UbiSoft can't stop digging - For Honor always on-line

[Doobeedoo]

How... shitty.

[i_build_nanosuits]

yeah it's not like if MOST games that are coming out right now you HAVE to be logged in online to some stuff in order to play...right? (insert sarcasm)

[sof006]

Ubisoft is trying to make themselves not profitable at the moment because of Vivendi and their attempts at a hostile takeover. But mean while are still trying to make money, I find Ubisoft to be just as bad as the next guy buy if Vivendi gets a hold of them it could get a whole lot worse.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, sof006 said:

Ubisoft is trying to make themselves not profitable at the moment because of Vivendi and their attempts at a hostile takeover. But mean while are still trying to make money, I find Ubisoft to be just as bad as the next guy buy if Vivendi gets a hold of them it could get a whole lot worse.

So they need to be the goldie locks of shittiness: not too bad but not too good just shitty enough to survive without being taken over?

[sof006]

Just now, Misanthrope said:

So they need to be the goldie locks of shittiness: not too bad but not too good just shitty enough to survive without being taken over?

Exactly this, they're doing it on purpose most likely.

[potoooooooo]

It's a primarily multiplayer experience, why does anyone care?

[PocketNerd]

15 hours ago, ivan134 said:

CDPR has taught people how it's done and some companies are still refusing to learn.

Mind giving some insight on that? I know a bit about CDPR's practices but I don't know how it pertains to having always online for what I can see is stats tracking.

[ivan134]

37 minutes ago, PocketNerd said:

Mind giving some insight on that? I know a bit about CDPR's practices but I don't know how it pertains to having always online for what I can see is stats tracking.

The game has a single player aspect, or at least was advertised that way. You will need to be online to play that.

[Mihle]

1 hour ago, potoooooooo said:

It's a primarily multiplayer experience, why does anyone care?

I care, because I want to be able to play a MP game if the developer decides to shout it down, even if its just over LAN.
One game without the possibility of LAN without developers servers I own has shout down, and I cant play it anymore.

[Guest Kloaked]

Everyone here should already know that Ubi's PR don't always know what they're talking about. The game may still have an offline mode.

[potoooooooo]

11 minutes ago, Mihle said:

I care, because I want to be able to play a MP game if the developer decides to shout it down, even if its just over LAN.
One game without the possibility of LAN without developers servers I own has shout down, and I cant play it anymore.

That has nothing to do with it being online only.

 

A game can be offline singlepayer and still not have lan support or dedicated servers for multiplayer

[Mihle]

4 minutes ago, potoooooooo said:

That has nothing to do with it being online only.

 

A game can be offline singlepayer and still not have lan support or dedicated servers for multiplayer

false

thats has nothing to do with this. For honor is a multiplayer game, that require you to be connected to ubisoft servers.
You cant play LAN, you cant have your own servers.
That means Ubi servers shout down = game dead

I hate that.

its even worse if games that is strongly singleplayer require it.

[potoooooooo]

13 minutes ago, Mihle said:

false

thats has nothing to do with this. For honor is a multiplayer game, that require you to be connected to ubisoft servers.
You cant play LAN, you cant have your own servers.
That means Ubi servers shout down = game dead

I hate that.

its even worse if games that is strongly singleplayer require it.

Obviously you have absolutely no understanding of what i wrote. It doesn't matter what for honor supports, my point is that the lan and dedicated servers has nothing to do with it requiring a connection to ubisoft or some other parent

[PocketNerd]

1 hour ago, ivan134 said:

The game has a single player aspect, or at least was advertised that way. You will need to be online to play that.

Are we talking about Witcher 3 (CDPR's Game) or For Honor in that context? I'm trying to figure out the connection between "learning from CDPR" and what Ubisoft is doing.

[ivan134]

1 minute ago, PocketNerd said:

Are we talking about Witcher 3 (CDPR's Game) or For Honor in that context? I'm trying to figure out the connection between "learning from CDPR" and what Ubisoft is doing.

The only reason you world need to be online for single player is DRM purposes. CDPR has showed you just need to make a good game and you won't have to worry about piracy. The people who pirate games had no intention of buying them the 1st place. DRM only hurts paying customers, and this is a prime example.

[PocketNerd]

6 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

The only reason you world need to be online for single player is DRM purposes. CDPR has showed you just need to make a good game and you won't have to worry about piracy. The people who pirate games had no intention of buying them the 1st place. DRM only hurts paying customers, and this is a prime example.

Eh, invasive DRM only hurts customers. I have yet to come across any DRM that I felt ruined my experience with playing a game, unless I were trying to download a cracked copy to try it out before purchasing. Is always-online invasive? Sure, I'm just not convinced that DRM is the sole reason for them to do it. Cause there are plenty of games (mostly mobile) that behave that way for quite legit reasons. Also, by that logic, MMO's should never be always-online if you only desire to play by yourself.

I do agree with you otherwise though.

[Mihle]

2 hours ago, potoooooooo said:

Obviously you have absolutely no understanding of what i wrote. It doesn't matter what for honor supports, my point is that the lan and dedicated servers has nothing to do with it requiring a connection to ubisoft or some other parent

It doesnt, I didnt say it was either, my point was that I want the possibility to play multiplayer games even after the developer closes it's servers. With always online, that doest matter if the developer is stopping the servers for the game, because the game won't work at all anymore.

 

I want multiplayer games to have dedicated servers or at least play over LAN. And I want to games to require online at all. (Connecting to developer servers)

[JanFrode]

2 hours ago, Mihle said:

It doesnt, I didnt say it was either, my point was that I want the possibility to play multiplayer games even after the developer closes it's servers. With always online, that doest matter if the developer is stopping the servers for the game, because the game won't work at all anymore.

 

I want multiplayer games to have dedicated servers or at least play over LAN. And I want to games to require online at all. (Connecting to developer servers)

If the developer is serious about their product, even after shutting down their servers, they normally make a workaround for the games to still work, after shutting down..
In some cases they leave it up to the community to find a way to make it work, by aiding them with the tools and experience.

 

As with dedicated server and lan you mentioned further up, this can still work, even with a always online policy system. The system doesn't necassary mean you have to play on Ubisofts servers for you to be able to play the game.
All the system is requiring, is an active authentication link towards Ubisoft, to keep the ".exe" from essentially "crashing"

 

I'd assume this game has a matchmaking system, so the majority of the players would be there, so there wouldn't really be need for dedicated server, unless the game will have custom game mods and modding support in general

[bobhays]

On 12/13/2016 at 7:36 PM, NumLock21 said:

I find this bitching about how crappy ubisoft is at every opportunity you can get, is the same as them digging. Complain all you want behind your keyboards, are they going to care? Your opinion isn't even worth a clump of dirt. People are still going to buy it and your bitching won't do anything. Don't like what they are doing, then don't buy the game.

I agree that it's annoying and getting kind of tired, but this is why we need it.

 

On 12/13/2016 at 7:38 PM, VagabondWraith said:

I was going to buy this game aaaaand... not anymore.

 

[LAwLz]

This forum keeps amazing me every single day. How the hell can anyone with more than half a braincell defend this practice? It is like there is a competition on this forum about which user can put up with the most bullshit from companies.

 

Here is an easy thought process you should go though every time you are thinking of defending a decision a company has made:

Does the change have a negative impact on consumers?

Yes - Then don't support it.

No - Then you might be justified in defending it.

 

 

Always-online single player does not improve the experience for the consumers at all. Since it doesn't improve the situation, while at the same time can cause issues, it is a bad thing. Stop defending practices that punishes paying customers. Stop defending decisions that makes a product objectively worse for the consumers.

 

Is a large portion of LTT users masochists? You'd think they are because it seems like people on here enjoy being treated like garbage by companies. STOP DEFENDING THINGS WHICH ONLY HARMS USERS!

Maybe it's just shills...

[suicidalfranco]

Vivendi just fucking take over this trash company already and wreck it ffs

[dragosudeki]

Meh, I would've been interested in this game (even before this news)..... but I then heard about Mount & Blade 2 Bannerlords and all interest for For Honor dropped to zero. People interested in this game, should probably just wait for Mount & Blade 2 Bannerlords instead (I mean the old Mount & Blade games are still fun to play to this date).

[Yamoto42]

21 hours ago, Mihle said:

I want multiplayer games to have dedicated servers or at least play over LAN. And I want to games to require online at all. (Connecting to developer servers)

Which is entirely unrelated to this post about Ubisoft's original claim that single player would be offline...which has nothing to do with multiplayer...

[Mihle]

10 minutes ago, Yamoto42 said:

Which is entirely unrelated to this post about Ubisoft's original claim that single player would be offline...which has nothing to do with multiplayer...

No it isnt, (or true if you loom directly at it) becaue all new Ubisoft multiplayer games havet had those possibilities. And both do a game not playable or much less playable if Ubisoft servers stops.

 

but if you still disagree, then we agree to do so.

[suicidalfranco]

Done. Got chivalry this morning. Really interesting game