New Ubisoft DRM "cracked" on day one?

By Richard Leadbetter Published 4 March, 2010

Silent Hunter 5 succumbs to PC pirates.

Rumours indicate that Ubisoft's brand new anti-piracy DRM system has been compromised on the same day the first game to use it went on sale.

Submarine simulator Silent Hunter 5: Battle of the Atlantic, and indeed the day one patch that fixes many fundamental bugs, have both been hacked, with the most up-to-date version of the game currently circulating torrent sites and Usenet.

While the effectiveness of the crack has yet to be confirmed, if the DRM has been circumvented, it represents a massive failure on Ubisoft's part for its products to be protected from unauthorised copying.

The DRM system itself is based on the idea that the player's PC is always connected to the internet. While you're online and authenticated with Ubi's servers, the game operates proceeds as normal. However, no connection means no gameplay: should you lose your connection, you're unceremoniously booted from the game. What happens when you reconnect may differ depending on the game you are playing.

In Settlers 7, the action resumes from the exact point where you lost your connection. In Assassin's Creed 2, the game had sent you back to the last checkpoint. However, Ubisoft has just issued an update which ensures the same rules as for Settlers apply.

Critics have lambasted the system owing to instabilities in home connections, the unstable nature of the internet itself, along with the possibility that Ubisoft's own servers will experience downtime at some point. Supporters of the system like the fact that there are no limitations on activations or the amount of PCs that the game can be installed on, and the disc does not need to be kept within your drive.

The ease with which the system has been disabled is sure to worry Ubisoft. Silent Hunter 5's protection is apparently circumvented by replacing an executable file with a patched replacement, similar to just about every other PC "crack" out there. The piracy group responsible for the hack says that in addition, turning off your internet connection or else not using Ubisoft's specific game loader is enough to get the game running DRM-free.

While the hacking groups can rightly claim victory in the first battle, we can be sure that Ubisoft will be studying the nature of the assault on its new system with a view to improving it for future products.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (49) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • RobotRocker #1 2 years ago

    Well, there's only one reply for this one

    Owned.

  • sanctusmortis #2 2 years ago

    Anyone NOT see this coming? Really?

  • trooperdx3117 #3 2 years ago

    Seriously when will publishers understand that DRM does not affect pirates, it only punishes people who legtimately buy their games.

  • bad09 #4 2 years ago

    @ trooperdx3117

    They'll get it eventually just like the music industry did.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 10:42

  • MiniAmin #5 2 years ago

    I don't endorse piracy at all, but i'm exceedingly glad to see this. It demonstrates that attempting to combat piracy via stupid measures which encroach upon the consumer's enjoyment will never succeed.

    It's only more likely to promote piracy as embittered consumers seek to gain payback for a perceived breach of trust.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 10:43

  • Jos #6 2 years ago

    "While the effectiveness of the crack has yet to be confirmed"

    Not that it hasn't been cracked, but isn't it better to confirm the story before declaring "hacking groups can rightly claim victory in the first battle"?

  • Der_tolle_Emil #7 2 years ago

    As always this was just a matter of time but having a crack on day 1 surely means that there was at least one quite fundamental flaw in the concept/implementation of this DRM mechanism. It doesn't really matter in the end though because I wouldn't have given it much more than a week or two at most anyway.

    A much more important thing to ask is how much money did Ubi spend on this. I highly doubt the additional sales due to DRM will cover even a fracture of the costs, and that includes future games with that DRM. Even if there was no crack and one were to appear only after two or three games I don't see this paying off. Software-based DRM just doesn't work long enough to really pay off.

    And no, I am not against DRM or condoning piracy. I know there is demand to protect the developers and publishers - I just don't agree with the concept of throwing more and more money at programmers trying to fix something that simply cannot be fixed.

    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 10:48

  • Spekingur #8 2 years ago

    DRMs never work as intended.
    The best DRM is an inexpensive game that is easily accessible and has less hassle for the gamer than a pirated copy would.

  • PearOfAnguish #9 2 years ago

    According to the nfo the cracks work exactly the same as any other title, you just install and overwrite some files with the cracked versions.

    Nice job Ubi, you fuckwits.

  • Waffleaber #10 2 years ago

    Business as usual then. Buy the game, download the crack.

  • Darren #11 2 years ago

    Assassin's Creed II on the PC, which also uses this DRM, has already received a Day One patch, v1.01, in the US. It apparently not only fixes a few bugs but also changes the DRM slightly so that players can resume from where they got to when their connection failed. Sounds better then it reverting back to a previous checkpoint as reported before.

    I'm getting the game tomorrow but I'm hoping some enterprising soul will quickly crack it so I can do away with this ridiculous DRM scheme altogether. I can understand needing an always online connection for a multiplayer game but not for a single player.

  • Shikasama #12 2 years ago

    I condone piracy wholeheartedly.

    It's the only way PC games companies make any money off me. I download the game then if I think it is worth paying for I buy it. Hence World of Goo, Civ 4 (and all of the expansions) and others have been purchases as a direct result of illegal downloads.

    If games companies stopped producing utter shit like Rogue Warrior, then I wouldn't have to.

  • ghiest #13 2 years ago

    This is par for the course really, as others have said when will they learn that draconian DRM will not stop pirates just push more people into pirating because they hate the DRM?

    I wont pirate it but I'm sure as hell not buying it if I have to be connected when ever I play the damn game. Scratch another publisher I will never buy from, onto the list.

  • Darren #14 2 years ago

    There's an excellent article on how Assassin's Creed 2's DRM work, which makes for an interesting read, here: http://www.twea kguides.com/AC2_1.html

  • sneetch #15 2 years ago

    @trooperdx3117
    Seriously when will publishers understand that DRM does not affect pirates, it only punishes people who legtimately buy their games.

    A basic level of DRM is required for games, otherwise people pirate without even thinking about it. Had World of Goo some basic, non-obtrusive DRM then I don't think it would have been so heavily pirated. You wouldn't have been able to simply email the installer to someone, you'd have to give them the key you got in the "this is your key and only yours" email, that in itself would cause a lot of people to think twice. Not everyone but a lot.

    I personally have no problem with easygoing DRM, I appreciate that the developers and publishers have to at least make it inconvenient for pirates, I have no problem with CD keys and disk checks or with having to associate a game with an online account, but this "always online while you're playing" stuff is a step too far.

  • Dylbot #16 2 years ago

    Hooray, now they'll try an even more retarded form of DRM and the consumer will get shafted further! Not that it doesn't amuse me greatly that their uber-DRM was broken on day 1, but the battle of attrition will continue, and it's us guys that'll take the flak.

  • Skurmedel #17 2 years ago

    I would like to get Silent Hunter 5, but I don't want to give them [Ubiflaccid] my money. So I won't get it despite this fix, nor will I "download it". I'll just have to put on a snorkel, get me a bath tub and swim in it to the Das Boot soundtrack instead.

    I'm hoping somebody else makes a equally good subsim under a less draconian publisher. Failing that, I still have my copy of SH 3.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 11:35

  • arcam #18 2 years ago

    A basic level of DRM is required for games, otherwise people pirate without even thinking about it. Had World of Goo some basic, non-obtrusive DRM then I don't think it would have been so heavily pirated.

    You use World of Goo as an example, but the 2D Boy, creators (and independent publishers, so the money made or lost comes directly from their pockets) of World of Goo have said:

    "Don't bother with DRM - it's a waste of time. You just end up giving the DRM provider money. Anything that is of interest gets cracked, and the cracked version ends up having a better user experience than the legit version because you don't have to input in some 32-character serial number."

    "Piracy rates have been released before, and there's no difference between World of Goo and other games."

  • etherfiend #19 2 years ago

    And that's why the only 3 games I've bought for the PC in the last 2years have been Empire Total War, Dawn of War 2 and the LOTRO expansion. E:TW and DOW2 really got under my skin with the Steam stuff so I stpped buying PC games and pretty much went console only. Then reading about the failings of that Spore EA DRM that only allowed 3 activations and then this reliance on being constantly online? Mental.

    The reason I use the xbox now as my main gaming platform is because I buy a game, I insert the disc and I start playing. That's pretty much it. Although the annoying DLC registration system for ME2 and DA:o (which you need to go to bethesda's website and thus potentially expose your xbox gamertag details there) has got me wondering if the same stupid measures will start to be introduced on consoles too.

    Everything that is a block between me inserting the disc and playing the game is a massive turnoff and if I have to start waiting to see what type of DRM/registration restrictions are in place before buying a game then I'll begin to look elsewhere for my entertainment. I don't like piracy, it does take revenue from the games companies, regardless of those that then go on to purchase or those that argue the product wasn't worth the asking price anyway so they would have never bought it in the first place. However, stupid DRM restrictions will eventually drive away all custom. There is no easy answer to the problem (apart from removing everyon's ability to be dis-honest), but by making the paying customers lives easier and laying off the 'big brother' registration and DRM systems the publishers may retain a larger number of paying customers than at present.

    Hell I'd have probably punted for a couple of PC bargains in my local Game but the horror of Steam and things like this new DRM activation puts me off completely.

    And to the Steam fanatics, yes I know digital downloads are the future, yes I know 90% of people think Steam is awesome. I don't happen to feel that way, I prefer a physical medium where I can place them somewhere safe and a virus/OS fail/hardware fail won't destroy it and then I breach my ISP limit re-downloading the games and patches. Yes the disk could get broken, but that'd be my own stupid fault and not that of something out of my control. Thanks.

    I'll never forget my first piece of gaming DRM. It was a Commodore64 game and when you loaded the game from tape it gave you a column and row reference. You then had to look up the code in the manual where the central page was a table of codes. They were black text on a dark red background to stop photocopying. I'd prefer that archaic system to the current ones tbh.

    Those were the days!

  • FortysixterUK #20 2 years ago

    The more extreme these PC protection procedures get the more ridiculous they seem , and they just wave a red flag at the hackers challenging them to hack the software.
    EA are about to get the same thing with the stupid DRM they are putting on the PC version of C&C.
    For example, multi-player will only be via their servers, even if the two people playing are in the same house !
    How dumb is that ? So C&C it will get hacked. Simple.
    The only semi reasonable solution to this is to put this kind on DRM on a game title for a limited period ( perhaps 1 year from day of release), then on the games first birthday, make a "release" patch available so the DRM is no longer needed or sought by the game. Even then, it's treading on shaky ground, but at least they have maximised the games profitability for a year.

    I would suggest at least 50% of the market who will play this game ( and C&C for that matter ) will have a fully hacked and playable version 1 week after the games release.

    I for one prefer to own originals of games, but simply won't buy PC titles with DRM like this or like C&Cs DRM. I'll just go without.

    As with all DRM the only people who get policed by the DRM are those that legally buy the game.

  • sneetch #21 2 years ago

    @arcam
    You use World of Goo as an example, but the 2D Boy, creators (and independent publishers, so the money made or lost comes directly from their pockets) of World of Goo have said:

    "Don't bother with DRM - it's a waste of time. You just end up giving the DRM provider money. Anything that is of interest gets cracked, and the cracked version ends up having a better user experience than the legit version because you don't have to input in some 32-character serial number."

    "Piracy rates have been released before, and there's no difference between World of Goo and other games."

    Are they sure about that? I appreciate their opinion but I doubt that's the case, I still believe that if they had included that DRM more people would have paused for a second before sending the game to their friend. A friend of mine, a knowledgeable, industry savvy man, actually thought the lack of DRM meant it was free to share. If he made that (honest) mistake, how many others did? No, the inconvenience of having your users type in (or copy-paste) a key during installation is worth it.

  • the_mtfr #22 2 years ago

    If the cracking group provides a bank account in their .nfo I would gladly donate.

  • PearOfAnguish #23 2 years ago

    "Are they sure about that? I appreciate their opinion but I doubt that's the case, I still believe that if they had included that DRM more people would have paused for a second before sending the game to their friend."

    Interesting read here about indie games and DRM: [link url=http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/02/opinio n_casual_games_and_pirac.php
    ]http://ww w.gamesetwatch.com/2008/02/opin...[/link]

    "for every 1,000 pirated copies we eliminated, we created 1 additional sale"

  • MiniAmin #24 2 years ago

    @ Shikasama

    It's the only way PC games companies make any money off me. I download the game then if I think it is worth paying for I buy it. Hence World of Goo, Civ 4 (and all of the expansions) and others have been purchases as a direct result of illegal downloads.

    This is a common line of argument amongst pirates, the "I only use piracy as a demo-type service". The problem is, however well your intentions, the sum of your piracy increases the likelihood of silly DRM measures for non-pirates, as devs/publishers can easily access pirated figures and use them to justify their intrusive DRM procedures.

    If games companies stopped producing utter shit like Rogue Warrior, then I wouldn't have to.

    And this is a statement I just plain dislike. Games companies don't owe you anything. You cannot justify piracy on the basis of the availability of shoddy products on the market.

  • collateral89 #25 2 years ago

    you shoud sail the seven seas and find that pirate then knock him out then hire him/her :)

  • Skurmedel #26 2 years ago

    FortysixterUK: That is not a totally foreign idea to some developers. Company of Heroes had a CD protection check when it was released, meaning you had to have the CD in the drive. They later removed it in a patch. The CD protection check were probably not that effective to begin with, but I think it was a nice move anyhow, like a nod to the more loyal customers.

  • Buran #27 2 years ago

    Is matter of time that all the major distributors as Activision-Blizzard, EA, THQ, to adopt the same DRM systems and services as the Ubisoft one in order to prevent/limit piracy. And as with Steam, most of us will embrace it with love.

  • arcam #28 2 years ago

    @sneetch

    Well I don't know how sure they are of course, but the argument makes sense to me. I would append it by saying it you can be sure that the DRM actually works, then it has a place. Of course that is rarely the case.

    I don't mind a CD-key check either because it's so little hassle, but I don't think it helps PC developer financially one way or the other.

    At the end of the day, pretty much all forms of DRM do help in stopping casual piracy - lending and sharing between real-life friends, but I suspect that has a very small difference to revenue, especially if you believe that this is the sort of word-of-mouth stuff that probably gains a you a few sales too.

    And in the same way nearly all forms of DRM do absolutely nothing for the form of piracy that really does have an impact on sales - bit torrent. This is the obvious problem, and anything at all that helps this form of piracy will help a PC developer financially, nearly every time (IMO).

    Occasionally the protection on a few games stops a cracked version coming out or working properly for a few days (Bioshock, Arkham Asylum, or even weeks or months (one of the Splinter Cells), and its these small victories that keep the DRM industry going I guess. Then you just have to try and get a fair balance between the positive (delayed or maybe even eliminated pirate versions) and the negative (less 'friendly' user experience). Ubisoft obviously got this balance completely wrong so it can't be seen as anything other than a massive fail.

    TLDR: unless it can actually can stop a game being copied, DRM is either pointless or worse.
    Edited by 2 at 04/03/10 @ 12:08

  • paketep #29 2 years ago

    @Skurmedel: Company of Heroes had NO protection scheme, probably one of the reasons it sold so well.

    When the expansion arrived, both expansion AND, what is worse, the original game were patched to add SecuSHIT.

    That, and the poor working servers of Relic Online, the inept way the game had of patching itself and the connectivity problems eroded a lot of the good will people had towards Relic.

    I know I didn't buy Tales of Valor because of that. And it was a ripoff anyway.

  • Skurmedel #30 2 years ago

    Mine had, I'm pretty sure of it. I couldn't play without having it in my drive.

  • jellyhead #31 2 years ago

    Has the crack been Nuked yet? If not then it probably does work.
    Doesn't matter though i'm still not buying the game until the always offline requirement leaves the retail version. Damn you Ubisoft :(

  • arcam #32 2 years ago

    It's true, CoH had no DRM originally, but it was patched in later. It's a really bad example, because it's now one of the worst examples of DRM as well - a quick look in Steam or Relic forums will show you no end of problems people have had since then.

  • sneetch #33 2 years ago

    @arcam

    I agree that it's largely pointless and I personally believe that the serial/product-key thing is enough and is the only type that's really worthwhile doing, either typed in during installation or added to an online account to (be it your Windows Live, Steam, Ubisoft or whatever account) then perform some basic checks when your hardware changes or you download updates to make sure you have a legitimate copy.

    I think this has two benefits, firstly it makes it difficult to casually pirate as you said (you have to share a legitimate key with someone, which will not be possible with online accounts) but more importantly it may make those people stop and think, realise that they're pirating a game and they may decide to buy instead. Those downloading a "free" torrent obviously wouldn't pause at that point and wouldn't care either way if they did.

    I agree that other forms of DRM are pretty much just a waste of time that inconvenience the legitimate user for no real benefit other than delaying the inevitable. DRM schemes like SecuRom and this new Ubisoft DRM are even more pointless: the hackers figure out how to remove SecuRom or any other standard DRM from one product and surely that makes it easier and easier to remove from each subsequent one using the same scheme.

    A basic level of knowledge about computer security will tell the publishers that all you need is access to the code and some basic programming knowledge and then security pretty much goes out the window.

    Anyway, I'm about to be negged into oblivion here, but it was nice to have a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person.

  • Skurmedel #34 2 years ago

    Then I apologize, I seem to have forgotten this despite being a massive CoH-junkie.

  • Matfink #35 2 years ago

    I vote for the return of the Lens-Lok! ;)

  • Shikasama #36 2 years ago

    MiniAmin

    As one of the aforementioned pirates, the first point isn't my problem. Sucks for you maybe, but there we go, blame your games developer.

    As for point two, actually I can. Buying a new game exposes myself to a high level of risk. I can spend 40 quid and have a game not run on my machine welll or for it to be plane rubbish. Why should I subject myself to that if I don't have to? If every game released a demo then fine, but they don't. I honestly don't care about the deveopers, the publishers, the ethics, the morals or anything else you want to wrap it up in. If the game was worth my money, they'll get it. If it wasn't well, they didnt profit from me finding out. That's tough for them.

  • alcides #37 2 years ago

    I remember studying a movie for uni work and everytime I wanted to check a few scenes, I had this STUPID, UNSKIPPABLE piracy message that lasted like 3 minutes "You wouldn't just walk out without paying.. blah blah" - It was staged too. Obviously, that part would have been removed from a pirated version. So I get to be thouroughly pissed and treated as a thief everytime I boot a DVD that I paid for?

    I had hardly ever bought a DVD before, but the one legal film I had made me regret I hadn't downloaded it. Which I did NOT.

  • sneetch #38 2 years ago

    @Matfink
    I vote for the return of the Lens-Lok! ;)

    Yes! Perfect! Or use the one from Elite: Please enter the first letter of the second word on the fifth line on page 2 of your manual.

    Ah... the days before photocopiers and scanners. :)

    Edit: Wait... Elite used Lens-Lok... what am I thinking of? Probably dozens of C64 and Speccy games tbh.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 15:09

  • MiniAmin #39 2 years ago

    @ Shikasama

    Fair enough, whilst I don't agree with you, I understand your points and think you articulated them well.

  • Jalle #40 2 years ago

    They will never learn. They didn't learn with StarForce and they aren't going to learn now. Splinter Cell Chaos Theory had the most strong DRM system I have seen, the protection lasted uncracked for 422 days before a reasonable crack appeared (according to Wikipedia and Gamasutra). That's enough time to ensure that you haven't lost sales during the period in which the game sells the most copies. Did the game sell well? NO. It's the worst selling game in the Splinter Cell series, despite being the best one according to fans and critics.

    What does this mean? It means that DRM doesn't make pirates buy your games, and that it likely pisses off potential consumers. The only thing they are achieving is giving to their customers a product that is worse than the one pirates are going to get. And that is nonsense.

  • Gl3n #41 2 years ago

    It's a happy coincidence that Ubisoft's corporate policies have dovetailed with their over all game quality.

  • Stop-gap #42 2 years ago

    I wonder if these pirate groups enjoy rising to the challenge of defeating the latest "super duper" DRM more than the games they're cracking. I'm betting "yes". And, being the try before I buy type that I am, I can only hope they continue to do so.

  • darth_paul #43 2 years ago

    theres always someone smarter out there...
    heck, if even a 15 year old kid managed to crack the ps3...

  • rommy667 #44 2 years ago

    Man do they ever learn they cant be that stupid can they??

  • SlipstreamDrifter #45 2 years ago

    Jesus endoresed piracy. in the bible when jesus fed the 5000 he "copied" the bread and the fish and distributed it to as many as were needed and he was left with more than what he began with just like digital files. And at that time you didnt get any whiney bakers or fisherman saying jesus was stealing from them by doing what he did.

  • penhalion #46 2 years ago

    "While the hacking groups can rightly claim victory in the first battle, we can be sure that Ubisoft will be studying the nature of the assault on its new system with a view to improving it for future products. "

    Actually no matter what the DRM is, it can all be circulvented by patching the executable. The simply reason being that the executable is the very thing that checks for and implements the DRM in the first place. The nonsense Ubisoft and others are saying about it stopping piracy is clearly not it's actual goal. I suspect it's all about stopping resales. I wonder how long it's going to take (once the resale market tails off) for new game sales to follow suit due to people no longer having the necessary funds for day one purchases.

  • dbranchevans #47 2 years ago

    Sorry but the argument around 'I get to download the full game and pay if I like it' is bollocks, I'd be very surprised at how many pirates actually go on to pay real money for games. The issue for developers is implementing this drm makes their arguments easier and just speeds up the death of pc gaming but if pirates didn't crack it in the first place the spiral wouldn't get worse so f**k off with your sanctimonous rubbish about helping pc gamers...

  • Shakey_Jake33 #48 2 years ago

    The best thing a person can do is vote with their wallets and buy games that respect legitimate customers. That's going to get the point across much better as high sales are seen in other, DRM-free games.

  • icematt12 #49 2 years ago

    I hope Splinter Cell on PC is a failure, serves them right with this bs. Got AC2 on PS3 today, pre-owned. I usually only buy new, but I feel like doing the same for Splinter Cell Conviction on 360 now. I'm against piracy in all forms, but I can still obtain games whilst not generating additional income for Ubi :)

    It's like certain large companies want to make the consumer angry.
    Edited by 1 at 04/03/10 @ 21:43