Anti-epilepsy filter?

Originally Posted by Codex

According to the article referred to by Tree, there IS NO legal requirement to implement such a filter. The only legal requirement in all this is:

"On the statutory safeguards, the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 make it compulsory for producers to place warnings and instructions on all consumer products, including video games."

Now this is for the UK, not sure what it will be for other countries. But we've all seen the warning label in the manual's of games, legally that is enough. Also remember that UBI VOLUNTARILY decided to implement "photosensitive epilepsy" screening policy according to that article.

I smell a rat.

I smell one too.

[Tiger27]

Tree you do this stuff well, drop a few guesses disguised as legitimate info around and before you know it other people are quoting you as there source (sort of like wikki).

You all may be right about the conspiracy stuff but still, the game is not released yet in the West, wouldn't this be better if brought up when you know what you will get, all these comments are ensuring, is that a lot of people wont purchase this game, which will most likely see the end of any fixes we may have received, look at the state ROF was in when released, yet now it is a damn good flight sim, I just don't understand what anyone is hoping to achieve?

Obviously Tree, you would like someone from up high to tell you that you've been right all along, well that will be nice but at the end of the day all that will really be achieved is that we may never see another realistic WW2 FS again

[Rodney]

If this epilepsy filter causes slower frame rates for me when I get CoD and that makes me angry, and I end up hurting myself (e.g. by punching a wall) or someone else then I am absolutely going to SUE YOU UBI, thats right I am going to SUE YOU and BANKRUPT you UBI because of the harm your over the top anti-epilepsy filter does to my state of mind!!!

Originally Posted by Tiger27

Tree you do this stuff well, drop a few guesses disguised as legitimate info around and before you know it other people are quoting you as there source (sort of like wikki).

You all may be right about the conspiracy stuff but still, the game is not released yet in the West, wouldn't this be better if brought up when you know what you will get, all these comments are ensuring, is that a lot of people wont purchase this game, which will most likely see the end of any fixes we may have received, look at the state ROF was in when released, yet now it is a damn good flight sim, I just don't understand what anyone is hoping to achieve?

Obviously Tree, you would like someone from up high to tell you that you've been right all along, well that will be nice but at the end of the day all that will really be achieved is that we may never see another realistic WW2 FS again

Actually I would much rather someone tell me Ive been wrong all along and have a great sim to fly. It would be no loss to me, im a man and can acceppt when i have got things wrong, i often do. Its not like i have to face you everyday is it?

[jimbop]

Originally Posted by Codex

According to the article referred to by Tree, there IS NO legal requirement to implement such a filter.

That's why it's called 'voluntary'. Ubi's choice and given then 2008 lawsuit I can understand why (short review here). If you want to publish with them you have to do it their way. Not to mention the public health angle.

[jimbop]

My guess is it is probably down to poor communication on both sides and a late understanding that CoD wasn't going to pass Ubi's QA. You can imagine the awful moment of realisation! This was probably there since 2008 but no one from Ubi thought to make sure 1C understood it - hardly a late policy change or anything like that I think.

I haven't cancelled my steam pre-order yet. I am hoping that we will see some decent vids emerge from Russia over the next couple of days showing settings tweaks (disable this, modify that) that remove the game-stopping problems in the short term. Then optimisation patches should cure it properly over the coming months.

Anyway, the Australia release is April 1 (yeah, you US guys aren't feeling so bad about the delay now, huh?) so enough time to wait and see.

[Herra Tohtori]

Ok, after sleeping a bit I can take a more rational look into this.

My earlier comments still hold true: This type of blanket policy from Ubisoft is silly, there is virtually no chance of litigation anyway if the seizure risk is clearly announced in the product. Optional filter to reduce the thing would be laudable. There is also no way to safeguard against photosensitive epileptic seizures completely, so probably somewhere, at some time, will suffer a seizure anyway looking at the filtered game, so I don't know what protects Ubi from litigation there.

However, like some in this thread have pointed out, we have only heard the developer's version of the events so far. While I want to give them the benefit of doubt considering they are the ones with most intimate knowledge of their game, I would wait to hear back from Ubisoft as well on this issue.

I'm not cancelling my order, at least not at this point. I'm fairly confident that at some point the game will run smoothly on a modern PC. What I am more concerned of is that the anti-epileptic measures will disfigure the realistic graphics - things like propeller effects and the like, which tend to be flickery in real life (making them nonflickery and "epileptic-safe" would make them look worse). Even then, simply an option to switch that off to achieve better looking results would be preferred option.



Oh and by the way, games and videos don't cause the sensitivity to epileptic seizures. They simply act as a trigger for people who have that sensitivity. Blaming them for causing seizures is foolish, much like blaming peanuts for peanut allergy.

In fact, instead of screening games and video for their tendency to cause epileptic seizures, it would be better to screen people for their tendency to suffer photosensitive epileptic seizures. What better way to find out than expose them to situations that can trigger it - in safe environment rather than wait until they get a car and drive along a road with trees on the side and the sun shining from the side, flickering on and off between the trees, causing them to get an absentia seizure and veering to the opposite side of the road or hitting pedestrians or whatever?

Or, as one of my friends pointed out, if they're walking on the street, see an ambulance with flashing blue lights, collapse on the street and get run down by a truck?

There are much more dangerous spots to find out you're susceptible to photosensitive epileptic seizures than while playing a video game. In that light, the fixation to video games and their risks seems disproportionate.

Oh and much like epileptic seizures, oversensitivity to something like peanuts can develop sort of silently, and then when a person is exposed to peanuts, they go into anaphylactic shock and can die seemingly out of nowhere.

That doesn't mean removing peanuts from all products is necessary. It is a good reason to keep track on where peanuts are used, and mark not only products that contain peanuts, but those manufactured on lines where peanuts are also used. This is a standard in food industry, and it's sufficient for them to put a small label in food products that might have traces of peanuts.

So, if Ubisoft's policy really is a blanket statement to refuse releasing any games that fail some arbitrary epilepsy screening, I find that utterly ridiculous.

Waiting to hear back from Ubi via Ms.Kleaneasy, and hoping that a sensible solution can be achieved despite how unlikely it's looking just now.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

My earlier comments still hold true: This type of blanket policy from Ubisoft is silly, there is virtually no chance of litigation anyway if the seizure risk is clearly announced in the product. Optional filter to reduce the thing would be laudable. There is also no way to safeguard against photosensitive epileptic seizures completely, so probably somewhere, at some time, will suffer a seizure anyway looking at the filtered game, so I don't know what protects Ubi from litigation there.

However, like some in this thread have pointed out, we have only heard the developer's version of the events so far. While I want to give them the benefit of doubt considering they are the ones with most intimate knowledge of their game, I would wait to hear back from Ubisoft as well on this issue.

I'm not cancelling my order, at least not at this point. I'm fairly confident that at some point the game will run smoothly on a modern PC. What I am more concerned of is that the anti-epileptic measures will disfigure the realistic graphics - things like propeller effects and the like, which tend to be flickery in real life (making them nonflickery and "epileptic-safe" would make them look worse). Even then, simply an option to switch that off to achieve better looking results would be preferred option.



Oh and by the way, games and videos don't cause the sensitivity to epileptic seizures. They simply act as a trigger for people who have that sensitivity. Blaming them for causing seizures is foolish, much like blaming peanuts for peanut allergy.

In fact, instead of screening games and video for their tendency to cause epileptic seizures, it would be better to screen people for their tendency to suffer photosensitive epileptic seizures. What better way to find out than expose them to situations that can trigger it - in safe environment rather than wait until they get a car and drive along a road with trees on the side and the sun shining from the side, flickering on and off between the trees, causing them to get an absentia seizure and veering to the opposite side of the road or hitting pedestrians or whatever?

Or, as one of my friends pointed out, if they're walking on the street, see an ambulance with flashing blue lights, collapse on the street and get run down by a truck?

There are much more dangerous spots to find out you're susceptible to photosensitive epileptic seizures than while playing a video game. In that light, the fixation to video games and their risks seems disproportionate.

Oh and much like epileptic seizures, oversensitivity to something like peanuts can develop sort of silently, and then when a person is exposed to peanuts, they go into anaphylactic shock and can die seemingly out of nowhere.

That doesn't mean removing peanuts from all products is necessary. It is a good reason to keep track on where peanuts are used, and mark not only products that contain peanuts, but those manufactured on lines where peanuts are also used. This is a standard in food industry, and it's sufficient for them to put a small label in food products that might have traces of peanuts.

So, if Ubisoft's policy really is a blanket statement to refuse releasing any games that fail some arbitrary epilepsy screening, I find that utterly ridiculous.

Waiting to hear back from Ubi via Ms.Kleaneasy, and hoping that a sensible solution can be achieved despite how unlikely it's looking just now.

Thank you for providing a rational overview of the situation. I would also like to see a sensible solution for this latest barrier to the new game.