Ubisoft Says Always-On DRM, "A Success"

[tthor]

I don't mind having to verify my game online when I first buy it, but having to verify it CONSTANTLY? I have seriously shit internet (satellite internet = just a step up from dialup), so i really don't appreciate having something hogging my connection. and there are times when maybe my computer isn't hooked to the internet maybe because of router problems or something, and then more than ever I would want a fun game to play to keep me busy. and I don't know if this DRM is on console games as well, but if it is, there are many times, like if I bring my PS3 to a friends house or to some get-together, that I won't have an internet connection ready/available.

I don't mind Steam's DRM, because its mostly just verify the game when you first buy it. and plus, steam adds a lot of nice things like chatting (tho i don't use it much, because as I said, my internet sucks, so i rarely play multiplayer games), automatic updates, news, great prices, etc

And also, how exactly is CONSTANTLY verifying the game any better at preventing piracy than just verifying ONCE? SERIOUS, if I legally owned this game 10 minutes ago, you would think that I STILL legally own the game now!!

Edit: you know, stuff like this makes me almost want to actually pirate their games, just to make a point, and not have to deal with stupid drm..

 

[Sabazios]

If pirating levels for Ubisoft games DID drop, it would be because of the lack of quality in the games. OH YEAH NOBODY WILL PIRATE THE NEW DRIVER GAME. Yeah, that's because people wouldn't even want to play it for for free.

 

[WanderingFool]

Spoiler: Well, that makes since... now if you excuse me, im going to get a blowjob in my Lambo from my swedish supermodel girlfriend...

You see Ubisoft? Everyone can make shit up online, that doesnt make it true...

 

[Zeraki]

Doesn't this system boot you from whatever game you're playing, causing you to lose any unsaved data if your internet connection so much as goes down for a millisecond?(correct me if I'm wrong)

How can something like that be a 'success'? I would think it would keep people from buying the PC version of the game, and cause more people to pirate it.

 

[Hafnium]

Maybe they did stop a few pirates, but they also stopped honest customers from giving them money. I haven't bought from them for ages, and their game lineup makes it easy to not give a damn, other developers provide me with much better titles. I liked the first Call of Juarez and almost bought the second, until I heard about the DRM. I've also dismissed their entire Assassins Creed-series and the last Settler title was also turned from a purchase to a big fat $0 for them. Also, Driver looks bad, the previous ones I've played were also terrible compared to other driving games.

 

[The Virgo]

Always-on DRM a success?

Spoiler: My Reaction

 

[Irridium]

Ok, reduces pirates.

But does it actually increase sales? You know, those things you need. If all it did is stop pirates, and didn't increase sales by a decent amount, then what the fuck did it really do? Prove that not every pirated copy is a lost sale?

Ubisoft, did you make money from this, yes or no. Is the cost of keeping these servers running, paying for people to maintain them, paying for the electricity they use, paying for the building their housed in, paying for customer support staff for everything, is it all being balanced out by the actual sales of the games?

And if it is true... then what the fuck gamers? Do you really not care this much? Are you really happy with Ubisoft treating you like shit? Is this really how apathetic you all are?

If so... then I just don't know. How anyone can just sit back and let Ubisoft treat them like the criminals they aren't just baffles me.

 

[BoogieManFL]

Then why are all their titles able to be found for a pirated download with 30 seconds of searching.

IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

The result is the same if someone pirates your game or if they don't pirate your game. You get $0 unless that person actually buys it. So while your games might see less piracy, you're not seeing greater sales.

Yeah, that's what's sort of weird. Has it reduced piracy? Maybe. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and believe their claims that it has, even though all the games that use this particular DRM system seem to be easily available anyway.

Has it actually helped sales? More importantly, has it raised sales more than it's cost to implement the DRM and continue running the servers? If it hasn't, that's not exactly a success, but if it has, why aren't they saying so and bragging about it? That would actually be a notable achievement, despite pissing a lot of people off in the process.

 

[vxicepickxv]

So, I'd like to know how they think they're even close to right.

Pirates don't ever connect to their servers, so how would they know if it prevented piracy?

 

[countzero1234]

You know what I want to see? an actual discussion of what this DRM means. I've seen lots of people who instantly sputter a gut reaction and condemn it immediately but that's incredibly short sighted. There are lots of issues to discuss here, not the lest of which is why people hate it so much (and don't give me that crap about you just hate DRM or your internet connection sucks there is more to it and you know it). I want to know why people keep blasting DRM and why stories keep getting put it. Its not about simply hating the thing, this is on the level of a zealot crusade and I want to know why. As far as I'm concerned though, it's never going to happen because people are just too angry to talk all they can do is yell. Ah well, maybe DRM should treat use like means spirited children, we sure act like it.

What this DRM means is already known as it has been in three games before, we don't need to discuss what it is.

Any purchase (games included) have a cost/benefit analysis that goes with them. Not consciously but it is certainly there. For example I don't steal games because I want companies to continue making games but beyond that my cost/benefit analysis is self centered as an individual consumer. For a game with DRM I have to ask if the cost ($ spent + potential time/pain of the drm + potential future loss of use) vs benefit (getting to play the game) works out in favor of purchasing the game. Not everyone considers the cost of the drm to outweigh the benefit of playing the game, some people do. As someone else said Steam is also DRM but it has benefits beyond the DRM which factor in to the benefit side of things (re-download, not having to keep track of physical media, can still play in offline mode so it isn't as restrictive). Even with that some people refuse to buy Steam games because the cost outweigh the benefits for them.

The cost/benefit analysis also includes some measure of psychological effect. You probably wouldn't frequent a restaurant that treated you poorly. Likewise you might frequent a restaurant that treated you well. For some DRM is essentially treating you poorly (like a criminal unless you prove you aren't) and companies that explicitly avoid using DRM as seen as you treating you well.

How much DRM is too much varies from "any DRM means no purchase from me" to "I don't care about the DRM, just want to play no matter what" and everything in between. It isn't hard to see why some people don't like it nor why some people just don't care.

 

[Poisoned Al]

It is a a success. It won first prize at the Fucking Stupid Idea awards.

 

[Vakz]

"a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection."

And a clear reduction in reputation.. I boycotted Ubisoft about the same time they launched Starforce.

 

[BlindChance]

I want to know why people keep blasting DRM and why stories keep getting put it.

Well, Shamus has already explained it far better than I can. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/5930-The-Impossible-DRM]

To be fair, if you're going to bring up that, then you should probably also bring up the sequel article about the one kind of DRM he felt might actually work: Ubisoft's [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7467-Experienced-Points-Impossible-to-beat-DRM].

I'm still unwilling to completely bash Ubisoft's DRM system. Sure, it didn't work for long. But it may just have worked for long enough. And it's got a better record of actually working than any other form out there. Yes, it's horrible, and that's why we should hate it, but we can't haul out the usual 'And it doesn't even work!' arguments here unless we can back them up.

 

[Beryl77]

I'd say that there are two possibilities as to why Ubisoft said that.
First: They want everyone to believe that they made the right decision and that it wasn't just a stupid move which didn't serve it's purpose and just punished honest customers.
Second: They're just like children which have been clearly proven wrong but don't want acknowledge that, so they close their ears and don't listen to the truth.

 

[Wandrecanada]

It certainly succeeded in getting me not to purchase Settlers 7 due the giant caps message about persistent internet connection on Steam. Reducing piracy and reducing total game sales is officially what "success" means to game firms. Keep up the good work?

 

[Vrach]

Yeah... the only thing their DRM is a success for is driving customers who would legitimately have bought the game to pirate it so they don't have to deal with the fucking thing.

DRM is a flawed concept as the only person it punishes is the buyer. Pirates have no trouble breaking through it (Brotherhood was available on US release day, which means the non-US folk even got it before there was a legitimate release in their area) nor do they have to deal with any of it's bullshit.

It's like if McDonalds went ahead and took a shit on your hamburger after you handed over your money as a means of preventing theft. The thief who'd steal the hamburger would get it nice&delicious and you're the one paying to have shit shoved down your throat.

 

[Covarr]

Umm, what? It took me like ten seconds to find Settlers 7, Assassin's Creed 2, and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, all cracked to remove this DRM. If "only harms paying customers" is their idea of a success, then something's not right.

There's a reason I haven't purchased any Ubisoft game since the first Assassin's Creed.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Strixvaliano]

Sorry Ubisoft. I'm not bending over for you or any other developers with your ridiculous DRM, GFWL, etc. At this rate I'm going to be giving up gaming due publishers constantly trying to railroad us and treat their customers like thieves while pirates get a superior copy that the paying customers should have received.

 

[Xan Krieger]

You know what I want to see? an actual discussion of what this DRM means. I've seen lots of people who instantly sputter a gut reaction and condemn it immediately but that's incredibly short sighted. There are lots of issues to discuss here, not the lest of which is why people hate it so much (and don't give me that crap about you just hate DRM or your internet connection sucks there is more to it and you know it). I want to know why people keep blasting DRM and why stories keep getting put it. Its not about simply hating the thing, this is on the level of a zealot crusade and I want to know why. As far as I'm concerned though, it's never going to happen because people are just too angry to talk all they can do is yell. Ah well, maybe DRM should treat use like means spirited children, we sure act like it.

DRM is a pretty wide reaching term but usually when users condemn it they're talking about specific products, like SecuROM, Starforce or Ubisoft's DRM scheme. Quite often people's opinions on DRM doesn't extend to things like Steam or Battlenet, purely because they don't recognise them as such.

I don't know about Battle.net, but I know at least with Steam, a person doesn't have to be online to play the games they paid for.

No but you need to be to install them, that prevented me from playing Half Life for over a year after I bought it. That's some pretty harsh DRM and needs to go away.