Talk:Silent Hunter 5: Battle of the Atlantic

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Citation Needed

How do you cite something like that without directly linking to copyrighted material which violates Wikipedia policies? - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else think it's a bit odd that 75% of the article talks about DRM-restrictions and not the game per-se? 130.240.136.67 (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the DRM is a major factor in the release of this game, Ubisoft has been touting it for months to the media, the fact that the DRM is so oppressively restrictive for owners and that it's already been cracked and copied is a substantial controversy for them and the game title. I'd say the reason noone's bothered to write anything else about the game is that the 84% of people who said they wouldn't buy it, really are following through with that threat and noone gives a crap about the game anymore.. - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So a highly emotionally fueled tangent (no, it is not neutral) about DRM is more suitable than, you know, info about the game itself in an encyclopedia article about the game. Gotcha. I mean really, the freakin' "reception" part of the article really tells us about the reception of the DRM news, not the reception of the game. 130.240.136.67 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, i'd have thought the subheading under DRM called reception would HAVE to be about the game itself, and not the subject to which it's a subheading of. Amazing! And long story short, the only thing about SH5 that's generating anything in the news IS the DRM issue, particular how Ubi keep claiming it's been hacked and that gets refuted every time they release a statement, along with evidence to prove it. Now the latest fun fiasco about it is that for the second time in a week, the DRM servers are down, locking everyone out of the game. But since you have such a pro "Ubisoft can do no wrong!" approach, feel free to spin that how you wish or ignore it completely. - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem anyway? Behind these edits, are you? The fact of the matter is that an encyclopedia page needs to be objective and about the game itself. This article is NOT neutral, it's that simple. It almost completely lacks information about the game. Currently the article is just a propaganda piece for those who are unhappy with how Ubisoft has handled things. On top of that, it uses a forum discussion as a source. Opinionated, emotional anonymous people at the Subsim forum is NOT a good source for an encyclopedia.

Is the DRM "issues" notable? Sure, but not more so than for other games. I'd advice you to look around at other game articles that have suffered from similar "controversies" and note the proportion between actual facts about the game, and the DRM. Has the game been pirated? Sure, but this is true for all games. The truth is that the article is not really readable at the moment, as it is clearly just a thinly veiled rant. 130.240.136.67 (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably as close to neutral on this issue as i can be. I don't own copies of this game, i'm not affected by it at all. however, i can tell you that the first thing i ever even heard about this game was the DRM and how people were reacting to it. My first LOLz on this thing was reading how Ubisoft claimed that it was running "unbreakable" DRM^{[citation needed]}, and a new article a day after release saying it was so already^{[citation needed]}. Not to mention the amount of complaining behind the game's DRM solution and how it rendered it unplayable^{[citation needed]}.

All i've written down in the DRM section as i've went are cold hard facts, there's no bias behind it at all, only a bias towards the truth. Those who are Pro DRM, those who are Pro pirate can't find anything there that supports either side in this issue, both sides are represented in a neutral format.

As for subsim forums, don't have a clue what you're talking about, the complaining i read about on this came started in Kotaku, ended up in digg, overclockers australia, gamespot, ign, many many more boards, i didnt even know ubisoft ran their own forums until i found a link to it a few days after i expended on the DRM content in this article.

If you want someone to write about the game, fine, but my research into this game has been purely behind the suppoedly unbreakable DRM solution that is generating significant controversy in the gaming world, not only for SH5, but for AC2. - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to know where you got the idea that this DRM is supposed to be uncrackable. I, too, have an interest in this particular topic and, as a result, I have read numerous articles and pages about this DRM. Yet, in all those articles and pages, I have never seen Ubisoft nor anyone for that matter specifically state that the DRM is unbreakable, only that it will be a tough nut to crack (which seems to be a very accurate description).

The only place I can think of where one would find such information is a hacker stating that this unbreakable DRM will be hacked (even though such a person/group has no evidence to prove that that is how the DRM was described). -XJDHDR (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been almost two months since I asked for evidence of who described uPlay as uncrackable and no replies. Must I take this to mean that the article writer was wrong and that Ubisoft never described uPlay as "uncrackable"? -XJDHDR (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRM

In the gaming trades, most of the talk is about the new DRM system and not the actual game. It is arguable more notable than the actual game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.15.31 (talk) 10:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Like its predecessors"

I've not played 2 or 3... but I've spent quite a bit of time playing #4, and it does not put me in command of a German U-Boat. This sentence should probably say "unlike it's predecessors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.74.162 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verification of Warez Releases

This discussion is about the verification of the warez release: [http: //www.nfohump.com/index.php?switchto=nfos&menu=quicknav&item=viewnfo&id=144935|Silent Hunter 5 Battle of the Atlantic (c) Ubisoft *READNFO* *PROPER*]

Please read about release databases in the Warez scene. If a *PROPER* release has not been nuked, it means that the release has been accepted and conforms to scene standards. The presence of a release is easily verifiable by a large number of people with scene access, and obviously verifiable by anyone by Googling a torrent download link, which are abundant around the net for this release. Also considering WP:RS, the scene release channels have a much better track record of providing accurate information than public news sites.

The problem in listing references for this is difficult, since almost every single reference has either rapidshare or torrent download links for the release, and I doubt it would be good form to have such references on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.103.230 (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]