For Honor MUST be boycotted


Ubisoft recently announced that they’ve scrapped the offline functionality of their upcoming new IP, For Honor, due out in February.  That means you cannot even play the single player campaign unless you’re connected to the Internet.  Their reason?  Something along the lines of the progression system for both the campaign and multiplayer being tied together.  It’s complete nonsense.  What it is, is Ubisoft pushing its agenda to redefine ownership and force consumers to accept video games as a service.  Truth of the matter is that an Internet connection is not really an issue for me as my PS4 is almost always connected to the Internet, anyway.  At worst, an online requirement is only a minor annoyance, like whenever I have to reboot The Division  (another always online title from Ubisoft) a couple of times to get to the main menu.  Still, I can’t shake the fact that if or when Ubisoft decides to pull the plug on the servers, all I’d be left with is a poorly designed frisbee.  It doesn’t matter if Ubisoft will keep the servers running for 100 years, I am not down with the fact that my ability to play their game relies 100% on THEM.  I do NOT own The Division.  Ubisoft decides when I get to play it.  The Division was a commercial success, enough so that Ubisoft has the nerve to do a 180 and break the promise they made with For Honor.  We can’t let them get away with this.  As much as I’m intrigued by For Honor (it’s been #1 on my most anticipated games list for over a year), I have no choice but to skip it.  I cancelled my preorder for For Honor and instead preordered Yakuza 0, which comes out on January 24, 2017.  The pain of missing out on For Honor is lessened by the latest gameplay videos they’ve released, which remind me of a bad knockoff of Assassin’s Creed.  Cinematic realism was one the biggest selling point for me when they first revealed For Honor.  That’s basically gone now as actual gameplay couldn’t be more “video-gamey,” with glowing outlines around each enemy and whatnot.  At any rate, I won’t stand for Ubisoft or any other company taking away my right to own my games.  If For Honor succeeds, gamers lose.  It’s as simple as that.  What about you?  Are you okay with all this?  Let me know!



  1. slannxe · January 2, 2017

    Lol nah. The game is going to be fun, and by the time they do decide to shut down servers no one will be playing it anymore, or they will have already released a sequel of some sort.
    Its silly to boycott the game. The campaign isn’t going to be anything spectacular. Its just tacked on. The multiplayer is the reason to even buy it anyways.


    • replayFaktor · January 2, 2017

      Thanks for the comment! I can understand if it’s a multiplayer-only game, but there is no excuse for not having an offline mode for single player. I personally only buy games for the single player. I’m in it for the immersion, entertainment, and fulfilling my power fantasy against A.I. that’s not as smart as I am. Ubisoft doesn’t advertise the game as having a non-spectacular campaign but basically they are giving the middle finger to gamers who enjoy the single player experience, as though anybody who likes single player is not worthy to play a video game.

      Liked by 1 person

      • slannxe · January 2, 2017

        But if you’ve been following the game, it was a multi-player game only game when it was announced. Later on they said they’ll add a single player story to it. Thats not what you want to hear if you’re a single player type of gamer.
        Plus, there have been a lot of previews and videos showing the campaign off and it’s not anything important really.
        The only reason people should be buying this game is if they are stoked on the multi-player aspect of it. It was announced as a multi-player only game anyways.


  2. replayFaktor · January 2, 2017

    Still not a valid reason. The Call of Duty franchise is notorious for its extremely short campaigns that a lot of players ignore to go straight into multiplayer. If there’s any game out there that has a real valid excuse to always be online, it’s any COD game. But that’s not the case at all. On top of that, COD even offers an offline multiplayer against bots or another player via split screen. Not every player is out there to make it to the top of the leaderboards. I absolutely love the offline multiplayer of COD against bots. On the easiest settings I can truly “dominate” and I can switch to the highest difficulties if I want a challenge, but I’m always in control, something you don’t get when you’re playing against other people. Nothing wrong with competitive multiplayer at all, but the point is, there is no excuse for the single player portion of any game to require an online connection. Star Wars Battlefront is another great example. EA from the very beginning announced that there would be no campaign and that it was designed for multiplayer. Yet the game has offline single player modes including the recently added skirmish mode that can be played against bots. As much as I like to hate on EA, they did the fans right by being honest from the get go and shipping the game with some sort of single player content that can be played offline.


  3. David Gray · January 11, 2017

    It’s very simple… If domeone makes something you like buy it. If it is something you do not like don’t buy it… Only a fool says … This company makes something I don’t like so everyone boycott it until they change it to what I like. Who put you in charge of decising what everyone else must like or do.. You sound like a spoilt brat… Grow up and find a game you like you petty fool.


    • replayFaktor · January 11, 2017

      I believe in freedom, and people can do what they want with their money. However, if a person has any conviction or any sense of principle, it is RIGHT to do the right thing for the greater cause. It takes sacrifice. I REALLY wanted to get For Honor and I would be lying if I said I no longer want it. But I will NOT buy it because… I believe in FREEDOM AND, I believe in everyone’s RIGHT to own their games. I suggest YOU do the growing up and start by not resorting to calling people names simply because they do not agree with you. Thanks for the comment!


      • Dave Gray · January 12, 2017

        You do not believe in freedom… you believe only in your own personal opinion.

        So are you saying Ubisoft are free to make games for many different people or you are trying to take away that freedom by trying to get others to join a childish boycott (Boycotts are designed to stop freedom of choice) Which is it? Do you believe in freedom or not?

        Ubisoft OWNS For Honor, THEY have the freedom to make it any way that want, you have the freedom to choose to buy or not buy…. you have the freedom to wish it was made to your liking rather than to the liking of other consumers… you have the right to act foolish and think you will raise a mighty boycott army and bring Ubisoft to their knees to beg you to force them to make games exactly as YOU and only YOU decide …

        THAT’S not freedom… that is ridiculous behaviour and reading this will upset you, you will try to convince yourself I’m wrong and feel you are doing this for a lot of people and a just cause but eventually you will realise that we do not make or own games… we only buy and own a copy of the games…

        stick to the ones you like… if the ones you really want do not have the features you like, don’t buy them, don;t try to stop others enjoying them.

        As a point of interest, I do not like MMO games, I like long campaigns and co-op against AI. Ubisoft make great games with long campaigns like assassins creed, Far Cry, Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon etc… but they also have co-op in those games as well… I also play Bethesda games as well…

        .I do not buy C.O.D. simply because it is designed as an MMO with a small campaign, same with battlefront and Battlefield 1 , BUT other people do like them, but I don’t feel I should decide how those games should be made. For Honor is similar to those, I will play it because I have enough friends to play with just us and no strangers but if I didn’t, I would simply not buy it… Regardless of how much I want a sword and shield game… I wouldn’t make a fuss about it and try to start a boycott because I REALLY do believe in freedom, not just my own but everyone;s including Ubisofts.choice to make games HOW they want and YOUR freedom to make this pointless boycott post.

        Liked by 1 person

      • replayFaktor · January 12, 2017

        Dave, thanks for your passion. I guess I am old fashioned to think that when I buy things, I own it. If you believe in the socialist/communist view that no one is allowed to own anything, more power to you.


      • Dave Gray · January 12, 2017

        Actually I’m very old fashioned because I’m very old 🙂 and been gaming since early 80’s. I believe everyone owns their own work or the things that we buy within the terms of the sale and law (I own my house outright but it’s illegal for me to demolish it even though it’s mine). This game is not your work (unless you are one of the devs, or working on the game in another capacity or own enough ubisofts shares to tell them what to do).

        What you want is similar to someone saying “I only buy paintings that have a beard included, Mr. U. Beesoft the famous artist has painted a beautiful woman, I refuse to buy a print of it until he paints a beard on the original and will suggest a boycott against buying prints until the original and all prints are how I want them to look.”.

        You do not own the original, you are not the artist and you are just buying a print (copy) You will OWN a copy not the original or intellectual rights but you want to take control… that’s not freedom.

        It’s ok to really want a style of game to be released and want all the features that you like to be included. It’s ok to get upset if it’s not what you want….. but thinking you represent the majority or are sacrificing yourself and champion a cause for others (in this case) is not right.

        This is all I know… any time not spent in the pursuit of happiness is wasted…. instead of being negative towards For Honor for some perceived injustice… focus on games you enjoy…. people discriminate by simply purchasing things they like and by not purchasing things they do not like. If a vendor is not making enough profit they will change but they’re not going to listen to a few who boycott.

        If For Honor earns $360,000,000 and you buy the $39 version, how much creative input do you think that gives you over the writers, devs, employees and shareholders who actually OWN the game not just a copy?

        And finally I apologise for being somewhat rude initially and I admire your passion, it’s nice to see people actually care about things they like, enough to actually do something. But consider the fact that this game is a product that is made to generate the most sales and if you and I are not part of the target buyers, we shouldn’t complain because it will bring a lot of happiness o them instead of us. At present I’m lovng R6 siege, Far Cry4 (solo and co-op in both) and Mafia 3 (Which I love regardless of all the petty negative reviews over the 30 fps release) I am happy mafia 3 wasn’t blocked from release by boycott.


      • replayFaktor · January 13, 2017

        I don’t want For Honor to be “blocked from release,” I want it to bomb. More importantly, I want to OWN my games. I want to be able to play whenever I want and I don’t want the lifespan of my game to be dependent on someone else’s servers. This is NOT just about For Honor, this is about the future of the video game industry. Those games you played in the 80’s, if you still have the cartridges and the console, you can dust them off and play. They are yours. I can’t say the same for The Division 5 for sure 5 minutes from now. Ubisoft, for their own gains, is spearheading this movement and if they succeed, others will follow suit. Stay tuned for an article I’ll be writing within the next week. I’m sure you’re gonna love it. Thanks for the comments, I think you’re like the only one so I appreciate an insult now and then! Also nothing personal to you, either. If I end up taking the plunge and picking up a copy of For Honor, I’ll be sorely disappointed if I don’t hear it from you!


      • Dave Gray · January 13, 2017

        You can OWN a game instead of a physical or digital copy, all you have to do is start a games company or go to a games company and buy the game not just a copy.. Companies like Sony, Microsoft do it and market the game exclusively for their consoles. If you went to Ubisoft and asked to buy For Honor I’m sure you could OWN it for $50 million but for $ £ € 40 all you get is a copy.. It’s your copy, you own the copy but you buy it and agree to the terms of the sale. If we do not want to agree to the terms we just do not buy it.

        We either adapt and evolve with games and the gaming industry OR we stick to playing 30 year old games on an Amiga. Personally, I do not care how a games company works and survives because I’ve seen so many good ones disappear. All I want are good games to involve me and make me enjoy my time. If a company like Ubisoft makes 10 brilliant games in a year and only 6 suit me… I don’t waste time being a hater because the other 4 are for MMO or co-op only, I think “Great they made games to make other people as happy as me”

        Ubisoft just gave away 7 free games as part of their 30 year celebration and the servers are still there for the old games… just no players. I remember AC4 Black Flag being my first “online” game, If I had uplay friends it made my fleet sail quicker in the mini game… nothing else.

        You will end up becoming obsessed, bitter and resentful. You will have instant hate reactions and comments towards a company that is doing exactly what it is designed to do, make a profit, employ people and keep the share holders happy. So when you say “Ubisoft, for their own gains….” are you saying companies are not supposed to be trying to be profitable? companies should be forced into bankruptcy by piracy and bad marketing decisions made by 1 upset buyer? My advice is forget this, move on and play/ do, something that makes you happy… where this is going is nothing but worse for you and will have no effect on anything so do not do it.

        There are other companies that already do this, but Ubisoft does also look after single players, just not in this game. It’s unhealthy for you to fixate on this.

        Try to imagine it in reverse. Do you want to be poor or rich? Rich, right. Companies are exactly the same, they follow the demand and if 80% of gamers prefer online games then they make online games. I;m just grateful there are hundreds of other games for me.,

        Do not buy For Honor, you will resent it, you will go on the ubi forum and look for any reason to spew hatred you will be miserable. Buy Mafia 3 and enjoy yourself.


  4. Dave Gray · January 13, 2017

    I am adapting, I played co-op in AC Unity and I made a lot of friends. I’m in England ad I have met people from every continent and a lot of different countries and the majority of them are brilliant…. only in GTA V I found a few were spiteful and deliberately out to spoil other peoples enjoyment. I still am not interested in games like battlefield 1, star wars battlefront and C.o.D games because it is just random chaos with simply run and gun tactics or camping and I find that boring…. Although I look at those games and would absolutely love a 25 hour solo campaign in them I know they were designed for other players not me.

    But Unity and even playing in GTA V in a private session with friends has taught me that online with friends is fun. I’ve enjoyed Rainbow 6 siege, co-op in far cry 4 is epic and I’m really looking forward to Ghost recon wildlands for the huge campaign solo or up to 4 friends. However 1 thing I like is 1 v 1 games and there is not a market for that. The only ones I know is sniper elite games and R6 siege and I have to create a custom game…. but the fact that companies do offer this, makes me happy.


  5. Drakulus · January 26, 2017

    To each their own. I’m currently playing the closed beta and I’m in love with the game so far. For Honor has great gameplay and I love the 1v1 duels. I’m really looking forward to the campaign mode too, but as a avid MMO player I don’t mind that it’s a always online game. Diablo III, The Division, Warframe, Guild Wars 2, etc are all online only games and work just fine. Telling people to boycott a game because you don’t like a certain feature isn’t fair in my opinion, but you’re entitled to it.

    You have a nice blog btw.

    Liked by 1 person

    • replayFaktor · January 26, 2017

      You know as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. As I’ve said, For Honor was on the top of my list prior to Ubisoft’s 180. I’m not a multiplayer guy, obviously you need online for multiplayer but for single player it’s a different story. To me it’s just one step closer to the “games as service” era. I don’t consider an online requirement for single player as a “feature.” I just want to own my game and be able to play it for as long as I want. Thanks for the comment.


  6. The Otaku Judge · January 31, 2017

    Threatening to make online compulsory is what made Sony overtake Microsoft in the console war. Companies should learn from that mistake. All that said I wouldn’t boycott a title just because of online requirements. Many of the games that I play (Overwatch and Hearthstone for example) need an internet connection to play.


    • replayFaktor · January 31, 2017

      I would. There’s no valid reason single player should ever require an internet connection. Multiplayer, sure. That’s a whole different gig. But this is just one step in the process of conditioning people’s minds that it’s “normal” to require an online connection to any game. Once that’s become the norm, big government will jump in and who knows what kind of regulations and profiling will follow. Not worried so much with the new administration doing this, but down the road.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Davy Gravy · January 31, 2017

    I play a lot of solo games AND I love the fact that they are permanently connected online and store all my achievements, all my rewards and all my cloud save games…. steam have been doing it forever and I do not see a petition to boycott steam. When I started gaming on a pc, I was forever checking online for patches, updates and extra content DLC, now I do not have to, it is all done automatically. Games are just the latest fad, I struggle to find any game over 6 months old that is worth replaying because it cannot compete with newer games or I’ve played it so much that I’ve grown a little tired of it. So I wouldn’t worry about the servers being pulled. In 5 years time I expect there will be a PS super pro VIII playing on VR and 8k resolution and these games will not be compatible (like 360 games on an xbone or ps3 games on a ps4… I’d be more upset about that! where’s the sony boycott? 🙂 ) plus they will look very very dated anyway so it’s a moot point. What 5 year old games do you still play today regularly (honestly?) If you want to still play old games offline you can do that now. You have already boycotted for honor buy not buying it, although I cannot see any stated rational reason why. (although a short campaign usually stops me buying games). If For Honor succeeds (and it will, it’s EPIC) gamers don’t lose… they win because they’ll be playing and that is what makes it a success. I think all gaming is looking toward online permanently, they all push and push and we are getting used to it slowly, soon it will happen. Very few really care and those who don’t want it will not be playing the latest games anyway.


    • replayFaktor · January 31, 2017

      Games I play today that are over 5 years old… first, not sure by what you mean by “regularly.” It’s a loaded qualifier. It doesn’t matter how frequently I play older games, it matters that I CAN if and when I want to (to answer your question though, Fight Night Champion, UFC Undisputed 3, Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, Prototype 2, Kane & Lynch 2, just to name a few) I don’t care about achievements, and cloud most certainly isn’t necessary to store them. There are still good games being made today in spite of Ubisoft’s communist agenda to take away our ownership. The landscape of gaming most definitely is changing as younger people get into the industry. These people have no passion for video games the way my generation did. I am seriously on a mission to buy as many offline single player games as I can this generation because I am convinced that the industry is headed towards always online, which means the government can and will start monitoring how long you play, what you play, and start making correlations on how it negatively affects society, kinda like second hand smoke, and will start taxing people for playing video games. That’s just the beginning of it. Then gamers will start getting profiled for their killing behavior in games and start getting charged with hate crimes for killing IN A VIDEO GAME. At any rate, 8K schmeight K, video games look pretty darn good today. We are long past the point of diminishing returns when it comes to visuals. I can guarantee you that I won’t be missing out on any future video games when the day comes that everything has to be online, because those type of games will absolutely suck and made by talentless developers.


  8. Davy Gravy · February 1, 2017

    I wasn’t aware all those games play on a PS4, Sony is trying to prevent copies of games being resold multiple times by making new consoles and restrict backwards compatibility and I get the feeling that everything you are saying is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that permanent online will eventually take away the buying and selling games and be like pc owners.

    Also it really undermines your arguments when you try to make the opponent seem like they are the bad guys by association. By mentioning communism, big brother type government and second hand smoke knowing they are bad, hoping to make ubisoft seem bad. It’s not good.

    The same as stating games will suck and developers are talentless simply because the only thing that has changed is one tiny insignificant thing you do not like. Name calling is the last gasp grabbing at straws usually done when all other arguments are exhausted. 😦


    • replayFaktor · February 1, 2017

      I don’t think Ubisoft needs my help to make them “seem bad.” They made a reputation all on their own. As for the “games will suck” and “talentless developers” bit, maybe that’s hyperbole. It’s not name-calling. I know that the games will suck because developers have shown that they aren’t striving to make better games. They just want to maximize profit with the smallest amount of work on their part. Maybe I’m part of a dying breed of gamers who still believe that video games are for getting immersed in a universe I’m basically in charge of, where I can fulfill my power fantasies without relying on other people. I believe that video games are a self-contained package that doesn’t require anyone else but me. My reasons for playing video games are not for social, but for my own pure entertainment, to be able to do whatever. I’m not looking to “dominate” other gamers nor do I care about having to “coordinate” tactics with others. More power to those type of players, I’m not one of those guys. Developers seem to want to cater more towards those players. If the trend continues then I would happily bow out of the next generation of video games, where all the games suck, which is why I’m collecting a bunch of games today that would last me until I’m too senile to play.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s