Projections of future events are always "suspect".
If the government would mind it's own business instead of trying to meddle in ISP network management, we can be pretty sure that non-action would cause no extra loss in jobs. Not forcing people at ISPs to do business against their will is probably a good policy.
I'm a big fan of the government not forcing people to do things against their will.
It still doesn't sound like something an adult would say, even to sarcastically make a point of some kind.
But the whole subject sounds like the usual geek-rage and Internet whining about "The Principle" of whatever. When, in actual reality, there's no practical, substantial, or material change of any kind.
(Unless you were someday planning on running pirated PS3 games. Then Sony could update the console to disable your software cracks. Which is what they undoubtedly intend to do.)
Sony is obligate to offer all the services they want, in unlimited quantities, forever. Sony has no option. In return, gamers are obligated to keep buying a minimum of 7 full-priced ($60) games each year. The customers have no option. (And it's only fair.)
Oh wait. No. I guess gamers have no ongoing obligations. So why should Sony?
what recourse does a consumer have when a corporation breaks the contract?
What is the monetary value of the damage that this breach of contract caused you? Why should you have any recourse if you were not harmed? Because your feelings on the matter are important?
Just sell your console and by an XBox. Or don't. Why should anyone care? It's not like anyone is taking anything from you (except future choices, choices which you have not paid for and are not owed to you by Sony or anyone else).
Every industry that gets discussed by people in Internet forums.
Basically, there's nothing unusual or particularly interesting going on. You're just someone riding this particular groupthink wave. There's some place on the Internet where people exactly like you are outraged (outraged!) about anything anyone does.
And it's almost all just as meaningless as your reaction here.
...removing features to reduce price is not what people wanted.
Yeah. People wanted them to add features and sell the console for $9.99 with 10 free games and lose $1000 on each console. So what? That's why people don't get what they want.
See the other post where I said I get tired of people demanding things and failing to grasp that there are two sides to every dispute.
I don't think people should heap hatred on a company in one breath and ask for that company to treat them with respect in the next.
I also want DRM schemes to succeed so that customers can access content and pirates can't. Then game developers will make more money, which means more games and better games for us to play.
All bullshit aside, all they want is their game to work. 3 weeks in and they can't even play it.
I don't actually think this is true. It could be, but I looked around and it doesn't seem to be.
I'm sure it probably doesn't work perfectly for everyone all the time. The servers were hit with DDoS attacks. And it's a PC game, so there are any number of reasons it might fail for someone.
What more do you feel is expected from the every day average joe user?
If they're only asking for their game to work, then nothing. If they're demanding DRM-free games, what do they have to offer in return for this demand being granted? Why should anyone listen to such a demand, let alone consider it?
No, the PSP sucking balls and Sony's constant firmware revisions geared to take out PSPs that people hacked to do what they *want* to do (non-piracy-wise), thus ensuring continued ball-suckage is why the PSP platform is nearly dead.
Because that's what game developers care about?
"We would have published games for the PSP, but Sony issued a firmware update that disabled my homebrew. So screw that."
Excellent. The demand for good pc games isn't going anywhere, so we'll just spend our money on a company that makes games that actually *work*.
Why do you assume there are enough non-pirates to pay enough to fund game development?
Maybe those new companies will charge $75 instead of $50 so that the few non-pirates on the PC will allow them to make a profit. I'm sure there would be no complaints about something like that.
There is a lot of money for successful game developers. The money comes mostly from console sales. Why would the most talented game developers spend their valuable time making games for PCs when they could make a lot more creating games for consoles?
I believe the customers did their part by paying for the game.
They have the right to expect a game in return.
Some people seem to expect an unlimited amount of anything they could possibly ask for.
Also, there are clearly two sides to every dispute, even when one side is wrong.
Sure there is. There's the customer's side: "we bought a game that doesn't work" and there's Ubi's side: "you bought a game that doesn't work but we're trying to fix it... when our support people aren't on vacation and when we aren't blaming you for posting in a forum that isn't an 'official support forum' even though we monitor and moderate it when we aren't on vacation".
There you go. They're trying to fix it. But it's not soon enough or good enough or whatever. And why should anyone expect it ever will be? Why shouldn't everyone (or at least Ubisoft) cut their losses, offer a refund, and give up dealing with you?
Having an opinion or protecting our own self interest is the reason why the world is in such bad shape?
When you do it without regard to who gets hurt or any other consequences, then yes.
And I pointed out that lack of regard right there in my original post, didn't I?
Surely a soulless, faceless corporation that only acts in its own self interest is at least as much to blame as a customer who paid for a game that doesn't work.
Really? Where is that acknowledgment that there could possibly be any blame for anyone besides Ubisoft? Is it in any of these posts on this topic?
Also, random internet complaining is faceless and at least as soulless as any corporation.
I get tired of people wanting things done for them without offering anything in return.
Also, there are clearly two sides to every dispute, even when one side is wrong. These discussions on Slashdot end up being stupid because you guys don't seem to have the imagination to try to understand the reasons behind the decisions you don't like. A few posts in, the groupthink conclusion always turns out to be:
"[Whoever] made [this decision] because they're morons and evil and they hate money and puppies and if they just did what we wish they would do, everything would have worked out great for everyone."
And then you all wonder why the world is in such bad shape when you have all the answers to what everyone should do in every situation -- or at least every situation where you personally have something to gain.
Easier answer for game publishers: just make games for consoles and forget all the trouble with PCs and piracy and DRM and all the rest of the nonsense involved.
So again I ask why any person should sympathize with a thing.
They shouldn't. Unless they want sympathy in return.
Should they just shut up and silently take it like good little consumers?
No. Keep causing trouble for Ubisoft until they learn that making PC versions of their games is just a pointless way to lose money and get Internet hate-campaigns started against them.
Soon, Ubisoft will learn their lesson and go console-only. Some other publishers have already learned this, but Ubisoft is apparently giving the PC one last chance.
The question seems to deliberately misunderstand the situation.
They are willing to accept lower sales of the game and offer a less desirable product because they consider it preferable to having their games pirated. I'm not sure why you'd think that decision would lead to lots of extra sales of the game. Even a small boost in sales makes this a worthwhile effort for them.
They also don't want pirated PC copies of their game competing against their console sales. Consoles are where the money is, largely because of piracy on the PC.
Maintaining this DRM seems like a good choice if it accomplishes those goals.
Keeping people on internet forums from whining about things is futile. Why even try?
Slashdot Mirror
Projections of future events are always "suspect".
If the government would mind it's own business instead of trying to meddle in ISP network management, we can be pretty sure that non-action would cause no extra loss in jobs. Not forcing people at ISPs to do business against their will is probably a good policy.
I'm a big fan of the government not forcing people to do things against their will.
It's scarier to contemplate that such information is so often exposed as a matter of routine carelessness.
Yeah, the last 10 security breaches each caused the end of the world. It's super scary.
I'm glad it's not a Mario-Level generation competition. No one wants to power their circuits with a generator designed by a cartoon plumber.
It would probably just be a gorilla and a dragon forced to turn a mill wheel that creates electricity by grinding up star bits.
Try adjusting the contrast.
Oh. Sarcasm. I've heard of that.
It still doesn't sound like something an adult would say, even to sarcastically make a point of some kind.
But the whole subject sounds like the usual geek-rage and Internet whining about "The Principle" of whatever. When, in actual reality, there's no practical, substantial, or material change of any kind.
(Unless you were someday planning on running pirated PS3 games. Then Sony could update the console to disable your software cracks. Which is what they undoubtedly intend to do.)
Sony is obligate to offer all the services they want, in unlimited quantities, forever. Sony has no option. In return, gamers are obligated to keep buying a minimum of 7 full-priced ($60) games each year. The customers have no option. (And it's only fair.)
Oh wait. No. I guess gamers have no ongoing obligations. So why should Sony?
what recourse does a consumer have when a corporation breaks the contract?
What is the monetary value of the damage that this breach of contract caused you? Why should you have any recourse if you were not harmed? Because your feelings on the matter are important?
Just sell your console and by an XBox. Or don't. Why should anyone care? It's not like anyone is taking anything from you (except future choices, choices which you have not paid for and are not owed to you by Sony or anyone else).
Name me ONE other industry...
Every industry that gets discussed by people in Internet forums.
Basically, there's nothing unusual or particularly interesting going on. You're just someone riding this particular groupthink wave. There's some place on the Internet where people exactly like you are outraged (outraged!) about anything anyone does.
And it's almost all just as meaningless as your reaction here.
...removing features to reduce price is not what people wanted.
Yeah. People wanted them to add features and sell the console for $9.99 with 10 free games and lose $1000 on each console. So what? That's why people don't get what they want.
It's hard to believe anyone old enough to have his own home would write a post like yours.
Or did you mean when you move out of your parent's house?
If they don't want people repurposing the hardware they sell, they should quit selling them and offer leases instead.
Because absolutely no one on the Internet would be outraged or complain about that.
Seriously though, do you really think your "leases" idea is a good idea? Really?
See the other post where I said I get tired of people demanding things and failing to grasp that there are two sides to every dispute.
I don't think people should heap hatred on a company in one breath and ask for that company to treat them with respect in the next.
I also want DRM schemes to succeed so that customers can access content and pirates can't. Then game developers will make more money, which means more games and better games for us to play.
That's what Ubisoft has said they'll do. They're going to "evolve and improve" their service.
All bullshit aside, all they want is their game to work. 3 weeks in and they can't even play it.
I don't actually think this is true. It could be, but I looked around and it doesn't seem to be.
I'm sure it probably doesn't work perfectly for everyone all the time. The servers were hit with DDoS attacks. And it's a PC game, so there are any number of reasons it might fail for someone.
What more do you feel is expected from the every day average joe user?
If they're only asking for their game to work, then nothing. If they're demanding DRM-free games, what do they have to offer in return for this demand being granted? Why should anyone listen to such a demand, let alone consider it?
No, the PSP sucking balls and Sony's constant firmware revisions geared to take out PSPs that people hacked to do what they *want* to do (non-piracy-wise), thus ensuring continued ball-suckage is why the PSP platform is nearly dead.
Because that's what game developers care about?
"We would have published games for the PSP, but Sony issued a firmware update that disabled my homebrew. So screw that."
Excellent. The demand for good pc games isn't going anywhere, so we'll just spend our money on a company that makes games that actually *work*.
Why do you assume there are enough non-pirates to pay enough to fund game development?
Maybe those new companies will charge $75 instead of $50 so that the few non-pirates on the PC will allow them to make a profit. I'm sure there would be no complaints about something like that.
There is a lot of money for successful game developers. The money comes mostly from console sales. Why would the most talented game developers spend their valuable time making games for PCs when they could make a lot more creating games for consoles?
I believe the customers did their part by paying for the game.
They have the right to expect a game in return.
Some people seem to expect an unlimited amount of anything they could possibly ask for.
Also, there are clearly two sides to every dispute, even when one side is wrong.
Sure there is. There's the customer's side: "we bought a game that doesn't work" and there's Ubi's side: "you bought a game that doesn't work but we're trying to fix it ... when our support people aren't on vacation and when we aren't blaming you for posting in a forum that isn't an 'official support forum' even though we monitor and moderate it when we aren't on vacation".
There you go. They're trying to fix it. But it's not soon enough or good enough or whatever. And why should anyone expect it ever will be? Why shouldn't everyone (or at least Ubisoft) cut their losses, offer a refund, and give up dealing with you?
Having an opinion or protecting our own self interest is the reason why the world is in such bad shape?
When you do it without regard to who gets hurt or any other consequences, then yes.
And I pointed out that lack of regard right there in my original post, didn't I?
Surely a soulless, faceless corporation that only acts in its own self interest is at least as much to blame as a customer who paid for a game that doesn't work.
Really? Where is that acknowledgment that there could possibly be any blame for anyone besides Ubisoft? Is it in any of these posts on this topic?
Also, random internet complaining is faceless and at least as soulless as any corporation.
Piracy is a very big problem on PCs. Piracy is a much smaller problem on the 360. Piracy is non-existent on the PS3.
Pirates have also nearly killed the Sony PSP platform.
I get tired of people wanting things done for them without offering anything in return.
Also, there are clearly two sides to every dispute, even when one side is wrong. These discussions on Slashdot end up being stupid because you guys don't seem to have the imagination to try to understand the reasons behind the decisions you don't like. A few posts in, the groupthink conclusion always turns out to be:
"[Whoever] made [this decision] because they're morons and evil and they hate money and puppies and if they just did what we wish they would do, everything would have worked out great for everyone."
And then you all wonder why the world is in such bad shape when you have all the answers to what everyone should do in every situation -- or at least every situation where you personally have something to gain.
Easier answer for game publishers: just make games for consoles and forget all the trouble with PCs and piracy and DRM and all the rest of the nonsense involved.
So again I ask why any person should sympathize with a thing.
They shouldn't. Unless they want sympathy in return.
Should they just shut up and silently take it like good little consumers?
No. Keep causing trouble for Ubisoft until they learn that making PC versions of their games is just a pointless way to lose money and get Internet hate-campaigns started against them.
Soon, Ubisoft will learn their lesson and go console-only. Some other publishers have already learned this, but Ubisoft is apparently giving the PC one last chance.
If they sell even a few more copies (you know, like I said in my post) it would be more profitable.
Wouldn't that also be something they could measure? Compare sales of the console version of this game with other games that didn't have that DRM?
Sales of Assassin's Creed 2 were a lot higher than the original in the first week. It's selling pretty well.
Why should anyone have sympathy for any company?
Sympathize or don't. When you don't, don't expect any sympathy in return. Expect decisions like the ones Ubisoft has made.
Ubisoft should care what their customers want. It's how they sell stuff.
Customers are people who pay. And if they don't pay enough to cover the cost of the trouble they cause, then they're not worthwhile, are they?
Customers who bought the games for consoles don't seem to be having any problems.
Pirates share precisely the same attitude. So what?
I don't hear a lot of sympathy in your post for Ubisoft either. Why should they care what you want if you don't care what they want?
The question seems to deliberately misunderstand the situation.
They are willing to accept lower sales of the game and offer a less desirable product because they consider it preferable to having their games pirated. I'm not sure why you'd think that decision would lead to lots of extra sales of the game. Even a small boost in sales makes this a worthwhile effort for them.
They also don't want pirated PC copies of their game competing against their console sales. Consoles are where the money is, largely because of piracy on the PC.
Maintaining this DRM seems like a good choice if it accomplishes those goals.
Keeping people on internet forums from whining about things is futile. Why even try?