Not a problem
For YOU
But for many it is

Plus we dont want to be shackled to ubis servers
Thats the main point

It wasnt in plain public view though, was it?
To be fair, the PM issue is not about John W. Hamm challenging Ubisoft,
Its about John W. Hamm challenging one Person, a dev.
You are forgetting that you are dealing with an individual who likely had no part in the DRM.

If you were upset with the Mcdonalds co-operation over some company wide policy to not serve you a McMuffin after 11am, you wouldnt go and slap the cashire in the face at your local branch. Would you?

Basically you are seeing the dev as a Ubisoft punch bag (hence the heated nature of his reply)
and not as an indervidual.
He represents the evil company so its 'fair game' is that it?

what about their servers being down for tecghnical issues
or just outright voluntarily?
to fuel the development of SHVI?
Will they keep the servers running for the next 10 years, as long as people might possibly technically be willing to play it?

LOL!

I don't get it.

If they actually do this DRM thing, the piracy rate will drastically increase.
Thas logical for me. Broadband internet is still not state of the art.

Of course you don't you try to go to the nearest figure head that seems to think they know what is going on AND (I stipulate this) makes themself available...and in this respect that is what i did...

For me 30-40 times that I know... and who knows how many "short" cuts... What do You think that this planet is - Belgium ?

And how many things You bought in a last 12 months that you have to share and use with seller ?
:hmmm:

Yep, but I mean since 1.5 patches the .exe too they could have put some form of protection, but didn't. Wonder if the add-on was more/less pirates than the average Ubi game with copy protection :hmmm:

Honestly ... if it WORKS I have no qualms with it, i call it a necessary evil, that might be influenced by my local conditions, but I most people on here are connected to the Internet pretty much all the time.

However... if it doesn't work, and the game is still pirated, thats when I have the problem, as it's not a necessary evil, just an evil, and theres no reason to put up with it, if it doesn't work.

Be interesting to know
Be interesting to know how many actually bought it purely for the patch with no interest in the addon part itself

I guess since removing copy protection they didnt want to reintroduce it as they werent going to release nothing else for SH4 to include a removal

Ubisoft has made a business decision. It's a roll of the dice for them and for the Silent Hunter franchise.

Ironically, just when it looks like they have pretty much released the SDK with the game, I believe that the fall out from the members here and at similar forums choosing not to purchase the game, and the fact that I don't believe that there will be the numbers of casual gamers Ubisoft has anticipated, I think the franchise could end with this fiasco.

Sad but true. :down:
If the DRM controversy damages sales badly enough, it could also be the nail the coffin for any offcial SHV add-ons also.
If you want, type IXs and and later war years, SHV needs to sell lots of units.
The sad part is, the DRM will probably patch out after a year.

I didn't read the whole thread but 90% piracy!! wonder how they come to that figure, I would tend to think that there just wasn't a market for the games that they did the research on! sorry but I will not believe that!!:nope:
Think about it, how would they know how many people were to buy a product, and how many decided to pirate it, since when would a pirate advertise that he copied/downloaded the game?:doh:
What a load of speculated hooey!!:yep: (better add IMO!:oops:)

I don't think this would end the franchise, maybe temporarily but sooner or later there will be a SH6.
Besides, if the game is good, if it has comprehensive modding tools and if it proves a good platform for modding/expending, the game could well be played and modded by a large number of people well into 2015 and more if there's no decent offering by that time.

As always, it will all come down to sales. :)

I agree with you that PMs should be private, but I get the impression that when the dev said this; He had a good idea that it would be made public. And when you think about it, he probably did want his message out there, hence the long reply. Just my gut feeling.