"Due to Ubisoft's servers being down I was unable to play the game I legitimately purchased. 0/10"
Let's not go crazy here, I can't play WoW right now because it's maintenance day. Imagine if today was the first day I bought it.
"WTF Blizz, once a week I am unable to play this game I legitimately bought, what am I paying you for? 0/10"
Yes, this is a single player game and unprecedented, awful DRM. But no, it does not deserve a poor review because the one time you tried to play it, you couldn't.
How about for three days, and in particular, over the weekend?
This is not a regular occurrence with WoW but it has happened, yes.
"Due to Ubisoft's servers being down I was unable to play the game I legitimately purchased. 0/10"
Let's not go crazy here, I can't play WoW right now because it's maintenance day. Imagine if today was the first day I bought it.
"WTF Blizz, once a week I am unable to play this game I legitimately bought, what am I paying you for? 0/10"
Yes, this is a single player game and unprecedented, awful DRM. But no, it does not deserve a poor review because the one time you tried to play it, you couldn't.
How about for three days, and in particular, over the weekend?
This is not a regular occurrence with WoW but it has happened, yes.
No I meant for a singleplayer game. Would you view that as acceptable?
"Due to Ubisoft's servers being down I was unable to play the game I legitimately purchased. 0/10"
Let's not go crazy here, I can't play WoW right now because it's maintenance day. Imagine if today was the first day I bought it.
"WTF Blizz, once a week I am unable to play this game I legitimately bought, what am I paying you for? 0/10"
Yes, this is a single player game and unprecedented, awful DRM. But no, it does not deserve a poor review because the one time you tried to play it, you couldn't.
That is an inherent disadvantage of the MMO genre. The whole point of the game is to play in a world populated by other players, and for that you all need to connect to a server. How do you propose to make a 100% maintenance free MMO server, hm? You know what you get yourself into with an MMO. Sometimes you just wont be able to play due to maintenance.
AC2 on the other hand, is a singleplayer game and the solution is simple: DON'T REQUIRE IT TO CONNECT TO THE GODDAMNED INTERNET IN THE FIRST PLACE. A 100% offline singleplayer game sounds like crazy talk, I know, but it's been done before. I shit you not.
"Due to Ubisoft's servers being down I was unable to play the game I legitimately purchased. 0/10"
He doesn't specify single player or draconian DRM or anything. This statement could be broadly applied to a lot of games and situations, which makes it ridiculous. You may as well say, my internet was down so this game gets a zero, or my 360 red ringed so this game gets a zero.
Be specific with your complaints, is all I am saying.
Be specific with your complaints, is all I am saying.
Be intelligent with your complaints, is all I am saying. You really must be dense to take things so far out of context. Did I have to state which game also? And that it was on the PC? And the day and time? Should I get a notary to certify my review as well?
I like your reviews, travathian. I will pay you $10 a week to work for me. There's still a dozen games to review so the earlier you can start the better!
Be specific with your complaints, is all I am saying.
Be intelligent with your complaints, is all I am saying. You really must be dense to take things so far out of context. Did I have to state which game also? And that it was on the PC? And the day and time? Should I get a notary to certify my review as well?
Probably would help.
Like I said, a lot of games you legitimately purchase might be unplayable on day 1, and that isn't cause for a zero review. Now, if it's due to terrible DRM that could potentially set an awful precedent? That might knock the score down a few pegs.
I would say factors that unreasonably and completely prevent you from playing a game should affect reviews. Buying a game and having it lock up whenever there is a problem with the internet, whether on your end or not, is a definate problem with the game. Has nothing to do with DRM, that's just a major gameplay problem. To my knowledge, I'll never be able to play this game on PC with my current internet setup.
I expect reviewers to tell me what I am getting into as a consumer rather than the pure game experience. For example, shitty matchmaking for multiplayer games doesn't break the gameplay in theory, but it can really diminish overall enjoyment of a title. Same with being unceremoniously ejected from a singple player experience, or simpy being unable to play.
smeej on
IT'S A SAD THING THAT YOUR ADVENTURES HAVE ENDED HERE!!
I like your reviews, travathian. I will pay you $10 a week to work for me. There's still a dozen games to review so the earlier you can start the better!
Assuming they are all new Ubisoft games I can have the reviews done in 5 minutes, paypal me the goods!
Like I said, a lot of games you legitimately purchase might be unplayable on day 1, and that isn't cause for a zero review.
A game that has been out less than a week and isn't playable on Day 1 gets a big fat fucking zero for a review. Why the hell would I recommend that game to anyone if I can't legitimately play it? I don't care if its DRM or bugs or servers down. I am offering up a review as a means of letting other people know my impression of the game. Honestly I take the Siskel and Ebert approach, either thumbs up, or thumbs down, which basically comes down to "If I could go back in time and let my past self know whether or not to buy this game, what would I say."
I would say to my past self: "Hell fucking no, don't buy AC2 for the PC!"
I just hope the games industry looks at this debacle logically and truthfully and doesn't come away from it with a "omg pirates fucked everything up" conclusion.
Like I said, a lot of games you legitimately purchase might be unplayable on day 1, and that isn't cause for a zero review.
A game that has been out less than a week and isn't playable on Day 1 gets a big fat fucking zero for a review. Why the hell would I recommend that game to anyone if I can't legitimately play it? I don't care if its DRM or bugs or servers down. I am offering up a review as a means of letting other people know my impression of the game. Honestly I take the Siskel and Ebert approach, either thumbs up, or thumbs down, which basically comes down to "If I could go back in time and let my past self know whether or not to buy this game, what would I say."
I would say to my past self: "Hell fucking no, don't buy AC2 for the PC!"
I've definitely got to agree with travathian here. Years ago it was not that uncommon for a review to mention a particularly bad bug in a PC game and dock the game because of it.
I really dislike the fact that reviewers now, for both consoles and PC, just accept that all the bugs in their review build will be gone for the final and you never hear about them. This is just the type of stuff people want in their reviews. Travathian's going to make a fortune. :P
Cronus on
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
Honestly I take the Siskel and Ebert approach, either thumbs up, or thumbs down, which basically comes down to "If I could go back in time and let my past self know whether or not to buy this game, what would I say."
While you're time travelling, why not go forward in time to when you can play it and actually give the game a fair review?
I've gotta go with travathian on this one. DRM needs to be considered in reviews, if not against the score, it should be mentioned. One reason I find reviews utterly useless is because they don't tell me about the product as a whole, and I end up with things like Red Faction: Guerilla and get completely caught off guard with online activation*.
Yes, its mentioned on the back. The degree to which is always left open, though. Just telling me "online act/online req" doesn't tell me if it is a Steam based title, a SecuROM title, requires a Uplay account, an EA account, etc, etc. Reviews, and game packaging (including DD sites/programs) need to make it clear and concise with DRM. As much as I dislike Games for Windows Live at least its there, in a big bold sign, letting me know not to purchase this product.
Reviewers are reviewing the entire service and product being provided, why shouldn't these things come into play?
*It requires attaching the game's serial key to an e-mail account, and I'd assume registering it with the publishers. I didn't get past the e-mail part, I just closed and uninstalled the game.
Honestly I take the Siskel and Ebert approach, either thumbs up, or thumbs down, which basically comes down to "If I could go back in time and let my past self know whether or not to buy this game, what would I say."
While you're time travelling, why not go forward in time to when you can play it and actually give the game a fair review?
When would that be?
During scheduled maintenence?
Perhaps during peak times when the number of players crash the servers, which was what initially happened?
Maybe he pops in at a time when someone creates a mod that Ubisoft doesn't agree with and they take the server offline to patch the code?
What about if Ubisoft isn't lying through their fucking teeth and the "attacks" go on unabated?
How about a year from now when maintaining the server is no longer seen as a viable financial liability, so the server is shut down?
Heck, depending where he is and the source of his internet access, he might not be able to play for an extended period of time ever. What about if he lives in one of the many areas of the world where internet access is charged by the megabyte or gigabyte? After a couple of weeks or months, one would think that the checks would add up.
Seriously folks, these issues are expected for MMOs. For all of these headaches, we get to play around in a world inhabited with thousands of other players, which always creates a dynamic playing environment that you just don't get from playing a static singleplayer game (or with bots). That's the whole point of playing online, so you can play a game with others without everyone huddled into the same room.
For a singleplayer game, it is absolutely absurd.
You can't give the same leeway to a singleplayer game that you must give to an MMO (or online FPS, etc.) because all the problems stem from an issue that is absolutely unnecessary and adds nothing to the gameplay experience in a singleplayer environment.
Honestly, if I had to give a review to a singleplayer game that is rendered completely unplayable by the company itself for non-gameplay issues not related to bugs, glitches, etc., and if that game was intentionally sabotaged to the point where I could never play it under certain circumstances for the sole purpose of thwarting a boogeyman who by definition would not have purchased the game in the first place, that game would get a 0, and quite possibly, a class-action suit if an instant refund was not given.
While you're time travelling, why not go forward in time to when you can play it and actually give the game a fair review?
How far forward? A day? A week?
If someone came up to me right now, with $60 in hand, and asked me if they should buy AC2 for the PC, I would tell them no. Not maybe. Not no, but. I would tell them no, period. I can't in good conscience recommend a product to someone that is clearly defective and the manufacturer shows no signs of correcting the situation. In fact, I would probably tell them to avoid all games by that manufacturer just to be safe.
Anytime you have to use the word "if" or "but" or "however" then that means that there's something wandering around that's going to knock off the score points.
"This is a good game, but..."
"If the game wasn't unstable, it would be good..."
"This game is fantastic, however..."
The DRM should be taken into account. The DRM may or may not improve, but the exact same thing can be said of bugs and extremely imbalanced multiplayer.
Boycotting the games will only work if the pirates are willing to boycott as well, so that Ubisoft can get a clear message that people don't want to buy the game because of the DRM, not because they want to play it without paying for it.
I'm sure that since the pirates have the best interests of everyone in mind and are not at all selfish assholes, they'll be more than happy to cooperate.
Be specific with your complaints, is all I am saying.
Be intelligent with your complaints, is all I am saying. You really must be dense to take things so far out of context. Did I have to state which game also? And that it was on the PC? And the day and time? Should I get a notary to certify my review as well?
Probably would help.
Like I said, a lot of games you legitimately purchase might be unplayable on day 1, and that isn't cause for a zero review. Now, if it's due to terrible DRM that could potentially set an awful precedent? That might knock the score down a few pegs.
The credo of the game journalism industry is that you review what you are given. If a game is literally unplayable, a zero is an absolutely fair review grade.
Be specific with your complaints, is all I am saying.
Be intelligent with your complaints, is all I am saying. You really must be dense to take things so far out of context. Did I have to state which game also? And that it was on the PC? And the day and time? Should I get a notary to certify my review as well?
Probably would help.
Like I said, a lot of games you legitimately purchase might be unplayable on day 1, and that isn't cause for a zero review. Now, if it's due to terrible DRM that could potentially set an awful precedent? That might knock the score down a few pegs.
I'd say that every game unplayable on day one - particularly a single player game that you are prevented from playing SOLELY because of some bullshit DRM - absolutely deserves a zero review. In fact, what it actually deserves is a zero review and a total refund by the retailer/publisher for every single paying customer that could not use the software. Does that make it a less than zero review? Anyway, that's the exactly fair grade.
Boycotting the games will only work if the pirates are willing to boycott as well, so that Ubisoft can get a clear message that people don't want to buy the game because of the DRM, not because they want to play it without paying for it.
I'm sure that since the pirates have the best interests of everyone in mind and are not at all selfish assholes, they'll be more than happy to cooperate.
Oh, come now.
Ubisoft has already used the whole piracy excuse repeatedly now to try to avoid shitstorms. If AC2 never showed up on any torrent site, and nobody bought the game, Ubi would find a way to tell their investors that pirates are literally standing next to the shelves in stores physically denying anyone from buying the game. With piracy!
No matter what happens, piracy is going to get blamed. It's the catch-all for any circumstance. Low sales are because every computer on Earth downloaded the game. You made record breaking sales? It could have tripled if we were allowed to go door to door, stabbing anyone with a computer but no copy of the game, because only pirates would not have a copy of the best selling game ever.
Ubisoft is using piracy as a crutch for their near-calvacade of piss poor decision making. There are a ton of games that have no DRM, get downloaded three ways from Tuesday, and still these games break records.
What about that one Stardock game, GalCiv2? They made it a point to say that there would be no DRM, and what happened? It topped Wal-Mart's video game sales chart for 2 weeks. Not just PC games, but ALL games.
You apologists can come in and say "abloobloobloo, Stardock is a smaller company, and can afford to not use DRM and be profitable!"
Yeah, they can, and THEY FUCKING OUTSOLD EVERY OTHER GAME AT WAL-MART FOR 2 FUCKING WEEKS, and this was a time when Wally World represented a vast majority of the video game market.
It's not the business model, noe is it the fact that they work with a smaller budget, it's the fact that they care about their customers, add reasons to buy the game with online options, scorecharts, etc.
Oh yeah, and they actually make the game so you can play it whenever you want.
Maybe instead of crippling their game, treating their paying customers like criminals, spending big bucks on sabotaging their own product and reputation, and charging us more than the industry standard for the hell of it, maybe they might see the sales they want to see if they actually offered paying customers a product that, you know, worked when the customer wanted it to.
Stardock (and any of the other companies that don't screw everyone, including themselves, and then wonder why they have low sales) focuses on innovation, benefits, customer service, and quality games. Is that really such a complex business model to figure out?
Be specific with your complaints, is all I am saying.
Be intelligent with your complaints, is all I am saying. You really must be dense to take things so far out of context. Did I have to state which game also? And that it was on the PC? And the day and time? Should I get a notary to certify my review as well?
Probably would help.
Like I said, a lot of games you legitimately purchase might be unplayable on day 1, and that isn't cause for a zero review. Now, if it's due to terrible DRM that could potentially set an awful precedent? That might knock the score down a few pegs.
I'd say that every game unplayable on day one - particularly a single player game that you are prevented from playing SOLELY because of some bullshit DRM - absolutely deserves a zero review. In fact, what it actually deserves is a zero review and a total refund by the retailer/publisher for every single paying customer that could not use the software. Does that make it a less than zero review? Anyway, that's the exactly fair grade.
That's true, but it's important to note that it is also the publication's responsibility to update that review should the DRM be taken out in the future.
Be specific with your complaints, is all I am saying.
Be intelligent with your complaints, is all I am saying. You really must be dense to take things so far out of context. Did I have to state which game also? And that it was on the PC? And the day and time? Should I get a notary to certify my review as well?
Probably would help.
Like I said, a lot of games you legitimately purchase might be unplayable on day 1, and that isn't cause for a zero review. Now, if it's due to terrible DRM that could potentially set an awful precedent? That might knock the score down a few pegs.
I'd say that every game unplayable on day one - particularly a single player game that you are prevented from playing SOLELY because of some bullshit DRM - absolutely deserves a zero review. In fact, what it actually deserves is a zero review and a total refund by the retailer/publisher for every single paying customer that could not use the software. Does that make it a less than zero review? Anyway, that's the exactly fair grade.
I really don't see an issue with scoring 0. Actually, I can see it going into the negatives.
Why, you ask?
Think of the worst game you've ever played. The one that you're still kicking yourself over purchasing, even 10-20 years later. Battlecruiser 3000, perhaps? Does it still bring tears to your eyes? I have played a few games that I would score as a 0.
The funny thing is, once installed, could you hit "play" and it would at least start up?
If it did, it deserves a higher score than AC2 then.
A developer could make the greatest video game in the universe, where you'd get blowjobs from Tatyana Ali clones the entire time you're playing and cake would pop out of your monitor for you, but if it doesn't start up when you hit play, what's the fucking point? If the only time you could play it is when the company allowed you to play it, you'd get tired from clicking that "play" button, and you'd wear out your mouse and quit trying.
A Steam forum moderator banned some guy for making the following post:
No, the pirates are doing a good thing by forcing attention on this matter. Bringing attention helped push EA to remove their crappy limitations from Spore and change their policy. The same needs to happen with Ubi. I don't blame any of this on any party but Ubi.
The reason? He was "cheering pirates."
Someone pointed out that the guy owns 700+ Steam games, so it is ludicrous to ban him. The response was that he was "cheering pirates and attacking one of our business partners."
Are you kidding me?
edit: Okay, the phrase was actually "attacks against one of our business partners" which I assumes means the DDoS attacks. I misread that. The moderator was still way out of line, though.
That's true, but it's important to note that it is also the publication's responsibility to update that review should the DRM be taken out in the future.
No it isn't. My review has a date stamp on it, I need to do nothing else. I certainly could if I wanted to, but I sure as shit feel no responsibility to update my review for every change made to a game.
That's true, but it's important to note that it is also the publication's responsibility to update that review should the DRM be taken out in the future.
No it isn't. My review has a date stamp on it, I need to do nothing else. I certainly could if I wanted to, but I sure as shit feel no responsibility to update my review for every change made to a game.
Patches and add ons and the like, sure, but even when the change is as drastic as "hey now it's actually playable?" I don't agree.
That's true, but it's important to note that it is also the publication's responsibility to update that review should the DRM be taken out in the future.
No it isn't. My review has a date stamp on it, I need to do nothing else. I certainly could if I wanted to, but I sure as shit feel no responsibility to update my review for every change made to a game.
Patches and add ons and the like, sure, but even when the change is as drastic as "hey now it's actually playable?" I don't agree.
I see your point, Darlan, but as someone who wrote video game reviews for a number of years, your point falls flat for various reasons:
1) There are so many games that come out within a year, with some very high-volume periods, that some games never get reviewed at all. As such it is sometimes impossible to re-review a game once it goes from an unplayable state to a playable state. The publisher had a chance. If they failed to deliver a working product, that is their problem.
2) Publications are under no obligation to cover every game. All they are obligated to do is fairly judge a game that they receive, when they receive it. Giving a game that literally doesn't work a zero is a fair review.
3) As travathian pointed out, the review is date stamped. As long as a review is date stamped, it is completely valid to leave it as is. A date stamp means "this is how the game was as of suchandsuch date."
I do understand what you mean, but journalists are under no obligation here. If a game publisher fucks up, well boo hoo.
That's true, but it's important to note that it is also the publication's responsibility to update that review should the DRM be taken out in the future.
No it isn't. My review has a date stamp on it, I need to do nothing else. I certainly could if I wanted to, but I sure as shit feel no responsibility to update my review for every change made to a game.
If reviewers actually took your approach, I'd probably still buy games magazines.
What about that one Stardock game, GalCiv2? They made it a point to say that there would be no DRM, and what happened? It topped Wal-Mart's video game sales chart for 2 weeks. Not just PC games, but ALL games.
You apologists can come in and say "abloobloobloo, Stardock is a smaller company, and can afford to not use DRM and be profitable!"
Yeah, they can, and THEY FUCKING OUTSOLD EVERY OTHER GAME AT WAL-MART FOR 2 FUCKING WEEKS, and this was a time when Wally World represented a vast majority of the video game market.
It's not the business model, noe is it the fact that they work with a smaller budget, it's the fact that they care about their customers, add reasons to buy the game with online options, scorecharts, etc.
Oh yeah, and they actually make the game so you can play it whenever you want.
But, but, buuuuuuuuuuut! Stardock are niche marketers! They make niche titles so nobody gives a shit and they hurt my feelings and are smelly heads!
Will say those stuck in denial.
About that Steam thing, that isn't like EA's forum is it? Where if you're banned from EA's forum you get a big "hurhur, fuck you, no more online play with anything connected to this account!", except... worse because its Steam and results in your collection going poof?
What about that one Stardock game, GalCiv2? They made it a point to say that there would be no DRM, and what happened? It topped Wal-Mart's video game sales chart for 2 weeks. Not just PC games, but ALL games.
You apologists can come in and say "abloobloobloo, Stardock is a smaller company, and can afford to not use DRM and be profitable!"
Yeah, they can, and THEY FUCKING OUTSOLD EVERY OTHER GAME AT WAL-MART FOR 2 FUCKING WEEKS, and this was a time when Wally World represented a vast majority of the video game market.
It's not the business model, noe is it the fact that they work with a smaller budget, it's the fact that they care about their customers, add reasons to buy the game with online options, scorecharts, etc.
Oh yeah, and they actually make the game so you can play it whenever you want.
But, but, buuuuuuuuuuut! Stardock are niche marketers! They make niche titles so nobody gives a shit and they hurt my feelings and are smelly heads!
Will say those stuck in denial.
About that Steam thing, that isn't like EA's forum is it? Where if you're banned from EA's forum you get a big "hurhur, fuck you, no more online play with anything connected to this account!", except... worse because its Steam and results in your collection going poof?
I think he only got his forum account banned.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
DrakeEdgelord TrashBelow the ecliptic plane.Registered Userregular
That's true, but it's important to note that it is also the publication's responsibility to update that review should the DRM be taken out in the future.
No it isn't. My review has a date stamp on it, I need to do nothing else. I certainly could if I wanted to, but I sure as shit feel no responsibility to update my review for every change made to a game.
If reviewers actually took your approach, I'd probably still buy games magazines.
That's true, but it's important to note that it is also the publication's responsibility to update that review should the DRM be taken out in the future.
No it isn't. My review has a date stamp on it, I need to do nothing else. I certainly could if I wanted to, but I sure as shit feel no responsibility to update my review for every change made to a game.
If reviewers actually took your approach, I'd probably still buy games magazines.
Not enough lime etc.
Look, updating reviews? A good practice if the site has the time to do so. But are journalists obliged in any way to do so? Is it irresponsible not to? No and no. That's all I'm saying. The publication is NOT in ANY WAY responsible for updating their review. But it's still good if they did.
Posts
This is not a regular occurrence with WoW but it has happened, yes.
And didn't PA lambast blizzard for the poor performance of newly launched WoW, and change their 'review' of it?
No I meant for a singleplayer game. Would you view that as acceptable?
That is an inherent disadvantage of the MMO genre. The whole point of the game is to play in a world populated by other players, and for that you all need to connect to a server. How do you propose to make a 100% maintenance free MMO server, hm? You know what you get yourself into with an MMO. Sometimes you just wont be able to play due to maintenance.
AC2 on the other hand, is a singleplayer game and the solution is simple: DON'T REQUIRE IT TO CONNECT TO THE GODDAMNED INTERNET IN THE FIRST PLACE. A 100% offline singleplayer game sounds like crazy talk, I know, but it's been done before. I shit you not.
He doesn't specify single player or draconian DRM or anything. This statement could be broadly applied to a lot of games and situations, which makes it ridiculous. You may as well say, my internet was down so this game gets a zero, or my 360 red ringed so this game gets a zero.
Be specific with your complaints, is all I am saying.
Be intelligent with your complaints, is all I am saying. You really must be dense to take things so far out of context. Did I have to state which game also? And that it was on the PC? And the day and time? Should I get a notary to certify my review as well?
Probably would help.
Like I said, a lot of games you legitimately purchase might be unplayable on day 1, and that isn't cause for a zero review. Now, if it's due to terrible DRM that could potentially set an awful precedent? That might knock the score down a few pegs.
I expect reviewers to tell me what I am getting into as a consumer rather than the pure game experience. For example, shitty matchmaking for multiplayer games doesn't break the gameplay in theory, but it can really diminish overall enjoyment of a title. Same with being unceremoniously ejected from a singple player experience, or simpy being unable to play.
Assuming they are all new Ubisoft games I can have the reviews done in 5 minutes, paypal me the goods!
A game that has been out less than a week and isn't playable on Day 1 gets a big fat fucking zero for a review. Why the hell would I recommend that game to anyone if I can't legitimately play it? I don't care if its DRM or bugs or servers down. I am offering up a review as a means of letting other people know my impression of the game. Honestly I take the Siskel and Ebert approach, either thumbs up, or thumbs down, which basically comes down to "If I could go back in time and let my past self know whether or not to buy this game, what would I say."
I would say to my past self: "Hell fucking no, don't buy AC2 for the PC!"
I've definitely got to agree with travathian here. Years ago it was not that uncommon for a review to mention a particularly bad bug in a PC game and dock the game because of it.
I really dislike the fact that reviewers now, for both consoles and PC, just accept that all the bugs in their review build will be gone for the final and you never hear about them. This is just the type of stuff people want in their reviews. Travathian's going to make a fortune. :P
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
Yes, its mentioned on the back. The degree to which is always left open, though. Just telling me "online act/online req" doesn't tell me if it is a Steam based title, a SecuROM title, requires a Uplay account, an EA account, etc, etc. Reviews, and game packaging (including DD sites/programs) need to make it clear and concise with DRM. As much as I dislike Games for Windows Live at least its there, in a big bold sign, letting me know not to purchase this product.
Reviewers are reviewing the entire service and product being provided, why shouldn't these things come into play?
*It requires attaching the game's serial key to an e-mail account, and I'd assume registering it with the publishers. I didn't get past the e-mail part, I just closed and uninstalled the game.
When would that be?
During scheduled maintenence?
Perhaps during peak times when the number of players crash the servers, which was what initially happened?
Maybe he pops in at a time when someone creates a mod that Ubisoft doesn't agree with and they take the server offline to patch the code?
What about if Ubisoft isn't lying through their fucking teeth and the "attacks" go on unabated?
How about a year from now when maintaining the server is no longer seen as a viable financial liability, so the server is shut down?
Heck, depending where he is and the source of his internet access, he might not be able to play for an extended period of time ever. What about if he lives in one of the many areas of the world where internet access is charged by the megabyte or gigabyte? After a couple of weeks or months, one would think that the checks would add up.
Seriously folks, these issues are expected for MMOs. For all of these headaches, we get to play around in a world inhabited with thousands of other players, which always creates a dynamic playing environment that you just don't get from playing a static singleplayer game (or with bots). That's the whole point of playing online, so you can play a game with others without everyone huddled into the same room.
For a singleplayer game, it is absolutely absurd.
You can't give the same leeway to a singleplayer game that you must give to an MMO (or online FPS, etc.) because all the problems stem from an issue that is absolutely unnecessary and adds nothing to the gameplay experience in a singleplayer environment.
Honestly, if I had to give a review to a singleplayer game that is rendered completely unplayable by the company itself for non-gameplay issues not related to bugs, glitches, etc., and if that game was intentionally sabotaged to the point where I could never play it under certain circumstances for the sole purpose of thwarting a boogeyman who by definition would not have purchased the game in the first place, that game would get a 0, and quite possibly, a class-action suit if an instant refund was not given.
How far forward? A day? A week?
If someone came up to me right now, with $60 in hand, and asked me if they should buy AC2 for the PC, I would tell them no. Not maybe. Not no, but. I would tell them no, period. I can't in good conscience recommend a product to someone that is clearly defective and the manufacturer shows no signs of correcting the situation. In fact, I would probably tell them to avoid all games by that manufacturer just to be safe.
"This is a good game, but..."
"If the game wasn't unstable, it would be good..."
"This game is fantastic, however..."
Thank god we get the opportunity to pay $10 more than other games for this "feature".
I'm sure that since the pirates have the best interests of everyone in mind and are not at all selfish assholes, they'll be more than happy to cooperate.
The credo of the game journalism industry is that you review what you are given. If a game is literally unplayable, a zero is an absolutely fair review grade.
I'd say that every game unplayable on day one - particularly a single player game that you are prevented from playing SOLELY because of some bullshit DRM - absolutely deserves a zero review. In fact, what it actually deserves is a zero review and a total refund by the retailer/publisher for every single paying customer that could not use the software. Does that make it a less than zero review? Anyway, that's the exactly fair grade.
Oh, come now.
Ubisoft has already used the whole piracy excuse repeatedly now to try to avoid shitstorms. If AC2 never showed up on any torrent site, and nobody bought the game, Ubi would find a way to tell their investors that pirates are literally standing next to the shelves in stores physically denying anyone from buying the game. With piracy!
No matter what happens, piracy is going to get blamed. It's the catch-all for any circumstance. Low sales are because every computer on Earth downloaded the game. You made record breaking sales? It could have tripled if we were allowed to go door to door, stabbing anyone with a computer but no copy of the game, because only pirates would not have a copy of the best selling game ever.
Ubisoft is using piracy as a crutch for their near-calvacade of piss poor decision making. There are a ton of games that have no DRM, get downloaded three ways from Tuesday, and still these games break records.
What about that one Stardock game, GalCiv2? They made it a point to say that there would be no DRM, and what happened? It topped Wal-Mart's video game sales chart for 2 weeks. Not just PC games, but ALL games.
You apologists can come in and say "abloobloobloo, Stardock is a smaller company, and can afford to not use DRM and be profitable!"
Yeah, they can, and THEY FUCKING OUTSOLD EVERY OTHER GAME AT WAL-MART FOR 2 FUCKING WEEKS, and this was a time when Wally World represented a vast majority of the video game market.
It's not the business model, noe is it the fact that they work with a smaller budget, it's the fact that they care about their customers, add reasons to buy the game with online options, scorecharts, etc.
Oh yeah, and they actually make the game so you can play it whenever you want.
Maybe instead of crippling their game, treating their paying customers like criminals, spending big bucks on sabotaging their own product and reputation, and charging us more than the industry standard for the hell of it, maybe they might see the sales they want to see if they actually offered paying customers a product that, you know, worked when the customer wanted it to.
Stardock (and any of the other companies that don't screw everyone, including themselves, and then wonder why they have low sales) focuses on innovation, benefits, customer service, and quality games. Is that really such a complex business model to figure out?
I really don't see an issue with scoring 0. Actually, I can see it going into the negatives.
Why, you ask?
Think of the worst game you've ever played. The one that you're still kicking yourself over purchasing, even 10-20 years later. Battlecruiser 3000, perhaps? Does it still bring tears to your eyes? I have played a few games that I would score as a 0.
The funny thing is, once installed, could you hit "play" and it would at least start up?
If it did, it deserves a higher score than AC2 then.
A developer could make the greatest video game in the universe, where you'd get blowjobs from Tatyana Ali clones the entire time you're playing and cake would pop out of your monitor for you, but if it doesn't start up when you hit play, what's the fucking point? If the only time you could play it is when the company allowed you to play it, you'd get tired from clicking that "play" button, and you'd wear out your mouse and quit trying.
A Steam forum moderator banned some guy for making the following post:
The reason? He was "cheering pirates."
Someone pointed out that the guy owns 700+ Steam games, so it is ludicrous to ban him. The response was that he was "cheering pirates and attacking one of our business partners."
Are you kidding me?
edit: Okay, the phrase was actually "attacks against one of our business partners" which I assumes means the DDoS attacks. I misread that. The moderator was still way out of line, though.
No it isn't. My review has a date stamp on it, I need to do nothing else. I certainly could if I wanted to, but I sure as shit feel no responsibility to update my review for every change made to a game.
I see your point, Darlan, but as someone who wrote video game reviews for a number of years, your point falls flat for various reasons:
1) There are so many games that come out within a year, with some very high-volume periods, that some games never get reviewed at all. As such it is sometimes impossible to re-review a game once it goes from an unplayable state to a playable state. The publisher had a chance. If they failed to deliver a working product, that is their problem.
2) Publications are under no obligation to cover every game. All they are obligated to do is fairly judge a game that they receive, when they receive it. Giving a game that literally doesn't work a zero is a fair review.
3) As travathian pointed out, the review is date stamped. As long as a review is date stamped, it is completely valid to leave it as is. A date stamp means "this is how the game was as of suchandsuch date."
I do understand what you mean, but journalists are under no obligation here. If a game publisher fucks up, well boo hoo.
If reviewers actually took your approach, I'd probably still buy games magazines.
But, but, buuuuuuuuuuut! Stardock are niche marketers! They make niche titles so nobody gives a shit and they hurt my feelings and are smelly heads!
Will say those stuck in denial.
About that Steam thing, that isn't like EA's forum is it? Where if you're banned from EA's forum you get a big "hurhur, fuck you, no more online play with anything connected to this account!", except... worse because its Steam and results in your collection going poof?
Not enough lime etc.
Look, updating reviews? A good practice if the site has the time to do so. But are journalists obliged in any way to do so? Is it irresponsible not to? No and no. That's all I'm saying. The publication is NOT in ANY WAY responsible for updating their review. But it's still good if they did.