Assassin's Greed

14599  2017-10-23 by EryliaStarheart

1347 comments

LOL enjoy

Thanks!

Wew 6 min guild

/r/piracy, where more money is spent gilding people than on digital media.

Gilding pays for reddit.

I get my digital media through reddit, so might as well invest into it

True story - I'm a pirate and I probably buy more games than most people in /r/gaming.

I pirate selectively. Some devs (looking at you, Activision) really don't deserve my $60 for a game that came out 6 years ago.

What's preventing you from not using the product you don't want to buy?

The game is fun. That's what's preventing me.

I love Call of Duty franchise. But they can spin on my middle finger if they think they're getting $60 for any game that is older than 2 years.

Surely. I don't have an issue with people who say "I think that the last-gen iPhone isn't worth what they're selling it for, so I won't buy it".

I instead have an issue when some pirates proclaim "I think that the last-gen iPhone isn't worth what they're selling it for, so I'll steal one, but it's technically not stealing if I leave enough money to cover the material costs and labor of the product".

The dichotomy of "Buy vs. Pirate" is crummy because it ignores the "don't buy; don't use" option. It asserts "well I'm going to get that game either way so it's their job to make sure the price is worth it".

It's really only the matter of ethics. They do their marketing and sales in a crappy way then I'm going to get the game in an equally crappy one. They DO have it coming. It doesn't work as justification for some people but it's a way to learn and it's the harder one. I don't care if they suffer from a single sale lost if they never put the game on sale, it's the only way.

Also, your analogy doesn't work because an iPhone is not a digital good.

It's really only the matter of ethics.

Sure. I'm all for relativistic ethics and whatnot, but let's see if we're consistent and if the code of ethics you're subscribing to is good for society. I'd wager that it isn't.

They do their marketing and sales in a crappy way then I'm going to get the game in an equally crappy one. They DO have it coming.

You say yourself that you enjoy the work that you're pirating, so I don't see how this makes sense, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's pretend I have ambitions of becoming a lemonade tycoon, and I'm charging $4 for a big cup of "fresh" lemonade. Let's say that each cup costs me $2 to make. Everybody in town says it's the best goddamn lemonade they've ever had, so you come along and want to try some yourself. You think that my "fresh" advertising is misleading/crappy/etc, and you think $4 is a ridiculous cost for lemonade (even if it really is good lemonade). Is it OK for you to take a cup from my stand, and only leave the $2 it took to make, or should you instead pay the $4 I asked for?

We all have different definitions of what it means for something to be "fresh", but does my outsider kneejerk reaction toward the advertising entitle me to the five finger discount? Or should I instead exercise control and not drink the lemonade if I don't value it?

Also, your analogy doesn't work because an iPhone is not a digital good.

The idea with saying "it's okay to steal digital things" comes from the fact that digital things are replicable and don't really cost anything to create. I already accounted for this in my analogy when I said that the thief would "leave enough money to cover the material costs and labor of the product". We're assuming that stealing the iPhone would only rob Apple of profit, not operating costs, and so too would stealing a game rob a gamemaker of profit, not operating costs. The "it's digital" distinction is a non-factor here, unless you're arguing that things are steal-able because they're digital.

I know it's not good. But is theirs the same way? They refuse to listen when people speak up about the problems that are plaguing the industry. They actively avoid criticism yelled at their face. It's not fair either. That's mainly where my argument is coming from. You don't want to listen to criticism aimed at you and only want to line up your pockets? Good. Equal rights, equal lefts.

You say yourself that you enjoy the work that you're pirating, so I don't see how this makes sense, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Let's pretend someone has ambitions of becoming a lemonade tycoon, and they're charging $4 for a big cup of "fresh" lemonade. Let's say that each cup costs them $2 to make. Everybody in town says it's the best goddamn lemonade they've ever had, so I come along and want to try some myself. I think that their "fresh" advertising is misleading/crappy/etc, and I think $4 is a ridiculous cost for lemonade (even if it really is good lemonade). Is it OK for me to take a cup from the stand, and only leave the $2 it took to make, or should I instead pay the $4 they asked for? Is it really okay to justify my theft by saying "well this is the only way he'll realize that his prices are too high. Everyone else is buying it for what he's asking for, so he won't learn any other way"?

I don't enjoy pirating. I do it to those who deserve it the most. And lately, the number has grown by incredible rates. I know it sounds like I'm trying to be some kind of superhero and all people are sheep shit-talker. But it's true. I play mainly console because my laptop can only run some things and pirating on PS4 was impossible up until only recently so I can honestly say I buy most of my games and it doesn't include the likes shown in the original post.

As a gaming community used that argument "games are expensive to make" over a billion times I would say it's beyond relevancy. It was okay at the start - games took more time, more people, more resources. But now when every thing has an addon, it's inexcuseable. Those 3 extra missions didn't cost your ass that much money so I need to pay extra $30. Nor did your skill points. That's the main point of this post.

As for the iPhone thing and the company profit. I can guarantee you that they don't need that money to put into some extra 20 minutes of gameplay or lousy pay-to-win tactics such as tokens/coins/whatever else.

The dichotomy of "Buy vs. Pirate" ignores the "don't buy; don't use" option.

There's no difference between you using or not a product if you won't buy it, and that's what piracy enables.

It asserts "well I'm going to get that game either way so it's their job to make sure the price is worth it". That's precisely not how transactions should work.

I'd say that's exactly how it should work. In a lot of cases, companies can get away with scummy / dishonest practices because, in the end, the customer has no option to get their product unless they buy it anyway (for example, companies can get away with planned obsolescence because you want/need those products and you won't get them unless you but them. Even if 100% of the customers are against it, there's no real pressure for companies to force it onto them).

In video games and digital software, however, companies have the pressure to not fuck over their customers too much, because it can backfire badly if the customer thinks they've gone too far. At the end, the customer is opting to pay for something they can "get" for free pushed by his own ethics and goodwill to be "fair with the people that made the product".

Yar?

Yarp

piracy is just a stop on the content acquisition path. it goes check if i own it, check if a service i own offers it, check if a convenient store offers it, pirate it.

You missed "Check if I can afford it"

I'll always give my money to games I want to support if I have the money

This. A lot of people think that you would buy every single game you pirate if you couldn't pirate it. That's a extremely naïve misconception.

Right? I know Pirating is wrong, but when I do it it's not like they're losing a customer. I love spending money on games having something that's "mine"

That illuminati is a nice touch

That middle finger is a nice touch

That's what she said...

Haha it just keeps getting better.

You had to say something better.

Still getting better, maybe /u/MemoirsofCrime was right.

That Greed is a nice touch

The Green was a nice touch.

I just want to be touched

meet me behind the chemical sheds in 25 minutes

"Full Game"

"And other parts of the game."

It's like they don't even read what they write down.

The "Full Game" is that thing that launches DLC for you duh

Can't I just buy a loot crate with a chance of winning the full game?

This loot crate meta is deep now

You pay for the .exe file, all other files are extra.

imagine all the posibilities for .DLL DLCs

don't... give... them... ideas.

HD textures anyone?

How about all the map and character texture files

So... selling skins and maps, basically?

Yea but I guess at least usually those models are for free games so I can understand that

DLLLC? Down-namic link library-loadable content?

I think it would be DLDLLC

"When you buy games from Activision, you are buying a license to use the exe file to download our exlusive dat,psarc and dll files, any unauthorized behavior, will result in termination of said license" -Disclaimer obviously fake license agreement.

They need to start making games, where we actually do work, so that we pay for getting them paid, just sayin.

The psarc if I'm not mistaken is utilized for Rocksmith 2014... where the dlc has a reason because they have to negotiate with music licensers (you can still find the dlc up to july 28th 2017 pirated however on tpb from a pink skull uploader)

several games use psarc compressed archives.

Don't give future devs ideas pls.

DLC Launcher I like that

It looks you didn’t read what they wrote because nowhere is “And other parts of the game” written.

Found the ubisoft exec

Almost like I summarized the DLC into a single sentence for comedic purpose.

Then don’t put it in quotation marks. If you don’t put it in quotation marks unless it’s a direct quote, that’s kind of the point of the fucking quotation mark.

Chill out, jeez. I'm pretty sure what they did was just fine.

Unless you're autistic (no offense to those on the spectrum), it was pretty dang obvious it was a joke

This is an Internet forum, not a research assignment for an undergrad course. Goddamn.

You off your meds?

You off your stupids?

Im impressed at how bad that comeback was

Maybe the jerk store ran out of him.

Why yes I am, thanks, for noticing.

They're selling fucking ability points?!

It's not cheating if you pay for it!

To be fair, we've had cheat codes for decades. Just that publishers realized they can actually make money from it.

Cheat code magazine. It's not a new idea at all, it's just that the internet killed the previous model.

At least you got a... well, a magazine. And you could share those codes with your friends, and use them anytime you wanted.

The famous etajv...

Frenchs will got it

You're so right! I never thought about it like that.

But the magazines came with a game demo AND when you bought a game, it was complete.

In fairness this is still 8,000 times more ethical than the average mobile game.

So the standard now is 'We could be shittier than this, be thankful we're not...' ?

Average mobile game isn't plus sixty fucking dollars

well, eventually...

There's no way in hell, the market has set the standards for cheap (or free) and shallow mobile games funded by microtransactions.

A $60 triple-A release would be... interesting, to say the least, but almost certainly wouldn't make it past the business analyst stage of development.

In fairness

No. I'm done with this

They are selling your life D:

Stop being black if you don't want to be sold.

I remember when we had add-ons....

Brood war was awesome. ..

It's not that they don't read. They just hope that you don't.

Exactly. People are so appalled yet the game keeps selling. AAA developers, like big movie studios, are interested in selling content and making money.

I don't think you read what they wrote down. It's three missions and a couple ability points.

With this attitude people have it won't be long until what you fear will come to pass. Seriously, just really look with your own eyes, the fear mongers are wrong. We still are getting full games at $60. How can three missions be anything other than a bonus?

Just look for yourself at the released gameplay at the demos and whatever else. Do you really, truly, think that three missions are enough to hurt the overall experience? Honestly? Three missions hurt you so badly?

I don't think you read what they wrote down. It's three missions and a couple ability points.

I can agree with you on ability pointa, those are basically cheats that you pay for, and could probably be obtained with something like Cheat Engine, but...

Just look for yourself at the released gameplay at the demos and whatever else. Do you really, truly, think that three missions are enough to hurt the overall experience? Honestly? Three missions hurt you so badly?

It isn't about if it will ruin your experience, but about getting full experience - if your are not getting 3 missions then you are not getting the 'full game' they advertise.

I'd really like to know if those three missions are on the disc or if they have to be downloaded. I would be surprised if they were on the disc. Yet everyone else has made that assumption. Is there proof? evidence? That's all I've really been asking for from the beginning.

They are day 0 DLCs, so it's as if they were on the disc, especially since more and more people download their games in entirety...

So what is the definition of a "full experience" then? It isn't about what fits on a disc, it isn't defined by the people who created the damn thing, what is it?

But here is a better question, in fact forget that first one. What would define bonus content?

So what is the definition of a "full experience" then? It isn't about what fits on a disc, it isn't defined by the people who created the damn thing, what is it?

Actually my definition of full experience would be base game + all DLCs (unless they are cosmetics, as I don't really care about minimal changes to aesthetic but someone can have different opinion, or just paid cheats) and that is the wording they should have used - 'base game' not 'full game', you get 'full game' if you buy 'complete edition' at the end of the game cycle.

But here is a better question, in fact forget that first one. What would define bonus content?

I don't have a problem with a definition of bonus content or DLCs, I have problem with the definition of full game and wording used in advertising the game.

Exactly it’s arbitrary. You made up the rules yourself.

If it's all about arbitrary word interpretation how is your interpretation better than mine? That's what you are fighting for here...

Because my "interpretation" is that when a creator says a creation is complete, no one has any say but them. They say it's the full game, that's what it is.

Well... Problem with your argument is - even Ubisoft doesn't use the 'full game' wording anywhere, except this graphic and Playstation Store page (and pirate release sites, would you think of that), everywhere else they use 'base game' wording (e.g. 'Upgrade your game experience with the Deluxe Edition which includes the base game' e.t.c.), so it their fault that someone when creating the graphics used wrong wording.

And then brilliant beautiful games like Divinity Original Sin 2 come out for $45 with a thousand hours of full voice acting and 500 hours of replayability....

No excuse for this bullshit they put out on assassin's Creed.

They don't need an excuse, they created it, they get to decide what to charge.

True, it's their choice, and they have to deal with the fact that those choices are going to make people pirate.

those choices are going to make people pirate.

No. People pirate because they are too cheap to spend actual money. They don't need to justify what they do because their actions are predetermined.

People pirate because they are too cheap to spend actual money.

Your mom is too cheap to spend actual money on.

Seriously, I'm perfectly happy spending my money on games I enjoy if I consider it a fair deal, but whenever I think I'm being scammed I pirate it.

Well then, your sense of morality and ethnics are arbitrary.

Or maybe my ethics are too complex for you. ;)

No. It’s not complex at all it’s extraordinarily simple. You only pay for something when you feel like it. You steal everything else.

First, I steal nothing.
It's ridiculous to have to explain it in /r/piracy, but pirating and stealing are fundamentally and morally different.
Second, ethics are a highly complex subject, even if you don't understand them.
You have absolutely no idea what my morals are, so you can argue than I'm immoral in this specific question, as you are probably in other questions, but that does not make my entire morals arbitrary.
Third and last, I do agree that by pirating something I'm doing something immoral, I never said that it's ethical.
In the specific scenario in which some studios act in a way that I consider immoral, I act in an immoral way towards them.
I limit my immortality to a specific set of circumstances which I consider to be not that big of a deal, and I don't feel bad about it.
I'm not trying to morally justify piracy, I'm just answering your blanket statement that

People pirate because they are too cheap to spend actual money.

Which in my particular case is absolutely false.

pirating and stealing are fundamentally and morally different.

AH HAHAHAHAHA

Lol, good one.

pirating and stealing are fundamentally and morally different.

AH HAHAHAHAHA

Lol, good one.

At this point it's clear you're either a troll, a shill, or just incredibly stupid.
Until you say something worth a response, goodbye.

It did hurt in assassin's creed 2. When 2 chapters in the middle of the game were sold in such a way.

To this day I have never played those missions. Yet I still look back fondly at Assassin's creed 2 as one of the more enjoyable games I've ever played. Ezio was a memorable character, I still remember that early mission where you assassinate that other guy you know as a kid, he was mean to your sister. And the ending when you see those holograms of the people from the past under the vatican? So cool.

But I never played those middle missions and I completely forgot they even existed until you brought them up just now, because not having them didn't mean anything.

You never played them so you have no idea if they harmed your experience, I got them for free (via torrent) and having them significantly improved my experience of the rest of the game which i bought.

If you can decide for me what it is that the experiences that I had means. Then so can I for you.

You played the missions, and they made the rest of the game worse. So I do decree, with the power you have invested upon me.

/s

But really, having not experienced it, I can be sure, it doesn't matter to me that I didn't experience it. On the other hand, had I experienced it, how could I know what it would be, to not have experienced it?

Nah I am not speaking for your experience, just for mine, not having the missions would have made my experience worse.

I both experienced not having them at first and then later getting them.

They didn't decide the experience for you, they said you didn't play them so you don't know if they harmed yoour experience, dumb dumb

It didn't harm my experience, because I didn't have it and my experience was unharmed.

Not having them pretty clearly meant that you can't look back on them the same way you look back on other moments of the game.

It's literally like reading a novel with some chapters ripped out.

Are you seriously that brain damaged that you can't grasp this stupidly simple concept?

No if a Novel had some chapters ripped out the ending would be incomprehensible.

This is like going to Disneyland without paying extra to go to California adventure.

So you're saying you don't read?

Well that's a non-sequitur.

No, if you read a novel with some chapters ripped out, the ending would be incomprehensible.

This is like going to Disneyland without going on the teacup ride, which somehow saves you ten dollars. I'd happily skip the teacup ride if that were the case.

Dude, relax you dont have toninsult the guy

Three now, six tomorrow.

Twenty three and a game delay next week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

You are wrong. The more you lie to people and tell them the full game is some sort of "base game" the easier it will be for these companies to make that true. It is not true. Recognize what it is, it is a full game, this is bonus content. You know how I know, because of how god damn insignificant it is.

I can't imagine throwing such a tantrum over three bonus missions. Your toy comes with parts sold separately? Too fucking bad, kid. Get a job.

So paying for this DLC won't encourage companies to continue this greed, but warning people of it will? What are you talking about?

Because right now the DLC really is extra, but by pretending it isn't you are making it easier for them to add in content that is essential and everyone will just think it's standard practice.

Don't pretend it's standard practice or it will become so. Look and see that this right now is really extra or in the future it will be essential because that's what everyone says it already is, so why should they not make it so?

Are you 12 or something? People have been talking about this slippery slope for like 10 years. You'd actually have to be 12 or just a fucking moron to not see how DLC has become more and more essential to the typical game that has it over the years.

Cool. Good night.

I don't see anything essential at all here.

You're so hilariously wrong.

You've added nothing to this conversation.

Would you like me to email why you're wrong?

More than your 5 paragraphs of the dumbest shit I read all day.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Consider that in the past pre-order bonuses were more tending towards collectible physical goods, not digital content.

Consider that downloadable content for a game is part of the game, much like after installing new seats in your car they become part of your car.

Consider that this movement away from pay once: get everything is necessary to fund content that is not released finished (movies, music, tv, books etc.) but instead requires continual work in order to maintain any vague sense of lifespan in the form of patches. Then instead of monetizing patches they monetize dlc and extra content.

What ubisoft are doing here looks like an appeal to moderation. Which is pretty reprehensible, knowingly exploiting a common weakness.

My point being that traditional sales models for big games doesn't work so well and that a new solution does need to be devised. Like Netflix and TV shows. Just that ubisoft are very much going the wrong way about it.

You're argument was absolutely nothing but a the slippery slope fallacy. It's not "Argueing from fallacy" to state that a single fallacious sentence leads to a false conclusion when there was only one sentence to begin with.

I don't see that a change from the past is inherently negative. Also physical goods absolutely still exists. But now, just as in the past. Physical goods such as statues and figurines appeal only to a small select group, whereas everyone who bought the game is potentially interested in more of the game.

Yes DLC becomes part of the game, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bonus. Like adding a second room you your house, your house was still a house before it had that room.

Consider that this movement away from pay once: get everything is necessary to fund content that is not released finished (movies, music, tv, books etc.) but instead requires continual work in order to maintain any vague sense of lifespan in the form of patches. Then instead of monetizing patches they monetize dlc and extra content.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here at all.

Your "Appeal to moderation" Argument means that no compromise is at all possible. That only the idea of compromise is fiction. If that's what you really believe then why have the debate at all. The only possible way for it to end is that everyone agree with you, which isn't going to happen.

And finally, I think you may not realize this yourself, this isn't traditional. What's happening right now, this is not at all how it's always been done, this is new within the past several years. What comparision are you trying to make with Television and Netflix? that all games should be available in a streaming like format? To what end?

If you want to debate, please, try and understand what I'm saying rather than just assuming I'm wrong. You've missed a number of key points and jumped straight to, well, flaming.

The comparison to Netflix was born out of how it reinvigorated the TV and movie market.

You've really missed a key point in what you've failed to understand. Games need much more work done to them after they've been released than other, more traditional, forms of media. You proceed to slam me for apparently being ignorant of this point because you haven't bothered to examine my point.

You also seem to have completely missed my other point, in that I am pro monetization of DLC and expansion content after release as a way of funding continual development of the game. I don't necessarily even draw issue with preorder bonuses. What I have an issue with is an unnecessarily large array of marginally different products available at launch designed to appeal to the individual consumers imperfect knowledge of the products such that they presume the middle option is the best.

I never assumed you were wrong, I addressed what I understood, stated plainly when what you said made no sense.

So you want something to reinvigorate the gaming market? Cool, that's abstract and it's a massive undertaking, if you aren't going to do it, stop complaining that it hasn't been done.

My god you're still not getting it. The re invigoration is already happening in the form of after purchase DLC and MTXes.

What retard thought the idea that enacting one policy leads to further policies being enacted based on precedent.

What fucking mongoloid actually thinks the slippery slope is a fallacy

What about the people who called gay marriage a slippery slope on the way to bestiality being legal?

The 3 people who argued that were wrong in hindsight, but the removal of the only major barrier makes it possible. The only barrier now is the stigma against sex with beasts.

Polygamy and incest are up next though, and completely justifiable under the new definitions.

Or just pirate the toy and don't put up with day one DLC...

The irony. Everyone pretends this is about how the company lacks ethics and morals. But it really just comes down to the fact that no one wants to spend money on anything.

Eh for some people sure, for most though we are more than happy to pay for games, fuck I even give to Patreons and Kickstarters for game developers but only when we are treated with respect, some companies we have no choice but to put up with being abused by but game publishers and developers aren't one of them.

Okay. If you can honestly say that not getting a couple of missions in a game constitutes 'abuse', then I'm not sure we share any common ground on which to have a debate.

Just wanted to say I agree with yo for the most parz. I am sorry you get tons of downvotes for a different opinion.

Yes it does. It takes away from my immersion. It takes away my trust in them. When they say "This is the full game" and then make more parts of the game, it isn't a full game. When I played Destiny 1 and realized that there were parts of the map blocked off that I could have clearly made it to, only to find out that those were expansion zones? That made me so mad. They literally blocked off part of the world for more content later. It was all there. They didn't add it later. Is that a full game then? That is just one example. There are tons of other games.

I'm not ultimately against expansions to game. But they should be that. Expansions. Not puzzle pieces that fit into your game to complete it for extra cash. And ultimately it is perception of the player. People don't like to feel swindled, and that is exactly what game companies try to do anymore.

If they don't make enough money, I've always been in favor of just raising the price, personally. If paying 70, 80 dollars will keep them from doing this, I'd gladly pay it. It isn't about money to me on a personal level. It is about feeling scammed. It just looks bad and it looks dirty.

It’s insane to compare this game to Destiny.

Destiny is a “games as service” the full game literally never exists because they are constantly selling you parts of the full game as dlc. This doesn’t happen anywhere else besides this “games as service” type situation. It isn’t happening here.

You want to be angry about never getting a full game? Get mad at Destiny, what you are complaining about is the only reason that game even exists. Recognize the difference between a “games as service” type situation and DLC for a single player game. They aren’t even remotely the same. Look at the difference. It’s there, it matters.

The fuck you mean? I just said I got mad at Destiny for it. Lol

I mean that it is not even remotely the same situation. They are not comparable. It’s different.

Destiny is a “games a service” Scenario and actually is what everyone is pretending Assassins Creed is. Assassins Creed is just a single player game with some DLC

I mean, I mean, I mean

I am a bot. This is the 1036th comment that starts with the phrase "I mean" that I have detected.

Okay but he was asking that I explain what I meant though.

bad bot

We still are getting full games at $60

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

Go shill somewhere else, asshole

And there it is, always. The "You're a shill".

I disagree with the majority. So that means I'm being paid. Because individuality doesn't exist.

Your worldview is shit and you have no idea what you're talking about

Cool. Goodnight.

I don't think you're a shill. EA is a bit more subtle than this. It's more like you bought what they sold a loooong time ago and never looked back. DLC on this level is a rip-off. 'Full Game' here alone should be the super duper golden edition, not the base one. I see 'full game', I want full game, no bs, that's what everyone in this thread is basically saying and you're hedging that

I want full game, no bs,

okay.

It costs $60 and comes out in 4 days

Video linked by /u/sumrandomguy322:

Title Channel Published Duration Likes Total Views
laugh harder darkchia00 2010-01-13 0:00:09 9,871+ (99%) 1,330,861

$quote Bender laughing at Leela. "hahahaha. Oh, wait. You're...


Info | /u/sumrandomguy322 can delete | v2.0.0

You're missing the fundamental point. Look at line 1 of "Standard Edition". It says Full Game. It doesn't say "Most of the game", it doesn't say "All of the game except for three missions and a couple ability points". It says Full Game.

That's a fucking lie. A Full Game means that it's the entirety of the game currently available. If I sold you a fully glass of orange juice but told you that the last 25% of the glass was actually unavailable to you unless you called in yesterday and told me that you were pre-ordering the juice you'd be pissed. You'd be right to do so.

If I'm paying $60 for the "Full game" that means that I have 100% of the game full stop. If anyone gets anymore of the game than me at this time because they dropped some money or jumped through some hoops then that means you're either a fucking liar or you don't know what "Full game" means

That's... not exactly what "full game" means, and for the record I am wholly against these practices.

Ubisoft promised a full-game. Say they planned AC to be a 10 mission experience. They hire writers, designers, developers to create the full 10 mission game. In order to maximize revenue and cut costs since they would have already planned for DLC, they have a smaller team work on an additional 3 missions as extra DLC.

Are saying that you have the right to a 13 mission game because that content is available at release?

You (supposedly) DO have access to the full game, as they intended, for $60. These extra missions were (supposedly) never intended to be in the 10-mission game anyway.

Your issue is that you believe those 3 missions should be included with your 10 mission game. The only way that would be true is if the devs intended for a 10 mission game, cut 3 missions out for DLC, and sold you 7. This is the practice I am most afraid of, but with this AC there is currently no indication of it. Someone will have to play it first to find out.

Yes but so much of it is perception. Even saying "We are going to plan additional content for later" isn't so bad. But when you go up and strictly list the exact content that you aren't getting word for word? It's already there. It exists. It just looks really bad, even if it was never meant to be in the original game.

Look at how Borderlands or Bethesda does things. They say "We have a pass you can buy for expansions." and people buy it. Most don't complain. The content is added a few months later. It contains new stuff in the game and new areas to go. Everybody loves it. Yaaaay.

But cutting and stripping missions for pre-order incentives for different locations and shit it just REALLY shady looking. It isn't like this is a skin or an emblem or something. This is actual missions. That is content that didn't get shipped with the game (or in cases like Destiny, content that DID get shipped with the game and was just basically DRM'd out.) that you didn't get to play. Yea you can make arguments for and against the semantics and everything, but as a whole is just looks shady and shitty and makes people angry.

But people still go buy it by the millions so they won't stop anytime soon.

Th orange juice is a terrible example. The amount of orange juice that defines a "full glass" is determined by the size of the glass.

This is something else, this is unique, what is it that defines a "full game"? Movies are defined by 'feature length' but games can be done in varying amounts of time depending on how you play. You could play a game of Tetris for eternity, theoretically.

As far as I'm concerned, whatever it is that determines the definition of a "full game" is not made any lesser by a few bonus missions.

How do you define "Full game", then? A "Full ___" has traditionally meant that whatever you're buying completely and 100% fits into the maximum allowable space in which you've provided it.

Ubisoft as sold us a "game". In order for that game to be considered "full", it needs to be the maximum allowable game in what is currently possible based off its current development. That means all currently available developed content is available to anyone who buys a "full game". Roping off content behind the idea of a "bonus mission" or "bonus content" is horseshit and calling anything that is lacking this developed content or missions or whatever means that the "full game" is not "full" unless you have the bonus stuff.

I'll use your Movie example rather than orange juice. If I sold you a "full movie" but then told you that 30 minutes of content wasn't available unless you pre-ordered the movie then you didn't get a full movie. I may have called what I gave you "full" or "feature length" or whatever but you didn't get "full" anything. I lied to you and used some fun marketing terms to do it. I intentionally cut out content from you to charge extra and moved the goal posts to justify it.

That literally happens. There is the feature length movie, with all the cuts necessary to fit runtime in a theater. Then there are a bajillion "directors cuts with added footage and commentary and bloopers". If the movie sucks ass, I have never once wanted to buy extended editions. It just doesnt occur to me this thing I didnt enjoy that much might be substantially better if I added in a little more new stuff. However if I love a movie and am really into it, you bet Im getting the directors cut with all the bonus stuff so I can really revel in this thing I love so much.

If they sold you part 1 and part 3 with paid dlc part 2, thats shitty. But whatever these 3 missing missions are doesnt invalidate that there is a cohesive, enjoyable story and game included in the "full" version

That's fair. I'll actually accept the mistake on the definition of the movie. So in movie terms "full" means "feature length". The movies needs to be able to have you get the whole experience in roughly 90-120 minutes with rare exceptions in cases in which the movie needs more time. Your directors cuts are valid ones, except for the core issue that I have with this whole thing:

Directors cuts aren't available day 1

Day 1 comes around. There's a movie, and it's available for sale. You set whatever you want to set as a "full" experience. Maybe that's 12 missions. Maybe that's 15 missions. Whatever. But whatever you set, that's the full game. There's no "Full + Deluxe" available. That's horseshit. Whatever you called a "full game", that's it. There's no bonus. There's no added, there's no nothing. That's it. You gave me as much as you thought would call this a full game, because that's what you defined as a full game.

Now, maybe 6 months down the road you see that people want more. That's okay, that's what DLC and expansions are for. You go ahead and develop more and make more. I'll pay for that. But whatever you call "full" on release, make that full. If you want a deluxe version, then that's what your "full" game is and the version that you intentionally made shittier is your "lite" or "demo" or whatever else you want to call it. But tier 1 ain't "full"

You don't seem to realize. I asked the question "What is a full game" myself. The whole point is that there is no one, anywhere, who has an actual textbook answer for you.

Games that the developers themselves say are unfinished are sold at full price, it's called Early Access. Yet they are under no actual obligation to ever finish them. And frequently they do not. If you really are angry about the possibility of a 'not full game' existing, you should really be mad at Steam and other marketplaces that allow this. Ubisoft and other "triple A" developers haven't really done anything to earn this anger. Where is the 'triple A" studio that promised future content but never delivered. Can you point to one?

No, you're right. I'm angry at more than just Ubisoft, I'm angry at the entire industry as a whole that allows this kind of thing. I don't blame Ubisoft alone, but this is just the latest instance in which they are joining others in taking advantage of this lying trend.

So now that we're on the right subreddit here is my truth: I don't give a fuck if you are a developer, a publisher, or a marketplace. I don't have the power to make you call something "full" or not. I don't have any power over industry regulations or terms. I do have power over my own actions, and I have my beliefs. So if you call something "full" and I think you're horseshit, I'm not buying your game. I'm gonna pirate it and give that .iso to any of my friends that may be interested as well.

The industry can call whatever it wants whatever it wants "full". It can point to a chicken and call it a cow, but I know what I believe, and I'm not going to give money to a company that I think I lying to me if I can avoid it. Judging solely by the votes on this very thread, I'm not alone in this.

You're definitely not alone, I completely agree with you.

I don't care if you buy the game, it means nothing to me.

Just realize that, as you say, you are acting solely on belief. Not proof or evidence or logic, your actions are dictated by what you think is probably true.

If you can live with yourself, well honestly, that doesn't mean anything to me either.

No, they don’t. I understand you.

I think the actual problem here is that it serves as a symbol for in-game content monetization.

That’s not automatically a bad thing. A careful developer could certainly often cut out content without hurting the overall experience too much, and for all we know, that might just be the case with Assassins Creed Origins.

But there is an incentive to optimize that separation of content for maximal money, which is (so I believe) achieved by actually making the experience with the cut-out content much more enjoyable. And you can’t do that without making the experience without the cut out content considerably less enjoyable.

Publishers have shown that they are trying to use such techniques in the recent past. Many people fear this will spread.

Finally, it might not seem smart at first to criticize any game with „bonus content“. But deciding if a game‘s cut out content makes it a bad experience is impossible before release and hard even after it. So maybe it is good to establish cutting out content as morally bad in general, just to have a clear rule that everyone can follow.

But there is an incentive to optimize that separation of content for maximal money, which is (so I believe) achieved by actually making the experience with the cut-out content much more enjoyable. And you can’t do that without making the experience without the cut out content considerably less enjoyable.

I disagree. If the goal is to get people to buy the 'cut out content' then you need to prove that there is something worthwhile about the 'base game'. I don't agree that these are accurate terms, but for the sake of argument. The only reason that people will buy 'cutout content' is if they feel it will enhance their current experience, AND they enjoy the current experience enough that an enhancement is desirable.

The 'base game' needs to be full in some way. People will be outraged in exactly how they are now. The issue is that no one has experience whether what we have is 'base game' or 'full game', because they haven't actually played it yet. They don't know if it is enhancement or 'bonus' or if it is 'cut content' or the rest of the 'base game'. They are only assuming that it is one yet the evidence isn't sure enough to say anything other then that it might be either.

That's why I believe it is always best to wait for the reviews if you really want to make an informed decision. Otherwise you are acting based on crowd hysteria.

I disagree. If the goal is to get people to buy the 'cut out content' then you need to prove that there is something worthwhile about the 'base game'. I don't agree that these are accurate terms, but for the sake of argument. The only reason that people will buy 'cutout content' is if they feel it will enhance their current experience, AND they enjoy the current experience enough that an enhancement is desirable.

  • I haven’t said that the base game becomes unenjoyable, just considerably less enjoyable than the full game. Also, you could just cut endgame content so the player has lots of fun at first but later feels that he can only continue to have so much fun if he pays more money. There are many ways.

  • with the industry trying to make preordering bonus content the standard and many players conforming to this, that mechanism is severely weakened.

The issue is that no one has experience whether what we have is 'base game' or 'full game', because they haven't actually played it yet.

I addressed this above

They don't know if it is enhancement or 'bonus' or if it is 'cut content' or the rest of the 'base game'. They are only assuming that it is one yet the evidence isn't sure enough to say anything other then that it might be either.

If the additional content comes at the same time as the game, it’s a purely semantic decision to call it ‚cut out‘ or ‚bonus‘. But I have to admit that I‘m not invested enough in AC to know if it comes at the same time, so I don’t know honestly.

That's why I believe it is always best to wait for the reviews if you really want to make an informed decision. Otherwise you are acting based on crowd hysteria.

This is not about the game.

  • I haven’t said that the base game becomes unenjoyable, just considerably less enjoyable than the full game. Also, you could just cut endgame content so the player has lots of fun at first but later feels that he can only continue to have so much fun if he pays more money. There are many ways.

This is not about the game.

The paragraph above uses the word ‚game‘ as ‚games in general‘, while the sentence below uses it as ‚Assassins Creed: Origins‘.

Context matters, but I guess you don’t care since you ignored every single actual argument to make this funny arrangement.

The context is that you have decided I am wrong, and you bend the language to match.

No, the context is my first comment in which I thoroughly explained to you that the outrage here is not about AC: Origins, but games in general.

Maybe it’s hard for you to keep track of multiple answers to your comment, but that’s just how our conversation went.

Yea and then when I said in reference to games in general, it’s always best to wait for reviews. You said “it’s not about the game”. So what do want.

And you clearly referred to that to continue with your notion that we should avoid judging AC: Origins. That’s why I told you to stop talking about it.

But you trying to spin one rather uninteresting sentence into something dumb isn’t a conversation I‘m interested in. Have a good day.

I told you to stop talking about it.

Okay I'm done. I won't reply further, it's a waste of time anyway

It's three missions

Are missions a part of the game? Assuming yes (the only logical answer) then if there's an addition without even one of them, it cannot be logically called the full game. Even ignoring the other guy's "slippery slope" argument, which may or may not be bullshit, you're lying to yourself.

Three missions hurt you so badly?

No. And while I can't speak for anyone else here, the lack of 3 missions isn't the end of the world. That said, the lack of those 3 dictates that any edition without them is not the "full" game, in any sense of the word.

Are missions a part of the game? Assuming yes (the only logical answer) then if there's an addition without even one of them, it cannot be logically called the full game.

Then if there is an addition, it is addition. It hasn’t been subtracted but added, it is extra.

it is extra.

It's dropping on the same day as everything else. It's clearly not an afterthought, it's a part of the initial release.

It’s dlc it’s not on the disc it’s not cut content. It’s bonus content.

Based on what measurement? Just the fact that it's not on the disc? The producer decides what goes on the disc and what doesn't, and a lot of games don't even exist on the disk at all any more, it's just installers for their platforms. (Origin/Steam/UPlay)

By my measurement, (a much more logical one IMHO) if it's ready on release day, it's a part of the game. Especially something so minor as a couple missions. (IE not some large expansion that deviates from the vision of the base game)

The content in question is not on the disc, you have to download it, it is downloadable content.

It's not been cut from the game, because the people who created the game say that it's a full game without it. Who could possibly have the arrogance to declare they know better than a creator about their own creation.

Who could possibly have the arrogance to declare they know better than a creator about their own creation.

I know better about the dictionary than a producer. So arrogant, aren't it?

Okay, go ahead, tell me. What does the dictionary have to say about the difference between a full game and an incomplete game?

full - adjective

containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space​

Nope. They clearly thought they could add more, so it doesn't fulfill that definition of "full".

not lacking or omitting anything; complete.

The base game is lacking those 3 missions which are already ready, so also not "full" again.

Well you gave me two contradictory definitions, in the first the bonus content is being added, in the second the content has been subtracted.

They're differing but not contradictory, and I distinctly qualified how the game doesn't fulfill either definition.

and I distinctly qualified how the game doesn't fulfill either definition

Then this whole exercise was a failure from the start.

How's that? I say it's not a "full game", you disagree, so I provide a dictionary definition and qualify how the game doesn't fulfill the definition of "full", what are you missing here?

The creator of something decides whether or not it’s complete. You have no say in the matter.

So you're going to ignore the definition of "full" now that I've provided and contrasted it? It's a weak argument if you have to ignore what I say to defend it.

Because you're definitions don't matter. You don't get to decide what constitutes full, it was a failure on my part to let you think the dictionary matters.

Games are a unique medium. A full game has no actual definition.

So the word "full" loses all meaning in reality just because it's before the word "game"? I didn't write the dictionary, I just respect it when using words, and Ubisoft doesn't.

No it's because five hour game can be considered full and so can a five hundred hour game. A game with voice acting can be considered full and so can one with no words not even text. There is no universal definition, it doesn't exist.

Finished ≠ full

Doesn’t change anything.

This conversation was never going to "change" anything.

No one ever thought that it would.

You’re still wrong though.

And your idea that the meaning of words don't matter just because "it's subjective" (some words are, "full" isn't) is wrong. A cup is either full or not.

I never said subjective, putting it in quotes is a lie.

I wasn't attempting to literally quote you as such, merely mocking "air-quote" it. Regardless, is that not what you were implying?

Nope.

The way I see it, "full" is one of three things: objective and defined, (this is the way I see it, but Ubi doesn't comply) it's subjective, or it isn't a word at all. So if you don't think it's subjective, you think it's not a word?

I think your just trying to be a dick. They made a game and they call it compete and for absolutely no reason you say they are wrong.

for absolutely no reason

I have a reason. And I have explained it. Multiple times now. Over 14k people agree with my opinion on the matter: (as judged by the points on this post, which is making the same point) if there are extra little pieces being offered in a different edition, then the base edition is not "full" in any definable sense of the word.

On top of all this, you're simply avoiding answering my questions or addressing my point, instead attacking me.

An arbitrary made up reason.

arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system

This is the exact opposite of that. I'm basing upon a system of logic using the basis of the fundamental English language that the populous abides by.

made up reason

Again, I'm saying they're wrong for a logical reason that I have already explained. If you're going to attack my reasons, why don't you try rebutting them?

Yea exactly. Your making it up. The creator says one thing you randomly say another.

You gonna address my reasons, or just keep shitposting the same thing?

Hear, hear!

i haven't played any of those after AC 2... any recommendations on which ones are the best ones to get after? i didn't even know they had chronicles series. is russia any good?

Black flag

Oddly, the one involving piracy.

and Syndicate. Both are pretty well made and focused

Are the gameplay mechanics of Syndicate the same as (or most similair to) in Unity? Because I felt like Unity improved on everything I disliked about BF, gameplay-wise.

Yeah Syndicate had pretty much the same gameplay mechanics to Unity. They did move in a weird direction with the grappling lines, but it worked and the grappling lines were a smooth addition to the rooftop running/climbing style.

If you liked Unity, you will like Syndicate. Very little changes.

Might actually end up playing it now, thanks!

There was a good post on r/patientgamers the other day

I saw a good post on the front-page the other day. /s

I really liked AC3, haven't played a lot of games from the series either

AC3 was great in hindsight, but holy shit did it stir people up at the time.

Yeah the story didn't make much sense and the main character didn't have the full focus, what I liked is the gameplay and graphics.

Black flag is the best by far!

Con-tray to what everybody believes, I hated Black Flag. The best game in the serious, in my opinion, is Brotherhood. Every game past Revelations has been bad. This excludes Syndicate and the Chronicles because I don't have Syndicate and haven't played much of any of the Chronicles.

Agreed. The series peaked with Brotherhood.

It's hard to beat Ezio's intrigue. It's like playing the Witcher with a main character other than Geralt.

Brotherhood was the best AC game, but AC4 was an amazing pirate game.

I agree with that. I just wasn't a fan of the open waters and islands. The ship being what is used to progress in the story kinda slowed it down and I felt was boring

Honestly I don't think any game fulfilled the promise of the concept. After the first game, each successor moved away from the foundation of 'assassinating a target by using the environment in a historical city' into a vaguely history flavoured, generic action RPG.

Black flag was legendary! Try it it's a great game.

I played ac1-ac blackflag from beginning to end. I played a little of rogue and tried unity but unity had a game breaking bug and wouldn't let me play the game at all. After experiencing that bug I decided syndicate was not worth buying. I have never played any of the other ac games for mobile or hand held devices.

The first ac game I played was for the story and nothing else. I thoroughly enjoyed the ezio trilogy. The trilogy compared to the more recent games is very outdated but for the time that it came out I was hooked and was a huge assassin fan. I'm a native american so AC3 is my favorite of the entire franchise. There are parts that definently feel unfinished and they could have implemented better mechanics in AC3 but none the less I had a lot of fun playing as a mohawk indian. The second best game for me was black flag. the game looks and plays the best out of all the previous ac games before it. Commandeering your own ship and fighting in epic naval warfare is a blast!

I've been waiting since blackflag for them to release the egypt ac. They did mention it as a possible time period to explore with animus in an email in the blackflag game. I don't know how many people figured that out but I did. Finding out the origins of the assassins would have been a big deal for me years ago but since ubisoft and the management for the ac series has been unsure how to move forward with the franchise. It's left me feeling let down and ultimatly i've lost intrest in the franchise and have moved on. I will not be purchasing ac origins. I hope this helps you decide if you want to pick up where you left off or just skip the older gen games and just play origins. you won't be missing much.

Thank you for your time good sir, I bid you farewell...

very cool story man. thanks for that. i'll probably try origins. i really like the ezio game and would def like to see the origins of the assassins

The first ac game I played was for the story and nothing else.

I haven't played Syndicate because Unity was so bad, but this was the biggest thing missing from BF and Unity. They almost ignored the current day story in BF and did so entirely with Unity. Playing as Desmond was one of my favorite bits in past games - getting all the knowledge from the past for a reason and then getting to use it somewhere!
Unity was retarded the finale was basically just finding out 1 thing and then going "oh good, we know X now, were done, let's forget this whole episode"

I have high hopes for this game because of the time period and location, but I won't be buying it.

Syndicate is veery mediocre

Unity was so bad. The story wasn't that bad but the gameplay was the worst IMO. Syndicate is pretty OK.

Nothing has come even close to Brotherhood or Black Flag, the two best AC games by FAR.

Syndicate was alright. Not as good as the Ezio Trilogy or BF, but I had fun playing it. I might be biased since I'm English though.

Despite them trying to nickel and dime you the games are seriously really enjoyable. I never played the Chronicles so I cannot comment on those but the one following AC 2 are wonderful. Definitely play Brotherhood and Revelations. The Ezio trilogy is a classic. AC 3 was also a blast especially if you're an American history buff. Black flag is personally my favorite mostly because being an assassin pirate is fucking awesome. AC rouge is very similar to black flag with a little spin and I also thoroughly enjoyed it. Unity was an alright game but nothing made it really dazzle. And finally, Syndicate was another bad ass game. Again the devs are cunts but the games are definitely worth a play.

American history

lul

That DLC was way better than the main game.

unity was fun if you had friends to play the co op with

What is a season pass?

there's no way you don't know what a season pass is...

I’m in my 30s and do not game very regularly, I mainly pirate music...

I mainly pirate music...

This is the only thing that I have stopped pirating, I see no need for it with the subscription based sites like Google Play Music. $13/month gives me access to hundreds of thousands of songs and custom radio stations.

Are you a commercial?

Call 555-play-music to find out! You may or may not win a free subscription for a year!

Oh shut up

Where you pay a certain amount up front to receive material that drops for the game after launch.

The spin is it's cheaper then buying DLC and other extras individually, but you're not going to know what you'll be getting so you might be paying for trash/stuff you have no interest in.

Yea sometimes they're useful, other times they're a waste of money. I decided to buy the Gold pack or whatever of the New Grand Turismo for the PS4, which was like $100. Before I even started the actual game I had 2.5 million dollars to spend, 13 additional cars in my garage, was bumped up to level 5, and a few other perks I can't think of.

And all the fun of unlocking those and leveling up taken off you!

I personally lose interest in a game when I can't progress further. Stopped playing csgo as much once I got global elite, stopped playing uncharted 3 when I platined it, etc.

And all the fun of unlocking those and leveling up taken off you!

You know that in any game you can blow through the first few ranks/levels in a minimal amount of time, like an hours worth of playing would probably get me up to level 5, but instead that hour jumped me up to level 8.

I personally lose interest in a game when I can't progress further

I tend to agree, unless the game is really interesting.

So you payed for a cheat. Nice! /s

Eh, call it cheating if you want, I call it an incentive.

The thing you said about the season pass is differs from what games you're buying from.

True, but the gist is generally the same.

You are very correct

Never paid for one and never will. The gears of war 4 season pass had my attention since I love the series, but it turned out to be a mess. You don't need it at all to experience the full game, the maps are available in matchmaking anyway. The season pass only allows you to host private matches on these maps and I think it gives you some goodies or something every time dlc is released.

Either way it's a big middle finger to whoever paid for that.

I don’t think they understand what a full game means.

they sure do, they're just trying to train consumers to think "full game" means something else

Just like those "unlimited" phone plans

Humans like being lied to. We even like to elect the guys that lie the best as the liar leader.

I have an unlimited phone plan and have never had any problems.
On a completely unrelated note - I never call anyone.

Yeah but they cap your data if you use to much they restrict the speeds to nothing. Some tell you other put it in the wording you need a microscope to see.

Or you live outside US where unlimited plans are actually a thing.

Psh unlimited household plans. Literally got a message saying we used too much of our unlimited last month.

I have unlimited high speed internet. I download a lot, steam a lot and game a lot. I got a letter from my isp asking me to cut my usage as "it is not fair to other customers" lol like really?

I love my little Aussie ISP. In the top 0.01% of speeds since I have fibre which is super rare. Last month I downloaded 2.5 terabytes. Not a word from my isp. The days of 4k are upon me!!

Australia

good internet

Lucky...

I'm in WA, and YouTube buffers for me. Kinda hate you

Which ISP?

Every in this thread must be dense or just trying to make themselves feel better about stealing. It’s the full game they’re selling. The extra missions are additional content. If I buy Avengers on Google Play for cheaper than on bluray but I only get the movie and no bonus features, I still got the full movie. I just didn’t get additional content. Which is fine by me because the added missions are 0.01% of an already jam packed game. But the Ubi circlejerk will never subside, no matter how good their games are (I’m loving Fractured But Whole on PS4).

Assassin’s Creed is the same franchise that had those posters that said “Exclusively on PS3... Also Exclusively on Xbox and PC” so Ubisoft doesn’t know what a lot of things mean.

Pretty sure those were 'editions' that had exclusive content, and were therefore exclusive to that platform, no?

You're thinking of this poster right? The bottom half of it is actually about Assassin's Creed Rogue but the person who took the picture was karma whore who knew what he was doing and he cut it off when he took the pic.

I know its still an overuse of the word but its not totally stupid

r/karmacourt

Exclusively on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC

Exclusive means that it is on one system. It can't be exclusive inn three systems.

Exclusive

adjective

  1. excluding or not admitting other things.

Not neccassarily. Exclusive just means you are omitting other options. In this case Assassin's Creed Unity was omitting a Xbox 360 and PS3 release.

ex·clu·sive·ly

adverb

to the exclusion of others; only; solely.

I know its not really the right use of the word. I was just saying that the image is a little misleading since it omits the bottom half of the poster which makes it look even more stupid than it actually is.

And I'm saying that regardless of the second half of the poster, it's still idiotic. It's silly buzzword marketing.

Wow you put a lot of effort into this

It means that they are exclusively not on Nintendo :D

So like every triple A of the last 12 years

Yep you just signed yourself to be killed by Nintendrones.

Breath of the Wild was definitely a AAA game.

Not really, since Nintendo themselves makes AAA games. So more like since the Gamecube, for third party titles, so about 11ish years. And huh it's been about a decade since the Gamecube was discontinued.

And there was a surprising number of third party AAA games for the Wii U. Bayonetta 2, Black Ops 2, Deus Ex Human Revolution Director's Cut, Assassin's Creed 3 and 4, Arkham City and Origins, Darksiders II, and many more. Sadly it got a ton of them later than others, but some like Deus Ex came at the same time. And got the way better version of Ninja Gaiden 3, Razor's Edge, months before everyone, but that's an oddity more than anything.

"Iconic"

"Iconic new"

Isn't it iconic? Don't you think?

When they say exclusively on "system" it's because they have some stupid DLC add-on that is only available on that system.

Scummy marketing

Oh, they understand. It's just that we've reached the point where they can throw it in people's faces like this fully knowing they will still get away with it and nobody important will bat any eye...

It amazes me the amount of mental acrobatics you all are willing to do to prove you're somehow on the moral high ground for getting something for free.

I pirate things because I want them I can't afford them. You can call Ubisoft greedy all you want, and while it might be true, it doesn't mean you're some saint for torrenting the game instead of buying it.

What never fails to amaze me is that the people who are against piracy think that those who support it are doing "mental acrobatics" or are "making up excuses to steal" or whatever.

It's like an theist accusing atheists of being dishonest.

Why can't you just respect that other people have different opinions than yours, and are not secrectly against piracy? Is that so difficult to grasp?

Also, it's those who are against piracy that usually plead that they have a de facto moral high ground and not the other way around.

I never said I was against piracy.

but you implied that you were by calling your self "enough of a piece of shit to torrent them without feeling bad about it".

And while i get where you're coming from, if you feel that pirating is bad then stand by your opinion and don't pirate at all. Or stand by your choices and justify why you pirate when you do.

Again, I'm not against piracy, nor do I think piracy is a bad thing. That line was just a dumb self-depreciating joke.

Well, ok then.

You're the one talking about saints and moral high ground.

It says "Clear conscience" in the picture. Not for nothing but that does speak to believing you stand on a moral high ground.

I would feel more guilty about giving those moneysuckers my money than about pirating it

Not necessarily. Just that you don't feel bad about it.

Like... You speed sometimes. It's against the law. But 5, 10 over the limit, at the speed of traffic, you don't care, you don't feel bad about it. It doesn't mean that you think speeding is okay in general. Just that you don't feel bad about it in certain situations.

The fact the torrent edition on the picture is the only one with the bonus of a clear conscience is a direct implication that those who get the other versions don't have that. I.e. those who torrent get a clear conscience, but anyone who actually pays for the product doesn't get one. The op is clearly arguing that it is morally superior to take the game for free rather than paying for it.

Of course you would have a clear conscience for purchasing it. That's kind of assumed.

You're setting yourself up for an 'of course you would get the full game for purchasing it' comment.

I wouldn't have a clear conscience after supporting Ubisoft with AC: Origins or WB with Shadow of War.

I haven't pirated either but I'd feel more guilty buying it.

Incorrect. Op is saying it is morally preferable to steal this game than it is to support a bad corporation, it's not making the point that stealing is morally superior to not paying for anything ever.

Except for when the picture literally associated "clear conscience" with the torrented version?

I buy games that I enjoy, and don't require wallet gymnastics. If they can put out DLC before a game is even released, they certainly dont care about giving the full game at high quality.

Why should my wallet support that.

If they can put out DLC before a game is even released, they certainly dont care about giving the full game at high quality.

That doesn't make any sense. DLC production and game production don't overlap.

If they have the same release date as the game, yes they do.

In this case, they have the Full Game and the DLC ready for launch, I think it's a safe bet to say that Game and DLC prouction did overlap here.

If you talk woth a game designer theyll let you know this isnt true. Dlc is usually done after main game dev is finished but it isnt released.

Sure, but if the DLC is being released on the same day as the core game, all they are doing is slicing out gameplay sections to release separately.

That's just not true

Ok.. what's your source that it's not?

I see where that top graph is coming from, but it's not applicable as a "one size fits all" for game studios. It depends on how large and crucial the DLC is, how large the gameplay design team, art team, UI, engineers, voice actors, environment designers, etc have to support it.

I'm absolutely not saying to pirate any game. I don't agree with that and any justification to do so is someone's own. All I'm saying is that depending on the size and scope of release day DLC, it could have very well been developed in conjunction with the main game for story consistency, gameplay design, bugs, etc.

They need to submit that content at the same time as the main product to guarantee the release date they've already promised. Production will have a hard line cut off for certification by all platforms and if the content isn't done, they can't release it. And that content has to have been done weeks before the release date.

I don't think you're understanding the point. Games are usually complete weeks or even months before they release. Back in the developers and artists would either move onto another game or simply be laid off before the game was even out. Now they use that time to work on DLC. Because of DLC work is now constant.

So here's the dilemma. They're actually doing work that they never did before, but before the game's release. Should they charge for it? The logical answer is that of course they should. If there wasn't a financial benefit they wouldn't be doing it at all and it simply wouldn't exist. The full game wouldn't include it. It's not cut out of anything.

This . Finally someone said it.

Also, like 99% of all DLC (specially in AC), it usually have little to no consecuence to the main plot/story, you could literally play it or not and it would be the same to the overall game experience. What it is, is EXTRA CONTENT, wich you could decide to pay or not.

Ok, here's the thing, too. Microsoft, Sony, and Valve all have a certification process and approval that the content needs to go through. Along with the ESRB to check the rating for each piece of content. If they want to keep under a "M" rating there are several things they need to do in order to check that it's appropriate.

They also need MS, Sony, their own QA, etc to alert any bugs in order to deliver the MVP (minimal viable product) that won't crash and run as smoothly as possible.

On the SAME DAY as release that content would have 99.999% likely have been created in parallel with the main game. They need to test if it's even functioning properly with the game and there are zero conflicts. They're not finishing the main game, submitting it, moving on to DLC, having that QA'd and approved, then submitting that for the day and date release of the game. It's not possible, especially when MS, Sony, PC, and ESRB all have their separate timeframes for approval.

As far as the ESRB goes, they don't go over the entire game. Developers/publishers simply send them portions (in video form I believe) that are representative of the entire game. The ESRB takes what is sent in good faith and rates the game. So unless the DLC is substantially different and in need of a higher rating, it doesn't matter.

As for certification and testing, yeah that takes time. But it's not nearly as long as the gap from game completion to release.

The point still stands that this is work they did not do in the past. It's work that is only done because of the DLC model. So they're going to charge for it.

I forgot to mention that it's possible that parts could have initially been worked on during the main game development. Unfortunately, for whatever reason things weren't panning out and they didn't have time to include it. In the past they would have simply been cut from the game. Now they can use time after finishing the main game to include what would have been cut content. Again, the only reason to do so is financial incentive. Developers and artists are expensive. Thus, it's DLC.

Of course, the argument could be made that the content is necessary for the game to sell more. That would be the financial incentive. That may be true in some cases, but I'd bet that the large majority of games wouldn't sell more if they included their DLC for free. I could be wrong on this one though. It's just personally I can't think of any game I've played where the DLC made an impact on whether I wanted a game or not.

!Redditsilver

Here's your Reddit Silver, ibeatyou9!


/u/ibeatyou9 has received silver 1 time. (given by /u/chezdrew) info

Don't buy it, but also don't steal it.

It's not stealing, Ubisoft was never getting his money anyway so no net loss. I'm still surprised this phrase is parroted

It could be a net loss, because if ubisoft puts out another game that is just one price for the whole game, and the player is busy playing a pirated game they might miss out on sales. It's a stretch but there is a sort of net loss in being satisfied with entertainment and thus not needed to inject money into the entertainment economy.

there is no evidence that piracy is a major problem.

There also isn't evidence that it isn't (it actually isn't though) but wanna know why? Because in comparison very few people actually pirate AAA-games. But what if more people started doing it? Then it would become a problem. It's like saying bank robbers aren't a major problem. Of course they aren't because robberies rarerly happen and even more rarerly succeed but what if that changed?

Same thing with pirating, it's only not a problem because not enough people do it. It is still wrong though.

I am not advocating people should or should not pirate games

I am not advocating people should or should not pirate games

But here is a story that would help inform this discussion i think.

https://www.gamewatcher.com/news/2017-19-10-wolfenstein-2-designer-explains-why-there-aren-t-many-story-based-shooters-nowadays

I'm still surprised people truely believe the "I wouldn't have payed for it, so it's morally ok to steal it" bullshit. You either accept that you're on the wrong side morally and legally speaking whenever you consume a product that is supposed to be monetized but you circumvented the monetization illegally. This magical world where the chance of you paying for the product would truely be 0%, not even 0.01%, and where you spending time on a game for free doesn't cause you to not purchase a different game to spend that time with, doesn't exist.

The net loss is that someone is getting their product without paying, you moron.

How could it possibly be a net loss if nobody is losing anything? This isn't a physical product and they wouldn't be getting his money either way. And besides, in no way is this dude responsible for EA's bottom line.

During the development of basically any product ever, there are costs associated with every stage of that products lifecycle. Whether or not they can “make” infinite copies of the product is irrelevant. In the case of physical goods, part of the cost of the product is the manufacturing, shipping and stocking of said product. Obviously, this is often covered by the ultimate price of the item. The same is true for digital sales. Not only does the product have the exact same cost structure of making physical good, it often has similar costs associated with shipping and online distribution.

When you pirate something, you are essentially throwing a wrench into that process. Not only are they losing out on a perceived sale, you are absolutely messing with their cost models and financial planning. At the very, very least, they can’t determine their ROI, making planing for new games harder.

Stealing something digital can carry the exact same repercussions as stealing a physical good, and choosing to ignore that shows your lack of both maturity and general education.

That's absurd. Absolutely none of what you said matters if the person in question had no intention of buying the game in the first place. The copy they acquire didn't roll off an assembly line, it's a copy of data that appeared out of thin air and is infinitely reproducible for free.

Not only that, but study after study shows that piracy has little effect on sales. Most of the people who pirate are part of the population who isn't buying the game in the first place, and the overlap has never significantly hurt a AAA title.

As for financial planning and cost models or whatever, do you really think they're not taking piracy into consideration with those? And why is it our responsibility to care about their bottom line?

It has none of the repercussions of stealing physical goods, and stealing can't even be considered the correct word. You care way more about anti-piracy efforts than these companies do, which is bizarre to me.

How is acquiring a good, without paying for it, not considered stealing? We can discuss the effects of said action all day, but let’s avoid arguing semantics. The literal definition of stealing is to “take (another person's property) without permission or legal right”. Whenever you pirate a game, you are stealing. Now, if you are okay with doing so, more power to you. But anyone who can’t own up to their actions is a coward.

Now, to your other points:

-If you weren’t going to play the game, then don’t pirate it ... the idea that someone who pirates a game is not a lost sale because they had no intention of buying it, is both hypocritical and misleading. In fact, one could argue the potential consequences of getting caught pirating games (fines/jail time) is greater than the cost of buying a game, therefore the bigger potential risk means you are in fact MORE interested in the game than someone paying for it outright. I’ll admit, that is a stretch, but so is saying “I was never interested in it the first place.” Bullshit. You torrented it.

-Whether or not the product is physical or digital doesn’t matter - it still costs money to develop, market, maintain, etc. Just because you can right-click and select Copy, doesn’t suddenly mean it costs nothing. Did you know, there is someone who is paid a working salary to negotiate digital licensing deals between developers and distributors like Amazon? Did you know it costs a developer money to host and develop key generators and key validation software? Did you know that distributors like Steam and GOG relay on the fees associated with having your game hosted and sold through their platforms? I could go on forever. Selling digital copies of games DOES cost money. Not to mention, companies are supposed to make a profit. And part of doing that successfully is driving down and, more importantly, recouping costs.

-And finally, you should care about their bottom line because you want them to care about yours. Sure, Ubisoft can handle more than a few hits to their bank accounts, but what value does your “noble crusade” have if you can’t provide them with the same respect you clamor for? If you want them to respect your money with better value and less bullshit, then vote with your wallet. It’s pretty simple. I am as liberal as they come, but this world needs a lot less people feeling like they are entitled to something.

Are you really this braindead or are you fucking with me?

Now I'm not an economist but how are they losing money if there's no physical product to be bought and I had no intentions of ever paying for it? They would have never gotten any money from me ever.

If you had no intention to play it, then you wouldn't steal it. And we are talking about stealing and the implications it has on products that aren't physical

Honestly I snag a game to see if I like it. I've downloaded games and then bought them retail. But most games I'll play a few hours and be done with it. I know steam has a refund policy but for me two hours isn't really enough.

You're not paying for a physical copy, but you are paying for the right to use the product. It applies to the same thing for all software/media. Operating systems, music, games, programs, and all things downloaded are products but without the tangible hard copy.

Not in the EU. That shit is only here in 'Murica.

What's it like in the EU?

Scenario a) A dude has no money and has no plans to buy a Chrysler. Chrysler gets no money.

Scenario b) Same dude, but a Chrysler magically appears out of thin air in his driveway, at no material cost to anyone. Chrysler gets no money.

Is he stealing from Chrysler in scenario b if he drives it around? Which of these scenarios would be preferable to Chrysler as a company? Would they care at all considering they profit from neither? Only scenario b holds potential benefit, since this dude might spread the word about how nice Chrysler cars are.

Chrysler still built the car, did they not? The car didn't materialize out of the fucking ether. Money, time and effort were spent creating the car. By taking the car without paying, you are undermining the process of it's creation. I don't care what mental gymnastics you people play, the reality is that by stealing you hurt commerce. If you don't care that's on you but don't try and bullshit the rest of us.

Oh hey look

The entitled pirate’s mental gymnastics

It is stealing. It's nothing different from stealing. Piracy is a stupid term that needs to die. Call it what it is. Thivery

You call it what it is: Copyright infringement. Stealing means taking a tangible object away and depriving the owner of his right. This is unauthorized copying, but does not deprive the owner of the original.

This was literally in the first lecture of my immaterial goods law course.

You do you. I just don't care.

No, they are the same. Samsung still has the blueprints to the TV so they can go back to the factory and build a new one. Just like this game exists on servers and stuff but people will still work on it for patches and run online communities and stuff. It's not the same upkeep but it's work that needs to be done to maintain the availability of the game.

If you wanna take stuff you didn't pay for, you do you. Just call it what it is; thievery.

It is a victimless crime, yes. Yet it is still a crime.

And if everyone acted like you there wouldn't be anything to pirate because nobody would make money anymore.

Pirating is objectively wrong, just accept it and move on. Just admit it to yourself you simply don't give a shit about paying people for their hard work.

there wouldn't be anything to pirate because nobody would make money anymore.

not like there are any decent companies or anything

I'd be ok with ubisoft going out of business though

Pirating is objectively wrong, just accept it and move on. Just admit it to yourself you simply don't give a shit about paying people for their hard work.

While that is true, it doesn't make piracy = theft any more true.

And if everyone would do it nobody would do it because there wouldn't be any videogames.

The only reason piracy isn't that harmful is because in comparison to actual customers way too few people actually pirate.

And if everyone would do it nobody would do it because there wouldn't be any videogames.

And if everyone stopped eating meat we'd fix climate change overnight. And if everyone pitched in a dollar, we could send a manned mission to mars. And if everyone voted, we wouldn't have a buttplug for president.

See how easy it is to make nonsensical proclamations? That's exactly the same as what you said.

How about we just talk about reality here instead of a fantasy world where everyone does something that's never happened before?

And anyway, it doesn't change my point. Piracy =/= theft. That's basic grammar, not rocket science.

If you want to posit that piracy is wrong and unethical, that's totally fine. I can see that point of view. But it is not theft, no matter how you may wish it was. If you want to convince people in an argument, a good first step is to not use misleading or false language. That'll rarely get you what you want.

How the hell is meat related to climate change?

“What do pirates do?”

“Oh, they steal people’s possessions out on sea”

“So... piracy is stealing???”

It is immoral and illegal, but it is NOT the same thing as stealing. Not even close. You people keep using the term "mental gymnastics", yet that's exactly what you have to resort to to even begin comparing stealing something material, finite, something where each single unit of it requires work to create, to stealing a digital copy of a game.

This is the aforementioned mental gymnastics. "I was never going to buy anything so I can pirate anything" pay for things you consume or don't consume them

Nah, no qualms here. This is a huge publisher, it's not limited stock that I'm depriving them of and they're behaving in an explicitly anti-consumer fashion.

don't consume things you haven't paid for

i consume things i haven't paid for all the time :/

it's like, part of being a human.

Ever listen to a band's music on Youtube? They could probably use the money more than Ubisoft. Probably more ethical too.

Ever listen to a band's music some dude ripped onto Youtube? They could probably use the money more than Ubisoft. Probably more ethical too.

not really, everyone has youtube channels or if it's more indie, bandcamp. contentID means that the original authors get the money anyway and i pay for youtube red so even though i don't get ads, they still get money

If you mean youtube channels official or not boy are you wrong. Here's an article where on the biggest Pop stars (Taylor Swift) is having to sue YouTube after AppleMusic. Not to mention if you listen to spotify you are also not really helping artist as well.

Aricle

i said bandcamp, not spotify. i buy my music and upload it to google play music so it syncs, or just buy it on there

what i was saying is that content ID means that the original authors get the ad revenue of the music if someone else uploads it

taylor swift isn't suing youtube or apple music, she is trying to get more money from them because the money from streaming is paltry

I'll do what I want, this is the pirating subreddit. Fuck you, hope you don't die when you fall off that ridiculous high horse

wow, compensating people for the work they do is a high horse now

It is when you're in the piracy subreddit. How are you not getting this?

People shit on movies in the movies subreddit. You can find a topic interesting and engaging even if you're not 100% in support of it.

That's not really the same. It would be more similar if you went into the movies subreddit and then started posting about how ALL movies were evil and nobody should be watching them.

It is normal to pay for goods and services.

It's just as normal to pirate digital goods.

Okay I don't see you paying for oxygen?

Boy of all the false equivalencies this may be one of the dumbest

it's literally not stealing

you want to argue the moral high ground at least be correct

If piracy hurt the revenue by a significant amount, there would be more investment into making the game uncrackable. That doesn't happen right now because the amount of time and therefore money required to make a game uncrackable would not not give them a return.

denuvo is an effort into that, and it worked for a while. it's not an easy task and you are fighting against very smart people who basically see it as a challenge.

essentially, it does happen, but it's not a simple solution, the idea that you can just throw money at it and the problem will be solved isn't a good one.

what they do do, is make things more focused on online capabilities so that you can lock out non account holders. which changes the gaming landscape as a whole and devalues the single player narrative experience

If the game would be uncrackable, there'd be a chance that many pirates would buy it, even if it's in the future with all the content for a discounted price. They lose money because of people like you. Games are much more expensive to produce than a few years ago yet still cost the same for the consumer.

I had this same argument with someone on a bulletin board 20 years ago.

You're saying that only those who would have bought it should pay for it and those who wouldn't have bought it don't have to.

Playing a video game is not a human right.

It's not stealing, Ubisoft was never getting his money anyway so no net loss.

god you sound like me when i was 15 years old trying to argue with my dad about how pirating is fine.

Yeah okay you don't have an argument so you resort to name calling, and you're saying I'm the one who's 15

Sometimes, an argument is so bad that just calling someone out on their childish behavior is better than wasting the time to explain to that anonymous person why they're wrong.

I would bet money that, if piracy became impossible tomorrow, these "never buy" pirates would buckle down, make some tough life decisions, and start buying a handful of games that they otherwise "never would have". No, a pirate will never buy all of the dozens/hundreds of games they pirate. But fuck the pirates. They will buy something. They should buy everything.

That's the obvious reality. The "I would've never payed anyways" is simply not always true. It's just a sad excuse.

They change their excuse every time. Any time something comes out and it’s difficult to purchase people say “oh! If it wasn’t so hard I wouldn’t pirate it.”

Buying games has never been easier, so now we need a new excuse. “I pirate this game that people put their time and effort into because the developer doesn’t respect me! I won’t consider the economics of it - I deserve to just steal this!”

Why?

Because it hurts the business you are boycotting?

Oh heavens no.......that would be terrible!

No, because it's unethical to take things you didn't pay for.

I still qant to play it.

You can't steal it. You can only infringe on Ubisofts copyright. That's because it's not a tangible good, but an immaterial property, i.e. a copyright.

C'mon, you know this is just semantics. But whatever, if it makes you feel better:

Don't buy it, but also don't infringe on the copyright by obtaining the product in an illegal and unethical manner. Instead be a man and pay for the shit you want and don't whine about it.

The difference is significant. Stealing is a zero sum game, what you gain is a direct loss to the other party. When you copy illegally they don't lose the original.

This means that while yes, it is illegal, it's not always unethical.

Recent example from my life: I illegally downloaded two free Samsung Apps "Samsung Gear" and "Samsung Health" from third party sources, because I couldn't install them from the Play Store, because Samsung neglected to add the Nexus 5X to the compatibility list. Had I not done that I would have had to return my Samsung Gear S3 frontier and both Samsung and I would have lost out on a desirable deal.

There are other examples for ethical copyright infringement. Like Age of Empires II, I bought the original as a box back in the day and I bought the HD Re-Release on Steam when it came out. However before the re-release case out, I downloaded a version that packed the original game with suitable community patches to run on Windows 10 and that was copyright infringement.

A friends grandfather had gotten his very old iMac (at least 8 years old) replaced and they told him they would save all his files, which they did. However the new MacBook had no way to open his old AppleWorks documents which were important to him (the one I was given to test the process with was a letter of condolences he had written). His old iMac was already thrown out. No other software we tested managed to open the files properly. I don't think it was unethical when I downloaded an image of iOS 8 fixed to run in an emulator and converted his documents to a readable format. Especially since neither that version of the OS nor that version of AppleWorks were sold anymore.

The difference in not "significant" - it's only a semantic game pirates play to make themselves feel better. You're taking something without buying it, plain and simple. The "original" doesn't matter, it's still unethical.

And I hear your examples, but I find them underwhelming. You stole two apps, a game, and an operating system. Kudos for helping your friend get the files, I'd of done the same thing, but I wouldn't pretend that downloading iOS 8 wasn't unethical. What you used it for was noble, but that doesn't change the theft of it.

Look, if you want to say "infringe on copyright" instead of "stealing," go for it, but you won't convince me they aren't the same.

How does your understanding of ethics work, I wonder. Victimless crimes that help people are unethical? Why? Because they are crimes? That would be pretty backward, laws are supposed to encode the common ethics of the people. Something becomes a law because lawmakers consider it unethical, it doesn't become unethical because lawmakers made it illegal.

Also you said you would have done the same even thought you consider it unethical? What? Don't your ethical considerations dictate your actions?

Look, if you want to say "infringe on copyright" instead of "stealing," go for it, but you won't convince me they aren't the same.

Obviously the terms are different, because Samsung, Microsoft and Apple didn't lose anything from my actions in the three examples. If it was stealing they would have lost the object I obtained. The definition of theft includes depriving the previous owner of their object.

Taking something without paying for it unethical, you can't talk your way around that. And where is your golden definition of "stealing" that insists what you take must deprive the previous owner their object? Sounds like you saw one of these crumby memes and took it as fact. Stealing is more broad, and definitions change, especially in our current climate of digital media.

And are you sure Samsung, Microsoft, and Apple didn't lose anything? Maybe those apps aren't on your phone for a reason, and they are trying to get you to buy new hardware. It's good you bought the HD Age of Empires, but that doesn't make it okay to download an illegal copy of the game. They don't offset. Maybe Apple has an old file recovery system, or maybe there's a mom and pop tech shop in town that still keeps an old iMac around just for these issues, and you took money from them with your theft of iOS 8.

Again, call it what you want and be a pirate or a copyright infringer, but you're still doing something wrong and there's no way around it.

And where is your golden definition of "stealing" that insists what you take must deprive the previous owner their object

Oh you know around the web. Like Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

HG.org: https://www.hg.org/theft-law.html

Encyclopedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/theft

And it was in the first lecture of my course on immaterial property right law. He explained what immaterial property rights are and why copying is allowed as a basic principle (because it's not a zero sum game, but after copying there now exist two pieces of the immaterial good). Of course he then went on to explain that this principle is restricted by copyright, trademark, patent and registered design and then he explained what the economic reason and argument for public good is for those to be afforded protection: Lecture description, Page from my account that shows I'm inscribed, and another fun piece of info on Mark Schweizer who gives the lecture

But you know, because people make memes about stuff it must be wrong.

I'm fucking done, this is not leading anywhere.

Okay, so you won't concede the semantic argument. Fair enough. Will you at least concede that downloading something you didn't pay for is wrong?

Stealing a "license" to play a game since you don't even own then anymore these days.

you never owned them.

I will do neither for this game. I didn't really get into AC

This one looks more like Witcher 3: Ancient Egypt.... so yeah I’m getting it

Witcher 3: Ancient Egypt without any of the things that makes Witcher 3 a good game.

How so?

I'd rather ask you how it's similar to Witcher 3 other it being open world.

It has a whole new weapons/gear system exactly like Witcher, loot dropped from enemies is what they have or are carrying.

Bunch of side quests rather than collectibles

A leveling system

And I would downplay the open world aspect... the gameplay videos I’ve seen are very reminiscent of traveling around in the Witcher universe.

I could link you some gameplay?

Yeah sure, I'd look at some gameplay. I don't know though, everything you've listed is kind of standard open world RPG mechanics. A loot system where enemies drop what they're carrying, a leveling system, and side quests sounds quite standard and I can't imagine the side quests will be even remotely as good as the ones in the Witcher.

Fair enough. Maybe it’s just not for you. I’m stoked to free run around ancient Egypt and discover what they came up with for the origins of the assassins and the templars.

To each their own

I'm not saying that it's going to be a bad game, I loved AC 2 and Brotherhood, I'm just not sure that "Witcher 3: Ancient Egypt" is an apt comparison. I have serious doubts it'll be anywhere near Witcher 3's level, and all the things you linked just sounded like standard RPG mechanics. I would be shocked if an Assassin's Creed game has a Witcher 3 level story or side quests.

That being said, I genuinely think that the things you listed sound promising. It's a step in the right direction (excluding all the anti consumer shit they're doing) in terms of making Assassins Creed less stale.

Yeah maybe my hopes are a bit too high we’ll see. But I absolutely loved W3, Blood and Wine especially. It was the first time a game grabbed my attention in a long time.

From what I can tell they’ve added more challenging encounters, gotten away from their bland combat system in favor of a more dark souls type system. Albeit probably way less difficult which is where the W3 comparison grows stronger, imo

I mean we’ll have to agree to disagree because from what I’ve seen they’ve tried to mimic W3 almost blatantly. And since I loved W3 I’m assuming I’ll really enjoy this one too

I mean to be fair, sometimes a good game is a good game (Shadow of War, as an example) but this is Assassin's Creed

put out DLC before a game is even released

Enough said

Well to counter that point I'd point out that Ark TECHNICALLY released DLC before they were officially released, but that's basically because the game has been a pre-release game for like 97 years.

Seriously. I never really got into the AC series, so this just strengthens my case to not ever get into it. But even for the fans that have followed every installment (which there are so goddamn many), this DLC fiasco just seems like such a big middle finger to them. I feel so very sorry for those who actually enjoy playing the series, and then sees shit like this happen. Nothing worse than seeing your favorite game series turned into a hot steaming pile of monetized garbage.

Bethesda fans can relate

I am slowly adjusting to not fall in love with game series. I can't stand it when this stuff happens.

Brotherhood was the first AC game I had, and I loved it. Probably my favourite game on my PS3. Then they killed it. And it was crippling to watch it happen.

The same thing happened with mass effect. Played the 2nd and 3rd one and fell in love. Couldn't wait for andromeda, and well you know what happened with that.

The only game that I love at the moment, and made a large recovery with its latest expansion, is WoW. But even then I don't love it as much as I have loved it in the past, and they may and probably will kill it again like they did when Draenor was released.

Yeah I mean they can release an 80$ dollar game and say: "Full game". Yes it's expensive but atleast I'll least I know I'm know I'm buying a good experience, when the DLC comes I'll be like well at least it's nothing major.

But when you fucking give me the DLC before I buy one of my favourite game well fuck you, this is just an excuse to make money

If it’s bad enough not to buy then it’s bad enough not to play.

Hence why in this case, I'll be doing neither. I don't like AC.

Maybe your wallet shouldn't support it buy just not buying the game.

That doesn't justify you then to go and steal it.

Take a real stand and don't play the game then.

Indistinguishable from playing without supporting with money.

No, it isn't. Piracy just tells Ubisoft you like what they're doing, you just don't want to pay for it (because you're cheap). Not playing the game at all tells them you don't like what they're doing. Do you think HBO is saying, "Gosh, people must have a problem with how we're producing Game of Thrones"?

Do you think HBO is saying, "Gosh, people must have a problem with how we're producing Game of Thrones"?

false equivalency

Not playing the game at all tells them you don't like what they're doing.

you realize it's pretty hard to get accurate piracy metrics right?

all those numbers you see touted by industry is bullshit

No it's not. You contribute to the problem. By pirating the game you leave a negative footprint. And of course it is stealing so there is that.

So you're in a piracy subreddit telling people that what they do is stealing.

Well, it is. Whether or not you’re willing to admit it and own up to your actions is up to you.

It is immoral and illegal, but it is NOT the same thing as stealing. Not even close. You people keep using the term "mental gymnastics", yet that's exactly what you have to resort to to even begin comparing stealing something material, finite, something where each single unit of it requires work to create, to stealing a digital copy of a game.

Why is there a difference between stealing something physical and something digital? Both are things the creator has required you to pay for “access” to - you’re choosing to “access” said thing without paying the requisite fees. You are taking something that belongs to someone else without there permission. Even though it’s a digital good, it’s still their property and you’re depriving them of the requisite payment for access to said property. That’s stealing. There’s no mental gymnastics involved.

Software pirates dance around the definition of stealing so as to feel less morally contrived about their actions.

Why is there a difference between stealing something physical and something digital?

You don't mean that question at all, you are just making an argument. No mental gymnastics involved?! Yea right. Like are you seriously telling me that you are unable to comprehend the difference between somebody losing hours of work, somebody LOSING something that he could have sold to someone else, somebody LOSING possession of an item, and making an illegal digital copy of the game?

Pirating is the epitome of a victimless crime. It is not depriving anybody of anything as you have put it, it isn't really an "access" to a product, it is making a digital copy, and that is a process that doesn't involve any depreciation of value. For future reference, you can easily spot a victimless crime when you either can't even point out the victim, or when it is very very likely that the person you refer to as the victim is unable to even find out that he is a "victim" without REAALLLY looking into it and/or getting the information from a third party.

All victimless crimes are still a crimes, it says so in the term itself for fucks sake. And yea it is still immoral. But don't tell me I'm dancing around the definition of stealing to feel less morally contrived, it is far from stealing and I feel just as morally contrived as I should.

Like are you seriously telling me that you are unable to comprehend the difference between somebody losing hours of work, somebody LOSING something that he could have sold to someone else, somebody LOSING possession of an item, and making an illegal digital copy of the game?

I believe they’re all forms of stealing, which has been me argument all along.

Pirating is the epitome of a victimless crime.

Oh really? So if people pirate a game instead of buying it, and the company can’t turn a profit and pay its employees as a result, causing the studio to close, that’s a victimless crime?

Oh really? So if people pirate a game instead of buying it, and the company can’t turn a profit and pay its employees as a result, causing the studio to close, that’s a victimless crime?

You are making an absolutely ridiculously unreal assumption that people that are unable to pirate the game would buy it. I would never in a million years pay for like 80% of the games I pirated. The fact that I could or could not pirate them has ZERO effect on it.

You are making an absolutely ridiculously unreal assumption that people that are unable to pirate the game would buy it.

Actually, I’m making a hypothetical where people pirate instead of buying, thus causing a loss of profit. I’m not assuming people will buy if they can’t pirate, I’m theorizing that some people will pirate games instead of buying them (because they don’t want to pay).

You’re going to have hard work proving that no one pirates because they aren’t willing to pay.

I would never in a million years pay for like 80% of the games I pirated.

Then don’t fucking play them. You’re not willing to pay for the games, you have no right to play them. Go play something you’re willing to pay for.

You’re going to have hard work proving that no one pirates because they aren’t willing to pay.

I'm not trying to say that at all, I don't even think that, that's ridiculous and I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that that is what I'm trying to prove. We can hypothesize all we want if the number of people that would buy the game if they couldn't pirate it is higher or lower than the number of people that bought the game JUST because they pirated it and tried it out first, but that's not the point at all. The point is that there is an enormous difference between pirating and theft.

Then don’t fucking play them. You’re not willing to pay for the games, you have no right to play them. Go play something you’re willing to pay for.

Yes, you have the right to tell me this, and you are technically right. I already admitted that it is illegal and immoral. But you telling me this is the SAME FUCKING THING, as telling a 17 year old to not drink one beer. Or telling me to not roll through a stop sign instead of completely stopping when its 3AM and I'm in a rural area which I know very well and I have clear vision of the whole intersection and there isn't a single running car in a 2 mile radius. Or telling someone to not try out smoking weed. You would be right in all those cases, and the other person would be committing a crime, hell even a felony technically in some cases.

But comparing any of that to THEFT is absolutely crazy.

Your definition of stealing needs some work. Stealing is a 2-part action. You take something that's not yours and you deprive the original owner of that item.

With digital files, it's a different animal. There's no deprivation to the original owner... Which is why the term "copyright infringement" was created.

Stealing is a 2-part action. You take something that's not yours and you deprive the original owner of that item.

So plagiarism isn’t stealing?

Plagiarism is plagiarism.

So your saying plagiarism isn’t stealing?

Plagiarism is stealing in the same way that copyright infringement is stealing. It's a close relative, but it's its own thing.

So plagiarism and copyright infringement are stealing. Got it.

The original owners are deprived of nothing. They still have their content. Still not stealing.

So what you’re saying is the law, dictionaries, etc. have been wrong all this time and plagiarism is, in fact, not stealing?

Because, honestly, it sounds to me like you’re defining stealing excessively narrowly to justify piracy.

Plagiarism is taking credit for someone else's work as your own.

Duplicated material also duplicates proper attribution to the creator.

I know what plagiarisms is vs piracy. That was the point of the question.

Ok

What negative footprint?

sounds like industry speak

shill alert

Stealing suggests taking something, and the original owner now longer has it.

Ubisoft still has the game, and can continue to sell it. OP has a copy. Not stealing!

What "negative footprint" would that be? Is there a negative karma meter in real life I'm unaware of

What I mean is that while you are downloading it, you appear as leecher, then when you have downloaded it you may seed it and finally you contribute to the "numbers downloaded" number. Also, while searching for torrents and whatnot, you contribute to the website traffic and searches. All this information is collected and sold, and decision are made based on it. So, thank you for these shitty anti-consumer tactics.

What "decisions" exactly are you basing that on? And I use private trackers personally. I'm not sure who would benefit from sharing the information. But let's go further and assume you're just talking about joe anybody who doesn't know how to torrent and just hits up pirate bay. I guess you're saying that the webtraffic produced generates revenue for the webhost and even though that is generating revenue, since it isn't going to the developer, that's the negative footprint? Really trying to see your point, especially in how it is more anti-consumer than splitting off parts of your game behind an additional paywall, etc.

I'm talking about corporate decision making. Also, your "private" tracker is probably also collecting usage information and selling it through some service - it would be naive to think otherwise. And yes, the average usage statistics are what are valuable, not some outliers.

The current paywalling of content behind preorders, worthless season passes, and everything like them really are anti-consumer things. I don't know how much they correlate to aforementioned decision making based on the information to meet the sales targets. But at least intrusive DRM systems are because of them.

I'll admit that it does suck what companies do in the name of fighting piracy, most notably drm/denuovo which can and often does negatively impact the performance of the game. And when that is inevitably stripped out of it, it is only the paying consumer who ends up with the performance hit.

It is immoral and illegal, but it is NOT the same thing as stealing. Not even close. You people keep using the term "mental gymnastics", yet that's exactly what you have to resort to to even begin comparing stealing something material, finite, something where each single unit of it requires work to create, to stealing a digital copy of a game.

Digital works require huge amounts of capital and labor. These AAA games, not to mention movies, are usually multi 100 million dollar projects that directly and indirectly employ thousands of people. True, the legislation is years behind but at least in EU it's moving forward. If you can't see the irony of your post, you must be expert of this "mental gymnastics".

There is no irony in my post, as I said, pirating the game is immoral and illegal, but it is far from stealing. Pirating a game doesn't have any effect on the company or the employees. It is the epitome of a victimless crime. Theft is definitely not. That is an enormous difference. It is not depriving anybody of anything, nobody is losing possession of anything, making a digital copy is a process that doesn't involve any depreciation of the value of a product. For future reference, you can easily spot a victimless crime when you either can't even point out the victim, or when it is very very likely that the person you refer to as the victim is unable to even find out that he is a "victim" without REAALLLY looking into it and/or getting the information from a third party.

Some people here like to suggest that the "victims" are the employees of the game companies, that's just wrong. I would never in a million years pay for 80% of the games I pirated. The fact that I could or could not pirate the game has literally no effect on me buying the game. When a game company doesn't make a profit, it's because they made a shitty game or because marketing failed, etc... Not because of piracy.

And again, I fully admit it is still a crime, it is still illegal and it is still immoral. But comparing it to theft is like comparing smoking pot to selling drugs to minors.

it's not, because there's no magical world where playing a game without paying for it would not have any affects on your future purchase decisions. Pirating something will never be a valid or legal way for a consumer to protest a company. Not consuming their product is.

Pirating something will never be a valid

seems perfectly valid to me

I don't pirate shit anymore because I have more money then time at my age so I just say fuck it and move on but both behaviors deprive the company from money

also haven't played a ubisoft game in almost a decade, don't feel like I've missed much, frankly they can go out of business for all I care

There is a difference. Someone who pirates and plays the game and likes it will probably talk positively about it on social media or tell their friends about it, creating word-of-mouth advertisement and more buzz about the game in general. Which in turn will lead to more actual sales.

Completely ignoring a game on the other hand will lead to absolutely 0 more sales.

I'm not going to buy or play this game. Im not a fan of AC.

That's the spirit!

Many games that I've pirated I ended up buying because I wasn't sure whether I'd like it or not.

If I didn't pirate some games, I wouldn't have bought them. Pirating some games has literally been a profit to those companies.

A few games I recall pirating and then buying after the fact.

Alien: Isolation

Dark Souls 2

Doom

Rogue Legacy

Wolfenstein: The New Order

Tomb Raider

Torchlight 2

Divinity 2

Enter the Gungeon

Witcher 3

Little Nightmares

These are some of the games I can remember for a fact that I pirated to first to either see if I enjoyed the game or it ran well on my system.

I've just started my GOG collection recently

But most of my 400+ games are on Steam

Now, if I did what you suggested and just not pirate the game, I would have bought WAY LESS games. My wallet would love me far more. That's for sure.

I don't need to try "justify" why I pirate games. I know why I do it. And it's not out of some kind of moral high ground. I send my money to devs I like and games I enjoy. Simple as that.

Upvote for the effort of uploading a screenshot for every game.

Haha thanks, it annoys me when people think people who pirate games are just selfish kids who just want to steal.

It simply isn't true.

Where do you get these games? I want to start just to see how some games run on my system for the most part.

Personally, Usenet. I fall back to torrents if that fails. Usually doesn't though.

Excuse my noobness but what is Usenet?

Complicated and confusing. Which is probably why it's still so good.

https://www.reddit.com/r/usenet/

It's not free.

It's about the same cost as Netflix per month. Depending on your provider.

There's no seeding/leeching, as you're downloading from a server.

Happy to help with details in a DM if you're still interested.

who could imagine that making a good game means that someone will pay for it?

I don't pirate, I don't enjoy Ubi's or EA's games and the rest of the developers I'd rather support, but Ubisoft and EA are evil corporations with malicious business practices. If piracy leaves a negative footprint on them, I'd support it any day.

Isn't that pretty arbitrary though? So if they didn't announce the DLC till after the game is released then it's okay?

It would be less of an insult, But shit DLC is still shit DLC. I'd rather they just include it In the base game and not sell me the lettus on my sandwich separately.

Question: what if the game was just $75 bucks and no immediate release DLC? None of this bonus mission BS? What if they just increased the base price of the game to support an ever inflating economy while at the same time possibly creating a minor paywall for the game as a whole? I'm not justifying this by any means but I feel like a way less upsetting path for the consumers would be to bite the bullet and except the fact that game rice just hasn't gone up really in too long.

No one said it should, and if you're not going to pirate the game, the comment isn't really about you.

That and darn regional locks (just like EA). If one lives, let's say, In Russia, they only get russian voiceover and text, while being blocked of, at least, original language pack. They don't even give any options for getting additional files or something else.

So if you don't want to buy it, why do you feel entitled to play it?

He wants to play it he doesn't want to buy it

That's fine if he doesn't want to buy it, no one is forcing him. I'm asking why does he feel he should be able to play it?

I don't know his reason, but I feel that when it comes to gaming, prices should be somewhat fair for the actual consumer base. Once we start feeling like we're getting cheated, then we start to go rogue (i.e. torrent)

This feeling happens especially since not even a few years back, we used to get actual full games in release. Such things like singleplayer, couch co-op, free to play (without PTW), no internet access, no dlc, no preorders, getting demos/betas without having to buy the game, full game at release have all virtually gone extinct. And yeah, it may seem irrational at times, but we are taking it personally. And dammit, we should. After all, there's no real actual reason for them to get rid of any of those things/add any of the bad things, except for being greedy and knowing people will pay for it and make more money money. Equivalent to apple getting rid of the headphone jack, and then Google.

Whenever I sail the high seas, sometimes I do buy the game. If I really like it, I try it out (since demos are the thing. of the past, and you have to fucking preorder the game first) as a demo, and if I liked it, or it beat my expectations a lot, then I buy it at a later date (e.g. cuphead. What a game). But games like these? You'll find that a lot of people download them and play them, but since they are their core terrible games, play them for a small bit and either forget about them or just drop them.completely

For me, I'm not tricking myself into thinking I'm.on some kind of great crusade or whatever. I'm not making anyone money for the games that I download (unless I buy them after). However, I don't think they earned my respect for their underhanded tactics, meaning I just don't feel that they've earned my money. Especially since it seems like they definitely didn't put enough time into the game to make it worth anything at all that they're asking for.

I think you do think you're on a crusade. You said it yourself: you're taking it personally.

It doesn't feel nice to be nickel and dimed on DLC, P2W, etc but the fact is no one is forcing you to play those games. Even if you were a die-hard Star Wars, it doesn't automatically give you the right or moral high ground to pirate the new Battlefront.

Furthermore, some of your points are just wrong. Singleplayer, couch coop, and DLC aren't free to add to a game. They aren't being witheld out of spite. It's just part of the business (a business without which, we wouldn't see many great games that have come out over the last 20 years).

You've become greedy and that's why you pirate.

it doesn't automatically give you the right or moral high ground to pirate

Nobody is mentioning a right or a moral high ground. Everyone realizes it is illegal and immoral. But it is NOT the same thing as stealing. Not even close. You people keep using the term "mental gymnastics", yet that's exactly what you have to resort to to even begin comparing stealing something material, finite, something where each single unit of it requires work to create, to stealing a digital copy of a game. It is literally the epitome of a victimless crime. Nobody that worked on this game will get affected in any way what so ever by me pirating this game.

Yea it is wrong. Just as wrong as rolling through a stop sign in a rural area at 3AM with no car in a 2 mile radius. Just as wrong going 10 over the limit right after that. Just as wrong as having a beer when you are 17.

Just because I'm taking it personally, doesn't mean I'm out there now on a crusade wanting to right the wrongs of these companies. I know no one is forcing me to play these games, I want to. To try them, to experience them, to play them. But the reasons behind why the game is the way it is is not for me. I don't want it to be that way, and my.not playing/paying for the game won't matter to them at all, since no matter how many Redditors bitch about how they want things to change, most won't stop paying. So nothing's going to change.

And no, they aren't doing it.out of spite, it is a business. However, being a business, they can just as easily not use the tactics they are using and make just as much money, if not more. Think about the games that use DRM that people didn't buy due to it, or the online-only games, or no singleplayer games. There's absolutely no reason to not include any of those things since the impact on the cost is minimal. But it's all about revenue. If they remove one thing that we used to have/get, but then readd it for a price, then odds are some people with buy it. So, $$$. If you can't admit that, then you're into this deeper than you'll know.

Maybe I have some greed to me. Maybe it's a sense of entitlement. But just because those are there, doesn't mean they are still as bad as they are. It doesn't change that fact. But the games that I do like, and do enjoy, and feel that actually do care about the fan base and the consumer versus only revenue get my money. I've bought tons of games that I've pirated. I've also tried a bunch of.games that I didn't want to pay for, and ended up hating cause it was a SHITTY game (i.e. nearly every AC game after like the first 3), and yeah, I stopped playing them about a week later.

Because he can

Most games I don't actually pirate. The last game I did (DOOM 2016) I ended up buying. Before that I think it was a few years since I had pirated a game.

Jesus, the shills and DMC bots are out in force tonight...

What am I shilling for?

So many studios do the same thing just a sincere question did you boycott CD Projekt Red?

If not why? Their game came out May 19, 2015. They came out with expansions for their game...they announced them on April 7, 2015. A month before release they announced DLC.

I only say that because it seems Witcher 3 is the only universally praised and loved game by equally loved developers but they have followed the same practice as other devs.

well mainly because the dlc was both of amazing quality and cheap. also i believe they did not switch over their main team to the dlc until after the game was released.

No business holds back a team from doing work until after their main product is out. When set teams are finished, they move on, that's how it works. Otherwise, that's just being unproductive.

So they switched over to DLC and made Hearts of Stone in five months?

My point still stands the same BS practices people get pissy at Ubisoft for doing, CD Projekt Red did: announce DLC before the game came out. It's hypocrisy at its finest.

wasn't hearts of stone cheaper than blood and wine

Hearts of Stone released at $9.99, Blood and Wine released at $19.99.

yeah i wouldnt go comparing them

Except my point still remains: CD Projekt Red announced DLC for a game that wasn't even out at the time, a practice that is vilified when other companies do it, which was my main point in the first place.

didn't it come out later? and all the other dlc, like extra outfits, was free?

well yeah the perfect example is horizon zero dawn.

There wasn't a chance in hell 300 odd people were working on HZD right until it was released. I doubt even more than half of that even were still working on it before it went gold. To do so is a waste of time and resources.

So they switched over to DLC and made Hearts of Stone in five months?

While I agree with your points I just want to point out that as far as I'm aware people like artists and such move onto DLC or new projects before a game is finished. They are usually not in high demand at the end of game development and they need to polish it to get it out the door. So no developer can say that no one is working on anything else before release otherwise you'd have a few people not doing an awful lot (which is no way to run a business)

So

They're DLC wasn't cheap shit like every other games DLC. They had an expansion which added entirely diffrent maps. It was like buying a whole new game but cheaper.

Hearts of Stone didn't add any new maps or areas. I'm surprised by how many people seem to forget that.

It did add a new area.

What area did Hearts of Stone add then?

Upper right corner of the Novigrado map.

I stand corrected, it does indeed add some villages and small towns to explore. Nothing meaty like in Blood and Wine but additions nonetheless.

If it's cheap shit, why do you care that it's not in the main release?

They also did something important in distinguishing DLCs from expansions, if only for their own game. The DLC packs they released were small items that were free (new finisher animations, new outfits for main NPCs, new crossbows, etc.). None of these cost any money and integrated seamlessly into the base game.

They had two expansions that added a great amount of playtime and introduced new characters with as much, if not more, effort put into their stories as the base game (to say nothing of environments, character animations, new gameplay features, new enemy types). They were sold for what in my opinion was an extremely reasonable price (Hearts of Stone $10 US, Blood and Wine $20 US), and easily added 20+ hours to the game.

They are no saints, but announcing a DLC and releasing a DLC are very different things. Plus HoS and BaW were more like expansions, not DLCs. The game had plenty of the latter too (16), and they were all free. The kind of low-effort shit that you get in the AC "Deluxe" and "Gold" editions for $20-$40. Free. So not the same thing at all, far from it.

Maybe you don't understand how Dlcs work? Day one dlc has nothing to do with the original game since there are different teams working on it

Maybe you don't understand that On-Disk/launch day DLC is a thing and is like taking away from what use to be a compete meal, and selling it back separately.

Phew, thanks! Thought I was going crazy there. Bewildering how someone could think they have the moral high ground whilst pirating anything. Torrenting gives nothing to the developers, people that love games enough to make it their profession, that worked thousands of hours on it. Supporting a game to enjoy the current game and the hope of getting a future title. Sure Ubisoft are scum, but you've assigned value to their titles, if you're pirating them.

Maybe it is because we see the practices of Ubisoft as being far worse than a practice that literally doesn't harm the industry, unlike actual forms of thievery? That what they are doing is far more harmful than piracy? That's a hard concept for you to get?

https://techpolicyinstitute.org/2016/02/02/the-truth-about-piracy/

Torrenting also gives nothing to the company and top bosses who demanded there be scummy practices like this in the first place.

It's a catch 22. You buy it, you support the devs and the shitty way you're being treated. You don't buy it and you're not supporting the devs but you're also showing you don't wanna be treated like shit.

NO ONE thinks they've got the moral high ground for pirating. No one. We're all aware of the millions of counter arguments and holes in our logic. But that doesn't mean that anyone is wrong. Both sides are correct and it's about finding the personal balance which you think YOU want to do.

We are the customers and ultimately we choose how we want to be treated, who we support and what practices we accept. Piracy is an OPTION that helps us show that.

The developer has already been payed buddy. Anything you do post development is handing money to us capitalists that own the shares.

I simply will not pay money for a game until the developers can deliver on something worth buying.

I don't play games much, so 60$+ games have to be something really special, otherwise I'm just guna play this game for like an hour or two, forget about, and eventually delete it.

I'm not a saint, but I'm also not contributing to the creation of call of duty 23 by paying for these half assed titles.

"Actually support developers..."

yeah right

Honestly if it was anything other than Ubisoft, i would agree with you. For most games, i feel really bad about pirating them, and sometimes that even takes away some of the enjoyment from playing them.

But for this particular publisher i can never feel bad about pirating one of their games. In fact if i ever paid for one of their games i would feel bad because i would be supporting their own terrible anti-consumer policies.

I feel like this is also reflected on reddit as a whole, even on the pirate subs you often see posts encouraging people to buy games that are actually good, and they have tons of upvotes as well.

still believing in morals

lul, it's immoral to pay for something i could get for free TBH

These sheep can talk all day about how piracy is wrong and immoral and hurts poor innocent game devs who care about their games so so so so much. I'm still gonna pirate discographys of my favorite artists, every movie, and every video game I want and literally only give a shit if my torrent doesn't work.

Are you okay mate? Sounds like you're full of shit.

Very convincing.

Seriously people talk here about how pirating will hurt Ubisoft. If you are a grownup you can just not buy them and not play them it will hurt them just as much.

I can't see anyone saying that they will hurt because we don't buy their games. That's all in your head, frankly.

What the meme is saying is that we will be better off by not paying them. We...me, you and your mom. So that's about it.

Yeah, this post is fucking cringeworthy. How can you say you have "clear conscience" if you pirate?! That's fucking insane.

How? Easily, why should I care when it's something that benefits me and hurts a corporation?

So what you're saying is that it's completely morally justifiable to steal something if you don't like the person/company that made it.

So is any form of stealing.

Except it literally doesn't hurt the corporation you dunce. How in any way did you hurt the corporation?

I mean I'm down with pirating but I do acknowledge that it's pretty much stealing

Explain to me how its stealing because it literally isn't. Piracy is very different from stealing.

I want something I normally have to pay for. I didn't pay for it and took it. I know you're going to make the data is copied not stolen argument, but I think it's bullshit.

There's a reason it's called pirating and not copying. You can believe what you want. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with screwing over the big guys and pirating their shit. Cold place in hell for people that pirate small Indy games though.

Going to proceed with the following from an American's perspective as I'm ignorant to laws outside of my own country:

I know you're going to make the data is copied not stolen argument, but I think it's bullshit. There's a reason it's called pirating and not copying.

I'm not the OP you were talking to, but it's a little more complex than that. The name for the crime is copyright infringement. You're copying something that you didn't obtain a license / permission for. This is why you're hit with copyright infringement notices that your ISP forwards to you if you're caught.

Here's the wiki for it.

I'm not a lawyer or a judge, so I won't claim to be an expert on Intellectual Property and the laws and regulations around them, I'm just saying I think it's deeper than what you're suggesting. You also may know stuff that I don't, so feel free to "TIL" me with some cool info.

Personal opinion: I don't believe in the "moral high ground" for pirating. Whether or not it's stealing, it's still a crime in my country.

The reason its called pirating and not copying or sharing is because in America, corporations get to write the rules with their money. They cry about profits they think they should get and lobby for changes beneficial to them, without giving a single fuck to an average consumer.

Easy, you just don't give a fuck. Try it sometime instead of having a stick up your ass

That's a very unhealthy and horrible attitude.

Sure, except I live my life without stressing over trivial bullshit

I'm not stressing either. But I'm also not claiming some sort of moral high ground. I know that piracy isn't moral. I don't worry about it because it's not that big of a deal, but I don't claim to have a clear conscience if I pirate something.

I mean, I feel a bit better when I pirate from companies I actively dislike, like Ubisoft.

Doesn't make me a saint, or make it right, I just enjoy it

You're over-exaggerating.

While sometimes the sub does come off as "it's all the company's fault! we're in the right for pirating!", in this particular post it makes fun of how incredibly greedy ubisoft is. For example, the dlcs for the Witcher 3 for absolutely fucking phenomenal, and they were worth every penny. A few missions that should be a part of the main game should not be worth $20 or however much the cost increase is per tier.

This post also argues that torrenting the game somehow supports the developers and grants you a "clear conscience". Sure, Ubishit hardy har, but that's clearly not it's only message.

Naw that's not what the picture is trying to say, at least not to me. What it's saying is that you would be able to spend the money you saved from not buying this game to buy ones from more respectable devs/publishers.

The other point with the conscience is that you get to play the game without feeling you got ripped off because you didn't actually get the "full game"

Exactly. I can pirate ubisofts money grubbing yearly ass Creed game (in reality, I don't, because the games are bad in my opinion) and feel great because it just means I've got an extra $60 to discover the shovel knights and cupheads of the world. Feels extra good to support developers who put extra effort into quality. I always wonder how good the assassin's Creed games could be if Ubisoft focuses entirely on making a good product and not just "another product".

If you did happen to enjoy Assassin's Creed, would you still pirate it? Because if not, then I don't see where piracy comes into play; and if so, then it seems we're throwing the "supporting devs I like" thing out the window.

It's not saying that torrenting the game supports the developers, it's trying to say the money you save from torrenting games like these can be spent purchasing games from developers you believe are worth supporting

I can understand the meaning behind "clear conscience". I'm 90% sure it's supposed to mean that it's ok to NOT support ubisoft's practices - you know, vote with your wallet and whatnot, even if nobody really does that.

I agree with this 110% and don't know why you're being downvoted. Paying for this bullshit only encourages future behavior like this. If enough people would say, "No, fuck you, I'm pirating it." this shit would stop.

I 110% agree as well, but would also like to point out that this situation also represents a failure of gaming media. I see very little form my gaming news sources that EVER critical of industry practices.

If it's not worth your money it's not worth playing. If it is worth playing then the developers who worked hard creating the game deserve some compensation. If you don't support DLC and preorder bonuses then don't buy DLC or preorder.

I do not agree that just because someone made something they deserve to be supported. If bad developers make bad products that don't sell then they should all be out of jobs. All they have done is find a way to make a bad product and remain in business. I didn't pirate this game, but when I do it's not because it's an affordability issue. I don't think the product is so good but too expensive and therefore I must pirate. No, no, I can afford it but just won't be paying them because I want them to go under. All that individual talent gets scooped up by better developers.

If you think a game isn't good then why do you want to play it?

Im speaking in generalities. This topic happens to be based on a game I don't even play or pirate but for those who do enjoy the game they have their own reasons for pirating it and i'm arguing those points.

Right, and I'm arguing the points you posted.

That's bullshit. I wouldn't pay $50 to enter a water park but if someone let me in free I sure as hell would. Like wise, I wouldn't pay $60 for this game but if my friend gifted it to me I'd play it.

I don't support pre-order or ridiculous game changing DLC, nor do I support selling a game where in order to get the same experience as everyone else you need to do one of those two things. Doesn't mean I wouldn't play the game for free though.

You're also not morally or ethically required to purchase it. Only legally. Just roll your eyes at anyone who takes issue with your moral compass because you're perfectly e titled to have whatever opinion you want to have.

Just roll your eyes at anyone who takes issue with your moral compass because you're entitled to have whatever opinion you want to have.

That's certainly one way to bite the sociopathic bullet.

Yeah, you are morally and ethically required to purchase a product if you want to consume it. The pathetic excuse "I wouldn't have payed for it, therefore it's okay to steal it" will never be valid.

How do you feel about libraries?

Do you think libraries print their own books?

No, especially not since they're switching over to e-books. But I don't think I understand the purpose of your question.

Libraries buy their books, or they're donated.

They purchase a few copies, sure, but hundreds of people read a single copy instead of individually purchasing hundreds of copies. How is that any different from me purchasing a game, and then distributing it to others?

I think libraries and piracy are both very different things. Libraries make deals with publishers to buy most of their books, and if the publisher is okay with it, then that is fine with me. In the games industry, publishers and developers do not condone piracy so I don't think it's okay since it affects their job. The library can only check out as many books as they have bought so if the demand for that book is high the library has to buy more books from the publisher. In piracy the supply is infinite so no matter how many people want to play AC:Origins only one person has to buy the game. Books wear out over time and need to be replaced, so the library will buy new books. A pirated game does not wear out ever. I think it's important for books to be available to everyone because books contain important information and can help educate people. Reading is one of the most important skills someone can have and books are the best way to practice that skill. And while video games can help educate people and can be used to learn it's not even close to how a book can help with those things. Even if libraries and piracy were the same things, and I don't think they are, I believe it is important for society to have books available to everyone even those who can't afford them, but it is not important for video games to be widely available.

Exactly. So many people justify piracy by spinning it as a positive. Not for me. When I pirate something I'm doing it because I want to affect the developer negatively. I only pirate when I know the developer is being needlessly greedy so I actually do want to affect them.

I'm not sure how you're supposed to have a clear conscience after stealing Ubisoft's game. You're not hurting Ubisoft (the publisher) as much as you're hurting the dev team who likely poured their heart and soul into this game for three years. It's probably the publisher's idea to make this tiered game market, but the developer is still punished after everyone pirates the game instead of buying it. I don't understand how a clear conscience can possibly factor into it.

Because you apparently have a different set of morals. The clear conscience the post refers to means that you didn't support an evil corporation. You obviously wouldn't because you see piracy as stealing. I am of the opinion of the post and others here that piracy is different than theft as a copy of something digital does not deplete their stock - there is literally no real value lost, only perceived value. But whatever, call us thieves if you wish but we are the only thieves who end up helping the industry we are "stealing" from while simultaneously making no impact on sales, as a recent study showed. Apparently everyone wants to see themselves in the moral high ground here.

If the developer goes under then the individual talent can go elsewhere. If the developer wants to be successful they shouldn't use publishers who make them look bad. If the publisher is bad, the developer is bad. A sports analogy: the owners of a local arena start charging ticket holders additional fees just so they can see the last 5 minutes of the game, or maybe the food is all 200x as expensive as typical unless you buy a monthly membership to the arena. So rather than go to this terrible venue, you're going to sit with your buddies on the top of a hill looking down into it and just catch the game from there. The sales staff don't get your money and neither do the players but I don't think you'd ever walk into that venue and justify the price gouging because it supported the staff...

Ahh yes go elsewhere. Exactly what everyone likes to do. Have your resume saturated by your co-workers and be forced to move possibly to Canada to find work ultimately to do the same thing a few years later.

So much fun. You're so right.

Your quip describes the basic principles of the economic system we have agreed works best. The unfortunate side effect of this system is it is not fair and sometimes people lose. This is and has always been seen as an acceptable risk because more often than not the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I'm not going to start discussing the merits of political or economic ideology because you want to sarcastically comment that they somehow should deserve immunity from the entire system. I think people in the video game industry should have the exact same economic concerns as any other career. And, as expected, they do.

Where in this post is the claim made that torrenting the game "somehow supports the developers"?

you're somehow on the moral high ground

Have you read your own comment?

I called myself a piece of shit in my own comment.

Did you read his comment?

It's honestly not hard to understand: In today's game market you have to choose between multiple immoral choices. Is supporting Ubisoft as bad as torrenting a game? Everyone has the right to decide for themselves.

Obviously, if you respect copyright law as an institution then not buying the game at all is the most superior choice, but not all people do, and either way that doesn't mean those who torrent the game can't take the moral high ground relative to people who purchase it.

You actually provided one of my key mental gymnastics: that most piracy isn't a real loss. It's people who wouldn't have paid for it in the first place...

Torrenting also gives nothing to the company and top bosses who demanded there be scummy practices like this in the first place.

It's a catch 22. You buy it, you support the devs and the shitty way you're being treated. You don't buy it and you're not supporting the devs but you're also showing you don't wanna be treated like shit.

NO ONE thinks they've got the moral high ground for pirating. No one. We're all aware of the millions of counter arguments and holes in our logic. But that doesn't mean that anyone is wrong. Both sides are correct and it's about finding the personal balance which you think YOU want to do.

We are the customers and ultimately we choose how we want to be treated, who we support and what practices we accept. Piracy is an OPTION that helps us show that.

I likely buy the basic version. Then pirate the full one to get all the content. But mainly to avoid Uplay.

The point is that they're making their games more and more cost prohibitve for folks with money grubbing nonsense like this. Most pirates don't pirate out of spite, they pirate out of necessity.

Long story short they're shooting themselves in the foot and it's hard not to laugh.

Video games are not a necessity. That’s ridiculous.

That's not what I meant. I mean that some people, in order to play the video games they want, especially a "full game" experience, without being charged an extra amount of cash they didn't have anyway, need to pirate.

You’re still implying there’s some form of necessity behind what they’re doing.

Semantics. Necessity action within a specific scenario. Not Maslow's Hierarchy.

No, you're implying that, because they can't afford the "full experience", they need to pirate it.

In order to experience the game, yes. That's what they would need to do if they can't afford it. Where did you learn English?

For me it's not about mental gymnastics to justify an action as being positive. I know that pirating hurts the developer. I don't pirate to save money anymore - I really don't care about $60 in the grand scheme of things. I pirate when the developer thinks that I'm their bitch. $60 game plus a season pass for a single player game and you have to spend even more money just to unlock the full game/abilities that are needlessly gated? No thanks. I can afford it, but I won't be paying for it now as i want my piracy to hurt the developer.

You're a hero, man. Keep sticking it to The Man.

Not to mention the amount of people in here saying the AC games are shit yet they can't live without pirating every one of them.

And not only that, they want to pirate them because they need all that extra shit content they don't want to pay for because it's shit. Make up your minds.

Your pirating is not teaching anyone a lesson.

You're taking advantage of people's hard work and a product you're not entitled to. At least be honest about why.

At least be honest about why.

That's all I ask. I would love to live in a world where piracy was impossible. Where these people had to stop getting a free ride on everyone else's good graces. But, I'm not naive enough to believe it could happen. I'll settle for the honesty.

Have you ever driven on the freeway and seen some piece of shit really fight for every inch? Weave through lanes? Blast through traffic? That person can only drive so recklessly because everyone else is driving calmly and predictably. Game development is the same way. The only way a new Assassin's Creed will get developed is if enough people buy it. The only way these pirates will get their next free "shitty" AC game is if someone else buys this one, with enough people buying these shitty extra editions of the game too.

I will not be buying Assassin's Creed because I'd rather another one not get made. I don't like the series. But I also won't pirate it because, well, I like to think I'm not a huge piece of shit. And I'm fine with that.

Oh you little moralistic cunt. Do you think that these corporations care about your well being. Clearly not. They are willing to bend every common practice to squeze out as much as they can from you. So why should you care about them. Nobody is taking a free ride.

George Soros made his millions by betting against the British pound that destroyed many British businesses. Microsoft and Apple stole the ideas of the company Xerox. Nestle made millions on an inadequate baby formula that killed thousands of their customers babies in Africa.

Learn to fight for your own interests or at the very least of morally respectable entities. . . I don't care if I'm 'getting a free ride' on their products, just as they don't care if they fleeced my back so I would put food on the table for my family.

We are in a war with them. It's just a very, very oblique war that you can't quite make out.

I thought I could only settle for honesty, but, after reading your post, I'm confident I will also accept mental illness.

Great, ignore the content attack the person. Im so excited to follow you to see what other cliche you will pull in your reddit career.

ignore the content attack the person.

Oh you little moralistic cunt.

I do both though. I rip you and your shitty views apart.

If they can value money more than their game then I will also value money more than their game and don't buy it.

But didn't you see!? Only the torrent edition comes with a clean conscience! It's actually paying them for their work that makes you dirty!

I pirate things because I want them and I can't afford them and I'm enough of a piece of shit to torrent them without feeling bad about it.

Here here! I only pay for games if I think they're truly worth it. Previous to my current job I didn't make enough to spend $60-$100 per game, half the time finding out that they're shitty. Now that I have the money I pirate to test them out, if they're worth it I buy them. Current examples: Rise of the Tomb Raider, Watch Dogs 2 and GTA V.

I pirate Ubisoft games almost exclusively, purely because their marketing and DLC tactics are so scummy and/or annoying.

I'm not going to pretend that pirating games right or justified, but thank goodness I didn't pay anything for Farcry: Primal.

Same. Hell, sometimes I don't even play the games I pirate from Ubi. I just want them to know I'm saying fuck them for treating it's fan base like they're idiots.

But they are lol

Ubisoft installs spyware on your machine if you legally purchase it. Pirating a copy of anything of theirs, assuming the crack team did their job, is the only way to remove the spyware and still play the game.

What kind of mental gymnastics?

Do you have any proof of that?

I agree with this post but this is just straight up a non-existent issue.

Can you provide a source? Not saying you're wrong, I just wanna see some kind of proof to your claim.

Uplay is not spyware

I'm not talking about Uplay. Their digital rights stuff. I don't know the name of it.

Lmfao

nice try ubisoft

Who the hell is saying they are a saint for doing this?

My moral ground is, I'm not rich. Even if I was, the only way to get shit is buying DVDs or some shit, which are overpriced in my country by about 2-3 times. Plus, I can't even fucking run CD or DVD in my laptop since I cannot afford to get the reader repaired. Second is, I would never buy it. I download just because I can. I seed as much as I can, although speed is deathly slow. And last, I really hate corporate greed. They are earning billions, by lobbying and bringing their way to the top, meanwhile I am stuck and can't even afford a small cheap car by myself. Instead of pricing mass selling products normally, they choose to make them cost more and more. And also, if I owned a pc and a gaming console, it means I am paying more than double. This is unacceptable.

Maybe if you didnt spend your time playing and pirating games you could afford a small cheap car.

And if I am hard working or not is not of your concern. My real issue is that big companies have the money to legally bribe their way and fuck everyone in between. If AT&T, Verizon can lobby numerous assholes to get neutrality removed, well that's my core issue right there. If you got so much love for your Mr. Multinational, why don't you fucking marry Amazon, Facebook or shine shit and let it fuck you in the ass, only it will tell you this time that you are a fucking moron.

I'm a college student

I don't think this post is about actual piracy, it is intended to criticise Ubisoft.

How can you write "Full Game" and then, in the very next panel "The Ambush at Sea Mission?"

Like, nigga, if i have to buy dlc to get 2 missions, u didnt sell me the full game smh

Its like cars.

You want to buy a Dacia Sandero, that car is £6k and its a full car, youre not missing the clutch or anything else.

However if you want DLCs like a dCi 90 engine instead of the default SCe 75 and you want better wheel trims and better shit in general , youll pay 11k instead of 6.

The guy wwith the 6k car still has a full car that he can drive, he just has less cool shit.

If were gonna use the car analogy, i would say this is closer to buying a car with the last gear locked, and then having to pay an extra ~40% of the cost to get it unlocked. Ppl would be even more pissed because that shit is expensive and cars arent a luxury the way games are, unless you buy a luxury car obviously

No, it's not like that.

It's like if you go to a restaurant and order the steak and eggs, and I tell you the "full meal" is $7.99, but the eggs are $1 a piece extra.

The egg is there on your plate but its locked inside this contraption and the cost to unlock such contraption is $1.

Not really. This mission isn't essential to the full game, unlike the eggs in steak and eggs.

Not really, More like you pay $13K and you get a full car. You're not missing a clutch or anything important, but it has no radio, no roll down windows, non-heated vents, fixed/non-adjusting seats, no ABS, and not even a trip meter. It would be acceptable for a lower priced car in the 60s, but completely unacceptable to have a car that has windows that doesn't even roll down in 2017. Then, you would have to pay $8k more to get a basic crap quality radio with only front speakers, crank windows, sliding/reclining seat ONLY for the driver, and basic climate controls that belongs to cheap 90s cars. Then you can pay $6k more for features that cheap cars brags about.

Don't forget that at launch, the vehicle has problems where the engine would tear off the mounts, the radiator hoses cracks prematurely, the ECU (Computer that makes all modern cars run) would hang, requiring the battery to be disconnected to reboot, and the break lines have a tendency to slowly stretch and burst in certain climates.

Good news!

What?

The Dacia Sandero will not be coming to Britain!

You get all of the missions, but you just can't access them, so you still get a "full game", but you also get the experience of feeling like an ass when a "dlc" is just a KB for a code. Also like everyone else around here fuck Ubisoft.

Hey man I've paid full price for both of the South Park games and so far those haven't disappointed me. Assassin's Creed and Farcry series are just fucked now because of corporate greed wanting to charge extra for an hour or two of gameplay.

I really like the far cry series and got 3 and blood dragon free with all DLCs.

I'm about to get Far Cry 4, though not the full thing however.

Would it be a better choice to just pirate it instead?

I never purchased Far Cry 4 dlc so I couldn't say. I love the series but they seem to be pushing towards the Assassins Creed type dlc with the new one.

It's not that they don't know. But they know that people go wild when they see the pre-order button and don't care

It's not even dlc, cause the season pass is a different tier. Is it day 1 extra content? Paying for extra post-launch support in the form of dlc is alright, but blocking game content for no reason but to ask more money seems very cheap.

Yeah I hear ya. I'm not saying the system is good at all.

Video Games though started with a bad business model. Years of development then to sell a game, once, for $60. They used to have a lot of people buy games, like a lot because there wasn't as big of a market regarding competition. There was PC, Sega, Nintendo, Playstation. So things sold.

Now the PC market is wide open with games, Xbox and PS also compete in that market and things are pretty tight imo when it comes to sales and making games.

It's not a great system, but a one time sale of something for $60 or $80 just seems like a rough deal for somehting that had a massive team work on it for several years.

Aso back in the day less people probably worked on the games because the technology wasn't as complicated.

So is it right? the way it is? Nah, it feels wrong to have Day 1 DLC and things made already for download. Something like a Regular version and a Collectors edition with a little bit extra content wouldn't be so bad. That's been around forever, especially if it's cosmetic.

Just saying. It doesn't feel right. I wouldn't act like dev's don't respect people. I'd also consider how it feels to be a dev when the system feels stacked against them to have companies be profitable. Lot of game companies had hard times and have closed in the last ten years or so.

Not a great system all around and a tough position. Not a good way to do it today. Civ 5 and Civ tends to do it right. Releasing things after they've worked on them for appropriate prices. Actual expansions that priced right. So that's the way to do it I suppose.

As I read your comment, I just thought, how the movie theater survives if it's a multi-millionaire investment for movie (like in gaming industry) and they sell it at $10 for ticket?

I'm not defending devs (hell I pirate pretty much everything), but I think the economics of scale probably come into play here. A lot more people are going to go see the new Star Wars or Avengers than are going to buy the new Assassin's Creed. Plus, the movie industry makes way more money on home video sales, tv/streaming licensing rights, and merchandising than it does on theatre ticket sales.

But this (and what /u/bibibabibu said) makes me think that maybe gaming industry could revitalize itself making a new sustainable model where it offers games at lower prices and makes new ways to monetize itself. Maybe it's time to the gaming industry rethink itself if the $60 dollar price tag + season passes/dlcs is really what can raise more money making gamers the happiest possible.

Oh yeah that's definitely possible, I was just pointing out why the comparison to the business model of big movie studios wasn't necessarily accurate. I honestly don't know exactly how games could accomplish that in a way that would make gamers happy though. You can't really monetize games beyond the original sale in the same ways that movies do I don't think, and so far their attempts to do so with things liked microtransactions and paid DLC have been met with pretty universal scorn from their customer base. It's a tough situation, and while I agree that they're not currently doing a good job of it, I also don't personally have any ideas as to how they could do it better.

More people see movies than play games, more people see the same movie more than once and movie prices have been steadily rising from the nickel odeon days to now where an IMAX premium seat can set you back almost £20.

Video games have mostly stayed the same price, if not gone cheaper as the likes of steam, psn sales and presumably Xbox discounts mean far fewer people actually pay full price fir games any more.

I thought that games sales were rising across the years, and not declining. And I keep thinking, games sell less than movies because it's a narrow audience or movies are a broader audience because they are a cheaper way to get in?

So... Games are more expensive than ever to make, sell almost a third as much (though I'd imagine there's a big jump in purchases around christmas) and still cost the same...

Can't imagine why companies are really pushing microtransactions. Not that I'm condoning shady practices, but it might not be petty evil that drives publishing companies.

There's more to it than just that though. Those figures above only detail software sales, what about the actual value of that market? A quick little google found this - https://www.polygon.com/2015/4/22/8471789/worldwide-video-games-market-value-2015 - stating that between 2014 and 2015 there was a projected 9.4% increase, up from $83.6 billion to $91.5 billion. This increase was projected to continue to over $100 billion by this year.
It's worth noting that the 2015 income figure includes 30 billion dollars from the mobile gaming sector, projected to increase to 40+ billion this year. https://www.statista.com/topics/1906/mobile-gaming/

Would be good to see a breakdown between AAA titles and indie games though.

So, they are making more money off less sales? More money off simpler mobile games? Now that sounds like a good reason to push microtransactions.

Oh I'm sire there are mitigating circumstances. Title fatigue, longer lasting games being released, more and more games becoming lifestyles rather than brief experiences. Maybe even fewer games being releases and things like FtP models taking over.

Does that take into account digital sales or is that just the physical?

For what I understood from Vgchartz methodology they just take into account physical sales.

Er... merch? DVDS? Licencing? That's a massive amount of the revenues.

Star Wars admittedly more of the excelling, but you can't say many franchises don't emulate the same model.

Movies: $6,342,000,000

Total franchise revenue: $39,536,000,000

The box office is like 16% of the total.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/star-wars-total-franchise-revenue/

Star wars is not even remotely a fair case to make, sure you admit that but then it's still your only example given. That does not make for a good argument.

I don't know if my mobile Reddit is cut off but I can't see your income sources?

Anyway, to be fair, if we are talking Billion dollar franchise (AC games), we should compare to billion dollar franchises in movies, no? Harry potter, marvel movies, Jurassic park, transformers, etc? Are they all not merch-stravaganzas?

I chose star wars as it was the easiest example to find data on. I fully admit other franchises may not be as merch-worrthy but my point stands that it's not just box office that results in billion dollar movies.

It's the licenced games, the celebrity endorsements, the product placements etc. For star wars it's easily quantifiable at 16%, but other franchises may differ, but think about marvel/tranaformer movies and how many action figures are sold.

The guy asked a question and I answered simply and put the disclaimer that it's an extreme example but still a valid one nonetheless.

The guys question didn't mention franchise movies whatsoever - just "how the movie industry survives if it's a multi-millionaire investment for movie (like in gaming industry) and they sell it at $10 for ticket?"

Yes but we have to look at apples to apples and in context of this entire thread. Which is about AC. Why would we compare AC, which is a AAA selling franchise to even an average blockbuster?

And additionally as I pointed out, in your "average 100+m movie" chart, the box office take (foreign and domestic theatre release) don't even make half the total gross (180m out of 400m). It's majority from DVD, licencing deals with TV, merch and so on.

That's the gist of my point: for movies, the big money won't come from ticket sales and for triple A games, the box day 1 sales just won't cover it.

I definitely don't defend shitty dlc and lootbox practices at all, but to also pretend like 60 bucks can cover a game that cost half a billion dollars in development is pretty silly, no?

More people watch movies than play games.

Your grandparents are more likely to watch a film marketed towards the same audience games are marketed towards.

Older people are more likely to watch a movie than “pwn n00bs” in call of duty.

What I’m trying to say is, (now these statistics are made up), 95% of people in the world will watch a movie, were only 30% will buy a game.

I made up the statistics, but a much wider audience will watch movies, even those in poorer counties, than buy a game that requires a at minimum, another $500 purchase.

A lot of movies flop though.

And it survives off of international hits that do insane numbers.

For video game developers their hit has to be their game. Which doesn't do nearly the profit margins or numbers.

A lot of movies flop hard and don't make the money back. Why we have all super safe kind of movies. Nothing too original.

Plus anyone can go and almost everyone has been to a movie. Gaming is a more niche market. Some people only play sports games or fps. So you have a smaller market that even more divided up.

Movie industry is a bad example to compare it to.

And to a degree look how many collectors edition come out on blue ray. Why isn't anyone botching that when you pay entrance to a movie you're given the extended cut and deleted scenes? Or that the sequle or a remake is another full price ticket?/ When some of them are so half assed they're not worth it

Years of development then to sell a game, once, for $60

Except for, you know, the millions of other copies they sell at the same time. Don't forget that a lot of these major video game companies are complete assholes to their actual employees, awful pay and awful deadlines and if you don't like it you get fired and replaced with the next fresh meat.

Not entirely convinced this comment isn't some sort of marketing scam to get people to sympathize with these piece of shit triple A developers and their scummy business practices.

You want my money? Make a good game and don't make day 1 DLC. No way I'm paying $80 day 1 for a game I'll finish in about 12 hours when I could pick up something like a Hat in Time or Cuphead for less than half that price and twice the fun.

Not trying to shit on what you said but

You want my money? Make a good game

If it's not a good game then why are you pirating it?

I don't pirate AC games and I won't be pirating this one. You should ask OP this question.

Also nowadays with direct download the cost of actually distributing the game is virtually nothing, even if it is released on disc it's still very little compared to in the past when a cartridge legitimately cost developers as much as $35 from Nintendo (licensing and manufacture included, people are estimating about $10/ea for Nintendo to make it remember they had actual chips and ICs inside which were relatively expensive at the time.

You might be too young for this but, Nintendo games were also $80 to $100 each. And that’s not including inflation

I remember, at least in my country they were $100 and even game boy games were $50-65.

Hell, this is Assassin's Creed in particular. "Years of development then to sell a game, once, for $60"?

2007
Assassin's Creed
2009
Assassin's Creed II
2010
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
2011
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
2012
Assassin's Creed III
2013
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
Assassin's Creed: Freedom Cry
2014
Assassin's Creed Rogue
Assassin's Creed Unity
2015
Assassin's Creed Syndicate
2017
Assassin's Creed Origins

Great argument to make for a series that's been chucking out a major game every year for most of its existence.

Black Flag is the last game in the series the Origins team worked on. So there's a 3 year development on that one.

I got off of Mr Bones' Shitty Assassins Creed Ride in 2012.

Except development beginnings often happen before the latest title is released and usually by a different team of people...

There are a boatload of ubisoft teams all working on different games and multiple ac games at the same time. Its not just a 1 year cycle

I'm well aware, but they've basically turned it into a production line, and are definitely saving a lot of work being able to use the same engine across so many games. It's just a terrible game to be defending for money-grubbing.

Absolutely. Such a missed opportunity as well, my favourites are the first two by far. Being an assassin who can climb around and vibrantly blend into a gorgeously rendered historical location is such a sick concept but I don't think they've ever really done it justice. DNA/techno/alien/conspiracy/magic bullshit, sloppy game design, combat instead of stealth, maps stuffed with filler etc etc

Almost nobody has to make an engine from scratch anymore, so that's not really an argument. You're making it sound like people don't crunch on AC because it's a yearly franchise. That's just ridiculous

Are you really trying to find a cohesive argument in a subreddit condoning piracy?

I don't know, I'm just having breakfast and browsing /r/all better this than another LateStageCapitalism idiotpost

I don't think releasing an assassin's Creed game requires nearly as much as say a new IP would. I do think they crunch on ass Creed games but I do see the fact that they have so many nearly identical titles to be an advantage for development. It's not like these teams are booting up their engines on fresh installs for each new gsme. Ubisoft is smart and borrow as much from their previous game as they can and this is a good business strategy. I think the other commenter is correct when he says that Assassin's Creed is not a good example of a AAA title requiring additional purchases to justify overhead.

do you even begin to realise how much time ingame art takes to make?

fuckloads.

Ass Creed is the adventure equivalent to sports games. They just shit out the same game every year and tout it as new.

Funny the only employees who have come out against their company is CDPR...you know the one who made that indie game The Witcher 3

Shrug? I don't think I'm going to have a very productive conversation with someone's who gut reaction is a marketing g scam post to sympathize with developers?

Where do you make this shit up from?

The industry is changing though not all developers are scummy like that and it becomes less and less common to hear.

Working under deadline is tough. Could only imagine how much harder with a complex piece of software.

Films are made with more money and sell for a tenner.

Yeah and they often don't make their money back.

Films lose so much money that the studios have to keep making more of them.

And then they hit on one big one. Game developers don't really have that funding.

Oh, OK, if you say so then.

Battlefront Battlefield Mass Effect Dragon Age

Ass Creed Far Cry

The games listed above generally have bigger advertising budgets than development budgets. Your argument might have more stock if this thread were talking about indy devs, and that's a big might because it's the large studios that are introducing pay to win mechanisms and overly expensive DLC that should have been included with the original game in the first place.

CDPR charged $20 for their expansion pass and both expansions to TW3 were fantastic and included upwards of 30 hours of gameplay and can almost be considered separate games in their own rights, not a few new guns and a couple new maps tacked on. Or in the case of Ass Creed a new mission that'll probably take about 45 minutes to play and should have been included in the game as a side mission. Yeah, yeah, I know another TW3 circlejerk, but the circlejerk continues because TW3 is a prime example of how to make a fantastic AAA quality game with DLC that brings in additional revenue correctly without nickel and diming your user base.

I'm not saying that everyone does it right and this is an example of how to do it poorly.

The gaming industry in general though turned toward this because of those reasons.

It's hard to expect anyone to leave money of the table though. People keep buying it they'll keep doing it.

The games listed above generally have bigger advertising budgets than development budgets.

Why is that??!?!?!

Because sales stopped being what they used to be based on a 'good game.' There's too much competition.

BF didn't have shitty DLC. Did Mass Effect? All those games shit on it? Early Assassins Creed didn't either. And they were great games!

They probably didn't make the money they needed to off them though.

Are some people going to make better expansions? Ofc. Oftentimes with material that was cut from the main game they end up that big. In general though no one sets out to be criminal about it.

No dev is going to work on something that just robs the customer blind.

That said, some places will do it better other won't.

In general though it's telling htere's equally big advertising budgets as their are development budgets on a game that has such a solid history and such a good core group of sales as Assassin's Creed that it still needs shit like this to make the profit it should be making.

The more I write it too the more I'm curious about a source for the ad budget vs development budget.

No dev is going to work on something that just robs the customer blind.

Hahahahahahaha. takes big breath hahahahahaha
I mean, I guess technically you are choosing to gamble rather than being straight up robbed.

Well, I'm sure some will. Most won't though. Most do it to make games because they look at it like it's art. Lot of work and passion goes into it.

I imagine at some point that might be gone. Bad work conditions and frustrating business perhaps. Most aren't going to though nor are most going just rob players.

The vast majority of consumer items, some of which take years of development, are one-time purchases; I don't see why video games should be different unless they provide an ongoing service like an MMO.

Uh, they do. Patches are extremely common these days even for single player games. Games aren't chap. Millions of dollars goes into these. Without DLC we'd have a lot shittier games.

"We need to sell Day 1 DLC because games are too expensive for us to make otherwise, also we've made 11 Assassins Creed games in the past 10 years"

lol

Question, do they cost millions of dollars to make because the developer needs so much money or do they cost millions of dollars to make because of needless, senseless publisher bloat? Ninja Theory proved it lately that you can make a great game which took a few years to develop, not have it cost 60 bucks and still make a profit

The vast majority of the cost of a AAA title is marketing.

Patches are extremely common these days even for single player games.

Yeah but that's because most games ship broken. It's not an "ongoing service" to fix the fundamental flaws in a product.

*cough* Skyrim *cough*

"Yeah we know the wheels come off your new car every 100 miles but fixing that kinda defect ain't cheap so fuck you, pay us"

I'm not sure exactly what consumer items you are talking about. I can't think of any that ages at the rate a video game does. Most can sold for a few years at least, but video games make the vast majority of their sales within the first year of release.

But your preferred smartphone does come in more expensive "premium" versions with more storage. You also usually get a better product for a higher "premium" price (marketing scams notwithstanding)

I'd argue that the ones with years of development either come from established brands that do ongoing research or have appropriately high price points.

The industry is relatively new and it's not surprising after 15 years or so it went looking for a better business model alongside rising costs and change.

I admit it's not the best. Vote with your wallet. I don't play games made with poor structures for release. Like this. You want to make an expac make it. For $5 to $35 make it appropro7 hi-gkhgkgkhgkhgk-in

Why I cite Civ. Did it right.

Just saying there's another side to this and I empathizing.

What's the major difference in MMO and modern fps, say? Like imagine if Battlefield required a monthly pass like WoW

MMO's heavily rely on servers which cost tons of money. AC is mostly solo player.

They asked about battlefield though. They truly on servers as well nowadays.

Not even close to the same overhead. You can run every FPS ever on the server trees that Blizzard uses exclusively for WOW, for example.

Well not really. They're not especially more expensive per user if both are written well.

The servers that are being run and paid for by the community? There are (or maybe were - I actually don't know if they are still up in bf4) some official servers as well but they are pretty scarce.

I'm not comparing mmo to ac, I'm comparing mmo to fps

we play for private servers that have registered users, anti cheat, and faster response time

FPS wouldn't even be a contender for long term operational costs when compared to genres like MMOs. I don't think it's even in the same wheelhouse. A good third of the FPS games out there only use log in servers and then use peer lobbies for everything else. Another third uses third party servers to host lobbies (ie user created lobbies), and the last third has dedicated servers for official lobbies and gameplay but the individual requirements for any particular lobby are very low. I just can't see how it would be possible for a modern FPS to even come close to the fraction of the cost to maintain MMO servers.

There's also the fact that MMOs tend to deliver sustainable and "regular" content updates which also have a significant rollout cost. I don't think many FPS games have massive content patches outside of DLCs or the off major update.

I completely agree with you on the two-thirds but I think you're wrong on the last third. Considering the much higher update rate necessary for an FPS over an MMO it seems a million players in an FPS would be much more costly than a million in an MMO.

Oh ok are updates that frequent now? I seem to remember you got a typical shooter from a genre every 3-4 years with an expansion in between. Has this changed?

The update rate is how often the game state is updated not actual releases of a game, in an FPSs this needs to be high in MMOs it doesn't.

Typically the MMO has a lot more active development, and free content additions.

Or, more cynically, the MMO is addictive enough the players will keep shelling out for it.

It's not free content additions if you're paying monthly. Just imagine it as part of your monthly subscription actually being a "pass" like you buy for some games and the rest being for servers. They're still bilking you as bad as the non-MMO companies.

I say fuck em all, the price is just too high for what you get in most cases.

MMO has server costs, regular updates and new content comming.

Multiplayer fps also has server sosts, some of them are also updated regularly

Yeah, not so much, maybe some balance tweak, map once in a while, weapons very rarely, but mmos get pretty much changes every week. On going events, new dungeons, new arenas, enemies, items, new systems sometimes. Its way more homestly. Cant compare.

Video games started with a great business model. Make a game really hard so people have to spend lots of quarters on it.

"Years of development to sell a game, once, for $60"

That's the movie industry bruh, years of development, hundreds of thousands of man hours, to sell a movie once, for a cinema ticket of $15.

Actually movies may be in production hell but once a check is cut shooting schedules are usually tight.

Games? Pfff., New engines, the level of detail in today's are crazy, multiplayer support, randomly generated effects.

Video Games though started with a bad business model. Years of development then to sell a game, once, for $60.

Video games started with one person in their bedroom, making the game they would want to play.

Ah yes take something to an extreme. That helps the conversation.

AFAIK games started as tech demos to other technologies as a miniature of a vacuum tube, or a exhibit of the start of IA. Pong, in other side, was made to sell by Atari.

That's really not that true. Single developer games are really more of a recent phenomenon.

Movies also take years to produce but they don't charge you more for a ticket just because a movie was more expansive to make.

The market did get wider but there is an increase of people who buy video games, developers are not losing money when they make these games battlefront sold 20 million copies yet you still see them trying to pull this greedy shit with battlefront 2.

Nobody is asking you to make a game where every individual hair of a character moves on it's own and then try to charge us double the standard price for a full game.

It's really all about the price level. Would you really object if the core game was $5 and the extra level 1$? You wouldn't feel so bad about day 1 dlc then, would you?

The problem I have is that I see a large difference between what DLCs have become and what expansions used to be

Even though the two are often used interchangeably, a lot of "DLCs" are just item updates rather than actual content, and I resent systems that encourage people to pay for DLCs to continue enjoying the game.

For example, take CoD or any other game that introduces map packs, at first they seem like a great way to give the game some impulse and freshness as people are bored of the existing maps.

But what this does is reality is immediately fracture the playerbase in two; those who have the new maps, and those who don't. When map pack 2 DLC comes out, you now have 4 potential groups of players, and all the while this puts extra pressure on those who have not yet bought a DLC to buy it, or risk not being able to play the game they shelled out so much money for in the first place, and every time they release a DLC it fractures the community that bit more.

I wish I were kidding but this is what you end up with:

  • CoD:IW - November 4, 2016.
  • DLC1 - January 31, 2017
  • DLC2 - April 18, 2017
  • DLC3 - July 6, 2017
  • DLC4 - September 12, 2017
  • CoD:WW2 - November 3, 2017

Suddenly you're paying what amounts to $10 per month for an FPS that's going to be almost completely dead when the replacement arrives, and these games are so shitty for single player content it's unreal. I get that 99.999999% of the play time is going to be spent on multiplayer, but that doesn't excuse things like the sorry excuse that is the BlackOps 2 campaign for example, and it's not like the other campaign modes have a huge amount of replayability baked into them.

I wouldn't have a problem with the CoD DLCs if they included something with a bit more bite to them or if they were more reasonably priced but to just add in maps feels lazy, especially when a bunch of them are maps that they already fucking had.

I think it comes down to the fact that it's much harder to get new content into a multiplayer game than it is a single player game and expect people to pay for it. But I'm more of the opinion that these things shouldn't be DLC's at all, they should be free and I don't think you can blame the business model they started with. With the Assassin's Creed franchise I don't think there's any excuse for it, they churn these games out like a sweatshop and then they still expect you to buy the DLCs? If they already knew they could fit more content into the game before it ships they why doesn't it ship with it? Why is it a paid for thing? Is paying for the game no longer enough?

Most products, let alone games, are a one time purchase. I understand that it is better for them if they have a stream of income rather than a spike, but that doesn't really make me personally want to buy their game, in fact I think that it's a bit deceitful on their part that the price tag up front says $60 but the real cost over the lifetime of the game is going to be more than double that.

I honestly prefer the subscription model, at least then you know you can vote with your wallet at any time and cancel.

Yea it's like how no one actually knows how the movie ends until they buy the dvd/bluray and watch the director's cut. Oh wait I'm lying a single mission hardly means anything.

And yet it's an extra $10 to play, and a prerequisite for the bundle that includes the season pass. Why it's not in the season pass I'll never understand.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Am I the only person in the world who is going to only pay $60 for the game? What you are you even talking about $10 to play?

No way in hell will I buy the season pass, but if the individual DLC is any good I'll buy it individually on its merit when it's announced. It's not difficult to be reasonable, I don't know why everyone thinks otherwise.

No one begrudges you the option of waiting several years and getting it all bundled if that's what you want.

The bundle with only the extra missions costs an extra $10 and the bundle with the season pass costs $100 and lists the extra missions as separate items from the season pass, implying that they are raising the price of the season pass bundle. The most outrageous part to me though is that there are like 10 different bundles of the game available for preorder, which makes it seem like the game has been cut to pieces is is being sold in segments for extra money.

I see three bundles and a joke bundle, not ten. I understand now that $10 refers to those extra missions, but my whole point is that they are in fact, extra. Not having them isn't going to hurt your overall experience of the game, or at least, I have absolutely no reason to think it will. If there is evidence to the contrary I will act on it. But as of now I have no reason to think that a full game is lesser for not having three bonus missions.

The bundles listed in the joke are not the only ones available. The other bundles don't offer any extra in game content, at least that I'm aware of, but there are like 4 other bundles with different collectors items and stuff. I don't know why they needed 4 different collectors item bundles, but I also don't know why they'd bother putting 3 missions that don't matter behind a $10 paywall. None of it makes any goddamn sense unless you have the pessimistic view that Ubisoft is trying to scam its customers.

The other bundles don't offer any extra in game content

So what does it matter? It adds nothing to the "this isn't a full game" arguement.

So you're telling me that a developer who is selling ten different versions of a game, three with different in game content and 4 with different collectors items, and is also charging extra for missions that don't matter (but they still seem confident that people will buy them) is being straight with you when they say that $60 is getting you a full game? This same developer that has a horrible track record of releasing buggy, unfinished games that require constant patches to even run at all for some people. This doesn't seem like a giant ass red flag to you?

No, I don't see a red flag. Because their history is of releasing games that need patches, and then patching them, for free. You seem to have a selective memory.

As you say, the missions don't matter. If there is a bonus mission that radically alters the storyline, or adds a new gameplay mechanic that actually changes the way the game is played. I will truly be shocked. I expect the bonus missions will just be exactly what they are called, bonus missions. They won't change the game in any meaningful way. If they collectively add up to even an hour, I would be shocked.

Honestly, this conversation should be about how people are paying so much for the extra editions and getting so little, not that people who pay the standard price aren't getting as much.

Alright then, if nothing I've said so far has convinced you that this should not be the way games are sold, then I don't really have a rebuttal. Do what you want I guess.

No, I don't see a red flag. Because their history is of releasing games that need patches, and then patching them, for free. You seem to have a selective memory.

Is that supposed to give them a good rep? They released the game knowing full well it was buggy and broken, and they have done this multiple times. Thanks for fixing the broken thing you sold me, for free!

If anything, it proves that the DLC does not exist, certainly not on the disc already.

I think what people are so mad about here is that you are putting trust in Ubisoft, that they haven't finished the dlc yet. They don't have a good track record at all, so obviously not many people give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not really putting any trust in them at all. I think the closest I've come to doing that is questioning why they are distrusted. I also don't see what is wrong with their track record. The last couple Assassins Creed game were of dubious quality, but I don't see what that's got to do with their morals and ethics, which for some reason everyone else is calling into question.

Because they are selling product to millions of people when they know it is unfinished and broken. That is ethically wrong.

How do you know what they know? I’m still only asking for evidence or proof, that’s all I’ve ever asked for. You, like everyone else, are making this bold claim “they are selling an unfinished product”. All I’m asking for is a little bit of proof for you to back up your claim.

I know from playing their games. They could have kept them in development for a while longer and fixed all the bugs, but instead, chose to release the game for full price, broken and buggy. This shows the level of moral fiber they have. They don't care about the consumer, all they care about is $.

Such bullshit. You don’t care about the morality either, you only only care about the $. Your own.

What does that even mean? Yes, as a consumer, I care about what I spend my money on, and if I spend $70 on a game, I expect it to not be broken. This company has no regard for the consumers that buy their game, and look at them like waking dollar signs. I don't understand how you can't see that after they have given so many examples. They are immoral and I don't buy their games anymore because of it.

You're lying to yourself if you are pretending about morality, you just don't want to spend money, but you are going to play the game anyway. That is the true imorality that's happening here. You justify it by saying they are the villains, yet you are the one committing a crime.

I like how you preach about no one having proof, and then turn right the fuck around and make accusations towards me with no proof.

That's a bad comparison. Movies have time constraints because they are intended to be watched from start to finish. Of course some scenes have to be sacrificed to make it all fit. Games have save states for a reason. I don't think I've ever heard people complaining that there was too much gameplay. So if you have it, and it's good enough you include it. If it's not then definitely don't sell it as a bundle.

They don't have it, they have to finish making it.

Go ahead and make the claim that it already exists and is already on the disc. I've seen that probably half a dozen times by now.

No one has offered a shred of proof, only the assumption, the opinion, pretending it's fact.

The claim I made was that's a bad comparison and gave a reason why. If it's not done then it's DLC that should be part of the season pass.

Well, yeah, I guess. Technically every game upon release is full, if it manages to entertain you. Then they could just sell each additional component, feature, content, game-play element ... whatever the hell they want ... in little segments and argue that the Tetris mini-game played in an arcade in GTA VII is honestly the full game .... everything else is an enhancement.

That is exactly the issue. The concept of a 'full game' is undefined. So much so that people are openly admitting that what they have is incomplete and yet they sell it in early access at full price.

These people saying that they know for sure that this unreleased game is not 'full' are only hurting themselves in the long run. It's undefined, so to give it a definition now you are putting yourself in a corner.

The honest thing to do when a game is first getting released is to release the entire fucking game. That would be a safe interpretation of "full game." You don't split the game into sections and sell them piece meal on the first day. At least have the dignity to hide this content ... wait a few months and release it then as a part of a DLC or expansion pack or something. These money hungry bastards ... this shit's fucking disgusting.

The game hasn't been split into sections. What is available is being released and more content being created now is scheduled to be released in the future. No one expects what you are asking in any other medium.

Should the first Matrix movie been delayed until they finished post production on the third? Should the first episode of Breaking Bad have been delayed until they finished filming the last?

No, because that's insane. Part one is done release it, then work on the other parts.

Should the first Matrix movie been delayed until they finished post production on the third? Should the first episode of Breaking Bad have been delayed until they finished filming the last? No, because that's insane. Part one is done release it, then work on the other parts.

This analogy is so fucking mind-numbingly terrible and has so little to do with the actual point that I had to stop and wonder if stupid was contagious.

You're a fucking moron; The literal equivalent of this is sequels of games.

...You know, how the three Matrix movies are three separate movies?

The translation to gaming would be three separate games.

These are not three separate games.

The proper analogy here would be releasing The Matrix, and you have to pay extra to see the fucking plot points; minor or major, take your pick.

As an aside, you're not getting downvoted 'cause people dislike your opinion or anything.

You are, straight-up, being downvoted because your analogies are not only outright incorrect in transposition, they are patently incorrect as base concepts.

so fucking mind-numbingly terrible and has so little to do with the actual point that I had to stop and wonder if stupid was contagious.

You're a fucking moron

All right, why isn't the Deluxe Pass available in the Standard Edition?

What out guys. This guys just part of Ubisofts social media team. Trying to convince us to spend money on already finished dlc that could have been in the game on day one.

Yes, yes, I'm a shill. Because there is absolutely no reason to disagree with the general opinion other then getting paid for it.

Free thought is fiction.

Niggers xD

I guess "Full Game" means the full campaign experience.

And what “developers that actually respect you” have you given money to, OP?

Never underestimate the rampant entitlement of Redditors.

Easily the most entitled group of people I've ever encountered.

Are you me?

Hello fellow Redditor-hating Redditor.

And what “developers that actually respect you” have you given money to, OP?

Developers who make games that he likes, along with being fairly priced and pieced? The assumption that pirates never buy games at all is an old and tired one.

If you want to claim the moral high ground, simply boycott the product altogether. If you enjoy it, pay for it.

What difference does it make? The consumer doesn't pay anyway. It's software, what does the producer lose? The "moral high ground" is a very subjective topic, people here probably think you lose the all important moral battle by paying for games like AC:O instead of just pirating it or not playing it.

I buy paradox interactive's stupid shit because i think they are good devs, even though a lot of their dlc is stupid shit

I can see why, they are niche developers making strategy games, which aren't exactly big sellers. I know that their DLCs are extremely laughable, something about the cosmetics DLC for CKII?

yeah, imagine if horse armor was just a static picture

I pay for shitloads of games, and always pay up for games I enjoy that respect the consumer. I refuse to pay for a game with this type of predatory marketing that even if I pay the full price I'll never feel like I truly have access to the entire experience

But I absolutely do give money to Devs that respect us

What is a good torrent program? I haven't used one in years.

Even though this image is pretty offensive it is correct.

What's offensive about it?

Jew logo

In other words, antisemitism.

I would also imagine that "winfags" is offensive to winfags.

Don't think so. I am a Winfag yet I am not offended.

It's from /g/

I gravitated towards transmission and deluge after they came with Linux distros I used. They are great.

Someone fix #7 by making the logo have a Donald Trump behind it and call it "UnOfficial /g/... version 4.2 - /POL/ BTFO edition"

They don't care how much money Trump gets from George Soros, or if he's pro-Israel, or how much of a warmonger he is. They'll vote for him because it makes liberals cry.

Hence how the "roasting /pol/iticianfags" (in chanspeak) would have a Trump there.

TIL I'm a gay hipster. Kind of scared of fucking men, fuck.

Anyone that isn't closed source and Windows based haha

Picotorrent - so far the only torrent program I found that does only that, without any unnecessary features.

This actually looks pretty nice.

Well I can't read source code, but the little bugger is doing an awesome job!

Qbittorrent

Transmission

uTorrent 2.2.1 is a good choice if you want to get something and never have to update it, since it only went down from there.

I'd also say there's just no better torrent client for windows, and I tried all of them.

NO. Just no

Great arguments here.

Arguments below. No need for me to repeat.

I don't see anything below other than a meme image from 4chan, which doesn't even say anything bad about uTorrent 2.2.1.

uTorrent is bad for malware. Has been caught multiple times with malware ads, and the file size of the actual program always increasing due to updates that the user never approved, which is sketchy as shit.

Furthermore, the actual connectivity of the client is very inconsistent. Meaning, if you have a VPN running, sometimes it'll actually disconnect it for a few seconds/minutes, which puts you in jeopardy of ISP or other malicious torrent users/hackers, especially all this happening without you knowing

Why are you telling me about ads and increasing file size when I'm using a version that came out before there were any ads or malware? It is completely irrelevant to me how much of a piece of shit the current version is.

I have no issues with connectivity, I upload over 10 TB per months with it, and it caps out my 300 mbps connection while downloading with enough seeds.

Upvote because I've had this same fucking conversation 100 times even though its the single best client I've used and the only counter-argument is because of malware even if you stick to using 2.2.1.

Hey, you asked for reasons why people shouldn't use uTorrent. I gave them. Bit torrent beats uTorrent, with both being current versions. That's it, that's all.

I specified the version that I was talking about in every post.

Why do people keep recommending old ass software when there are perfectly open source regularly updated alternatives like qBittorrent or Deluge? Should we also use Windows XP?

when there are perfectly open source regularly updated alternatives like qBittorrent or Deluge?

Because they are worse than old ass closed source software.

As I said, I tried every single torrent client available on windows, since I'm not a fan of sitting on unsupported software either, but things like qBittorrent are just not acceptable.

How exactly is qBittorrent worse than uTorrent 2.2.1?

Can't stop torrents is a good start.

Pretty sure the Pause button stops it completely.

Pause still keeps the torrent connected to the tracker. qBittorrent cripples the user to a Play and Pause button. uTorrent 2.2.1 has a Play, Pause, and Stop.

Aside from a serious bug that made me go back to uTorrent back when I tried it, it's ugly as sin. Not only does it use Qt on windows, which is pretty bad itself and doesn't fit Window's native theme well, the icons are disgusting.

I don't want to look at software that looks like that every day.

Really? You're arguing safety of your PC/you, for aesthetics? What does it.matter anyway? Pop a torrent into it and just minimize or close it and let it do it's thing. It's not a freaking art gallery app where you sit there and have to stare at it.

Also, yeah the UI and overall design of it is very similar to uTorrent. Only difference really is that one is sky blue, and the other is puke green.

Yes. Though uTorrent is in no way less safe than qBittorrent, they both just take torrent files and magnet links in and write files to hard drive. It's not an attack surface worth considering, there are way too many more easily exploitable ones.

I'm okay with a piece of software looking ugly if it's something I run once a month. But it's something I deal with every day, a decent looking UI is a must, and when I have a choice between otherwise similar pieces of software, and one looks way better than the other, I'll use that one.

Besides, I stopped using qBittorrent primarily because of a major bug. If it didn't happen to me, there's a decent chance I'd still be using it. Unlike with qBittorrent, I've never had any issues that actually impact usage with uTorrent.

When I was growing up, DLC wasn't really a thing. Most games you bought were the final product. Certain games, like Call of Duty 4, would release patches for free on their website. These days, every little piece of content has a price tag and full games come in installments. I feel bad for the parents that want their kid to play the same game as their peers and have to deal with this sort of gate-keeping.

The problem is the cost of game development has gone up faster than the cost of games. So we end up with shit line this. I'd rather have a game have it's actually cost than this deceptive bull shit, but I know they would actually kill the industry because the human brain is stupid.

Only the gaming populace has also skyrocketed. This DLC bullshit is nothing more than companies double and triple dipping.

To be fair, I just checked and due to inflation $60 in 1997 are $91 today.

Steam accounts have increased by more than 7x in the past 10 years alone. There are vastly more gamers than ever. Steam was peaking at 9 million active players at any one time in 2015: https://www.vg247.com/2015/02/24/steam-has-over-125-million-active-users-8-9m-concurrent-peak/ yet today is managing over 16 million: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ . The growth in gamers has vastly outstripped inflation.

I don't have the numbers, but I am pretty sure devs team have also multiplied in size.

Is that really a bad thing though? Crash bandicoot cost around $3 million to make back in 1996 (almost $5 million today) and sold 7 million copies over its entire lifespan. Uncharted 3 cost about $20 million to make and sold pretty much the same amount. However uncharted was a huge success, so just look at how much money people were pumping out of video games before. The witcher 3 sold over $250 million in revenue, yes obviously theres taxes/license fees/distribution costs etc to come out of that, but it easily overcame its massive $81 million cost.

The problem isn't video games being too hard to make, or too expensive to make or even a risky investment. Its with companies and developers pumping out uninspired unengaging shit and feeling entitled to your cash. Now, I dont pirate games, I just ignore them when they're like that but this whole 'you need to feel sorry for my massive company thats a complete financial juggernaut so forgive us for wringing your pockets out at every turn' shit has to stop. Its absolutely damaging to the long term health and sustainability of the industry.

I don't feel sorry at all, I rarely buy games full price. However, the industry has become a factory at this point and due to saturation companies are competing with each other for the same amount of customers, therefore they use these tactics to squeeze consumers dry.

I don't know where you live but, in Spain, the cost of gas and electricity is a recurrent topic. Sadly you can't live without these, so it's not like you can boycott electricity in the same way you can boycott scumy video games.

I didn't even think of the gaming populace, but having a larger market doesn't effect the price of goods usually. But cost for developing games has skyrocketed, especially on new properties.

Games have been priced based on a set industry rate, like movie ticket prices (which vary a little from regions). The standard pricing in video games is $60 or $40. This leads cost recuperation through sales. I don't think this model has been working for game studios. If factor is the lack of huge movie studio capital to fall back on when a game flops. I think this has led to buy outs, mergers and closures. I think this is why we've been getting the inflated cost through day one dlc and season passes and etc.

priced based on development, marketing and physical production

Exactly, right now we have stream sales and far more video games being released each year (more competition) but expected prices ($60 AAA) have remained same for 20 years even though inflation has reduced the value of the money by half. And at the same time development teams of AAA games have grown enormous.

But the cost of distribution has gone down and overall consumption had gone up.

Consumption doesn't effect the price of this type of commodity. For a long while Apple's market share kept going up yet you didn't see iPhone prices going down. Movie tickets aren't cheaper because of consumption. And while you are right distribution has gone down, I don't think they out ways

When I was growing up,

Certain games, like Call of Duty 4, would release

Fuck I feel old.

I feel bad for the parents that will pay for their kids to be exposed to microtransactions.

When I was growing up, DLC wasn't really a thing.

When I was growing up DLC wasn't even invented! You got the full game in all of it's 8/16/32/64 bit glory! Its amazing that we went from games that were only about a few hundred kilobytes to games that are 60+ GB. I just purchased the newest Grand Turismo and it took about 2-3 hours to download (Sony's servers are ridiculously slow, I have a gigabit connection) and then when I opened the game, it had to download additional stuff for like another 2 hours.

Gran Tourismo is how pirates are made!

Friend of mine bought it on launch(last week), of course Sony’s servers decided to strike on that day. He had already downloaded all the patches he needed but he couldn’t play, because the single player needs an online connection... I repeat the SINGLE PLAYER NEEDS TO BE ALWAYS ON in order to be played. Not because of some „there is tons of data computed in the cloud“ Bullshit, but because Sony decided you have to have your savegame online on their servers. And when companies require us to be always on to use their product they should be always on as well.

Not because of some „there is tons of data computed in the cloud“ Bullshit, but because Sony decided you have to have your savegame online on their servers.

I haven't played it much yet, just completed two levels of the driving school, but I did find it kind of odd that the saves are stored in the cloud instead of locally.

Dude :/

I have Australian internet so a 60GB game would take about 48 hours to download.

Try 20KB/s on for size, and I live in the US!

Jesus that's fast. I've been downloading Skyrim from Steam since Saturday evening and it's now on 73%.

Turkish internet. Took me 5 days to download GTA 5.

What sort of internet are you even using? ADSL? I wouldn't get surprised if you're using that.

It's said to be fiber by our provider, but I have serious doubts. We live in the outskirts if the city where internet it shit, and we are using the shittiest provider in the country as it's our only choice in our neighborhood. It's a nightmare.

Crikey!

Not updating the initial update seems to be such a stupid common practice. Was trying to install Kaspersky for someone (their idea not mine) some months ago. First, I went to the website and got the latest version 180mb. When I opened the installer, it immediately started downloading a more up-to-date 180mb file. Finally after it installed, we found there was an odd issue. After googling, we found it was a bug in the Kaspersky software and that there was an update to fix it.

Was trying to install Kaspersky for someone (their idea not mine) some months ago.

I guess they want Russia to spy on them haha

If parents knew how to say no to their kids then publishers wouldn't be doing this nonsense.

Yep, there were expansions instead, which actually had a worthwhile amount of gameplay for what they cost most of the time.

And expansions don't exist today, and we don't get free updates today?

Free updates exist in lots of games, just usually not the ones sold by the mega publishers.

Overwatch? Rainbow 6 Siege? CSGO? Titanfall 2? The upcoming Battlefront 2?

All of these games are from "mega publishers".

Expansions are now uncommon and were mostly replaced with DLCs, which in comparison add tiny amounts of content.

That's always been the case. Expansions have always been a bit rare.

Games that used to have 1 or 2 big expansions at half or even full price now have 10+ DLCs at 10-15 bucks each.

You can see that in strategy games (Crusader Kings II, Europa Universalis 4, CIV 5).

The "gold edition" of CK1 was base game + 1 Addon. CK2 (40 bucks) has 28 DLCs. 13 of them expand the Gameplay (~147 bucks).

I completely agree. But you also paid the equivalent of 120 bucks of todays currency for a Mario game back in the day.

And "updates" are usually just patches

I feel like there has to be some kind of balance. People today are like "I want my game for $60, the devs to support it for half a decade, and any new content for free"

Overwatch is basically that, and some people complain about It lmao

Call of Duty 4 may not be the best example. It had paid DLC. I think it was like $20 CAD for new maps.

Not on pc, the patchs + maps were free but you had to dl them (legally). And knowing how console dlc worked at the time, Infinity Ward probably wanted to give it for free to console player but sony/Microsoft refused.

Those maps were paid DLC on console but free on PC

Ah, I see. 10 years later isn't too late to be annoyed by that is it?

Eh, i get why DLC has to exist these days, the costs of producing games have risen sharply while the base price has remained pretty much the same

At least you get it. Everyone seems to think it's all a scam and games shouldn't cost more than $30 regardless if how many people worked on it for however long it how big the game is.

Everything I've seen for this game makes me feel like, yeah, they need to recoup production costs because it's gonna be huge and it's been developing for years.

I just want developers to wait until the dam game is actually finished to send it out. But we're in an age where people will buy ANYTHING as long as they can blast about it on any type of social media or have someone to talk to about it. I personally don't enjoy video games anymore but it's really irritating seeing that today you're basically buying the game title screen with some hours of playtime but if you want the entire experience it's gonna cost you upwards of the initial cost of the game if not more once you're done buying the DLC.

Edit: Apparently it was free on PC

waw had mappack dlc

Games were a much smaller investment when you were growing up. You can't produce a game like assassins creed with a few dozen people anymore. Despite the massive increase in production costs, sales prices have stayed relatively flat. It's why DLC exists, to recoup the initial outlay.

Or they could just be real and raise the price of the game. Id rather everyone pay $79.99 for the game than the option of $59.99-99.99. I just dont like that it gaps people especially in multiplayer games.

Or just don't wast hollywood esque budget on videogames. We are talking about a market where people in their basements or small teams are constantly making better videogames than AAA studios with a tiny fraction of their costs.

Call me crazy but graphics are nice and all but what really matters is gameplay and a good story, sometimes not even that.

The target customer of AAA games wants top notch graphics.

You say that but all the games I play are big budget games from major studios with top knotch graphics.

Touche

Go buy another fedora. Graphics aren't 'nice and all', they're the table stakes for the majority of people gaming. Companies don't invest these budgets into AAA games because they're stupid, they do it because they are required and those are the games most likely to sell millions of copies.

Go buy another fedora.

Why you gotta be an asshole? Did it make you feel better? The dude was just saying he doesn't need graphics to enjoy a game.

No, he wasn't just saying he doesn't need graphics to enjoy a game. In fact, he wasn't saying that at all. He was saying that big budgets on games are a waste of money for the studios because, he, a special snowflake, likes games that don't require enormous teams and budgets.

Either way, however your interpret what he's saying, there's no need for personal insults. Just have a conversation like an adult. Something that, ironically, neckbeards are incapable of doing.

Feels like you're just virtue signalling around to feel good about yourself than anything else tbh.

Mehh it is about the demo. Some people buy for the shiny. Some people don't. I don't pay for shiny myself, I pay for mechanical integrity. Which requires more organic stuff that is harder to get in a corporate environment. Like creativity and passion.

Really depends on the game. There's games where graphics really don't matter, I love some indie games with poor graphics and awesome gameplay. And there's games I love where graphics really do matter, like race simulators, realistic graphics make it so much better, additional to realistic handling of course.

If only by some magical power your dollars were worth more than the dollars of the millions of people who don't share your specific purchasing behaviours.

Why would I wish that? My dollars have their market and it is alive and well.

no kidding to this, i beat megaman x just the other day and actually watched the credits of about 26 people who made the game. its mind boggling that something so amazing of a game was done by so little.

Yes, production cost has gone up, but I'd wager the increase in people who purchase games offsets those costs by itself. 2.5 years ago, the peak number of steam users active on a given weekday was ~8million. Now it's ~14million (source).

excellent point

I know your point is true. I just want to jokily point out that a game like Assassin's Creed, which is basically following the sports games philosophy of "release every calendar year with only minor differences between games", could probably be developed by a team of 12 at this point lol. Copy paste copy paste copy paste, release, celebrate, complain about piracy, collect more money than ever before, repeat.

Most people don't even finish games. For Assassin's Creed it's like 20% of players that finish it. Why should they pay for all these extras they don't need? So instead they get a cheaper "full game", and other people can choose to pay a little extra. If games kept up with inflation from the 90s they'd cost $120 now. Instead they're $60 or $70. And in the 90s, the development budgets were 5% as big. With how high budgets are now developers need other sources of revenue or they will go bankrupt. Rockstar and Valve are turning more to multiplayer instead where they can milk individual users for thousands.

If games kept up with inflation from the 90s they'd cost $120 now. Instead they're $60 or $70.

That's insincere. There is far more to it than that. The sheer size of the market now didn't exist back then so straight away your price points aren't comparable.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

When Witcher did it, people sucked it off.

When someone else does it, "industry is dead". Choose one , guys.

Newsflash, fucko.

You're a moron.

Woah woah wtf? Why are you so angry on this?

I haven't purchased a AAA title since day of release Skyrim. Vidya sucks these days.

If I recall Witcher 3:

  • launched as a complete game

  • put out a number free DLCs (armor sets, missions etc) over the following months

  • had an expansion pass to cover its two huge expansions, one of which could almost have been a stand alone game. Both of which clearly weren't available on launch day for the base game.

Not quite the same situation as here, where there's content available on launch day that isn't in the 'complete game' unless you pay more. It's not really the season pass that bothers people, it's the "buy the complete game! Or pay extra to buy the actually complete game!".

The weapons e.t.c part about ACO charging for extra weapons I didn't know. Sorry for my ignorance on that point.

Still, ACO will have expansions. 2. That was my point.

Expansions also aren't what people are angry about. Proper expansions are a good thing, when developers continue to create quality new content for a game. Excellent example: Hearts of Stone and Blood & Wine for W3. Many hours of new, quality content.

If Ubisoft had just gone "and we're planning expansions down the road" no one would bat an eye. Again, it's all about charging (and charging a lot) for additional content on launch day that should already be in the game if it's 'complete'. That's why people didn't have a problem with CDPR, but do with Ubisoft.

Aha I'm on the same page as you on that issue.

I was talking about the expansions :)

the witcher was quality, most season passes are garbage

And why do you assume these expansions listed for AC:O are?

fucking garbage and you know it

Ah yes, you seem to have played them half a year before they actually finish up. Nice.

no, it's because unlike witcher, this has a few flaws:

  1. ubisoft.

  2. assassin's creed, the most sucked-dry piece of shit franchise, basically.

so no, it's pretty natural to expect it to be terrible.

Oh wow.

This game actually looks good. Maybe if you watched the game play you'd know.

not really interested after nine main games and seventeen spin-off games. and it being yet another ubisoft game, which means vast, expansive worlds with very little interesting content.

looking forward to climbing some more towers to unlock map info.

That's actually confirmed to not be in the game. The tower mechanism.

What are you talking about? The witcher didn't do this, you paid $60 and you got the full game, no tiered marketing

It did have a season pass and expansions though.

If AC:O does exactly that, what is the problem here?

I despise the Deluxe+Gold variants by the way, they could have made it into one premium variant.

Well, first of all, we are not complaining about DLCs, we are complaining about gazillion different editions that scummy companies lie Ubisoft put out. Silver edition, Gold edition, Platinum edition, Legendary edition, Deluxe edition, Super Deluxe edition, etc

Second, no, AC:O does NOT do what Witcher 3 did. Not even close. Witcher 3's DLCs actually had CONTENT in them. AC:O is just 2 missions and a bunch of useless crap.

Yeah I disagree in making varying editions.

But ACO is confirmed to have 2 big expansions. You didn't see the trailers?

No one cares about expansions we care about locked content and tiered marketing. The witcher had two expansion packs which were reasonably priced, actually added significant content, and were made after the game was finished

If assassin's Creed did that I wouldn't be complaining

I think they are going to add 2 expansions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But I like you man. Rational.

That's fair enough, I think

Thanks fam, you rational too

thanks bro

Hahaha.. no it did not. They first released a bunch of dlcs for free like armors hairstyles etc, then has a season pass for 2 huge expansions.

Blood and Wine alone, is better than the whole assassins greed series combined.

Because the expansions for The Witcher 3 were fucking huge. You have to be a real naive retard to think these small little morsels of content sold separately by Ubisoft compare to what TW3 offered.

Also, it was clear that the expansions were created after the main game was finished, whereas here they have missions that are created at launch but are cut off. If they made that shit in a month prior to release, then it isn't substantial anyway yet they still charge for it.

What you've done is a false equivalence. Do you finally get it?

Ah I'm not talking about the exclusive content e.t.c. I was talking about expansions only, which ACO has 2 planned for release 7-8 months after release.

Sorry if there was a confusion.

When did Witcher do it?

DLCs.

But I do agree Ubisoft should stop the varying editions from Deluxe to Gold or what it

I dont' recall the Witcher 3 being released with DLCs from the get-go. They released 2 very large DLCs that were definitely fairly priced, and then lots of free missions/textures. What are you referring to?

AC:O has only listed these expansions, it's pretty obvious it'll take these like 6-7 months to release.

I think those are missions you start the game with, as in they are already created. The Deluxe Edition comes with the Ambush at Sea Mission, but no Season Pass (which means that missions isn't an 'expansion'). They haven't said what expansions will be released. Also, the Witcher 3 didn't have a pre-order-only mission.

These aren't "expansions" at all. They're levels that are already made, but are being sanctioned off to milk more money out of people. The season pass part is different.

Ah I get you now. You mean to talk about the exclusive content yes? Then I agree.

Yep and we had to wait several months for the DLC to come out, showing that they actually worked on extending the game after the main campaign's ending. None of this day one dlc bullshit.

I want you to know that there are hundreds of people that are just trying to make a cool game and because of the decisions of the publisher, instead of just not buying it and not playing it, you're going to steal it and still enjoy their hard work, putting their jobs on the line.

That makes you dicks. All of you who do it. Piracy hurts people like me who just want to make cool shit.

The free market has decided that you can go fuck yourself 😂

The sad part about your statement. Is that the people you're fucking over are just like you. Just trying to live their lives, and do something they enjoy.

For what it's worth, I totally agree with you. The real victim here is the dev team. It's pretty obvious this tiered marketing thing was the publisher's will, and everyone here is going to use it as an excuse to steal from a team who spent three years making this game. I don't know how anyone thinks this is okay.

Companies are responsible for who they choose as a publisher, that decision is an important part of "making cool stuff" as noted in the above pic, piracy lets you support people who actually made cool shit rather than letting a publisher ruin it before the consumer can play it.

How are you supporting people, when you are getting a service, which normally costs money, for free?

The sad part about your statement. Is that the people you're fucking over are just like you. Just trying to live their lives, and do something they enjoy.

You're delusional and you're defending a poor platform.

You can, like I do, contribute to Patreons and Kickstarters for people who are making a product not poisoned by their choice of publisher.

Everyone is just trying to live their life and get by but we all only have so much money to give, better to give it to developers who are not putting their products through exploitative publishers thaty make the product worse.

What is the difference to the dev team between people not playing their game at all, and people playing their game for free?

You're in the wrong place dude, we don't care. And you'll get no sympathy from most of us. Not trying to be a dick, just keeping it real.

Why are you in this community then?

He probably saw this post on r/All

I'm not allowed to browse /r/all?

It's not stealing if you're not gonna buy their game anyway, idiot. Companies don't actually lose anything from piracy, it's just a tactic to encourage people like you to spend money on their shitty products.

The sad part about your statement. Is that the people you're fucking over are just like you. Just trying to live their lives, and do something they enjoy.

You're delusional and you're defending a poor platform.

You have no idea how industry works and yet you call ME delusional? Those "poor people" get their money regardless whether game actually sales or not. They're hired workers with fixed wages, they couldn't give less of a shit about the profits.

I don't think you understand. I've been laid off because of bad game sales on a single player game that was MARRED by theft.

That's your problem and you're not gonna solve it asking people to pay for something they can get for free with absolutely no negative consequences to themselves.

You're a great human being. Please stop taking oxygen that could be used for better purposes.

Gee man you sure showed me with that original line, hope the games you make are as original as that and as smart as crying about piracy in a piracy sub!

I support you. The only time I ever use piracy is if I can't get my hands on a book or I want to try a game before I buy it (back in the days where there were no Steam refunds)

Thanks. It's really sad.

These people are just like the rest of us. They try to make something cool that people will enjoy, and it's why PC gamers get punished so hard on release dates. Because there are so many pirates for single player games. They just steal other peoples hard work, and act like it's acceptable.

They don't even take into account that the person is just trying to live their life, and the success of the game depends on how much money they make, if they get a bonus, or maybe even keep their job. But they don't care about anyone other than themselves.

It's really sad, and I feel like most pirates here probably voted for Trump.

Maybe you should stop working for a company that chooses a shitty publisher..or choose a publisher that doesn't take advantage of it's content producers.

It's not that easy to just leave your job and get a new one. And it's definitely not that easy to convince your company to choose a better publisher.

It’s fucking hilarious to me that these people are so entitled they think stealing the game is okay but if you work for this developer you should just up and leave to an equally good job as if that’s not a difficult task. These basement dwellers are so out of touch with reality.

Agreed, but working at a company that does shitty things and then complaining about customers screwing you over is kind of self defeating. It's like complaining about the IRS taxing you too much, while working at the IRS.

I don't think the guy who made the comment actually works at Ubisoft as he only references himself as being hurt at the very end. Sounds like he might work at a dev company but probably just likes to make cool stuff.

Yea I understood that part but couldn't think of a good comparison haha

Found the guy who has never had a job.

Yea, I totally haven't been working for the past 17 years of my life. /s

If I was a game developer I wouldn't like people pirating my game if I owned it. These developers are most likely not the owners of the game and if I was in their position I would only care if people like my game or not, I wouldn't mind my publisher losing 0.001% of potential sales because of some pirates.

And this mentality is why PC doesn't get very many AAA releases, and if they do, they are delayed, purposefully, because of pirates.

This is a lie and you know it.

Hahahahaha. No it's not. They fucking make the games on PC dude. It's ready to go, but pirates wreck game sales. They delay PC releases because there is less money in it unless you're a company that focuses on always online, like Blizzard.

What most people see here is not a "cool" game. They see something trying to laughably rip them off. Developers need to drop publishers (unless of course they're owned by them).

Sorry but I'm paying $60 for the regular version of Origins and I guarantee I'll get my moneys worth. Who the fuck cares if they are selling deluxe editions for a few bucks more for a random mission. Big deal.

This ordeal will spiral out of control, it's about testing the consumer to see how much they can tolerate, and sooner or later you too will get upset.

They've pieced off a part of the full game to sell it back to you for more. Sorry, but the "I think it's worth it" subjectivity is not a real point to make in this debate, mainly because that doesn't change anything.

"I personally got my money's worth in the tutorial level. I don't care about the rest of the missions, the tutorial was banging for that $60!"

So if it’s a rip off, don’t buy it. But also don’t pirate it, because you don’t deserve it just cause it’s a rip off

Let’s face it, you don’t give a shit about the price structure. You’re just trying to justify taking it.

There's another thing to face as well: piracy would not be happening so much if distribution and pricing systems weren't so awful. Exhibit A: Steam.

The distribution and pricing on Steam are fine. What is even bad about them???

Nothing, learn to read. Steam has excellent distribution and pricing, it's why Steam is a huge success in regions where piracy is rampant. See Russia and Brazil. Gabe Newell understands piracy better than any triple A publisher or developer.

http://www.pcgamer.com/gabe-newell-on-piracy-and-steams-success-in-russia/

The sad part about your statement. Is that the people you're fucking over are just like you. Just trying to live their lives, and do something they enjoy.

Let's go over this:

  1. I don't buy game.

  2. I don't buy game and still play it.

How exactly does it fuck over anyone? In the end, you don't get a single cent. If I make software, and nobody wants to pay for it because it blows, I rather just give it to them for free. I'm not getting shit either way. I sadly don't own a violin to play in the background.

It fucks over us because you're taking advantage of our hard work. We get incentive bonuses for games we make, via sales and reviews.

When you bandwagon a game that hasn't released because of the publisher and not the merits of the fucking game itself, it hurts us.

But no, keep thinking you don't make me feel like shit because you stole a game I made and ensured I got nothing for it.

It fucks over us because you're taking advantage of our hard work. We get incentive bonuses for games we make, via sales and reviews.

You're being illogical and irrational. I'M NOT BUYING YOUR GAME ANYWAY, you get no sales whether I pirate it or not, although a pirate might really like your game and then buy it or at least spread good word about it.

Piracy =/= lost sales. Most pirates (or anyone really concerned about value) would never pay for your piece of shit game anyway, buddy. The only way to convince a pirate to buy your game is to impressive him a lot with it or... yeah no, that's literally the only way.

If you well and truly believe in the excellency that is your "cool" game, then you would want anyone to try it no matter what and let it convince them that it can stand on its own legs. Irrelevant, but this is just one of the reasons why people don't think videogames are art.

I'm being irrational? You're trying to fucking rationalize how it's okay to steal and pirate. Don't play the ficking game if you don't wanna pay you stupid cunt.

Have we not rationalized it by the fact that it doesn't affect the person we're stealing from? I'm gonna play and not pay, deal with it and get mad.

Hope you forget how to read and your children can't read either.

That's a very cute curse coming from the person who can't refute what I said about it doing ZERO practical damage. Now go back to making or shilling videogames, slave. I'll pay you if you do a good job.

Man. Go fuck yourself.

From your whining, it seems like I'm fucking you instead.

Do you not defend your friends and livelihood?

Pirates play your game, regular consumers don't pay and boycott. Conclusion? They're both the same when it comes to affecting you, or your moron friends and their livelihood.

As you can tell, I'll defend them too, but only if it makes logical sense. I try not to be a retard in every case possible.

Would you be crying just as bad if he just didn't buy it and didn't play it? How about if he borrowed from a friend instead of buying his own copy? Either way, your company doesn't see a cent. Same as pirating. You don't lose any money. You just don't gain any money, exactly the same as if he just ignored your game completely.

Pirates are often just scapegoats by companies who either made a shitty game or have shitty marketing practices. No one is going to go to the board of directors and say "Oh yeah, we just fucking suck at marketing" or "Yeah, our game was just shit." They go..."uh, it's because of those fucking pirates."

Post what game you made. Millions of people download shit like Game of Thrones, and it does just fine. People pirate actual good games all the time too, yet those games still do well. If your game didn't do well, it's likely because either you suck at making games or your marketing team was shit. Say what game you worked on and we'll find out. Or keep being a pussy and blaming pirates for your company's failures.

If you don't want to play it because you have problems with the direction of the game, don't be a fuckin hypocrite and steal it.

It's pretty simple.

Take your stand, or don't.

But either way, it's the same. Not buying it and not playing it are the same as not buying it and playing it. Company makes zero dollars either way. So it doesn't matter. That is the dude's point above.

It's also not hypocritical, nor is it stealing. It's called Copyright Infringement instead of stealing for a legitimate reason. They're not the same thing.

I don't even pirate games, I just don't think it's some horrible thing that hurts anyone. Because it doesn't. Or, rather, it hurts a company equally the same as everyone who simply ignores their games. Hell, the dudes who made Game of Thrones for TV didn't care that people pirated it early on because all those pirates were contributing to hyping up the series. Free marketing is a lot better than having everyone without HBO ignoring it completely.

Keep trying to justify doing illegal things that disrupt the lives of people around you. It makes you a better person, I fuckin promise.

I just said I don't pirate games, and this comment chain is about how pirating does the same thing as ignoring your shitty game. You've failed to read what you're responding to and present a counter-argument to the stance presented in the comment chain. Maybe ease up on the smugness if you can't defend your stance...or read.

LMAO. We'll see how well this game does before you decide that consumers in general believe they are being ripped off.

This is why you children are always so angry, you know you're wrong and people will buy this stuff because they enjoy it but you still can't get past your own juvenile entitlement.

you know you're wrong and people will buy this stuff because they enjoy it

You contradicted yourself, now get off the soapbox and stop jerking yourself off. Most people will buy it because they think it's worth it. The people here do not think it's worth it.

Most consumers don't care, they'll lap it up, big revelation. Like the frog in a boiling pot, as long as the producer doesn't go too crazy, it doesn't matter.

There is no entitlement nor is anybody exactly wrong, it's all about perceived value. People here just want games to not sell as a fraction.

now get off the soapbox and stop jerking yourself off.

Said in defense of a post claiming a "clear conscience" when stealing software.

Self-awareness is fucking dead and buried.

Woah, where did I claim a "clear conscience"? Copying software illegally is wrong in the ethical sense, not in the practical sense.

Seems like reading comprehension is fucking dead and buried. I told you to stop jerking off in front of me whilst on your moral soapbox. Fucking Redditors...

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

You poor bastard...

You poor bastard...

Said in defense of "full game" + "overpriced stuff not in full game".

Self-awareness is fucking dead and buried.

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

You poor, poor bastard...

You poor, poor bastard...

Said in defense of "full game" + "overpriced stuff not in full game" + "even more overpriced stuff not in full game".

Self-awareness is fucking dead and buried.

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"Oh no honey! You dropped your tendies! Oh, don't cry, I can just copy up some new ones."

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"What do you mean you want pure tendies? These tendies are just as good!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"Но эти куриные пальцы свободны, товарищ!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

I got a repeat offender email from Comcast girl tho ._.

Fitgirl whyyyyyyyyy

I used to use FitGirl's repacks then I realized how much time I was wasting unpacking them compared to the time I saved in downloading them. I downloaded her repack of Rise of the Tomb Raider which saved me like 10 GB (doesn't really matter because I have a gigabit pipe), but took like 1.5 hours to unpack and install! This was with a VM that had 6 cores of my Xeon E5 1650 (4.2 GHz) and 16 GB DDR4 ECC passed through to a Windows VM. They kept failing after like 70 minutes so I downloaded a "normal" one, which took slightly longer to download, but the installation took literally about 10-15 minutes. I was amazed!

If you have a good connection, there's no reason to download compressed repacks, you have only yourself to blame for the time wasted IMO.

Yea I thought it was a time saver but it turned out to be fallacious.

Eh, I have a 150GB data cap so I have a pretty bad connection.

Comcast are a bunch of cucks. Data cap now also the unpacking doesn't take me that long on my I-7 shrugs then again maybe I don't notice coz I still do something else while it runs lol.

Absolutely, Comcast sucks like a thousand dicks at once, my parents have been stuck with them for like 20 years.

The Tomb Raider unpacking probably took excessively long because I'm using unRAID so the writes to the array are just the speed of one HDD, and it was also over SMB. IIRC doing it on my desktop with a Core i5 and extracting to an NVME SSD still took a considerable amount of time for other repacks. All depends on the size.

I used her for shadow of war and it took six hours :-(

cheezits how big is the game?

IIRC it was just under 80 or 90 gigs :(

bah gawd

Damn!

It's not fitgirl, it's you. Do you use a VPN?

Nahhhhh I just never got one before from her stuff. Are those even free? D: D: D:

Some are free, though obviously cheaply done. It's absolutely worth.it.though, the paid ones. It helps protect you, and aside from that, it keeps you hidden from your ISP.

Got a recommendation? Also thanks for bothering to PM :)

No problem. My personal favorite, and the one that I've used since day 1 and has not failed me in anyway is PIA (Private internet access). It's almost always rated the very top or among the top in security, privacy, and anonymity. I find it on the slightly cheaper side compared to some other VPNs out there, but I'm sure there are probably cheaper ones.

okay thank you ill check it out :)

Hey there, I came here from r/all. What do you mean by a repeat offender email from Comcast? Also what is fitgirl?

Some ISPs will check if you've been torrenting and what you've been torrenting. Pretty sure he means Comcast sent him an email saying that they've caught him pirating things. My friend told me he got a letter recently saying that he's been illegally downloading movies (he does illegally watch them, but he streams them, not downloads them, so it was pretty funny) and if they catch him again they'll terminate him. I've had the same ISP for 3 years and they never emailed me, so I don't know if they just don't care or what.

Oh wow. Would something like a VPN be able negate them from knowing if you pirate stuff?

Yeah I'm pretty sure. He told me him and his roommate paid for a VPN for awhile, but that his roommate canceled it and my friend was too lazy to get a new one so he just streamed without it, and then bam was hit with the letter a few weeks ago lol.

Funny, never got hit with a letter ever. Been torenting since 08

Streaming is downloading; it's just not saved to your computer's hard disk.

No one cares if you torrent a game.Only if you stream them

stream?

I pirated stuff and got emails to STAWP and kept dling. Fitgirl compresses games so they're smaller to dl and free lol. Just Google Fitgirl

Damn straight

I don't know why torrenting something would give you a clean conscience but to each his own.

Because when you think every move by publishers is evil money grubbing, you can convince yourself you're a saint by pirating their games for some high and mighty reason and not because you simply don't want to pay. It's ok to pirate, but acting like DLC and DRM are the reason is bullshit.

What about people who only torrent games with shitty DRM and/or DLC? It seems like for a lot of people that is the actual reason they do it. Sure, they might need to get past a moral hurdle or two but I don’t see anything to believe they’re just lying to themselves. I’d rather them do that than support bad practices (speaking generally, not just about this game)

Or the people who pirate games to try it out before they buy it.....

That’s also fair

I've seen a lot of people say they won't buy a game because of DRM, but as soon as publishers drop DRM there's no one saying "I'll buy this game in order to show support". Denuvo is currently falling apart and publishers are dropping it but I don't think anyones rushing to buy AAA games again to show support. With DLC, you could definitely argue that publishers like Paradox who use it in that scummy way but often it's stuff like this, some side missions that don't affect your gameplay much being used as an argument to pirate it.

I can’t say I’ve seen people buy games for the sole reason to support DRM going out of fashion but I certainly have seen people wait for DRM to drop to buy games that previously had them. I think it’s more so the fact they’d lock away any missions at all, regardless of how many of them. I personally don’t care enough to pirate these games that have what I consider not so great practices, I just skip it and play some other games, but I see why people would pirate it.

Personal anecdote that might have something to do with what they mean:

I get a bad conscience when I buy Activision, Ubisoft or EA, because I am giving money to those that are making the games market worse. I know I should boycott them but I don't always have the self control.

Most recently I bought Warhammer II Total War and I feel kind of bad. At least it's not a bugfest this time, but there is no real innovation from Warhammer Total War either, just new factions to play. I know that me paying full price for what should have been an expansion pack promotes bad sales strategies on their part.

So yeah, I literally have a bad conscience from buying it.

Now the other question is how bad of a conscience you get from copyright infringement, I'm guessing the author of the image isn't impacted by it.

because you arent supporting shitty business practises

You can do that by not playing the game. You are not entitled to it.

If you put out quality content, people WILL buy your stuff just to support you.

I know of loads of people that first torrented the Witcher or Dark Souls for example, then went ahead and actually bought it once they saw how good games they are.

The assassins creed series, is an annual money grab from lazy/incompetent developers.

No, people will not support them, AND steal their work for the lulz of it.

You don't have to, but if someone is willing to share why not? Plus these companies seem to take pirating personally. If you can't stop them from acting shitty then pissing in their cheerios seems fun.

It’s not sharing, it’s stealing.

No, its file sharing.

File sharing... illegally because you don’t want to pay? O:

Its in the name bruv. Sharing is caring.

You’re not sharing or caring. You’re taking and telling someone else they’re sharing after you take it. You are not sharing in any way.

No, its being bought and those files are being shared. Didn't your mother ever tell you its nice to share your toys?

My mother taught me plenty well so I’ll do the right thing and avoid the game completely. I don’t want it, so I won’t purchase it.

So what you're saying is you don't share your toys?

I share my toys plenty and I donate plenty.

Then what's the issue?

Others should do the same. I feel like you’re overcomplicating what is simple - piracy is not paying for a good, it’s not victimless, and even if you disagree with the developer, it’s not okay.

No it is victimless, and to the contrary, there were just news reports out about some studies being suppressed that found piracy helps sales. Sharing is caring friend. It also being a way to hurt shitheads feelings is just a bonus.

You know what helps sales even more? When I go out and actually buy the game.

Some people aren't worth supporting. If some bro is willing to share it though? I might give it a go.

That’s the thing though, the moral way to not support them is to simply not buy it.

You just told me piracy was supportive though, so if the issue is the people, shouldn’t you not even pirate it? After all, that supports those people.

Because I have friends who don't have my scruples about buying things from shitheads. If I say a game is good, they'll want to buy a hard copy. That's called free advertising friend.

Once more, sharing is caring.

That part threw me off too, but I think OP meant that they get to enjoy the full game knowing they aren't supporting these business practices.

You mean... like stealing? O:

Stealing and piracy are not the same thing. If I take your toy, you no longer have your toy. If I build my own copy of your toy, we both have your toy.

So you coded a game from the ground up that turned out exactly like theirs? That’s damn impressive good job.

Are you trying to imply that if I'd done that, it would be somehow different from copy-pasting their code?

Their is a product available for purchase. Instead of purchasing it, you download a copy illegally to bypass having to pay. This is stealing and regardless of your mental gymnastics, it’s wrong. If someone doesn’t actually have the money to afford games it’s not as big of a deal, but it is stealing regardless. You’re just trying to justify it.

I didn't say, "It's not stealing, and therefore you cannot object to it." I said it's a different concept, and demonstrated the difference with an example.

If I buy a car, and it arrives not as advertised, then I've been ripped off. If I buy a "full game", and it doesn't include the full game, then I've been ripped off. If someone is actively trying to rip you off, then your conscience should be clear about returning the favor.

I saw one of these that had a bullet that said "includes an audio file of the marketing team laughing at you"

That's the kind of thing Cards Against Humanity would do.

Well they sold bullshit so there's that

I think that was on the $850 special edition, rightfully so

I hope that audio file is included in the torrent

Probably not, but instead you get an audio file with pirates laughing at the marketing team.

Har Har

You Are a Pirate! [1:37]

I really should have done this years ago, but things just kept jumping in the way.

Fred Perry in Film & Animation

13,004,088 views since Jul 2013

bot info

Good bot

I like this

Can we laugh too?

Depends. It's alright if

YOUU ARRRR A PIRATE

Enhance.

Mmmm... Extra deep fried.

Hmmmm.

Haha, thanks for that. I enjoyed it!

WTF was this idiot thinking? Did he want the dog to die, that stream is really strong. Fuck that guy!!

True that. Fuck that guy!!

That's not a stream, that's a lake, and they're standing on a boat launch. There's some wind chop which makes it look like the waters moving fast, but except for a thin layer at the top the water's practically still.

People cry about dlcs but at the same time a lot of people buy this sort of thing which is what makes it thrive and perpetuate.

the issue are not the dlcs, its how they are used.

cut off parts of the full prized game and sell them for another 10 to 30 bucks? thats a no no.

give me a decent value game from the start and sell me extra content which was entirely seperated from the initial developement cycle? fuck yes, gimme dat city of ashes dlc

I've never understood this "argument". It's like saying "a lot of people dislike <insert candidate here> but people still voted for them".

Do you people not understand that the people who are against something and the people that support said something are - *gasp* - different people? Yes, plenty of people are against these types of DLCs and plenty of people also buy these DLCs, but that doesn't magically remove the criticism people have against the DLCs. Should we ignore all criticism against sex trafficking simply because there are people out there who support it's existence?

Seriously guys, it's not hard. Don't pre-order. There is genuinely no need. Don't buy bullshit 'deluxe' versions with in-game content. Wait for reviews. If the publisher pulls any vaguely scummy economics, wait a week and buy used. Never buy P2W loot in a full-priced game. If we all did this AAAs would tighten up their act quickly.

I remember when not pre ordering a game like ocarina of time meant you may not get the game for a couple of months as there weren't enough copies.

When BOTW came out i went on Amazon the day prior to release, bought it. And it was in my hands by 10am on release day. They are not gonna run out of copies, there isn't a need to preorder.

I agree. Pre-ordering was useful before digital distribution was so prolific. Back when the only practical way to get a game was a physical copy from a brick-and-mortar store, pre-ordering made sure you could get a copy of an in-demand game without having to line up all night or get there early in the morning. Yes, it benefitted the publishers to have the money in their pockets before release but it was a genuine service that was helpful for people, especially for games that were likely to sell out in the first 24 hours.

Now, there is literally no reason to pre-order. Unfinished games come out more often with larger and larger Day 1 patches, and digital distribution means there are unlimited copies.

Never preorder.

Has a game ever sold out? I don't think I've ever struggled to get a physical release of anything on launch day or week. Retail stores are pretty good at knowing how many to order.

The only game where it would make sense is something like the original Xenoblade which came in pretty limited quantities by Nintendo.

Maybe the stores in my area are just bad at it. It's been a while so I don't remember all of them but I definitely couldn't get Halo 2 release week.

N64 era, yeah, hot titles would be gone; stores just could not order enough. You could still get the game but you'd be waiting weeks for them to restock.

Now discs are prolific and quick and easy to ship and distribute, plus you don't even need to buy discs anymore with digital distribution even on consoles.

The simple thing that any online community fails to comprehend is the fact that no matter how you look at it, the online communities (Reddit for example) are minorities. Let me tell you, people in online communities like to be insanely dramatic and to be honest, I wish I never joined the online gaming community. It's venomous. I don't like the DLC practices in today's gaming and I don't support it at all, but it's here for a reason. The majority of gamers don't give a shit and with this generation of kids growing up on mobile games, it's only going to get worse. So saying that it's "so simple" is disingenuous since we are a minority albeit a very vocal one.

I remember going in when fallout 4 was being released (I picking something else up, I think it was legacy of the void) the EB games staff were just walking up and down the line offering game guides for sale and at least half the people picked them up along with their huge collectors editions. It was then I realised that there is no hope.

The corporations know who to target. The naive ones who spend their parent's money.

What sort of dumbfuck doesn't just read the goddamn wiki instead?!

I imagine the people crying aren't the same people buying though.

ah ur username makes me want to go on a youtube binge

THIS GAME IS SO SHIIIITT

It's almost like the people who buy it are not just the people who complain about it on the internet...or something

But if we just stop buying and don't make it known why, all the devs will see is "sales low for single player games, sales high with multiplayer online games with micro transactions" which will just lead to every game dev going the EA route with star wars.

Fear of missing out

"You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means. "

Kinda ironic it's in this subreddit

clear conscience

I don't normally have a clear conscience after I pirate stuff.

*Assassin's Seed?

Look, I hate tiered versions with content locks as much as the next guy. But Ubisoft is a company that needs to make money and the costs required to develop a game are much higher than when the $60 model became the norm.

Let me preface this by saying, I get this is a Piracy sub. Now, if this game cost $80-$100 upfront without any tiers or micro-transactions. Would that be better or worse?

Witcher 3 at release looked better, played better, was longer and far more fleshed out, aaaaand it wasn't scummy as shit.

CDPR has sales for The Witcher 3 GOTY at 20€, they have the game at 30€, and they still have money.

Better.

if the costs are to high cancel the project in time or reduce size but dont scam customers with DAY 1 DLC

I'm gonna need a source on this supposed massive development cost increase that's forcing Ubisoft to bleed their fans dry while other companies make better games without the scummy business practices

I mean, Im sure you can just check out the development team size for starters. I dont think games back then had 200 people working on them. That being said, its questionable if you actually need 200 people to make a good game considering single devs made insane games already and that development technology is also getting better. Question is, does the tech get better fast enough to keep up with the demands and/or are they hiring way too many devs than whats needed and have us pay for it?

Yeah but that single developer probably spent ridiculous hours working on it like 80+ a week, or they spent years making it. This is fine because it’s their own creation that they are proud of.

When people say things like, “I want cheaper games so maybe the developers should just use less people to make the game” you’re really saying you don’t care that a few people who are more talented than you will have to work unhealthy hours at the same wages of full teams and that you don’t care if they ever see their family again. Only thing that matters is that you get your game.

I really think that their dev team is bloated. According to wikipedia, they've used the same engine for 3 years now. They don't need that many people to make the same game over and over again.

Along the same lines as your question, I'm curious what the general reaction would be if the priciest version was the only one to say "full game", while the discounted versions had more accurate wording.

They already cost 80-100 here, and we still get the microtransactions. :(

Though that's because our currency is worth less than America's, I get it.

Well, there are guys who develop quality games and actually aren't trying to suck the money from you by microtransactions and paid DLCs. Witcher 3, for example. I don't believe that Ubisoft is starving and desperately needs each cent they could find, that's just a marketing bullshit. Also, compare the price of the game and the price of DLCs and tell me if any of those can be worth the price considering the game itself is done already.

Witcher 3

Which was made in Poland where developer salaries are way lower hence development costs are also much lower.

desperately needs each cent they could find, that's just a marketing bullshit.

This isn't about "desparate need". This is a business. The user you responded to is explaining that these types of practises are necessary due to increased development costs. If the margin has been getting thinner every year due to increased costs then revenue needs to be increased in turn.

The games industry as a whole is rapidly expanding. Yes the development costs have bloated (looking at you destiny) but games are selling in far higher volumes now. Considering that alot of games are digitally distributed which cuts a fair chunk of costs associated with making a physical disk whilst meaning there are less and less second hand games which devs don't profit from, the situation is clear. Money should be a goal. Otherwise there's no money to be reinvested. The issue that alot of this sub takes is that companies promise the full game on launch, then cut a good third out of an already developed game and repackage it into some dipshit DLC.

It's just ubicrp being just that crp.

Lmao this is one of the funniest things I've seen all week

3 ability points? that doesn't sound like much.

Money to support developers that actually respect you

respect?

Why?

I’ve always wanted to give the bay a try for certain games but it always seems like you have to jump through a ton of hoops to get it to work. “Just hack into the command line and replace these three lines of code with the first three sentences of the Declaration of Independence and you’re set”

Ok....

Just replace an exe that comes in a specific folder, try reading the readmes next time. Most of the time you don't even need to do anything nowadays.

Or just get a console if computer be hard.

idk why anyone buys anything from ubisoft. they're a canadian developer and in the gaming community canadians are known for being greedy. hell even south park made an episode about canadian greed and talked about it in an interview

I thought ubisoft was French.

technically xenophobic, i think

Ubisoft Montreal is Canadian. Ubisoft Montpellier is French. Montpellier makes awesome games, they made Rayman, BGE or Psychonauts.

Praised be Michel Ancel

That's not racist.

Semantics. It’s discriminatory and just incorrect.

Incorrect, yes. Racist, no.

The funniest thing about this is it assumes the game will actually run properly and stable enough at launch without requiring half a dozen patches released incrementally and months apart just to get it playable to the end

Ubisoft makes bloat open world games not worth the time letalone the money

3 Ability Points....Why fuck is that even there, hate games that gives out things that fuck up the game's balance and pacing.

You like this game, here pre order and we'll give you OP loots at the very start

Huurrr durrr im a fucking rebel

Huurrr durrr I bought Skyrim at full price 3 times.

You can pay the regular price for the game - one mission, or may more for an additional mission, or even more money for 2 whole extra missions!

I don't even know if it's better or worse if they had a better offer like 10 extra missions or not. It's honestly stupid and abhorrent either way.

that's why I pirate all ubi games.

Sounds like a steal

Yah that's about right.

"Money to support developers that actually respect you"

Publishers are the ones who decide what different versions are sold/pre-order bonuses etc.

Can't a company turn those things down in order to just release a fully made game and market via, you know, real life merchandise?

I don't know much about the whole torrent stuff. 1.Question Can sb tell me how I support the the "real" developers (i guess the ones who write the crack?) with downloading the torrent?

2.Question I know that companies like Ubisoft are assholes that try to squeeze as much money out of every game as possible which decrease the quality of the games a lot, but in the end if you approach this with the Categorical Imperative, there wouldn't be any games if everyone cracked it right?

On 1 it's saying you'll have money to spend on other games put out by companies that don't do this sort of thing, not that your money will be going to torrenters.

Ahh makes more sense now xD thx

To answer 2: People have been saying this for a very long time. The reality is, though, that the majority of the people will buy the game. Additionally, a good chunk of pirates are just buyers wanting a DRM-free copy of the game. You could also cite that one study that revealed that piracy doesn't affect sales numbers, but I'd have to dig it up and actually look at it.

The majority of people are legitimate customers, and piracy is not necessarily a separate group. What WILL hurt Ubisoft is refunds.

Just google "EU piracy sales" and you'll find it. It was that significant.

Support a developer not fucked over by publisher*

I don't fucking HAVE To play Assassin's Creed, regardless of whether I can pirate it. I'm not a fucking junkie and there are other games out there.

Wait 6 months and then buy the gold edition for half of the standard edition

that's a HUUUGHEEE DISRESPECT xDDD daaamn i love it

lol giving money to developers is a feature?

This is why I hate ubisoft and cant wait for vivendi to eat them whole. They've been practicing this anti consumer garbage for years and deserve to die in a hole.

This kind of shit makes me want piracy ever AAA published

Sue them for advertising "full game" when withholding missions and expansions only available with higher tiers

Am I the only one that feels this kind of thing is a direct response to the average teenage gamers obsession with skin packs and shit like that?

When listing editions of a game developers should say base game, not full game.

Kekd hard cause I had to zoom to read each panel

torrent is clearly the best option, but the chance of your pc joining a rich network of fellow bots should be included.

I can't wait for Vivendi to feast upon Ubi's entrails.

Stole this from 4chan /v/

It's the law of marketing. Launch a successful and well-made product, bleed it dry, pump out a series of tawdry sequels, and diversify diversify diversify.

What does the

  • Money to actually support the developers that support you?

How does torrenting provide money to the devs?

Theory is that you then have money to spend on other games

What about the assassin's creed Devs? You'll still be playing a game that they worked hard on making.

Well as is implied by the post, of the devs don’t respect you (because of the whole Release Day DLC BULLSHIT) then why should you respect them by forking out for the game? Personally I don’t really like AC, so I’m not going to play it anyway, but for fans of the series who don’t want to condone the shitty ass practices by EA it’s a choice you can make, and honestly one I think is v justifiable

I too won't be getting this.

But, I feel like it's more of a ubisoft decision to release the game like this than the Devs themselves. They are just there to make games, it's ubisoft's marketing team who decides how to sell the game(that is same day dlcs).

Just like how people would want to support Devs that respect their players, people should support AC Devs too because they are just making the games you oh so dearly want to play.

Devs for AAA aren't the ones who call the shots on how to sell the game. Things might be different for Indie games.

A point can be made that the Devs for AAA titles will probably be well compensated but still I don't think it is justified to say that they don't deserve the support(I mean as in non monetary).

Ubisoft as a company is the demon here.

Okay, but who says it’s the Ubisoft devs that you’re punishing. Sure, it won’t be great for them, but at the end of the day you’re saying to the company and franchise as a whole that what they’re doing isn’t okay.

Fuck I’m glad I’m Nintendo >>> Mainstream AAA

You could argue that point about indie games that are owned by people who make them, but developers of AAA games get their salary regardless of well the game does.

You can save money by pirating this game and use the saved money to support the good devs by buying their games.

To rent or not to rent a game, that is the question.

They never would have gotten away with this shit for the Altaiir and Ezio eras, back then gold edition meant a nice box or a book to go along with the game.

Hey... Here's an idea. Stop fucking playing these shitty games. AC hasn't been good since black flag

Very true, but why not pirate the game anyway, then delete it after a short while? Just as a fuck you to Ubisoft.

Well the black flag team are the ones developing this one, so who knows, it might actually end up as a good game!

Amancandreamright?

WE WUZ GREEDY

When will Ubisoft realize that they are their biggest enemy when it comes to piracy.

Do you want me to wait till your game is on sale? Because this is how you get me to wait till it's on sale.

These companies are ridiculous, AC isn't some game where you wanna get it while its hot for the multiplayer community. I can wait till this shit is in. A $5 bargain bin at Walmart if necessary. Fuck this bullshit.

I think that "clear conscience" part is a bit of a stretch.

He has a clear conscience because he's not supporting a company that uses a shitty DLC model. Why is that a stretch exactly?

That's ridiculous. He isn't only not supporting them, he is also stealing from them. Stealing doesn't give you clean conscience if you can believe it.

But in your world the company selling the product isn't under the same moral rules as us, right?

If you don't like a company, you denounce them, don't use their products. It doesn't automatically give you a moral right to steal their products.

If you pirate their stuff, don't claim it's because they are a shitty company, that's bullshit.

you denounce them

I'm sure they're scared shitless by that. Oh boy!

Full Game

Pay 30 bucks more just to get 2 missions which should actually be the full game

Nigga wut

Implying this shovelware is even worth the time and disk space it costs to pirate.

Lol Imagine wanting to play Assassin's Creed Imagine actually being excited about an Assassin's Creed game Imagine having such low standards Lmao

FUck Ubi and EA. I have never download a pirated game since i discovered Steam 13 years ago, but this shit has gone too far.

Games with day1 dlcs, hundred of editions and dlcs, microtransactions, lootboxes? GO fuck yourself. They wont see my money.

This is the right attitude my friend :) if we all voted with our wallets , those greedy cunts wouldn't be doing this. But alas, as long as their's naive sheep that buy all this crap, they will never stop doing it

Piracy needs to be accepted way of getting a game, it is our only defense against these bullshit practises.

Or you could just not buy the game

Well, technically you are not buying it when you pirate it.

or steal it

They are just trying to make a profit it's a business at the end of the day

The torrent version, always, bit they will still find many schmucks to buy the "gold edition"

Developers =/= Publishers

Don’t try to make the entitled basement dwellers think - they don’t want to think. They just want to justify stealing.

Dude, get the fuck out of this sub. You'll have a bad time here.

Would rather remind you what you’re doing is wrong/stealing

Nah it ain't stealing. It's copying. Stealing means I'm taking something and the original owner doesn't have it anymore. Copying means I'm simply cloning what the company made, while leaving the source unharmed.

Stealing by definition is taking something from another without permission. When you pirate, do you take the game for free without the developers permission?

No, I'm not taking anything. I'm copying the original. This isn't stealing.

Haha you're just twisting it all to claim this is victimless. Why is it that they want you to pay $60 for it if it's not stealing? Surely they want you to buy the game in return for their effort and production, no? Here I was thinking that when it says $60 I should pay for it or not pay for it instead of deciding I deserve it even if I don't pay.

I was never going to buy the game, so they would have never had my money anyway. So now they lost nothing, and I have a game. I don't see the problem.

Wooooweee look at how much we fucking care. Did you end up paying 60 + god knows how much dollars for the game and dlc? And now you're just fucking around telling people we are the scum of the earth for pirating games just to reassure yourself that you did the morally right thing?

Oh I’m not purchasing it because I don’t have time for it. I’m gonna focus on all the other video games I purchased for now.

In the case of Assassins Creed, Ubisoft is indeed the developer and publisher. The series is mainly produced by Ubisoft Montreal, one of the the Ubisoft-own game studios.

If you could buy the season pass without the full game, you'd get a better value.

What kind of crazy backwards world do we live in where piracy leaves you with a clearer conscience than buying the game?

Fucking depressing.

What a stupid fucking post. Not paying and not playing is what you do for a clean conscience.

If you can afford a gaming PC that can run a new AC game, you can afford the game, if you really want it. Torrenting it is what a scumbag does, and then goes around spewing shit like this to tell themselves they are the good guys in this, somehow.

Marketing is sleazy everywhere. You could use it to justify theft / not paying for something you use anywhere. Grow up.

I think its not a matter if one can afford it. Its a matter of not supporting these bullshit industry trends.

Anything to justify stealing games

The developers are the ones from black flag. I think they do respect us. The real assole is the publisher who made these decisions.

The publisher for most Ubisoft studios is Ubisoft.

Ubisoft Montreal developed the game, Ubisoft is publishing it.

I still don't think the development team had any say in the way the game is marketed. If anything the company relationship makes it easier for Ubi to squeeze them.

What's worse: companies with these kinds of practises or individuals who pirate their stuff?

I don’t have a clear conscience when I pirate. It’s still stealing. People don’t like to admit that, they justify it however they can, but the alternative to paying for all the nonsense is NOT GETTING THE GAME AT ALL. Just because you disagree with the pricing doesn’t mean you get it for free, you entitled twat.

Stealing? Hohoho, my, how wrong you are.

Stealing= depriving someone of a physical object by force without their permission (remember, you have to deprive them of the object completely for this to count as theft, otherwise, it's all moot)

Pirating= making a copy of what you want. In other words, it's basically making a photocopy of the Mona Lisa or having a really good fake of it made and having it hanging from your wall.

"You wouldn't download a car" is moot because Porsche doesn't believe in that. Also, the original car is still out there, I just made another copy.

You know when you really steal? When you buy used games from GameStop and your friends. That money never reaches the devs. Pirating it simply means you made a copy for yourself and never meant to buy it in the first place. There's no money lost at all, unlike what the publishers say (it's their job to lie to people, like the government).

Piracy is neither good nor bad, but don't defend these scummy devs and publishers, because they aren't good either.

Also, who the fuck are you to just slap "stealing" on piracy when recent laws won't even accept piracy as stealing, conversion or even fraud? Proof from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22

The fact that there's gonna be thousands and thousands of "sheep" buying even the Gold edition is reason enough for all these greedy cunt game companies to continue doing this..

I'm glad piracy is a thing, can't and will never give money to this guys until they reverse back to the business model of the old days, no DLC, no "special edition" craps, no microtransactions, no nothing. You pay 20€/$, you get a complete game worth hundreds and hundreds of hours of gameplay, no more no less. The only game I continue to pay for is FIFA year after year more as a ritual than anything else really, the games are pretty much the same besides new rosters and slightly better graphics, granted FIFA 18 is pretty good.

Also, on the topic of greed, fuck all the now constant online-only gaming crap. Not only is annoying since most of us don't have a good and stable internet connection to be constantly connected to a server, but it's also idiotic how they're trying to prevent piracy by making even single player games being server hosted. Glad we have Skidrow, Fit-girl, and every other scene group that's looking for us the regular player that just wants to have fun and a hopeful gaming experience. If I want to play online games I would be playing MMOs, which I don't because I don't care less about playing with others ruining my immersion on this RPGs

Well it's not the developers that code and write the game that are saying 'yeah let's bleed these idiots dry lol', it's the publishers getting them to do this. I doubt Jacques the coder is happy about that either. My reasoning behind buying games when I'm not happy with the marketing stance (Shadow of War is a great example) is I am supporting the designers, developers and writers that actually constructed the game

Why is the piracy subreddit full of fucking losers trying to tell us not to pirate? Take your bullshit morals elsewhere.

The issue isn't the piracy itself, pirate as much as you like, but quit trying to convince yourself and others that you're somehow morally in the right. Piracy is stealing plain and simple. You're getting something for free that the seller has made very clear they want you to pay for. This guy said it best:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Piracy/comments/7842ai/assassins_greed/dor2rmn

quit trying to convince yourself and others that you're not breaking the law.

Literally nobody is doing this.

we reached /r/all, unfortunately

Yeah, keep giving money to companies that release DLCs even before they launch their games. This is why companies have started adding fucking lootboxes in singleplayer games. It doesn't matter what they do, mindless drones still buy it.

No one is saying that. No one

People are saying don't pirate.

how is this suddenly an issue for assassins creed, i bet 90% of the major releases in the past years have the same or worse package.

Actually, missing only 2 probably shitty missions for just buying the normal game after release is one of the better deals.

Dunno what's going on here but I'd never even pirate any Ubisoft/EA/Activision trash.

Haven't pirated a game in about 7 years. I stopped pirating when I started being able to afford games and decided I'd rather support the things I love.

... But, nah, fuck this. I'm just not going to buy it because I don't really care about AC, but it's one of the few times I'm 100% okay with other people pirating it. This shit is exploitative.

completely kills a buy for me ! I dont support stuff like ........

I always call that edition the "maritime edition"

This is stealing. It's their product they can do what they want with it. If you don't like how they sell it don't buy it, but that doesn't give you the right to steal it.

doesn't give you the right to steal it

You're in the wrong place, smart guy.

You are entitled to nothing.

Make us stop...

"this is stealing" Do you know where you are?

This is stealing

No, this is freeloading.

Idiots like you just like to use the scarier word to claim more moral high ground than you deserve.

You are taking a product illegally and using/ claiming it as your own, that is stealing.

Freeloading, which isn't wrong would be using someone else's copy and never paying for your own.

Freeloading, which isn't wrong

Freeloading is wrong.

You are taking a product illegally and using/ claiming it as your own, that is stealing.

define "taking"

define "claiming"

I'm making a copy of a sequence of bytes someone else put on the internet. What am I taking, and who am I taking it from?

If piracy was actually stealing, I'd set up a cluster of virtual machines to install pirated versions of windows over and over 24/7 until Microsoft went bankrupt. Unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way.

Time, energy, money, and labor went into creating a product which you have now illegally possess. Whether or not you were the first person to rip the data from a purchased copy of the game is irrelevant. Be it in a digital or tangible form the only legal way to obtain something that is for sale is to go through the proper channels of payment.

You wouldn't walk into a bookstore, open up a book, and start transcribing the entire thing right in front of the author would you? No, you wouldn't would you? Unless of course you were a delusional thief who said "I'm making a copy of a sequence of letters someone else put on a shelf", "if piracy was actually stealing I'd set up a chain of virtual machines that copied an authors books over and over until they went bankrupt from lack of sales".

Do you see how stupid your argument is? If you're going to be a thief be a thief who owns it you child.

creating a product

Digital content is not a product. It's not a thing that you can transfer between people, it's a service. Your analogies don't work because you treat sequences of bytes that you can distribute for free to billions of people like objects which have a unit cost.

Piracy is the equivalent of sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie, with the exception of not taking any space in the theater.

A product is a product no matter the form it takes. A team of people spent millions of dollars and time to arrange those 'bytes' into a sequence that has created something unique. It is their intellectual property.

In the same way an architect who designs a building has done nothing more than than arrange lines onto a piece of paper. That design is an intellectual property, which is then sold. Now by your understanding that design has no merit, and no value since it could be transferred to a digital format turning it into a sequence of bytes that could be distributed for free to billions.

You're also forgetting that there is in fact a unit cost associated with games. When they sell copies physically they have to pay to manufacture them. When they sell copies digitally they have to pay the digital distribution platforms.

Also your analogy is flawed. Regardless of whether or not you took a seat in that theater you'd still be viewing the movie for free.

So what if it's their intellectual property? They're a shit company regardless for using anti-consumer methods. Also, these companies are multi-billion-dollar conglomerates (as in, literal masters of the world) and will have no problems taking care of their employees.

You do know that some companies have their own digital distribution services, right? cough Uplay cough Origin cough

Movies cost cheaper than games. I'd rather donate that money to charity. Also, too much money= greed. It's the way of the world, but soon enough, people will get real mad to tear down these tactics.

Also, read this from wikipedia's Copyright Infringement page:

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization. Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft. For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property. Instead,

"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'"

Welcome to /r/piracy you fucking idiot.

Ability Points WTF, how far have we come...

I'm surprised that shitty Assassin's Creed movie didn't cost more money to watch the end of it.

The jokes on you, the game is not even worth pirating.

Oh fuck off.

You are getting a massive game for $60. The other stuff is just little incentives that are barely anything. There's no need to buy it if you don't want to. Get over yourself.

massive game

for $60

Proof

I mean just look at the gameplay vids my guy. The world they created is massive in size and looks packed with shit to do. If it sucks and is empty I'll be the first to criticize it but it looks outstanding to me. Black Flag team made this game so I have a lot of faith.

Busywork is not something you should praise.

It's like looting in TES. You could do it, but you're better off not to.

The fuck? Who said anything about busywork?

You've apparently never played an AC game.

I'm pretty skeptical of AAA titles advertising a "massive world". A big environment doesn't make it a good one. Just look at No Man's Sky or Skyrim. Lots of land - nothing to do. Yawn.

Lol you haven't even watched any gameplay have you? The Egyptian setting they created is packed and loaded with stuff to do.

Proof

If the torrent isn't fake, then sure why not Ubisoft is famous to fuck everything up might as well pirate this shit

Oh boy. I LOVED the first two. Hell I even liked most of the modern story and conspiracy parts as well. What pisses me off is that they absolutely slaughtered this series. Back when AC 1 came out, they promised coop that didn't make the first game, but would be introduced in later episodes (it arrived in Unity, but that couldn't save that pile of junk). But that is just one feature, and I was OK for not getting it.

But what was the most shameful is that it was supposed to be a trilogy. AC 1 and 2 went well, the latter being an AMAZING game, fixing a lot of issues with AC1 (which was really more like a tech demo, or "beta" version of the series, really). Then came Brotherhood, a spinoff, which already broke the trilogy promise, but it introduced a lot of cool stuff (like training your assassin army, and actual MULTIPLAYER), and was arguably even better than AC 2, and Ezio was such a charming character that the fans have quickly forgiven it (even though I think it was the first episode with Day 1 DLCs? I'm not sure).

And then came Revelation. Which was (compared to Brotherhood) totally unnecessary and mediocre, didn't introduce anything aside from the utterly laughable Hook Blade, and all in all this was the point where the series went downhill.

AC III could've STILL saved the series, and don't get me wrong it wasn't a bad game (in fact it was pretty good with the early plot twist, and epic sea battles), but it had one particular issue that I simply couldn't forgive: it wasn't the final episode of the series.

AC IV was well-received and not bad, but by that point the series died for me (didn't even pirate them). Shoutout to Unity for being the absolute worst, with absolutely terrible ports, tons of gamebreaking bugs, compatibility issues, a game that should've never ever been released at that stage.

And now, THIS, "full game" even fuller when you shell out more, with FUCKING EXTRA ABILITY POINTS? Pathetic.

"Warrior, Hunter, Seer, thief. Choose your path"

I'm on board for this one...

and fuck ubi and EA :(

Esea is a tiny part of the market

I was really thinking about buying it. They seem to really have improved the game and it looks really good from what I've seen. If the reviews were ok, I would have bought it. No way now with this fucking bullshit. Wait for it to be cracked and just enjoy the full game.

“But, that’s immoral!”

"And using invasive DRM to screw the customers' day isn't?"

clear conscience? lol

The real greed is thinking you deserve the game for free because you disagree with the developer.

Nobody here thinks they "deserve" the game and pirates don't pirate out of Dev disagreement. We pirate because fuck it.

So you don’t deserve it, you just deserve it?

Once again, nobody here thinks they deserve the game.

Pirates don't pirate for political reasons.

We pirate because we don't give a fuck. I don't know why you made me just repeat my last comment.

Well at least you’re honest about not caring instead of trying to play mental gymnastics. It’s no better and I’m glad I don’t know you in real life haha

okay.

I know I am in the minority here, (and karma doesn't mean fuck all) but you are not entitled to anything, that last comment on the last one reeks of entitlement and self delusion on a epic scale.

I am not defending the developer decisions or business tactics here, (I'll buy the game next year when it's 10 bucks) just this ridiculous notion that you are owed something and can take it with a clear conscience. It's literal theft, you cannot moralize your way out of it. You are NOT entitled to play this game. You do not set the price.

Developers.. who are real people.. who have real jobs have put their time and effort into this.

Do you go into a store, see a 12 pack of Mountain dew at 8 bucks and say.. "fuck that, they are greedy, lemme just steal it."?

The only thing that "comforts" me is knowing that anyone who truly believes this horseshit probably applies this morality play to their daily lives and activities and will never amount to much of anything.

The most ironic thing is someone who believes in this spent actual money giving the OP gold...

Stealing is not copying. Copying would be photocopying the Mona Lisa.

This is disgusting and should not be legal.

I pirate things myself and don't really have an issue with it in general but for the love of god don't try and rationalize it and make it seem ethical. "Grrr the company does what they want with their copyrighted material I can now totally morally pirate it" is stupid.

Nobody is trying to make it seem ethical.

"Clear conscience." The underlying tone is it's ok to pirate it, borderline good. The tone is definitely there and shown by stuff like "the devs don't respect you." Pirate it all you want just don't pretend to be some glorious freedom fighter or white knight for doing so.

"Clear conscience." The underlying tone is it's ok to pirate it, borderline good.

No its not. Its a joke in reference to the fact that you can sleep easy knowing you didn't give money to fucking EA or Ubisoft.

Or you could just buy a standard edition and pirate the full experience to send the message that you are ok with paying only base cost and take their extra shitty editions elsewhere?

I really, really dislike DLCs at launch (so you waited to release the game until you made enough content to charge extra?!).

But I think selling season passes is the ultimate capital evil. "How about you buy our future expansions and DLCs in advance. We don't know what they will be or if they are any good, but you should buy them now, prior to even trying the actual game."

ITT: People who don't realise they're in /r/Piracy and want to bitch about it.

I don't even pirate games anymore that do this, fuck them all ways.

"Rewards"

Exchanging money for goods and/or services is "REWARDS" now. These motherfuckers go to McDonalds, pay a dollar and are REWARDED with a fucking cheeseburger.

Rewards in the sense that you get extra with your drink that you wouldn't get normally. So like you pay a dollar for cheeseburger but get some extra sauce or something for limited time.

“Clear Conscience”

... that’s really a selling point?

"You wouldn't download a clear conscience, would you?"

Nah, but a dirty conscience... now that’s something all the plants crave

L

"I don't agree with a company's practices so that gives me the right to use their stuff for free!"

Also, fuckin lol at the last line. Don't try to save face by pretending you guys will actually spend money on devs that "deserve it." You all pirate because it's free, doesn't matter to you which dev you're doing it to.

Kill yourself. Thank you

Wow, your last three posts have all told people to kill themselves. Get some help

They all deserved it. You need some help if you can't understand my joke.

If casually telling people to kill themselves is your idea of a joke then you are one twisted, sad individual.

Yeah, that's why i bought Starbound, Team Fortress Classic, From the Depths and Chivalry (i regret that last one) as soon as i had the money.
Because a friend helped me to buy the games with his credit card since i can't get one myself

I need a Shadow of War version of this same image

And since we are at it, i would also be glad to see a Total War version of the same format

I just paid full price for South Park: The Fractured but Whole. I’ve never felt so stupid in my life. Ubisoft can rot.

Video linked by /u/slykrysis:

Title Channel Published Duration Likes Total Views
Do What You Want, Cause A Pirate Is Free... You Are A Pirate TaintedDarkSoulZX 2007-07-31 0:00:12 7,357+ (97%) 1,272,916

$quote LOL, Limewire.


Info | /u/slykrysis can delete | v2.0.0

Sigh.

They just don't learn.

Getting more okay with the idea of Vivendi just buying them. They aren't really proving that they shouldn't be bought up.

This shit right here. I haven't pirated a game since I got a decent paying job, but god damn, this and Shadow of War. If I cared at all about the AC franchise and didn't have 3 other games to play before Shadow of War, I'd torrent the shit out of these games.

Remember how we all rallied against Day 1 DLC and devs stopped it? Well that's all this shit is, just given a new name.

The real kick to the balls is that it’s probably all on the disc. You are just paying for an unlock code. This shit needs to die.

I think Ubisoft is just Templars using the history of assassin's to make more money

With their recent history is anyone really contemplating buying anything other than the base game if at all on release?

Can someone tell my why people shouldn't pirate this game?

that's what I thought when I saw the Price of the Gold edition.

Im being genuine with my question.

so was I. there's 3 different version for sale and the most expensive is around £80 which made me think I might as well pirate it.

For real. Even without the hefty price tag, since AC3, their platform-specific content bullshit was just BEGGING to be pirated.

Im being genuine. How is different from stealing food we didnt pay for?

Because food is finite and tangible. If you're taking food without paying for it, there is now an object missing from the market without money to show for it.

When you pirate, the product is not missing. This is not my argument in favor of "WHY PIRATING IS GOOD" I am simply explaining the difference and that copying is not theft.

Is it taking something you didnt earn?

No its not. But mostly because your don't EARN goods services. Thats not how consumerism works.

How is it not taking something that we didnt earn/deserve? By the way im just trying to gain some insight into peoples minds.

Because you don't go into McDonalds and EARN a cheeseburger, dude. You pay for it or you steal it.

If you're going to discuss consumerism, especially in the context of piracy, you're not allowed to conflate "earn" and "purchase" and pretend they're the same thing, because they aren't.

Dont you earn the right to have the cheeseburger by purchasing it?

No. You inherently have the right to the cheeseburger by being born.

Once again, Stop conflating "earning" and "purchasing" simply because doing so is convenient towards your point. They are not at all the same thing.

What gives someone the right to something they did not make and that cost other people resources?

The Bill of Rights. You have a right to participate in capitalism.

You don't realize this, but you're asking really stupid questions.

Im sorry if im asking what may seem stupid questions. Which amendment in the Bill of Rights are you talking about. Theres no mention of capitalism that I know of. Also isnt taking something that someone else made and calling it your own the opposite of capitalism.

My friend, that's not how this works. This isn't how any of this works.

Pirating has nothing to do with earning. It's copying something you didn't earn. The original is still there.

Im just kinda posing a question on the ethics of piracy. Is it okay to take something that we dont earn/deserve? Especially with something that is not essential.

Everyone deserves to play a game. Any game. Otherwise, you're just violating freedom of information.

Games are not meant to be a luxury, they're meant for everyone who just want to pass the time. Games can at times be essential, I mean, look at the countless flight simulators and car simulators that are out there helping people to actually fly and drive. Look at the games that help with reflexes and improve reaction times and generally help people stay alert of their surroundings.

Piracy is neither good or bad, but it's not stealing, it never was and never will be, it will always remain as abuse of copyright, and neither is using dirty tactics to just prevent the normal consumer from playing the game ethical.

I fundamentally disagree that video games are not a luxury. There is certainly an argument for the internet being essential in todays new age of technology, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that most games are entertainment and entertainment itself is a luxury. At least thats my state of mind when it comes to video games. The freedom of information doesnt work like that. If someone writes a book you cant just take it because it has information you want/need.

What? How is entertainment a luxury? So is playing sports a luxury poor people can't have?

Also, piracy means I'm getting a copy of the book by using my magical skills (hypothetically) instead of buying a copy. Simple. No damage done, everyone has the original.

Luxury means it is not essential for living. Entertainment is not essential. What about the author who doesnt get money for the experience they are giving out?

You have no idea about the conglomerates that rule the world, do you?

Without sports or some kind of physical activity you want to use to pass the time, you'd grown into an unhealthy and obese guy and eventually die of a heart attack or a stroke, regardless of whether you sleep or not. Now that's luxury you can't ignore no matter what.

Without games, you'd lose several decades of pop culture and whatever else shaped the world since the 1960s.

Companies like Ubisoft and Activision are one of the biggest in the world. No matter how many people pirate, there will always be people pre-ordering them in huge amounts. The only time they'll suffer losses is via refunds.

Also, a recent EU survey that was suppressed proved that piracy leads to more sales.

Not to mention some games can get ridiculously expensive. At this state, I'd rather donate the money to charity. There are more people dying of hunger than the amount of people losing their jobs when their companies shut down.

One could just run for their activity. Pop Culture is also something not a necessity for life. Really what Im trying to figure out is the general consensus of why pirating is not seen as taking something that one does not have the right to. People worked hours on products, but their money into it to make an experience. Why should someone get that unnecessary experience for free without giving something in return?

Reality doesn't fit with people anymore. Someone's always trying to defy it and in some ways they are successful. Pop culture can become a necessity for life if you want it to be.

"People worked hours on products, but their money into it to make an experience. Why should someone get that unnecessary experience for free without giving something in return?"

Because the publisher might have screwed over the devs with their anti-consumerist methods. It doesn't make them any different from us pirates. They ruin a game's experience, and we arrive to balance the scales. 'Tis the way of the world. You'll have to accept it. Also, if this were the case, Ubisoft wouldn't sell The Crew for free.

You used a key word that makes it inherently not a necessity and that is "want". Wouldnt pirating just hurt the developers more, on top of their publishers?

Like YouTube comments says.. Fuck Ubisoft!

Something that throws me off even more than this are microtransactions on AAA games, that is the true cancer imo

AAAAARRRGGGGG

"Actually Full Game" hilarious...

Just don't play the game. There's plenty of better stuff out there. Even pirating it gives these guys publicity, which is worth something to them.

is pirating is as easy as everyone claims it to be?

Have you been having difficulties?

Fuck em. Those games got terrible rull fast

is the torrent guy flipping the devs off lmao

Yup. You seem to be first to notice.

pretty sure someone had to have

Fucking brilliant.

I am so confused by this post only because it is submitted to this subreddit. I mean, is there a way to actually torrent this already? The drop date is the 27th. Second, I know this is kind of counter intuitive for this subreddit specifically, and I may be biased simply because this series is my favorite but why would you want to do that? Unity was shit but the others I thought were decent or very well done. I bought the Assassin's Creed Origins Dawn of The Creed Collector's Edition for $159.99. That money could of been applied to rent, gas or whatever but I am more than happy to give my hard earned cash to Ubisoft. It isn't so much the game but the entire series.

how naiv to think that you support the devs you just throw money at the publisher so pretty much into the toilet

Your right. I should just steal from men and women who went through art school which includes coding and character animation among much more that universities have to offer just because they want some money in exchange for working countless hours. I could see your point on a book that is a few years old or something but not a fucking game that hasn't even dropped yet. I am sure the video games have fallen into automation and the concepts, ideas and creation is all made by a robot and a robot alone. Open your wrist.

those devs get paid even before the game is rdy they get paid by milestones usually if the game sells well or not doesnt effect them that only effects devs from indie games

I see your point but ACO will be their paycheck when they make another game. And I don't agree that what I am getting is worth $159, more like $99 but it is the way I feel towards the art. What your are arguing about right now is essentially the price an artist is charging.

I dont really see a point in supporting publishers or devs which are fine to sellout to publishers like EA, Activision and Ubisoft and we as the consumer get cancer like Microtransactions, Day1 dlcs, Season passes, and also broken games. For example if I had paid for "shadows of war" I would have returned it because I got quite some frame drops every 15secs and my pc is quite powerful. Then you download those kind of games with like 90gb with my 2mb/sec internet in 1 or 2 days.... well.... and the game doesnt even look that good to be that huge.

I was planning on getting the torrent edition. Glad to know it's actually the best value!

Motherfuckin leeches better seed tho

Piracy is the great equaliser

so the TORRENT Edition is the best right !!!! last thing to mark is that it has also a circumvented Denuvo packed.

This is my logic for torrenting Football Manager. Fuck Miles.

I have given Ubisoft a lot of shit past 5 years

But the game is beautiful and filled with lot of content even after completing main campaign

There are optimal bosses, arenas, max levelling, armour and weapons to collect

All it needs is NG+

It is worth buying this game

Agreed 100%

Tf is torrent green?

Yeah if games are going to put loads of 50 dollar dlc to even be playable then I am defintiely gonna start pirating.

)__ (__ _) _ ) () __ ) |>>> _____) /| __ ____) / |\ _( )_ / | \ (_ ) / | \ (_ ___) / | \ () / | \ /__|\ ___| ______/ooo\____/~ \ |] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ /// ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ __ _/ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ (())) ///\ \ \ ~~~~~~~~ )))(((( (///\)/ / ~~~~ ~~ ((()))) \_// / ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ /)))((((/ _ _ / ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ / |\//| ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ jro~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~

http://www.mediafire.com/file/vzz4qpkwt4ikwdj/eba.rar

AC:O has only listed these expansions, it's pretty obvious it'll take these like 6-7 months to release.

Yep and we had to wait several months for the DLC to come out, showing that they actually worked on extending the game after the main campaign's ending. None of this day one dlc bullshit.

And yet it's an extra $10 to play, and a prerequisite for the bundle that includes the season pass. Why it's not in the season pass I'll never understand.

Well, yeah, I guess. Technically every game upon release is full, if it manages to entertain you. Then they could just sell each additional component, feature, content, game-play element ... whatever the hell they want ... in little segments and argue that the Tetris mini-game played in an arcade in GTA VII is honestly the full game .... everything else is an enhancement.

What out guys. This guys just part of Ubisofts social media team. Trying to convince us to spend money on already finished dlc that could have been in the game on day one.

That's a bad comparison. Movies have time constraints because they are intended to be watched from start to finish. Of course some scenes have to be sacrificed to make it all fit. Games have save states for a reason. I don't think I've ever heard people complaining that there was too much gameplay. So if you have it, and it's good enough you include it. If it's not then definitely don't sell it as a bundle.

So you're saying you don't read?

I think what people are so mad about here is that you are putting trust in Ubisoft, that they haven't finished the dlc yet. They don't have a good track record at all, so obviously not many people give them the benefit of the doubt.

That's always been the case. Expansions have always been a bit rare.

If you can decide for me what it is that the experiences that I had means. Then so can I for you.

You played the missions, and they made the rest of the game worse. So I do decree, with the power you have invested upon me.

/s

But really, having not experienced it, I can be sure, it doesn't matter to me that I didn't experience it. On the other hand, had I experienced it, how could I know what it would be, to not have experienced it?

So like every triple A of the last 12 years

I don't think you're understanding the point. Games are usually complete weeks or even months before they release. Back in the developers and artists would either move onto another game or simply be laid off before the game was even out. Now they use that time to work on DLC. Because of DLC work is now constant.

So here's the dilemma. They're actually doing work that they never did before, but before the game's release. Should they charge for it? The logical answer is that of course they should. If there wasn't a financial benefit they wouldn't be doing it at all and it simply wouldn't exist. The full game wouldn't include it. It's not cut out of anything.

FPS wouldn't even be a contender for long term operational costs when compared to genres like MMOs. I don't think it's even in the same wheelhouse. A good third of the FPS games out there only use log in servers and then use peer lobbies for everything else. Another third uses third party servers to host lobbies (ie user created lobbies), and the last third has dedicated servers for official lobbies and gameplay but the individual requirements for any particular lobby are very low. I just can't see how it would be possible for a modern FPS to even come close to the fraction of the cost to maintain MMO servers.

There's also the fact that MMOs tend to deliver sustainable and "regular" content updates which also have a significant rollout cost. I don't think many FPS games have massive content patches outside of DLCs or the off major update.

I too won't be getting this.

But, I feel like it's more of a ubisoft decision to release the game like this than the Devs themselves. They are just there to make games, it's ubisoft's marketing team who decides how to sell the game(that is same day dlcs).

Just like how people would want to support Devs that respect their players, people should support AC Devs too because they are just making the games you oh so dearly want to play.

Devs for AAA aren't the ones who call the shots on how to sell the game. Things might be different for Indie games.

A point can be made that the Devs for AAA titles will probably be well compensated but still I don't think it is justified to say that they don't deserve the support(I mean as in non monetary).

Ubisoft as a company is the demon here.

That's just not true

These sheep can talk all day about how piracy is wrong and immoral and hurts poor innocent game devs who care about their games so so so so much. I'm still gonna pirate discographys of my favorite artists, every movie, and every video game I want and literally only give a shit if my torrent doesn't work.

It is a victimless crime, yes. Yet it is still a crime.

Just replace an exe that comes in a specific folder, try reading the readmes next time. Most of the time you don't even need to do anything nowadays.

Or just get a console if computer be hard.

"this is stealing" Do you know where you are?

And "updates" are usually just patches

Isn't it iconic? Don't you think?

Incorrect, yes. Racist, no.

we play for private servers that have registered users, anti cheat, and faster response time

This is stealing

No, this is freeloading.

Idiots like you just like to use the scarier word to claim more moral high ground than you deserve.

And if everyone acted like you there wouldn't be anything to pirate because nobody would make money anymore.

Pirating is objectively wrong, just accept it and move on. Just admit it to yourself you simply don't give a shit about paying people for their hard work.

doesn't give you the right to steal it

You're in the wrong place, smart guy.

You are entitled to nothing.

Make us stop...

That's the spirit!

I'm pretty skeptical of AAA titles advertising a "massive world". A big environment doesn't make it a good one. Just look at No Man's Sky or Skyrim. Lots of land - nothing to do. Yawn.

They purchase a few copies, sure, but hundreds of people read a single copy instead of individually purchasing hundreds of copies. How is that any different from me purchasing a game, and then distributing it to others?

Busywork is not something you should praise.

It's like looting in TES. You could do it, but you're better off not to.

No, they are the same. Samsung still has the blueprints to the TV so they can go back to the factory and build a new one. Just like this game exists on servers and stuff but people will still work on it for patches and run online communities and stuff. It's not the same upkeep but it's work that needs to be done to maintain the availability of the game.

If you wanna take stuff you didn't pay for, you do you. Just call it what it is; thievery.

How are you supporting people, when you are getting a service, which normally costs money, for free?

The sad part about your statement. Is that the people you're fucking over are just like you. Just trying to live their lives, and do something they enjoy.

You're delusional and you're defending a poor platform.

The sad part about your statement. Is that the people you're fucking over are just like you. Just trying to live their lives, and do something they enjoy.

You're delusional and you're defending a poor platform.

Overwatch? Rainbow 6 Siege? CSGO? Titanfall 2? The upcoming Battlefront 2?

All of these games are from "mega publishers".

I'll admit that it does suck what companies do in the name of fighting piracy, most notably drm/denuovo which can and often does negatively impact the performance of the game. And when that is inevitably stripped out of it, it is only the paying consumer who ends up with the performance hit.

You missed "Check if I can afford it"

I'll always give my money to games I want to support if I have the money

So plagiarism and copyright infringement are stealing. Got it.

Welcome to /r/piracy you fucking idiot.

Others should do the same. I feel like you’re overcomplicating what is simple - piracy is not paying for a good, it’s not victimless, and even if you disagree with the developer, it’s not okay.

Taking something without paying for it unethical, you can't talk your way around that. And where is your golden definition of "stealing" that insists what you take must deprive the previous owner their object? Sounds like you saw one of these crumby memes and took it as fact. Stealing is more broad, and definitions change, especially in our current climate of digital media.

And are you sure Samsung, Microsoft, and Apple didn't lose anything? Maybe those apps aren't on your phone for a reason, and they are trying to get you to buy new hardware. It's good you bought the HD Age of Empires, but that doesn't make it okay to download an illegal copy of the game. They don't offset. Maybe Apple has an old file recovery system, or maybe there's a mom and pop tech shop in town that still keeps an old iMac around just for these issues, and you took money from them with your theft of iOS 8.

Again, call it what you want and be a pirate or a copyright infringer, but you're still doing something wrong and there's no way around it.

I'm not saying that everyone does it right and this is an example of how to do it poorly.

The gaming industry in general though turned toward this because of those reasons.

It's hard to expect anyone to leave money of the table though. People keep buying it they'll keep doing it.

The context is that you have decided I am wrong, and you bend the language to match.

Haha thanks, it annoys me when people think people who pirate games are just selfish kids who just want to steal.

It simply isn't true.

Yea and then when I said in reference to games in general, it’s always best to wait for reviews. You said “it’s not about the game”. So what do want.

Okay, go ahead, tell me. What does the dictionary have to say about the difference between a full game and an incomplete game?

Because food is finite and tangible. If you're taking food without paying for it, there is now an object missing from the market without money to show for it.

When you pirate, the product is not missing. This is not my argument in favor of "WHY PIRATING IS GOOD" I am simply explaining the difference and that copying is not theft.

And all the fun of unlocking those and leveling up taken off you!

You know that in any game you can blow through the first few ranks/levels in a minimal amount of time, like an hours worth of playing would probably get me up to level 5, but instead that hour jumped me up to level 8.

I personally lose interest in a game when I can't progress further

I tend to agree, unless the game is really interesting.

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

I never said subjective, putting it in quotes is a lie.

The games listed above generally have bigger advertising budgets than development budgets.

Why is that??!?!?!

Because sales stopped being what they used to be based on a 'good game.' There's too much competition.

BF didn't have shitty DLC. Did Mass Effect? All those games shit on it? Early Assassins Creed didn't either. And they were great games!

They probably didn't make the money they needed to off them though.

Are some people going to make better expansions? Ofc. Oftentimes with material that was cut from the main game they end up that big. In general though no one sets out to be criminal about it.

No dev is going to work on something that just robs the customer blind.

That said, some places will do it better other won't.

In general though it's telling htere's equally big advertising budgets as their are development budgets on a game that has such a solid history and such a good core group of sales as Assassin's Creed that it still needs shit like this to make the profit it should be making.

The more I write it too the more I'm curious about a source for the ad budget vs development budget.

"Iconic new"

You have no idea about the conglomerates that rule the world, do you?

Without sports or some kind of physical activity you want to use to pass the time, you'd grown into an unhealthy and obese guy and eventually die of a heart attack or a stroke, regardless of whether you sleep or not. Now that's luxury you can't ignore no matter what.

Without games, you'd lose several decades of pop culture and whatever else shaped the world since the 1960s.

Companies like Ubisoft and Activision are one of the biggest in the world. No matter how many people pirate, there will always be people pre-ordering them in huge amounts. The only time they'll suffer losses is via refunds.

Also, a recent EU survey that was suppressed proved that piracy leads to more sales.

Not to mention some games can get ridiculously expensive. At this state, I'd rather donate the money to charity. There are more people dying of hunger than the amount of people losing their jobs when their companies shut down.

Piraters buy the game once they get enough money. That's what the survey proved.