6 ms·

But they are not selling the game for Linux. Only for Windows. It's another story that it works because of Proton but technically they don't support the platfor

But they are not selling the game for Linux. Only for Windows. It's another story that it works because of Proton but technically they don't support the platform at all. https://store.steampowered.com/app/304390/FOR_HONOR/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/304390/FOR_HONOR/ https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/for-honor/article/system-requirements-for-for-honor/000063197 https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/for-honor/article/system-...

tempfile 15d ago
So they should have to return the money you paid, to account for their mistake in selling you the game.
- john_strinlai 15d ago
  >account for their mistake in selling you the game. i hate ubisoft as much as the next person, but if they listed the game as only supporting windows when it launched, and someone bought it for linux despite it not being supported, ubisoft did not make a "mistake" in selling the game to them. the buyer made a decision to purchase the game for an unsupported system. (the rule i follow, which hasn't gone wrong yet, is to avoid all ubisoft games like the plague) edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows.
  - freedomben 15d ago
    > edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows. You're probably downvoted by people's emotions and feelings because they don't want to see any (even and especially if valid) defense of Ubisoft here. It's wrong and shouldn't happen, but it very much does. I'm linux-only for 15+ years now and only buy games that run on Linux. I am filled with righteous rage when companies do what they are doing. But you're not wrong, this one is on the buyer not the seller, though everyone should remember this move and avoid buying Ubisoft games in the future because they have proven outwardly hostile. A criticism I do give them (the seller) though, if you're going to block linux then it should be well-stated in the game description so people don't miss it. Not doing this is dishonest marketing IMHO.
  - tempfile 15d ago
    The case for a refund seems totally obvious. Why should you get to keep my money? I paid for a product and I did not get it. Selling it incurs no cost on you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction. It's not like I ate a meal and then decided I wanted to order something else. This all presumes of course that it is legitimate to ban people from using certain computing environments when running software for whatever reason you feel like. Lots of people don't think this is legitimate at all, which makes sense, because people don't really try to justify it. It's legitimate to want to ban cheaters, this is just not a reasonable means of enforcing that, because there are legitimate players who want to play the game and can't because of this policy.
    - john_strinlai 15d ago
      >I paid for a product and I did not get it you paid for a windows product. the product still works on windows, right? if ubisoft advertised linux support for this game, i am 100% with you on the refund. as far as i can tell, they did not. they advertised the game as a windows product.
      - tempfile 15d ago
        >> Selling it incurs no cost on you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction. Do you have a reply for this part?
        john_strinlai 14d ago
        sure. it's a lie to say you received no benefit from the transaction. you either played it for more than 2 hours (benefit) or you are allowed to refund it via steam's standard policy. do you have a reply to this comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49524418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49524418
        tempfile 14d ago
        Ok - I don't know about the steam refunds policy. So I received a partial benefit. Perhaps I should get a partial refund? btw I wasn't being facetious, I just thought you picked the easiest part to respond to so I wondered if you had one for the harder part. I have to unpack a few things to answer the whole comment faithfully. First is the distinction between "we forbid linux users from running the software" and "we aren't going to invest any development work on making linux APIs work". The first one is in my view completely indefensible and should be illegal. The second one is basically fine even though I personally dislike it. I am mentioning this because companies use "support" as a euphemism for both. My understanding of the situation here is that the game runs fine on linux, ubisoft just isn't able to stop cheating as effectively. Note that both platforms have a nonzero rate of cheating and of valid play. Companies have a right and an obligation to advertise how their products are designed to work and how they work best. If a shirt has a care label that says don't bleach, and I damage it by bleaching, that's on me. Adapting this analogy to software is dangerous and wrong, because software can be made to break for arbitrary reasons, some of which are my own stupid fault and some of which are just the vendor exercising power over me. If I manage to bleach my shirt without damaging it, the manufacturer has no right to set it on fire and say "well you bleached it, so what did you expect?". If they did, they would have to compensate me. I view what has happened much more like "they set my shirt on fire" than "I broke my own shirt". Computer programs are also not really similar to physical products at all, since physical products degrade over time and programs do not. If I use a shirt for five years and then abruptly decide I didn't want it after all, then I've still damaged the thing and should not get the full amount of money back for it. The fact it's second hand also makes it harder to sell even if it isn't damaged. But again this is just fake when applied to software, so that tips the balance more towards refunding than normally. The situation as it currently is, means that while Ubisoft is allowed to take away my product by saying "you should never have been able to buy it", I cannot reciprocally take my money back by saying "I should never have been able to buy it". I don't think there is a good justification for that asymmetry.
  - happymellon 15d ago
    I would deserve a refund because it doesn't work for me. If I buy a shirt, all stores that I go to allow me to return the shirt, or exchange it for store credit. If I go to a grocery store and get the wrong bag of granola, I able to return or exchange it. The question is why Ubisoft deserves special treatment and gets to keep your money if you return it.
    - john_strinlai 15d ago
      >I would deserve a refund because it doesn't work for me. do you not believe in any sort of personal responsibility? on the same page as the "buy" button, it tells you that the game only supports windows. >If I buy a shirt, all stores that I go to allow me to return the shirt, or exchange it for store credit. if you wear it for 9 years, then try to return it, they will say no.
      - Telaneo 15d ago
        That's only because the shirt would be worn. Digital media doesn't wear out. If that shirt never wore out and it suddenly stopped working in a specific way I use it, it would be reasonable to me to return it.
        john_strinlai 15d ago
        if i manage to install a windows-only game onto my fridge, and then the game gets updated and doesn't work on my fridge anymore, it would be ridiculous to suggest i should get a refund. this is getting silly though. i am saddened that the concept of personal responsibility has been so eroded. best of luck on your refund.
        barnabee 15d ago
        Many physical stores will accept returns for a refund with literally no reason required, so why not?
        Telaneo 15d ago
- satvikpendem 15d ago
  It'd actually be your mistake for buying a game for a platform that's not even supported. That they even allowed or spent resources for it to run on Linux initially is something to be grateful for.
bigstrat2003 15d ago
And that would be fine if they left it at "we don't support it, if you run into problems on your own". When they go so far as to actively block Linux users, then they are doing something wrong and should be required to refund those purchases.
- tapoxi 15d ago
  Valve should. Valve is the one making these games available for purchase on non-Windows platforms. Ubisoft never supported this.
  - deleted 15d ago
    [deleted]
  - john_strinlai 15d ago
    >Valve should. Valve is the one making these games available for purchase on non-Windows platforms. it sounds like you're suggesting valve should be restricting which games they sell depending on the platform you are viewing from? that would be annoying, and ultimately futile. i purchase games from my phone to play on my pc, or from one pc to play on another. i purchase windows-only games and mess around to see if they can work with proton. etc. i do not need valve to coddle me like that. "system requirements" is at the bottom of every listing.
    - tapoxi 15d ago
      Valve absolutely knows what platform you've logged into desktop Steam from even when you're on a mobile device, and can pop up a dialog during purchase saying "This game requires Microsoft Windows, and you have not been active on that platform in the past 30 days. This game will be supported by Steam Play, and developer support is not guaranteed." That's a totally reasonable ask.
      - john_strinlai 15d ago
        a totally reasonable ask is that people read the system requirements already visible on the store page of every game.
ben-schaaf 15d ago
They've stated in their patch notes that they made a change specifically to run on the steam deck. Regardless of what they say now, they have actively supported linux in the past and so should be liable for breaking the game for those customers. https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/game/for-honor/news-updates/6jz99oXbJUVyK5h17fp6B8/patch-notes-2451-for-honor https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/game/for-honor/news-updates/6j...
- flaunf221 15d ago
  > made a change specifically to run on the steam deck No, they didn't, you don't need to lie. From your url: > EASY ANTI-CHEAT > Updated Easy Anti-Cheat client module and library. > Developer's Comment:* This update of Easy Anti-Cheat makes the game playable on Steam Deck.* That is not "we made a change to specifically run on deck." Steam deck support might be accidental side effect of them getting newer anti-cheat tech.
  - toshinoriyagi 15d ago
    I don't think this is accurate. Easy Anti-Cheat has supported Linux for a long time, many years before this. I doubt they were years and years out of date, updated, and allowing Linux was turned on by default in the new version. What they likely mean is they ticked the box in this game update to let it run on Linux. Why would they specifically mention the Steam Deck? EAC doesn't have separate flags for Linux and Steam Deck. It's almost certain they intentionally allowed it to run on Linux. They call out Steam Deck by name because it is a popular handheld that has greatly increased the # of Linux users, not because an EAC update allowed it to work by chance.
    - flaunf221 15d ago
      And it's still not an active support decision. They allowed it - but it's your business. Whenever people gets problems or successes running through Proton, this is never a publisher's issue.
  - altairprime 15d ago

tempfile 15d ago

So they should have to return the money you paid, to account for their mistake in selling you the game.

john_strinlai 15d ago
>account for their mistake in selling you the game. i hate ubisoft as much as the next person, but if they listed the game as only supporting windows when it launched, and someone bought it for linux despite it not being supported, ubisoft did not make a "mistake" in selling the game to them. the buyer made a decision to purchase the game for an unsupported system. (the rule i follow, which hasn't gone wrong yet, is to avoid all ubisoft games like the plague) edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows.
- freedomben 15d ago
  > edit: am i missing something here? those disagreeing, please let me know why you believe you deserve a refund in this situation, knowing that ubisoft only advertised support for windows. You're probably downvoted by people's emotions and feelings because they don't want to see any (even and especially if valid) defense of Ubisoft here. It's wrong and shouldn't happen, but it very much does. I'm linux-only for 15+ years now and only buy games that run on Linux. I am filled with righteous rage when companies do what they are doing. But you're not wrong, this one is on the buyer not the seller, though everyone should remember this move and avoid buying Ubisoft games in the future because they have proven outwardly hostile. A criticism I do give them (the seller) though, if you're going to block linux then it should be well-stated in the game description so people don't miss it. Not doing this is dishonest marketing IMHO.
- tempfile 15d ago
  The case for a refund seems totally obvious. Why should you get to keep my money? I paid for a product and I did not get it. Selling it incurs no cost on you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction. It's not like I ate a meal and then decided I wanted to order something else. This all presumes of course that it is legitimate to ban people from using certain computing environments when running software for whatever reason you feel like. Lots of people don't think this is legitimate at all, which makes sense, because people don't really try to justify it. It's legitimate to want to ban cheaters, this is just not a reasonable means of enforcing that, because there are legitimate players who want to play the game and can't because of this policy.
  - john_strinlai 15d ago
    >I paid for a product and I did not get it you paid for a windows product. the product still works on windows, right? if ubisoft advertised linux support for this game, i am 100% with you on the refund. as far as i can tell, they did not. they advertised the game as a windows product.
    - tempfile 15d ago
      >> Selling it incurs no cost on you and I have received none of the benefit of the transaction. Do you have a reply for this part?
      - john_strinlai 14d ago
        sure. it's a lie to say you received no benefit from the transaction. you either played it for more than 2 hours (benefit) or you are allowed to refund it via steam's standard policy. do you have a reply to this comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49524418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49524418
        tempfile 14d ago
        Ok - I don't know about the steam refunds policy. So I received a partial benefit. Perhaps I should get a partial refund? btw I wasn't being facetious, I just thought you picked the easiest part to respond to so I wondered if you had one for the harder part. I have to unpack a few things to answer the whole comment faithfully. First is the distinction between "we forbid linux users from running the software" and "we aren't going to invest any development work on making linux APIs work". The first one is in my view completely indefensible and should be illegal. The second one is basically fine even though I personally dislike it. I am mentioning this because companies use "support" as a euphemism for both. My understanding of the situation here is that the game runs fine on linux, ubisoft just isn't able to stop cheating as effectively. Note that both platforms have a nonzero rate of cheating and of valid play. Companies have a right and an obligation to advertise how their products are designed to work and how they work best. If a shirt has a care label that says don't bleach, and I damage it by bleaching, that's on me. Adapting this analogy to software is dangerous and wrong, because software can be made to break for arbitrary reasons, some of which are my own stupid fault and some of which are just the vendor exercising power over me. If I manage to bleach my shirt without damaging it, the manufacturer has no right to set it on fire and say "well you bleached it, so what did you expect?". If they did, they would have to compensate me. I view what has happened much more like "they set my shirt on fire" than "I broke my own shirt". Computer programs are also not really similar to physical products at all, since physical products degrade over time and programs do not. If I use a shirt for five years and then abruptly decide I didn't want it after all, then I've still damaged the thing and should not get the full amount of money back for it. The fact it's second hand also makes it harder to sell even if it isn't damaged. But again this is just fake when applied to software, so that tips the balance more towards refunding than normally. The situation as it currently is, means that while Ubisoft is allowed to take away my product by saying "you should never have been able to buy it", I cannot reciprocally take my money back by saying "I should never have been able to buy it". I don't think there is a good justification for that asymmetry.
- happymellon 15d ago
  I would deserve a refund because it doesn't work for me. If I buy a shirt, all stores that I go to allow me to return the shirt, or exchange it for store credit. If I go to a grocery store and get the wrong bag of granola, I able to return or exchange it. The question is why Ubisoft deserves special treatment and gets to keep your money if you return it.
  - john_strinlai 15d ago
    >I would deserve a refund because it doesn't work for me. do you not believe in any sort of personal responsibility? on the same page as the "buy" button, it tells you that the game only supports windows. >If I buy a shirt, all stores that I go to allow me to return the shirt, or exchange it for store credit. if you wear it for 9 years, then try to return it, they will say no.
    - Telaneo 15d ago
      That's only because the shirt would be worn. Digital media doesn't wear out. If that shirt never wore out and it suddenly stopped working in a specific way I use it, it would be reasonable to me to return it.
      - john_strinlai 15d ago
        if i manage to install a windows-only game onto my fridge, and then the game gets updated and doesn't work on my fridge anymore, it would be ridiculous to suggest i should get a refund. this is getting silly though. i am saddened that the concept of personal responsibility has been so eroded. best of luck on your refund.
        barnabee 15d ago
        Many physical stores will accept returns for a refund with literally no reason required, so why not?
        Telaneo 15d ago
satvikpendem 15d ago
It'd actually be your mistake for buying a game for a platform that's not even supported. That they even allowed or spent resources for it to run on Linux initially is something to be grateful for.

bigstrat2003 15d ago

And that would be fine if they left it at "we don't support it, if you run into problems on your own". When they go so far as to actively block Linux users, then they are doing something wrong and should be required to refund those purchases.

tapoxi 15d ago
Valve should. Valve is the one making these games available for purchase on non-Windows platforms. Ubisoft never supported this.
- deleted 15d ago
  [deleted]
- john_strinlai 15d ago
  >Valve should. Valve is the one making these games available for purchase on non-Windows platforms. it sounds like you're suggesting valve should be restricting which games they sell depending on the platform you are viewing from? that would be annoying, and ultimately futile. i purchase games from my phone to play on my pc, or from one pc to play on another. i purchase windows-only games and mess around to see if they can work with proton. etc. i do not need valve to coddle me like that. "system requirements" is at the bottom of every listing.
  - tapoxi 15d ago
    Valve absolutely knows what platform you've logged into desktop Steam from even when you're on a mobile device, and can pop up a dialog during purchase saying "This game requires Microsoft Windows, and you have not been active on that platform in the past 30 days. This game will be supported by Steam Play, and developer support is not guaranteed." That's a totally reasonable ask.
    - john_strinlai 15d ago
      a totally reasonable ask is that people read the system requirements already visible on the store page of every game.

ben-schaaf 15d ago

They've stated in their patch notes that they made a change specifically to run on the steam deck. Regardless of what they say now, they have actively supported linux in the past and so should be liable for breaking the game for those customers. https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/game/for-honor/news-updates/6jz99oXbJUVyK5h17fp6B8/patch-notes-2451-for-honor https://www.ubisoft.com/en-gb/game/for-honor/news-updates/6j...

flaunf221 15d ago
> made a change specifically to run on the steam deck No, they didn't, you don't need to lie. From your url: > EASY ANTI-CHEAT > Updated Easy Anti-Cheat client module and library. > Developer's Comment:* This update of Easy Anti-Cheat makes the game playable on Steam Deck.* That is not "we made a change to specifically run on deck." Steam deck support might be accidental side effect of them getting newer anti-cheat tech.
- toshinoriyagi 15d ago
  I don't think this is accurate. Easy Anti-Cheat has supported Linux for a long time, many years before this. I doubt they were years and years out of date, updated, and allowing Linux was turned on by default in the new version. What they likely mean is they ticked the box in this game update to let it run on Linux. Why would they specifically mention the Steam Deck? EAC doesn't have separate flags for Linux and Steam Deck. It's almost certain they intentionally allowed it to run on Linux. They call out Steam Deck by name because it is a popular handheld that has greatly increased the # of Linux users, not because an EAC update allowed it to work by chance.
  - flaunf221 15d ago
    And it's still not an active support decision. They allowed it - but it's your business. Whenever people gets problems or successes running through Proton, this is never a publisher's issue.
- altairprime 15d ago