their shareholders. There's be a big outcry as to why all that investor money was wasted on DRM (even though it was probably done to appease shareholders...), and would have a large negative impact on the company on the buisness side of things. It's always a bit frustrating that most shareholders in gaming companies are there purely as buisnessmen, and probably a slim fraction are actually gamers, but I guess that's just the nature of buisness. People invest in video games because they make money, not because they're fun.
That being said, that's Ubisofts job, to care for it's customers. so that's where they've failed in the past, and hopefully this is a sign of improvement on that in the future. So they have to sell it to their investors.

[Starver]

One could argue that if a company has shareholders, then it's the shareholders one must care for.

However, the shareholders are best rewarded by keeping (or efficiently replacing) its customer-base in order that there's still a company to have a share in for the long-term.  And where you're in trouble is if you can't make the "this is good for our long term business" arguments clear enough to keep the shareholder base generally happy enough in its shifting and changing amorphous mass to do the things that are logical necessary to keep the goose alive and laying its golden eggs, against the other possible gains that actually end up harming the bird (to continue to thrash this ad hoc analogy to death)... Which is a case in point of intertwined interests, but still more about the people in receipt of the eggs, rather than necessarily those that were invited to pay admission to view the goose, in order that its feed expenses did not have to be hacked out of the eggs themselves.  (And all this can be completely undermined by savvy opportunists overriding the 'common good' directionality, of course, at the expense of those that amiably but unwittingly (or just plain out-savvied) come afterwards.)

[/oversimplifyingthings]

And its a pessimistic POV, as well.  Don't expect me to go too far to justify it as a complete worldview.  YMMV, MMMV, EMMV.  And if you don't like the Goose analogy, be thankful I didn't mix it with the pass-the-parcel/timebomb bits that I've just edited out.

[timferius]

One could argue that if a company has shareholders, then it's the shareholders one must care for.

However, the shareholders are best rewarded by keeping (or efficiently replacing) its customer-base in order that there's still a company to have a share in for the long-term.  And where you're in trouble is if you can't make the "this is good for our long term business" arguments clear enough to keep the shareholder base generally happy enough in its shifting and changing amorphous mass to do the things that are logical necessary to keep the goose alive and laying its golden eggs, against the other possible gains that actually end up harming the bird (to continue to thrash this ad hoc analogy to death)... Which is a case in point of intertwined interests, but still more about the people in receipt of the eggs, rather than necessarily those that were invited to pay admission to view the goose, in order that its feed expenses did not have to be hacked out of the eggs themselves.  (And all this can be completely undermined by savvy opportunists overriding the 'common good' directionality, of course, at the expense of those that amiably but unwittingly (or just plain out-savvied) come afterwards.)

[/oversimplifyingthings]

And its a pessimistic POV, as well.  Don't expect me to go too far to justify it as a complete worldview.  YMMV, MMMV, EMMV.  And if you don't like the Goose analogy, be thankful I didn't mix it with the pass-the-parcel/timebomb bits that I've just edited out.

I'm re-reading this for the third time, just trying to get exactly which position you're getting at (I'm thinking the standard "manipulating customers is more profitable than appeasing them" view that many corporations take) but I just wanted to applaude you for taking that metaphore and running with it, all the way to the endzone, out the door, down the street, and across town.
Also, mixing metaphores is the highest form of art! Don't resist next time, but embrace the madness!

[fenrif]

People who make sweeping generalisations are entitled, elitist people that are incredibly pessimistic and will stuff PC gamers heads in regardless of actions, judging them on past movements.

Fixed that for you.

[Starver]

(I'm thinking the standard "manipulating customers is more profitable than appeasing them" view that many corporations take)

...well, that's a possibility.  I started off thinking how some people might want to mention that if a (for profit) company only cared for its customers, then it would not make a profit.  And who would invest in that?

Spoiler: And if you want to go seriously into it, which I wasn't intending to... (click to show/hide)

And so, the full-on "capital-C" Capitalist view is perhaps that you have to screw the customers over for every red cent you can, while ensuring that you don't run out of people willing to give you yet more of their cents (of any colour).  Given that we're not talking about "inelastic goods", this is a balancing act, and reliant on more than just price-per-unit but also everything surrounding the product, such as image and how the product is packaged and indeed the quality of the product.  And I'm sure there's quite a few different points of stable equilibria (at any given time) on the graph of customers-per-price-paid-per-all-the-other-dimensional-factors.  It would all boil down to manipulating customers, though, I suppose.  Whatever you think of a company, it's going to try to look nicer than it is (whether actually quite nice or an utter illegitimate offspring) in order to increase the good reputation or obscure the bad reputation to the general commercial benefit.  So appeasing (or pleasing) is certainly something that can be seen to be done, whether or not there's actually a bad rep to be nullified.

"I tell you what, customers... for a limited period of time I shall graciously sell these batches of Self-Sealing Stembolts as three for the price of two, and McGuffins are half price!"  Of course, the company that says this does so because the sales of both are sluggish, and you can bet your bottom dollar (if you still have one) that SSSs were until now being retailed for at least 50% markup on supply, and the McGuffins needed twice as much of your hard-earned cash as Self-Stealing Stembolt And McGuffin Supply Warehouse (Open To The Public, Seven Days A Week!) had had to originally lay out.  Or there's another expected catch, like them being assured that (averaged across everyone who 'takes advantage of them') in getting each footfall across the threshold they're going to more than make up (either at the time, or in future sales) for any losses incurred through additional spending.

...but, no I just thought that the "taking care of customers is of prime concern" wasn't really accurate.  (Not that I'm an expert in commerce, just an armchair analyst, but on the whole the essential "need to make a profit" bit is one reason I don't like having to do anything sales-like.  And, as a knock-on, this is probably why I'm far from loaded, right now.)

This is definitely a derail, though, insofar as even if I'm right (and I'm probably missing something, and thus being either too pessimistic or not pessimistic enough), I'm just making a general point about all companies, and not really contributing to either the shooting down or the praising to high heaven of Ubisoft's reported direction-shift.

[timferius]

(I'm thinking the standard "manipulating customers is more profitable than appeasing them" view that many corporations take)

...well, that's a possibility.  I started off thinking how some people might want to mention that if a (for profit) company only cared for its customers, then it would not make a profit.  And who would invest in that?

Spoiler: And if you want to go seriously into it, which I wasn't intending to... (click to show/hide)

And so, the full-on "capital-C" Capitalist view is perhaps that you have to screw the customers over for every red cent you can, while ensuring that you don't run out of people willing to give you yet more of their cents (of any colour).  Given that we're not talking about "inelastic goods", this is a balancing act, and reliant on more than just price-per-unit but also everything surrounding the product, such as image and how the product is packaged and indeed the quality of the product.  And I'm sure there's quite a few different points of stable equilibria (at any given time) on the graph of customers-per-price-paid-per-all-the-other-dimensional-factors.  It would all boil down to manipulating customers, though, I suppose.  Whatever you think of a company, it's going to try to look nicer than it is (whether actually quite nice or an utter illegitimate offspring) in order to increase the good reputation or obscure the bad reputation to the general commercial benefit.  So appeasing (or pleasing) is certainly something that can be seen to be done, whether or not there's actually a bad rep to be nullified.

"I tell you what, customers... for a limited period of time I shall graciously sell these batches of Self-Sealing Stembolts as three for the price of two, and McGuffins are half price!"  Of course, the company that says this does so because the sales of both are sluggish, and you can bet your bottom dollar (if you still have one) that SSSs were until now being retailed for at least 50% markup on supply, and the McGuffins needed twice as much of your hard-earned cash as Self-Stealing Stembolt And McGuffin Supply Warehouse (Open To The Public, Seven Days A Week!) had had to originally lay out.  Or there's another expected catch, like them being assured that (averaged across everyone who 'takes advantage of them') in getting each footfall across the threshold they're going to more than make up (either at the time, or in future sales) for any losses incurred through additional spending.

...but, no I just thought that the "taking care of customers is of prime concern" wasn't really accurate.  (Not that I'm an expert in commerce, just an armchair analyst, but on the whole the essential "need to make a profit" bit is one reason I don't like having to do anything sales-like.  And, as a knock-on, this is probably why I'm far from loaded, right now.)

This is definitely a derail, though, insofar as even if I'm right (and I'm probably missing something, and thus being either too pessimistic or not pessimistic enough), I'm just making a general point about all companies, and not really contributing to either the shooting down or the praising to high heaven of Ubisoft's reported direction-shift.

Ya, I think I see where you're coming from.
In the end, it's always a balancing act between pleasing investors and pleasing customers. Both give you money, and often (but not always) that which pleases one upsets the other. Ubisoft has been leaning heavily on pleasing investors the last while, and now it looks like they may be shifting a bit, now that customer satisfaction is at an all time low. I work for a large corpartion that's just started with a similar shift, so I can't imagine it's all that uncommon to bounce back and forth.

[motorbitch]

2 late. ubi soft is on my "do not by" list and will remain there.
not that i would miss a lot. remakes of remakes of remakes, most of the time merely graphical upgrades, few and late patches....
the drm shit was just one (true a strong) reason to get me pissed.

[Girlinhat]

And the other side:
I have a reliable Internet connection. This changes nothing for me.

Your side has no amount of empathy for other people who might live in a slightly different style than you.

[Draco18s]

And the other side:
I have a reliable Internet connection. This changes nothing for me.

Except when it's Unisoft's servers that are having issues.  What then?

[Levi]

And the other side:
I have a reliable Internet connection. This changes nothing for me.

Except when it's Unisoft's servers that are having issues.  What then?

Yeah, I used to be the guy who was all like "My internet is perfect, I'll have no problems" when I bought Diablo 3.  Turns out it wasn't my connection I really had to worry about(although they mostly cleared that up a week or two after launch).

[Girlinhat]

When you buy into anything with an Always Online DRM you submit yourself to a few cosmic whims.  1: You will have free time.  2: Your computer will work.  3: Your ISP will cooperate.  4: The DRM server will cooperate.  In accordance with Murphy's Law, the average American is more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to enjoy the game.

[Draco18s]

When you buy into anything with an Always Online DRM you submit yourself to a few cosmic whims.  1: You will have free time.  2: Your computer will work.  3: Your ISP will cooperate.  4: The DRM server will cooperate.  In accordance with Murphy's Law, the average American is more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to enjoy the game.

5) they didn't "accidentally" patch the game, so that it's in demo-mode for three days, even if you paid for it.

[NobodyPro]

When you buy into anything with an Always Online DRM you submit yourself to a few cosmic whims.  1: You will have free time.  2: Your computer will work.  3: Your ISP will cooperate.  4: The DRM server will cooperate.  In accordance with Murphy's Law, the average American is more likely to be struck by lightning than they are to enjoy the game.

5) they didn't "accidentally" patch the game, so that it's in demo-mode for three days, even if you paid for it.

6) Offline capabilities will be limiting, buggy, unreliable or all three simultaneously. (Except GFWL )

[LoSboccacc]

my guess is that they just recived the bill for their drm servers. never trust a press statement.