GearWERKZ TechBlog

I understand that companies have to do things to protect themselves. Given the choice of exiting a market, or creating a nazi regime for gamers, I guess I would choose to exit the market. Is there really an absolute need for Assassin's Creed II on the PC? If not, I think it would be a better maneuver for Ubisoft to simply not release a version for the PC. There are clearly a lot of emotional issues with this issue. What I think all of the entertainment industries fail to realize is this: consumers are offended to actually pay their money for content, to then be treated like criminals in order to access it. You see, the pirates don't care about the emotional impact of your DRM scheme. They just giggle and set about devising means of cracking it. The ones you are pissing off, and therefore losing revenue on, are the customers who were actually paying for your content in the first place. It's kind of like gun laws. They only work against people who are obeying the law. The ones who are determined to break them are not impacted at all.

While I have emotional issues with this move by Ubisoft, it's more productive to discuss the technical and business issues. I have been a proponent of digital distribution models, particularly for consoles. While the optical media is available, I prefer to purchase those versions. These positions may seem in opposition to each other. The truth is, if optical media were to go away, I would not rail against it. However, while optical media continues to be available , I choose to buy those versions.

I mention this to illustrate that I am on the side of industry assuming that their most important consumers have broadband connections. But when I say that I am on the side of that argument, it is with the caveat that there be no gamer left behind. Mechanisms must be provided to ensure that gamers without broadband connections have access to that same content via some other outlet. One means of achieving this is to have the content available at the standard brick and mortar shops, who might be unwilling to carry game systems that are wholly supported by digital distribution models. They could have kiosks where games without broadband connections could bring in a thumbdrive or other medium to download the content.

My point here is to illustrate that I have no problem with Ubisoft making the assumption that their most important customers have access to a broadband internet connection. I take extreme umbrage to Ubisoft assuming that I am willing and able to always have that broadband connection on. What I have a problem with is Ubisoft not allowing me to maintain my save file locally. I have been a PC gamer for a long time, and I do not need a publisher to coddle me under the guise of ensuring that my save-game files are secure and available in the cloud. I did not ask for this level of service, and I am quite happy having local control of my save-game files. If I need them on another PC, I'll copy them to my NAS and remote in to copy the files over.

What I have a problem with is Ubisoft creating a schema that assumes that I either have access to that broadband internet access all of the time, or want to be connected all of the time. There are still (idiotic) hotels out there who charge for internet access. I refuse to pay these hotels for a service that should be a free commodity for hotel guests. So, because Ubisoft decided their schema is better for me, I now cannot play my game in this hotel?! I also mentioned before that there are times when I do not want to be connected. I just do not like being connected to a network if I am not actively doing something with that access. I am not intersted in being forced to maintain a connection to public wireless network to play a game when that connection provides not readily visible value added to my gameplay experience.

There are all kinds of things wrong with this appraoch by Ubisoft. It is simply ridiculous. I am also absolutely certain that it will be cracked. When someone pirates a game, they rarely care if they have access to the online content, patches, stat tracking, or any of the so-called advantages law-abiding consumers will "gain" from this "service". Those guys, for the most part, just want to steal the game once, play it, and be done with it. One of PC gaming's largest detracting factors has been the fact that it can sometimes be a pain in the arse in comparison to the console plug-and-play paradigm. I deal with this additional effort required because I typically feel that the overall entertainment experience gained by playing on a PC is of greater value than the experience on a console. Maneuvers like this by the big publishers are not helping the case for PC gaming's continued existence. Anyone who has access to both a console and a PC would be a fool to choose the PC version of Assassin'c Creed II. I hope Ubisoft has fun killing the potential of a great franchise run on the PC.

- Vr/Zeuxidamas..>>