Your fault? My fault? Our fault?

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Andy: A couple weeks ago the hypocrisy and entitlement of gamers showed just how far they are willing to go. Before I really get into my personal thoughts on this let me get you up to speed on what I’m talking about. About a month or so ago The Division released. The game has had its ups and downs. Certainly not spot-on perfect, but I’ve really enjoyed it. Like most games now-a-days though, some exploits were discovered  that allowed gamers to basically break the game to get more gear, resources parts, in-game currency and the like. YouTube is awash with videos documenting a couple different exploits in fact. Most with titles like “Still works after patch 1.3” etc.

Ubisoft took note of them, attempted to patch them and found out a couple were still present albeit with slightly different tactics. Then the Community Manager of The Division released a statement warning gamers that there would be some type of punishment coming their way for those who were abusing the exploits. A certain segment of gamers applauded Ubisoft and said they understood… wait who am I kidding. Gamers lost their minds and railed against that decision and the message behind it.

I don’t want to get into my feelings on it quite yet. But the general argument gamers were making is “it’s not our fault you should have checked your game better.” To get things started this week I want to get your opinion first on the issue as a whole. Was Ubisoft right to threaten the hammer (which they backed off of after a day or two) or are the gamers right that it’s Ubisoft’s fault? Or are they both right/wrong at the same time?

Nicholas: This reminds me of Forza Motorsport 2 and how there was a credit glitch that you could use exploiting the purchase and sale of a particular brand of tires in the game. I think at the time Turn10 wanted to drop the ban-hammer and I recall using it a few times (it wasn’t exactly a quick process so I got bored of it pretty fast) and not pushing it because I didn’t want to face the consequences. To answer your question, I think it falls solely on the developer to resolve the issue, and there shouldn’t be punishment to the gamers for exploiting something that shouldn’t be there. Absolutely, as soon as a developer learns about an exploit then they should do their best to squash or at least curb its effects, but to ban gamers for essentially taking advantage of something the creators overlooked, well, that comes across like a dick move to me.

I can understand that given The Division is an online-always game, and the exploitation of these glitches may make for an unfair advantage against other players online, that Ubisoft wants to put an end to it immediately, but I always find swinging the ban hammer to be a tad excessive. I’m genuinely interested to hear your thoughts though on this because I have no idea which way you’re going to go. What is your take on the situation?

Andy: Before I really dive into this, in an effort of full disclosure, I will admit to doing the Police Academy exploit to get high-end gear, Phoenix credits and crafting resources. It was a boring grind to say the least, but it was fast and effective. With that said every minute I did it, and every high-end drop I got I knew I wasn’t supposed to be playing the game that way. Granted I didn’t do it very often, but I did do it enough that if there would have been a consequence from Ubisoft I really couldn’t complain about it. I know with 100% certainty that there are players out there that made it their mission to exploit those loopholes as much as they possibly could.

It’s made even worse by the fact that there is a PvP element to the game and any gear earned illegitimately has the ability to greatly impact other players. If it was a PvE-only game than I wouldn’t see it as that big of a deal. I don’t buy the argument that it is 100% Ubisoft’s fault, not even close actually. For starters, right in the Code of Conduct on the consoles and what you agree to before you play the game, it says abusing exploits is something that could warrant action by Ubisoft. An exploit like the ones Ubisoft were thinking about suspending players for is something that gamers had to actively seek out to do. They don’t happen by accident and it takes conscious thought to do them. It’s like being pulled over by a police officer and blaming the car manufacturer for making a car that can go over the speed limit. No one would say that to a police officer so not sure how this is any different really.

The outrage over possible suspensions though isn’t even the extent of the hypocrisy though. A day or two after the possible suspension announcement, Ubisoft followed it up with an announcement that as an apology to gamers for some connection issues and an assortment of other bugs they were gifting players 150 Phoenix credits. 150 PC is no small amount, but gamers as they are want to do complained that it wasn’t enough. “Give us more than that!” and “it should be 500 PC” were a couple of the comments I saw. Both of which were from the same people that were complaining about possibly being suspended for exploiting a glitch.

So on one hand they abuse a known issue with a game and gain an unfair advantage over players who played fairly. Yet, at the same time complain about the apology Ubisoft offered to gamers as not enough. So in the analogy I used above; I don’t want a ticket for speeding because it’s the cars’ fault, and the car maker should give me a free tank of gas as an apology for making the car go so fast. I’m sorry, that’s just something that makes sense to me. Since you said you believe it’s 100% Ubisoft’s fault can you explain how gamers don’t play a part (no pun intended there) in the process and actively using the exploit to their advantage? Where do we draw the line of what’s OK and what’s not then?

Nicholas: The speeding analogy you mentioned is an interesting one actually. I do think it’s a bit ridiculous that we have these speed limits in place but at the same time the government allows manufacturers to create vehicles that can hit 100KM in under 6 seconds and have top speeds in-excess of 250KM/H. Of course you’re right, if cars were only meant to do the speed limit and you somehow managed to do something that let you break that, and then you get caught, sure, you can’t really argue your way out of that one, but let’s be real here – no-one’s ever going to die because someone was exploiting a glitch in an online game.

There are two great topics to address in your response there, but let’s start with the first one. People, and by extension, gamers, are opportunistic, so if there’s a way we’re able to cheat the system then you best believe we’re going to figure it out. Now, if that cheat gives gamers an unfair advantage then yes, you need to patch it up, but I just find it ridiculous that Ubisoft are putting it on gamers as their fault rather than their own. Essentially what we’re seeing here is shifting blame, Ubisoft are taking the responsibility off themselves and making the gamers guilty for finding faults in their product. To me this is unacceptable. We need to recognise a few things here – one, no game is ever perfect and two, online-based PVP games like this are bound to have some teething issues as the developers make it as balanced as possible, but it’s just that, a teething issue to work through. It’s on the developer to identify issues and resolve them, but banning gamers for making a game with bugs work to their advantage, well, you just can’t blame them for that in my opinion.

The next point you made though is a very interesting one and I see myself sitting on the same side of the fence on this one. Firstly, should Ubisoft need to compensate gamers because their game has had some issues out the gate? No. Secondly, should gamers be in a position to negotiate what compensation they’re entitled to? No. What Ubisoft have done here is an obvious act of goodwill, but one that certainly shouldn’t be expected and nor one that should be haggled. Gamers should be appreciative of the fact they’re getting something back, but nothing more. Take it or leave it.

This brings me to the next point I’d like to discuss. There are gamers out there who aren’t happy about the bugs in this game. Sure. Why is it, that rather than saying enough is enough and not buying games from Ubisoft or requesting a refund from the retailer if it doesn’t work, that they continue to buy and support these games? If they really aren’t happy with their compensation, why not put their money where their mouth is and not play these games to begin with? Is it really that absurd of a question to ask in your opinion?

Andy: Before I answer the last part there let me say my last piece on why I will never blame any developer 100% for exploits like this. It boils down to two words: personal responsibility. This is something I see as problematic in multiple aspects of the world right now though, not just gaming. People want to shift the blame to somebody else so that it’s not their fault. Here’s another analogy for you. “It’s not my fault because they let me do it.” That’s just a bullsh*t reason to do anything. If it’s wrong to do it’s wrong to do. If you see your neighbour’s door open and they aren’t home you don’t walk in and take things and then say “Well, if they would have locked their door I wouldn’t have done that. So it’s their fault.” There comes a point where you just have to take some responsibility and do the right thing.

You mention that gamers are an opportunistic bunch, and you are certainly correct there. They roll the dice and take a chance, I get it. Heck, like I said I even did it a little bit with this exploit. Yet, everyone knows when you gamble and bend/break the rules there is a chance that you will get caught and there will be consequences to deal with. It’s a chance you take, but don’t try to pass the buck on to someone else for the conscious choices you make to actively exploit a loophole like that.

To answer the past part of your response, I don’t think that’s an absurd question really. In fact it’s one I’ve often thought about. The past couple of years I have been more picky about what games I get on release day. I don’t much care about Day One editions or pre-order DLC. Most of that crap is worthless an hour into the game anyway. Especially with Ubisoft and the track record they have developed for me personally. The game that really pushed me over the edge with them was Assassin’s Creed Unity. We don’t need to rehash all that was wrong with that game, but because of that I have yet to play Assassin’s Creed: Syndicate. I will eventually, but not in a hurry to do so.

I’m not really sure why gamers continually support games they so actively complain about. Year after year a new game comes out, a gamer plays it then says something like, “I’m never buying another one of <insert title here> game!” Then 12 months later you see them playing the latest iteration and they say “Well, I thought this one would be different.” If a developer/publishers makes a game that you’re not happy with don’t support then, at least Day One or week one, when they release new games. Maybe the suits in charge are sitting in their offices thinking “It’s not our fault we make bug-filled games, it’s the gamers fault for buying them. If they didn’t buy them we wouldn’t make them.” I mean if we are going to do the blame game and pass the buck it should apply to everything right? We can’t pick and choose on when to apply that rule. That may be a snarky way to say it, but really what incentive do publishers have to make sure 100% their game is polished if they know gamers will buy it regardless? Once that initial sale is done then they can just say, “we are working on a patch” because they already have the gamer’s money. So, you’re with me right, in the grand scheme of things buggy games are the gamers fault because they keep buying them… right?

Nicholas: I certainly think that gamers have a significant role to play in the way that video games are developed (in that, what style of games we see) and also in what state they’re developed in. Money is the biggest thing that drives what comes out of the industry, and it’s here that the people have the ultimate say. How often do we hear stories about a new game failing to meet sales expectations and because of that, it means a sequel won’t be developed. Similarly, how many Kickstarter campaigns have come to fruition because the community has backed them into reality? A developer might want to make a game from a vision they’ve had, but if it doesn’t sell well then it’s not going to happen again. Similarly, if a developer discovers a working formula, then they’re smart to stick with it. Case in point, Call of Duty. For everyone who talks about its repetitiveness, it works, and that’s why a new one is released each year and sells like hotcakes.

Ubisoft is a great example in that, it’s often at the brunt end of comments like, “we’re sick of seeing the same games from them year on year” or “they’re games are riddled with bugs”, but all of their titles sell don’t they? Assassin’s Creed is still kicking on as are there other main franchises too. It may be the case of the vocal minority seemingly representing the majority, but for a publisher that seems to do things wrong so often, they sure as hell seem to push a lot of product to the market. It makes you wonder whether their launch issues are as bad as gamers make it out to be, especially when you read about titles like The Division killing it in their launch day/week sales. Ultimately, if gamers really want to see an end to things like buggy launch games or micro-transactions then we need to show that through the games we buy, and not support franchises/publishers that are repeat offenders.

If we go back to what we were discussing earlier, it seems we’re in disagreement about the fact gamers should be banned or even just punished for exploiting these glitches. If not to ban gamers, is there an alternate course of action that you feel Ubisoft should take in-light of this The Division situation? Alternatively, why do you think the developers just putting an end to the glitch is not enough, why do they need to punish those gamers for doing so, rather than just prevent them from continuing to do it?

Andy: One big reason really, is to be fair to all the gamers that are playing the game the right way. In a case like this where the exploit directly benefits the player and affects their game going forward (more powerful gear) then yes, there needs to be a direct consequence to them. Let me be clear here, if this was a PvE only game or a single-player game I wouldn’t care what Ubisoft did because it doesn’t affect me at all. But, when my enjoyment of the game is directly affected then I have issue with that. If the developer simply patched it and moved on there would be no reason for gamers not to be opportunistic and find the next exploit, and the one after that, and the one after that.

If I was the one to dole out the punishment then I think I would have it tier-based. Those who did use exploits a couple time would have their characters rolled back to before they used them and issued a warning. Those who used the exploit quite a bit would have the rollback and a day suspension. Those who absolutely abused the exploit would have the rollback and then a week suspension. Those would all come with a warning of more progressive consequences if they become repeat offenders. I don’t want to come across as callous but if there is no deterrent from doing things like this then there is no reason for gamers not to do them.

I get that those gamers who really abused the crap out of that exploit don’t want to be punished, but at the very least they should have their accounts rolled back or else the game will forever be skewed. It’s especially problematic due to the importance of the Dark Zone (PvP area) plays in the end-game activities. A line has to be drawn somewhere in terms of what can get gamers in trouble. Putting aside the End User Agreement that everyone agrees to and no-one reads before starting, there has to be some personal responsibility here. I know I’ve said it before, but it’s irritating that people can actively exploit a game and then turn around and try to assign 100% of the blame to the developer. Especially when you can completely ruin someone else’s enjoyment of the game by doing so.

As we look to close yet another discussion I am guessing I haven’t persuaded you to back the idea of actual punishment to those who abused the exploit and that’s OK. Have I at least moved the needle a little bit in getting you to at least think about the idea that it’s not 100% the developers fault? Are there any words of wisdom you’d like to offer up on this issue as whole, not just with The Division, but other developers possibly suspending gamers for similar types of infractions and activities? Is there ever a time you’d support a developer suspending gamers over in game conduct?

Nicholas: It depends on the exploit, to be honest. I understand that there’s an unfair advantage by exploiting a glitch to obtain better gear, but what’s the consequence? You get killed more times than normal. It’s the same way as being in a racing game and you’re racing Toyota 86s and one guy comes in with a Bugatti Veyron. Is it worth regulating? Sure. Is it worth banning people? Eh, I still don’t think so.

I like you’re idea of rolling back the accounts of people who use the glitch because it’s the same as stealing something and being caught – you don’t deserve to hold onto it, but stopping them from playing the game just comes across as excessive for me. Once again, I think the responsibility also needs to fall back on the developer to patch it up and stop them from exploiting it. Swinging the ban-hammer just comes across like the quick fix rather than addressing the actual problem.

Ubisoft revealed recently how they’re actually going to deal with these ‘cheaters’, but as far as I see it, it seems like a lazy approach if nothing else. As detailed here, firstly they’re going to announce and list these exploits as they happen, but then they follow up essentially giving no guarantee they’re going to patch them, just that they’ll potentially punish those for exploiting them. As I wrap this week’s article up, I know I’ve said it before, but to me it just seems like a shifting of blame.

Gamers owe it to other gamers to facilitate an enjoyable experience for all, I don’t dispute that, but at the same time, a video game is a publisher’s creation, and ultimately, they need to provide the best possible content that facilitates those enjoyable experiences. Rules are made to be broken, but you shouldn’t make broken rules.

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.