Assassin's Creed: Codename Red (AC Japan)

[dyne]

From Wario 64 via Ubisoft

Ubisoft has clarified that Assassin's Creed Shadows will not require a mandatory online connection at all times.

"An online connection will be needed to install the game, but you will be able to play the entire journey, offline, and explore Japan without any online connection."

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by dyne

From Wario 64 via Ubisoft

So the way that's phrased basically implies you HAVE to be connected to the Internet to even install the game off the disc. That's BS

What happens once they yank the authentication server offline that you are supposed to connect to? Now you have a useless coaster. Typical Ubishite. This is why i won't buy their games at launch at all anymore and especially since their prices fall ridiculously low post release by the time i get around to having time to play. Better to buy later and get a DLC version.

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by dyne

From Wario 64 via Ubisoft

This seems to be their new thing. Wasn’t the same required for Avatar? And the upcoming Star Wars game will require the same.

I’d like to hear their reasoning for this requirement.

[VictoryAtNight]

Ubisoft formally revealed Assassin’s Creed Shadows on May 15, and like 2015’s Assassin’s Creed Syndicate before it, it will feature not one but two playable characters. One is an original character named Naoe, a ninja who bears the Hidden Blade weapon synonymous with the Assassin’s Creed series. The other is Yasuke, a Samurai who is based on the historical figure of the same name. Assassin’s Creed tends to play with historical events and fit its own version of them into the series’ overarching lore, so Yasuke’s story will likely play out differently when Shadows launches on November 15. But you may be wondering who this guy is, and just how Assassin’s Creed might fit him into its alternate history. Let’s run through what we know.

Yasuke lived in Japan during the 16th century and is believed to be the first African to appear in Japan’s historical records. His story has been adapted into books, manga, and even an alternate-history Netflix anime starring Sorry To Bother You and Knives Out actor LaKeith Stanfield.

https://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-s...rai-1851482754

Background on one of the characters. Interesting.............

[ps3bd_owner]

Originally Posted by VictoryAtNight

https://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-s...rai-1851482754

Background on one of the characters. Interesting.............

If people want to read about him, surely it's not that hateful and defamatory website.

Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...rai-180981416/

Or

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke

The reason people are upset is because the game is set in Japan and the male character isn't Japanese. I'd honestly have preferred to play as a Japanese male samurai, because, it's in Japan.

Afterwards, yeah sure I'd not mind to play as Yasuke.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by ps3bd_owner

If people want to read about him, surely it's not that hateful and defamatory website.

Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...rai-180981416/

Or

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke

The reason people are upset is because the game is set in Japan and the male character isn't Japanese. I'd honestly have preferred to play as a Japanese male samurai, because, it's in Japan.

Afterwards, yeah sure I'd not mind to play as Yasuke.

On one hand it would have been interesting to see him play a key role in the story as those supporting NPCs do in AC games a la Basim in Valhalla and so on, but Yasuke as a person of colour, accepted by Nobunaga is a pretty rich story to tell and one that hasn't been done in the gaming medium with a Japan setting.

Playing as a generic male Japanese Samurai made by Ubisoft wouldn't have felt any different than the other examples we already have across a lot of media but done worse. That's why having a Japanese woman play a Ninja fits so damn well for the time period too alongside Yasuke. He had to overcome a helluva lot to prove himself and likely so will she in a very racist and bigoted world at that point in time.

My personal gripe is the very likely method of needing to be connected to install the game even if you planned to play completely offline to the point i would rather boycott until its in the £5 range of bargain bin buy.

[DragonOfTheBlackPool]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

My personal gripe is the very likely method of needing to be connected to install the game even if you planned to play completely offline to the point i would rather boycott until its in the £5 range of bargain bin buy.

You’re still going to have to connect online to play the game regardless if it’s full price or discounted. You’re still going to be a statistic, one of x amount of people who bought the game regardless if it’s full price or discounted. I don’t understand the logic.

If you really want to boycott the game, don’t buy it. Practice what you preach (although it won’t matter, this game will sell well anyway).

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by DragonOfTheBlackPool

You’re still going to have to connect online to play the game regardless if it’s full price or discounted. You’re still going to be a statistic, one of x amount of people who bought the game regardless if it’s full price or discounted. I don’t understand the logic.

If you really want to boycott the game, don’t buy it. Practice what you preach (although it won’t matter, this game will sell well anyway).

Yeah, no, i get what you mean, but technically i want to put the absolute bare minimum in their pocket. Think of it like paying for a cinema ticket, but you get many more hours of play. I guess boycott might have been the wrong word per se, but if you buy used they don't get a cent either. It can be a statistic of how many played all they like. I could even borrow it to play from a friend so didn't pay per se.

I just don't want to give them full price and i hope by and large their sales tank to show them people don't want that crap either but this views the minority these days. Didn't stop Sony forcing online connections for the single player of GT7.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by ps3bd_owner

The reason people are upset is because the game is set in Japan and the male character isn't Japanese. I'd honestly have preferred to play as a Japanese male samurai, because, it's in Japan.

It isn't just that. The main issue you'll hear most folk in Japan complain about is that, despite how the West likes to agrandize his story, Yasuke was no Samurai. He was simply a retainer in Nobunaga's employ, because the latter found the former's dark skin intriguing. There is artwork that Western scholars like to claim are depictions of Yasuke, but there is no proof they are correct.

There were other points of contention levied at the trailer (incorrect weapon placement, Chinese architecture in place of Japanese, etc) by Japanese gamers.

To be fair, I don't mind Yasuke being heavily fictionalized since the very first AC game established the franchise was playing fast and loose with history facts in order to create their own version of history. AC has always been historical fantasy rather than historical fiction.

[DragonOfTheBlackPool]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Yeah, no, i get what you mean, but technically i want to put the absolute bare minimum in their pocket. Think of it like paying for a cinema ticket, but you get many more hours of play. I guess boycott might have been the wrong word per se, but if you buy used they don't get a cent either. It can be a statistic of how many played all they like. I could even borrow it to play from a friend so didn't pay per se.

I just don't want to give them full price and i hope by and large their sales tank to show them people don't want that crap either but this views the minority these days. Didn't stop Sony forcing online connections for the single player of GT7.

If it was a situation where you are on a tight budget and waiting for a sale for financial reasons, I would understand. But you’re upset because you have to connect online to install the game, something you’re going to have to do whether you buy it, borrow it, steal it, etc. Why would you want a game to fail for that reason, especially if it turns out to be one of the best in the series? Worst case scenario, no more AC games. Just doesn’t make sense to me, especially if you’re planning on playing the game anyway.

[DragonOfTheBlackPool]

Originally Posted by RocShemp

It isn't just that. The main issue you'll hear most folk in Japan complain about is that, despite how the West likes to agrandize his story, Yasuke was no Samurai. He was simply a retainer in Nobunaga's employ, because the latter found the former's dark skin intriguing. There is artwork that Western scholars like to claim are depictions of Yasuke, but there is no proof they are correct.

There were other points of contention levied at the trailer (incorrect weapon placement, Chinese architecture in place of Japanese, etc) by Japanese gamers.

To be fair, I don't mind Yasuke being heavily fictionalized since the very first AC game established the franchise was playing fast and loose with history facts in order to create their own version of history. AC has always been historical fantasy rather than historical fiction.

All of these are really stupid reasons to get upset over. It’s a video game, not a biography.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by DragonOfTheBlackPool

All of these are really stupid reasons to get upset over. It’s a video game, not a biography.

Agreed. And, as I mentioned, AC is a game franchise that has always gone out of its way to be historically inaccurate. So there's even less reasons for one to put them to task over "mistakes".

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by DragonOfTheBlackPool

If it was a situation where you are on a tight budget and waiting for a sale for financial reasons, I would understand. But you’re upset because you have to connect online to install the game, something you’re going to have to do whether you buy it, borrow it, steal it, etc. Why would you want a game to fail for that reason, especially if it turns out to be one of the best in the series? Worst case scenario, no more AC games. Just doesn’t make sense to me, especially if you’re planning on playing the game anyway.

I explained why above but to repeat quickly. There's no reason a game that's completely playable offline should arbitrarily be made useless without connecting to a server for authentication which could easily go offline at any moment and never come back.

I think it's abhorrent and it needs to be legislated against. It also would send a message to Ubishite that no matter how amazing this AC is that gamers aren't willing to put up with it.

It's funny how people sometimes don't see the principle of it. If you all had to get into your cars and then connect to an online server before it's allowed to start, i'm pretty sure you,'d all be lamenting how anti-consumer it is, but the same thing in principle is apparently "overblown". I just want what i paid for to be playable and preserved. There's been way too many examples of egregious changes to content due to licensing and so on.

[heyadol]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

[Show spoiler]I explained why above but to repeat quickly. There's no reason a game that's completely playable offline should arbitrarily be made useless without connecting to a server for authentication which could easily go offline at any moment and never come back.

I think it's abhorrent and it needs to be legislated against. It also would send a message to Ubishite that no matter how amazing this AC is that gamers aren't willing to put up with it.

It's funny how people sometimes don't see the principle of it. If you all had to get into your cars and then connect to an online server before it's allowed to start, i'm pretty sure you,'d all be lamenting how anti-consumer it is, but the same thing in principle is apparently "overblown". I just want what i paid for to be playable and preserved. There's been way too many examples of egregious changes to content due to licensing and so on.

I think if a car cost $70 (or $130 for the luxury model), people would be ok with the caveat that it wasn’t fully functional until making a one-time connection to a server (and so would legislators).

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by heyadol

I think if a car cost $70 (or $130 for the luxury model), people would be ok with the caveat that it wasn’t fully functional until making a one-time connection to a server (and so would legislators).

So the principle is reduced because of the monetary value?

If it was a car, it would be significantly more impactful to your lives but it stems from the same principal is my point. This is why i don't like how this conversation goes because the principle is what gets trampled over everytime because "It's just a game" gets rolled out. We're gamers, so why shouldn't we advocate for positive things?

Question. Do you agree with Ubisoft Sony etc. forcing people to connect online to play games even how they would offline and then losing all access to the product once those authentication servers etc. are gone or take offline without any notice per EULA?

At the end of the day, we're literally having them spend all this money and then happy to try and control it in ways that aren't acceptable. There needs to be legislation and if the EU took charge, then guaranteed it would get dropped worldwide. These corporations aren't going to the trouble to exclude the huge EU games market from potential sales.

[heyadol]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

So the principle is reduced because of the monetary value?

If it was a car, it would be significantly more impactful to your lives but it stems from the same principal is my point. This is why i don't like how this conversation goes because the principle is what gets trampled over everytime because "It's just a game" gets rolled out. We're gamers, so why shouldn't we advocate for positive things?

I agree with both statements. Yes, the principle is reduced because we are discussing a completely optional piece of entertainment that is priced at the impulse-buy level. The average consumer has to take out a loan to buy a car, so it is a completely different expectation and budget. Having access to a car could be a necessity depending on your situation so it likely would have a greater impact on your life, having internet-free access to a video game is unlikely to have much impact.

Question. Do you agree with Ubisoft Sony etc. forcing people to connect online to play games even how they would offline and then losing all access to the product once those authentication servers etc. are gone or take offline without any notice per EULA?

Do I agree with it? No, and I am not defending it. Unfortunately, the requirement for an online connection on consoles has been there for the better part of a decade in one form or another (one-time, intermittent check, or persistent). It has been even longer than that for PC/music/movies/TV as things began shifting away from physical media. There was a lot of noise made about online requirements against Xbox and it basically tanked the brand, while Sony and PlayStation users treated it as a joke...and here we are, living in the future Xbox sold us anyway. I like video games new and old, so I have accepted a few minor inconveniences like connecting to the internet. If it gets to be too much, perhaps I will switch to Evercade and classic consoles.

That being said, what is your expectation? No media company guarantees access to their products in perpetuity, not even with physical media. It is great when something lasts, and some of my 30 year old games still work with very little help, but I seriously doubt it was part of the plan as much as a happy coincidence.

Coming back to the online connection and Ubisoft in general, let's look at The Crew. Ubi pulled the plug after 9 years, is that not enough time for you to get value from a purchase? Not great that users can't play something they purchased, but I'm curious how long you require access to something for it to have fulfilled its value? You were already willing to decouple the price point as part of your principle, so please leave cost out of your equation of value.

At the end of the day, we're literally having them spend all this money and then happy to try and control it in ways that aren't acceptable. There needs to be legislation and if the EU took charge, then guaranteed it would get dropped worldwide. These corporations aren't going to the trouble to exclude the huge EU games market from potential sales.

I don't know if getting "big brother" involved is the solution, I guess it comes back to expectation. If any legislation happens, hopefully it works in our favor.

[DragonOfTheBlackPool]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Question. Do you agree with Ubisoft Sony etc. forcing people to connect online to play games even how they would offline and then losing all access to the product once those authentication servers etc. are gone or take offline without any notice per EULA?

They (Ubisoft) aren’t forcing anyone to do anything. They are even letting people know 7 months ahead of release how they are going to handle their game. If you don’t like their policy, you have the choice to buy or not. It’s that simple.

[JurassicBD]

Legislation backfired for movies. The courts upheld consumer rights to resell their physical movies and later affirming the ability of Blockbuster (and thus all rental outlet) to resell their surplus really hit hard. All that did was hasten the industry push to do away with physical versions of their properties that they had lost control of. Corporations that can afford to sacrifice millions, or even billions (in the case of Hollywood studios) year after year for their cause can't be told what to do by the courts. They just learn to hide it better.

[Nunab18]

Originally Posted by Diesel

This seems to be their new thing. Wasn’t the same required for Avatar? And the upcoming Star Wars game will require the same.

I’d like to hear their reasoning for this requirement.

I've been following this development too. Like Narmak here, this kinda annoys me and I'll be abstaining from a purchase for now. This isn't a matter of the discs not being large enough to fit the game, but it appears to be a way to time gate the disc to prevent early access from people who get their hands on a disc before street date. What I REALLY think this is about, is that SW Outlaws/Assassin's Creed Shadows are selling 3 day early access as an upcharge. So I think this comes down to Ubisoft trying to protect the investment of those buying the early access, at the cost of screwing over physical purchasers who value having complete and/or offline capable single-player games on disc.

For me personally, I prefer physical discs for my games. I also prefer those discs to actually work, especially when we're dealing with a company like Ubisoft who has a very recently proven track record of removing access for purchased content. I won't pay $70-130 bucks for a game that Ubisoft may deny me at anytime because they take offline whatever authenticating service checks the discs during install.

Long time AC fan and looked forward to a Japanese set one, but I'll abstain on principle alone. I'll play Rise of the Ronin and wait for Ghost of Tsushima 2 (rumored).

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by Nunab18

I've been following this development too. Like Narmak here, this kinda annoys me and I'll be abstaining from a purchase for now. This isn't a matter of the discs not being large enough to fit the game, but it appears to be a way to time gate the disc to prevent early access from people who get their hands on a disc before street date. What I REALLY think this is about, is that SW Outlaws/Assassin's Creed Shadows are selling 3 day early access as an upcharge. So I think this comes down to Ubisoft trying to protect the investment of those buying the early access, at the cost of screwing over physical purchasers who value having complete and/or offline capable single-player games on disc.

For me personally, I prefer physical discs for my games. I also prefer those discs to actually work, especially when we're dealing with a company like Ubisoft who has a very recently proven track record of removing access for purchased content. I won't pay $70-130 bucks for a game that Ubisoft may deny me at anytime because they take offline whatever authenticating service checks the discs during install.

Long time AC fan and looked forward to a Japanese set one, but I'll abstain on principle alone. I'll play Rise of the Ronin and wait for Ghost of Tsushima 2 (rumored).

I said it before but to me, if you are paying full price for a Ubisoft game, you're already going to see a huge price drop within 3 months. Then there's the inevitable DLC version. Added to that, the online only requirement for a single player game, i'm going to wait till this is low down in bargain bin pricing or on PS+ Extra to download. I actually generally adore the AC games too. I also got interested in Avatar after all the positive reviews. I bought The Crew thanks to a great trade in offer years and years ago at launch but the disc is now a literal coaster because even though they could have made an offline playable version, they didn't.

There was the Beyond Good and Evil reveal which looked AMAZING but with the current practices, i don't think i would jump in at launch at all. The early access sale stuff for digital is fine but the choice of people to purchase. The problem is forcing it on lucky early release for disc.