If SH5 was a car would you buy it?

[Coldcall]

The comparison does not work. A car cannot be modded in the same way as a software application.

Also cars are necessarily built to higher standards re bugginess because if they get a serious bug/error it could kill the driver and passengers. The bugs and DRM insanity of SH5 wont actually kill anyone.

However the DRM thing is a serious issue in its own right since it deals with restricting the freedom of when and how one can use a particular product. Ubisoft are on very shaky legal footing because technically their product in SH5 contravenes description of trade goods acts in most western nations.

On the package it says you must have an internet connection, not that you must connect to a Ubisoft server. So anyopne can take their game back to the retailer they bought it at and get their money back. Its that simple.

Im holding onto mine because modders have already improved the game tremendously so i reckon it will end up very well modded, and consequently will one day be a great game.

[CCIP]

SH5 is not a car though.

[janh]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

The comparison does not work. A car cannot be modded in the same way as a software application.

Also cars are necessarily built to higher standards re bugginess because if they get a serious bug/error it could kill the driver and passengers. The bugs and DRM insanity of SH5 wont actually kill anyone.

....

The comparison is a little far fetched, sure, but you can make it work if you think about the bigger picture. You can even replace car, SHV, software respectively with a placeholder, and will still obtain the same result.

(a) SHV should not need to be modded to function as a product. How many customers are really into modding and spent so much time finding and installing mods? Maybe the GWX people could tell us how many time their final release was downloaded, and how that compared to the ~200.000 sold copies?

(b) Further, SHV should have been an almost bug-free release after the experience with SHIV, that apparently never overcame the initial stigma of a broken product with little innovation aside from graphics. Customers did vote with their wallets in that case, see Ubisoft Corporate official sales report.

(c) Cars are more expensive, and higher price of course leads to less "bug tolerance". If it costs a lot, I want it to be perfect.
This holds true for software, too. I work on huge clusters, occupying 100s-1000s of CPUs daily. The software on such clusters needs to be 100% perfect, but there is still (rare) cases of downtime. The cost of any downtime is sizable, and of course the failure is each time investigated in detail. Any company supplying software for such large-scale applications protects itself by making sure that their products are thoroughly tested, very thoroughly. If any of those companies involved in such a project would act like Ubisoft, not provide best quality software solutions, error-free with excellent support, they'd loose a huge business deal.

But now scaling down the product and its price, you keep the underlying quality criteria. If the product doesn't add any significantly novel feature or functionality to your portfolio, why buy it? If it is low quality (buggy), why buy it? If it requires a couple more patches before it truly leaves beta, why buy it now? If the customer service is bad (OSP DRM?), why not switch to a better supplier with a competing product?

Or would you want to mod your car? Of course you can do so, just requires a few tools and some skill! And ooops, you can replace the broken breaks on your Toyota yourself! Maybe not as efficient as a professional mechanic with the original plans, but still. Similarly, modding a game to fix features is always <= effcient as having the developers fix the code correctly. Scripting always is slower than hardcoding things.

[Heretic]

I bought my '66 Mustang for $2300. It was worth $12,000 after I got done with it. I bought it specificly because of it's potential and I enjoyed the process of making it the way I wanted. Plus I could never have afforded one already restored.

I bought SH5 for the same reason. It's got the usual raft of problems, but I don't think it's really that bad and I expect thme to get fixed, just like with SH3. I'm in it for the long haul and I enjoy being in at the beginning, figuring out how things work, where my contributions can actually matter. I've bought dozens of $50 games over the years that I tossed aside after a few hours, never giving them another thought. I have no doubt I'll get my money's worth many time over with this one.

And after all, it is only a game. They way some folks carry on, you'd think Ubi broke into their house and violated their dog or something.

[badkarma]

Originally Posted by Heretic

I bought my '66 Mustang for $2300. It was worth $12,000 after I got done with it. I bought it specificly because of it's potential and I enjoyed the process of making it the way I wanted. Plus I could never have afforded one already restored.

Except in this case, the '66 Mustang is a 2010 Mustang that cost $12,000 and still needs the same amount of work that your "project" car did to make it worth the $12,000 you just paid for it.
If SH5 cost £4.79 I'd find it hard to disagree with you, or anyone, about the state of it currently.

[Task Force]

NO!!!

If sh5 was a car It would blow up as soon as you put the key in the ignition. BOOM