I guess this article by John is the kind of thing it's frustrating to read.
There's no real mention of how the average consumer behaves in terms of hardware upgrades and using multiple machines, or what the expected life expectancy of the product is in the eyes of the average consumer. You know, facts that could potentially hold up the argument you're trying to make.
I wouldn't doubt that Ubi, on the other hand, do have that kind of data on hand, and have made their decision of 3 limits based on that data.
not on your side. Independent games journalists, however, actually are. Why you would trust the companies over their critics or, worse, your own eyes, is beyond me.
Besides, the excuse Ubisoft gave was very much a "by the numbers" excuse. You know - "the number of people liable to complain about this idiocy isn't enough to counteract the money we believe we'd make by doing it." Kinda like Ford's rationalization, "we'd rather waste our time with individual lawsuits than recall the exploding Pinto."
The key problem I see is that there's this common presumption that 'DRM is bad' but there doesn't seem to be much journalistic research done (from what I've seen) into exactly how bad it is in terms of genuine actual real world impact Vs nebulous scaremongering ('this could be terrible!') which unfortunately persecution complex types seem to lap up with boundless enthusiasm to get terribly righteous over, like Pharisees demonstrating whose more holy on the Sabbath.
I’d like to see some genuine metrics on how impactful 'always on DRM', Vs 'online at launch' etc, etc in this increasingly interconnected world, vs the endless tales of how ‘I had terrible internet 5 years ago when I was on dial up, therefore this is bad’ blanket statements. The only person on this forum who seems to have a legitimate case is Berzee (IIRC) in that he apparently lives on a bus (or at least that’s what he wants me to believe). My suspicion is, beyond the odd outlier like him the answer is not very truth be told. Still until someone does some research on the matter how we ever to really know? Whom exactly are people boycotting Ubisoft or EA for exactly? Themselves (hardly I'd say), or some great mythical unwashed whom seemingly lack a voice out in the wilderness? I’d like to see the RPS article that finds out tbh.
Last edited by Kadayi; 20-01-2012 at 07:31 PM.
Why would I (or anyone else for that matter) give a monkeys what the "average" consumer does? Given the average consumer is a statistic not a person?
I'm befuddled. I care how it effects me, I care how it effects my friends, I care how it inconveniences *me* not a statistical average on a spreadsheet at Ubisoft.
Also, I don't care how they came up with the figure given it's limited activations not just the amount that's the issue. I also don't care whether anyone says I can be allowed to care about it or not because no-one else gets to decide what I give a toss about.
Last edited by Kadayi; 20-01-2012 at 08:29 PM.
Plenty, thanks. And I'll be the judge of what inconveniences me so don't even go there.
Kadayi: Arbiter of the Onerous
Yes, Kadayi. Just like all the other threads where you just want some data.
And then refuse to acknowledge the data as anything that's allowable, justifiable or whatever.
Sorry love, not biting.
Last edited by RobF; 20-01-2012 at 10:18 PM.