DBC14 PC Version 1.14

[Alberts]

Never happened when they pulled the servers for Ashes online both 09 and IC10 version..........or a zillion other examples I can think of........

What never happened?

 

[themusketeer]

Now pirates will be laughing out loud after watching this thread with the heavy words like lawyers,consumer Laws ,Australian rights etc.....
..DRM issue have to be their discussion not for the Legit users....

.it was refreshing to see how internet connectivity issue coming out from UK, Australia, SA etc not from the subcontinent. ...

 

[Alberts]

Now pirates will be laughing out loud after watching this thread with the heavy words like lawyers, legal cases, Australian rights etc.....
..DRM issue have to be their discussion not for the Legit users....

.it was refreshing to see how internet connectivity issue coming out from UK, Australia, SA etc not from the subcontinent. ...

To be fair I don't see anyone talking about legal cases.

 

[blockerdave]

Okay, just to clarify, what are you saying here:

1. That Big Ant, push comes to shove, have categorically not done anything that would give people the ability to ask for a refund under Australian Consumer Law
2. DRM is more important than needing to give a few refunds

complete non-sequitir, as usual. but i'll answer them anyway.

1 - no idea, i don't know australian consumer law, though i am willing to bet it applies only to purchases within the jurisdiction, not worldwide
2- the two are so unconnected, as to be impossible to compare. if their actions leave them liable to refund, of course they should pay them. but the DRM is essential to the future of the PC franchise, and so should be introduced, end of.

if the DRM was clumsily implemented, or truly always online DRM, I'd ask BA to reconsider the implementation, but accept the principle. this is an elegant solution - we are talking about a game designed for hi-spec PCs, requiring a controller. the number of attempted boots that won't be near some sort of working internet is vanishingly small, and in the context of the piracy numbers, irrelevant. the DRM is needed for the viability of the franchise, and implemented well. i have sympathy for Owl but if his phone/computer worked properly he'd be able to play the game. anyone against THIS IMPLEMENTATION of the DRM is expecting Big Ant to continue support and improve the game without protecting their IP, and are beneath contempt.

 

[Alberts]

complete non-sequitir, as usual. but i'll answer them anyway.

1 - no idea, i don't know australian consumer law, though i am willing to bet it applies only to purchases within the jurisdiction, not worldwide
2- the two are so unconnected, as to be impossible to compare. if their actions leave them liable to refund, of course they should pay them. but the DRM is essential to the future of the PC franchise, and so should be introduced, end of.

if the DRM was clumsily implemented, or truly always online DRM, I'd ask BA to reconsider the implementation, but accept the principle. this is an elegant solution - we are talking about a game designed for hi-spec PCs, requiring a controller. the number of attempted boots that won't be near some sort of working internet is vanishingly small, and in the context of the piracy numbers, irrelevant. the DRM is needed for the viability of the franchise, and implemented well. i have sympathy for Owl but if his phone/computer worked properly he'd be able to play the game. anyone against THIS IMPLEMENTATION of the DRM is expecting Big Ant to continue support and improve the game without protecting their IP, and are beneath contempt.

1. You do realise that there are many people who purchased the game in Australia right? It applies for Australians, and I wouldn't be surprised if England and South Africa have similar protections.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with DRM going forward, my only concern was with those who these changes would adversely affect, and in a way that their local laws would offer them protections from. The key is not hurting paying customers, because that's how a company earns a bad name, and for a smaller developer, that can be devastating.

 

[blockerdave]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with DRM going forward, my only concern was with those who these changes would adversely affect, and in a way that their local laws would offer them protections from. The key is not hurting paying customers, because that's how a company earns a bad name, and for a smaller developer, that can be devastating.

a) you're not a consumer watchdog.
b) there will be no "going forward" without this DRM. if you can't understand or accept that you are beyond reason.

 

[grkrama]

You do realise that there are many people who purchased the game in Australia right? It applies for Australians, and I wouldn't be surprised if England and South Africa have similar protections.

Im sure many purchased AC13, how many got refunds? trickstar still going strong i suppose.

 

[Alberts]

a) you're not a consumer watchdog.
b) there will be no "going forward" without this DRM. if you can't understand or accept that you are beyond reason.

a) I don't need to be to point it out
b) There will equally be no going forward if they build a bad reputation

When did I ever say there should never have DRM? Why are you so insistent on bring up that point when it's not even the topic of my posts? You seem to be having an entirely separate discussion with yourself where you feel the need to keep noting how important you feel the DRM is. We get it, you don't need to keep saying that point.[DOUBLEPOST=1411239281][/DOUBLEPOST]

Im sure many purchased AC13, how many got refunds? trickstar still going strong i suppose.

To my knowledge all copies of AC13 were refunded, that's an entirely different beast altogether though. That wasn't even a salable product.

 

[MattW]

As for those with "100s of hours played" not deserving a refund. It's a piece of software, there is no successor software out. It's an reasonable expectation that the game would be playable until the next iteration in the series is released. I don't care if someone has 2,000 hours played, if their game is rendered unusual, and no reasonable solution can be found, they deserve a refund.

As I said - full refund. They got quite a lot of use out of the product prior to the change, it would be reasonable for any refund to keep that in mind. The ACCC are taking Valve to court over their refund policies - maybe we will have more clarity over consumer rights on Steam after that concludes itself.

I think Ross would certainly agree the right timing for this DRM would have been at the game's release.

Im sure many purchased AC13, how many got refunds? trickstar still going strong i suppose.

Those refunds were voluntarily done at the publisher level, not a matter of the consumer protection. Very few people got refunds prior to the game being pulled.

 

[grkrama]

To my knowledge all copies of AC13 were refunded, that's an entirely different beast altogether though. That wasn't even a salable product.

Are you sure last i checked many were waiting for refunds and it was only as steam store credits. Exactly my point a broken mess like that could get away before being escalated, im sure BA wil be much more understanding and convenient than them for aggrieved consumers. who for some reason are not able to play the product.

b) There will equally be no going forward if they build a bad reputation

this is cricket game market EA had that reputation for years and still went along.. im sure ,most are sane to understand reasons for it and in case they cant really play the game for some reason im sure will be more than glad with a refund, which im sure anybody who has put hours into the game wouldnt do.

 

[blockerdave]

a) I don't need to be to point it out
b) There will equally be no going forward if they build a bad reputation

When did I ever say there should never have DRM? Why are you so insistent on bring up that point when it's not even the topic of my posts? You seem to be having an entirely separate discussion with yourself where you feel the need to keep noting how important you feel the DRM is. We get it, you don't need to keep saying that point.[DOUBLEPOST=1411239281][/DOUBLEPOST]

To my knowledge all copies of AC13 were refunded, that's an entirely different beast altogether though. That wasn't even a salable product.

your point has been that they should save DRM for future versions because it wasn't advertised for this version, wilfully ignoring that the DRM is the only thing going to make future versions potentially viable.

as for building a bad reputation, the DRM will affect a tiny tiny percentage of the install base, and even for most of them probably only a small percentage of the times they will try to play it. this will do nothing negative to their reputation, except in the eyes of people like you (idiots). need i remind you that for a long time you refused to believe piracy was a problem or that it related to PC copies at all. i am literally done debating this with you because you're so far beyond reason and a cogent argument it's not funny anymore.

 

[blockerdave]

I think Ross would certainly agree the right timing for this DRM would have been at the game's release.

he underestimated the scale of the piracy, and the ability of his initial strategy of interfering with their gameplay and supporting the product to generate sales. so what, he should just take it now?

if someone breaks into my house, i'd buy a better lock/alarm, not say "oh well i should have had a better one to start with, so i guess it's open season for the burgulars now".

 

[Alberts]

As I said - full refund. They got quite a lot of use out of the product prior to the change, it would be reasonable for any refund to keep that in mind. The ACCC are taking Valve to court over their refund policies - maybe we will have more clarity over consumer rights on Steam after that concludes itself.

I think Ross would certainly agree the right timing for this DRM would have been at the game's release.

Ross as much as said it from what I could see elsewhere. Again, they've had to make a hard call, and I do hope it goes well for them. They've learned a lot for next time though, and I guess that was the whole point of the first dip into this market.

I agree entirely with the whole Steam issue at the moment. It'll be interesting to see what ultimately happens with that.

With refunds though, it's an interesting question of what "money's worth" is.

 

[themusketeer]

To be fair I don't see anyone talking about legal cases.

Ohhh...mistyped .....Australian Consumer Law.......

One question ....are you a lawyer???
Asked because you are using "Australian consumer law" too many times...

 

[Alberts]

Are you sure last i checked many were waiting for refunds and it was only as steam store credits. Exactly my point a broken mess like that could get away before being escalated, im sure BA wil be much more understanding and convenient than them for aggrieved consumers. who for some reason are not able to play the product.



this is cricket game market EA had that reputation for years and still went along.. im sure ,most are sane to understand reasons for it and in case they cant really play the game for some reason im sure will be more than glad with a refund, which im sure anybody who has put hours into the game wouldnt do.

Big Ant do handle things well, and as I said, I'm sure things will be sorted out properly with anyone who has concerns.

your point has been that they should save DRM for future versions because it wasn't advertised for this version, wilfully ignoring that the DRM is the only thing going to make future versions potentially viable.

as for building a bad reputation, the DRM will affect a tiny tiny percentage of the install base, and even for most of them probably only a small percentage of the times they will try to play it. this will do nothing negative to their reputation, except in the eyes of people like you (idiots). need i remind you that for a long time you refused to believe piracy was a problem or that it related to PC copies at all. i am literally done debating this with you because you're so far beyond reason and a cogent argument it's not funny anymore.

No, my point was that it was not the best way to introduce DRM. I even noted that it was a hard decision on their side due to them seemingly feeling DRM is needed to save the PC version, this having been said by me multiple times.

You seem to have completely missed the point of these posts, and have to top it off, resorted to petty personal attacks. I'm not even disagreeing with you, and it appears you're having an argument with yourself on this one, as at no point have I stated that DRM wasn't needed to keep in viable. My concerns were with the manner in which it was implemented, and making sure that people knew that if there were probably caused by this that rendered the game unplayable, that they should take them up with Big Ant, noting their consumer rights.

I'd also would rather not get into the point about piracy in general, as this clearly isn't the place. The entire point here is that Ross and Big Ant feel that piracy is a serious issue that is harming the future of the game here and now, that is the point that matters here.[DOUBLEPOST=1411240325][/DOUBLEPOST]

Ohhh...mistyped .....Australian Consumer Law.......

One question ....are you a lawyer???
Asked because you are using "Australian consumer law" too many times...

There are lawyers in my family, and they make damn sure I understand my "rights" whether I want to hear about them or not. I have, after discussions with them, spent a long time reading up on Australian Consumer Law for a number of reasons, and personally I just feel it's worth pointing out here that these rights are part of Australian Law, so those who might not post here, but view here, and are having such problems, know that they can talk to Big Ant and have the problems sorted.