Ubisoft Says Always-On DRM, "A Success"

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Yeah, and killing old people reduces social security costs, doesn't mean we should do it. Don't take this out on your soon-to-be-ex customers.

 

[jawakiller]

Ubi, two words.


Fuck you.

That was easily the most fucking retarded way to go about this short of going to the buyers house and busting their computer with a pick-axe.

No but seriously; it really sucks. I mean, who the fuck has an internet connection all the time? Bad move in my opinion. Prolly the last time I'll buy a Ubi game.

 

[LordLundar]

So basically they've decided to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala" for the rest of their lives?

You make it sound as though they just started doing this.

Remember the StarForce Fiasco and UbiSoft being the only major publisher defending it in their games?

 

[Vivi22]

I thought they had learned when they didn't use this DRM in the PC version of Brotherhood. I guess my boycott of Ubisoft games that use this (on any platform no less) will have to continue.

Ubisoft need to get something through their heads. The people who pay for your product should never, EVER, get the inferior version. If I can pirate a copy that I can play any time instead of buying your legitimate copy which requires a constant internet connection to your servers, neither of which can be guaranteed to always work when I want to play, why should you get my money? I'd like to see them try and come up with a reason. For the record, I'm not against companies trying to protect their titles from piracy. I am against inconveniencing and alienating paying customers to do it though.

 

[Twilight_guy]

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.

Exactly, I'd like to know why people are so fast to condemn what is perceived as "drm" so quickly. Its an undercurrent of the gaming community that could use a bit more examination.

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]

But, generally, if you buy a product, it is seen as rude, crass, unhelpful and irritating for you to continually prove that you've not stolen it.

Especially if this means that you are unable to use the product you've bought unless the manufacturer says so. And they make little effort to say anything.

In a nutshell: If a product is easier, cheaper and more effective to pirate - than to acquire legally - DRM is working in reverse.

Effective DRM, like Steam, provides bonuses for the constant "receipt-carrying", but it's still a trade-off. Ubisoft's insane DRM doesn't even work for legitimate customers. It's better if you pirate it - in every way.

(Note: Root does not condone piracy. Just leave them alone and play something decent like Witcher 2)

I read that article and I understand that DRM is never going to be perfect. No security system is. Yet the policy of treating customers like criminals and having invasive security is not unique to digital media. If I go to the store and buy a shirt, and the shirt has one of those ink packages that explodes if you try to steal it that the cashier has to remove or it has an electronic signal that sets an alarm if at the door that the cashier has to disarm isn't the store treating me like a crook? Aren't they immediately supposing that people are going to steal and forcing everyone to have to go through the process of removing security measures to buy something? On top of that, shoplifters steal stuff from stores all the time. The protection of store security no matter how advanced is not prefect. By the same logic as people use for DRM all stores should immediately stop putting in security measures because they aren't perfect. That argument doesn't make sense. I know current DRM sucks but I think immediately dismissing it entirely is shortsighted. Publishers aren't ever going to let it go and the community refusing to acknowledge it is only creating a lot of anger and grief. On top of that lots of people often give irrational or no argument for why they dislike it. I feel like this isn't an issue that we can just wash our hands of so easily. The fact that I got a dozen response to my post, a record for me, shows that this issue is still hot and bothers peoples. I'm not going to convince you one way or the other about if its legitimate or not but its still a sore spot and I just want to be able to talk about it without the standard 20 "Lol, DRM is teh sux, publishers evil!" posts that immediately clog up these news stories.

They're probably judging by the number of people playing their game at any one time; they figure 40% (random number) of people who are playing their game have pirated it, so now that the number of people playing is down by 50% (other random number), they figure a lot of pirates have left.

What they don't realize is that the reason the number is down is because fewer people are buying the game.

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.

There have been plenty of reasons put out there. In various cases, it has added backdoors to a system that have been neigh impossible to get rid of short of a hard drive reformat, it has prevents people from playing the game without a stable, constant internet connection, meaning that if you ever have internet troubles you can't play a game you paid for (and internet troubles are damned common), it's made the game nearly impossible to play due to bugs and whatever else, and so on. In the end, it's likely only prevented legitimate, paying users from playing their games instead of people who pirate them, especially since pirated versions are often out the day of release.

As above, immediately saying "doesn't work, drop it" is dumb. If we used that logic we would never get anywhere. If scientists gave up the first time they tried and failed to get perfect results they we'd still be using stone tools. No DRM will ever be perfect but no security measure will ever be perfect. That doesn't mean we just give up. Every store in America knows that they can't stop all thieves but they can put up countermeasures to stop some of them. Now I don't know if DRM can go further and be refined into something worthwhile and less annoying but I do know that not even trying to see if it could be made as efficient and practice as any other store's countermeasures is stupid. In technology it only takes one guy with a clever idea to change things. If everyone is just going to bemoan the whole situation and call publishers the devil then all that even going to happen is an increased animosity growing. Aside from that, anyone can see that even if some hate is legitimate, lots of people exhibit an entirely irrationally hatred towards DRM. Beyond "its inconvenient" and more like "it killed my mother." The kind of personal vendetta more like is more like inigo montoya then an angry customer. I want to know why there is so much hatred for what is essentially an extension of a concept that is accepted with physical items.

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.

Well, uh, if you want to encourage rational, level-headed discussion on the topic, comparing the other side of the argument to mean-spirited children probably isn't the best way to do it.

At any rate. What bothers me, personally, about this sort of DRM? First of all, it's completely ineffective. Pirates don't see always-on DRM and say to themselves, "whoa, I'd better not mess with that." No, pirates figure out how to remove/circumvent the DRM in about a week and proceed with business as usual. So Ubisoft's DRM doesn't actually affect pirates in any meaningful way. It affects only legitimate users.

Furthermore, it means that users with weak or intermittent internet connections, or even the rare user without any connection whatsoever, suffer greatly. Their games are flawed, perhaps even made unplayable, for absolutely no reason, as noted in the above paragraph. I'm not affected personally, but there's something incredibly unjust about punishing users for having poor connections. Something that, honestly, makes me - and probably a lot of other people - angry.

Lastly, always-on DRM (perhaps DRM in general) just sort of feels like a spit in the eye. As if Ubisoft is saying that it doesn't trust any of its customers, and has to keep an eye on them at all times. It's not an entirely rational feeling, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating.

Same as above, current DRM sucks but that's not a good reason for abandoning it.

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.

We need more posts like this examining why people buy and how they build there feelings about things like DRM and less posts that reiterate "I don't like it" or "its ineffective and thus I dismiss it" with no real examination of why or what that means in the end. Thank you.

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.

Because it ONLY, and I mean ONLY, hurts paying customers.

It is, however, worth noting that popular torrent site The Pirate Bay, lists a copy of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, minus DRM, as one of its most popular PC game downloads.

All the proof you need is right there.

As above, saying "oops I failed this time, better give up forever" is not rational. If an argument can be made for why DRM can never get any better then its worth exploring. Nobody has shown that yet or tried to prove it as far as I know. Shamus tried to argue for it but I think he only got as far as "its not perfect and never will be." No security is perfect, its not about perfect. It about making it efficient, seamless and as effective as possible. DRM is clunky and hated bu that doesn't mean it can't be improve. The model T was clunky and inefficient but we refined and improved it. (The legacy of the crazy inefficient gas engine still plagues us but we're working on that). I just think the fact that every DRM story immediately goes into the toilet with lots of irrational hate or arguments that don't make much sense is something that should be examined more closely.

... and I want to know why.

Because it means we no longer have control over our property that we've bought legitimately. If your car refused to start without a successful internet connection (assuming the server is even up) I'm sure you'd be pretty damn enraged.... games are important too, thus those of us who love games the most are enraged.

And it doesnt matter if your internet is rock solid... its the principle. You bought the thing you should damn well be able to use it as and when suits you i.e. you should have full control... not ubisoft.

My father has a car that doesn't have a key. It has a small device that sends out a wireless signal that tells the car that you have the "key" to it and thus are the owner. If he forgets it the car wont start and if the batteries in it die then he needs to replace them before he gets the car going. I know its not the same thing but isn't it interesting?

As above, I know the DRM sucks. I don't care. You don't take one example of a DRM that doesn't work and immediately condemn the whole thing as broken that's a hasty generalization fallacy. "Every DRM I have seen doesn't work so DRM can never work". I think we need more discussion of the issue since many people exhibit strong emotions but not the articulation of a logical argument.

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.

There's a couple of primary reasons why people hate DRM. The first is because it negatively impacts the performance of the game, or worse your computer. It runs on your machine and takes up resources. Even if it was perfectly designed (which most assuredly are not), it would consume resources and on mid-low end machines, that directly impacts the performance.

The second reason, and I would argue the bigger, is that the concept of DRM is that you, yes you in particular, are a thief and must therefore be treated as such. The root concept of DRM is that the paying customer will be treated worse because they are a potential thief. It's basically like a brick and mortar store saying "No, you cannot come into my store unless personally escorted by a police officer."

The reason it's become a "crusade", to use your term, is simply because people are sick of paying for a good and then being treated as a criminal for it.

As above for the argument of "its sucks." Additionally, stores do treat everyone like a thief. That's why they keep things behind glass and have electronic alarms on items that set off store security. That's why they have guards that eye everyone who comes in (not in every stores of course but some do). Yet nobody worries that a store treats everyone like a theif and doesn't trust anyone (not even employees who have to maintain records and are blamed if things go missing). I think that's discrepancy is worth discussing. Why the different perception, why the hate for digital extensions of physical protection concepts, is it just a case of "burned me once, never again" is it the rampant cowboy no rules attitude people have towards the internet and digital mediums, is the something to do the fact that its a cloud of ones and zeros and thus easily duplicated? I dunno. I dont think anyone knows and I don't think we ever will know if we just kick our feet and say "hate drm, hate drm, hate drm" but don't try to understand anything beyond "broken, remove it or I not buy" and "It sucks, get rid of it you evil publisher man." I'm just feed up with so many people who post these short snippets of hate and then never explain or examine or do anything besides hate.

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.

Maybe people don't like the possibility that one day they won't be able to access their games. My command and conquer games from years ago? I can still play those. I will NEVER lose those unless i destroy the disk.

This DRM? I lose my game when the servers go down. I don't get a say in it. I'm renting the game until they tell me that they're shutting the game down. I'm not buying it.

Fuck that.

As above, it sucks but dismissing DRM because one iteration sucked is shortsighted and not logical. I think here is more to it then simply dismissing it for not working so far, and even if it inherently broken, there is still much to learn from our reaction to it. (not to mention the issue of the rights of the customer and publisher in digital media in general which basically needs an entire senate hearing to try and sort out).

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.

Where have you been for the last FOREVER? Digital Rights Management is not, in itself a bad thing. It's the measure that all publishers take to prevent their property from being stolen. The trouble with this sort of DRM - the kind that requires your internet connection to be live at all times - is punitive to those of us who paid legitimately for the game. That is to say, even if you paid for the game like a good consumer, you can still be locked out of playing it if your internet connection is down or if the authentication servers are having issues. This may not seem like a big problem to some, but the principle of the matter is that a consumer who pays for a product should be able to use that product whenever he or she wants to. It's bought and paid for. I don't call up Samsung and ask them permission to turn on my television every day, so why should I have to connect to an authentication server to get permission to play MY game that I paid for?

The more long-sighted issue is this: eventually those authentication servers will be taken offline. At this time, the games we have paid for will NEVER BE PLAYABLE AGAIN. For a prime example of this sort of failed DRM failing hard, look at The Witcher. The authentication servers have gone offline and if you bought The Witcher on disc you CAN NOT install it on any PC ever again unless you re-buy it through steam. So the publisher basically told everyone who owns the game on disc to pay them a second time for the product they paid for or piss off. Now, when these live DRM servers go offline the result will be worse because the game will never be playable again.

I should never have to see a message telling me that a game I own is "unavailable." It's on my fucking hard drive. It's available.

Welcome to the Escapist!

My post concerns DRM in general. I know this DRM doesn't work very well but I feel that there is more tot he issues in general that needs to be discussed. Such as how Steam is basically the same thing as the problem stated above. If Steam goes down permanently you lose all your Steam games and Steam can even, (and has for me) sometimes say that a game is currently unavailable. Its not the same since Steam has offline mode but none-the-less Steam never got the massive backlash that the always online system did even if its is in some way comparable and does have the problem of the fact that at any moment Steam could easily decide to stop making your games work. I think discussing or address that idea is one of the interesting concepts that a deep discussion of DRM could have.

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.

No, there is no more to it. I don't have Internet in my apartment (too expansive), I play video games that I buy in a store offline and play them offline. The Internet in Canada also has no Unlimited options (though some small companies do, their Internet is EXTREMELY unreliable), meaning that I would be LOSING Internet to play a video game that I don't want to play online.
That's it, there is no more to it.
And now you can see why I have a problem with DRM that makes you connect to the Internet even once.

My argument is about DRM in general and not this one in particular. This one in particular doesn't work very well but I feel that there is more of an issue here on the general issue of DRM that needs discussion. (Not to mention a possible discussion of what the future of DRM will be when the internet becomes so ubiquitous that everyone has access to it and not having it is like not having clean water).

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.

The servers you have to connect to go offline A LOT. So you can't play a game you paid for.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/07/ubisoft-drm-authentification-server-is-down-assassins-creed-2/

Where I work, Ubbisoft Pc games where clearnced out and the store doesn't sell them anymore. People Where complaining trying to return games that didn't work.

The pirated version works perfectly

As above, I know this DRM doesn't work. I feel a discussion of DRM in general is needed. I also feel that giving up because DRM hasn't worked so far is short sighted. Funny thing is that in the story you mention the server was down because of an attack on the server. The DRM failed there because it was sabotaged. I wouldn't blame a store for having security that failed due to sabotage yet people are more then willing to use that vulnerability in DRM to condemn it as impossible. I think that's worth discussing.


Anyways, thank you guys for the replies. (Man I feel like I should be saying "please hold your call is important to us and will answer in the order it was received).

 

[puffy786]

Wait, didn't Skidrow crack Assassin's Creed 2 servers'. If that's the case, the DRM would probably INCREASE piracy if the customers don't want to deal with the holy internet connection and privacy issues.

 

[SSX-BlueFlames]

What's the most disturbing about the whole message, is that people apparently still pay money for games that aren't yours after you purchase them. Sorry if I sound negative, but people who shell out the full purchase price for what is closer to renting a game that's only available to play sometimes.

If everybody boycotted semi-rental games from producers who think they can get away with anything, this whole anti-piracy inquisition would be over pretty soon.

Nobody has bought a game since the mid-1990's. Since shortly after their inception, end-user license agreements have been stating quite clearly that the end-user has the right to install and use game software, but does not have ownership of anything more than the physical media (if that) and the license itself. Realistically, that's not the problem, since when you pick up a game, you're looking to install and play it.

Modern DRM schemes carry with them a host of other issues. You suddenly have to worry about what happens when a developer/publisher drops support for an aging title, the speed and reliability of your connection and their servers, and exactly what information is being transmitted back and forth between your computer and the DRM servers. Personally, this is about where I draw the line. I don't care for spyware/malware, and when your DRM is phoning home and installing its own device drivers, spyware/malware is exactly what it is.

To the original point, though, if pseudo-rental is where you draw the line between willing-to-purchase and doing-without, then you're either limiting yourself to some very, very old games or you're better served by a different hobby.

Now days I mostly use a crack (on games I've bought)...

While I see your angle on the issue, you have just admitted to being in breach of contract. Circumventing copy protection, disk checks, and the like are typically explicitly prohibited by the EULA, and even where it's not stated outright, it falls under that ubiquitous "all other rights reserved" clause. I know you feel like you're taking the high road on this, but in the eyes of the people with the expensive lawyers, you're not really any better off than the people pirating the games outright.

Moreover, buying and cracking a game really doesn't help get rid of invasive DRM schemes, in the long run. You've just bumped the sales figure by one, and that's all the publisher is going to see or care about, when deciding whether or not to continue using their current DRM policy. I appreciate that you are trying to support the developer, but you are also supporting the DRM policy.

This just isn't a situation where we can have our cake and eat it too. We're either going to have to accept invasive DRM practices in the long-term or collectively alter our buying habits to demonstrate to publishers that we won't tolerate their current DRM practices. The latter option will mean doing without some great games. It will mean some talented developers wind up having to switch publishers, when their games fail due to a lousy DRM scheme imposed upon them. Unfortunately, that is the price that must be paid for a brighter future. I've made my choice, and there's one less person steadily buying Silent Hunter titles for it.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I'm just gonna play Assassin's Creed: Revelations and 3. After that? FUCK Ubisoft! FUCK it's DRM!

 

[Sonicron]

So basically they've decided to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalala" for the rest of their lives?

You make it sound as though they just started doing this.

Remember the StarForce Fiasco and UbiSoft being the only major publisher defending it in their games?

Oh yeah. Heh. Must have slipped my mind. Well, even if it's utterly retarded, at least they appear consistent.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

The way I see it, Ubisoft is probably technically right. They probably HAVE noticed a nominal success in the prevention of piracy of their games with this DRM Scheme.

See what I think most people don't get is that most companies are not out to stop ALL Piracy, although that would be a marvelous dream of theirs. No, they openly ACKNOWLEDGE they can't stop it all.

What they CAN limit however and attack is CASUAL piracy. You see, while there are a few people out there capable of snip tripping their way around security measures and drms, that portion of the pirating public is more than likely very, very small. Which is WHY you have these releases by almost the same "teams" every few months on the torrent sites, so much so that we recognize them by name. THOSE people make the "DRM free" versions, usually requiring some complicated extra step or a great deal of trust to run some executable that you're hoping and praying isn't a trojan of some sort or giving some guy somewhere access to your personal bank account and internet passwords.

But at the end of the day, if you can limit the number of people who can hack around the system with ease from the general population, you've done yourself a great, great favor. The always on internet connection IS a brilliant idea because seriously, with the specs that were required to run Assassin's creed 2 at the time, you were almost certainly not playing it on your Toshiba satellite laptop. More than likely, wifi and broadband tied to cable has pretty much made the majority of internet users capable of ALWAYS having an on connection somewhere. Although I'm curious about if ten years from now I'll still be able to play my copy. Or will I have to buy the updated downloadable version from cloud? Who knows.

Personally, I have no quarrel with Ubi. They are just doing what they feel is right to protect themselves and their goods. You can't hate someone for trying to stop people stealing their stuff. All the other ideology goes flying out the window because none of us has a right to "pirate" shit. We can either buy it or don't buy it, but we don't have the right to play and experience a game just because we want to and its unfair that it cost money we don't have.

So yeah, go ahead Ubi. I sort of agree with them. Piracy is one thing but making it so any noob on the internet can pirate a game as easily as setting his DVR is something else altogether.

If we had less PIRATES we'd have Psychonauts 2 by now. Let that be a lesson to us all.

 

[XDravond]

What's the most disturbing about the whole message, is that people apparently still pay money for games that aren't yours after you purchase them. Sorry if I sound negative, but people who shell out the full purchase price for what is closer to renting a game that's only available to play sometimes.

If everybody boycotted semi-rental games from producers who think they can get away with anything, this whole anti-piracy inquisition would be over pretty soon.

Nobody has bought a game since the mid-1990's. Since shortly after their inception, end-user license agreements have been stating quite clearly that the end-user has the right to install and use game software, but does not have ownership of anything more than the physical media (if that) and the license itself. Realistically, that's not the problem, since when you pick up a game, you're looking to install and play it.

Modern DRM schemes carry with them a host of other issues. You suddenly have to worry about what happens when a developer/publisher drops support for an aging title, the speed and reliability of your connection and their servers, and exactly what information is being transmitted back and forth between your computer and the DRM servers. Personally, this is about where I draw the line. I don't care for spyware/malware, and when your DRM is phoning home and installing its own device drivers, spyware/malware is exactly what it is.

To the original point, though, if pseudo-rental is where you draw the line between willing-to-purchase and doing-without, then you're either limiting yourself to some very, very old games or you're better served by a different hobby.

Now days I mostly use a crack (on games I've bought)...

While I see your angle on the issue, you have just admitted to being in breach of contract. Circumventing copy protection, disk checks, and the like are typically explicitly prohibited by the EULA, and even where it's not stated outright, it falls under that ubiquitous "all other rights reserved" clause. I know you feel like you're taking the high road on this, but in the eyes of the people with the expensive lawyers, you're not really any better off than the people pirating the games outright.

Moreover, buying and cracking a game really doesn't help get rid of invasive DRM schemes, in the long run. You've just bumped the sales figure by one, and that's all the publisher is going to see or care about, when deciding whether or not to continue using their current DRM policy. I appreciate that you are trying to support the developer, but you are also supporting the DRM policy.

This just isn't a situation where we can have our cake and eat it too. We're either going to have to accept invasive DRM practices in the long-term or collectively alter our buying habits to demonstrate to publishers that we won't tolerate their current DRM practices. The latter option will mean doing without some great games. It will mean some talented developers wind up having to switch publishers, when their games fail due to a lousy DRM scheme imposed upon them. Unfortunately, that is the price that must be paid for a brighter future. I've made my choice, and there's one less person steadily buying Silent Hunter titles for it.

You have just pointed out what I've thought about several times but when it comes to this wyou have to count the pros and cons of buying the game and then crack it

pro: +no need for Internet or other invasive thing +you support the industry +no worry about breaking the dvd(if non digital) (this has happened to me very annoying and I am rather careful with the disks.) +you are rather legal (compared to "real" piracy)+YOU GET TO PLAY THE GAME (witch might be good...)

cons-you suport the DRM schemes -risk (though minimal) of getting to meet those nice lawyers.. -possibility of getting virus/trojan/etc -slight hassle applying updates (and re-installing etc)

all in all I feel on the safe side (risk of lawyers is reaaaly small) and not "evil" (or bored since I can play the game...).. but thanks for the reminding ;-) so I can point out the reasoning behind my decision

 

[Hotshots]

If anything this is making Ubisoft look ridiculous. Shit, they might as well be announcing that they're 100% pirate proof!
If people can get a £50+ game for free, they're gonna take it. Some good eggs will feel guilty (can't imagine why) taking money off a wealthy developer, and I assume a very small amount would pay; given the choice.

This is the Internet, nothing is sacred.

 

[XDravond]

The way I see it, Ubisoft is probably technically right. They probably HAVE noticed a nominal success in the prevention of piracy of their games with this DRM Scheme.

See what I think most people don't get is that most companies are not out to stop ALL Piracy, although that would be a marvelous dream of theirs. No, they openly ACKNOWLEDGE they can't stop it all.

What they CAN limit however and attack is CASUAL piracy. You see, while there are a few people out there capable of snip tripping their way around security measures and drms, that portion of the pirating public is more than likely very, very small. Which is WHY you have these releases by almost the same "teams" every few months on the torrent sites, so much so that we recognize them by name. THOSE people make the "DRM free" versions, usually requiring some complicated extra step or a great deal of trust to run some executable that you're hoping and praying isn't a trojan of some sort or giving some guy somewhere access to your personal bank account and internet passwords.

But at the end of the day, if you can limit the number of people who can hack around the system with ease from the general population, you've done yourself a great, great favor. The always on internet connection IS a brilliant idea because seriously, with the specs that were required to run Assassin's creed 2 at the time, you were almost certainly not playing it on your Toshiba satellite laptop. More than likely, wifi and broadband tied to cable has pretty much made the majority of internet users capable of ALWAYS having an on connection somewhere. Although I'm curious about if ten years from now I'll still be able to play my copy. Or will I have to buy the updated downloadable version from cloud? Who knows.

Personally, I have no quarrel with Ubi. They are just doing what they feel is right to protect themselves and their goods. You can't hate someone for trying to stop people stealing their stuff. All the other ideology goes flying out the window because none of us has a right to "pirate" shit. We can either buy it or don't buy it, but we don't have the right to play and experience a game just because we want to and its unfair that it cost money we don't have.

So yeah, go ahead Ubi. I sort of agree with them. Piracy is one thing but making it so any noob on the internet can pirate a game as easily as setting his DVR is something else altogether.

If we had less PIRATES we'd have Psychonauts 2 by now. Let that be a lesson to us all.

Though I see your points I for one think its rather bad putting something thats only there so the person may not give copies to friends/posting it online etc.. (so far ok to me) but limits the buyer from playing it if something he/she can't do anything about (shaky Internet (yea you could move but really) or servers going down (or being shut of..), maybey lost the dvd (your own fault yeayea), hdd crash and no playing for you since you only can activate it X times or need to buy a new dvd etc..
Heres the problem I want to buy the game not a license for X activations or "as long as you have internet connection"... the experience and the fun is what I want to buy but seems like it is not on the market any more

I do not mind DRM's like Steams because I have never been hindered from playing the game I bought (except for updates... ;-) even at Internet failures (or complete lack there of) and then it is fine for me. Even though I do not like things installed on my computer that communicates and sends info about me/my computer without my knowledge.. I usually would call those viruses... even if they are hidden in EULA somewhere, it does not clearly express "we install this and it will do this, not just your game" in a separate klick option.


And there is no guarantee for Psychonauts 2 if it would bee no piracy but yes thats really bad.. would really wanted a second one (loved Psychonauts myself and bought it both physical media and online..)

 

[Kahunaburger]

Wait, didn't Skidrow crack Assassin's Creed 2 servers'. If that's the case, the DRM would probably INCREASE piracy if the customers don't want to deal with the holy internet connection and privacy issues.

This. It's basically impossible to make a game with DRM that can't be worked around. What they really need to do with Assassins' Creed games is focus more on multiplayer - that gives an incentive to buy the game legally, and the multiplayer on those games is one of the more innovative and fun ones I've played in a while so it's absolutely possible to do.

In other words,

 

[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.

What prevented you from installing the game?

I had no internet connection so I couldn't even install an old game. It made no sense to me at all.

 

[Enrathi]

Not to rain on your parade, but here's the last two paragraphs from the article you linked.

Oh, no question, and no raining there either: I'm in agreement. Ubisoft's DRM is the most draconian, awful thing we've seen. But it is, possibly, a horrible system that works. Every other system is easily dismissed: "It sucks, and it doesn't work, so why are you even trying?" But Ubisoft's might just be, "It REALLY sucks." "But it works, so we're using it."

Now, as has been pointed out, it also might NOT work. Hard to say. But it worked on Assassin's Creed 2 for something like 6 weeks, which may just be long enough. I don't know how long it worked on other titles.

I can't remember if I said this in this thread earlier or a different one, but I'll mention it again either way.

It worked for 6 weeks, yet there was no significant increase in sales of AC2 over AC1 on PC. Proving that while yes, the DRM may work, every pirated copy does not mean a lost sale. If that were true, then the sales should have been 10 times higher (assuming the 90% piracy rate they love to throw out there), but it wasn't. If it had even managed to double the sales I could see them keeping it because it would help. But there was no significant increase in sales over the same time as AC1, so there was no reason to keep it in, IMO. Especially since they have to pay to license the technology, unless they created it in-house.

EDIT: And even if they did create it in-house, they still need to maintain those servers that drive the DRM.

 

[Enrathi]

it worked on Assassin's Creed 2 for something like 6 weeks, which may just be long enough. I don't know how long it worked on other titles.

It won't last anywhere near as long now, so why bother to keep using it? The crackers already got the way disable/trick/remove it once from SH5 and AS2, now its just minor modifications away from fitting whatever game they target that has it.

Not that I really care, but that was BlindChance you were quoting. He just happened to quote me in his post and when you trimmed it, you trimmed out my post but got his quote tag instead of mine. No big deal though, that's why I usually end up leaving multiple quotes alone since I figure I'm more likely to edit out the wrong things.

 

[baconfist]

The idea that Ubisoft can claim they have lowered piracy is amusing. I'd love to know how they can tell just how many people stopped stealing their games, and how they know that their DRM is responsible not that people simply arn't interested in their recent games at all.

 

[Agiel7]

I would say it's success measured in how many PC gamers who legitimately buy their games Ubisoft drives from buying the PC port and into getting the version that's $10 more, thereby giving them the statistics they need to justify to shareholders why they're going to stop making PC ports.