Ubisoft defends risky PC DRM plan

By Robert Purchese Published 27 January, 2010

Gives "added value", "enriches gaming".

The number one goal of Ubisoft's new PC anti-piracy solution will be to "provide added value" and "enrich the gaming experience", according to Ubisoft.

Unveiled today, the unnamed platform - which is not connected in any way to StarForce (a service Ubisoft said it had stopped using "a long time ago") - will require a permanent internet connection to a Ubi.com account in order for a game to be played.

"We know this choice is controversial but we feel is justified by the gameplay advantages offered by the system and because most PCs are already connected to the internet," said the company in a statement.

"This platform also offers protection against piracy, an important business element for Ubisoft and for the PC market in general as piracy has an important impact on this market.

"Any initiative that allows us to lower the impact of piracy on our PC games will also allow us to concentrate further effort on the creation and expansion of our intellectual properties for the PC - our goal is to deliver the best gaming experience to our customers."

Ubisoft's new service allows games to be installed on as many PCs as consumers want. Saved progress will be stored on clouds, so owners can continue their adventure from any PC the game happens to be installed on.

The first game to benefit from this new platform is Settlers 7, which is undergoing beta testing now.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds. @Clert on Twitter.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (116) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • jmg123 #1 2 years ago

    I think this might come back to bite them. I hope it does anyway. Could there not be another way? e.g. the way steam does things, or micropayments for the good bits of games, or stopping online multiplayer with pirate copies?

  • Golgo #2 2 years ago

    I know it's not Ubisoft, but my gaming experience of PC Gears of War was enriched immeasurably just over a year ago when DRM wrecked every copy on the planet forever. I know I know, that's Epic's fuck-up, but I have to air this every once in a while...

  • Hunam #3 2 years ago

    Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

    (Maybe not ever, but has a shot at being the silliest thing this week)

  • cianchristopher #4 2 years ago

    It's shit, and it won't work! The game'll be cracked and the pirates will get the best version. End of story.

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #5 2 years ago

    What's the fuss about? How many times was your PC not connected to the internet recently? Are we all getting worked up at the cheek of it rather than the practical use of it?

  • andijames #6 2 years ago

    StarForce (a service Ubisoft said it had stopped using "a long time ago";)

    On a system far, far away by any chance? :)
    Edited by andijames at 27/01/10 @ 16:29

  • kestral #7 2 years ago

    i'm all steamED up

  • peteb #8 2 years ago

    If you played a game on a laptop and took it with you somewhere you dont have internet, this would suck.

  • darleysam #9 2 years ago

    No Ubisoft, it really doesn't.

    edit: my house is a fair distance from our nearest exchange, and while the connection is a lot more stable now than it used to be (lowest point would be trying to play EVE through frequent internet dropouts. So many ships lost), it's still very prone to suddenly failing under the slightest provocation. The frustration that would cause if it were to boot me from a game (speculation) or stop me loading it up (stated fact), would be immense.
    Edited by darleysam at 27/01/10 @ 16:34

  • Eraysor #10 2 years ago

    Well, at least this gives no-CD patch makers a reason to keep doing what they do best. I'm sure there will be times I want to play something and my connection falters, or I'm travelling somewhere.

  • jonfon #11 2 years ago

    @Bertie [staff]

    1) Last week when my tv & internet connection fell over for the night
    2) Any time I go down to my in-laws (I use a laptop for gaming)

  • ignatiusjreilly #12 2 years ago

    What's the fuss about? How many times was your PC not connected to the internet recently?

    I'm alright, Jack.

  • Shivoa #13 2 years ago

    We may have blown both your legs off, but as a value add we are now able to sow one back on. That one re-attached leg is a lot of added value compared to no legs.

    No, there is no option for leave the legs alone and just sell us something based on quality of product. Only evil-doers are able to avoid the leg detachment systems; those evil piratical types, stealing our joorbs!

    How often am I offline and wanting to play a game? Not that common, but do I get a full refund for the game if my internet connection goes down or I try to do some gaming on a train journey? Because I'm effectively being sold a big fat box of nothing in those situations and told it is a value add over other DRM schemes that have already accounted for these situation (Steam offline mode etc).
    Edited by Shivoa at 27/01/10 @ 16:37

  • ZuluHero #14 2 years ago

    *Most* might be but lots aren't...

  • Midnight_Raven #15 2 years ago

    Brilliant idea! And while we're at it, why not snoop around on the harddrive and disable any CD burning software? Or preventing the installtion of it?

    Nah, that would never happen, and it never happened in the past, either.

  • IneptPercy #16 2 years ago

    Really if this was steam like with an offline mode then great, it could be a case of if you go into offline mode it locks the account to all other PCs until that PC connects again, that would also help with save games too.

    As for cloud save games, I want this to happen on steam already.

  • Freki #17 2 years ago

    @Bertie[staff]
    The main issues I see with this plan is:
    1.If ubisoft goes bust or decides to no longer support a game I can no longer play it.
    2.In all probability stops the game being sold on so removes the second hand game market.
    3.When their servers are down for whatever reason I cannot play their games.
    4.When I am not connected for whatever reason I cannot play their games.

    The "value" this adds is that I can play my games on any computer that has them installed. That isn't a huge amount of value for me as I don't game in more than one location. So as a paying customer I am getting worse service for the same cost, this isn't going to be an easy sell.

  • CosmicGypsy #18 2 years ago

    @ignatiusjreilly

    Are ubisoft just a confederacy of dunces?

  • gamingdave #19 2 years ago

    My gaming/HTPC is always connected to the net, unless the connection drops out. My laptop is connected when in the house, but not on train journeys, or when going back to the folks.

    The vast majority of the time it wont be a problem. That does of course leave the rest of the time, when it will be.

    Why not just go back to dongles, a hardware key on a USB stick would surely be cheap as chips these days?

  • BiscuitBase #20 2 years ago

    Don't assume that hackers will merely be able to remove the DRM.

    What do you think Ubi will be doing with the net connection? Perhaps they'll be downloading essential code directly into the game, rather than reading it off the hard drive like usual. What use is a hacked copy of the game if it doesn't have the ability to connect to Ubi's service and download essential components of the game?

  • bad09 #21 2 years ago

    God soon you will need to be accompanied by a member of staff from these companies just to play a game.

    Can someone out there PLEASE tells us consumers. Are all these pointless DRM tactics that fail in anyway to save these make believe "lost sales" from people who don't want to pay you in the first place REALLY worth the hassle you give to people paying you money? Is it REALLY worth alienating legions of money paying consumers?

    I am starting to wonder how many "stealing" pirates actually do buy a game then torrent a DRM free version for ease of use. Ease of use and pirating seem to go hand in hand these days don't they, used to be the other way around and buying was the easier option...

  • ignatiusjreilly #22 2 years ago

    @CosmicGypsy :)

    I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against Ubisoft. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip.

  • Stupid_Fat_Hobbit #23 2 years ago

    Great customer-alienation plan, Ubisoft. Really great.

    It's unfortunate that DRM for PC games seems to be an inevitability, but given that that's the case it's about time that companies realised that the right way to do DRM is to make it more convenient for potential customers to buy your games than steal them.

  • geeza2020 #24 2 years ago

    I remember that StarForce thing! Damn, now i remember why i promised myself i would never buy a Ubisoft PC game ever again. And this new "AMAZING" anti-piracy method they're using has made me realise i was right!

  • cianchristopher #25 2 years ago

    What's fucking annoying about this is that the Ubi DRM will be banged on to the Steam version of their games as well...

    Something that's pissed me off about Steam big-time recently is their complete lack of care over the additional DRM that 3rd party publishers include with their games.

    Valve/Steam could and should tell them that it's unnecessary as Steam itself is a very successful form of copy protection, so doubling and tripleing up on the DRM and including activations and such is completely and utterly fucking retarded. Absolutely nonsensical.

    Also, while I'm on the subject - not all games on Steam are up-to-date. Many are unpatched or haven't had the latest patch applied (I'm talking about patches that have been out for months, too). Kinda goes against their Unique Selling Point™, doesn't it?

  • HenryFitz #26 2 years ago

    My internet dies once a night at least, at the slightest provocation.

    Effectively, this will enshrine geographical and infrastructural discrimination as one of PC gaming's defining principles.

    And there will be no benefit to legitimate purchasers, either.

    A win-win situation, then.

  • mkreku #27 2 years ago

    If the game is a single player game, then there is just no reason for me to be online. Are they saying that if I buy a single player game from Ubisoft, then I must be online at all times.. to play.. in my loneliness..?

  • lavalant #28 2 years ago

    Better off pirating the game then.

  • Lord_Gremlin #29 2 years ago

    The idea of selling already sliced bread was a lot smarter. In short: this can't compete with Steam. Steam = same functions PLUS option to play offline.

  • Stoatboy #30 2 years ago

    Ubi's Anno 1404 was the first game I decided not to buy due to DRM (the 3 install limit was utterly ludicrous, and due to (admittedly rare) circumstances I'd have needed at least 5 installs since release to keep it available on my home and work PCs and my laptop).

    Now with this new system, I'm definitely not buying Silent Hunter 5, which is a shame because it was going to be the game I fed to my new home PC to give it a chance to show off. During the process of building my new PC, my BT Home Hub went a bit loopy, and I spent a couple of weeks with either unreliable internet, or none at all. Again, that's out of the ordinary, but you never know when things like this are going to happen.
    Edited by Stoatboy at 27/01/10 @ 17:05

  • sneetch #31 2 years ago

    Should be like Steam, where you have to sign on to activate the game but you can play off-line if you want unless something (significant) on the PC changes like hardware or OS. My Net connection failed recently for a night (end of the world stuff, I know!) but I could still play Steam games.

    Of course, as usual, the cracked version of these games will work fine.

  • dingo75 #32 2 years ago

    God soon you will need to be accompanied by a member of staff from these companies just to play a game.

    Dibs on Jade!
    Hah I won! :)
    The game can talk with Ubisoft's servers all day long while I play with her.
    Edited by dingo75 at 27/01/10 @ 17:19

  • jellyhead #33 2 years ago

    That's a Silent Hunter 5 deluxe sale lost. Good work, Ubi! Well done.

  • paketep #34 2 years ago

    Hey, Ubi's DRM is going to enrich me. I'm not going to give them a single euro after this, so I'll certainly be richer!

  • Shinetop #35 2 years ago

    That's a good defense, Ubi. Now excuse me while I'm not playing your games.

  • Miths #36 2 years ago

    I really hate how these companies keep finding new ways to harass the paying customers, without ever making much of a dent in piracy.

    Here it's Ubisoft, but EA seems to be making a mess of the Mass Effect 2 release at the moment if the official forums are anything to go by. There are many people in the US who purchased the game from the EA store or Direct2Drive, who are struggling with activation codes (the D2D version at least) or can't get past the activation date check the game file runs on the first launch - even here a day after the game was released in the US.
    Right now I'm using a cracked exe on the digital deluxe version I bought from the EA store. Granted, I shouldn't admittedly be able to play the game until Friday (assuming the European activation servers don't screw up as well), but it's just too tempting to have a game sitting there downloaded and installed but unplayable.

    Multiple layers of DRM and staggered release dates on not only boxed but also download versions. I'm guessing saved money isn't the only reason software pirates might be laughing.

  • gamingdave #37 2 years ago

    "Now with this new system, I'm definitely not buying Silent Hunter 5, which is a shame because it was going to be the game I fed to my new home PC to give it a chance to show off."

    Its not confirmed for SH5 yet, but the subsim forums are awash with complaints already.

    I had to download cracks to get SH4 to install properly on my laptop, and ended up buying SH3 from Steam, as my retail copy wouldnt install on Win7 thanks to Starforce. They really do need to make it so that if DRM is to be implemented, then its done without affecting the genuine consumer.

    Since getting my HTPC I have been ripping all my BluRays and DVD to me network. All as MKV with just the film, and best audio. No chapters, and no extras, but then when I start a film it starts instantly without a load of piracy warnings in different languages I cant skip. Those piracy warnings serve little puropse, as anyone selling bootlegs would delete them, and they arent on a version someone would download of the net. So its the same, the legit customer gets an inferior product.

    Of course, if it really does stop piracy (though I dont it will) by a large percentage, then its more money for the studios, which meens they are more likely to commision more games from the devs, and we as gamers see more of the games we want. It also meens that teh actual creators get more money.

    No one should argue in piracys favour, but there should be a limit too how much you inconvenience your customers in the goal of preventing it.

  • FooAtari #38 2 years ago

    The problem here is, all these solutions treat the paying customer like a criminal and ensure the pirate as a better experience. This approach is NEVER going to work.

    Im not yet sure what the solution is, but they need to find insentives that make paying for the game more appealing than pirating it...

  • Shakey_Jake33 #39 2 years ago

    How often is my laptop not connected to the internet? Any time I'm not at home. The point of my gaming laptop is that I'm not tied to the spot.

    This is quite possibly the most intrusive implementation of DRM thus far, regardless of how they try to spin it.

  • MaxiSleep #40 2 years ago

    @Bertie [staff]

    - do you ever travel?
    - Do you ever take a flight?
    - do you have a laptop?
    - Have you had an internet disconnect?
    - Have you heard of a games company going under?
    - Have you ever had a company not deliver on promissed features? (e.g. the promissed patch on ceasing servers)
    - Do you wonder about cloud secuity
    - Have you (for the love of god) heard of the god awfull clusterfuck when microsoft and TMobile lost users emails and contacts?


    If your answer to all the above is "no" I suggest you should remove yourself from the staff forthwith.

  • dacicus #41 2 years ago

    And me, who actually planned on buying Settlers 7. Oh well, Drakensang: River of Time will be released at about the same time, so I'll have the money to buy it at launch. Yes, Ubi, you can keep the game. Enjoy it at your studios.

  • Kerome #42 2 years ago

    It may have been better for them marketing-wise if they'd just said, we're going to stop making single-player / non-online games, since that is what this amounts to, but c'est la vie, eh, Ubisoft?

  • jellyhead #43 2 years ago

    I think it's so they can blame a lack of sales on Piracy rather than offensive DRM and a god-awful lack of patching for their shoddy, big-ridden games.

    Low sales = Piracy for these Muppets nowadays.

  • Rirekon #44 2 years ago

    face-palm

  • Chazmeister #45 2 years ago

    Wow that is a terrible idea and I just simply wouldn't buy a game or product that required a permanent internet connection to use it like that. As has been pointed out already there are so many things that could go wrong to make your game unavailable for you to play. Your internet connection goes down, UBI's servers go offline for maintenence or whatever, they have a problem with their servers and your saves accidentally get deleted, your account only has room for so many saves so you need to pay them a fee for extra space etc, etc ,etc..... I could see that all happening at some point.

    Added value my arse, I just don't know how these companies have the front to come out with such blatent bullshit sometimes. I think this whole digital ownership thing is starting to get out of hand. All this bull that you don't actually own the game, you're just buying a license for it of what ever, is getting ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned if I spend £30 on a game, then it becomes my property and I should be able to play it when I damn well please.

  • ChaK #46 2 years ago

    NO NO NO Ubi, all wrong.

  • LazyNinjaUk #47 2 years ago

    Is there some guy at Ubisoft who really has a bitter hatred of gamers?

    What with introducing Starforce which intentionally crippled peoples drives and now this. Admittedly it isn't a big shock considering Steam operates a similar service, but all these anti-piracy messures just seem to punish people who have bought the game for legitimate purposes, just as much as the pirates.

  • Xeopuppy #48 2 years ago

    I don't mind copy protection as long as it doesn't hinder me playing the game, most DRM's don't seem to be of a bother to me as all my 242 games on my PC are all originals.

    Only problem is if I want to play the game really badly and my internet is off for 3 days. (happened the other week, Luckly I wanted to play the Sims 3 which I didn't have to be online for.) Most of my games are on Steam and if it happens again (and it will) I won't be happy, but you just put up with it...
    Edited by Xeopuppy at 27/01/10 @ 18:30

  • Skinme #49 2 years ago

    Genius! Next thing you know, they'll be telling us what time we're allowed to play as well.

    "11am? You're suppose to be at work buddy! No play time for you."

  • Nithron #50 2 years ago

    My university network blocks UDP connections. This means this service will probably not work, and thus I can't play their games.

    What i'm trying to say is, this is fucking retarded.

  • AphoticCosmos #51 2 years ago

    Why not just team up with Valve to use Steam? Sounds like they just paid a lot of money for some external company to go away, sit down and say "Right, what we'll do, is we'll basically do what everyone else has done, but we'll probably implement it badly and in a way that punishes the consumer"

  • Ryuken #52 2 years ago

    "What's the fuss about? How many times was your PC not connected to the internet recently? Are we all getting worked up at the cheek of it rather than the practical use of it? "

    When even Steam and Games for Windows Live can't always maintain a proper online connection for most users all the time then what chance do you give Ubisoft succeeding in this? I can't count the number of times either Steam or Live dropped me out of games or in the case of Live messed up the profile saving. For executing a very vital function like saving games to an online location this is gonna be a nightmare. Steam and Live just connect for achievements/multiplayer but if you wish you can mostly keep on playing offline. PC is all about options and choosing how to play. Somehow it doesn't surprise me an EG staff member can't realise that anymore...

    Ubisoft stay completely out of touch as well: they kept using StarForce for all those years and even Securom/Tages. I just hope for everyone's sake they'll patch the DRM (which this is, period) out very soon. It's already bad enough that some companies try to permanently authenticate free DLC online which could potentially make your game unplayable with a bad connection/a fuckup by the publisher side (hello there, Dragon Age).

    Anyway, that ridiculous retail price for the PC version of Assassin's Creed II isn't gonna sweeten the deal here either. This is how you ruin your reputation on PC.
    Edited by Ryuken at 27/01/10 @ 19:07

  • Red-Moose #53 2 years ago

    Loads of crap as usual. If Microsoft are happy with a single product key and once off online activation, I don't see why game publishers can't hook into that. I never bought HL2 because of online activation, thinking back.

  • Silvervein #54 2 years ago

    I'd laugh at whoever took that decision at ubi, but what's the point. Trends such as this will die out on their own, for very obvious reasons.

    @bad09
    *I am starting to wonder how many "stealing" pirates actually do buy a game then torrent a DRM free version for ease of use. Ease of use and pirating seem to go hand in hand these days don't they, used to be the other way around and buying was the easier option...*

    I'm one of those people. I like my games clean and accessible. No third party programs I don't want, no mandatory behind the scenes checks, no internet connection (To play single player offline game!). At the same time I want to support people who make good games (in my case, last such title was king's bounty: armoured princess), so I do buy their games. But cracked exe really comes in handy in case of most western titles, like dawn of war 2. I like the game, but if I'd have to go on through all the extra stuff...

    @jellyhead
    *I think it's so they can blame a lack of sales on Piracy rather than offensive DRM and a god-awful lack of patching for their shoddy, big-ridden games. *

    Well, if they install a system that is supposed to prevent piracy, they can't really blame low sales on piracy, right? :) If they do, they will contradict themselves, since they did say that it will prevent piracy and enrich (them and not) customer experience.

  • sarcasmoidosis #55 2 years ago

    "Valve/Steam could and should tell them that it's unnecessary as Steam itself is a very successful form of copy protection, so doubling and tripleing up on the DRM and including activations and such is completely and utterly fucking retarded."

    Well, consider this. MW2 on PC had only Steam DRM. It got cracked before launch. So companies obviously choose to add their own DRM, so at least they know it's in their hands. Even if that DRM sucks big time, like Securom.

    As for the guys that are worried that the games won't be playable if Ubisoft goes bankrupt, two things:
    - Ubisoft probably won't go under for a while. Just Dance say so :)
    - I read somewhere that the "always online" requirement will get patched out a few months after release

    "added value", "enriches gaming" - God, how I hate PR. It's a from of anti-piracy, nothing more. It's risky, but if it will work (I think it will) it may bring millions to the company. Just think about it: 200k copies ~ 6 million euros

  • jellyhead #56 2 years ago

    Oh, i'm not going to keep banging on about it, no point. I'm going to vote with my wallet too and be more weary of Ubi in future. They'll have to knock my socks off for me to consider their games and i decided i would not buy a Ubisoft game at launch a long time ago. I wait to see if they bother patching them before i consider jumping in.
    I'll just wait longer before deciding if it's worth it after this announcement.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #57 2 years ago

    Is Assassin's Creed 2 going to be affected by this? I was considering buying it, but I'll probably reconsider now. This isn't a 'cut my nose off to spite my face' protest move, it's just that there's so many decent games coming out on the PC over the next few months (Mass effect 2, Aliens Vs, Predator, Blazblue, and Dead Rising 2 being the ones on my list), and I can't afford to buy them all. This would prompt me to go with something else.

  • Ravenger #58 2 years ago

    As I said in the thread in the forums, my internet service was dire recently due to oversubscription, meaning that I found it difficult to get online at all. GFWL and Steam would take ages to log in and then disconnect randomly. I couldn't play any multiplayer games so I had to fall back on single player games with no internet requirements. Under Ubisoft's system I wouldn't have been able to play any games at all. At least with Steam I can play my single player games in offline mode.

  • Hunam #59 2 years ago

    @Bertie.

    Picture this. It's throwing it down out side, you have nothing to do. You sit on the internet and oh fuck! You ISP goes down. Phew, at least you can play Settlers 7 to pass the time till the net is fixed. Oh wait. Plus laptops on trains/cars/planes don't always have wifi. How about our friends in the armed forces? There is a whole bunch of people who like to play video games but don't have a reliable internet connection.

  • Darren #60 2 years ago

    The danger of a game requiring a permanent internet connection is that here in the UK anyway that isn't always guaranteed. How annoying would it be if a game quit just because your ISP goes offline for maintenance as mine sometimes does, usually on a weekend? :/

    Put it this way, I'd think twice about buying an Ubisoft game that required such a connection unless I could be sure of getting a NoDVD hack from somewhere.

  • kentmonkey #61 2 years ago

    "our goal is to deliver the best gaming experience to our customers".

    If that is the case, I expect this new form of DRM to stop your games from tearing like a marrow up the arse.
    Edited by kentmonkey at 27/01/10 @ 20:27

  • Mikeuk_3 #62 2 years ago

    I'd rather buy a game that's got GFWL in, and that'll only happen on a cold day in hell...
    Ubisoft and I part ways here.

  • immateriaux #63 2 years ago

    Would not buy a game that required a constant Internet connection. It's a restriction on fair play for a start but I expect it unlikely to be unproblematic. For example, Dragon Age crashed on me constantly for the first few weeks after buying. By trial and error I discovered the problem lay with being logged in to a Bioware account. As soon as I chose to say logged out always, I got crash free gaming.

  • Lamb #64 2 years ago

    Last summer I went and bought Ubisoft's Anno 1404 from Game for £30 even after the pirated version came out. I installed it on my high end laptop and after 5 minutes it would crash to windows and not just a ordinary crash it took ten minutes to recover windows each time plus it knocked out my antivirus completely and had to completely reinstall that, another fifteen minutes.

    I went on their forum to ask for a patch to play the game on my less than one year old laptop but they didn't even have a dedicated forum except on their Dutch site which was partially in English. After waiting for about two months I just went ahead and got the pirated version and guess what it worked because it didn't have tages. Although it did crash occasionally after it got too hot this would be after an hour not five minutes.

    I think PC gaming these days is a load of bullocks. Everything should run at 60fps even on the highest settings but even the most high end graphics cards don't manage it or get damaged due to heat issues. Plus incompetent programming blamed on everyones computer being so different requires even higher system specs, or the game is simply not up to par. NO THANK YOU!!!!!

    If I buy another computer game it will be several years older than my system so I can really enjoy it. Until then I will stick to optimized versions of games for the PS3 or 360. At least with a PS3 or 360 I don't have to shell out two grand to get a new system.
    Edited by Lamb at 27/01/10 @ 20:56

  • Shikasama #65 2 years ago

    Not buying an Ubisoft game again.

    I wonder how long until this makes its way to consoles. With the current trend of having to pay extra to download half of your game anyway it cant be too far off

  • curtlikesmeat #66 2 years ago

    It's just punishing legitimate customers. People WILL find a way around this whereas me, the person who pays, will have to sift through all the bullshit. It's like with films, the only people that see those piracy adverts are the ones who actually bought it. If anything in encourages piracy.

  • bad09 #67 2 years ago

    @Shakey_Jake33

    Christ I'd forgot about AC2, god I hope this is not on it, I really want AC2 on PC but if it is crippled with this I'll buy a retail copy and just torrent a clean game (wow only back on PC since August and DRM has me pirating already!). One off activation or a set amount of installs/ machines that I can recoup when I uninstall is fine (well it's not but I put up with it) but making you stay online just to play a game is a no for me. Sorry Ubi...

  • Synthesis #68 2 years ago

    They don't want to stop piracy they want to stop the second hand market.

    They lose far more money to the second hand market than they do from piracy and it's not even a close comparison to be honest.

    Most people downloading games do not have any intention of paying for them. The money 'lost' here is minimal, since they weren't exactly going to receive it anyway.

    Every single person that buys a second hand game obviously has the money and the desire to purchase games. The money 'lost' here is substantial and grows every time the same game changes hands.

    Edited by Synthesis at 27/01/10 @ 22:21

  • the_mtfr #69 2 years ago

    Consider this, man in suit at Ubisoft: for some very possible reason my internet is down. What do you do when the internet is down? You go to your shelf of game boxes, choose one and play until the internet is back on. But guess what, man in suit at Ubisoft...

    After reading this news item I waited a few hours to be able to give a calm and collected reply here. I managed so far but I still want to hit the man in the suit at Ubisoft in the mouth again, and again, and again, and again, and...

    What about people whose internet subscriptions have a transfer limit per month? What about people from poor countries that have some shitty dial-up, if that?

    When the man in suit at Ubisoft said that almost everybody has an internet connection, what "every" did he mean? Every one of his friends? Does he know that there are other countries on this fucking planet other than France and US?

    Doesn't this Ubisoft statement sound like plain insanity? I mean, since 99% of the replies here tell them to get bent...
    Edited by the_mtfr at 27/01/10 @ 22:48

  • Shakey_Jake33 #70 2 years ago

    @Synthesis - In fairness though, with regards to the complaints that we have about this, the fact that this is more likely to be trying to combat the second hand market with this is somewhat irrelevent - we're still going to have to jump through hoops to play a game, be expected to have an internet connection at all times etc.

  • IneptPercy #71 2 years ago

    "At least with a PS3 or 360 I don't have to shell out two grand to get a new system. "

    If you look anywhere but the alienware site you will find you don't have too.

  • TurboBailey #72 2 years ago

    This is such a shame. They are helping to kill the PC gaming industry.
    Why do they assume that everyone who has a pc pirates games! its unfair on the genuine users.

  • Melan #73 2 years ago

    If a game is good ill buy it. But my perceived value of games with harsh DRM schemes is a lot lower than it would be of a game i could play and install as i see fit. These DRM schemes are in practice a "rental" as long as their servers runs. Therefore I am not willing to shell out the full price these game. Ill buy them when they are out on sale on steam/direct2drive or in a brick and mortar shop.

  • SixFootHalfling #74 2 years ago

    "My university network blocks UDP connections. This means this service will probably not work, and thus I can't play their games.

    What i'm trying to say is, this is fucking retarded. "

    My uni is less restrictive - I have probably a 50/50 chance of this working - 50% of live works, and 50% of pc stuff works
    Now should I gamble £30+ on whether it will work or not?

    Tbh if there's a must have game, I'll buy it, then download a crack, probably 2 or 3 days before release, rather than use this shit even when i get home
    Edited by SixFootHalfling at 28/01/10 @ 00:41

  • SixFootHalfling #75 2 years ago

    "I installed it on my high end laptop "

    Theres your problem - Laptops are not made to play games

    FFS my grpahics card draws power than most laptops - and generates around 60C even with a big cooler on it

    "At least with a PS3 or 360 I don't have to shell out two grand to get a new system."

    Self built a £500 system 2 1/2 years ago, since then ive added £120 for a graphics card (4870), I can run any games save crysis 1920*1200, high / very high detail and 2/4/8x AA, so a higher res, better quality image, for 1/4 the price you state

  • Vordred #76 2 years ago

    whats with all the crap about "gameplay advantages " how does some anti piracy thing make the gameplay better?

    hate it when the PR talks total and utter crap. reminds me of those TV shopping channels where they try and think up 101 ways you could possibly use it but never would to make the thing sound better than it really.

  • brod #77 2 years ago

    DRM. DOES. NOT. STOP. PIRACY.

  • brod #78 2 years ago

    @Melan
    "These DRM schemes are in practice a "rental" as long as their servers runs. Therefore I am not willing to shell out the full price these game. Ill buy them when they are out on sale on steam/direct2drive or in a brick and mortar shop."

    It surprises me that you say you don't want to buy at full price because you don't truly own the game, then mention steam and direct2drive in the next sentence. Those services restrict you so much that they can't even be called a rental, simply because you cannot resell a game after you've bought it.

    This is the only reason I continue to buy boxed games, but it's a big one for me.

    I've seen so many people I know have hundreds of games they've bought on Steam that never get used..such a waste of money.
    Edited by brod at 28/01/10 @ 01:33

  • TheTingler #79 2 years ago

    I really, really hope this system isn't in place with Assassin's Creed II, which despite the higher price point I was going to buy (and looking forward to).

    It's stupid to say "I'm going to boycott Ubisoft products using this" as some really truly extraordinary products might change my mind (incidentally not including Settlers or that upcoming "new" Prince of Persia) the same way Half-Life 2 forced me to get Steam.

    I want to buy games on PC, as I prefer playing my games on PC. I even got the GFWL version of Batman: Arkham Asylum (which incidentally stopped being supported almost immediately and didn't get the last DLC packs). What I'm saying is: if I'm prepared to complain bitterly about Games For Windows Live and Steam and yet still buy games with them included, and say I won't buy Ubisoft games with this new DRM included, that really truly is saying something.

  • polymorph #80 2 years ago

    Yeah good call UBISOFT, so the torrent that will probably be availible a couple of days before the official release will work better than the legit payed for game..BRAVO.

    IDIOTS.

  • FortysixterUK #81 2 years ago

    ....but ...what if your connection goes down...or you don't have regular access to a connection....or maybe don't even have a connection....ummmmmmmmmm

    ( **The Ubisoft brain box slowly raises finger to eye and starts repeatedly jabbing....trying to get the brain working with a push start**)

    Of course, having said that, isn't this somewhat similar to what EA are going to be doing with the new C&C game ?

    Jeezus....way to promote pirated software guys. ( which will work, will be no hassle, and cost nothing )

  • dacicus #82 2 years ago

    citiesxl.com/content/view/3493/134/?lang=en


    Monte Cristo already experimented what Ubi is trying to do, but they were smart enough to have an offline Single Player component " just in case " . As you can see, at the bitter end, the developer/publisher admitted defeat. And the game was a city builder.

    If that kind of protection would be on the Tom Clancy's series, Assassin Creed series or POP series, Ubi might get some sales until the word about the protection gets out. But that kind of protection on more hardcore games (Anno series, Settlers series and even Might and Magic Series) it's pure suicide. Waiting for EA to make a new attempt to buy Ubi (as they've already tried a few years ago a hostile takeover) and the French and Canadian governments not to get involved in protecting Ubi.

    Some people never learn their lesson...
    Edited by dacicus at 28/01/10 @ 07:39

  • Sunyavadin #83 2 years ago

    Well, that's a 100% confirmation of me pirating a copy of every PC title of theirs that I buy from now on in order to enhance my experience and the quality of the product.
    Edited by Sunyavadin at 28/01/10 @ 08:35

  • LiveForever #84 2 years ago

    Another Nail in the coffen for Ubisoft.

  • Mellissa #85 2 years ago

    And Bertie too.
    I doubt after that comment we'll be seing many posts under that user name again. I wouldn't dare if I was him lol

    .

  • Macdory #86 2 years ago

    I personally was all set to buy Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock 2, but having read about the DRM, etc I have cancelled my orders - this is a genuine lost sale for teh companies, not the make believe ones associated with pirates.

    Given all of teh crap DRM and limitations on legit copies, it is no wonder more and more people are turning to "evaluation" copies without all of the hoops to jump through and the crippleware.

    The lunatics have taken over the assylum.

    When you start putting in place systems that legit customers do not want to limit the minority that cause you problems then you have obviously got your priorities mixed up. Why not focus on what you can add to the consumer by having a legit copy, rather than what you will take away?

  • Maledictus010 #87 2 years ago

    It's interesting to me to see how the last few years in DRM development have influenced my gaming and purchases. I've effectively stopped buying any of the new games that have (invasive/phone home) DRM and have turned to indies, and i'm mostly buying older games that i haven't played yet (stuff from more than 5 years back). Also, i've bought a fresh playstation2 and have one in reserve to make sure i'll be able to play the PS2 games in my extensive library for years to come. It's a joy to play PS2 nowadays. You insert the disk and you can play the game. It's almost a novelty again.
    I also feel anger when i read this sort of stuff. When i buy a game it's mine and i should be able to play whenever i want. It should not be possible for someone else to determine that i can't play my game any more. I'm still playing games that are more than 10 years old, and why not? I payed for them.
    This is wrong in so many ways.
    We can only hope that Ubi gets punished with bad sales for something like this, but this will get much worse before it gets better.
    Edited by Maledictus010 at 28/01/10 @ 10:30

  • actionfitz #88 2 years ago

    Considering this is now a Games RENTAL situation... they better fucking offer pricing that reflects that.
    If you sell me something it's MINE.
    If you pull shit like online only single player games, I am leasing the privilege of game time from you.
    release these games at full price at your peril Ubisoft.
    :/

  • kangarootoo #89 2 years ago

    Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating a previous pov.

    Seems to me this system can imrpove the experience in all sorts of ways.... unless your internet connection isn't available, and then it obviously breaks the experience completely and utterly.

    Sounds like a bit of a gamble to me, which I'm sure is no revelation.

    If my internet connection was guranteed, I'd probably say it was a good thing. I know that being able to store my console saves online would be a handy feature if I move my gaming time between home and work.


    I also concede in a more general sense that publishers are only having to look at all these options because they are desperate to curb the piracy that is killing PC gaming. I know that legit PC gamers are outraged when things like this happen, but its the pirates that should really be the target of your rage. One alternative for a publisher is to pull out of PC game dev and stick to consoles, but I'm sure most would agree that would be worse for PC gaming than moves like this.

  • kangarootoo #90 2 years ago

    @Nithron

    "My university network blocks UDP connections. This means this service will probably not work, and thus I can't play their games.

    What i'm trying to say is, this is fucking retarded."

    I think that is a bit of a specific case, and not so cut and dry. It could be suggested that fault lies with your university for not providing you with a fully functional internet service. Do you pay them for it?

  • Rubarack #91 2 years ago

    There's something kind of reassuring about DRM so draconian it removes all possibility of playing the game legitly. With Crysis Warhead I felt like maybe I was missing out by not buying it, bad as Securom was it was still a judgment call. This is nice and simple my Internet is nowhere near stable enough for this to work even if I was prepared to accept them shutting down the servers in a couple of years.

  • kangarootoo #92 2 years ago

    @Rubarack

    Just a thought. Why don't you pay for an internet service that actually works?

  • jellyhead #93 2 years ago

    Kangarootoo, many universities tie down ports on student residences and open access centres to try to stem the flood of viruses and malware the students manage to mess themselves up with. Ubi apparently say that if you can use a browser the game will authenticate, we'll just have to wait and see if that's not bullpuckey from them.

  • kangarootoo #94 2 years ago

    @jellyhead

    I thought students were supposed to be smart? ;)

    When I was at Uni, there wasn't so much as a phone line in your first year halls of residence (or whatever it is called these days). If you wanted internet, you caught a bus and went to a uni building. AND the internet was rubbish was you got there. Grumble.

  • Nithron #95 2 years ago

    You make a fair point, yes. My university does not have to block UDP connections. It also stops Xbox Live from working.

    However, there is nothing I can do about this save not living on campus. It seems a bit much, therefore, to say that I should change where I live specifically so I can play a company's games.

    The problem is not that it specifically will not work for me. The problem is that this new system Ubisoft are proposing will cause a shitload more problems, but only for people legitimately purchasing the game. It'll still be copied. So who's actually getting anything out of this? A bunch of people, and it'll be a minority, presumably, will get screwed over, and there isn't even a benefit to it all.

    That's why it's retarded.

  • Macdory #96 2 years ago

    The debate surely comes down to a couple of simple questions:

    Will this DRM make people who would have otherwise pirated the game buy it; or

    Will this DRM make people who would have otherwise bought the game pirate it?

  • kristo #97 2 years ago

    I love how the biggest bullshit is dressed up as noble intentions. In fact, the worse something is, the better they will make it sound. As far as I can see, there is ZERO benefit for the consumer. If there is nothing in it for me and you are trying to sell me a product inferior to your competitors, well, no money. Simple.

    Honestly, if the value is in the product, people will pay for it. People by default are not thieves. Even if it is easy.

    And anyways, yes, people will pirate no mater what. It doesn't help that quite a few games come out with no demos beforehand (it used to be the rule that pretty much every game had a demo). Sure, demos now are sold as "non representative of the final product" or just not released at all. I am usually suspicious of a lack of demos. Then, no demo, major hype then the games turn out flaccid. There is only so much of that people can take. So they sample however they can. And it can be very likely that in sampling, they just go, meh, and move on. That looks like a person pirating, but in fact, they never would have bought it given the knowledge they now have.

    Got sidetracked there. In short, fuck Ubisofts lame DRM, it does nothing for me.

  • kangarootoo #98 2 years ago

    @Nithron

    "more problems, but only for people legitimately purchasing the game"

    This is often true. I agree that even in this case, someone will eventually crack the game into believing that it is talking to an online server when in fact it is just talking to some other bit of code running on the local system (or into not caring whether it is talking to anything).

    I'm really not sure what the solution is. If this new approach means that the game stays secure even for one extra week after laucnh day, it will probably have earned its keep. Pre-launch piracy is such a problem on the PC that publishers simply HAVE to try. They may not get it right all the time, but doing nothing is just not an option if they want to stay in the PC game business.

    I say again, its a massive pain in the arse, but it would surely be worse to have no choice at all as to whether you buy a PC game? Even pirates would be disappointed in the end if Ubi pulled out of PC game development.


    Analogy time (its a bit of a silly one, but bear with me).

    You live in a shared student house. The house gets burgled. So you fit more locks to the front door. This makes getting in at night more of a faff for everyone living there as they have to dick about with even more keys. A week later someone kicks the door in, so you fit another lock that asks you to remember a code. A week later someone breaks the door down with a ram, so you fit yet another lock that scans your retina.

    Now everyone in the house agrees this is becoming tiresome, when all they want to do is walk in their front door. But what are the alternatives? Leave the front door open (easier for everyone living there, but easier too for the burglar), or move house, or just persist with fitting locks in the hope that the result will at least be that you only get burgled monthly instead of weekly?

    And who do you gripe at? The housemate that is fitting the locks, or the cocking burglar making everyone's life a pain.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 28/01/10 @ 15:15

  • kangarootoo #99 2 years ago

    @kristo

    "As far as I can see, there is ZERO benefit for the consumer"

    The benefit is that they might still be able to buy Ubisoft PC games in 5 years time.

  • Lamb #100 2 years ago

    "The benefit is that they might still be able to buy Ubisoft PC games in 5 years time."

    @ kangarootoo

    Unfortunately thats not a benefit when the game doesn't work, doesn't work at full resolution, or doesn't live up to the hype.
    Edited by Lamb at 28/01/10 @ 16:14

  • MaxiSleep #101 2 years ago


    And who do you gripe at? The housemate that is fitting the locks, or the cocking burglar making everyone's life a pain.

    But the burglur is actually stealing from the landlords house.....

  • kangarootoo #102 2 years ago

    @Lamb

    True, but I think those are different subjects. A rubbish game with good DRM is still rubbish, and a good game with bad DRM is still a good game... its just stuck in a bad situation.


    @MaxiSleep

    Does that matter? Its not the landlord's TV that is getting nicked. I don't want to get buried in trying to logically balance my daft analogy, but I'm missing your point somewhat. Or is this one of those moments where we start passionately discussing burglary abd forget all about DRM? :)

  • Dynamize #103 2 years ago

    The benefit is that they might still be able to buy Ubisoft PC games in 5 years time.

    Unless DRM opt-out/protest affects sales to such a degree that PC porting or platform-specific games are abandoned anyway.
    "Good news, we beat the disease! We, uh, killed the patient too but them's the breaks."

    Tricky situation. Perhaps we'll see what's what sales-wise when Ubi rolls out the games with this stuff. Personally, I'm very disappointed that I won't be picking up Silent Hunter V if it has this. Principle, stupidity, irrational, whatever your take on it, it's still a lost sale; customers can be tricky beasts to manage.

  • Tangled #104 2 years ago

    "The benefit is that they might still be able to buy Ubisoft PC games in 5 years time."

    That is more of a blackmail than a benefit. Can't blame you though, both start with a 'b'.

    Having read the article, it doesn't sound like a big change from what we already have - it's like Steam without the offline mode. Personally I prefer it to cd-checks of all kinds, but I just love how every time a company speaks about DRM they portray it as added value.

    Also, I'm really curious as to what publishers are trying to achieve with these kinds of DRM. It won't stop a pirated version from appearing, probably not even zero day. It looks like it's targeted at preventing casual copying of the game, but this ain't the early 90's, and people just torrent games, not copy them. I just don't see the point - I have 20 years of gaming under my belt and I haven't seen one sale of a single-player game generated because of copy-protection. (arguably, I did for multiplayer games) Do you have other experiences?
    Edited by Tangled at 29/01/10 @ 01:27

  • kangarootoo #105 2 years ago

    @Tangled

    It not blackmail, its just the reality of the thing. If Ubi do nothing to protect their products against piracy, they will just end up pulling out of PC game development. How one earth is that blackmail?



    "I have 20 years of gaming under my belt and I haven't seen one sale of a single-player game generated because of copy-protection"

    I have 30 years of gaming under my belt, and I am baffled as to how you might measure such a thing with any kind of reliability. I would honestly struggle to say either way from my own personal experience, and I suggest you would too. However, if publishers that have been around longer than either of us spend millions on this sort of stuff, I am willing to believe that they might just know why.


    "It won't stop a pirated version from appearing, probably not even zero day"

    If you add eventually to the first part of that sentence, I would agree. The second part of the sentence is just supposition, as suggested by the word probably.


    I need to make clear, I'm not supporting poorly implemented DRM at all. I just think it is deeply naive to create this "them and us" atmosphere, with the publishers being "them". It as if some people really do believe the main reason publishers do this kind of thing is to annoy their customers. Seriously, where is the motive? WHY would they do that unless they felt it was necessary evil over which they had no real choice if they want to stay in business?

    Publishers are doing DRM because it is all they have as a defence against piracy. The "them" we should be annoyed with is the pirates. Its their fault all this shit gets suffered by genuine customers.


    Large publishers really do just have two choices. Put DRM in place as a desperate attempt to protect the millions they have invested in top flight titles even though it annoys the shit out of people, or stop making PC games altogether and focus on consoles (where the protection is built in). Again I say, what would PC gamers prefer they do?

  • Tangled #106 2 years ago

    "How one earth is that blackmail?"

    It reminded me of a spoof ad with "Buy our game or the dog gets it" I once saw. If a publisher said the things you say - "please ignore our more intrusive DRM, we'll go out of business if we don't do it", how on earth would that not be blackmail?

    "I have 30 years of gaming under my belt, and I am baffled as to how you might measure such a thing with any kind of reliability. "

    I think you misunderstood me. I was talking anecdotal evidence from the circle of people I know and used to know. I'm sure I would learn when they bought a game because they couldn't pirate it (as I said, arguably it happened for a few cases of multiplayer games).

    "If you add eventually to the first part of that sentence, I would agree. The second part of the sentence is just supposition, as suggested by the word probably."

    Yours is just supposition either ;) I'm assuming most games are pirated before the launch. Once some reviewer or a guy in the DVD pressing plant leaks the contents of the disks, it's game over shortly.
    I haven't done any research on it, so I only base it on the cases I know: Crysis, Sims 3, Spore were all on the internet before launch. Half-Life 2, which used DRM that was considered intrusive at that time (wasn't it the very first single player game requiring online activation?) was pirated at 8-11 hours after launch, but I think it was a success - the game was in stores before it was on warez sites. I'd be curious to learn about more games that resisted cracking attempts.

    You assume that there is a correlation between DRM intrusiveness and how hard it's to crack. I don't buy it. A need to login is as hard to bypass whether it asks for your cd-key, fingerprint, or DNA of your parents. Of course, I don't know the details, so there might be some reason why this measure would be harder to crack than others, but I'll dismiss it, based on the poor track record of DRM so far. This leaves a question similar to yours: "If it won't prevent cracking, how do they expect it to boost sales?". As I wrote earlier, it screams "casual copying", something people don't do here since a few years, so I'm baffled.
    Edited by Tangled at 29/01/10 @ 11:56

  • kangarootoo #107 2 years ago

    "how on earth would that not be blackmail?"

    Because blackmail involves the extortion of money. At no point during any of this DRM highjinks is your choice as a consumer to simply not buy the product affected in any way whatsoever. There is no extortion, of anything, at any time (some pirates whinge about how they are FORCED to pirate a game by poor DRM, but they are infantile).


    "I was talking anecdotal evidence from the circle of people I know and used to know"

    Well that was kind of my point. Anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper its written on. It is extremely limited in range, extremely limited in subject variance, and highly susceptible to distortion.


    "Yours is just supposition either"

    This is true, but I though I covered that by essentially saying "I don't know, my own personal experience is as unreliable as yours, but I observe a pattern of behaviour by large publishers that perhaps DO know more reliably than we two".


    Your examples of Crysis and HL2, and the relative effectiveness of their DRM are all great examples. Sometimes it works for a little bit, and sometimes is doesn't work at all. Bear in mind though that a game being cracked and put on the net is still not as open as a game that could be copied in any DVD writer in any personal computer. Imagine how rife piracy would be if copying games was as easy as that.


    "You assume that there is a correlation between DRM intrusiveness and how hard it's to crack"

    Not at all. I'm not even sure what I wrote that might suggest that. Besides, I am talking high principle here. I'm sure many publishers know DRM is a pain, and that it is frequently ineffective, and that it is costing them sales.... but their only alternatives as I keep saying are to remove copy protection (which WOULD cost them more in the end), or leave PC game development.

    They are fighting a losing battle I agree, but DRM is the text book definition of the lesser of a bunch of evils for AAA high budget titles.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 29/01/10 @ 12:45

  • Rubarack #108 2 years ago

    Not true, this kind of repellent DRM is still far from ubiquitous and games are still making money without it. You could say that this DRM is the only alternative to middling expensive to produce games with limited appeal disappearing but I'm not sure that falls under the "lesser" part of lesser of two evils. Even then that relies on the idea that these protection systems result in a net benefit for the company employing them which is seldom the case.

    The "Them and use" mentality comes about because companies are choosing to inflict this on their customers for very marginal and often negative benefits to their bottom line. Furthermore they are not making even the least concessions once the protection has failed. If the limits on all games were lifted 6 months after release then I imagine few would have reason to gripe about these issues. Since this seems to be too much work for publishers their reputation as oppressors continues to blossom.

  • kangarootoo #109 2 years ago

    @Rubarack

    "Not true, this kind of repellent DRM is still far from ubiquitous and games are still making money without it."

    Examples? Anyway, "making money" is not always enough. A game has to amke enough money, or its not worth bothering with. breaking even is no mark of success for any business.

    If we assume that games are produced out of a sense of charity toward gamers, breaking even might cut it. But of course they aren't. Piracy affects publisher's profits, and like any business with an ounce of sense, they want to protect their profits. Nothing wrong with that. If pirates didn't pinch their product, they wouldn't have to try and protect it in the way they do, so legit PC gamers could enjoy their games AND their profits would be intact.


    "You could say that this DRM is the only alternative to middling expensive to produce games with limited appeal disappearing but I'm not sure that falls under the "lesser" part of lesser of two evils."

    What makes you think that only middling games with limited appeal suffer from the effects of piracy? Was Crysis not an example of a game hit very hard by piracy?


    "Even then that relies on the idea that these protection systems result in a net benefit for the company employing them which is seldom the case."

    If there is no net benefit for the company employing them... why on earth do they employ them?


    "Since this seems to be too much work for publishers their reputation as oppressors continues to blossom"


    You see, this is the kind of attitude I find it hard to stomach. They aren't bloody well oppressing anyone. If they make a product that you don't like, you have every right not to buy it. Please explain to me how that is oppression? This is I'm sorry to say the infantile aspect of this subject - people acting as if they are being oppressed if they don't get everything on their own terms. Even using the word oppression in this context is frankly ludicrous.

    If Ubisoft, like many before them, end up saying "balls to this, we aren't making PC games anymore", will that free the masses from the oppression of choice? Seriously.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 29/01/10 @ 14:09

  • jellyhead #110 2 years ago

    I can see your point Kangarootoo but if a publisher puts out a product with features i don't want or like then i am under no compulsion to buy their goods and I refuse to feel bad about that.

    I might buy SH5 at a later date but i'm certainly not going for a launch day purchase or pre-order on any Ubi games from now on, i'm going to wait and see what if any issues arise and then decide. It's the constant internet connection requirement and a lack of an offline mode that are unsuitable for me and my gaming. Mutate it into a more Steamlike service and it'll only be my lack of faith in Ubisoft's Q&A and Patching departments that will put me off any games of theirs i'm looking at buying.

  • Tangled #111 2 years ago

    "Because blackmail involves the extortion of money."

    If we want to be accurate, blackmail doesn't need to involve money, but it should involve revealing of some unknown information. So you have me here, it's not blackmail per se. But the way you phrase your argument reminds me of it: "This (using this DRM) is good, because otherwise something very, very bad will happen (closure of company)." They aren't saying something like that, they're saying that "implementing this will allow us to make better and more games", which I suspect is PRese for "we think it will improve our profits" (and I don't mean this negatively). And the list of options you offer is not complete - apart from consoles (which also have piracy) and going bust, they could also become a smaller company and sell things without DRM - it works for some people - adopt a different business model, and probably a few others.

    "Anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper its written on."

    It's still better than saying that if the companies are doing it, then it must work. Nobody is immune to being stupid and wrong choices. Especially given the matter is difficult to study - asking "how many sales did our copy-protection generate" is a purely what-if scenario. I only know of one attempt to estimate the amount of sales gained due to DRM, done by 2DBoy with World of Goo (it concluded DRM had a negligible effect, but since I have nothing to compare it too, I wouldn't trust it that much).
    If you have more serious evidence, or anecdotal evidence to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.

    "Bear in mind though that a game being cracked and put on the net is still not as open as a game that could be copied in any DVD writer in any personal computer. Imagine how rife piracy would be if copying games was as easy as that."

    That's the point - in the circle of people I know, it wouldn't affect piracy at all. There would be 0, null, nada more games pirated if they all came with no DRM. As it stands now, pirated games can be copied freely. And if for some reason the game owner has an original version, then just download the game when you come home. Now, I'm curious: is it different in other places? Tell me.

    If you want to see examples of copy-protection that was successful at resisting cracking, look no further than the infamous Starforce. According to Wikipedia, Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory resisted for 422 days. Quite an accomplishment over the meager 10 hours of Half-Life 2.
    Edited by Tangled at 29/01/10 @ 14:24

  • Tangled #112 2 years ago

    I don't know if the rest of the post was snipped because it hit the limit or I used sharp brackets, but I can see I'm a graphomaniac :D Here's the second part and I'll back to quipping short jokes now.

    " "You assume that there is a correlation between DRM intrusiveness and how hard it's to crack"

    Not at all. I'm not even sure what I wrote that might suggest that."

    Fair enough. It's just that here we are, in a comments section to an article about how Ubi will implement a more intrusive DRM than they already use, and you're saying that it's benefit is that will decrease pirated sales. You then addressed my assumption it won't stop games from being cracked and not the casual copying one. So, if you don't see a connection, then why do you think this DRM will generate more sales than the ones they used so far?

    "(...) DRM is the text book definition of the lesser of a bunch of evils for AAA high budget titles."

    This textbook must clearly be standing between Nostradamus and The End Of History on the shelf. Anyway, did anybody try selling AAA titles with no DRM in the last 15 years?

  • samadriel #113 2 years ago

    If Splinter Cell 5 has this DRM, I won't buy the game until a crack is released. If the DRM proves difficult to crack, then SC5 will be in a bargain bin by then. So, the more 'successful' this DRM is, the less money Ubisoft will get from me.

  • kangarootoo #114 2 years ago

    @jellyhead

    I'm saying anyone should be happy with this sort of DRM, all I've always been saying that its not as clear cut as acting like there is no reason for it and that publishers should just not bother and that if they do bother they are source of all evil. I say for umpteenth time, if pirates didn't pinch games, this sort of clumsy DRM would not exist. Publishers are choosing from a limited set of rubbish options to protect their business.


    @Tangled

    "It's still better than saying that if the companies are doing it, then it must work. Nobody is immune to being stupid and wrong choices."

    I'm sure I've not stated anything as known fact (well perhaps descriptively, but not explicitly). I'm just saying that your or my own limited anecdotal experience is very unreliable, and that if many businesses are doing something there is perhaps a good reason that is just that immediately apparent to us.

    It is true that no one is immune from making wrong choices, but in the case of Ubi we are looking at a very successful company that has a history of (on the whole) making good choices. Why in this case would we act as if they were some idiot machine with no prior history of being very good at what they do? If they are wrong on this one, why aren't they so blatently aware of that in the way that we the EG commentors are? Why aren't they reading this thread and slapping their foreheads whilst exclaiming "Of course, its obvious, how come not one of our employees saw that?".

    World of Goo was an interesting experiement, but its not a completely reliable comparison as it was a small scale title. The asking price was already quite low, and there was the usual sense of "helping the little guy" in the community regarding sales of that game. Indeed, the "corporate cock nuts" attitude that many have toward Ubi, EA and so on makes comparisons even tougher to make. World of Goo is seen as the goods guy, which will skew the numbers by one degree or another, whereas Ubi are seen as bad guys, which throws the numbers off in the other direction (even if all else was equal, which is obviously isn't).

    Of course I can only suppose as much as anyone, but I'm happy to do just that. It is when people make firm statements of apparent fact that I puy my devil's advocate bonnet on.


    "So, if you don't see a connection, then why do you think this DRM will generate more sales than the ones they used so far"

    I don't particularly. Its never really been about this DRM solution compared to any other. Its far more about the attitude of people toward DRM in general and toward Ubi in their use of it. I say yet again that I'm not saying this DRM is good, I just think people should look at the whole picture and really wonder what choices Ubi really have, and whether they are really as to blame as many seem to think they are. They are just trying to protect their profits, and terrible a word as "profits" seem to be in the eyes of many, profit is the reason that any of us have the number of high quality games to play that we do. If profits aren't protected, the industry as a whole will suffer in the end, and that includes us as customers.


    I like playing games. I don't mind paying for them. I would prefer to be able to play them without any DRM solutions getting in my face, but I realise they only exist because there are people that also enjoy playing games but DO mind paying for them. it is really that simple in my eyes.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 29/01/10 @ 15:12

  • thelzdking #115 2 years ago

    @Bertie:

    When my internet goes down, which happens about four or five times a night, every night. Stunningly moronic thing you said on the first page, there

    As for Ubisoft, I think a boycott is in order.

  • FooAtari #116 2 years ago

    Maybe BT or your ISP should be looking into that.

    I'd be pretty unhappy paying for an internet connection that unstable.