Rock, Paper, Shotgun

Ubisoft Edits Forum, Keeps From Dust DRM

By John Walker on August 18th, 2011 at 8:20 pm.

The best view of this game after the PC port.

Update: Lo-Ping are claiming that Steam is offering discounts to those who apply. Edit: A claim which is increasingly proven to be false.

Astonishing. Ubisoft have yet to respond to our questions today, when we asked why From Dust was requiring an internet connection to launch despite their making it very clear it would not. They also have yet to respond to our queries as to why it hasn’t been properly ported, despite the weeks of last-minute delay for the PC version. And now, incredibly, rather than apologising to the huge numbers of people who had been deceived by the previous untrue claims about the game’s DRM, they’ve instead just deleted the post, and put up a new one. From Dust requires an internet connection to launch, and tough shit if you bought it when they were saying otherwise. (Edit: They’ve now somewhat confusingly edited in the original post to the new post.)

Click me.

This comes hot on the heels of Ubisoft’s previous struggle with sticking to their statements, after Driver: San Francisco was given a delay on PC last week, despite their having promised otherwise. I’d link to the tweet where this was promised, but would you believe it – it’s been deleted.

Now we’re told, without a hint of humility,

“Due to the recent confusion over the type of DRM used in From Dust, please find the following explanation of the type of DRM used.

‘From Dust’ requires an internet connection when you start the game.

Make sure you are connected to the internet when you attempt to start the game.

After you have signed in and the game is running, you no longer need the internet connection and can disconnect from it if you so wish.”

“Confusion.” What an incredible choice of word. The way this almost mockingly mimics the phrasing of the original post -

“We are aware of some confusion over the inclusion of DRM in the release of From Dust on PC.

To prevent any on-going confusion we would like to clarify From Dust PC will release with DRM requiring a one-time only online activation.

After which you will be able to play the game offline. We hope this clears any outstanding confusion on the matter”

- just seems doubly insulting to anyone who wasted their money on a product with such a built in redundancy.

There’s no apology for misleading customers, no explanation as to why the DRM was changed – hell, there’s not even an acknowledgement that they ever told a different story.

The game was delayed without explanation on PC, and has been given a pathetically shoddy port (no GFX options, barely sound options, awful mouse controls, 30fps artificial limit), and a working crack for the idiotic DRM was released just before the game came out.

It is such a horrendous shame that a game from such a legendary creator has been treated this way. We are so deeply disappointed that such a game, in a genre we adore, has been allowed to become tangled in such a nasty mess. Again, we strongly suggest that until these many issues are resolved, you do not spend your money on From Dust.

__________________

« | »

, , .

280 Comments »

  1. 18/08/2011 at 20:25 wiper says:

    It deserved better. Oh well, at least there’s always the console version :(

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:26 Carra says:

      For those who have consoles.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:30 Nalano says:

      But buying the console version’s exactly what they want you to do!

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:34 skinlo says:

      …

      Thats what they want you to do.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:38 wiper says:

      Well, considering I owned the game long before this debacle became clear (I reviewed the game for its 360 release), the only difference the shoddy port and DRM has made is stopping me from buying a second copy of the game to play on my PC. So they’ve lost money for no gain from me.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:44 AndrewC says:

      By far the easiest way for them to abandon the PC platform is to not release games on the PC, yes? Your conspiracy posts have :) faces at the end of them, please?

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:53 Nalano says:

      @ AndrewC

      I’m pretty sure their board of investors is forcing them to make at least a cursory showing on the PC. Can’t just abandon a market for the sake of convenience.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:56 dsi1 says:

      @AndrewC: I doubt their shareholders would be happy if they backed out of a platform for no monetary reason. But sales going down on PC and up on consoles is a monetary reason.

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:20 HeavyStorm says:

      Nope. Unless the console version isn’t from Ubi. I mean, will you really give then your money after what they are doing to PC Gaming?

      I think I’d have to say, I will never again buy a game from Ubi. I hope they go bankrupt and their studios get a better publisher. Even EA is way better than this. I can get as cold at this as you like, but they are mistreating their customers. And I hate that, a millionaire business that make every single stupid decision they can. I’m glad I haven’t bought the game.

      Which brings me to the next conclusion: never pre-buy a game. Wait for a discount and all necessary patches.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:01 Wulf says:

      I’m with Nalano & Co on this.

      Thing is… I mean, it does look like it, doesn’t it? Even not being cynical at all, they’re just trying to make themselves as unpopular as possible, and they’re doing things that they know will turn a notable quotient of customers off their games. If RPS is anything to go by then that quotient is very notable.

      And it just seems callous. I can understand–to a degree–them putting DRM on their own games, but on the works of others that they’re just publishing? It all seems a bit fishy. And to be honest, I actually feel that Mr. Chahi is getting caught up in their motivations. That’s what makes my skin crawl about all this. It just feels as though they’re using a game not of their own library to prove to their investors that the PC isn’t a saleable platform any more.

      I mean, really… putting always-online DRM in From Dust? That has to seem a little suspicious, and again, that’s without even being cynical. It’s just weird. This is the first time I’ve hard of a game by a small developer having always-online DRM. It just… smells wrong. It’s a gut feeling, i suppose. I don’t like it.

      I can’t really give you any more than a gut feeling though but this just doesn’t sit right with me. I really don’t like it.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:18 Soon says:

      DRM. You know. For gamers.

    • 19/08/2011 at 04:45 deedxf says:

      ★ good web

      === w w w . h a p p y s h o p p i n g 1 0 0 . c o m ===

      exquisite watches shirts,bags,hat and the decorations.We have good reputation, fashion products,

      favourable price.—★FREE SHIPPING

    • 19/08/2011 at 08:17 Cinek says:

      You know what’s most funny?

      That pirates released crack to this crap in 12 hours after From Dust release – so what was it worth for Ubisoft? Exactly nothing. They lost last pieces of their reputation, they got numerous requests for the re-founds, they got dozens of people disappointed with pathetic PC port, if that can be even called porting, they prevented exactly ZERO copies of their game to be pirated, but they outraged PC community.

      Ubisoft – what for did you delayed the game release from console version in a day before release if you did exactly nothing right in a matter of differences between console and PC version? It’s most screwed PC port of 2011. But wait… we know what for you needed that time – to break a promise to your customers and implement the always-on DRM.

      BRAVO Ubisoft! Your management bears a title of most foolish people in the entire game industry.
      It’s truly unbelievable how could you come up with something like this and think that it’ll come with no consequences.

      NO MORE to buying of the Ubisoft games!
      Vote with your money – so that it’d really make them feel it.

  2. 18/08/2011 at 20:25 outoffeelinsobad says:

    I want to quote a certain headless antagonist here.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:52 jokomul says:

      If you’re referring to the antagonist I think you are, I do too.

      I’m almost glad they’re doing this though. People are going to be outraged and asking for refunds (I know I am). It’s going to be a mass of customers emailing Ubisoft demanding compensation. They have to deal with all that shit and see first-hand how much money they’re losing on the game because of it. I hope someone at Ubisoft loses sleep over this…

  3. 18/08/2011 at 20:25 Carra says:

    Damn, this looks like the kind of game that’s right up my sleeve. Now I’ll wait a bit before buying it though.

    Can we expect a Wot I think?

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:31 John Walker says:

      Currently Wot We Think is: don’t buy it.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:33 syntax says:

      There already is one, for the Console version. I expect the PC version will be exactly the same.

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:20 Stijn says:

      Don’t buy it because of the DRM and all that, or because it’s a bad game?

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:50 Dozer says:

      Can you separate those? It’s from a callous publisher with horrible DRM. Is it relevant if the game itself is any good? By buying it, you’re supporting cultural terrorists. TERRORISTS (cultural)!!!

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:55 jokomul says:

      @Stijin It has great potential and it’s a fantastic concept. For me though, the DRM, clunky controls, FPS limit, lack of graphics settings, and limited save functionality completely negate any fun value it might have.

      If you really want to try it, either get it on Xbox or wait for a sale. Or wait to see if they fix some of this shit.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:31 Stijn says:

      @jokomul: thanks!

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:10 Carra says:

      It’s a shame, the Xbox version got some good reviews.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:18 MrKay says:

      Just tried it for a few hours last night and when it wasn’t acting weird, it really shined. This could have been one of the more interesting titles this year, had they made a proper port and left the DRM at home. Sadly, things being as they are, I’ll ask for a refund and invest in Bastion instead.

    • 19/08/2011 at 07:12 stupid_mcgee says:

      jokomul is pretty on the money. It’s fun (to me), looks good, and it really is a neat puzzle game. While the puzzles may be fun and all, they’re not very devious. They can be difficult, but it’s unlikely they’ll really ever stump anyone. The Story Mode is rather short, and the Story itself is kinda “meh”, but there is a rather large list of Challenges to keep you occupied.

      The problem lies in that it’s just not ported well and the controls suck. I get better performance in Brink than in From Dust. Interestingly, there are options to turn off mouse scrolling, but it doesn’t actually do anything. There’s still mouse scrolling. *sigh* Other than that, the controls are fairly normal and work rather well with the mouse.

      If Ubi can patch up the performance and give us an option to truly turn off mouse scrolling, I’d recommend this title (providing you can stand the DRM). Hopefully, the DRM will be changed to how it was originally stated. I, personally, do not appreciate that I was hoodwinked into supporting a DRM scheme that I vehemently stand against.

    • 19/08/2011 at 09:43 Avenger says:

      John said,
      do not spend your money on From Dust.

      He didn’t say don’t play it, now did he? ;)

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:17 dazman76 says:

      I bought my copy from D2D UK, so I’m unsure of where I stand with regards to refunds. I’m also “stuck in the middle” here, because I really quite like the game. The DRM situation is bullshit for sure, and it definitely does need some PC-specific fixes and tweaks – but I find myself wanting to keep the game and play it, rather than try for a refund.

      I know I really should be going the refund route, but meh… Deus Ex isn’t out for a whole week! My willpower is non-existent. If, however, anyone is organising a full assault on Ubi HQ with large weapons and explosions and everything… I’m in! Let’s squish those filthy lying buggers once and for all. I just need to be back here before Deus Ex arrives in the post.

    • 21/08/2011 at 23:28 zbeeblebrox says:

      @Kadayi Haha, is he talking to a *literal* strawman? That’s amazing, but it really confuses exactly what point they’re trying to make there. Is it that pirates typically make self-fulfilling arguments, or that anti-piracy proponents only choose to argue with strawmen?

  4. 18/08/2011 at 20:26 shoptroll says:

    Strongly considering returning this via Steam if I still can when I get home from work. The online connection at start isn’t a huge deal itself (I have a fairly consistent connection and I doubt my laptop can run this anyways), but the bait n’ switch and poor porting is grounds enough.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:12 Shivoa says:

      I’m glad I got wind of this before clicking buy. Steam have been good to me the few times I’ve had to request a refund on a title (in one case it was an accidental purchase and, because I hadn’t run the game and they could check that, they could refund the purchase without issue – which I think is more than they’re obliged to do) but it does take a bit of time to process and is hassle I’m glad to avoid.

      I wonder if this will actually generate a significant number of refunds. After the generally positive reception to the console edition (with the main request being for better controls that a mouse would fix), I was very hopeful for a nice HD (1080p/120fps/sub-pixel rendering) release to play with better controls but it seems both of those features have been disabled because they couldn’t find a coder to work on anything beyond squashing CTD bugs in their PC compile of their console code.

      Messing about with some fluid physics seems like something nVidia would probably help push some expertise or cash behind to do higher quality tessellation/physX on their hardware platform (providing programmer aid is one of the more significant things nVidia does for PC gaming, having more software than hardware engineers on staff seems like a good sign of intent to continue to do that). Considering the sub-£50k annual salary of a passable coder (especially in the lower than industry standard paying games coder area) and the expected revenue on the PC, it seems crazy to me that there was no realisation that a shoddy job would be a financial negative on the product (let alone the longer term sales dip from lack of consumer confidence in the brand).

      Of course the DRM / internet requirement for a game that might be played as sandbox fun on a train or other times away from an unfiltered (does this connection check only use port 80? There are many internet connections you can use but when away from home not all of them allow arbitrary ports to be accessed) internet connection make it a no go, even looking beyond the quality of the product compared to what it could have been given a tiny bit of extra development funding.

  5. 18/08/2011 at 20:27 Nighthood says:

    What a shame.

    That reminds me, WHERE IS THE HUMAN REVOLUTION WOT I THINK?!

  6. 18/08/2011 at 20:27 ResonanceCascade says:

    Oh for the herp of all that is derpy, I can’t believe these guys are serious!

  7. 18/08/2011 at 20:27 simonh says:

    Game pirated, so no DRM-issues for me.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:29 frewster says:

      Yes, because pirating games encourages better PC ports. *rolls eyes*

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:31 Nalano says:

      I doubt there’s anything we as consumers can do with our wallets that would convince Ubisoft to make better PC ports.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:33 yhalothar says:

      Foolproof copy protection at work.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:35 TillEulenspiegel says:

      I see there’s already a (non-scene) crack available, which makes the DRM doubly stupid.

      At least with AC2, it worked for about a month. Requiring activation on every startup rather than once on install seems to do absolutely nothing to deter pirates; it’s purely an anti-legitimate-customer move.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:37 Gar says:

      Edit: Nevermind :P

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:40 shoptroll says:

      Thanks for encouraging them to keep using their always on DRM scheme or to concoct something worse for the rest of us.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:43 dorkus1218 says:

      As far as I’m concerned, if you want to play the game, slapping ubi in the face by pirating it instead of endorsing their obnoxious DRM with your money is a perfectly acceptable response.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:52 Prime says:

      Neatly explaining why you’re called Dorkus, Dorkus.

      The ONLY thing big companies like Ubi look at is that piracy happens. They don’t care when, they don’t care why, they just know it happens and want it stopped. Pirating a game, for any reason, only gives them fuel for the fire they keep trying to build. When will you fools get it through your thick heads that it just makes things worse?

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:58 Tyshalle says:

      Frankly, if you’re actually buying into the “Pirating Games encourages UbiSoft to create worse DRM!” then you are a sheep. Don’t believe the lies Ubisoft is trying to spoon feed you. As has been pointed out by RPS numerous times with fairly sensible logic, DRM *only* hurts customers, and only drives *more* people to pirate their games. What Ubisoft is doing is not to be commended, or defended, or paid any respect at all.

      I have never pirated a videogame in my life, and I don’t anticipate ever doing so. But Ubisoft utterly deserves to have what would otherwise be paying customers start pirating the shit out of their games.

      DRM does not work. This is a proven fact. It’s never stood in anyone’s way. Pirates will have their games for free. That’s all there is to it. Pissing in the faces of your actual customers does not do anything at all to people who were never your customers at all. All it does is make your customers either stop playing your games, or stop paying for them. And considering the treatment, I have a hard time snubbing my nose at anyone who would take either option.

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:33 Fumarole says:

      If Ubi’s DRM is not intended as an anti-piracy measure, then what pray tell is its intended purpose?

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:55 Dozer says:

      Fumarole: I would also like to know. Perhaps DRM reduces ‘casual’ piracy of the lend-the-game-disk-to-a-friend kind, for people who can’t be bothered to find and install a cracked version, or take the risk the cracked version is actually full of viruses. That said, there’s no difference between horrible DRM and simple DRM in that regard.

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:56 Pinkables says:

      To kill the second hand market?

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:59 Brise Bonbons says:

      Not going to pirate the game, because there are a ton of games that treat me decently that are already fighting for my time. Anyway, not going to beat this dead horse more.

      > “I doubt there’s anything we as consumers can do with our wallets that would convince Ubisoft to
      > make better PC ports.”

      Maybe not. But maybe if Ubi execs look in a month and see Bastion and Rock of Ages sell like hotcakes on PC while From Dust languishes, they’ll start to get the idea. But realistically they’ll just go “guess no one wants god games, huh?”

      It really is a shame, the game looked lovely and like a nice bit of fun.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:20 Kent says:

      Indeed. It’s funny to think that they’re doing all this effort, have the game backfiring at their customers, then having the pirates walk off with a free copy, the same people this DRM was supposed to hinder before their customers could enjoy the game. Oh the irony.

      It’s in these cases I support piracy.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:27 Xercies says:

      Pirating the game in this form is good, your playing the game the developer wanted you to play without all that Publisher nonsense on top of it. If you just send a check directly to him I’m sure he won’t mind if you do that :)

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:48 Spider Jerusalem says:

      To kill the second hand market?
      Ding x3. People like to crow about piracy, but the biggest reason for DRM (even if most publishers won’t say it) is to kill the used game market. There’s nothing anyone can do about piracy (in terms of turning into sales), but there is something to be done about people who are willing to spend money on a used game,.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:56 Catalept says:

      @Fumarole I’m sure UBISoft’s DRM is *intended* as an anti-piracy measure, but only in the same way that sacrificing grain to the sun-god is *intended* to bring an end to winter.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:59 Fumarole says:

      Surely the console second-hand market is a greater concern for publishers than the PC second-hand market by quite a wide margin. Why then do we not see such measures there?

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:00 Pathetic Phallacy says:

      Funny enough, I had pre-ordered the game. However, I had notice it come online before it’s official release, so I pirated it because I didn’t want to wait for the real release. Because of the DRM nonsense, I won’t even be installing my purchased copy.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:04 Kyrall says:

      Wouldn’t it be awesome to arrange a “piracy demonstration”?

      Just to prove that DRM does not reduce piracy, but encourages it, let’s make From Dust the most pirated game ever!

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:07 D3xter says:

      Being a Steam-only game AND requiring a Cd-Key would accomplish that task largely though.
      I don’t exactly get why they are trying to pull this, I mean I get their “Ubisoft Launcher” thing… they want to make a platform like GFWL, EADM, Battle.Net for themselves: http://uplay.uk.ubi.com/

      But I really don’t get what the “Always-Online DRM”, “Connect every time you start the game” and all that other crap is supposed to do other than pissing off customers? If they want people to use their platform to collect data and all that wouldn’t it be better to *entice* them to do so by like offering extra content and whatnot instead?

    • 19/08/2011 at 01:15 Pointless Puppies says:

      @Fumarole:
      If Ubi’s DRM is not intended as an anti-piracy measure, then what pray tell is its intended purpose?

      Nobody knows, but it can very well be established that they’re not being rational about this in the least bit. If they were, they would realize that it being on Steam is enough DRM to prevent casual piracy, and they should be smart enough to know that “hardcore” piracy isn’t going to be stopped. Ever.

      But they’re not realizing either. Frankly, I think the reason why we have this kind of DRM is simply Ubisoft’s incompetence. They have no fucking idea how to approach the PC market, and just based out of hearsay and superstition they think releasing a PC game without this kind of DRM will result in such a colossal rate of piracy that it will single-handedly destroy their entire business unit. That’s about as logical as they are being with their DRM anyway, so simply saying “they do this because they want to combat piracy” is clearly oversimplifying this scenario. Anyone who wants to combat piracy can do many, MANY other things that don’t involve clawing DRM on the back of gamers’ necks.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:23 The Greatness says:

      I agree with Tyshalle. I’ve never supported piracy before and I would never support it with any other publisher but the way Ubisoft have treated consumers, some of whom have already payed for the game and were lied to, is appalling, and I don’t really care what you do with the game. As long as you don’t buy it, of course.

    • 21/08/2011 at 18:16 roryok says:

      I doubt there’s anything we as consumers can do with our wallets that would convince Ubisoft to make better PC ports.

      I completely agree. Although I also think there’s nothing we can do without our wallets.

      maybe if Ubi execs look in a month and see Bastion and Rock of Ages sell like hotcakes on PC while From Dust languishes, they’ll start to get the idea. But realistically they’ll just go “guess no one wants god games, huh?”

      They’ll never get the idea. These people are just incompetent moneygrabbers, fighting for a dwindling market in an recession. The people who make the decision to implement this DRM are most likely not gamers at all, let alone PC gamers. In a month they’ll look at the amount of money this game pulled in and decide to cut funding on a bunch of other PC games.

      No boycott, no online petition, no mailing campaign is ever going to force the hand of Ubisoft. As Nalano said, nothing we can do with our wallets will convince them

    • 21/08/2011 at 23:32 zbeeblebrox says:

      Question: if pirating these kinds of PC games were to *actually* drive publishers out of the PC market, how long would it take before PC gamers created their own porting Scene for cracked console games?

  8. 18/08/2011 at 20:27 runbmp says:

    yeah I made the mistake of buying this, the only part i’m thankful for is that I only paid 15$, however I should of just fired up my old copy of Black and white 2…

  9. 18/08/2011 at 20:29 Bishop says:

    The funny part is, it being a shoddy port takes this from a buy game straight into a don’t bother, completely bypassing the steal option. Poor quality is good at anti piracy.

  10. 18/08/2011 at 20:30 Cunzy1 1 says:

    So, Xenoblade Chronicles hey?

  11. 18/08/2011 at 20:32 abhishek says:

    I don’t usually go apeshit over flawed ports but this one has to be one of the worst in recent times. It’s disgraceful. Very annoyed that I spent my money on this instead of Bastion.

    I’ve noticed a sentiment around the internet which absolves Eric Chahi of this mess and puts the blame squarely on Ubisoft and I don’t think that is at all right. It’s his game, and it’s as much his fault if not more that it was ported and released like this.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:36 skinlo says:

      No, I disagree.

      If the publisher says you have to publish it by a certain time, you have to publish it, whether its ready or not.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:05 Brise Bonbons says:

      It’s a tough call. But when he started working on it however many years ago, it was his responsibility to plan development such that the PC and console versions were being progressed appropriately.

      I mean, was some Ubi exec looking over his shoulder going “no, put this other tsunami level in before making sure the PC code can do more than 30FPS.” I just don’t see them meddling on that level.

      It is plausible that they gave him some intern to do the PC code, I suppose, or he was sharing one overworked PC programmer’s time with other projects? I dunno how things work exactly, but it seems like the responsibility for delegating whether people are working on making more content or making the PC version work would rest with him, not some producer looking at spreadsheets somewhere in another building.

      Eh, this is all just guesswork. I don’t hold it against him, but neither can I absolve him of blame without knowing more.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:01 abhishek says:

      If the publisher says you have to publish it by a certain time, you have to publish it, whether its ready or not.

      Almost every game has this restriction. And almost none of them fuck up the PC version as badly as this game has done. It’s shoddy, irresponsible work and I don’t see why Eric Chahi should not take the blame for any of it.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:58 Pinkables says:

      Do we know that this port was done inhouse? They often outsource the PC porting to another dev team.

  12. 18/08/2011 at 20:36 psyk says:

    “The game was delayed without explanation on PC, and has been given a pathetically shoddy port (no GFX options, barely sound options, awful mouse controls, 30fps artificial limit)”

    Ahhh missed your chance to dig at the 360.

  13. 18/08/2011 at 20:37 dorkus1218 says:

    One-time only activation, every time you play. I certainly think this is willfully misleading wording, but I guess that’s what they meant.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:39 John Walker says:

      No – there’s no room for that explanation. “One-time only” cannot be mistaken to mean “every time you play”, as if there are games that require multiple activations during play. It was unambiguous.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:55 LintMan says:

      ‘”“One-time only” cannot be mistaken to mean “every time you play”, as if there are games that require multiple activations during play.’

      John, in their minds, I think the alternative to “one-time only per startup” is “continuous online enforcement”, which probably boils down internally to “multiple checks online during play”, ie: you get kicked off if you lose your connection, ie: AssCreed2 DRM.

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:07 KenTWOu says:

      @LintMan
      Another example of tweaking of DRM makes things complicated. Assassin’s Creed 2 now has the same DRM as ‘From Dust’ has: It requires an internet connection when you start the game.
      http://www.shacknews.com/article/67015/ubisofts-drm-no-longer-requires

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:47 Zyrxil says:

      @KenTWOu

      That is not entirely true, and is in fact, extremely misleading on Ubisoft’s part. The revised DRM on AssCreed 2 will not immediately kick you out of the game if you get disconnected from the Internet at any time, however you do need to be on the Internet to play. This is because the game actually downloads some small files at certain points from Ubisoft DRM servers, as you are playing. Without these files, the game simply can’t go on. It’ll wait to be able to connect to the Ubisoft server forever.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:57 dorkus1218 says:

      John, I agree completely that there wasn’t anything ambiguous about their wording to anyone who’s been following this issue, and they should’ve known that, but I’m guessing this would be the defense they would take in a “neener neener neener” kind of way.

    • 19/08/2011 at 01:10 James says:

      @dorkus1218

      Stop apologizing for assholes. Please.

      Edit: Sorry, maybe you meant no harm. Still though, a spade is a spade.

    • 19/08/2011 at 02:38 P7uen says:

      Maybe they played the PC port and didn’t expect anyone to want to fire it up a second time?

    • 19/08/2011 at 03:38 dorkus1218 says:

      I’m not apologizing for anyone–I’m stating my sense of the thinking behind this huge douche move on Ubisoft’s part. I don’t think I made that clear in my first comment, but I thought I did in my second.

    • 19/08/2011 at 05:37 KenTWOu says:

      @Zyrxil says:
      …the game actually downloads some small files at certain points from Ubisoft DRM servers, as you are playing. Without these files, the game simply can’t go on.

      Did you check my link? You are completely wrong! I have both games Assassin’s Creed 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction, they didn’t download anything since January 2011. They check legitimacy only after every launch of the game (like From Dust). Then you can play both games offline! I tested this few times during several hours. If you turn on savegame synchronisation, they synchronize every checkpoint but only when you are online!

      Also after DRM update ‘these small files’ (as you named them) now stored in folders of Ubisoft Game Launcher. For example, this is the folder for Assassin’s Creed 2 ex-’online’ files
      c: Program Files (x86) – Ubisoft – Ubisoft Game Launcher – data – 4

      It contains 50 megabytes of data, so now the game loads these files from that folder not from Ubi servers.

  14. 18/08/2011 at 20:37 Drac40k says:

    the only problem I have is the lack of vsync. mouse controls are precise and smooth – don’t know what you are talking about, rps. however, I agree 100% on the whole DRM thing.

  15. 18/08/2011 at 20:37 nootron says:

    I bought it right when it came out.

    I feel dirty. *cries while sitting on floor of shower while scrubbing body with coarse-bristle brush*

  16. 18/08/2011 at 20:38 Persus-9 says:

    People who pre-ordered should report these guys to the Office of Fair Trading or their country’s equivalent. There is no way they should be allowed to get away with making such flagrant false claims about their products.

  17. 18/08/2011 at 20:39 darthmajor says:

    Now i just wish they cleared up the confusion over why i’m getting 13 FPS with a PC far exceeding the game’s requirements, and ran the witcher 2 fine >_>

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:41 terry says:

      This is what irks me the most. If they knew it ran like a pile of shit due to their horrible decision to lock the FPS, giving users even less options to finetune the performance is an act of appalling audacity.

      Incidentally, I found performance was *slightly* improved by offloading PhysX onto the graphics card in Control Panel, but its still unsatisfyingly floaty to control and still judders crazily in cutscenes.

  18. 18/08/2011 at 20:39 Laneford says:

    For once, I shall buy the 360 version and HOLD THE MORAL HIGH GROUND

  19. 18/08/2011 at 20:40 RaytraceRat says:

    Just spent my money on Bastion with soundtrack. Go play it and listen to the music, its way better way to spend your time than reading Ubi bull…

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:57 Prime says:

      I just spent my ‘From Dust’ money on S.P.A.Z instead. It’s brilliant, and only needs a – waitforit – one time activation. I’ve done that and now the game is mine to play as I see fit.

      So something positive has come out of all this negativity. Thanks, Ubisoft. :)

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:38 SpakAttack says:

      Bastion is a much better way to spend some money.

  20. 18/08/2011 at 20:41 KenTWOu says:

    Just curious, Is it possible to remove 30fps limit via config.ini files?

  21. 18/08/2011 at 20:41 WMain00 says:

    Think I might boycott Ubisoft games for a while.

    EDIT: I know people sort of go “fnar fnar” when people say “boycott” and a publisher, but in this scenario it seems rather worthwhile to consider doing so.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:55 Thule says:

      I’m with you. And I’m actually someone with willpower so I’ll stick to my word. I’m not buying any Ubisoft titles unless they drop their horrible DRM policies.

    • 18/08/2011 at 20:59 Prime says:

      It’s a sensible choice. I had a set-to with someone here at the weekend just past for suggesting a collective form of the same thing. It’s only half the story, though. We still need to explain why we’re doing this to those we’re doing it to, just to be absolutely, unequivocally clear that conducting business this way is simply not acceptable:

      http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/index.php?p=69

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:00 shoptroll says:

      I’m with you…. after Heroes VI.

      Although I admit there’s still plenty of time for them to tart it up with more DRM.

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:02 Kaira- says:

      I’m not going to go as far as boycotting, but simply not buying games unless they are all of the following:
      a) interesting enough for me
      b) price is right
      c) DRM is non-intrusive

      Or you can call it boycotting, whatever.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:21 malkav11 says:

      It’s really not boycotting until you make the putative target of your boycott aware of why you are doing it and what would cause you to end the boycott. It’s a tool for change. Simply avoiding purchasing Ubisoft products, while advisable, is not in itself a boycott because you are not giving them the information they would need to a) know that you are avoiding their products at all (it’s not like they can reasonably expect every single person on the planet to buy everything they make and there are myriad other possible reasons you might not buy them), and b) change things.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:37 Hematite says:

      @Kaira:

      That sounds an awful lot like being an informed and discerning consumer.

      Get out of here you moderate freak!

  22. 18/08/2011 at 20:43 westyfield says:

    In future, can you guys make sure you clearly label every Ubisoft game, so I don’t get excited and then realise it’s DRMed up the arse, out the mouth and back again?
    Thanks.

  23. 18/08/2011 at 20:49 LintMan says:

    My guess is that for UBI, “one-time only online activation” clearly meant “one-time only online activation PER GAME STARTUP”. The last bit being left unsaid because it was unnecessary – obviously that’s the only interpretation because there was no way UBI was willing to NOT enforce its DRM each and every time you start the game.

    So UBI wasn’t lying to us, we’re just on a different planet than them.

  24. 18/08/2011 at 20:53 merc-ai says:

    I hope Ubi doesn’t get away with this easily.
    I would also love to know the level of responsibility of the dev team and the reasons behind the shitty port we got (as opposed to making a proper one).

  25. 18/08/2011 at 21:04 Eukatheude says:

    Looks like they also changed the system requirements.

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:36 Bilbo1981 says:

      I’ve applied for a refund on steam but not heard owt back yet. I”ll gladly spend the money on Bastion which seems like a good bet. Well played John Walker for pursuing this, this is the reason RPS is the only gaming website I read, theres very little BS on it and proper games journalism. Some annoying fanboy has replied to my post on the Ubisoft forums but I’m holding back giving him some sh*t :)

    • 19/08/2011 at 21:31 Kadayi says:

      No Steam are not offering refunds. That headline is misleading. The guy is just fishing for hits. Valve haven’t offered anything. He just implied they are and linked to their support page. There is no statement to that effect by Valve anywhere.

  27. 18/08/2011 at 21:08 stahlwerk says:

    Ubi$oft, am I right?

    On a more serious note, I don’t care much about from dust, or the arbitrary and ultimately ineffective DRM it has, but screwing with your customers in that way (not documenting your edits to official statements) is just piss poor business practice.

  28. 18/08/2011 at 21:08 Hoaxfish says:

    Just remember, saying ubisoft out loud sounds like “you be soft”.

    This is all about erectile disfunction

  29. 18/08/2011 at 21:09 Eclipse says:

    so fucking sad to see this game is #1 on Steam….

  30. 18/08/2011 at 21:12 DarkFarmer says:

    Combination of very linear, non-sandboxy gameplay with Ubi’s major hemming and hawing over the PC version of this has led to me deciding not to purchase it and continue to play SupCom Comp Stomps and maybe get Bastion instead.

  31. 18/08/2011 at 21:16 lorddon says:

    Time for an Amazon-style review bomb?

  32. 18/08/2011 at 21:17 StingingVelvet says:

    I really think this finally crosses a line where I can say I will not support Ubisoft products in the future unless they rectify this matter (and mean it).

    • 18/08/2011 at 21:37 Rikard Peterson says:

      Let’s hope they get their act together – a few of my favourite game came from Ubi, and one of them is said to have a sequel more or less in the works. (BG&E) I’d be sad if something like this came between me and such a game.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:04 Hoaxfish says:

      Remember that you like games… even if you miss out on one or two because you have to boycott a specific company, there are plenty of others you won’t have to boycott at all.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:19 Zenicetus says:

      Ubi is already dead to me, after what they did to Silent Hunter V, and IL-2 Cliffs of Dover.

    • 19/08/2011 at 01:46 Pointless Puppies says:

      Yeah, don’t expect anything to happen there unless you get a very large amount of people together.

      Ubisoft sees no difference between a person who just doesn’t want the game and a person who loudly and defiantly proclaims a “boycott” of their game.

  33. 18/08/2011 at 21:24 TLGAthena says:

    Already put in a request for a refund in light of the DRM. To hell with UBI. They can kiss goodbye to my cash for now.

  34. 18/08/2011 at 21:28 voidburn says:

    Y’all join me! Proudly not buying anything Ubisoft or EA. Blizzard is pending review but looks like it’s next if they continue with diluting game design with marketing features. As of today there’s only one AAA company I’m blindly buying games from: idSoftware, and I’m terribly worried about their integrity as well, since Bethesda acquired them.

    Bright side: there are so many indie games around these days that I hardly need anything AAA to actually have fun and get surprised by. I never felt this excited about discovering new games since the late ’90ies. Long live indie developers!

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:13 Thants says:

      I’m a long time Blizzard defender, but if Diablo 3 really does have always-online DRM then they’re dead to me.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:05 StingingVelvet says:

      Ubisoft and Blizzard I get, but I don’t know why I am supposed to boycott EA. They make pretty good PC versions and Origin is more relaxed DRM-wise than Steam.

    • 19/08/2011 at 09:15 Allegos says:

      @thants:

      I don’t want to derail the post, but Diablo III is guaranteed to have always-on DRM. They cite the real money auction house as a reason, as if they won’t drop purples into the market themselves to drum up cash, but the real reason is that Blizzard is dead set on getting what they think is their fair share of the LAN center business in the Pacific. They’re not going back to letting someone else make a cottage industry out of a Blizzard product, like what happened with Starcraft, without wetting their beaks.

  35. 18/08/2011 at 21:35 jay35 says:

    wish Ubisoft was a person so we could drag them out into the street and beat some sense into them.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:35 ZyloMarkIII says:

      Ubisoft would still have some nonsense in them. You have to beat the nonsense out, then beat some sense into Ubisoft.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:50 jokomul says:

      I can’t believe I’m saying this… but I would probably do worse.

      I’ve never tarred and feathered anyone before…

  36. 18/08/2011 at 21:37 bluebogle says:

    I just requested a refund from Steam for the game. Shame as I was really looking forward to this one, and feel bad for the developer losing out on sales. Simply put though, I don’t appreciate being lied to, and I don’t appreciate being treated like a thief. I suggest anyone who feels the same about this also ask for a refund.

  37. 18/08/2011 at 21:37 CommanderZx2 says:

    I think it’s time… it’s time we start an official boycott of all Ubisoft PC games.

    It is clear to me and hopefully everyone else that they will just continue to lie and do poor ports, there’s no reason to buy any PC games published by Ubisof hence forth.

  38. 18/08/2011 at 21:41 PanzerVaughn says:

    They originally said it didnt require a CONSTANT internet connection.
    This merely requires a burst of internets. Not misleading, merely ambiguous. This is the kind of thing you should just be mad at yourself at for falling for. like entering a prize draw of UP TO $500, get getting 4cents.

  39. 18/08/2011 at 21:45 Ernesto says:

    One could argue, that their previous statement (one-time only online activation) is correct in the sense of that you have to activate it once (or one-time only) every time the game starts. Nobody i know would interpret it in such a way, but maybe in the twisted mind of some marketing guy or lawyer this makes perfect sense. The term ‘one-time only activation’ isn’t some kind of trademark, is it? So the previous statement could say exactly the same, if interpreted in Ubisofts way. Just kidding :)

  40. 18/08/2011 at 21:47 Hardtarget says:

    So I bought From Dust and think it’s great. since I play lots of games, and ubisoft makes lots of good ones!, I already have a uplay account, i was even already signed into it! Uplay launched, updated itself, then relaunched, updated the game, then relaunched, asked for my cd key since it auto signed me in, and then i hit play. The whole process took maybe 2 – 4 minutes and will never happen again. Game is quite fun btw but it’s a bit of a shoddy PC port, locked at 30 fps, no advanced graphics controls, etc. But i like it so far.

    Now for the uplay stuff, every. single. online. retailer. has been advertising the fact in big bold capital letters that From Dust used the Ubi DRM scheme. This is not news or a shock to anyone, if you bought the game and you didn’t realize this then you didn’t read the description of the game. It was said that it used Ubi DRM on D2D, Steam, GetGamesGo, GreenManGaming, and others (i hunted around for the best deal earlier so I saw it in multiple places). Now with all that said it’s freaking dumb that they changed the way they decided the DRM was going to work but honestly i haven’t been not online in a decade.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:17 terry says:

      Actually, I believe the upset is precisely because Ubi indicated many times- even on their own forums- that the DRM was a one-off activation.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:24 Hardtarget says:

      right, and that totally makes sense.

      BUT

      if you can separate yourself from the DRM issue the game, for me, has still be extremely fun and I’m not going to cheat myself out of the experience that I’ve been looking forward to for months because my computer one day might not be online for a few minutes.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:02 Bilbo says:

      It does sound as though lots of users are having terrible trouble getting it to run at all, though, DRM aside.

      I agree though, if Half-Life 3 is announced tomorrow and requires a persistent internet connection I’m really going to enjoy watching the people who’ve nailed their colours to the mast squirm their way back out of it. You have to wonder how many out of these hundreds of people actually ever had any intent to play the game at all. Not a ton, I’m guessing.

    • 19/08/2011 at 18:38 terry says:

      Don’t get me wrong, I had the game on preorder since it was first put on Steam, and despite all the pre-release speculation about it, it remained so (I’ve been previously stung by a product with the UbiDRM in Settlers 7, which PC Gamer insisted was free of it, mea culpa). I’ve pretty much exhausted any outrage I had about the UbiDRM in the form of being careful about buying games which don’t have it. I’m enjoying From Dust very much aside from the lack of configuration options- which frankly smacks of a rush job port- and Ubi’s disingenuous attitude about the protection method.

  41. 18/08/2011 at 21:48 magnus says:

    This is one carcrash I can’t look away from. (Deja vu! did I say that already?)

  42. 18/08/2011 at 21:50 egg says:

    Pre-ordered it from Steam.

    Now I’m trying to get my money back. I feel betrayed.

  43. 18/08/2011 at 21:53 slick_101 says:

    The way I’ve found that I know its probably illegal in some form or another is that I tend to buy the games and then just use the DRM cracks from “the certain bay” and you are still technically supporting the publishers.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:48 malkav11 says:

      Yes. You are. And why would you want to support a publisher that uses DRM that you have reason to crack as a legitimate customer?

  44. 18/08/2011 at 22:01 Silver says:

    Talking about the “choice of words” by Ubisoft, it is not the first time for them. If you understand French here is what I spotted on July 20 on the canadian Ubi Shop : my post to see the date and the game requirements at the bottom of the page before I talked about it and after (third post on my first link).

    To traduce a little they changed the sentence “Permanent internet connection (…) is required to play this video game (…) at any time” by… “An internet connection (…) is required to access this video game”. See the difference? And now they are talking about confusion? Sure there is one, because they made it!

    So today we have an interesting game, made by a great guy (French btw :p) but with a shitty editing policy on PC coupled with a bad port.. I guess I won’t buy a Ubisoft game this year.

  45. 18/08/2011 at 22:03 Matrix101 says:

    Well well, I’ve checked my games… a lot, no one pirated!
    When younger, I did pirated a few (really, not much), like Q2 but later on bough Q3, and still later on I put myself straight (bough Q4SpecEd including Q2, then bought Q1 original disc on ebay, and then Quake pack on Steam!!! Plus bough same pack for my son. :D I’m clean :).

    Anyway, so UBI lied to us (again!!!), this game will likely be in my torrent with share ratio > 10.0. Yeap. Just waiting for a clean patched torrent release.
    Sorry for Eric Chahi who definitely deserves better.

    Eric Chahy should note this one for the future:
    “Nothing is so dangerous as an ignorant friend; a wise enemy is worth more.”
    Original text from Jean De La Fontaine:
    “Rien n’est si dangereux qu’un ignorant ami; Mieux vaudrait un sage ennemi.”

    I’ll bough his next game, if UBIShittyDRM free (steam ok), or indie.

    PS: I bough yesterday TM² (UBI, but nadeo clean community spirit), so I’m not against ‘UBI’, but against so stupid DRM schemes. Let’s pirate those stupid DRM, and buy clever (and good) games.

    Only thing sad for me: people are “blind”, From Dust is n°1 in Steam selling list!?!?!?!? This will not help!

  46. 18/08/2011 at 22:04 shoptroll says:

    Just to play devil’s advocate, I am wondering if this DRM snafu was a translation error or miscommunication internally.

    It’s not like they’re inserting the always-on requirement like Driver or AssCreed, but it’s definitely a huge difference from what they originally said. I don’t blame people for being upset since this makes the difference between being able to play this on a laptop on the go or not. Originally announced plan would allow this with the caveat that you activate the game online prior. Now you need a connection to start it. One system allows for truly mobile gaming, another does not. So I think people are totally in the right to get a refund and I’m glad to hear Steam is doing that.

    I don’t think this was a fully malicious move, but it certainly was negligent and seems about on par for the course with Ubi. The fact that no one corrected the original reports in the interim weeks before announcement is just disappointing.

    • 19/08/2011 at 01:23 Kadayi says:

      Probably tbh given they are a French company. Still clearly it’s now all about people declaring how they’ll never buy an Ubisoft game again, or how they feel justified in pirating it, or glad they pirated it in the first place, etc, etc. I like this site for a lot of things, but comment threads like this are just an embarrassment really when it comes to the absurd levels of righteous indignation being expressed. I’m not an advocate for always on DRM, however at the same time I can’t say I’ve ever been impacted by it at any time in practice. I find it terribly sad that people feel likely non issues like this are grounds for justification to deny developers payment for their work. Eric chahi and his team didn’t put the DRM in there, that was done by the publishing team. If you played and enjoyed it let them have the money.

  47. 18/08/2011 at 22:06 Riotpoll says:

    Ubisoft have made it blatantly clear that they do not wish legitimate customers to purchase and play their games, on PC at any rate. All this extraneous crap they shovel into the game(s) must surely cost more than any lost sales due to the big old P word? Especially on a game that costs less than a round of drinks for you and three mates.

  48. 18/08/2011 at 22:06 Buttless Boy says:

    This whole thing is a shame for us console owners, because Ubisoft actually publishes some pretty great games for the toyboxes. The No More Heroes games for Wii and the not-a-sequel sequel to Rez come to mind. It’s a dilemma – do I support interesting games, or do I boycott an awful publisher?

    Dunno why they’re happy to publish money-losing art games on consoles, but won’t support the PC, where there’s actually an audience for that stuff.

  49. 18/08/2011 at 22:16 ChromeBallz says:

    Can someone please explain what is going on at Ubisoft?

    Which complete morons are managing that company?

  50. 18/08/2011 at 22:23 Oryon says:

    I am so goddamn mad right now. Mad for Chahi if he isn’t, which he should be. His games shaped me growing up.

    I’ll be damned if i spend another dime on Ubisoft or EA products.
    I, the consumer, have had it up to here with publisher lies, bullshit excuses and general attempts to insult my intelligence.
    D’YOU HEAR THAT?
    UP TO HERE!
    Take your games and shove’em. I’d rather pirate and mail devs the money.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:29 Hardtarget says:

      *eyeroll*
      how about you stay on your morale high ground and just not pirate the game since you obviously want to play it.

      I’M GOING TO STEAL THE GAME INSTEAD OF PAYING FOR IT, THAT’S GONNA SHOW THEM WHO’S BOSS!!

      except they’ll never know you pirated it and instead it just makes you out to look like a ponce with no morale fibre. Either boycott the game or buy it.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:47 Oryon says:

      No, you know what, screw that. I am tired. I’ve always bought games. I don’t pirate them as a sort of non-conformist, fight-the-system bullshit. I pay for them. I find games i enjoy and i buy them, fair and square. But i am TIRED of this bullshit. Of course i want to play it, it’s a Chahi game. And i would happily pay for it if i felt for one second that the people receiving my money deserve it. And since this is not the humble bundle where i can liberally assign who gets what, i don’t.

      Tell me what exactly have Ubisoft done in the time they took to ‘port’ From Dust that deserves a dime? Absolutely fuck all. Video game consumers tend to forget that they are still a customer and that the customer should still dictate the terms, otherwise the bullshit never ever stops. So i won’t buy the game.

      And you know, i will have no regrets if in the meantime i decide to pirate the thing, however unlikely that is considering the quality of the finished product. Why should i? It’s available. If it wasn’t i STILL wouldn’t buy it until it got magically fixed, which it likely won’t. No profits lost there, Ubisoft.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:56 Bilbo says:

      “Of course I want to play it, it’s a Chahi game”

      –Somehow that statement says more about you & annoys me more than your foaming ramblings

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:01 Oryon says:

      Kay, i guess. Sue me for having an opinion and liking the man’s games.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:23 Thants says:

      Giving your money to another company who doesn’t do things like this is the best option. But, as far as I’m concerned, the important thing is that Ubisoft doesn’t get our money. I don’t care if they know why people are pirating it. It’s not our job to teach them not to be dicks, it’s just our job not to reward them for it.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:18 Hardtarget says:

      That’s terrible Oryon
      All that is is you saying I WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME BUT I DON’T WANT TO PAY TO DO IT!!

      Ubi paid him to make the game. That’s what Ubi did. If you want to play it pay for it or stay on your morale high-ground and don’t pay for it. Pirating it just makes you look bad.

    • 19/08/2011 at 20:59 Oryon says:

      To be quite honest i don’t feel like playing it and probably won’t. Was just making a point. I really do buy the games i want to play. When crap like this happens i stop wanting to play it. But again, i wouldn’t see any issue with pirating it if i suddenly had the urge to give it a shot.

  51. 18/08/2011 at 22:29 RabidOyster says:

    I haven’t bought an Ubisoft title since they started all this online-always-on BS. And It’s gonna stay that way until they get their crap together and stop punishing the paying players. It’s kinda stupid that the a-holes pirating these games get a better user experience than I would, had I chosen to buy the games.

  52. 18/08/2011 at 22:42 Barman1942 says:

    Welp Ubisoft, consider every title you publish, un-purchased from me.

    Scumbags.

  53. 18/08/2011 at 22:45 Hypocee says:

    Well, hurray groupthink. Walker, you’ve successfully nudged me from my initial ‘I’m already sucking two corporate cocks to support a team that created something beautiful, what’s one more?’ to ‘I’m already sucking two corporate cocks to support a team that created something beautiful, why should I take one more?’

    Fuck idiots for smearing this kind of dilemma on decent people’s lives. Blah.

    M. Chahi, M. Ancel, appelez-vous à Notch le plus tôt possible svp. Nous vous adorons, mais…

  54. 18/08/2011 at 22:47 uNapalm says:

    I find it hilarious that people are arguing on the internet that a game that requires internet connection is not worth playing.

    We are all on the internet virtually 100% of the time when our PC’s are turned on. When do you turn off your internet?

    You are all suffering from some idea that somehow you should be able to play games without the internet being involved even though a) you use the internet all the time b) you probably bought the game via the internet c) you moan about the fact that this game requires the internet, ON THE INTERNET.

    Bad port is one thing, but not playing a game because of DRM is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:51 Oryon says:

      It’s less that, uNapalm. More the fact that Ubisoft openly bullshits its customers. Even so, always-on DRM has proven ineffective against piracy any way you cut it so it can only damage paying customers. It’s about the principle of the thing. Why shouldn’t i be able to play it offline if i bought it?

      That’s like saying you can only read a book you bought in the library, never at home.

    • 18/08/2011 at 22:53 Bilbo says:

      Seems like as many if not more people in global terms are pissed with the game’s lack of configuration options and terrible performance than the DRM – it’s just the RPS crowd that like to caw “me too DRM is teh bads” because they know it’s a popular stance here

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:01 uNapalm says:

      “Why shouldn’t I be able to play it offline” – even though you never will, and if your internet went down for more than an hour you would be straight onto your ISP.

      I don’t understand why people get angry about a game requiring internet connection when they would be far more angry at their ISP if they LOST their internet connection.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:07 Oryon says:

      @Bilbo – Definitely also pissed about the bad porting, but did you ever think that people might just actually be genuinely annoyed with the DRM?

      @uNapalm – For instance, i don’t have a router. The internets go straight into the PC. I also have a laptop that i like to use, especially since there’s two of us living in the same apartment. Hence the laptop doesn’t have internet if i’m not at work or plug the cable in it. There’s a million other examples, and none of them are relevant. Being online is the customer’s option to make, not the publisher’s.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:15 Kaira- says:

      Why am I angry at online-DRM in a single player-game? Let’s see…
      a) It is absolutely unnecessary in a single player-game. Full stop. It provides absolutely no benefits, and only trouble. Feel free to incorporate some optional online-services to single player-games, but don’t require me to be online to play it, because you can be sure that I won’t buy it. Or play it, for that matter.
      b) I am not only reliant on my own internet-access, but also relying that the other party has their servers up when I want to play.
      c) Online-DRM hurts especially bad people on unreliable connections, such as mobile internet, or just shitty ISP. Not everybody has the choice to choose other access to Internet where they live.
      d) I can enjoy books, movies and music without any trouble about Internet-connection – why should video games be any different? Hell, when I buy a brand new game (AAA), I usually pay triple to that what I pay for freshly released DVD or CD.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:37 Thants says:

      It’s the principle of the thing, honestly. If my internet goes down and the game I’ve purchased says “No, I’m stopping you from playing because I can’t trust you.”, well, I’m not going to support a company that treats its paying customers like criminals. If I’m going to buy a game, I want the company to treat me BETTER than a pirate, not worse.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:12 StingingVelvet says:

      It doesn’t require “the internet,” it requires specific servers operated by Ubisoft. There is a difference. Imagine trying to play Syndiacte today if it relied on specific servers operated by Bullfrog.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:54 malkav11 says:

      @StingingVelvet:

      That is exactly it. I think always on is also a shitty thing to do to the significant minority of customers who have unreliable, low bandwidth, low cap, or nonexistent internet, but I’m not one of them. The reason I refuse to purchase Ubisoft-DRMed games and will avoid Diablo III and Darkspore and any other game that gets in on this particular action is that it carries the very real risk of these games being lost to future gamers. I am a rabid games preservationist and I hate it even when we lose intrinsically unsustainable gaming experiences like MMOs and competitive multiplayer-only games, much less games which should be available into the foreseeable future like singleplayer titles.

  55. 18/08/2011 at 22:48 kuran says:

    Why did Chahi need a publisher like Ubisoft to release a digital download exclusive game? I’m sure he could have easily found a better way to fund his project, if that was the reason.. did Ubisoft buy his studio?

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:39 Lewie Procter says:

      Well if you want to get on XBLA, you need a publisher. He could have tried to get MS to publish it, but then we’d have the other problem of not knowing if it would be coming to PC, and likely some (timed, or perhaps permanent) Xbox exclusivity.

      Perhaps he could have self-published on the PC, but from the looks of things it’s been a big seller on the 360. You can self publish on PSN for the PS3, but I gather it’s pretty damn hard work.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:56 malkav11 says:

      There was timed Xbox exclusivity as it was, because of the whole “Summer of Arcade” nonsense.

    • 19/08/2011 at 01:19 Lewie Procter says:

      Good point, but at least we did know it was coming to PC long before release. Likely would not have happened had it been published by MS, and the wait could have been much longer.

      I also imagine the summer of arcade thing was just a happy coincidence, since Ubi delay so many PC versions of games anyway.

    • 19/08/2011 at 02:06 malkav11 says:

      Very possibly, but it is definitely why Bastion was delayed.

  56. 18/08/2011 at 22:52 Bilbo says:

    Well this does border on fraud now. It’s going to be tricky pinning them down for it because of the wording but by the sounds of it at least a lot of you wouldn’t have bought it had you known about the always-connected DRM (I think as many if not more people are pissed about the shitty port job, at least going by the ubi forums, but they didn’t… lie about that, they just delivered software that is arguably not fit for purpose)

  58. 18/08/2011 at 23:02 Stochastic says:

    RPS, thank you for being so critical of Ubisoft’s shenanigans. You are one of the few media outlets that doesn’t let publishers get away with BS like this (Eurogamer, by comparison, usually justifies this sort of thing e.g. Diablo III auction house).

    I hope your efforts can bring about change and maybe get Ubisoft to rethink their PC strategy. I know there’s not much of a chance given their past behavior, but RPS has a lot of clout for such a small website.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:07 The Tupper says:

      Indeed. And if it means that there’s not so many first-day reviews (as RPS will likely not be on many PR flacks’ xmas card lists), so be it. This is the only games site I bother with – and trust.

  59. 18/08/2011 at 23:25 Nallen says:

    “no explanation as to why the DRM was changed”
    Changed? lol. You mean why they lied?

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:31 Nallen says:

      I will say that as dodgy as the morals of pirating are (and I have not, it sounds a lot less of a game than I hoped) it is the better option for people wanting to play the game. This seems to be the critical thing publishers seem to miss: you offer a significantly inferior customer experience.

    • 18/08/2011 at 23:39 Thants says:

      At this point they’re literally punishing you for not pirating it.

    • 19/08/2011 at 00:20 MadTinkerer says:

      That’s pretty much how I feel.

    • 19/08/2011 at 01:02 eclipse mattaru says:

      This. I mean, it really *is* that simple: These publishers just count on the good will of the very costumers they are ear-sodomizing with all this garbage, when those customers could just as easily get a much better service from the people that deliver the same product for motherfucking free.

      How do they even get people to buy into this whole insanity (let alone enough people for them to stay in business –and in the business of being AAA publishers too), I will never understand.

  60. 18/08/2011 at 23:56 Megadyptes says:

    The game was delayed for the PC release as it was a Summer of Arcade game on Xbox and the games on SoA are Xbox Exclusive for the duration of the SoA promotion.

  61. 18/08/2011 at 23:56 Aufero says:

    I consider 15$ for a crappy port with “screw you, we’ve got your money already” DRM a fairly cheap lesson in which publisher to avoid in the future.

  62. 19/08/2011 at 00:09 Ruffian says:

    I love how they just straight up lie on their post. first it says you only have to log in once to activate the game and then like 2 inches down the page they state that said “activation” is per-session, which is essentially the same as requiring the game to be online at all times. I just love how they act like they can’t understand why anyone would want to play offline in the first place. It’s like they think that every single person in the world has unlimited net access at all times. It just seems almost snobbish the way they treat the people who pay for their existence as a company like they don’t matter at all. These Dev companies need to wake the fuck up and realize that the people who are giving them this and any feedback, ARE THE ONE’S WHO PAY FOR THEM TO MAKE GAMES.

  63. 19/08/2011 at 00:14 bwion says:

    More and more, I have come to believe that there is simply no possible rational explanation for Ubisoft’s recent business practices. I can’t even be mad at them at this point, any more than I can be mad at the fellow on the bus having a heartfelt conversation about the upcoming Three Days of Darkness with the open air. I probably wouldn’t buy a computer game from either one, though.

  64. 19/08/2011 at 00:18 MadTinkerer says:

    I was going to not demand a refund, since I found the game to be pretty fun once I finally got in (I even found the mouse controls to be adequate, though rotating the view is a bit wonky), but then my wifi went down.

    So yeah, I need my money back. It’s a terrible shame to screw over such a nice game this way.

  65. 19/08/2011 at 00:26 Shooop says:

    Amazing how absolutely fucking retarded Ubisoft has become in just a decade.

    A one-time activation isn’t enough? What do they expect people to do, have a legit copy but randomly use a pirated just for kicks?

  66. 19/08/2011 at 00:27 Wozzle says:

    I know it would never happen, but wouldn’t it be great if Ubisoft got kicked off of Steam for the, well, lies?

    It’d make me laugh, even if it is what Ubisoft is after.

  67. 19/08/2011 at 00:35 R10T says:

    I wonder, if game publishers will ever learn TWO SIMPLE RULES from Indie developers: “Be kind to customers” & “Benefits beats Punishment”

  68. 19/08/2011 at 01:13 cvcvcvvv says:

    Foolproof copy protection at work.
    http://bit.ly/n6SVQy

  69. 19/08/2011 at 01:21 feda says:

    This is why I pirate games, Ubisoft. Well, not all. I’ll buy RW3, RO2 and BF3 this year. But you won’t see me buy a Ubi game anytime soon. I’ll enjoy the DRM-free version.

  70. 19/08/2011 at 01:40 kjolnir says:

    Looks like Steam is giving us suckers the run-around.

    Pasted below is the response I got to my request for a refund.

    “Hello Tim,

    Thank you for contacting Steam Support.

    Technical support for this title is handled by a third party support department – please follow the instructions below to contact the support provider to troubleshoot this issue:

    Title: From Dust
    Link: http://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=4700-ROSN-2703

    Please let us know if you experience further difficulties, or if you have additional questions or concerns.”

    At no point in my original complaint did I even appear to ask for tech support. I ONLY asked for a refund. These idiots have taken my money, and are pointing to each other for responsibility. Typical.

    • 19/08/2011 at 02:04 Sensai says:

      You didn’t miss much…:

      “Hello Mckee,

      Thank you for contacting Steam Support.

      As with most software products, we do not offer refunds or exchanges on games, DLC or in-game items purchased on our website or through the Steam Client.

      Please review Section 4 of the Steam Subscriber Agreement for more information.
      http://www.steampowered.com/index.php?area=subscriber_agreement

      We will make an exception and refund preorders as long as the request is received prior to the release of the game. This only applies to preorders purchased from your account, preordered titles received or sent through the Steam Trading system cannot be refunded.”

      I responded and politely told them more about the situation and about how I, and any other purchaser, LITERALLY could not have known about this before the game was released as Ubisoft lied to its customers. We’ll see how they handle that.

    • 19/08/2011 at 02:30 jokomul says:

      I got the same response and replied that I did not receive the product I was expecting. The product I ordered was advertised as having a one-time activation DRM and the product I received had additional DRM. Since I did not receive the product the company was advertising, I’m entitled to a refund.

    • 19/08/2011 at 02:58 TillEulenspiegel says:

      Y’know, I’m moving very quickly towards the “fuck Steam” bandwagon. It’s possible that the low-level support drones are unaware of the exceptional circumstances, but they don’t start issuing refunds in the next couple days, I do believe I’m done with them.

      They’ve usually managed to do the right thing, but we shall see.

    • 19/08/2011 at 03:00 kjolnir says:

      I’ll have to wait until I get the same denial from Steam, but as soon as I do, I’m filing a complaint with the Texas Attorney Genernal and the county small claims court against both Ubisoft and Steam. This is a blatantly deceptive trade practice, and I’m not goint to stand for Ubisoft stealing my money while Steam runs interference for them with a BS policy.

    • 19/08/2011 at 03:12 Eric says:

      I also requested a refund and was given the same boilerplate “We don’t do that” answer.

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:01 Gundrea says:

      Kjolnir is correct. Regardless of what steam says you have statutory rights in regards to any purchase you make.

      In the European Union where a product is falsely advertised like this one you are entitled to a refund. No ifs, buts or subscriber agreements can breach these rights. Most ToS will include a segment describing that any part of it that does breach your rights does not mean the entire agreement is invalidated as part of a get around.

      I would imagine that US Law while looser is much the same.

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:33 drewski says:

      The Federal Trade Commission regulates advertising and product description in the US. When you get the runaround from Steam, get in touch with them and they should be able to tell you which regulations to hit Steam around the head with.

      This regulation seems particularly appropriate:

      “(a) Unlawfulness
      It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation to disseminate, or cause to be disseminated, any false advertisement—
      …
      (2) By any means, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the purchase in or having an effect upon commerce, of food, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics.
      (b) Unfair or deceptive act or practice
      The dissemination or the causing to be disseminated of any false advertisement within the provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce within the meaning of section 45 of this title.”

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00000052—-000-.html

      I wonder how many articles on Wiki follow legal citation other than the one on deceptive advertising.

  71. 19/08/2011 at 01:43 Pointless Puppies says:

    I don’t want to get into y’alls torches-and-pitchforks convention, but can we PLEASE stop with the “I’M BOYCOTTING THIS!!!11!!1″ charade? You’re not “boycotting” anything, you’re just choosing not to buy a product. There’s a very big difference in that. I know it sounds good on paper that you can be a part of a “protest” by doing absolutely nothing, but that’s not how a boycott works.

    Yes, Ubisoft is a bunch of incompetent monkeys who should be impaled with computer mice, and they should absolutely suffer for treating the PC like some sort of peasant leper, but simply choosing to not buy something doesn’t constitute a “protest” or a “boycott”. If you want to be a part of a real protest, be proactive and get together a very large amount of people, make it known to Ubisoft exactly what you’re doing, and starve them of significant chunks of revenue for as long as you possibly can. THAT’S a boycott. It sure is convenient to change nothing out of your daily routine and call it a “protest”, but you’re only lying to yourself and trying to dignify what is just simple consumer preference.

    • 19/08/2011 at 02:34 Dionysus says:

      People who say they are no longer buying any Ubisoft products until X are engaging in a boycott. Care to explain why you think the word shouldn’t apply?

    • 19/08/2011 at 06:26 Pointless Puppies says:

      @Dionysus:

      Because:

      If you want to be a part of a real protest, be proactive and get together a very large amount of people, make it known to Ubisoft exactly what you’re doing, and starve them of significant chunks of revenue for as long as you possibly can. THAT’S a boycott.

      Read my post. What you’re talking about is simply engaging in consumer preference. There’s absolutely no difference to a business (and that’s who we’re trying to screw over, no?) between defiantly proclaiming a “personal” boycott and simply not buying the game because you don’t feel like getting it. A boycott is only a boycott if it’s organized, gives a clear, public message to Ubisoft, and is large enough to hinder their revenue. Or rather, a boycott is only a boycott if it actually stands to make a difference, not just a bunch of angry internet men overly dignifying completely inconsequential actions such as…NOT purchasing a product. That’s not a “protest” of any kind, period.

      If there are people out there who actually want to organize a large group of people, then more power to them, because Ubisoft completely deserves a wide-scale boycott. But it frustrates me to no end that people think sitting on their asses and doing absolutely nothing is now considered “taking a stand”.

    • 19/08/2011 at 08:13 Prime says:

      @Pointless Puppies: Yes, I’ve been trying to make that distinction clear to everyone by posting the link to Ubisoft’s press offices every chance I get. Not purchasing/pirating the game says absolutely nothing, so nothing will change. We have to explain clearly and precisely why we’re refusing to purchase from them and what needs to change before we consider coming back. Relax: it IS being said.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:49 Mattressi says:

      Weird. When I google ‘boycott definition’, I get this: “Verb: Withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest”.

      I’m sorry, but have I missed the part where it says that a boycott isn’t a boycott unless lots of (how many?) people do it as a unified collective?

      Someone who doesn’t like ice cream and therefore does not buy ice cream is not boycotting it – that’s their preference. If someone likes ice cream, would normally buy ice cream, but will not stand for the principles of the company, thus does not buy the ice cream; they are boycotting the company.

      I hardly think that those saying they’re boycotting Ubi wouldn’t normally buy Ubisoft games. Hell, a lot of them won’t even be affected by the DRM (I’ve seen many people say they’re boycotting Diablo 3 on the principle of the matter of always-on DRM, though they’ve said that it won’t affect them at all). That’s a boycott. People don’t have to form a formal union to boycott something. If customers are displeased and choose to vote with their wallets – that’s a boycott. Now stop being knobs.

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:21 malkav11 says:

      A “boycott” that doesn’t involve contacting Ubisoft (or Blizzard, or whoever) to let them know -why- you’re not buying their product will be completely impossible to distinguish from any other kind of not buying the product. Which is fine if you’re not attempting to get the vendor to make changes to eliminate your problem with the product. But presumably you do want that, or you wouldn’t be boycotting.

  72. 19/08/2011 at 01:54 MrXswift says:

    meeh i was waiting a long time for this game, now its just a bad port :(

    thats a shame

  73. 19/08/2011 at 02:12 johnpeat says:

    Something for people seeking a refund to consider – what Ubisoft have or have not said about the game is IRRELEVANT to your claim with Steam.

    Consumer Law (at least EU Consumer Law) relates to the transaction between the retailer and buyer – that’s Steam and you – nothing else matters.

    It’s down to what Steam told you when you bought the game. If Steam said that online verification was required then you have NO claim against them (whatever Ubisoft may or may not have said) – if they did not, then they’ve mislead you and you have a case for a refund.

    The trick is knowing what the page said at the time you bought – certainly when I looked earlier, it made the need for an online connection pretty clear…

  74. 19/08/2011 at 02:41 Trousers says:

    I would have impulse-bought this based on the screenshots alone. No sale now, thanks for the info.

  75. 19/08/2011 at 02:44 Voight-kampff says:

    Shouldn’t an internet connection-requirement be under “Requirements”, and not the grayed out text at the bottom of the screen? I didn’t see it until now, when i actively went looking for it.. (Steam)

  76. 19/08/2011 at 03:12 virtualmatrix258 says:

    Nail in the coffin for me. I’m never buying another Ubisoft product. Too bad, I was kinda looking forward to Far Cry 3 but we all know what they’re going to do with that.

  77. 19/08/2011 at 03:30 DaFishes says:

    All the forum edits at Ubisoft make it look like community management staff are in a slap fight with PR staff are in a slap fight with marketing staff.

  78. 19/08/2011 at 04:10 Laephis says:

    I want to give them money and they do everything in their power to piss me off. Welp, fuck these fucking fuckers. I’m done with Ubisoft forever, and won’t be satisfied until their company is a smoldering corpse on the ash heap of gaming history.

  79. 19/08/2011 at 05:38 Vinraith says:

    Ugh, this is worrying on a number of levels. I really, really wish these scumbags weren’t in control of several of my favorite franchises.

    • 19/08/2011 at 09:56 StingingVelvet says:

      They have run most of those franchises into the ground though. I was the world’s biggest Splinter Cell fan until they turned it into Gears of War. Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six didn’t fare much better. Assassin’s Creed is the same game over and over every year. Only Farcry has been spared so far, and even then Farcry 2 was arguably worse than the original.

      Ubisoft as a whole have gone from awesome to terrible.

  80. 19/08/2011 at 06:25 Felixader says:

    Shit Ubi Soft. I loved you since i played your Rayman Game on the N64and perhabs even earlier.
    I STILL love your games and since i am an consolero i am not smithen that hard with your crap.

    But i can’t help but it start to feel wrong to support you when you keep on treating part of your customers like shit.

  81. 19/08/2011 at 07:28 age says:

    Sounds like they have serious internal communication issues within the company.

  82. 19/08/2011 at 08:36 stillwater says:

    Damn! Now I’m going to have to get an internet connection. Oh, wait…

  83. 19/08/2011 at 09:11 Hakkesshu says:

    I hate to say it, but my love for the game and Eric Chahi supercedes my distate for Ubisoft’s shitty practices, so I’m keeping it for now.

    That said, I’m done buying games from Ubisoft. Not that it matters much anyway, because aside from Assassin’s Creed, everything they’ve put out for like the past 2 years has been utter piss.

  84. 19/08/2011 at 09:35 Towercap says:

    Bought the game from Get Games. Wasn’t impressed by shoddy porting and misleading DRM info pre-release. Asked for a refund (didn’t even insist on one or anything) and received it promptly with no questions asked.

    Will definitely spend the refund on Get Games.

    This is the second game I ever got a refund for. The first was Elemental. Had high expectations for both. ):

  85. 19/08/2011 at 09:38 mbklin says:

    Wonderful.
    Share a website with you ,
    ( http:voguecatch.com )
    Believe you will love it.
    credit card and f ree s hipping.
    I bought two pairs. Cheap, good quality, you can go and ship with there

  86. 19/08/2011 at 09:49 rustybroomhandle says:

    Sadly, despite all the rage-boycotting and heated opinions on the lame way they treat PC customers – when Ubisoft do an analysis of the whole thing, they will conclude the following:

    - PC version sold worse than console, make less PC games
    - Piracy is to blame, add more DRM

  87. 19/08/2011 at 10:00 Mechanicus_ says:

    I also just received a flat, boiler plate denial of refund from Steam despite sending them a calm, reasonable message explaining the situation and why it warrants an exception to the usual policy.

    At this point I don’t think anybody is getting refunds; I’m almost certain that “YOU GOTTA KNOW THE LAW, KID” guy in the other RPS From Dust comment thread was just insane and/or trolling.

    What’s really annoying is loads of website are now running front page “Valve refunds everybody, aren’t they great!” stories despite the exact opposite being the case. Have yet to see a single report of successful refund aside from “I WORK IN THE LAW MINES” man.

    Steam forum thread of everybody asking for refunds, everybody getting shot down:
    http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2065344

    • 19/08/2011 at 10:15 PodX140 says:

      They are quite persistent with the mindless drone thing, I had my account phished and they wouldn’t understand I had an invoice with coupons for my steam games (I only had HL2 and CS:S at the time), took 4 or five posts of me just blatantly telling them that there is proof of purchase in the attached file, even though it is not a credit card statement -_-

      If people are persistent enough, I’m sure the drones will start to understand the situation.

  88. 19/08/2011 at 10:22 Milky1985 says:

    I distinctly remember someone telling me the extra month delay is used to “clean up the PC code ” and that its worhtt he extra month.

    What the hell have they being in the month delay between versions , did they spend it all adding the DRM that was not mentioned on the game page?

    • 19/08/2011 at 11:41 telpscorei says:

      That’s exactly what they did. I’ve noticed that everytime the PC version of a Ubisoft game is delayed, the game comes out later with DRM attached. They are literally doing as you said. Take a look at Driver, fr’instance.

  89. 19/08/2011 at 10:28 edit says:

    I’m happy that I preordered the title and I absolutely want to financially support Chachi and his (hopefully) future projects, certainly not looking for a refund, but it seems quite strange that I can’t put the product I legitimately bought on a laptop and play it where I don’t have internet access, yet those who pirate the software don’t have to deal with that limitation.

  90. 19/08/2011 at 11:25 drewski says:

    I don’t understand why people still buy things from Ubisoft.

  91. 19/08/2011 at 12:53 Sunjammer says:

    Fucking PC snobs. Seriously. This is RPS from its worst fucking angle.

    I’ve played the PC version through and I enjoyed it thoroughly. It bothered me that the mouse controls were so clunky but it remains a beautiful and interesting game to play.

    The bitching about missing AA and a “low framerate”, fuck youuuuu. Fuck you so fucking hard in your dumb fucking faces, good friends: Have you ANY idea how fucking heavy running a 3D fluid dynamics system of this resolution and complexity is? I *guarantee you* that fluid system is running at 30fps internally, and a 120fps rendering on top of a 30fps physics system looks like SHIT. From Dust runs simulations in real time that Maya would run at 4 FPS max on a comparable system. It’s a _software design choice_.

    30fps is NOT a low framerate, it is the LOW BOUNDS. If this was running at 24 we could bitch, but moaning like little spoilt children over WAAH WAAH WE COULD HAVE 120 BUT WHY NOOOOT.

    The DRM? What the fuck ever. You are all online at all times. Yes Ubi lied to “us”. Does that make From Dust a game you shouldn’t buy? No fucking way!

    I haven’t said the f-word as many times in a post in a long time but this RPS crusade against a game that really deserves better is just a huge joke.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:06 Wozzle says:

      I know you made this comment to make yourself feel smart, but it makes you look stupid.

    • 19/08/2011 at 14:21 rustybroomhandle says:

      @Sunjammer You “good friend” are also missing the main point. People are upset because they got lied to. It’s a perfectly valid reason to be upset.

      Thanks for the face-fuck, by the way, hope it was as good for you as it was for me.

    • 19/08/2011 at 17:43 dorkus1218 says:

      That’s actually an interesting point about the physics sim internal cap–remember how bioshocks’s ragdolls and other physics were capped at 12fps or something? It did look like shit… but I still wonder if capping the whole game’s framerate is worth it. 30 and 12 are very different framerates, so maybe the difference between the fluid dynamics and the rest of the world wouldnt be as bad.

      Anyway, thanks for the diamond of a point in extreme rough.

    • 19/08/2011 at 17:53 Urthman says:

      I *guarantee you* that fluid system is running at 30fps internally

      So a physics engine that can run at 30fps on the XBOX 360 processor can’t do any better on an i7? How is that possible?

    • 19/08/2011 at 18:01 Schlaefer says:

      @Sunjammer: Actually it’s not a real 3D Fluid System. It’s something between 2D and 3D. In real 3D fluids can fly through the air. In From Dust they can only flow on the ground. On the other hand there are different terrain and fluid heights. The latter can be achieved by a value for the quantity, which is used in the simulation anyway. The first can be done by adding forces to a 2D grid which correspond to the angle of the slope and simple displacement mapping.
      Also this whole simulation can be done on GPU,

    • 19/08/2011 at 19:30 Sunjammer says:

      Great internet-man tactics there. I wrote this post because the RPS coverage of this bullshit has been atrocious. Jim (or John, can’t remember or bother checking) making the statement that the game was a “don’t buy”, which is NUTS. Did Ubi lie? Yes. Does the game have the hallmarks of a console game ported to PC? Yes. Does this make the game BAD? Noooooo!

      You can discuss game quality from a design point of view, but Ubi’s PR bullshit aside and looking at the game itself, what you have is a reliably performant and unique physics puzzler, and there is literally nothing else like it on the market. I for one got over the shitty mouse controls within the first hour and started just having a lot of fun with it.

      I don’t understand why some PC gamers feel like every bit of ported software that lands on their platform needs to significantly outperform its console variant in order to be worth the same price of admission. It’s outrageous snobbery to assume you should pay the same to get more, simply because you are on a platform that MAY, given significant software rewrites perform better.

      From my perspective this is a console game running on the PC, and you get a console game experience. This was clearly never a PC-first game, so why is it the end of the fucking world? You get to play the game and you don’t have to buy an Xbox, oh dear, poor you! Your life is in tatters now that you can’t enjoy your PC-specific potentials!

      It drives me out of my little mind to see such ire directed at a game that’s actually quite interesting and beautiful, in spite of missing AA and capped framerate, when the publisher’s PR is to blame for its real downfalls.

    • 19/08/2011 at 21:20 Kadayi says:

      Yeah it’s pretty tedious tbh. Internet access is pretty much ubiquitous and it’s hardly a game that’s going to consume ones life, so getting het up over the temerity of a publisher requiring initial launch internet access is frankly hilarious (woods trees…). If only there were a way to turn all this misguided rage into energy all our future needs would be met for generations to come.

    • 20/08/2011 at 00:17 malkav11 says:

      Who’s directing ire at the game? The game is, sadly, not material. I wish it were. It looks lovely. But Ubisoft have ruined that for anyone who cares the least bit about consumer rights or the future availability of games.

    • 20/08/2011 at 05:08 StingingVelvet says:

      I really wish people would understand it is not internet access that makes this DRM bad. We should call it server authorization DRM instead of online DRM.

    • 09/09/2011 at 18:16 DRMsucks says:

      “The DRM what the fuck ever”

      You’re just a stupid child who has no sense for independence yet.
      Don’t worry you’ll get there!

      Chump.

  92. 19/08/2011 at 14:02 clownst0pper says:

    Moral of this story: don’t choose a shit publisher to go into business with. Oh wait, are there any good ones left?

  93. 19/08/2011 at 15:16 Magical Melvin says:

    I’m now officially boycotting Ubisoft products – after this s***storm and the s***storm surrounding Settlers (as well as other games) I’ve decided now’s the time to throw in the towel.

    I’m more into my indie anyway.

  95. 19/08/2011 at 16:27 Big Murray says:

    Do you ever wonder whether Ubisoft does this kind of stuff on purpose, so they can then point to how PC sales are worse than console sales and use it as an excuse to pull out of the PC market altogether?

    Paranoia, I know … but …

  96. 19/08/2011 at 16:40 kevmscotland says:

    I bought the game, greatly regret doing so.

    The online activation part really annoys me, particularly as its hasnt been working properly since launch.
    But the tactics from Ubi more than anything are what upsets me.

    I’d rather they just stopped releasing PC games frankly than shoddy ports we’ve recieved so far.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Respond to our gibber

Read our finest words

Making It With Science: A TUG Interview

Search for clues

Play indie, mods, demos

Browse the archive