*sighs* and Ubisoft joins the list of fail with it's fail DRM.
I'd really like to know who in the Ubisoft team thought of this DRM...and why they actually went ahead with it. It's hardly convinent for someone who doesn't have an internet connection in the first place. Are they assuming every house-hold has the internet nowadays? I can see the logic with that but not everyone has the internet -_-;
I preferred the older systems where you had a CD key. What's wrong with that system? I see nothing wrong with the older systems so why did Ubisoft had to be all like "we want to be special n unique"
My hat goes off to you Ubisoft, you really did screw this one up XD
What your saying is certainly true, and while I do feel that Ubisoft is being obnoxious with DLC this heavy, I still hold that the people who pirate the game are more to blame for this DLC than Ubisoft. I realize that even this DLC can be cracked, and that it's ultimately for nothing. But I don't think it's fair to demonize the game developers because they have no choice thanks to all the pirates.
How about a silly non-digital equivalent: Say a retail store was having a huge problem with theft. Say they added one of those setups for detecting stolen stuff at the front door. That doesn't help, so they hire a security guard. That doesn't help, so they start patting down everyone as they leave the store. Again, theft isn't reduced, so they start making everyone consent to strip searches. Meanwhile the thieves are walking out the service entrance in the back because they don't lock the doors. When it escalates to full body-cavity searches, it's not the thieves fault even though they are completely and utterly in the wrong. The fault for the full body-cavity searches would lie entirely with the retail store for being very, very stupid.
Of course, for that metaphor to work it would have to be completely impossible to lock the back door. It still makes absolutely no sense to harass the people walking out the front though. In fact it eventually starts to make more sense to sneak out the back. Thus the store's flailing loss prevention attempts actually cause more thieves. Not because of the first thieves, but because the store itself.
well, a reasonable reaction (as gamers worldwide have demanded before) is to put this kind of drm right where it belongs - the trashcan.
but ever since "reasonable" and "(big) publisher" don't get along so well, player's probably will have to shove the f*****g drm servers right into the publishers' faces and knock some sense into them
but i'm afraid they are pretty resistant to that, too.
excuse me, are you smoking crack or something?
the profits made with games are tremendous, and by no means a reason to punish the legally acting people who buy games. nowadays, when you simply download a crack or a cracked game you just have far less trouble. you have it, you can play it. that is how it is meant to be.
also, how come that there are some developers/publishers out there that stand down from any kind of copy protection?
no, it's not the pirates fault, and even if it was, you should punish them, not the buyers; and now you might say that they cannot reach them pirates, so they have to do something on the buyers, but that is utter nonsense. or would you punish a faithful citizen because you are unable to catch thieves??
(sorry about being rude at the beginning. i guess this drm-stuff gets me a little excited)
Yes I understand how it works. Yes I understand it's for SP only.
I know all that. STILL I think people around here are overreacting. It's not as if the server is going to be down 24/7. Heck the only reason it was down to begin with was because it was being Ddos attacked. So it was butt hurt users who made it go down.
Also if the server are down, play another game. You STILL got an internet connection so might as well use it. Servers are also not going to be down for that long to begin with.
But if this protection can fight against piracy then I'm all for it. My internet hasn't gone down like once in 2 years. Steam rarely goes down. Ubisoft was down due to an attack. Yea um I don't think I'm ever going to have a problem with it.
1) If I've bought that game, why should I play an older game because they can't run their servers properly?
2)Whether it was attacked or not, it still proves that this only affects people who've bought the game.
3)AC2 and SH5 have reportedly been cracked already (although Ubisoft denies it, obviously).
4) Good for me and you then, because my connection's just as stable. What about the millions that live in the countryside who are given barely any coverage, or who's connection drops for a few seconds every 15 minutes? What about the people who can't afford to pay for a monthly connection? What about the people that use their gaming machine separately from another machine which is connected to the internet?
So, has there been any proof yet that pirates are responsible for the server downtime, or is that just a good way to put the blame off of Ubisoft not having the correct servers to support their Draconian Restrictive Mismanagement?
If there has been actual proof that the servers are being DDoSed by the pirates, not anyone else mind you, just pirates, let me know.
Devil's advocate:
Valve had a similar problem with their Steam service (which I hate beyond all human comprehension) and it's still extremely popular. Bioshock, I forget exactly what happened with it, but there was something going on that made the game unplayable for paying customers. Had to do with unlocking it or something.
XBLA, Steam, Ubisoft's authentication is nothing new. Yes, I realize that the former two are supposed to be more about digital distribution and not DRM, but I defer to that Bioshock incident as an example of how Ubisoft and Steam are not all that dissimilar in certain functions.
Frankly, I hate them all in ways I cannot possibly articulate, but if that's what people want, then who am I to argue?
From what I recall, Steam never actually went completely down. It was the download servers that had a huge amount of traffic, meaning it just took longer to download the games. Otherwise people were still able to play their games. I was lucky since I used the Steam beta and already had all my games transferred.
I also recall a feature to convert old HL1 games to Steam, anyways, don't compare a failure like this to Steam. Considering the fact that Steam started almost a decade ago, you can't say they didn't deal with their problems quickly. The only time Steam had problems afterwards was for Half-Life 2's release. Beyond that Steam has been perfectly stable during all major title releases.
I took the easy route and will paste from wikipedia because I'm not up to fishing for specific articles, but they were all over the internet when it happened. Juicier bits in bold.
wikipedia said:
The retail disk version of BioShock for Windows utilizes SecuROM copy protection software, and requires internet activation to complete installation. This was reportedly responsible for the cancellation of a midnight release in Australia on August 23, 2007, due to 2K Games servers being unavailable, as the game would be unplayable until they were back online. Through SecuROM, users were originally limited to two activations of the game. Users found that even if they uninstalled the game prior to reinstallation, they were still required to call SecuROM to re-activate the game. The issue was worsened by the fact that an incorrect telephone number had been included in the printed manual, as well as essentially forcing customers outside the United States to make expensive international calls to the U.S. In response, 2K Games and SecuROM increased the number of activations to five before requiring the user to call again. However, as no information had been provided by 2K on the existence of these measures prior to the game going on sale, or on the retail box of the game itself, many remain dissatisfied. Users also found that it was necessary to activate the game for each user on the same machine, which was criticized by some as an attempt to limit customers' fair use rights. 2K Games has denied that this was the intent of the limitation.
Two months after the initial release, 2K attempted to alleviate customer complaints by developing a special pre-uninstallation utility to refund activation slots to the user. This tool however does not address situations where the game has been installed on a PC which uses more than one user account as it only works once per PC (unlike activations which are counted per user-account), nor is it able to revoke an activation if the installation has become unusable, for example by hard disk failure, effectively rendering such activations permanently lost. 2K Games has specifically mentioned each of these issues in the revoke tool FAQ, and have stated that until software solutions are found for such situations they will handle any further requests for additional activations past the five-activation limit on a case-by-case basis."LOL" - Icehearted
As of June 19, 2008, 2K Games has removed the activation limit, allowing users to install the game an unlimited number of times. However online activation remains mandatory. The deactivation of the system was promised by Ken Levine in August, 2007, after retail sales of the PC version of the game were no longer an issue.
So at least it was mostly addressed, but it took a year. Again I make no bones about it, services like Steam, and this Ubisoft DRM aren't all too dissimilar to me. I hate them both, and want this "virtual ownership" crap to cease. Any system or console that resorts to these measures has not and will not see a dime from me when it's an exclusive part of their platform or DRM. As much as I hate XBLA and MS mojo-dollars, at least once I buy it I own it, no DRM jackass or anything of that sort. Still, I wish Castle Crashers and Braid came on a disc. I could physically own. I'm still playing Sega Genesis games for cying out loud, games made some 20 or so years ago. If anything happened to my HDD, I wonder if MS will still have their Xbox servers running with these games for re-download in 20 years.
I'm going to stop now, this post is obscenely long already.
Maybe it's because I'm thick or I'm somewhat sleep deprived (I'm betting that last one), but I don't see how any of that Bioshock stuff related to Steam.
As for Steam's "DRM" being similar to Ubi's, I really have to call shenanigans. First, because Steam's "DRM" is quite nice to the customer: you pay for the game, download it, then it phones home once, and you are done. Anything above that is the game's fault, not Steam's. Second, you can play offline, you just have to make sure you let the game phone home that first time, then restart in offline mode. Finally, the "virtual ownership crap" as you put it, really is not all that different with Steam than with a physical copy, the only difference is that for Steam you have to make the backup for yourself (and if you think you really OWN any game you've bought in the last 5+ years, you are fooling yourself).
I like that long post snip trick... gotta remember that
I have, in my hands, a copy of Mirror's edge for the PC, I also have Mass Effect 2, GTA4, hoo boy I have a lot of games, and they're on a physical disc, of which I actually own and can maintain of my own accord, without having to dial in anything, without having to get connected to a server, I just input a key, or put a disc in my console, and off I go. That's ownership of a tangible property.
Digital distro means you own squat. You pay for it, but they can deny you play at their leisure. I'm going to reach a bit (because it's late, and I'm way too tired to think good and hard of an example in gaming even if I know they're out there) and point to that Kindle fiasco where Amazon basically decided to reach out and delete a book people had paid for. Again, I know it's a reach, but the principal is the same. The complacency of 'you don't actually own the games you buy' is what permits this kind of thing Ubisoft and Steam have created to permeate the market much deeper than they should have.
I own a copy of God of War 2. No activation required, no negotiations, the game is mine to play and enjoy. The intellectual property may not be, but the game is. That's the line they're blurring, and I mean no offense when I say this, but statements like the one you've made prove they've been succeeding at blurring this line with their customers.
Again with the long post... sorry I'm verbose (though this is a topic that bothers me quite a bit), but the sleepier I get, the more long-winded I can become.
I never said that I agreed with the non-ownership of games, I just stated the fact that on any piece of software "buy" is merely rented. If you read the EULA on pretty much any software it states that you don't actually own it.
Anyway, I highly doubt that Steam would disable games games that users have paid for, since they are a much smaller company than Amazon, and probably wouldn't be able to navigate the shitstorm of bad PR. Hell, IIRC, even if your account becomes VAC banned they don't stop you from playing your games, you just can't play on VAC enabled servers.
As for owning the game more with a physical copy, that's debatable. Depending on the game, you'd have to have the game dial home to activate it, and if they shut down the game servers, you no longer own that game. You could use a crack or something to get past that since you do legally own the game, but what's to stop you from doing that with a game you backed up that you bought with Steam? I buy almost all of my games via Steam because of the convenience, but I back them up to DVDs so I don't have to waste my bandwidth. By your arguments, by backing up my game to a physical medium, I now own it since I can just copy back and play.
Again, this is that consumer complacency that worries me. By this logic, I don't own anything. I didn't design my clothes, that belongs to the company's design team. I don't own my bottle of Coke, the formula and bottle were designed by the Coca Cola company. My tooth paste, bed, sliced provolone, money... where does it stop?
The only business that really uses such brainwashing (no offense intended) on their customers most is software, though the entertainment business as a whole's been trying to pull this crap for years now too (OMG you heard a song on someone's radio as they passed by in a car, you awful awful thief!!!).
That's my point. As I see it, I paid for it, it is a property that exists in a physically tangible means and can ergo be stolen. Let's say you went brick and mortar and bought God of War 3 and as you take it home someone races by you and yanks the game from your hands, disappearing before you know what hit you. Did they just steal from Sony or from you?
My logic is based on that, and not on the idea that nothing I buy is mine. I have an extensive library of games, most of which I own physically. If they were ever stolen, I doubt I'd be pissed because my 'rentals' were taken. I'd be pissed because the games I own were taken.
I feel like I'm harping now, my apologies for that.
Actually the EALA is saying that you dont own the graphics, sounds etc on the disc. Basically you cant copy their work as your own. By licencing the product they are saying that you paid for that copy, but they still own the IP and copyright of the software on the disc.
I'm aware of that. It's losing more ownership than even the copy I paid for that I'm talking about. Virtual ownership is not the same as actual ownership. I also don't doubt that every EULA with services like Steam have some jargon or fine print smoke and mirrors that suggest they have the right to remove your ability to play or own any game you've paid for on their service at any time, for whatever reasons, which includes lines on rights "subject to change" often with the caveat "without notice".
Owning a physical copy means that they can't pull such garbage. You own the disc, you own the rights to play the game on said disc at your leisure, without interruption or prevention. No invalidated gamertags, no hacked accounts, no locked accounts due to 'suspicious activity', no changing things because of new licensing issues.
The use of continual callback DRM protection of this nature is bloody stupid.
A bud of mine bought napoleon total war via steam, had played it a few times, and was furious to find out it refused to startup when his ISP went batshit for 3 days. (he was playing solo, not multi)
Offline one time activation on a single player game - perhaps.
Continual callback - no ta.
I dont have to call the dairy for permission to use the milk i purchased every time i make a coffee, so why should I call Ubi every time I want to play a game I paid for? I find it quite strange that anyone can try to defend Ubi's (and the other companies doing this kind of thing) decision to implement this kind of behaviour in a product they have purchased.
DRM of this nature does *not* stop someone from playing a cracked version of that same piece of software. Period. It only ever harms those of us who buy the software. And each time the DRM screws the end user over, you can guarantee a percentage of those people will find a "crack" for the game - and in finding it will find cracks for other games - and again a percentage of those same folks will then start downloading more than purchasing.
Be under no illusion - DRM in this manner promotes piracy.
Wow.. i wonder if they will just call this stupid DRM scheme a flop and move on to something that may actually do more than just annoy their customers.
I'm aware of that. It's losing more ownership than even the copy I paid for that I'm talking about. Virtual ownership is not the same as actual ownership. I also don't doubt that every EULA with services like Steam have some jargon or fine print smoke and mirrors that suggest they have the right to remove your ability to play or own any game you've paid for on their service at any time, for whatever reasons, which includes lines on rights "subject to change" often with the caveat "without notice".
Owning a physical copy means that they can't pull such garbage. You own the disc, you own the rights to play the game on said disc at your leisure, without interruption or prevention. No invalidated gamertags, no hacked accounts, no locked accounts due to 'suspicious activity', no changing things because of new licensing issues.
Actually, they can pull that "Garbage". It even states that if they demand you return your copy of StarCraft that you are obliged by law to do so. I can tell you haven't read any EULA at all.
I'm aware of that. It's losing more ownership than even the copy I paid for that I'm talking about. Virtual ownership is not the same as actual ownership. I also don't doubt that every EULA with services like Steam have some jargon or fine print smoke and mirrors that suggest they have the right to remove your ability to play or own any game you've paid for on their service at any time, for whatever reasons, which includes lines on rights "subject to change" often with the caveat "without notice".
Owning a physical copy means that they can't pull such garbage. You own the disc, you own the rights to play the game on said disc at your leisure, without interruption or prevention. No invalidated gamertags, no hacked accounts, no locked accounts due to 'suspicious activity', no changing things because of new licensing issues.
Actually, they can pull that "Garbage". It even states that if they demand you return your copy of StarCraft that you are obliged by law to do so. I can tell you haven't read any EULA at all.
I know it is written in the EULA, but that is just a lie they try to force you to belive.
Because what they write in the EULA is against the law of the Federal Republic of Germany, and therefor null and void, even if you agree to the EULA!
And yes, this is solid ruling by the "Bundesverfassungsgericht" , our higest court, and applies to all boxed, physical games that you buy.
And that ruling came because they tried to change the law so that the publishers would get more rights!
You know what, I was thinking about this topic the other day, and I found some surprising sympathy for a small group of people at Ubisoft: the people who made the game (developers, graphic artists, character designers, combat technicians, voice actors, etc).
I mean, here they have produced a pretty damn good game, and now it's being villified everywhere on the web (which the DRM does deserve). At Amazon, the PC version is being rated a 1 almost entirely across the board, several reviews have dinged it for the DRM, and many sites and forums are lowering the HateHammer on it, all because of the pinheads who decided that DRM actually works. (snart)
Granted, the console versions will be received better, but even some of those won't sell due to Ubisoft's idiocy in persisting in a DRM that - literally - penalizes the end users without attention to the legality of their possession of the game.
I don't think it will hurt them in their career or anything, but I just wanted to spare a moment of empathy for the ones who worked so hard on something that is quickly progressing from famous to infamous (you know, because it's more than famous.)
Actually, I heard about that law. It's legit people.
No game company can take your physical copy of a game if you legally paid for it. The EULA can't do anything about it no matter how hard they try.
You paid money, the disk is yours. If they take it, they have to refund you. It's a felony to claim you created the content or try to alter it, but buying the game legally means they can't do a THING.
It would violate supply and demand, the relationship between consumers and companies, and even the very basis of Capitalism itself. They wouldn't try it.
Unless you can somehow provide a good reason why they have a right to take the disk without refunding you.
Actually, I heard about that law. It's legit people.
No game company can take your physical copy of a game if you legally paid for it. The EULA can't do anything about it no matter how hard they try.
You paid money, the disk is yours. If they take it, they have to refund you. It's a felony to claim you created the content or try to alter it, but buying the game legally means they can't do a THING.
It would violate supply and demand, the relationship between consumers and companies, and even the very basis of Capitalism itself. They wouldn't try it.
Unless you can somehow provide a good reason why they have a right to take the disk without refunding you.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
