i spend my game money following.
50% indie games, 33% Ubisoft, 17% others...
I never had problems with it
Comment has been collapsed.
1234? That's... almost the same combination I have on my luggage!
Comment has been collapsed.
Seriously?All your accounts got hacked?Yeah.....
Either bad lyar or bad luck.
Comment has been collapsed.
By the way, it is not hacking if someone gains access to a single account. Hacking is the act of gaining access to someone's system, like if someone gained access to Ubisoft's servers and got passwords that way. The more accurate term would be that your account was compromised.
And if you've had multiple accounts compromised, the problem is with you, not with the services that have your accounts. Let me guess, you probably use the same email/username and password for all your accounts and your email is about the same as your normal username used and has the same password. So once someone gained access to one account of yours, they had free reign to get into every other.
But then, I doubt you'll listen at all and you'll keep getting accounts compromised left and right until you learn a thing or two about security of accounts. Something that you really should learn now because if you aren't going to take the time to make sure your accounts are secure, you should stop spending money on the internet period.
Comment has been collapsed.
First, you fail to supply sufficient details. Without more information noone can make a reasonable decision to hate Ubisoft over this.
Second, while a bad experience with their support might be sufficient to decide not to buy their games, it does NOT justify piracy (unless you are pirating games you already bought, in which case you are not pirating really). If my local electronics store did something like, say, not honoring a warranty on one of their products, I could sue them, and I certainly would not shop there anymore. I would encourage others not to shop there. However it would not give me the right to sneak in at night and rob them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bad analogy. I am utterly disgusted when people compare pirating to stealing. What make stealing wrong is that you are taking something from someone. With piracy you make a copy. It's not illegal to make your own electronic product, even if it is a copied design, as long as you don't go trying to sell it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you saying that the fact that a company that worked their asses off to produce something and not getting any money for it when it is taken for free isn't wrong, even if they don't lose anything? The fact that they don't gain anything for all of their hard work is partially what makes it wrong for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Many pirates pirate because they can. In their mind, why bother paying for a game when you can get it for free. They don't care how much effort went into it or whether or not its a good game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Would you admit that you stole candy from a sleeping baby? People don't usually go around flouting about stealing things. Plus, I do know a number of people who do this.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I've said numerous times before, pirating is not stealing. If you took the candy from the baby it's bad, but if you saw the candy the baby had and made an exact copy, no one would care, as long as you left the baby's candy alone.
I assume there are people like that, but I believe there are a lot less of these "I pirate because I don't want to pay" people than the media wants us to think.
Comment has been collapsed.
A group of friends invest in starting a candy business. They put in time, money, and creative energy to produce what they consider a quality candy. They offer this premium candy for sale.
Then, you come along with a device that makes a perfect copy of this candy from thin air, and hand it out for free. Please explain to me how you are not doing material harm to the people that developed the candy in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly my point. When you "steal" an idea do you suck it out of their mind and into yours?
Comment has been collapsed.
This is done all the time, approximately, with generic items. No two non-digital items are exactly alike, not even from the same company. The hypothetical device would change the game everywhere. The honor system is all that would work in this imaginary world. When it comes to ideas, the honor system is the best idea, because if someone can't afford your idea, they -must- make use of an inferior idea. Consider DVD versus Laserdisc, or VHS versus Betamax, or Cassette versus 8-track, or Gasoline versus clean-burning Diesel fuel. The inferior, cheaper product won these product fights. Make the best products and ideas available to everyone, and we all benefit.
A game-changing technology always puts those who refuse to change with the times, in financial trouble. Cars put horse breeders out of business. Televisions put thousands of theater actors out of a job. Automated assembly lines put more people out of a job than anything except for the Great Depression. These crises are mainly a product created by the stubborn.
Digital or analog, physical or just an idea, people will pay what the product is worth, regardless of the stated price. Can't afford it? Either get it for free or buy a product you know is inferior.
You propose a replicator, essentially. This would be the singularity when it comes to material scarcity. There would be no more control over what people can create, since everything obtainable could be saved to a file and copied infinitely. We're inching closer to the end of material scarcity with every passing year, and I welcome it. The end to famine, drug scarcity, rare minerals of all types, and probably, no more deaths from organ failure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some fun thoughts I had, which are only loosely related to the defense of ideas, of intellectual property. Since IPs are ideas, or products before they're products, I think this qualifies as nearly on-topic.
Before software such as The GIMP got really good, Adobe Photoshop wasn't just the best, it was the only real game in town. Those who couldn't afford to pay 800 dollars in 1997 just pirated it. Today, it's worth 600. 800 dollars could buy 285 pounds of beef in 1997. Today, that much beef is worth 1,380. 600 dollars of today's beef is 124 pounds. That's 347 dollars in 1997 cash. Competition has drive the price of Photoshop down to less than half its price. The same is happening to iPhone. Photoshop and iPhone are not worth half what they're priced at, and people know it. It's why competition is possible to begin with.
Consider the indie developer who uses no DRM, yet still manages to profit if his product is of sufficient quality. Although he does not produce a product as well-known as a AAA title, he still manages to compete with every other developer out there for time from the user.
Again, this is loosely related to the defense of ideas, of intellectual property, and therefore, software piracy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bullshit. If you want a more perfect analogy, take the case of entering a movie theater without having paid for a ticket. In either case the right of a person or a collective of persons (in other words a company) to do freely what they want with their intellectual product is being violated by people that feel falsely entitled to it. Noone has a claim on anyone else's creative output unless the latter signs it over to the former.
Comment has been collapsed.
I still disagree. There is no reason to use profanity, unless you are without a valid argument and wish to make it seem more "legit". I am happy to pay for a quality product. As I stated earlier, there is no difference between not buying and pirating. They achieve the same goal with the same effect on the company. I, however, agree with the OP and will not buy a Ubisoft game, nor will I pirate one for that matter. I do not want to mess with a company that piles heavy DRM like UPlay on there games and expects people to bite.
To throw in some bad analogies to go along with the others, if a certain brand refrigerator (game) fails to do it's job, but another company (cracker) makes a replica design with the problems fixed (cracked game) which model is the better choice? Why support the faulty company? Why not show them that consumers will not stand for such antics?
Comment has been collapsed.
If a product is good enough to be used (in other words pirated) than it is good enough to be paid for. The fact is that many pirates do it just because they don't want to pay the fair market value for something that they are going to derive hours and hours of enjoyment from. DRM would not even exist as a problem if there were not so many dishonorable people in the world willing to take whatever they can get for free regardless of the rights of the creators.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is isn't always worth what they ask for. If I enjoy a game I will buy it because I want to support the company. If they load it down with things that hurt the consumer it only drives the legit customers away. Pirates will pirate DRM or not. Legit consumers are the only ones truly affected by DRM. Personally, if a game I get on Steam is giving me DRM issues I go pirate it without a second thought.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pirating a game you already own is different from pirating one you don't. There is no harm done at all if you paid for a legitimate copy of the game. However, when you pirate a game that you would have bought had it not been available to pirate and giving no money to the developers is something completely different. DRM is put in place to stop people from pirating games, if there weren't people who pirated DRM wouldn't be as intrusive.
Comment has been collapsed.
"If a product is good enough to be used (in other words pirated) than it is good enough to be paid for."
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO not true. I can think of hundreds of games and real life products I've used that were NOT good enough to be paid for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not an option. I can't know if I'll hate a game or movie before I play/watch it. I can't know if a real life product is low quality before I use it and I often can't afford to immediately replace it when I find out. Pirating is awesome in a world that tries to screw me every day because it allows me to only pay for what is good. If I could do it in the real world, I would definitely not pay for low quality products or bad service.
Edit: I believe this is actually enforced by law in some countries, where people can get their money back if a product doesn't deliver what it promises. I don't see any significant difference between buying a bad game & then getting a refund and pirating a game & then not buying it. The one major difference is that the latter doesn't require competent politicians and a functional administration, and is thus not limited to a tiny fraction of the world's population.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have a problem with people pirating games to see what the game is like. I'll often do with titles without demos. The problem is people play games to completion then decide that its not good enough to be paid for.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree here. I've played many games that were't that great, only because I couldn't afford anything better. Just because I'm playing the game, that doesn't mean I would ever buy it if I could afford it.
A friend who sees me play it might decide that he likes it enough to buy it, however. It's happened at least twice to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you didn't enjoy it why didn't you just stop after the first hour?
Comment has been collapsed.
In the USA, you can get your money back if a product fails to live up to what was promised. Unless it's software, music, or film. An interesting thought.
I can eat a few bites of a sandwich the restaurant said I would love. If I don't like it, I can get my money back, or exchange it for a different one.
I can't watch 20 minutes of a movie and ask for a refund or exchange if it turns out that all the previews were misleading. I've tried.
Sometimes, I can get my money back without argument, if software doesn't work for me the way the box said it would. I always do manage to get my refund, however. Most places demand that I exchange for the same product. They change their minds when I tell them I'll just open up the next box at the cash register, examine the disc, and say "yep, same as the last one" twenty times.
Comment has been collapsed.
"There is no reason to use profanity, unless you are without a valid argument and wish to make it seem more 'legit'."
Really? You think throwing out profanity is an attempt to make an argument seem more valid? Seriously?
Profanity has no effect on the legitimacy of an argument. It's colorful language. It's expressive. If I call your position "stupid" or "fucking stupid", the underlying accusation of stupidity remains equally valid or invalid. All I've done is add a modifier to indicate the perceived volume of stupidity.
If you can't bear to be exposed to words that you've deemed "bad", get off the fucking Internet.
More to the point, your equation of not buying to pirating is fucking stupid. From the standpoint of profits, yes, the two are perhaps equivalent in that a pirate probably wouldn't have purchased the game anyway. That does not mean they're identical, however; the pirate is getting the product without paying. That is definitively not the same as not purchasing.
Besides, "I wasn't going to buy it anyway" does not justify piracy. If you don't want a game, don't buy it. If you do want it, buy it. "I wasn't going to buy it" suggests you didn't want it... in which case why the fuck would you pirate it?
Comment has been collapsed.
I find profanity a ill regarded unintellectual attempt at making an argument stronger, which it does not. You seem to agree with me on that last part at least..
My point is based on the OP. Pirating to obtain a superior product. If you pay the company for a broken game, and account issues in his case, they will see the sales and continue in the same fashion. So, consumers would not buy the game to show their distaste. However, if one was to pirate that game, the company would not see a sale and therefore realize that they are doing something wrong, much in the same way as not buying it. This allows the consumer to get a superior better working version without supporting faulty companies.
With that being said, if a game is good, and therefore the company deserves it, games should be bought. I have an issue with the pricing of games too, but that's a whole new forum post full. I think they should be more of a "Pay what you think the game is worth scheme."
Comment has been collapsed.
There is already a "pay what you think the game is worth scheme", it's just a matter of patience to use it. If you think a game is only worth say 50% of its price, then wait for it to be 50% off.
I do not particularly like piracy in any situation, but I find it much more defensible as a means of demoing a game or as a means of fixing issues (if you have already paid for it) than anything else. That said, a person should not play through the whole game and then say "woops, that feels like a 6/10, not going to pay for that". I would of course prefer that all games were 9 or 10 out of 10, but there are sometimes fun lesser experiences. If it's a 6/10 a person could buy it at 66 or 75% off.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is my tactic, once I'm informed enough to decide what it's worth to me. This is what I use piracy for, when youtube reviews do not sway my opinion far enough toward yes or no.
Comment has been collapsed.
Still not a perfect analogy, as every extra person in a movie theater reduces the quality of the experience for everybody else.
You can't really make a perfect analogy, as pirating software is in the unique situation of not harming the content owner in any way.
Comment has been collapsed.
More people in a movie theatre does not necessarily reduce the quality of the experience. That entirely depends on how courteous everyone is. What's more, some people enjoy movies MORE with a large crowd.
I agree that pirating software is a unique situation, and a perfect analogy does not exist, however I cannot disagree more with the idea that it does not harm the content owner. The availability of a product for free absolutely devalues the product and guarantees that many people will not have to make a decision about buying it versus another product. They simply will pirate it. Not every download is a lost sale, but some fraction of them definitely are. What's more, even if downloads resulted in 0 lost sales, it is still noone's right to decide for the content owner how the content is distributed.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is that we can't say for sure whether or not piracy actually harms the content producer. If everybody pirated then yes, obviously that would hurt the content producer. However, piracy can lead to increased word of mouth leading to an ultimate increase in sales. Even at the individual level, someone may be pirating the game to test it first and then choose to buy based on their experience. If they weren't going to buy without playing the game first and no demo is available then piracy has been a net positive.
I'm not saying that the net benefit of piracy is necessarily positive but just pointing out that we can't say for sure that it's negative. It probably varies greatly for each game/situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. It is entirely speculation on both sides whether piracy harms or in some way benefits producers. The same for pay what you want schemes. That is why I tend to only discuss sales when someone else brings it up first.
My main point of issue with piracy is the presumption of the pirates to take rights away from the people whose time, money, and most importantly creative ideas went into producing the items.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only movies I'll see in a theater are ones that will attract large crowds. Empty theaters suck. If I want to watch a movie by myself, I'll wait until it hits netflix and watch it over dinner. Much cheaper, and a much higher quality experience overall.
Comment has been collapsed.
In either the movie analogy, or copying software, a sale is lost only if the thieft would have bought the product if theft were not possible.
Since theft is so difficult to stop, companies have been creating incentives for legitimate customers. DLC that only works with a game that has been registered online. Multiplayer on their lobbies available only to registered copies.
Valve made DRM acceptable by providing an incentive. Steam is not just a DRM scheme, but a distribution method. There's also cloud services and achievements. Today, this is often enough to keep people from pirating what they normally would pirate.
Comment has been collapsed.
As I note in a reply above just now, I acknowledge that not every download is going to correspond to a lost sale, but some fraction of the total downloads most definitely will be lost sales. And, again, it is noone's right to decide for someone else how their content will be distributed.
Theft being difficult to stop does not make it any more OK.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will support the pirates alright. And by that I mean that I will buy ACIV :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Have u checked ur password isn't on this list
Check how fast ur pw can be hacked
By the way u just sent them a letter that u will pirate their games,they wont give a damn crap about that, also u never asked how it got hacked etcc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unsecure - 11 minutes
Secure - 7 hours
Super-secure - 184 thousand years
penispenispenispenispenispenispenis - 508 quadrillion years
Comment has been collapsed.
It would take a desktop PC about
6 billion years
to crack your password
Comment has been collapsed.
Passwords made of English words aren't really safe. It's better to use some foreign words or something random + numbers and special symbols if possible - your password will be pretty safe. It won't save you from keygens, for example, but it should stop cracking attempts.
Comment has been collapsed.
In 2025, today's passwords will be cracked by a child's speak and spell.
Comment has been collapsed.
Have some proof before you say this, k? It took me 10s to google how very wrong you are. (from multiple sources) "It does only client-side calculations in javascript, so it doesn't transfer any passwords outside the browser to perform server-side storage or something like this." Only IF they changed the javascript or got hacked would it be unsafe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lets see :D
Origin 12 trillion years
PayPal 90 quadrillion years
Steam 30 octillion years
Gmail 88 nonillion years
Not bad. :P
My universal old pass 6 years
Win 7 user pass Instantly
Comment has been collapsed.
Did you... wait? I see nothing here about how long its been since you contacted them.
Comment has been collapsed.
375 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by AnonymousBroccoli
289 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Velandur
47,194 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Mhol1071
49 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
187 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by JTC3
19 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by FranEldense
49 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by RileyHisbert
128 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by majar1
28 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by LittleBibo1
592 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by ayuinaba
28,967 Comments - Last post 37 minutes ago by Xiangming
34 Comments - Last post 44 minutes ago by koon
54 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by skadogg
375 Comments - Last post 51 minutes ago by ArtLeywin
I was robbed of an account that was attached to an email. A letter came to me on an email that my account was stolen. I wrote in a support as it should, a support silent. 'll Never buy their PC games! Let's support the pirates!
Comment has been collapsed.