I’ve seen plenty of articles criticizing Ubisoft’s latest DRM scheme. You know, the one requiring you have to have a constant internet connection where an interruption in your service, if even for a split second, will cancel your current game and fail to save any progress. Ya, it is an epic failure on paper and in practice. How anyone could think this is a good idea is f*cking stupid. Ubisoft has tried defending their position basically saying that from their viewpoint, they believe that the general public loves their idea. Oh yeah, they also tossed in that their “always on” DRM was “Created by gamers for gamers”.

I’ll let you debate that first one amongst yourselves. But there’s another realization that is now also apparent, requiring a new little phrase: Ubisoft DRM is not only a digital finger to the average joe and jane consumer, but to soldiers as well. That’s right, Ubisoft basically hates soldiers.

It’s simple: You are required to have an internet connection at all times — soldiers do not. Making matters worse, an internet connection in a war-torn nation can easily cost a soldier $150/192k. Ya, good luck bringing up anything without your browser choking. Ubisoft is effectively killing off any chance of soldiers actually picking up games employing the new always-on DRM. Let’s be real. Some will counter with “why are soldiers playing video games and not saving the world like they’re supposed to?”. Short sighted. Not only do they have the right (and downright need) some downtime like any normal human, video games are becoming great ways to improve soldiers’ hand eye coordination and prepare for various firefights.

Hey, whatever floats their boat. I’m sure the stigma associated with shunning men and women in uniform will do wonders for sales…

Ubisoft’s new DRM: Bad for gamers, bad for soldiers, bad for America, bad for the planet.

ArsTechnica

Remember those stupid “It’s Comcastic” commercials. Ya, I like many others had a few choice opinions about them too. If you thought just because there hasn’t been any mention of “Comcast” and “Throttling” in the same sentence for some time that somehow all the parties involved forgot, you were grossly wrong. New details of a retooled and just as anti-consumer policy have surfaced. In fact, Comcast’s new throttling policy is worse than their old one. So how bad is it? There are two scenarios that will alert the packet cops of your seemingly suspicious behavior in which a heavy digital hammer will promptly smack you down:

1. Scenario 1: If using more than 70% of your maximum throughput (up or down) during peak network hours for more than 15 minutes, you can expect to have your speeds cut.
2. Scenario 2: If your digital bits are deemed responsible or even partially responsible for slow downs at your Cable Modem Termination System (shared with thousands – tens of thousands other users).

So what’s the damage cost? Breaking either one of the rules above will result in your precious download/upload speeds being chopped down to 50% for at least 15 minutes or until your average network utilization drops below 50% for at least 15 consecutive minutes. Guess you better not use the internet for anything multimedia related during “peak hours” for fear of navigating yourself down a digital molasses highway. Please Comcast, don’t become the AT&T of the “earth bound” world. Ya, it sucks. One of the very reasons I despise Comcast and choose not to do business with them. Anyone else feeling tad bit of animosity?

Engadget > Slashdot

Source: Boygenius