The gawd-almighty merged DRM in Silent Hunter V thread

[Adriatico]

By the way, don't you think that min. of civilised approach by Ubi would be specification of needed "outgoing" and "incoming" speed of connection - at official site ?
...or specification of FAQ ?

( ...instead of bull****t on WW2 battleships - who would guess that Bismarck participated at Atlantic? )

[Jerik]

Originally Posted by Adriatico

By the way, don't you think that min. of civilised approach by Ubi would be specification of needed "outgoing" and "incoming" speed of connection - at official site ?
...or specification of FAQ ?

( ...instead of bull****t on WW2 battleships - who would guess that Bismarck participated at Atlantic? )

They did, in a way. ADSL is 56kbps up, 768kbps down (peak ratings).

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by Letum

And you complained about my analogies!

Originally Posted by Adriatico

OLC, as you would say - analogy is not appropriate. (A.M.)

I didn't just say your analogies were broken, I pointed out exactly where and why they are broken. Something tells me you two will have trouble doing the same with mine.

Originally Posted by Adriatico

Barking at Aston Martin is bitching.

You'll notice I was making a point out of the fact that I am not barking or bitching at Aston Martin. Still, if you have poor internet then I can understand you being upset and venting that frustration. I'm a bit tired of the rhetoric and broken analogies and claims of "wrong doing" but I do sympathise with those who just won't be able to play the game due to circumstances beyond their control.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Control...

thats part of it.
Ubisoft KEEPS control. they shut down the service, yer screwed.
and that puts everyone who bought it in the "bent down, looking for the soap" position i recon.

and dont tell me that wont happen sooner or later...

poor souls, those who still buy it without being able to go offline...

[Letum]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

I didn't just say your analogies were broken, I pointed out exactly where and why they are broken. Something tells me you two will have trouble doing the same with mine.

Firstly, I do not think you have shown my analogy to be broken for the
reasons in my posts above.

Secondly, I am quit happy to draw you a picture if you like.

You imply (HERE) that not having reliable broadband in your part of the
country preventing you from playing a game is no more unfair than not
having lots of money prevents you from buying an expensive car.

This is not the case because whilst you (arguably) are responsible for your level of income being less than that required to buy a car, it does
not make sense to claim that someone is responsible, in any way, for
the quality of the telephone exchanges in their locality.

You (arguably) have no one to blame, but your self if you can't get the
money for a car. It is your responsibility to provide funds if you wish
to purchase a car and so it is not unfair that you can't buy one if you
can not provide funds. Any disadvantage if your fault.

The state of your region's telephone services is to blame if you don't
have a steady broadband service. The state of your region's telephone
services is not your responsibility; it is something you can not control.
If you connection is worse than other peoples and this causes you
disadvantage; this is unfair. The disadvantage is not your fault.

Whilst it could be argued that it is your fault that you don't have the
funds to buy a satellite connection, the situation is no less unfair on you
as such measures would cost more through no fault of your own.