Will you sign my petition for Bethesda to make Skyrim free?!?! It's for the good of everyone!
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes Skyrim must be in bundle or on sale or free i need dlc so bad for my friend he is poor cant buy anything he has no money so who can tell me when there will be skyrim for free maybe someone can give to me> Thx 4 skyrim!
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, because they totally never do anything, right? Dumb kids.
But yeah, of course it's absolutely idiotic to want to pool the support of all people wanting a certain thing into one easy to view location so you a company can easily gauge interest in something, thereby increasing the chances things will get done that benefit consumers, and other interest groups. Naturally. How stupid.
Comment has been collapsed.
Two exceptions do not prove effectiveness. Despite the thousands of Internet petitions related to games, I've seen only those two. I asked for successful petitions in another thread, and they were able to provide me only with... those two. That sort of proof only makes the endeavor seem more unlikely, since it underscores exactly how difficult a successful petition is.. Also, don't be such a dick.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sarcasm is the same as being a dick? He was ridiculing the idea of online petitions, the snarkyness wasn't started by me. I was just countering with a hint of sarcasm. If that's what you call being a dick, wow.
And regardless of how effective they are or aren't, it's still worth trying to let a company hear your combined will. Even if they never had achieved anything so far, that would not invalidate the small effort required to set one up, or sign one.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Dumb kids." Unless I misunderstood, that seems kind of rude. Otherwise, your sarcasm came off as aggressively harsh while his was more passively critical.
If they're worth it to you, they're worth it for you. I personally find the majority of those posted on Steam Gifts (whose forum I frequent most) to be pretty silly. I guess I should respect them, though, since I own and enjoy From Software's Dark Souls port, despite its flaws.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks Freddie, always here to back me up when I'm gone or convince everyone that I can't speak English and need to use translation software! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Your stirring comments always wake my soul into a fighting furor. Also, I think you and I get annoyed by similar things :P
Comment has been collapsed.
"Dumb kids who make petitions, right?" Was the intended meaning of that. Not to insult Flux. Brush up your sarcastic skills!
Anyway, yes, there are most definitely a plethora of inane, ridiculous petitions, agreed on that. But even if 99% of them were, that would not invalidate or lessen the validity of my points. The time and effort required to make or sign one is small. The potential impact can be there. And as you yourself say, you benefited from the Dark Souls one, right?
Also, for a plethora of examples of successful petitions, and ones that don't have stupid premises but pretty profound stuff, check out Avaaz.
Comment has been collapsed.
I apologize for my misunderstanding of your sarcasm.
I did not intend to offend.
Those petitions are lovely and not at all silly.
Comment has been collapsed.
You didn't offend anywhere to begin with anyway. If people can't disagree or butt heads a little, be a little snarky or sarcastic at each other yet still respect each other as human beings and be able to drop all the crap they were discussing and just play a game together, or sit down and drink a beer, what is the world coming to?
Anyway, I see you're being sarcastic, here, unfortunately. My earlier sarcasm wasn't intended to insult or harass Flux, but be a direct counter to his snarky look at petitions as a whole by making him see how unfortunate and quite ridiculous it is to think all online petitions are without merit.
Here, however, you appear to be going more for trolling me by ignoring all good points I raised and just being sarcastic to ridicule what I said, sadly. You probably don't even know about Avaaz, what they do, or how they do it. Why not spend a bit of time looking at that site, and actually try to assess the validity of their petitions before acting like a judgemental douche about all petitions because there are some ridiculous ones? Like I just replied to Flux, saying all petitions are ridiculous because there are a buttload of moronic ones out there makes as much sense as saying "I saw a shitty movie. I saw so many over my lifetime, in fact, that all movies must suck!"
Avaaz' petitions are about important issues, well thought out, well worded, and professionally organised. They collate interest in a certain issue, then don't just yell at TV stations for attention - they directly contact policy makers to affect change. They have achieved a great deal of support and success in the past, and have a proven track record. There's nothing frivolous or ridiculous about them or any of the petitions they make, so might as well drop that sarcastic, insulting attitude. Your stance of "all petitions are stupid" makes no sense, and I have proven so quite adequately.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, that was an overly long-winded and painfully mistaken post. My friend, the master of sarcasm himself, I was not being sarcastic. I checked the site and saw serious issues that deserve effort and championing. It's a noble endeavor, one I would never put down with even a hint of sarcasm. I am not cold-hearted enough to laugh off a good cause.
Also, when making an argument, never state that you have proven anything "adequately"; adequacy is for the receiver to decide, as even the greatest arguments are inadequate if they fail to convince--this is not necessarily a failing of the one arguing, and might indeed be the fault of an ignorant argument receiver; nevertheless it is still inadequate as it lacked what was required to achieve its goal. I recommend instead that you ask the one to whom you are arguing whether or not he has been convinced; only at his affirmative is it acceptable--nay, moral--to claim your argument as adequate.
Now, I will imagine you have asked me that very question. My answer is a firm denial. No, you have not only failed to convince me; you have also managed to stir my ire, and passion comes quickly, frothing to the top. To understand why, read my following post in response to your humorously premature claim at coffin-nailing.
Comment has been collapsed.
"It's a noble endeavor, one I would never put down with even a hint of sarcasm. I am not cold-hearted enough to laugh off a good cause." Then let me say bravo to you, good to hear, and thanks for the statement, very cool of you.
As for what you said about adequacy of an argument and its' points. Yes, you're right, but I'd rather consider my argumentative partner, in this case you specifically, reasonable enough to listen to proper reason and logic. Everything I said in support of my stance was entirely reasonable, and very logical.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't be so quick to assume your words either reasonable or logical. Wiser, more intelligent men than you and I have made foolish, illogical arguments. Better to let others claim for you that your argument was logical and well-reasoned.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get what you're saying, and spent ages second guessing everything I said and did when I was younger, but I'd prefer to sometimes just look at something I said and go "OK, this flows into that, that makes sense and is logical if you consider <x>, this holds water and is entirely reasonable". Yes, logic is defined by specific variables that can change according to the perspective of the viewer / reader / listener, but sometimes, shit just makes sense :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh and, as I also said to Flux just now, just to seal the final nail in the coffin of your argument that all petitions are stupid -
"In the end, you should not and in fact cannot measure the worth of petitions by looking at how many were successful. That's ridiculous. There are far too many factors that can have an effect on whatever outcome you're trying to influence by manner of petition, including ones you cannot know or anticipate for as a petition maker. Petitions are not proposals - they're a way of collecting support for a certain sentiment or interest in one place. What the recipient or intended receiver of this message of interest / support does with that message, is a whole other story."
Comment has been collapsed.
My dear friend, what is the gravest error an arguer can make? Yes, that's correct: no arguer desires to waste valuable time and audience respect by building point after point upon a flawed foundation. You charge me with a crime I did not commit. Perhaps dearest Flux has implied universal disdain for the internet petition, but I have not done so. Instead, my previous statements clearly define that I find most of these petitions ridiculous; "most" implies that I find some to be the opposite.
A wise man--me--once said, "Most foolish it is to quote oneself in one's own work. Only to to self-aggrandizement does this lead one." You inspired me to form such passionate rhetoric with your arrogant quoting of your own words in such close proximity to the original statement, along with the clear failings of logic present within said quote.
You state that "Petitions are not proposals - (sic) they're a way of collecting support for a certain sentiment or interest in one place." However, despite the obvious sureness with which you state this claim, it is absolutely incorrect. Petitions, by definition, are proposals, proposals which, as you claimed correctly, aim to collect support with the hopes of finding validation. A petition is not just a list of names; it is a proposal supported by a list of names.
Also, based on the central goal of a petition, they are effectively worthless if they fail. The supporters wasted a few seconds to a few minutes of their too-short lives by supporting a movement which had no effect. Perhaps one could argue that a failed petition can find postmortem effectiveness if it invigorates a group to fight harder with a newborn, similar petition which does succeed. However, how many of these instances actually occur? Not many, as we continue to see many failed petitions and very few successful ones.
I understand that you were too proud of your pretty words to realize that they were unworthy of restatement, so I forgive you for those transgressions, my friend.
Note: Remember, my friend, that we are discussing here the gamer-type petitions and not the noble ones which are undeniably positive. Bringing up such petitions does not aid your argument, though it does warm many hearts.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, what -_-... Me quoting myself wasn't me attempting to be self-aggrandising, it was an attempt to save you the trouble of scrolling, as well as a simple way to specify what exactly I was referring to, no more. Also, some people here have SG+ installed, so you never know whether a certain comment is below or above whatever comment you're typing for the person viewing it, so I couldn't easily say something like "see the last part of my comment below" or similar. That doesn't automatically make me self-aggrandising...
As for mistakenly seeing sarcasm from your earlier comment, my bad, but I hope that looking back at it, you can see why I thought you were being sarcastic - not to say you did anything specifically that would unmistakably be considered sarcasm. Guess we're both shafted by this Poe guy, huh? It's a damn shame I saw your comment as being sarcastic, simply because you were being absolutely curt and genuine in your response. Dammit. Sorry for responding in a way that considered you being a sarcastic troll - what you said was quite eloquent and nice. It's just rare to see someone post something so short and sweet online, and not be trying to be trolly-lolly, you know, in a "kid on the playground imitating what you say" kinda way. :(
Anyway, yes, petitions are - often - proposals. Perhaps my wording wasn't good enough, there - my bad. What I meant to say was more that petitions aren't merely direct proposals, to be judged by the same standards that, say, business proposals would. They aren't proposals in the sense that they're not always fully researched or even always feasible, clearly worded direct proposals to companies or organisations, which you can thus judge the merit of by looking at how often they achieve success.
If you're judging the merit of, say, business proposals coming off of an individual or corporation, which have been properly researched in their feasibility beforehand, the amount of these proposals that have achieved an effect is important. If none or most of them don't fly, you should indeed question the point in making them to begin with.
The main point of petitions, as well as their worth, doesn't always lie in the proposal presented within, as you yourself quite nicely showed in your examples of petitions rousing morale to continue a certain campaign, nor does each petition have a clearly defined proposal. Some of them are simply "we like <x>" or "we don't like <x>". The main point of any petition is what I said - to collate interest in / support of a certain message or sentiment; that message could be a proposal, but it doesn't have to be. Hence, saying "..based on the central goal of a petition, they are effectively worthless if they fail" is incorrect, as some petitions might have no other goal than to show how many people do or don't support something. In such cases, there's no set "success condition" where you can say "OK, <x> happened / was done, hence this was successful". The goal might not be as well-defined as "we want <x> to happen".
By a textbook definition, yes, petitions are proposals, no more - otherwise they'd be more of a survey than an actual petition. But as with so many other cases, common / colloquial usage of the term is broader than the strictest textbook definition; in this case it includes these forms of surveys of sentiment under petitions, which is how I use the term, also. It makes sense, as a mere survey is usually done to gather data, whereas petitions with no clearly defined goal or proposal stated therein other than "do you like <x> statement?" still have a goal - to let the voice of people in support of or against a certain statement be heard, as well as that they're surveys of sentiment directed at the relevant people, be they politicians, or anyone else; the goal is implicit, not explicit.
But yes, back to gaming related petitions. I already addressed those in my replies to Flux (hope some of that can make you giggle). An important point is that like I said, you cannot always know all factors that might influence the decision making of a game-publisher / dev beforehand - you can merely do a bit of research into the feasibility of your request, and hope there's no more strings attached than you realise or can know of, but you can never be sure you are aware of all variables at play. Hence, you can't really judge the efficacy or merit of online gaming petitions by looking at how many are successful - many of them might be entirely reasonable and have all the research an average joe can do put into them before they were made, but that doesn't mean they will be successful. That also doesn't mean, though, that they are without merit, as sometimes, you will get your way as a group, because a company sees the value of listening to that many people. The best you can do is make it, and hope it gets listened to / acted on.
Also, what I said earlier to both of you still holds water - you can't judge all petitions as being dumb because some or even most are. Although you already said you didn't share the sentiment of "all these petitions are dumb", your earlier attempt at digging for successful ones with the thread you made and refer to here, as well as your support of Flux, made me see your stance as similarly black-and-white, though apparently, it would seem that we share the same view on all this malarky - some good, some bad, and a whoooole lotta dumb :P.
Sorry for annoying you, or coming off as over-sensitive, overly sarcastic, a douche, or anything else negative. Judging by how you word yourself, I think we're actually not that different, and we'd probably get along just fine. If only banding together to use our wit to ridicule that which deserves ridicule, such as SAVE CAFE WORLD :P :P
Comment has been collapsed.
What's pointless is comparing a single petition with an entirely ridiculous premise that asks to bend or break international laws with any potential petition.
Yes, there are some absolutely mindbogglingly stupid, ridiculous petitions online, totally true - many even more ridiculous than the one you reference, here. Some make my head hurt just thinking about the way the mind of the person who made it works. But that doesn't say anything about the concept and potential impact of an online petition in general. They're a good thing because they can be used to gauge interest / gain consensus and achieve change in some form, not a bad thing because there's a couple of numbskulls using them for frivolous, or simply ridiculous ideas.
Another great example of a good from of online petition is any of the ones from the guys at Avaaz. They make petitions concerning actually important topics, such as international law changes, or environmental issues, or sensitive political issues. And they have had success in the past in using petitions to drum up support for or against certain things, and helped push politicians and lawmakers towards reform, or rejecting certain proposed laws, such as the whole crap about SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its those ridiculous petitions that discredit all the otherwise legitimate ones. Ubisoft earns no more revenue by allowing users to change their usernames, but the makers of Dark Souls and The Division will sell more copies by doing so. Simple money problems.
SOPA and the like were stopped not by petition, but sheer internet outrage. The same appears to be true of the situation regarding The Division. I was simply discrediting internet petitions, not internet outrage.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Its those ridiculous petitions that discredit all the otherwise legitimate ones." This makes no sense whatsoever. That's like seeing a bad movie, then saying all movies must suck.
"Ubisoft earns no more revenue by allowing users to change their usernames.." Not all worth for a company is measured is potential revenue vs. cost. This change might somewhat help to alleviate the bad reputation Uplay has, or at least be a step in the right direction for the future development of that crappy platform. Also, there must be a way to show the amount of people wanting this feature, else it will almost definitely never be made. This way, at least there's a chance.
"..the makers of Dark Souls and The Division will sell more copies by doing so." This is something you can at best roughly estimate before making a petition, and you can be damn sure that the petition wasn't all the market research the publishers behind these two games did before agreeing to release a PC port / version. They have access to specialised companies using specialised metrics and with infinitely more pools of data than any of us at home can have. Still, the fact that these petitions were made was part of why these games have now come / are now coming to PC, so I guess it's good that they were made, huh?
"SOPA and the like were stopped not by petition, but sheer internet outrage." First off, I mentioned SOPA et all as examples of specifically Avaaz' success stories. And there were numerous petitions made by many individuals or groups such as Avaaz, signed all over the web by many millions of people. They most certainly did have an impact on the rejection of these laws. Or are you saying that lawmakers and members of congress sat through reading all this "internet outrage" on Facebook posts / discussions of people? No, they didn't. They saw petitions with one shared message being signed by millions of people, and that made them rethink things. Avaaz specifically contacts lawmakers and members of congress directly, and has closer ties to some of these policy makers and politicians than most. The petitions were most definitely a part of changing things - how else could you easily measure this "internet outrage" you speak of?
"I was simply discrediting internet petitions, not internet outrage." Again, makes no sense. Petitions collate and organise this "outrage" in one location, with one clearly worded message, rather than all this "outrage" (or better worded - interest) being strewn across the web in forums no one will ever see.
In the end, you should not and in fact cannot measure the worth of petitions by looking at how many were successful. That's ridiculous. There are far too many factors that can have an effect on whatever outcome you're trying to influence by manner of petition, including ones you cannot know or anticipate for as a petition maker. Petitions are not proposals - they're a way of collecting support for a certain sentiment or interest. What the recipient or intended receiver of this message of interest / support does with that message, is a whole other story.
Comment has been collapsed.
No its not. It's like seeing a bad action movie and saying, "I don't like action movies," or like playing a sports game and thinking the same way.
Its about YouTube videos, reddit posts, people grumbling on Twitter. Its not a poorly-worded petition that makes any difference. That's simply the manifestation of "internet outrage."
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh and, having looked at your link concerning specifically gaming-related petitions, yes and no. Most I see there are pretty valid and good petitions. But some aren't, really. Ones like "Showing NCSoft there is a demand for Blade & Soul in North America and Europe" and "Enable the DUALSHOCK®4 touchpad for the PS4™ web browser" are pretty valid and useful for both the people signing them as well as the companies they're relevant to. One asks no more than also releasing a game in a certain geographical region (which means it wouldn't take them a whole load of cash to do, perhaps some legal wrangling, but not much more), the other is a way of gauging interest in a fairly easy to implement feature on the PS4. To even things out, here's some less valid or even ridiculous ones I see there, and why they're not useful:
Keep 4-Way Kartway alive
This one shouldn't even be in the gaming section, as it is about a local race kart track either being or staying closed down. They're asking for 125 signatures. There's no information about why the track closed or is being closed down (which is stupid - why not find out who the owner is, first, and contact them), leaving us to assume it was simply a money issue. This is a pretty valid assumption to make, as a lot of these kinds of entertainment venues - especially smaller ones - that are a little more costly are going down as the global economy goes down the shitter. 125 signatures would not be enough to guarantee promising enough numbers of customers to keep a company like this afloat, especially if they're already in financial woes. Seeing as there's nothing said about why the company is closing / closed, there's no way to really assess the true validity of this petition. Perhaps it was made by the owners to gauge interest, and 125 is just enough supportive people they need to change their minds, whatever reason they initially had to want to board up. Anyway, this is worth the minute of your time needed to sign if you're interested in keeping this place going, although given the lack of information provided, one must assume the chances of this petition having success are slim.
DragonBall Z Budokai Tenkaichi 3 HD
3000 signatures? Yeah, enough said here, right? I mean, you can totally pay the salary of the people who would have to make this HD remake (which is basically making a game from the ground up, minus the artistic direction / character design etc) as well as leave enough profit over for the publisher and the dev company from 3000 sales, right? cough... Couldn't hurt to sign it if you're someone with an interest and a minute of your time, but its' chances of success are slim to none.
SAVE CAFE WORLD
A petition that actually wants to save one of those ridiculous mobile games that swallows cash in an entirely transparent ploy to make money with little in the way of gameplay offered. Wow. Aaanyway, here's why it's dumb.
First off, let's look at what the petition maker is saying.
Wow, that a whole lotta caps there. Someone seems frustrated. Anyway, what you can see here is an entire lack of understanding of how a mobile games company works, or even the very fact that this is a company looking to make money. The constant caps, spelling mistakes, lack of reason and general tone in this oh-so-carefully thought out and executed petition shows it's likely no more than an annoyed 12 year old shouting for what they want, rather than an adult making a valid, thought out request. The initial request is fine, yet based on a skewed premise. "We supported you and gave you our cash (which is exactly what a mobile game like this is designed for - to make cash easy) so now you must support us and do what we want". The amount of sense this makes lies right around 0, zilch, nada, of course. To contact TV stations about the issue - keeping a dumb mobile game alive - reeks yet more of screeching kids rather than a well-considered request. The final nail in the coffin of this petitions' credibility is that idiotic "WE ARE ALSO ASKING THAT IF ZYNGA SAYS GOODBYE TO CAFE WORLD, THEN TO PLEASE BAN PLAYING ALL ZYNGA GAMES. HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS, THEIR POCKETS!!!" bit. Basically, they're asking a company to close down all their money making games, if they're going to close down one. This makes about as much sense as banana squirrel brick house floating kiddie pool nutcake kebab. But the real question is, of course, is there any chance of this flying? Well, it's a game by Zynga. They make tons of mobile games built around the same basic premise - make money off selling either cosmetic items, items that allow you "level up" something faster, or items that allow you to do more each day, due to being limited by a form of arbitrary "energy" system that only allows <x> actions per <x> hours, always in an incredibly simple game design that offers little more than "levelling stuff up for the sake of levelling it up", sometimes with some form of "battle" between players, none of which entail more than tapping an area of the screen once to make something happen - no real gameplay. These games are built on the idea of farming cash off extremely casual game players and compulsive types that hopefully get hooked in by the social aspect of sharing the misery of their wasted life with others in the same boat, "playing" the same "game". If they're retiring a certain game, they simply either don't feel like supporting it anymore, or they're following their basic business strategy by making a new compulsion for people to get hooked on. You have to keep things switched up, and force players to play a new game by being forced to migrate along with their accumulated online friends to the next new thing, along with of course having to start building up all their <buildings/characters/clothes/dildos> or whatever else the game makes you invest your time in levelling or maintaining. The people who made the petition, along with most signing, have most likely already migrated along with their online buds to another game off the same damn company, already. The chances of this petition having success is about the same as that I am actually a cat typing out this comment. Yeah, not worth anyone's time.
What it boils down to is doing your research before making a petition, and having the tiniest shred of common sense and sense of how a company actually works. If you're going to make a petition to ask for another version of <x> game to be made, you're better off checking in advance how likely it is that that can ever even be done. Check out if there's been talk of it before on forums, see if anyone knows what's up concerning the rights of the IP you're asking to have re-made. Who owns the rights? Is the original dev still around? Was their studio disbanded / bought over? How would the company look at the petition? How many signatures would make them seriously consider your request, at the very least enough to inspire them to invest in some market research of their own? All these things are part of determining the potential success of your proposed petition. Unfortunately, many don't put a lot of thought into these issues, or thinking about the feasibility of what they ask before making a petition, and a lot of them are nothing more than entitled whining for <x> from people who just want to shout out how much they want something, rather than actually thinking about getting their way because it's a reasonable request.
As you can see, I absolutely do see your point - a lot of petitions are mind numbingly idiotic, or just pointless. And I hope that my analyses managed to give you a chuckle here or there. But all that, yet again, does nothing to invalidate what I've already said. Petitions can be pretty good, and do good. And even with petitions like the first two I posted as being a little less likely to achieve success, they're worth signing, as the effort required is tiny - an element in this discussion that shouldn't be overlooked. If you give enough of a damn about seeing a new HD remake of that Budokai game (which would actually be pretty sweet, those games were pretty awesome), that petition is worth signing, simply because it might be all the chance you have at seeing it happen, and it takes so little of your time and effort. Might as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah but not your user name https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=1558-QYAX-1965
only origin allows you to change your username thats why i use origin now :)
Comment has been collapsed.
if you accept uplay, you deserve every kind of bullshit
Comment has been collapsed.
I do not understand the hate it gets. I use it for FC3,FCBD, and HoM&M6. No problems at all with it so far. I do have two other games on there I prob will never play ( got them for free anyways. Silent Hunter and one of the Prince of Persia games. )
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really care enough to go looking for it, but Ubi's reps on the forums have said that a name change option is in the works, hopefully in a future update. No word on how long it'll be though and I'm pretty sure that statement happened a while back. Apparently it's somewhat complicated because some of their older games have the username tied into the save files and/or game licenses or something like that, not sure on the specifics.
EDIT: I lied, I do care enough. Here is the thread I was referring to. Apparently they're still "actively working on it" as of a few days ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
"we will be able to have that nickname change we so desire"
You won't
Also being able to change your nick on Steam is pretty much Bullshit and is heavily abused by scammers, hackeres and other scum to try to hide their identity w/o changing accounts.
Comment has been collapsed.
25 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by Icepick87
32 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Chris76de
26 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by pb1
173 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by rasLivity
15,552 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by OurMajesty
773 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Bin246
40 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by FranckCastle
31 Comments - Last post 21 seconds ago by BroilKing
104 Comments - Last post 43 seconds ago by Swordoffury
3 Comments - Last post 59 seconds ago by 0xA1EF
15,297 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Filipi
84 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by Ilan14
143 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by ConanOLion
40 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by vigaristti
Uplay right now does not allow the change of nickname, but if we can gather enough votes... we will be able to have that nickname change we so desire... so I say we join forces and fight to accomplish this goal!... thank all those who vote
Link:
http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/ubisoft-uplay-let-us-change-usernames#share
Comment has been collapsed.