Ubisoft to punish people who used Falcon Lost Incursion boss glitch

[ShadowStar83x]

Ubisoft has stated they are planning on punishing players who exploited The Division’s Falcon Lost Incursion boss glitch.

Ubisoft Plans To Punish Players Who Exploited The Division Falcon Lost Incursion Boss Glitch

I've heard two sides on this: on one hand, Ubi shouldn't have allowed for the glitch in the first place. On the other hand, it's about being fair. I don't really care enough to have an opinion, but what are your thoughts?

[Stargazer2600]

Hey man, if you cant play a game fairly and your glitching to get higher on leaderboards or something than yeah, you deserve to be punished

but if your glitching on like single player, who cares

in short, play fair, show skill

[Kubanga]

Ubisoft won't do jack shit. They never have and never will fix their games. The Division is dying and I say good fucking riddance.

[Conker]

seriously just patch it Ubi

[LetsTurnJu-On]

It's Ubisoft, their games have been broken for so long.. But I agree, play fair when it comes to online stuff.

[Thrintus]

Ubisoft won't do jack shit. They never have and never will fix their games. The Division is dying and I say good fucking riddance. 

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^

 

Preach that shit homie. I didn't know it was dying though.

[Sprunky106]

They'll probably come to the conclusion that playing their laggy games is punishment enough.

[AARCT1C]

Ubisoft has stated they are planning on punishing players who exploited The Division’s Falcon Lost Incursion boss glitch.

Ubisoft Plans To Punish Players Who Exploited The Division Falcon Lost Incursion Boss Glitch

I've heard two sides on this: on one hand, Ubi shouldn't have allowed for the glitch in the first place. On the other hand, it's about being fair. I don't really care enough to have an opinion, but what are your thoughts?

It's Ubisoft's own fault. If they tested their games properly, there wouldn't be an exploit.

They'll probably come to the conclusion that playing their laggy games is punishment enough.

Best comment I've read all day

[Kubanga]

^^^^^^^^^^

Preach that shit homie. I didn't know it was dying though.

If they don't fix the dark zone (which they wont) the game will have as much of a lifespan as something like destiny which isint very good. They will probably make another division game in 2 or 3 years just like bungie is doing with destiny. Edited April 18, 2016 by Kubanga

[Ichiban-Hybrid]

If its offline it dont matter. Plus its the developers fault for not fixing it in the first place.

[Galactic Hyper Balls]

You'll be punished for using a glitch that they didn't fix or have a tester find, wow lazy ass ubi.

 

welp they're trying to be an Mmo no

Edited April 18, 2016 by Titanic Balls

[CandiBunni]

Those arguing that it's okay because Ubisoft allowed the glitch to exist in the first place need to prove that to be the case. Unless they can show that Ubisoft knew about the glitch and still allowed it to go unpatched, then they've got nothing to go on. Even if that were the case, however, it still doesn't make it okay for them to use this exploit in order to gain an advantage. They're still doing something that wasn't meant to be part of the game, is not an intended mechanic or feature, to gain an upper hand. They should still be punished for it. It shouldn't be anything severe like the loss of a character, or lengthy ban, but perhaps something such as losing all of the XP and/or loot earned while they were doing this.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Jenni

[HoongZai]

They could just argue that all is fair game, as long as a function exists in the game, be it intentional or not. There is no proper guide or instructions from Ubi that a specific skill mustn't be used in a particular way. Just like life, doing something that isn't morally right, doesn't mean no one will do it. If they are alright to live with the guilt they may have to face in the future, who are you to decide what someone can or cannot do in their life.

[GarciaFever]

Ok even though I haven't played The Division (yes it is shown on my profile, but my older brother has the PS4 so he is the one who plays it), what does it mean when the community manages says tat" It is against our Code of Conduct"?

[Sprunky106]

Ok even though I haven't played The Division (yes it is shown on my profile, but my older brother has the PS4 so he is the one who plays it), what does it mean when the community manages says tat" It is against our Code of Conduct"?

Their Code of Conduct is like any other: don't be a dick to online players, don't cheat and don't use exploits or anything else that will give you an unfair advantage.

[GarciaFever]

Thank you Sprunky for the quick response.

 

As for how I feel regarding Ubisoft's actions towards this: maybe they should have had people check things properly. But then again I can't really hate or bash on them since I don't know exactly how the glitch works.

 

However, should Ubisoft really be punishing people for using a glitch? No. Instead, they should patch the thing. If you look at the Wolfenstein game (the 2009/2010 version), they still have the Rank 50 glitch that has been left untouched to this day. So I believe that the whole issue regarding the glitch is just silly.

 

We are all human, and mistakes can happen. What matters is how we learn from those mistakes and improve upon them.

[Sprunky106]

Thank you Sprunky for the quick response.

 

As for how I feel regarding Ubisoft's actions towards this: maybe they should have had people check things properly. But then again I can't really hate or bash on them since I don't know exactly how the glitch works.

 

However, should Ubisoft really be punishing people for using a glitch? No. Instead, they should patch the thing. If you look at the Wolfenstein game (the 2009/2010 version), they still have the Rank 50 glitch that has been left untouched to this day. So I believe that the whole issue regarding the glitch is just silly.

 

We are all human, and mistakes can happen. What matters is how we learn from those mistakes and improve upon them.

No problem.

 

I agree with you. There have been quite a few exploits on GTA V in the beginning and Rockstar patched them and that was it.

 

The talks about banning them for a couple of days just seem exessive especially for a game that is predominantely played online and has no real offline story.

[IronMask75]

There is no proper guide or instructions from Ubi that a specific skill mustn't be used in a particular way.

 

END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT

1.3 ...You may only use the Product according to anticipated use of the Product.

 

One could argue exploiting glitches is not an anticipated use of the product.

[AbstergoSoldier]

 

END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT

1.3 ...You may only use the Product according to anticipated use of the Product.

 

One could argue exploiting glitches is not an anticipated use of the product.

 

I didn't know anyone acutally reads that

But yeah you're definately right

[madbuk]

Those arguing that it's okay because Ubisoft allowed the glitch to exist in the first place need to prove that to be the case. Unless they can show that Ubisoft knew about the glitch and still allowed it to go unpatched, then they've got nothing to go on. Even if that were the case, however, it still doesn't make it okay for them to use this exploit in order to gain an advantage. 

Uh... Why not? It's not like they've gone out of their way to hack the game, they're not using a turbo controller or anything, this glitch is performed within the confines of the game.

This means that anybody can perform this glitch, and as such, nobody is gaining an advantage that everybody else isn't able to gain as well.

If it's possible to do in-game, it's a fault of the developer and a part of the game, whether intended or not. It's perfectly legit and punishing people for it is fucking absurd.

[HoongZai]

Like I said earlier, everyone will have their own way of interpretation of the anticipated use. It doesn't lay out how each game function should be used. On the side note, I believe that clause is meant for the product and not the game play. Meaning to say, the anticipated use of product is to play it, and not use it to make business like duplicating copies to be distributed for any source of beneficial return.

[CandiBunni]

Uh... Why not? It's not like they've gone out of their way to hack the game, they're not using a turbo controller or anything, this glitch is performed within the confines of the game.

This means that anybody can perform this glitch, and as such, nobody is gaining an advantage that everybody else isn't able to gain as well.

If it's possible to do in-game, it's a fault of the developer and a part of the game, whether intended or not. It's perfectly legit and punishing people for it is fucking absurd.

I never said it wasn't their fault that it existed to begin with, but any bug is technically the fault of the developer. It is against Ubisoft's TOS to use them, and understandably so. It has the potential side effect of ruining or otherwise negatively impacting the game's balance and design. That being the case, and once again that it's against their TOS, I don't find it absurd at all.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Jenni

[Kubanga]

Ubisoft should be ashamed of themselves for not making a better game but the people using this game should have their saves wiped. Anyone who plays this game knows how badly this glitch is fucking up the game. It's making the dark zone worse, co-op worse and its turning the community into a bigger pile of shit than it was. You can't really play with anyone on this anymore cause everyone has all the best equipment from doing this glitch.

[diskdocx]

I never said it wasn't their fault that it existed to begin with, but any bug is technically the fault of the developer. It is against Ubisoft's TOS to use them, and understandably so. It has the potential side effect of ruining or otherwise negatively impacting the game's balance and design. That being the case, and once again that it's against their TOS, I don't find it absurd at all.

 

The problem with the ToS argument, is that it is overly broad:

 

 

END USER LICENCE AGREEMENT

1.3 ...You may only use the Product according to anticipated use of the Product.

 

One could argue exploiting glitches is not an anticipated use of the product.

 

 

What exactly is anticipated use? One could make the argument that playing 20 hours a day for weeks straight gives a player an unfair advantage, and is against the anticipated use. While it would likely never go to court, such a term would likely be unenforceable as it is too vague.

 

I'm not even sure that clause pertains to the actual playing of the game. It is likely in there for protection against someone deciding to use the disc as a frisbee and losing an eye, then suing for damages.

 

Ubisoft should be ashamed of themselves for not making a better game but the people using this game should have their saves wiped. Anyone who plays this game knows how badly this glitch is fucking up the game. It's making the dark zone worse, co-op worse and its turning the community into a bigger pile of shit than it was. You can't really play with anyone on this anymore cause everyone has all the best equipment from doing this glitch.

 

And this highlights exactly what is wrong with competitive MP. Does this glitch give players an unfair advantage, or does it just give them access to an unfair advantage at an earlier time? Is the matchmaking so robust that you could not end up paired with someone who has top level equipment simply because they have played the game a ton?

 

If the gear is breaking the game, then the game has been poorly designed. The gear shouldn't exist, period.

 

This has always been my complaint. If MP is competitive, why does someone who has put more time in have access to an unfair advantage? Shouldn't the advantage be their experience? They know the maps, the situations - where and  how to use what gear etc. Not access to overpowered guns and shields.

 

They don't allow veteran baseball players to use aluminum bats, but rookies are stuck with wood. Rookies have to use bare hands, but 5 yr vets can have a glove, and 10 yr vets an oversized glove?

 

So why set up MP that way?

 

If this gear is in the game to be earned through experience, then saying it breaks the game if people find an exploit to get it earlier is absurd.

[CandiBunni]

The problem with the ToS argument, is that it is overly broad:

 

 

What exactly is anticipated use? One could make the argument that playing 20 hours a day for weeks straight gives a player an unfair advantage, and is against the anticipated use. While it would likely never go to court, such a term would likely be unenforceable as it is too vague.

 

I'm not even sure that clause pertains to the actual playing of the game. It is likely in there for protection against someone deciding to use the disc as a frisbee and losing an eye, then suing for damages.

 

 

And this highlights exactly what is wrong with competitive MP. Does this glitch give players an unfair advantage, or does it just give them access to an unfair advantage at an earlier time? Is the matchmaking so robust that you could not end up paired with someone who has top level equipment simply because they have played the game a ton?

 

If the gear is breaking the game, then the game has been poorly designed. The gear shouldn't exist, period.

 

This has always been my complaint. If MP is competitive, why does someone who has put more time in have access to an unfair advantage? Shouldn't the advantage be their experience? They know the maps, the situations - where and  how to use what gear etc. Not access to overpowered guns and shields.

 

They don't allow veteran baseball players to use aluminum bats, but rookies are stuck with wood. Rookies have to use bare hands, but 5 yr vets can have a glove, and 10 yr vets an oversized glove?

 

So why set up MP that way?

 

If this gear is in the game to be earned through experience, then saying it breaks the game if people find an exploit to get it earlier is absurd.

How is it overly broad in relation to glitches and their use within the game?