Ubisoft: Ubidead
Does that also include console copies I wonder?
I have blacklisted EA/Origin and Konami already, now Ubisoft is entering the list. Do not support money-milkers.
Does that also include console copies I wonder?
I have blacklisted EA/Origin and Konami already, now Ubisoft is entering the list. Do not support money-milkers.
If we delete their accounts permanently, they are going to rebuy our games!!
And because these are mega-corps run as money factories, the product of which is practically incidental. This is what it looks like when you have MBA/Growth specialists steering the ship based on "data". And the big table says "engagement numbers need to be higher". Then this makes perfect sense. What better way to boost all your numbers, incentivise activity, drop some permanently dead accounts (reducing the deonominator making first derivative numbers better), recoup purchases from returning accounts and pivot to the gold mine that is "not your games"/rentierism.
I think the logic here is that they don't want to get a huge fine from CNIL (French data regulator) and possibly other GDPR countries that choose to interpret the requirements in a similar way. There's a reason so many different services are rolling out inactive account deletion policies now.
What is personal about user `mikepavone22` owning FIFA 2019?
Or is this because they demand personal information for your account, such as your date of birth? Because they shouldn't be able to restrict your access to a service based upon them gathering your personal details.
Many people confuse identifiers with personal data. Next time, assume personal data means all columns of the "user" table and everything that can be sensibly joined to them. "Anonymized" means setting all non-synthetic identifiers to NULL. "Pseudonymized" means replacing all non-synthetic identifiers with generated ones. "Sufficiently" means you ask yourself: "Would I be plausibly able to identify rows related to this one person I personally know stuff about?"
But obviously, keeping user accounts to be able to provide them with their games is a given. No data protection agency would be able to convince a court that you should have made the games inaccessible without explicit instruction from the user. It's a textbook example of legitimate interest.
I don't use these game services, but do they really mandate that you provide this?
Console copies don't rely on your Ubisoft account so no, it does not. You might lose progress in games where it's stored on Ubisoft servers though, like The Division.
There is two account required to access the whole game actually, one that is X-box/Microsoft account without with I guess the console is as useful as a brick, and one for Ubisoft which saves your progresses, give access to a few bonuses most notably the song Desolate Motion[1].
I don’t know where the record about acquired songs is supposed to be store, I would except it to be a Microsoft side handled stuff, but I remember that sometimes Ubisoft servers would be down and that would make bought tracks unavailable.
I had a look at Rocksmith+ but was utterly disappointed with the monthly subscription fee model they went with.
I’m curious about why you bought an X-box specifically for Rocksmith. Does it perform better with an X-box than a PC?
I purchased the game from Steam and it runs fine – if a little hot – on a Windows 10 laptop. So far, the only problem I’ve had on the PC was note detection when playing open strings for the “String Skip Saloon” game.
I doubt it, but I already didn’t have any Windows box to run it at home, and wanted something as dummy as possible to only play the game with any other distraction around. Would they buy a dedicated device, I would buy that if it just run and let me play.