No DLC for PC PoP

[Hotcod]

http://news.bigdownload.com/2009/02/02/ubisoft-no-prince-of-persia-pc-dlc-for-you/

We never received a response from the publisher. However, In a post on Ubisoft's message boards their community manager has posted up this message: "Unfortunately for business reasons we won't be seeing any PoP DLC appear. Sorry guys!"

First your community managers imply that every PC gamer are pirates and send out a challenge to people to buy your stupid game because of the lack of DRM and then, THEN you pull crap like this? You wonder why people may not want to buy your game when you refuse to support it?

[Telefrog]

What were the sales numbers for the PC version of Prince of Persia? Depending on the sales, I could easily see why they wouldn't bother with the expense of putting the DLC out there.

[Hotcod]

I think perhaps the main issue is that they don't want to give it away for free and can't be bothered opening up a store front to sell it or sorting that side of it out with live or steam, say. With the 360 they already have an inbuilt channel for selling this kind of content. What it does show is a lack of foresight, no matter what numbers PoP has sold they never expected it to make enough money to be worth setting up this DLC roots for the PC before release.

Which all makes perfect and logical sense, if they didn't expect the PC to sell well... but it's still a kick in the ass to any of us who DID buy the game on the PC

[Telefrog]

Which all makes perfect and logical sense, if they didn't expect the PC to sell well... but it's still a kick in the ass to any of us who DID buy the game on the PC

It's a kick in the ass, I guess, but business is business.

[roboninja]

meh, unless this is the best DLC released to date, I doubt I would have bought it anyway. The only company that has roped me into buying DLC is Harmonix with Rock Band. But that game is tailor made for DLC.

[Hotcod]

It's a kick in the ass, I guess, but business is business.

Business is business but in this case it just seems it's business based on presuming things about the PC market and thinking it's not worth catering to PC... if they where going to go down this road why not tell me so i know what i'm buying? There was talk about DLC but at no point was it made clear that it wouldn't be on the PC.

So yes, just because it's business is no reason not to feel let down by this. It all makes sense but they've been rather sassy about the whole damned thing. If they'd have been clear I wouldn't be near as annoyed by this as I am. I don't mind a company not doing things that won't make them money but given that it's clear they never intended to do dlc for the PC that should have been mentnioned from the start when talking about their DLC content.

Hell I'd never have bought it and I honestly don't care that much but I just dislike seeing developers act like this.

edit
Only if you believe baby Jesus :P

Also the double negative stands. In this case they are NOT doing PC content beacuse they think it WON'T make them money.

You should have changed it to "I don't mind companies not doing things that would lose them money" if it bothered you that much. Given the reasoning behind the lack of PC DLC is they think it will lose them money the way you changed it makes no sense. I don't mind you correcting mistakes I make that I miss but please do not change the content or meaning of my posts while doing so.

Editor: Fair enough. ;) Though it was hard to find the meaning in these posts, it was like trying to understand a drunken sailor, heh.

edit: I do ramble, a lot, i know :( I'll try harder

[Ravenlock]

As someone who picked up the PC version at launch specifically to support their choice not to burden it with a draconian DRM scheme (otherwise I would have waited and eventually Gamefly'd it for 360 or picked the PC version up in a bargain bin), this kind of pisses me off. I think it's a really good game and I've enjoyed playing through it a lot so far, but the rest of the experience is going to be considerably dampened knowing that I won't be able to get the DLC everybody else will be playing unless I re-buy it on the 360 and re-play all the stuff I've already played through.

[Hotcod]

I did really rather enjoy the game other than it being too short and there being other problems. I liked that they where trying putting out a game with out DRM even if the community manager made a mess of explaining it. It just seems that this backs up the view lots of people took that they expected the lack of DRM to mean the game failed and use that as a straw man argument for DRM in future games.

I mean there's no way to know of for sure and the fact they seem to have never planed for DLC is just a personal view based on what they've said. Yet it can't shake the feeling that they expected the experiment to fail and i don't know why you'd do something like that unless you wanted something from the failed outcome. In this case I can only think that they expected to be proved right about using DRM and that the PC market is not worth bothering with to some extent.

[Telefrog]

Business is business but in this case it just seems it's business based on presuming things about the PC market and thinking it's not worth catering to PC... if they where going to go down this road why not tell me so i know what i'm buying? There was talk about DLC but at no point was it made clear that it wouldn't be on the PC.

So yes, just because it's business is no reason not to feel let down by this. It all makes sense but they've been rather sassy about the whole damned thing. If they'd have been clear I wouldn't be near as annoyed by this as I am. I don't mind a company not doing things that won't make them money but given that it's clear they never intended to do dlc for the PC that should have been mentnioned from the start when talking about their DLC content.

Hell I'd never have bought it and I honestly don't care that much but I just dislike seeing developers act like this.

1) You got the complete game with your initial purchase that everyone else (consoles included) got for their money. Buying a game based on the presumption of DLC doesn't make much sense to me, but if that's what you want to do, then I'd warn you that you're going to be disappointed a lot in the future.

Call me weird, but I buy products based on their performance/worth now, not for their potential. We all know what happens to products sold on potential, right?

2) I'm not sure who you're referring to when you accuse "them" of being sassy, or even what you're classifying as sassy. I assume you're talking about the community mod posting a dare to PC gamers in the official forums to buy the game and support it because of the absence of DRM. Skipping the fact that it was a CM and not actually a dev, I'm not clear on what this has to do with the lack of DLC for PC. They seem like two separate issues.

[TrackZero]

I'd have to agree, not offering the DLC for one specific platform with no viable reason given certainly leads you to wonder what they were thinking. It's not a far cry (heh heh) to wager it's because they were expecting that no DRM "experiment" to fail. Hopefully the community outcry will be enough that they'll give a real answer, or possibly make the DLC available.

[H.Bogard]

Eh... I don't see what the point is to release it for PC players for anything more than free.

Maybe when the DLC is milked enough on consoles, they might release it for free on the PC sponsored by Nvidia or AMD or something.

Don't care though, from what I read about the DLC, it doesn't sound like much. Heck, they even mentioned that the character model for the new boss is supposed to be a recycled boss from the main game.

[Hotcod]

1) You got the complete game with your initial purchase that everyone else (consoles included) got for their money. Buying a game based on the presumption of DLC doesn't make much sense to me, but if that's what you want to do, then I'd warn you that you're going to be disappointed a lot in the future.

Call me weird, but I buy products based on their performance/worth now, not for their potential. We all know what happens to products sold on potential, right?

2) I'm not sure who you're referring to when you accuse "them" of being sassy, or even what you're classifying as sassy. I assume you're talking about the community mod posting a dare to PC gamers in the official forums to buy the game and support it because of the absence of DRM. Skipping the fact that it was a CM and not actually a dev, I'm not clear on what this has to do with the lack of DLC for PC. They seem like two separate issues.

1) I didn't buy the game on the promise of DLC but the fact is that the ability to download DLC exists on the consoles and not on the PC. My copy of the game lets me do less than the other copies. This was not made clear when they first talked about DLC let alone when i first brought the game.

In other words i didn't buy the game beacuse it might have gotten DLC. But knowing that the xbox would get DLC and the PC not, well, that could have effected my choice of which copy to buy in the first place. Not saying it would but if it was made clear they had planed DLC that would not be coming the PC unless lots of copies sold this would be much less of an issue with me.

2) Given everything that's happened with PoP so far i just can't help but feel they wanted the PC copy of "fail". That is being an ass to the people who did give the developers money on the PC to show that people will buy a game with a lack of DRM. I'm not going to repeat what i said in my last post and it is all clearly speculation but i just think that the way they have handled all this has turned something that wouldn't be a big deal with me in to something of a issue... if only a little one.

[Jackel]

1) Rant About Equality

Don't you think you are being a bit hypocritical, arguing that a company should provide DLC when you wouldn't even buy it?

What if they did release it, but charged for it? Guess what...us PC Gamers would be screaming bloody murder that we should get everything for free. Because we're used to that.

I think you are over-reaching by saying that they want the PC Version to fail. I don't have numbers to prove it but I bet if you compare PC vs. Console games, you'll find that DLC tends to be purchased by a higher percentage of console gamers than PC ones. So why should they bother spending costly time porting the DLC over to the PC when it just isn't cost effective for them to do so.

I feel for those of you who chose the PC version instead of the 360 version, but lets not forget that even our beloved Valve screwed over the 360 Orange Box owners by not releasing the same content for the PC(at the same time) to the 360. Multi console / PC games have always had differences in content. Maybe the 360 gets DLC but the PS3 doesn't. Hell...console gamers don't get the tons of free mod content that us PC Gamers do.

So get off your high horse and realize that they have every right to not put out DLC for a version they don't feel will be profitable. I'd rather they not put it out and lose profit, than spend that money making a quality game elsewhere.

[crazyD]

Regardless of business reasons, which, as a gamer, I do not care about, this is a low blow, and shows that Ubi doesn't really give a shit about PC gamers. Even though I hated PoP with a passion, and would have never purchased the DLC, I will keep this in mind when considering future purchases from Ubi. While the DLC may not have been profitable, neither is getting a reputation for not allowing paying customers game content.

[Jackel]

Regardless of business reasons, which, as a gamer, I do not care about, this is a low blow, and shows that Ubi doesn't really give a shit about PC gamers. Even though I hated PoP with a passion, and would have never purchased the DLC, I will keep this in mind when considering future purchases from Ubi. While the DLC may not have been profitable, neither is getting a reputation for not allowing paying customers game content.

As a gamer you should care about it. Development houses only have so much funding. They need to decide where to put that. So much to the 360, so much to the PC.

Would you rather they spend that money making DLC, that you admittedly wouldn't buy, or would you rather they spend it making a new game that you actually might want to play? Instead of some cheap console to PC port?

[Hotcod]

How in the hell is it that being hypocritical? Not that has any relation to the points I've been making but if was actually arguing that a company has to provide DLC across all the games platforms the fact i personally may not what to buy it would have nothing to do with it.

Back on topic my issues here is with how they've dealt with the choices they've made not the choice it's self. If they don't want to provide the option to buy the DLC for the PC that is up to them, if they think they'll lose money doing it then it would be silly for them to do so. It's just how telling us there will be no DLC for PC seems like an after thought and it's likely they never planed to. Coupled with the over all attitude they've seemed (to me) to have about the PC port i am left with the sense they wanted to see the DRM PC copy fail.

On top of that where have i said that I wouldn't or think PC gamers shouldn't pay for DLC? I know you didn't say that i did but i feel it's heavily implied that i would be moaning about having to pay if it was available. So to be clear i brought the fallout 3 DLC the other day, i feel it may be a little over priced but i was happy to do it. DoWII is looking to have lots of paid DLC and I'm likely to buy a lot of that too. Just beacuse in this case i think the content they are offering is not really worth buying shouldn't mean i can't comment on the issue with how they are handling it.

I know I can ramble a bit in my posts but I didn't think it was so bad that you've completely missed the point I've been talking about.

[Jackel]

How in the hell is it that being hypocritical? Not that has any relation to the points I've been making but if was actually arguing that a company has to provide DLC across all the games platforms the fact i personally may not what to buy it would have nothing to do with it.

Back on topic my issues here is with how they've dealt with the choices they've made not the choice it's self. If they don't want to provide the option to buy the DLC for the PC that is up to them, if they think they'll lose money doing it then it would be silly for them to do so. It's just how telling us there will be no DLC for PC seems like an after thought and it's likely they never planed to. Coupled with the over all attitude they've seemed (to me) to have about the PC port i am left with the sense they wanted to see the DRM PC copy fail.

On top of that where have i said that I wouldn't or think PC gamers shouldn't pay for DLC? I know you didn't say that i did but i feel it's heavily implied that i would be moaning about having to pay if it was available. So to be clear i brought the fallout 3 DLC the other day, i feel it may be a little over priced but i was happy to do it. DoWII is looking to have lots of paid DLC and I'm likely to buy a lot of that too. Just beacuse in this case i think the content they are offering is not really worth buying shouldn't mean i can't comment on the issue with how they are handling it.

I know I can ramble a bit in my posts but I didn't think it was so bad that you've completely missed the point I've been talking about.

Talking to people on irc, we're coming at it from different angles.

I just think that trying to hold a company to anything (even expecting an announcement) about something that you admit you wouldn't purchase is hypocritical.

As for the DLC, I wasn't implying that you in particular wouldn't pay for it. Look at this thread, how many people here admit that they wouldn't purchase the DLC. Obviously this isn't a proper sample...but I'm sure they've done research on it.

If you were Ubisoft, and you knew people wouldn't buy it...would you really make an announcement or just let it slide in case later on they release it for free?

I guess what I'm saying that if it was just that they didn't announce the DLC, that I wouldn't care...but I can see how it has been a series of PR clusterfucks starting with the DRM challenge.

[Hotcod]

I think I'm holding them accountable to a reasonable level of customer service and not to treat some people who are giving them money as an after thought and less valuable than others. That this happens to deal with DLC that I personally would be unlikely to buy has nothing to do with it. Would I have been hypercritical to disagree with the way there community manager talked about the DRM experiment if I was never going to buy the game anyway?

I get where your coming from and i think we agree mostly. I just can't see anything hypocritical about my view points in the way that your suggesting.

[J Arcane]

Remember when like, PC game developers released stuff in patches for free, because they knew that continued support would further bolster continued sales?

I liked those days.

[Esquilax1138]

Remember when like, PC game developers released stuff in patches for free, because they knew that continued support would further bolster continued sales?

I liked those days.

Me too, well at least Valve is throwing us some bones with the TF2 updates, and L4D should be seeing some nice free content as well.

I know how Hotcod feels though, there is still no downloadable songs for the PC version of Guitar Hero 3, the "Downloads" menu always just says "coming soon" and we all know it's never, ever coming.

That said I did pay like $30 less than the console version, and also have not paid them any more for the downloadable songs, so less money for the dev's. If they can't figure out a way to make DLC work on the PC then fuck them, and if they think I'll buy a console to play the game then fuck them double.

It's probably just that PoP is at it's heart a console game, console people seem to like platform jumping, most PC gamers I know fucking hate it. I didn't buy PoP, and I didn't pirate it either, I just didn't give a shit.

[Hotcod]

Remember when like, PC game developers released stuff in patches for free, because they knew that continued support would further bolster continued sales?

I liked those days.

errm when was that i don't remember it happening much with any one but valve. Even stardock are charging for a meaty amount of content for sins but so far it seems like it's ok for them to do it... beacuse we like them.

Thing is that good DLC done in a good way is a good thing for every one. If i feel like i've gotten my moneys worth out of a game and the dev comes along with a meaty bit of content that they've been working hard on while the games been out... well... if it's reasonably priced i'm happy to buy it. I get more fun from a game i like, the devs get paid and if it works out well they might make even more content for me to buy and enjoy.

Valve just has far more money, much grater control over there work and a much bigger cut of there games profits than any other studio that you can name. It means they can put out meaty content with out charging beacuse it's even more in there long term interest to get people playing games on steam. Not only dose the extra tf2 content make more people want to buy the game it means more people using steam and maybe more people buying games from steam.

Sadly most DLC is an after thought. Crap they had laying around half finished or a few extra things that are knocked out with out much effort and priced far far to highly as a way to squeeze as much money out of a game as quickly as they can before dropping it and moving on.

So yes, there, i said it. DLC is not inherently bad, in fact i think it can be a good, even grate, thing for a game if it's done right.

[crazyD]

As a gamer you should care about it. Development houses only have so much funding. They need to decide where to put that. So much to the 360, so much to the PC.

Would you rather they spend that money making DLC, that you admittedly wouldn't buy, or would you rather they spend it making a new game that you actually might want to play? Instead of some cheap console to PC port?

As a gamer, I care about games. The business side doesn't really interest me, and I don't really see why it should.

If Ubisoft wanted my respect, and cared about me purchasing their games, they would properly support my system of choice. Since they don't, I will keep this in mind for future purposes.

[Jackel]

I mean there's no way to know of for sure and the fact they seem to have never planed for DLC is just a personal view based on what they've said. Yet it can't shake the feeling that they expected the experiment to fail and i don't know why you'd do something like that unless you wanted something from the failed outcome. In this case I can only think that they expected to be proved right about using DRM and that the PC market is not worth bothering with to some extent.

Right there is your hypocrisy.

Claiming they're expecting the game to fail by not planning for DLC, when even you admit that you don't want said DLC.
I am surprised that more companies don't follow Valve's role and release the content for free on PC. Valve has made it pretty clear that they have had increased sales every time a new TF2 update gets released.

As a gamer, I care about games. The business side doesn't really interest me, and I don't really see why it should.

If Ubisoft wanted my respect, and cared about me purchasing their games, they would properly support my system of choice. Since they don't, I will keep this in mind for future purposes.

Because Great Games cost money, and without that Business side....you wouldn't have the games period. That's why you should care about the business side. Its like saying....Fuck the egg, even if that is what the hen is hatched from.

I will agree that Ubisoft doesn't respect your system of choice (or mine) but that is there own dumb decision and they're the ones who will have to deal with it.

[crazyD]

Because Great Games cost money, and without that Business side....you wouldn't have the games period. That's why you should care about the business side. Its like saying....Fuck the egg, even if that is what the hen is hatched from.

I will agree that Ubisoft doesn't respect your system of choice (or mine) but that is there own dumb decision and they're the ones who will have to deal with it.

No, it's like being a person who likes eating chicken, but doesn't really give a crap about eggs. Sure, it's related, but that doesn't mean I should care. All I care about is the games, and if they are not getting support, I am less likely to buy from Ubi in the future. Cut and dry.

[Jackel]

No, it's like being a person who likes eating chicken, but doesn't really give a crap about eggs. Sure, it's related, but that doesn't mean I should care. All I care about is the games, and if they are not getting support, I am less likely to buy from Ubi in the future. Cut and dry.

The thing is you should still care...because the quality of the eggs affects the quality of the chicken, which is important.

Do you buy the cheap chicken that was barely fed, or do you buy the healthy, grain fed, fat chicken?

[Telefrog]

I think the chicken analogy is done.

[Hotcod]

Right there is your hypocrisy.

Claiming they're expecting the game to fail by not planning for DLC, when even you admit that you don't want said DLC.
I am surprised that more companies don't follow Valve's role and release the content for free on PC. Valve has made it pretty clear that they have had increased sales every time a new TF2 update gets released.


What, the, hell.

What i said was simple. They seem to have made no plans for providing PC DLC. This to me says they didn't expect the game to sell well enough for the investment to be worth it. Me then saying that i personally wouldn't buy the DLC has no impact on that. Even if i owned the game on the 360 i wouldn't buy the DLC.

In other words my second statement has no impact on the first. You can argue that PC gamers on the whole may by less DLC and that is the reason they didn't do it but that still dose not make me a hypocrite... at worst it would make the speculation, which i've never said IS the truth, wrong. And given that it's there handling of the matter not the DLC it's self that I'm taking issue with then it's a none issue over all anyway.

You do know what being hypercritical means don't you? beacuse I'm struggling to understand how you can even remotely claim that what I said there was hypocritical

[crazyD]

The thing is you should still care...because the quality of the eggs affects the quality of the chicken, which is important.

Do you buy the cheap chicken that was barely fed, or do you buy the healthy, grain fed, fat chicken?

No, I care about how the chicken ends up, and that is it. As a chicken fan, I am not interested in the nitty gritty egg stuff. I will not buy chickens that are bad, but... this is really stretching the metaphor way too far.

From my position, as how this affects me personally, I see that Ubisoft will not support their PC games. Sure, they may lose money releasing the DLC, but they will also lose money by me and others not buying their games due to a lack of support.

[Jackel]

I'm going to try this one last time before I'm finished trying to explain this to you, when you're clearly not getting it.

You claim that it is there handling of the matter that has you all riled up. How did they handle it....they essentially said nothing except for 1 community manager on the forums who said "sorry, but we're not doing it for business reasons"

The only reason for you to complain about them ignoring the PC is if you actually wanted the product. But you don't want it do you?

So lets see how this is hypocritical of you:

Just so we're operating on the same definition, here is the one from Dictionary.com

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

You CLAIM (or as the definition states - pretend) to care about how Ubisoft deals with the DLC. You claimed "It was a kick in the ass" that they didn't provide it for the PC. If you care about how they handled it, it reasons that you care about the DLC itself.

You don't actually believe that though....because, In Actual fact, You could give a flying rats ass about the DLC...you have no intention of buying it.

If you need it any simpler than that....well...I don't have the time to draw you a picture so you'll have to just stay confused.

[pomeroy]

I don't get the rampant bolding, Hotcod.

[crazyD]

The only reason for you to complain about them ignoring the PC is if you actually wanted the product. But you don't want it do you?

I disagree. I do not like that they are ignoring the PC, even though I wouldn't buy this, as it is a bad sign for future releases on the PC that I may be interested in.

[Hotcod]

stuff

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

How is me not buying the DLC the opposite or even lack of care about how the company choices to deal with owners of PC copy of the game?

You've yet to explain how me not wanting the DLC means I can't dislike there treatment of some of there customers over that DLC. The only way you've found so far is to say that I must care about the DLC to take issue with there handling of it... and as such I'm hypocritical for stating i wouldn't buy it. Which makes no damned sense what so ever.

Let's make this clear, i don't care about the DLC in and of it's self. What i do care about is the treatment of the PC users by the company. These are separate issues that you are trying to shoe horn together for no other reason that to show that you where right to call me hypercritical. You make an arbitrary link that since i take issue with how they've handled the DLC issue and treated a section of there customers that I MUST have want to buy the DLC. It's ridiculous.

Just to put it another way you don't think any one can care about the treatment of a group of people unless that treatment directly effects them... fun.

[Jackel]

I simply see it as hypocritical because you own the original game (let me explain)

You aren't some outside observer who is fighting for the equal rights between consoles / PC. Or Like CrazyD (who I'm assuming didn't buy PoP - as he said he hated it earlier in the thread) who is fighting for PC rights in general.

You are actually in the group you are trying to defend.

People like YOU are the reason they aren't doing the DLC for PC. You're fighting for the rights of PC Owners of PoP....but guess what..YOU are part of that group...and when you try to argue one thing (that they should release DLC - for those poor poor hard done by owners of the PC who wish they had it - Guys like Ravenlock who actually have a reason to be pissed) but actually feel another (that the DLC is not worth purchasing) that is hypocrisy.

[axion]

I don't get the rampant bolding, Hotcod.

Those are all the things Track fixed in his editing probably.

[Dukefrukem]

who cares. most DLC is crap anyway.

[crazyD]

You aren't some outside observer who is fighting for the equal rights between consoles / PC. Or Like CrazyD (who I'm assuming didn't buy PoP - as he said he hated it earlier in the thread) who is fighting for PC rights in general.

I did buy PoP, actually, and for the PC at that. That is how I know that I hate it.

If they were to make a statement saying that supporting their PC games is something they plan to do, and that this is just an off case where sales do not justify it, then I wouldn't mind as much. They didn't however, and this makes it seem to me that they do not really plan on supporting PC games at all.

[Hotcod]

I simply see it as hypocritical because you own the original game (let me explain)

You aren't some outside observer who is fighting for the equal rights between consoles / PC. Or Like CrazyD (who I'm assuming didn't buy PoP - as he said he hated it earlier in the thread) who is fighting for PC rights in general.

You are actually in the group you are trying to defend.

People like YOU are the reason they aren't doing the DLC for PC. You're fighting for the rights of PC Owners of PoP....but guess what..YOU are part of that group...and when you try to argue one thing (that they should release DLC - for those poor poor hard done by owners of the PC who wish they had it - Guys like Ravenlock who actually have a reason to be pissed) but actually feel another (that the DLC is not worth purchasing) that is hypocrisy.

I should have saved the facepalm.

My issue is NOT that they are not putting the DLC out on the PC. My issue is how there was in my eyes no plans for it and the announcement was handled badly and as an after thought. If they think it's not going to make any money fine... the reason it's an issue for me is that they seem to have thought it was never going to make any money before knowing sale figures beacuse they expected the PC DRM free to see badly and be pirated to hell.

Now let just for the sake of argument say i was arguing the point that you think i am and that i am arguing that the DLC should be available for PC owners...

Now the key word there is "available" and just beacuse, for me, given my budget for games my view on the value of the DLC i'm unlikely to pick it up it dose not mean that i couldn't argue for it to be available to those people who want it. Just beacuse I don't want to buy the DLC dose not mean other PC users wouldn't and that they shouldn't have the "right" to make a choice.

In this case i wouldn't argue that, beacuse it's stupid. You have no rights to DLC and if the company thinks they will lose money making it for the PC that up to them. Which is why (to state it again to try and make it clear) my issue is with there handling of the choice not to put our dlc for the PC and how to me it's another PR muck up that makes it look like they really don't give a crap about the PC and expected the port to fail.

In other words you seem to think that it would be hypercritical to, say, think weed to be legalised when you don't smoke it. Because if you don't smoke it then you can't argue for the rights of freinds in your peer group who might to choice to, to do so... or at lest that is your rather warped view of the world as best as i can make it out. I know it's far form a perfect analogy but i do hope it makes you stop and think a second about the train of logic your using. I'm sure it seems perfectly fine to you given what you think i'm saying but even if i WAS saying that your logic is broken.

[pomeroy]

Those are all the things Track fixed in his editing probably.

Oh, I didn't even see that he had edited them. Wow.

[Jackel]

I did buy PoP, actually, and for the PC at that. That is how I know that I hate it.

If they were to make a statement saying that supporting their PC games is something they plan to do, and that this is just an off case where sales do not justify it, then I wouldn't mind as much. They didn't however, and this makes it seem to me that they do not really plan on supporting PC games at all.

And I think that's where our difference of opinion is. You view this as Ubisofts overall rejection of the PC as a viable market.

Like I said previously, I think that it is Ubisofts mistake to reject the market....but who knows...maybe they intend to release it as a patch later on, and don't want to cannibalize their own sales (or mabye I'm giving Ubisoft too much credit)

Doesn't change the fact that (I see it) as hypocritical to complain about the lack of DLC for a game (that you own) when you have no intention of buying it if (/when) it is ever released.

edit: Just noticed HotCod posted...not even going to bother responding other than him being way off base b/c he's flip flopped more times on what he's arguing for (whereas CrazyD actually has a solid stance).

[Hotcod]

Good thing i took the time to address your point, for the sake of argument, in terms of what you think i've been saying. I did it to prove to you that your argument is simply logically flawed. No matter what point i've been trying to make the reasons that you've been calling me hypercritical based on what you think i've been saying are still simply wrong.

[Jackel]

Good thing i took the time to address your point, for the sake of argument, in terms of what you think i've been saying. I did it to prove to you that your argument is simply logically flawed. No matter what point i've been trying to make the reasons that you've been calling me hypercritical based on what you think i've been saying are still simply wrong.

Address my point? No

For some reason you think that (Ubisoft) attacked PC Gamers by not having a single announcement about PoP DLC (I don't consider a Community guy responding to a thread an announcement).
And what is the only reason you want an announcement:

Wait for it....Wait for it: You think the PC versions should have DLC.

I mean I don't recall seeing a thread like this over a game like Mary Gate and Ashley goto Disneyland DLC? No..Because you don't give a rats ass about it. You don't think an announcement is necessary for those gamers right?

So now that we've established that the underlying foundation of your arguement IS exactly what I've been trying to show you

Maybe we can guide you through the Level 10 Logic Maze that so clearly has you trapped over a left turn:

I Own Game. DLC Not Released for my Game. I Argue about why DLC Should come to my Game. I not buy DLC despite my own arguements.

Do you see how that might be construed as Hypocritical?

As for the marijuana comment, since the rest of your comments are so way off base, I'm not even going to bother with all the problems in your analogy.

------------------------------------------------

edit: Might have made this a bit personal / more insulting and I'm sorry - edited a bunch of it out. If you still don't understand my point, don't even bother replying HotCod....better for both of us

[Hotcod]

And what is the only reason you want an announcement:

Wait for it....Wait for it: You think the PC versions should have DLC.


You can sit there and say that i don't understand your point but the simple fact is that this part of your argument is wrong. Your saying that wanting an announcement HAS to mean I want the DLC, that is ridiculous and clearly misses the points I've been making. You can restate it in as many different ways as you like but that can never change the fact that you making an assumption about my motivates that isn't true based on logic that is flawed. So you can tell me to shut up and that i don't get your point but honestly man why should i? i'm the one being attacked and called one of the few things i hate people being... and it's all based on shoddy leaps of logic that wouldn't hold up if a kitten breathed on it


I Own Game. DLC Not Released for my Game. I Argue about why DLC Should come to my Game. I not buy DLC despite my own arguements.

Do you see how that might be construed as Hypocritical?


As I've said even if that WAS what I was saying it's still NOT hypocritical not matter how much you think it is. I can see why you could construe some one arguing that as being hypocritical, i can understand why you may think i AM arguing that... but the fact is that i'm not arguing that and even if i did me not buying the DLC simply dose not make me hypercritical in the way that you think it dose. I've been over why and there's no point restating it.

I care about PC gaming and when a publishers of games that I like (and i do like pop and even farcry) treats PC gaming as an afterthought it concerns me. There are other issues and other things here than just wanting to play the DLC and the problem you have is that you can separate them. In your eyes any negative reaction to anything to do with this DLC has to mean that you wanted the DLC... to me that is just stupid... and it's the reason for the far for perfect cannabis analogy. The point being that in your eyes you can't argue about the lack of availability of something if you don't want it.

Let me restate that, you are saying that it's hypercritical to take issue with the lack of availability of something to a group that you choice to a a part of unless you want the thing that is being made available. That is dumb. I'm not trying to be personal but i really want you to understand how ridiculous that seems to me.

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture and just for a moment remove the idea of DLC from the argument. Take a look at the other issues involved in this and the wider implications involved. And then try and understand that my issue with all of this is how it makes it look like this publisher dose not care about the PC and the owners of there games on the PC. In essence it's everything BUT the DLC that i care about, as I've stated time and time again they don't have to put the DLC, i would never argue that they should put the DLC out. I understand that they are a business and they may not want to do things that they think will lose them money.

That you keep on ignoring this and insisting that to talk about this issue at all i must want the DLC i have no idea how to get through to you. Your making one huge assumption after another and it's getting boring. There's only some many times i can point out that your wrong and you refuse to see it. It seems your already close to exploding where as it, boring as it is, can sit here and do this all day... and that says something, to me at lest.

Look man you can carry on telling me I'm saying something I'm not and that makes me hypercritical even when it clearly doesn't even if I say saying what I'm not in the first place... but your wrong.

Funny thing is that we tend to agree on most of the issue and this whole argument has spun out of the fact i took issue with the hypocritical statement. It's kind of silly really, you want to be right about one little point in your post we disagree about and i don't like being called something i'm not and its spawned pages of mainly off topic arguments which amounts to us bitching over systematics.

Still, you can carry on arguing with me if you like... i will reply to anything you post dealing with this... but if you want to drop it i'm happy to do so and we can see if we can put this thread back on topic a little.

[Ravenlock]

Hotcod: "hypercritical" and "hypocritical" are not the same. I'm not picking a side here, but this thread is getting long and it keeps happening in every post you make. ;)

[H.Bogard]

Someone cut Hotcod's coffee supply.

Sheesh, come and do my homework for me, why don't ya?

[Jackel]

I can see why you could construe some one arguing that as being hypocritical,

May have took you a while but I'm glad you see it my way.

[Hotcod]

From the start I've understood where you've been coming from while making your mistake but it's still a mistake

Hotcod: "hypercritical" and "hypocritical" are not the same. I'm not picking a side here, but this thread is getting long and it keeps happening in every post you make. ;)

I'm dyslexic, i misspell it and then have to try and pick the right one from the spell check and i get it wrong, a lot, but sometimes i just don't see that i've got it wrong... you knew what i was saying so its ok :)

[Ravenlock]

I'm dyslexic, i misspell it and then have to try and pick the right one from the spell check and i get it wrong, a lot, but sometimes i just don't see that i've got it wrong... you knew what i was saying so its ok :)

Ah. Fair enough then, carry on. ;)