| |
| ▲ | flaunf221 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > made a change specifically to run on the steam deck No, they didn't, you don't need to lie. From your url: > EASY ANTI-CHEAT > Updated Easy Anti-Cheat client module and library. > Developer's Comment:* This update of Easy Anti-Cheat makes the game playable on Steam Deck.* That is not "we made a change to specifically run on deck." Steam deck support might be accidental side effect of them getting newer anti-cheat tech. | | |
| ▲ | ben-schaaf 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You need to include extra files and enable a flag for EAC to work on Linux. You don't do that by accident. You also don't advertise that it works on the steam deck by accident. | | |
| ▲ | flaunf221 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ok, I admit I was wrong. Still user's problem if they manage or not manage to run the game through whatever translation and emulation layers they have instead of using official system requirements. | | |
| ▲ | echoangle a day ago | parent [-] | | If the developer actively points out that they made changes so the software works on a specific platform and then actively disabled support for that platform later, I think people that can’t use the software anymore should get a refund. |
|
| |
| ▲ | toshinoriyagi 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think this is accurate. Easy Anti-Cheat has supported Linux for a long time, many years before this. I doubt they were years and years out of date, updated, and allowing Linux was turned on by default in the new version. What they likely mean is they ticked the box in this game update to let it run on Linux. Why would they specifically mention the Steam Deck? EAC doesn't have separate flags for Linux and Steam Deck. It's almost certain they intentionally allowed it to run on Linux. They call out Steam Deck by name because it is a popular handheld that has greatly increased the # of Linux users, not because an EAC update allowed it to work by chance. | | |
| ▲ | flaunf221 2 days ago | parent [-] | | And it's still not an active support decision. They allowed it - but it's your business. Whenever people gets problems or successes running through Proton, this is never a publisher's issue. |
| |
| ▲ | happymellon 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What's up with people on here being jerks and saying > you lie! It's becoming more common, and I know I'll downvote anything that says it because it isn't constructive. Back to the point, the quote definitely says to me that they support Linux other why mention that the game is playable on Steam Deck? | | |
| ▲ | flaunf221 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > why mention that the game is playable on Steam Deck? Because it became playable? And now it's not.
System requirements are still the same. You can see them on game purchase page. | | |
| |
| ▲ | altairprime 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Steam Deck” here means Steam Deck booted into Windows but not Steam Deck booted into Linux, I thought? | | |
| ▲ | ben-schaaf 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, it means Linux. They enabled the easy anti cheat flag to allow running on Linux. | | |
| ▲ | altairprime 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Wow. .. that must have been some atrocious telemetry data correlating cheaters and Linux. I wish they’d released a report on it — I mean, fuck Ubisoft, but at least we’d have data to argue about rather than this copout of a release note from them. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >account for their mistake in selling you the game. i hate ubisoft as much as the next person, but if they listed the game as only supporting windows when it launched, and someone bought it for linux despite it not being supported, ubisoft did not make a "mistake" in selling the game to them. the buyer made a decision to purchase the game for an unsupported system. (the rule i follow, which hasn't gone wrong yet, is to avoid all ubisoft games like the plague) edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows. | | |
| ▲ | tempfile 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The case for a refund seems totally obvious. Why should you get to keep my
money? I paid for a product and I did not get it. Selling it incurs no cost on
you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction. It's not like I
ate a meal and then decided I wanted to order something else. This all presumes of course that it is legitimate to ban people from using
certain computing environments when running software for whatever reason you
feel like. Lots of people don't think this is legitimate at all, which makes
sense, because people don't really try to justify it. It's legitimate to want
to ban cheaters, this is just not a reasonable means of enforcing that, because
there are legitimate players who want to play the game and can't because of
this policy. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >I paid for a product and I did not get it you paid for a windows product. the product still works on windows, right? if ubisoft advertised linux support for this game, i am 100% with you on the refund. as far as i can tell, they did not. they advertised the game as a windows product. | | |
| ▲ | happymellon 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't need to claim false advertising to get a refund for literally any other product, so this argument doesn't hold any water. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent [-] | | like every other product you had a refund window. you can't buy a shirt, wear it for 9 years, then return it. | | |
| |
| ▲ | tempfile a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >> Selling it incurs no cost on you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction. Do you have a reply for this part? | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | sure. it's a lie to say you received no benefit from the transaction. you either played it for more than 2 hours (benefit) or you are allowed to refund it via steam's standard policy. do you have a reply to this comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49524418 | | |
| ▲ | tempfile 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok - I don't know about the steam refunds policy. So I received a partial benefit. Perhaps I should get a partial refund? btw I wasn't being facetious, I just thought you picked the easiest part to respond to so I wondered if you had one for the harder part. I have to unpack a few things to answer the whole comment faithfully. First is
the distinction between "we forbid linux users from running the software" and
"we aren't going to invest any development work on making linux APIs work".
The first one is in my view completely indefensible and should be illegal. The
second one is basically fine even though I personally dislike it.
I am mentioning this because companies use "support" as a euphemism for
both. My understanding of the situation here is that the game runs fine on
linux, ubisoft just isn't able to stop cheating as effectively. Note that both
platforms have a nonzero rate of cheating and of valid play. Companies have a right and an obligation to advertise how their products are
designed to work and how they work best. If a shirt has a care label that says
don't bleach, and I damage it by bleaching, that's on me. Adapting this analogy
to software is dangerous and wrong, because software can be made to break for
arbitrary reasons, some of which are my own stupid fault and some of which are
just the vendor exercising power over me. If I manage to bleach my shirt
without damaging it, the manufacturer has no right to set it on fire and say
"well you bleached it, so what did you expect?". If they did, they would have
to compensate me. I view what has happened much more like "they set my shirt on
fire" than "I broke my own shirt". Computer programs are also not really similar to physical products at all,
since physical products degrade over time and programs do not. If I use a shirt
for five years and then abruptly decide I didn't want it after all, then I've
still damaged the thing and should not get the full amount of money back for
it. The fact it's second hand also makes it harder to sell even if it isn't
damaged. But again this is just fake when applied to software, so that tips the
balance more towards refunding than normally. The situation as it currently is,
means that while Ubisoft is allowed to take away my product by saying "you
should never have been able to buy it", I cannot reciprocally take my money
back by saying "I should never have been able to buy it". I don't think there
is a good justification for that asymmetry. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | happymellon 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would deserve a refund because it doesn't work for me. If I buy a shirt, all stores that I go to allow me to return the shirt, or exchange it for store credit. If I go to a grocery store and get the wrong bag of granola, I able to return or exchange it. The question is why Ubisoft deserves special treatment and gets to keep your money if you return it. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >I would deserve a refund because it doesn't work for me. do you not believe in any sort of personal responsibility? on the same page as the "buy" button, it tells you that the game only supports windows. >If I buy a shirt, all stores that I go to allow me to return the shirt, or exchange it for store credit. if you wear it for 9 years, then try to return it, they will say no. | | |
| ▲ | Telaneo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That's only because the shirt would be worn. Digital media doesn't wear out. If that shirt never wore out and it suddenly stopped working in a specific way I use it, it would be reasonable to me to return it. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent [-] | | if i manage to install a windows-only game onto my fridge, and then the game gets updated and doesn't work on my fridge anymore, it would be ridiculous to suggest i should get a refund. this is getting silly though. i am saddened that the concept of personal responsibility has been so eroded. best of luck on your refund. | | |
| ▲ | Telaneo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Doesn't sound ridiculous to me. If anything, companies should provide old versions of the game so the update doesn't affect you, so the problem doesn't happen in the first place. That way you can still play on your fridge with people using other fridges. You lose out on newer features, but you've still got access to what you paid for. I've gotten refunds for less. If an update introduces a fault, that's on the company, no matter the fault. Compatibility with my fridge might be the reason I bought that game. An update removing that functionality leaves the game with a fault, for which I can get the game refunded (or fixed, but companies tend to go with refunds). | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 2 days ago | parent [-] | | >Compatibility with my fridge might be the reason I bought that game the game specifically said it only supported windows. that means it explicitly does not support other platforms. they waived their responsibility to cater to your unsupported use case. people who purchased it understood that when they bought it. caveat emptor. if we carry this on much longer my comments are just going to be flagged, so, good luck with your refund. | | |
| ▲ | Telaneo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > the game specifically said it only supported windows. I don't see why this matters. > they waived their responsibility to cater to your unsupported use case. I don't see why they should have the right to do that. They could just give me access to the unmodified product they originally sold me, rather than the one they didn't actually sell me, and we'd have no issue. They did support my use case. The fact that they aren't now is their fault, and should thus be their problem to solve. > people who purchased it understood that when they bought it. caveat emptor. The Romans weren't familiar with products being able to change from under you. It's one thing to buy a product not knowing what it does support. It's another to buy it, knowing it does work for you, only for it to change due to the whims of the seller. Not to mention we can do better. Consumer protection is important. I don't want an economy based on caveat emptor being an unbreakable truth. > good luck with your refund. I've already had success. I live in a country with good consumer protection laws. I wish the rest of the world would catch up. | | |
| ▲ | flaunf221 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > I live in a country with good consumer protection laws. I wish the rest of the world would catch up. What country allows people to return products made years ago simply because they no longer want them? I might have an idea there. My EU country allows only 14 days to return things for no reason. And also yes, it matters what product promises.
Otherwise I can buy the game when some cheat works and when cheat stops working (due to anticheat improvement) demand refund, because it worked one way before, and now it doesn't. Broken product, cheating must be protected by laws. | | |
| ▲ | Telaneo 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > What country allows people to return products made years ago simply because they no longer want them? None that I know of. This is a mischaracterisation of what I wrote. > And also yes, it matters what product promises. Otherwise I can buy the game when some cheat works and when cheat stops working (due to anticheat improvement) demand refund, because it worked one way before, and now it doesn't. Broken product, cheating must be protected by laws. If the game doesn't provide a way to roll back to a previous patch, nor allows you to use said cheat (or whatever other additional software for that matter) while running on your own server, then yes, you should be able to get a refund. The product changed from under you, and might now have a fault which prevents you from using it as you (the customer) intended. If you can roll back and set up your own server, then you still have the complete product you actually bought, with no faults. If the company changes the product from under you, they should be on the hook if that introduces any faults for any users out there. Gameplay on the company servers is subject to the EULA, most of which ban cheating, which is one of the few reasonable rules they tend to add to those things. In that case, that use case is specifically disallowed, so there's no argument to be made that the game has a fault if a cheat gets patched into extinction. You should however still be able to play using the old patch on your own server. The fact that you can play on your own server and cheat doesn't automatically mean you can do the same on random servers. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | barnabee 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Many physical stores will accept returns for a refund with literally no reason required, so why not? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | freedomben 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows. You're probably downvoted by people's emotions and feelings because they don't want to see any (even and especially if valid) defense of Ubisoft here. It's wrong and shouldn't happen, but it very much does. I'm linux-only for 15+ years now and only buy games that run on Linux. I am filled with righteous rage when companies do what they are doing. But you're not wrong, this one is on the buyer not the seller, though everyone should remember this move and avoid buying Ubisoft games in the future because they have proven outwardly hostile. A criticism I do give them (the seller) though, if you're going to block linux then it should be well-stated in the game description so people don't miss it. Not doing this is dishonest marketing IMHO. |
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It'd actually be your mistake for buying a game for a platform that's not even supported. That they even allowed or spent resources for it to run on Linux initially is something to be grateful for. |
|
