Unfortunately, this is it in a nutshell. It's the equivalent of buying a car, but the dealer gets to keep it at the lot. All this will do is annoy any customers that do or would buy the games into chasing refunds or avoiding thier products entirely. Meanwhile, pirates will be playing without all the hassle.
Losing theoretically potential sales to pirates is one thing, but losing certain sales is a completely different ballgame.
dhayes68 posted the comment you linked !me i think its a great move the only player that wont like this on average once its applied and player see how the feature is will be pirate
since the vast majority have acces to at least a dial up connection
it wont be a big issue .me im all for this techno(IF IT EVOLVE AND KEEP PIRATE OUT)
since theres no use implementing this only to let it be a static techno that pirate will have bypassed in 2 month max!
Sorry if it looks like I linked you, i just removed your quoted portion of dhayes68's reply to keep things short.
I agree with you about piracy to an extent. Developers should get money from people that would have actually bought the product otherwise. It is a hard issue to debate simply because there is no physical loss. By copying a game, it does not vanish from the sellers warehouse.
What is lost is a potential sale. Fear of losing a potential sale should not push you into losing a sale you definitely would have made. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, if you will. Piracy that causes loss is bad for the industry and needs to be countered, but this looks like it will be ineffective and punishing on the customers.
The problem I have with this type of drm is that there is too much potential for something to go wrong. Even if you do not lose your internet connection completely, drop outs, and packet loss can occur in perfectly functioning routes.
Something as simple and common as a thunderstorm along your route could cause you to lose connection with the ubisoft servers. Then there are bugs in the netcode, server stability, and other network issues to consider. What happens if in three months after ubisoft releases this system, they then go bankrupt? Any of their games with this drm become completely unplayable.
It simply will not do what they want it to accomplish, and it will cost them sales.
Oh, and by the way, recently Steam's lead engineer, John Cook said "Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy."
When you buy something digital, you are supporting the developer. So basicly in that case after buying the game you can get pirated copy and play as long as you like. People just need to grow their passion to support someone in their beggining.
This is less about piracy and more about priming the market for moving offline/single player games to a subscription model. I'm sure they'd love to stop piracy as a bonus, but that's a marketing misdirection.
Companies will never learn. People who pirate games are not going to buy your game no matter what you do. They are not your customers. Instituting insane schemes that piss off potential customers, the ones who actually would buy your game, to exclude a few miscreants who inevitably find a way around your ineffectual nonsense is incredibly counterproductive. Take reasonable measures and move on. If a few schmucks pirate it that costs you nothing.
This.
They are acting like this will be a Lock on a house to keep honest people Honest. How many more Roberys would there be if you could just Log onto Pirate bay and Download a Skeliton key for any door you wanted?
Its been proven time and time again that this stuff wont stop people. They have to mutch fun dooing it.
Mean while Honest Customers like Me have to put up with this crap that ruins game experience. and in some cases (URT2003) I have to Download a Hacked Exe to play my OWN FREAKING GAME.
Its sad that they waste this mutch money on this stuff.
hahah i agree, if anything software pirates thrive on stuff like this. they see it as "OHHHH A CHALLENGE!" they gonna have fun cracking it. as they always have. the companies are so desperate to making a bigger and better profit they end up hurting the people who support them legitimately. Frankly If i had a game that forced me to stay online every single time I had to play it I wouldnt buy it, too much of a hassle involved. I dont mind a online verification check, but to be constantly online? nah not going to happen. All they are doing is angering and inconveniencing legitimate buyers.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
its probably the big reason f2p market is gaining so much ground ,no drama like many silly drm type stuff and the argument the industry had before ,oh f2p suck!thats argument isa nill so who will benefit from these new toy in the end the f2p market f2p market must be laughing a lot these days .top quality title coming out and only one game against them(cataclysm) wich is still almost half a year away for mmorpg player!
i agree slowly but surely F2P category of games, are improving quality with every title. Ive even paid a few bucks here and there for them. So Fee based game companies need to definitely step up their game alot!.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
So, it sounds like, should Ubisoft go out of business, you won't be able to play the games you paid for, anymore.
History serves, that if you start treating all of your customers like potential criminals, they'll either stop buying your stuff, or they will balk less at becoming one.
IMO, copy protections like these cost the company more money than they'd get were they not in place. Most would-be pirates would never pay $60 for the game, and most potential buyers would buy the game to support the devs, and remove the hassle and risk of using cracks. So now Ubisoft is going to add hassle to buying the legit copy.
What they want to do is stop people that aren't paying for the game from playing the game, it's that simple.
That wouldn't make much sense as stopping you from playing their game makes no money for them and, being a business, money is of great interest to them. I'm willing to believe that their actual intent, as indicated, is to turn a would-be pirate into a would-be paying customer.
Stopping people from playing the game without paying does imply that, the choice of purchasing the game is forced on the person.
And seeing F2P item malls along with other things like desirable items pricing being successful, it does hint a lot of people fold to the desire and give the cash, it's an instinct after all.
The conspiracy idea from onetruth does seem possible though, and we're still not getting many guarantees here - if this authentication server ever gets shut off due to lack of demand, will they still let us play offline?
And we're still not getting decent and reliable ways to evaluate the game ourselves like demos and trials.
there is also the issue that even though you have paid for the game, it still does not belong to you, at any time they want, for whatever reason, they can stop the game from playing, permanently. its all very well having a game that requires authentication online when installed, its quite another that requires continous online authentication, when that service itself can be interrupted, or removed, the whole thing is based on a deeply flawed premise, and rather than reducing the amount of piracy, will more than likely, promote it, as legitimate buyers will, quite rightly, shie away from buying a product, that will not in fact, belong to them.
"there is also the issue that even though you have paid for the game, it still does not belong to you, at any time they want, for whatever reason, they can stop the game from playing"
This is the one thing I can never get,
So lets say I go out and buy a new 2010 Ford Exploer, I pay 30k to the dealership and drive home. 3 years later Its payed off and I own the title and everythig is great.
Well a year later Ford comes back and takes my car from me, says I never owned it I just bought acsess to there car.......
Whats wrong with that???????? its not fair and its not right.....
When you buy somthing, its yours!!!!! you buy the rights to the car/music/games. In a nutshell you buy that property and it becomes YOURS, no matter what any TOS or lawyer or Judge says its YOURS!!!!!!
yes but you dont copy your ford that is as illegal as copying a game!
As long as the source code resides on the endpoint, DRM will never be effective in combating piracy and will only hurt and penalize legit consumers.
Treating legal consumers like garbage is not the answer. It only makes the decision easier for people that have been crapped upon for umpteen years to engage in piracy.
"I can pay overly inflated prices and be treated like like a twice pooped out piece of crap, or I can get the game for free and be free of the opression."
When on God's green earth are publishers going to wake up to this?
This is less about piracy and more about priming the market for moving offline/single player games to a subscription model. I'm sure they'd love to stop piracy as a bonus, but that's a marketing misdirection.
are you serious !any popular game get out!within a week the seller of junk beside the atlanta petro will have it avail as a pirated copy for sale from 5 to 15 dollars lol!yep good old pirate!
So, it sounds like, should Ubisoft go out of business, you won't be able to play the games you paid for, anymore.
History serves, that if you start treating all of your customers like potential criminals, they'll either stop buying your stuff, or they will balk less at becoming one. IMO, copy protections like these cost the company more money than they'd get were they not in place. Most would-be pirates would never pay $60 for the game, and most potential buyers would buy the game to support the devs, and remove the hassle and risk of using cracks. So now Ubisoft is going to add hassle to buying the legit copy. Just a flat out dumb idea.
What they want to do is stop people that aren't paying for the game from playing the game, it's that simple.
That wouldn't make much sense as stopping you from playing their game makes no money for them and, being a business, money is of great interest to them. I'm willing to believe that their actual intent, as indicated, is to turn a would-be pirate into a would-be paying customer.
Stopping people from playing the game without paying does imply that, the choice of purchasing the game is forced on the person.
And seeing F2P item malls along with other things like desirable items pricing being successful, it does hint a lot of people fold to the desire and give the cash, it's an instinct after all.
The conspiracy idea from onetruth does seem possible though, and we're still not getting many guarantees here - if this authentication server ever gets shut off due to lack of demand, will they still let us play offline?
And we're still not getting decent and reliable ways to evaluate the game ourselves like demos and trials.
there is also the issue that even though you have paid for the game, it still does not belong to you, at any time they want, for whatever reason, they can stop the game from playing, permanently. its all very well having a game that requires authentication online when installed, its quite another that requires continous online authentication, when that service itself can be interrupted, or removed, the whole thing is based on a deeply flawed premise, and rather than reducing the amount of piracy, will more than likely, promote it, as legitimate buyers will, quite rightly, shie away from buying a product, that will not in fact, belong to them.
"there is also the issue that even though you have paid for the game, it still does not belong to you, at any time they want, for whatever reason, they can stop the game from playing"
This is the one thing I can never get,
So lets say I go out and buy a new 2010 Ford Exploer, I pay 30k to the dealership and drive home. 3 years later Its payed off and I own the title and everythig is great.
Well a year later Ford comes back and takes my car from me, says I never owned it I just bought acsess to there car.......
Whats wrong with that???????? its not fair and its not right.....
When you buy somthing, its yours!!!!! you buy the rights to the car/music/games. In a nutshell you buy that property and it becomes YOURS, no matter what any TOS or lawyer or Judge says its YOURS!!!!!!
yes but you dont copy your ford that is as illegal as copying a game!
This is not about whether it is illegal to copy a game, its about whether or not its a good idea to harass legitimate buyers of a game. also, if something goes wrong with the authentication system, will ubisoft offer remuneration for its loss of use ?
if you buy something it is yours, if they later (in effect) remove your right to use this product, should they not also have to refund you for the loss of the game you paid for.
i suppose this also begs the question, just how robust, is Ubisoft financially, as i rather think that this kind of strategy could knock some serious holes in their financial outlook.
only reason we don't want this is we don't want to be bound to a will of a 3rd party after I paid for something,
This is my major issue with this. I think it will encourage law abiding customers to find a crack for their legitimately purchased games, which makes them more vulnerable to viruses, which then in turn negatively effects us all.
It's at odds with the American ideal of OWNERSHIP, which is, when I buy something, I OWN it. I buy a cd, and it works until it breaks, which is determined by how I treat it. Same with a car. If I buy a game DVD and 3 months from now, their server goes offline and I can't play, there's a problem.
If buying an Ubisoft game means I don't own it, I'm not gonna buy it.
Don't buy the games. Teach them a lesson. Simple as that. When they see they've wasted their money producing the games, they'll either not make the mistake again or hopefully release a patch because I really wanted Ass Creed.
It's real simple in my book! I pay for it it's mine! If game companies try to control what I bought after I pay for it, well I won't buy their product. Money for a product is an equal exchange....not some Obamaesque..economic game wherer he can jsut do what he pleases cause he thinks he has the right...
I think everyone who had ever thought about it realized that at some point all games(and most likely music/movie software as well) were going to swtich to a internet constant connection verification.
It's a clear step in anti-piracy and all industries are pushing forward with streaming technology. So within a decade all games/music/movies are going to stream anyways which will require a constant internet connection.
I'm not at all surprised a company is approaching this, someone had to be the first one to do it but it was also inevitable.
only reason we don't want this is we don't want to be bound to a will of a 3rd party after I paid for something,
This is my major issue with this. I think it will encourage law abiding customers to find a crack for their legitimately purchased games, which makes them more vulnerable to viruses, which then in turn negatively effects us all.
It's at odds with the American ideal of OWNERSHIP, which is, when I buy something, I OWN it. I buy a cd, and it works until it breaks, which is determined by how I treat it. Same with a car. If I buy a game DVD and 3 months from now, their server goes offline and I can't play, there's a problem.
If buying an Ubisoft game means I don't own it, I'm not gonna buy it.
Welcome to the Internet... where not everything you buy is solid and tangible and I know this is a potential issue, not enough protection AFAIK.
Which is why I believe they should make it clear that if they ever stop supporting the game, they will make offline play possible, just along with a lot of protections we do need, companies work to make profit and developing offline play to some dead game does not involve any kind of profit.
I think everyone who had ever thought about it realized that at some point all games(and most likely music/movie software as well) were going to swtich to a internet constant connection verification. It's a clear step in anti-piracy and all industries are pushing forward with streaming technology. So within a decade all games/music/movies are going to stream anyways which will require a constant internet connection.
And when it still fails to stave off piracy, I wonder what they're gonna try, next.
I think everyone who had ever thought about it realized that at some point all games(and most likely music/movie software as well) were going to swtich to a internet constant connection verification. It's a clear step in anti-piracy and all industries are pushing forward with streaming technology. So within a decade all games/music/movies are going to stream anyways which will require a constant internet connection.
I'm not at all surprised a company is approaching this, someone had to be the first one to do it but it was also inevitable.
i challenge that really, because while it may seem inevitable, it is also too intrusive and restrictive, people will inevitably 'vote with their wallets' what may seem inevitable in the end, may actually be a foolhardy enterprise.
"and if your connection drops while you're playing for any reason, you'll be kicked out of the game and potentially lose your progress."
This is serious. They're attempting to protect their game but harming us. The least they could do is offer an auto-save feature in a cloud like Steam's cloud. I'd love to not care about re-installing games later on to find out my saves still exist because they're stored online.
But hey, they might make it available for an extra monthly fee of $5, in a situation they themselves created and might use to charge for.
The software is "dongled" by an internet connection to the company's "license server". In principle they try to apply the same mechanics as are used in the business world.
The software is tied to an account. That means you cannot sell the box after you are finished with the game. Unless you sell your account as well. That leads to a problem when you have one account for several games.
Problems with internet connections or a too little bandwith will have a negative effect on gameplay or even make it impossible to play the game.
No company lives forever. What will they do after the company goes out of business one day? If you're lucky the company will provide a patch to solve the issue. Or you can download a cracked version. But there is still the possibility that you have to throw the game into the wastebin.
What if the software is at the end of its life cycle? No more marketing. No more patching. No more addons. It's almost like in 4)
Cracked Versions are ... well. Can you always trust the source you get it from?
Well, up to now you could rely on being able to play off-line games whenever you wanted. 5 years after purchase, 10 years after purchase, 20 years after purchase (with a little tweaking). But now?
Comments
dhayes68 posted the comment you linked !me i think its a great move the only player that wont like this on average once its applied and player see how the feature is will be pirate
since the vast majority have acces to at least a dial up connection
it wont be a big issue .me im all for this techno(IF IT EVOLVE AND KEEP PIRATE OUT)
since theres no use implementing this only to let it be a static techno that pirate will have bypassed in 2 month max!
Sorry if it looks like I linked you, i just removed your quoted portion of dhayes68's reply to keep things short.
I agree with you about piracy to an extent. Developers should get money from people that would have actually bought the product otherwise. It is a hard issue to debate simply because there is no physical loss. By copying a game, it does not vanish from the sellers warehouse.
What is lost is a potential sale. Fear of losing a potential sale should not push you into losing a sale you definitely would have made. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, if you will. Piracy that causes loss is bad for the industry and needs to be countered, but this looks like it will be ineffective and punishing on the customers.
The problem I have with this type of drm is that there is too much potential for something to go wrong. Even if you do not lose your internet connection completely, drop outs, and packet loss can occur in perfectly functioning routes.
Something as simple and common as a thunderstorm along your route could cause you to lose connection with the ubisoft servers. Then there are bugs in the netcode, server stability, and other network issues to consider. What happens if in three months after ubisoft releases this system, they then go bankrupt? Any of their games with this drm become completely unplayable.
It simply will not do what they want it to accomplish, and it will cost them sales.
Oh, and by the way, recently Steam's lead engineer, John Cook said "Cheating is more of a serious threat than piracy."
Remember kids, say NO to hax.
Just want to point.
When you buy something digital, you are supporting the developer. So basicly in that case after buying the game you can get pirated copy and play as long as you like. People just need to grow their passion to support someone in their beggining.
This is less about piracy and more about priming the market for moving offline/single player games to a subscription model. I'm sure they'd love to stop piracy as a bonus, but that's a marketing misdirection.
...
Sounds like a good way to piss off the people who are paying for the games.
I pay for what I play. I don't want to have to deal with crap like that.
They should spend the resources trying to catch and procecute the people that do. Instead they just annoy the people paying thier bills.
its probably the big reason f2p market is gaining so much ground ,no drama like many silly drm type stuff
and the argument the industry had before ,oh f2p suck!thats argument isa nill so who will benefit from these new toy in the end the f2p market
f2p market must be laughing a lot these days .top quality title coming out and only one game against them(cataclysm)
wich is still almost half a year away for mmorpg player!
This.
They are acting like this will be a Lock on a house to keep honest people Honest. How many more Roberys would there be if you could just Log onto Pirate bay and Download a Skeliton key for any door you wanted?
Its been proven time and time again that this stuff wont stop people. They have to mutch fun dooing it.
Mean while Honest Customers like Me have to put up with this crap that ruins game experience. and in some cases (URT2003) I have to Download a Hacked Exe to play my OWN FREAKING GAME.
Its sad that they waste this mutch money on this stuff.
hahah i agree, if anything software pirates thrive on stuff like this. they see it as "OHHHH A CHALLENGE!" they gonna have fun cracking it. as they always have. the companies are so desperate to making a bigger and better profit they end up hurting the people who support them legitimately. Frankly If i had a game that forced me to stay online every single time I had to play it I wouldnt buy it, too much of a hassle involved. I dont mind a online verification check, but to be constantly online? nah not going to happen. All they are doing is angering and inconveniencing legitimate buyers.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
i agree slowly but surely F2P category of games, are improving quality with every title. Ive even paid a few bucks here and there for them. So Fee based game companies need to definitely step up their game alot!.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/2/19/cyclical-argument-literal-strawman/
'Nuff said.
Prax
Wow... that's just stupid with 0's on the end.
So, it sounds like, should Ubisoft go out of business, you won't be able to play the games you paid for, anymore.
History serves, that if you start treating all of your customers like potential criminals, they'll either stop buying your stuff, or they will balk less at becoming one.
IMO, copy protections like these cost the company more money than they'd get were they not in place. Most would-be pirates would never pay $60 for the game, and most potential buyers would buy the game to support the devs, and remove the hassle and risk of using cracks. So now Ubisoft is going to add hassle to buying the legit copy.
Just a flat out dumb idea.
That wouldn't make much sense as stopping you from playing their game makes no money for them and, being a business, money is of great interest to them. I'm willing to believe that their actual intent, as indicated, is to turn a would-be pirate into a would-be paying customer.
Stopping people from playing the game without paying does imply that, the choice of purchasing the game is forced on the person.
And seeing F2P item malls along with other things like desirable items pricing being successful, it does hint a lot of people fold to the desire and give the cash, it's an instinct after all.
The conspiracy idea from onetruth does seem possible though, and we're still not getting many guarantees here - if this authentication server ever gets shut off due to lack of demand, will they still let us play offline?
And we're still not getting decent and reliable ways to evaluate the game ourselves like demos and trials.
there is also the issue that even though you have paid for the game, it still does not belong to you, at any time they want, for whatever reason, they can stop the game from playing, permanently. its all very well having a game that requires authentication online when installed, its quite another that requires continous online authentication, when that service itself can be interrupted, or removed, the whole thing is based on a deeply flawed premise, and rather than reducing the amount of piracy, will more than likely, promote it, as legitimate buyers will, quite rightly, shie away from buying a product, that will not in fact, belong to them.
"there is also the issue that even though you have paid for the game, it still does not belong to you, at any time they want, for whatever reason, they can stop the game from playing"
This is the one thing I can never get,
So lets say I go out and buy a new 2010 Ford Exploer, I pay 30k to the dealership and drive home. 3 years later Its payed off and I own the title and everythig is great.
Well a year later Ford comes back and takes my car from me, says I never owned it I just bought acsess to there car.......
Whats wrong with that???????? its not fair and its not right.....
When you buy somthing, its yours!!!!! you buy the rights to the car/music/games. In a nutshell you buy that property and it becomes YOURS, no matter what any TOS or lawyer or Judge says its YOURS!!!!!!
yes but you dont copy your ford that is as illegal as copying a game!
I will stop buying and playing UBISOFT games.
As long as the source code resides on the endpoint, DRM will never be effective in combating piracy and will only hurt and penalize legit consumers.
Treating legal consumers like garbage is not the answer. It only makes the decision easier for people that have been crapped upon for umpteen years to engage in piracy.
"I can pay overly inflated prices and be treated like like a twice pooped out piece of crap, or I can get the game for free and be free of the opression."
When on God's green earth are publishers going to wake up to this?
I'm not creative enough to have a signature
are you serious !any popular game get out!within a week the seller of junk beside the atlanta petro will have it avail as a pirated copy for sale from 5 to 15 dollars lol!yep good old pirate!
+1
I'm not creative enough to have a signature
That wouldn't make much sense as stopping you from playing their game makes no money for them and, being a business, money is of great interest to them. I'm willing to believe that their actual intent, as indicated, is to turn a would-be pirate into a would-be paying customer.
Stopping people from playing the game without paying does imply that, the choice of purchasing the game is forced on the person.
And seeing F2P item malls along with other things like desirable items pricing being successful, it does hint a lot of people fold to the desire and give the cash, it's an instinct after all.
The conspiracy idea from onetruth does seem possible though, and we're still not getting many guarantees here - if this authentication server ever gets shut off due to lack of demand, will they still let us play offline?
And we're still not getting decent and reliable ways to evaluate the game ourselves like demos and trials.
there is also the issue that even though you have paid for the game, it still does not belong to you, at any time they want, for whatever reason, they can stop the game from playing, permanently. its all very well having a game that requires authentication online when installed, its quite another that requires continous online authentication, when that service itself can be interrupted, or removed, the whole thing is based on a deeply flawed premise, and rather than reducing the amount of piracy, will more than likely, promote it, as legitimate buyers will, quite rightly, shie away from buying a product, that will not in fact, belong to them.
"there is also the issue that even though you have paid for the game, it still does not belong to you, at any time they want, for whatever reason, they can stop the game from playing"
This is the one thing I can never get,
So lets say I go out and buy a new 2010 Ford Exploer, I pay 30k to the dealership and drive home. 3 years later Its payed off and I own the title and everythig is great.
Well a year later Ford comes back and takes my car from me, says I never owned it I just bought acsess to there car.......
Whats wrong with that???????? its not fair and its not right.....
When you buy somthing, its yours!!!!! you buy the rights to the car/music/games. In a nutshell you buy that property and it becomes YOURS, no matter what any TOS or lawyer or Judge says its YOURS!!!!!!
yes but you dont copy your ford that is as illegal as copying a game!
This is not about whether it is illegal to copy a game, its about whether or not its a good idea to harass legitimate buyers of a game. also, if something goes wrong with the authentication system, will ubisoft offer remuneration for its loss of use ?
if you buy something it is yours, if they later (in effect) remove your right to use this product, should they not also have to refund you for the loss of the game you paid for.
i suppose this also begs the question, just how robust, is Ubisoft financially, as i rather think that this kind of strategy could knock some serious holes in their financial outlook.
This is my major issue with this. I think it will encourage law abiding customers to find a crack for their legitimately purchased games, which makes them more vulnerable to viruses, which then in turn negatively effects us all.
It's at odds with the American ideal of OWNERSHIP, which is, when I buy something, I OWN it. I buy a cd, and it works until it breaks, which is determined by how I treat it. Same with a car. If I buy a game DVD and 3 months from now, their server goes offline and I can't play, there's a problem.
If buying an Ubisoft game means I don't own it, I'm not gonna buy it.
Don't buy the games. Teach them a lesson. Simple as that. When they see they've wasted their money producing the games, they'll either not make the mistake again or hopefully release a patch because I really wanted Ass Creed.
It's real simple in my book! I pay for it it's mine! If game companies try to control what I bought after I pay for it, well I won't buy their product. Money for a product is an equal exchange....not some Obamaesque..economic game wherer he can jsut do what he pleases cause he thinks he has the right...
I think everyone who had ever thought about it realized that at some point all games(and most likely music/movie software as well) were going to swtich to a internet constant connection verification.
It's a clear step in anti-piracy and all industries are pushing forward with streaming technology. So within a decade all games/music/movies are going to stream anyways which will require a constant internet connection.
I'm not at all surprised a company is approaching this, someone had to be the first one to do it but it was also inevitable.
This is my major issue with this. I think it will encourage law abiding customers to find a crack for their legitimately purchased games, which makes them more vulnerable to viruses, which then in turn negatively effects us all.
It's at odds with the American ideal of OWNERSHIP, which is, when I buy something, I OWN it. I buy a cd, and it works until it breaks, which is determined by how I treat it. Same with a car. If I buy a game DVD and 3 months from now, their server goes offline and I can't play, there's a problem.
If buying an Ubisoft game means I don't own it, I'm not gonna buy it.
Welcome to the Internet... where not everything you buy is solid and tangible and I know this is a potential issue, not enough protection AFAIK.
Which is why I believe they should make it clear that if they ever stop supporting the game, they will make offline play possible, just along with a lot of protections we do need, companies work to make profit and developing offline play to some dead game does not involve any kind of profit.
Good job upisoft,now Pirates/hackers/crackers have reason to ask salary for their good job.
Do the evolution.
Generation P
And when it still fails to stave off piracy, I wonder what they're gonna try, next.
i challenge that really, because while it may seem inevitable, it is also too intrusive and restrictive, people will inevitably 'vote with their wallets' what may seem inevitable in the end, may actually be a foolhardy enterprise.
Another thought:
"and if your connection drops while you're playing for any reason, you'll be kicked out of the game and potentially lose your progress."
This is serious. They're attempting to protect their game but harming us. The least they could do is offer an auto-save feature in a cloud like Steam's cloud. I'd love to not care about re-installing games later on to find out my saves still exist because they're stored online.
But hey, they might make it available for an extra monthly fee of $5, in a situation they themselves created and might use to charge for.
The basic problem is manifold.
Well, up to now you could rely on being able to play off-line games whenever you wanted. 5 years after purchase, 10 years after purchase, 20 years after purchase (with a little tweaking). But now?