Ubisoft DRM was "attacked" at weekend

By Tom Bramwell Published 8 March, 2010

"95 per cent of players were not affected."

Ubisoft has blamed problems with its controversial digital rights management solution for PC games on outside attacks.

The publisher told Eurogamer that very few players were unable to access PC versions of Assassin's Creed II and Silent Hunter 5 yesterday due to the outage, but apologised to those who did experience problems.

"Ubisoft would like to apologise to anyone who could not play ACII or SH5 yesterday," the company said in a statement this afternoon.

"Servers were attacked and while the servers did not go down, service was limited from 2.30pm to 9pm Paris time [1.30pm - 8pm GMT].

"95 per cent of players were not affected, but a small group of players attempting to open a game session did receive denial of service errors.

"All players with an open session during the attack were not affected.

"We also confirm that, at this time, no valid cracked version of either Silent Hunter 5 or Assassin’s Creed II are available."

Ubisoft's DRM system requires players to be online at all times while playing PC versions of its games.

There are benefits to the service - cloud storage of save-games, the ability to install and play from multiple locations - but the publisher has come under fire from PC gamers who resent the security measures and worry about being booted out of software they paid for if the internet goes down.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (92) 2 years ago

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

  • Diogo_Ribeiro #1 2 years ago

    SH5 has been thoroughly cracked. Of course it would be bad rep to admit otherwise.

  • thedaveeyres #2 2 years ago

    "...and worry about being das booted out of software they paid for if the internet goes down"

    Fixed it for you.

  • Eraysor #3 2 years ago

    Regardless of the source of the disruption, it just proves that Ubisoft don't actually have the infrastructure or security to support their ridiculous DRM.

  • cyacomini #4 2 years ago

    Dear Ubi,

    You should find this url of interest.

    http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_%2...

  • Skurmedel #5 2 years ago

    Installing and playing my game on different computers shouldn't be a benefit, it should be a given.

  • KillerMonkey #6 2 years ago

    Can I read that as "95 per cent of players are no longer bothering."?

  • chicknstu #7 2 years ago

    The publisher also said that, of course, these outages only affected players who legitemately purchased the game. People playing pirated copies were unaffected.

    Wait... no they didn't

  • vegard #8 2 years ago

    5% encountering problems = 5% too much

  • sneetch #9 2 years ago

    I love this "95% were unaffected" thing. Who here believes it's accurate and indeed anything other that a wild, completely fabricated number?

    After all, how do they know how many people were unable to connect as they were, by definition, unable to connect?
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 13:43

  • Nithron #10 2 years ago

    It's a bit of a moot point really. Servers do go down for different reasons, and really, you shouldn't be unable to play a singleplayer game because of it. why they went down that particular time really isn't important.

  • TeaFiend #11 2 years ago

    Wouldn't lots of people constantly sending a few mb of data every few minutes cause this sort of DoS problem?

  • VicViper #12 2 years ago

    this is why we can't have nice things, if this info is legit and people did attack the servers then what a master stroke. Its a toddler approach to gaming, break stuff because you can't play with it like you want to, Fantastic.

    Its still shitty DRM but ruining it for other people who are willing to put up with it however stupid that course of action that is is not on.

  • cyacomini #13 2 years ago

    @ SinnisterOne - Well having been a network engineer for the last 10 years, I know a firewall isn't the be all and end all but...

    It's a good place to start!

  • sneetch #14 2 years ago

    @TeaFiend
    Wouldn't lots of people constantly sending a few mb of data every few minutes cause this sort of DoS problem?

    Good point! :) Also, lots of people just attempting to log on constantly wouldn't help.

  • Haloboy #15 2 years ago

    Drm roll please.

    Here it is the game slightly transformed
    just a bit of a break for the norm
    just a little somethin' to break the gaming sessions
    of all that hardcore gaming that has gotten to be
    a little bit out of control it's cool to cry
    but what about the hackers that annoys and upsets the legit crowd
    the legits just got a soft subtle slap
    ffs Ubi's drm servier is broke now try to fix it

    Ubi Ubi soft, it's no more sales for you time.

  • Optimaximal #16 2 years ago

    Of course, this is what 'they say'. We'll never know the truth of the matter until someone inside Ubisoft leaks it.

  • Darren #17 2 years ago

    Yeah... yeah, right Ubi Soft... it was the pirates... great excuse, that way you can absolve yourself entirely of blame and pin it all on the pirates (presumably the outside attackers?) instead, who we all know are the reason this kind of absurd DRM exists in the first place.

    Even if this is true, why on earth did UbiSoft let this kind of thing happen in the first place? Surely they must have known it might happen and should have had measures in place to avoid it? That they didn't puts the blame back at their feet IMHO and they need to acknowledge full responsibility for it seeing as it's their DRM scheme.

    Oh and I was still having problems with the game at 11pm here in the UK as the game dumped me to the desktop with no error message after about 90 minutes of play as I was scaling a tower in Venice. I suppose that was the fault of these outsider attackers too, huh? ;)

  • bad09 #18 2 years ago

    If it's true Ubi deserve it. I do feel for the people who chose (rather oddly IMO) to support Ubi and their DRM but it's their problem not mine, my money stays with other companies until it's gone.

    Go hackers, give Ubi hell!

  • Murton #19 2 years ago

    And this is why the system is so opposed. DRM server goes down for whatever reason, through "attacks" like this one, routine maintenance, a power cut where the servers are hosted or a whole host of internet related issues and people can't play the games that they have paid for.

    Games companies have the right to protect their products and therefore their income, but once the way they exercise those rights negatively impacts on genuine consumers, that's an own goal.

  • Praetorianer #20 2 years ago

    Conspiracy!

    Pirates, dos attacks, Ubisoft publishing made up numbers....this is like

    Popcorn, please!

  • Darren #21 2 years ago

    The irony is, of course, that if this online DRM didn't exist then most of those annoyed 5%, who Ubi Soft claim had issues with AC2 yesterday, would likely have been able to play their single player game just fine and dandy.

  • Darren #22 2 years ago

    @bad09 - UbiSoft promised that this DRM of theirs would work just fine so I bought AC2 knowing that the only problem I might have is the odd pause every now and then if my connection dropped. I didn't expect to have to wait over half an hour to resume a save game I was itching to play nor did I expect to be dumped back to the desktop because of server issues.

    I've been playing AC2 for almost 19 hours over the weekend and think the game is incredible and highly addictive, definitely a contender for Game of the Year IMHO. However, the DRM problems are doing their best to spoil my enjoyment of the game which is a real shame. This kind of poo-poo DRM scheme deserves shit games not outstanding ones like AC2.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #23 2 years ago

    Just for all you "network pros" out there. No, a firewall is not going to fix this. And no, you cannot do much against such an attack.

    That is besides the point though. Why the servers go down doesn't really matter, but then again it has never been a mystery as to what might happen if they go down and how this affects legit gamers.

  • bad09 #24 2 years ago

    @ Darren

    I know how great the game is all the console guys and reviews have said so, but like I said on the forum to you, great game or not no one should be supporting Ubi in this, even if you think "hey it should be alright I have internet and Ubi promised it will be OK".

    Sorry to say people who actually paid money to support this DRM asked for this. Perhaps next time you all won't be so quick to throw your money at companies with no regard for consumers in the battle for imaginary lost sales.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 14:13

  • Darren #25 2 years ago

    Der_tolle_Emil - "Just for all you "network pros" out there. No, a firewall is not going to fix this. And no, you cannot do much against such an attack."

    If that's true then this DRM is fatally flawed because what can Ubi Soft do to prevent it happening again except drop it entirely so the game doesn't need a permanent online connection? :?

  • ChthonicEcho #26 2 years ago

    The amount of bollocks in this statement is making me grit my teeth. They're not even trying to put their failure in a fancy PR excuse. They are outright lying.

    I've lost what little shred of respect I had for the company. Atrocious business practice, even by today's standards.

  • Darren #27 2 years ago

    @bad09 - That's unfair IMO.

    When I bought the game I expected there might be some minor problems due to my not-entirely-stable internet connection but I didn't expect the things I mentioned (like long delays and the game quitting) nor did anyone else I'm guessing. If AC2 had been merely OK or worst then I wouldn't have bothered with it, period.

    Even now though, with the problems I've, had I'm still glad I bought it because I've almost 20 hours of joyous, fun gaming. It's just a shame such a great game is saddled with such appalling DRM.

  • SheffieldSteel #28 2 years ago

    This was not a Denial Of Service attack.

    This was a simulation of what would happen if, for some reason, large numbers of gamers attempted to play an Ubisoft game.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 14:20

  • bad09 #29 2 years ago

    @ Darren

    Come on mate! It's not like the entire web did not suspect this would happen.

    Edit - Oh and again quality of a game means NOTHING. Great game or not and whether you enjoy it or not. This DRM has to go, buying their games you support this DRM which you say you don't like.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 14:26

  • JahB #30 2 years ago

    Usually i'm the first to defend devs/pubs and their copy protection, but a case like this is simply ridiculous. Ubisoft, sort your shit out

  • RobertFoster #31 2 years ago

    "We also confirm that, at this time, no valid cracked version of either Silent Hunter 5 or Assassin’s Creed II are available."

    Well, that's the main thing, isn't it? *eye roll* *eyes fall out*

  • bad09 #32 2 years ago

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87pevh2Q0hg&fe ature=player_embedded#
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=87pevh2Q0...[/link]

    skip to 3.30

  • 1Dgaf #33 2 years ago

    I read somewhere that they went down due to unexpected demand.

    Something's fishy in Hamlets denmark.

  • AJGB #34 2 years ago

    What an unexpected turn of events!

  • SAMagic #35 2 years ago

    Ubisoft are not at fault whatsoever, not if you replace the words "attacked" with "logged on to the servers" and "hackers" with "paying customers".

  • jellyhead #36 2 years ago

    Their forums have been up and down all day. Must be pirates. Not that they are a nice place to go with two guys wandering around accusing everyone who reports an issue as being a pirate. Helpful, really helpful.

  • mr_pink #37 2 years ago

    My solution: got Creed II used for 360 (swapped for MW2), no DRM and Ubisoft didn't get my cash

  • Shakey_Jake33 #38 2 years ago

    Well, this is what happens when you buy a game that relies on a constant connection to a remote server. Glad I scrapped my previous plan to buy AC2.

  • bad09 #39 2 years ago

    @ mr_pink

    That's my plan if it's not gone by the time I have access to a 360 again (about a month). They'll get nothing and I won't need a cracked version either!

  • loopy #40 2 years ago

    "[link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87pevh2Q0hg&fe ature=player_embedded#
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=87pevh2Q0...[/link]

    skip to 3.30"

    Yup, spot on.

  • VicViper #41 2 years ago

    @mr_pink

    I thought they published it for the xbox 360 too? and disregarding that its was developed by ubisoft monteral so ubisoft got you money regardless unless you got it preowned or just up and pirated it.

    If it helps the money they got came from the console side of things which has the best DRM of all being on a console where you have no choice except what the platform holder gives you Yay!

  • MonsieurToni #42 2 years ago

    There are quite a few who seem to think that it is the basic human right of every PC gamer to play on a cracked version of the game. After all, everyone playing the cracked version is just trying to find out whether buying the game is actually worth the hard-earned pennies and cents.

    Moreover, the vileness of gaming companies lies in their utmost evil of producing games that are worth playing. Such heinous acts ought to be comdemned and their games cracked further. Notwithstanding such pettiness, let us praise the knight in shiny armour that is thy neighbourhood cracker-dude.

    Or, maybe we could just grow up and admit that the true villain of this story is not Ubisoft and their DRM but the happy guys and gals who are forcing them to use such measures. Cut the bullshit and place the blame where it is due.

  • oupe #43 2 years ago

    Or, maybe we could just grow up and admit that the true villain of this story is not Ubisoft and their DRM but the happy guys and gals who are forcing them to use such measures. Cut the bullshit and place the blame where it is due.

    Errm, nobody forced Ubisoft to use such an utterly stupid DRM implementation.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #44 2 years ago

    Pirates aren't tempted to the good side by the stick, they clearly aren't very keen on the idea of paying for what they use. These people are not your customers, nor are they a potential customer base that can be targetted. On the other hand, legitimate customer are driven away by the stick.

  • GreyBeard #45 2 years ago

    How the hell are cloud saved games an advantage? I mean how big and hard to transfer around are regular pc game saves?

  • Skurmedel #46 2 years ago

    GreyBeard, enormously large, ... it won't fit on a floppy ;)

  • chiz #47 2 years ago

    95% of players were not effected because they were using a pirated copy.

  • mingster #48 2 years ago

    Exactly Jake PC pirates won't have bought this game anyway. So they aren't affecting them at all.
    The only people affected are legitimate purchasers who mostly will be completely unaware that this DRM even exists.
    All they know is they can't play their game or it quits them out. Sorry but its a flawed copy prevention scheme it needs replacing with something less intrusive.. Maybe just one net check per gaming session and not a constant check.

  • oceanclub #49 2 years ago

    " I mean how big and hard to transfer around are regular pc game saves?"

    You don't even to do it manually. I sync saves between my desktop and laptop using Windows Live Sync. Works a charm. I have no need of Ubisoft's "feature".

  • Orihalcon19 #50 2 years ago

    @ 1st poster: Indeed. And I went and checked. I have never played a silent hunter game, but to check Ubi's statement I did dl SH5 and yes, that game runs flawlessly.
    I cannot believe that Ubi would so blatantly lie about it. Just bloody man up and admit that your precious DRM ass was whipped straight out of the gate.
    It is interesting to note that AC2's "inevitable" cracked version is taking far longer that SH5's to appear. If nothing else, Ubi has given the coders a new challenge. I have no doubt that it will eventually be hacked though.

  • tachometer #51 2 years ago

    I wanted to get the pirate version but it was rated Arrrgh!

  • Orihalcon19 #52 2 years ago

    @ tachometer: You know, I should not be laughing at such a corny joke, but damn it all, that line just works :) Nice one!

  • Farfarer #53 2 years ago

    Attacked or not, Ubi still have a responsibility to keep those servers up all the time. Attacks or otherwise.

  • Shikasama #54 2 years ago

    I hope no-one railing against Ubisoft will be buying Command and Conquer 4

  • FirewalkR #55 2 years ago

    Aaaah how I'm trolololololing at this news. While I do not condone DOS attacks, there will certainly be "legitimate" downtimes in the future. And more grief.
    Well, actually there won't be because hopefully sooner rather than later Ubi will see the error of their ways and go back to a less asinine DRM scheme.

  • Bloodhunter #56 2 years ago

    anyone noticed how they've removed it from steam?

  • Alterego-X #57 2 years ago

    Yay! I'm a pirate!

  • sneetch #58 2 years ago

    @Bloodhunter
    anyone noticed how they've removed it from steam?

    I'm still seeing ACII and Silent Hunter 5 there, both of which warn about this DRM.

    [link url=http://store .steampowered.com/app/33230/
    ]http://store .steampowered.com/app/33230/
    [/link]
    http://store .steampowered.com/app/48110/

  • Darren #59 2 years ago

    @bad09 - Again I'll add that the 19+ thoroughly enjoyable hours I've spent playing this game far outweighs all of these DRM issues I've encountered. It still hasn't stopped me expressing my annoyance at the DRM to Ubi Soft, both by email and on their forums, in the hope that they'll eventually see sense and abandon this sorry excuse for DRM by patching it out of AC2 completely.

    That's a far better option IMO than depriving myself of a great game. It's not the game that's at fault here anyway, it's the DRM!

  • Orihalcon19 #60 2 years ago

    @ Darren: I fully agree with you, I would love to buy AC2 and play it. But, alas, I am in South Africa and out internet is very unstable and slow - and only if you can afford it can you buy premium packages that gives fast uninterrupted service. So I am very sorry to say, but his game I will just have to play on my brother's XBox "shudders".

  • Shakey_Jake33 #61 2 years ago

    @sneetch - What country are you browsing from? It's certainly not there for me (UK), and your links say I can't view because of incorrect region.

  • bad09 #62 2 years ago

    @ Darren

    I'm not really understanding your point, the DRM and the game are one (for now) and it will continue on Ubi games if people like yourself try to justify giving them money for a game just because you want to play it. It's all good moaning at them AFTER you give them your money but at the end of the day THEY HAVE YOUR MONEY they could not care less. If you REALLY want to show you dislike of their control of your single player games you don't give them money at all.

    Come on Darren, I love my gaming as much as anyone but you really need to be a smart consumer about this and your attitude is exactly what ubi was hoping for in gamers "oh well the DRM stinks but the game is great so I'll buy it anyway". While they are getting your money this DRM (that disrupted your experience many times over the weekend and you dislike enough to complain about to Ubi) is not going anywhere. Why should they remove it? You paid 'em regardless of DRM.

    You think the game is worth suffering the DRM for, me and others disagree and feel we need to send a strong message to Ubi which means going without the game, NO MATTER THE QUALITY. If they still get enough sales not to care about us people not spending, well.. I have a few 2nd hand stores round my way so either way I win :)

  • sneetch #63 2 years ago

    @Shakey_Jake33
    @sneetch - What country are you browsing from? It's certainly not there for me (UK), and your links say I can't view because of incorrect region.

    I'm in Ireland so in the euro-zone it's odd that it'd be down for you guys but not us. Maybe they're planning a price hike? ;)

  • jellyhead #64 2 years ago

    Nope, i just checked and it's not available to me in the Valve Store. I'm sure i read something about it being pulled from valve or maybe it's a delay? It is a mystery.

  • jellyhead #65 2 years ago

    Looking through the forum it seems Ubisoft pulled the game from Steam for the UK a few weeks ago.
    Thanks, Ubi. Anyone know why?

  • bad09 #66 2 years ago

    It was pulled from Steam UK last week I think. The only reason given was from a mod on the Steam forums. "business reasons" is all we know. My guess is a deal with one of the other DD sites, or possibly play.com as they seem to be very protective of AC2 deleting all the bad reviews.

  • jellyhead #67 2 years ago

    Ahh, that'd explain it, yeah. cheers.

  • Guv #68 2 years ago

    oh ffs... this is the textbook reason for software piracy. Give decent service you silly little suit wearing gremlins!

  • Toothball #69 2 years ago

    So 95% of people who bought the game suffered no problems, but 100% of the people who pirated it had the same experience. Seems like one side has far better odds than the other.

  • jellyhead #70 2 years ago

    That's great! No piracy means it's only the paying customers getting boned then.

  • FooAtari #71 2 years ago

    @bad09
    "@ Darren

    I'm not really understanding your point, the DRM and the game are one (for now) and it will continue on Ubi games if people like yourself try to justify giving them money for a game just because you want to play it. It's all good moaning at them AFTER you give them your money but at the end of the day THEY HAVE YOUR MONEY they could not care less. If you REALLY want to show you dislike of their control of your single player games you don't give them money at all.

    Come on Darren, I love my gaming as much as anyone but you really need to be a smart consumer about this and your attitude is exactly what ubi was hoping for in gamers "oh well the DRM stinks but the game is great so I'll buy it anyway". While they are getting your money this DRM (that disrupted your experience many times over the weekend and you dislike enough to complain about to Ubi) is not going anywhere. Why should they remove it? You paid 'em regardless of DRM.

    You think the game is worth suffering the DRM for, me and others disagree and feel we need to send a strong message to Ubi which means going without the game, NO MATTER THE QUALITY. If they still get enough sales not to care about us people not spending, well.. I have a few 2nd hand stores round my way so either way I win :) "

    Completely agree, buying the game but moaning about the DRM is pointless. You gave Ubi your cash and that's all that matters to them... What you have done is shown that you are willing to put up with the DRM. It doesn't really matter to you as long as you get to play the game. At the end of the day that's what Ubisoft want. Well Done.

    The funny thing, this is highly unlikely to turn someone who was going to pirate the game into someone who will buy it. However it is highly likely to turn someone who would have bought the game into someone who wont or will pirate it.

    Ultimately what you end up with is less sales. And thats the bottom line really.

  • L1nc3 #72 2 years ago

    @FooAtari

    Hear hear!

    Ubi must spend more time and money developing PC DRMs that would make much more sense going to new IPs for ex.
    I haven't bought Farcry 2 for this same reason and this one will be no excpetion

  • Grogmonkey #73 2 years ago

    Personally, I actually think Darren has the right idea, for a couple of reasons:

    Firstly, all development teams read almost everything about their games. News stories, forum threads at popular gaming sites, interviews, everything. They know exactly what is being reported, and with what slant, and (if they're smart) what the average gamer thinks about it via comments sections such as these. They are as, if not more, passionate about gaming than the average consumer or commentator. And they're probably saddened every time something they made is seen in a negative light for reasons outside their control. It's easy to portray something as an evil, faceless corporation, but the bottom line is every corporation is made up of people. Who are, in the main, reasonable. I think suggesting all Ubisoft are after is your money and nothing else over-simplifies the issue and does the people who genuinely want the player to have a good time a bit of a disservice.

    Leading on from that: 'supporting' the DRM and the futility of complaining after the fact. Personally, I would never go to anyone who counts and say "I think it's in our best interests to get better DRM because a lot of people say they would buy our game if we did." That is, frankly, a stupid thing to say. For one, because it would mean the developer relying on the good will of the PC gaming community; a community that, like it or not, as wide spread as implied by the publishers or not, does pirate games quite a bit. It sucks, but there you have it. A portion of the users on the PC (significantly higher than other platforms, I would argue) ruins it for the rest of you. I would never try to argue that some form of DRM isn't necessary, because they have to try SOMETHING. And arguing that there should be no DRM is even worse than trying to argue that the DRM should be reduced based on the word of 'potential consumers' (in this me-talking-to-my-boss scenario). What I would say to the higher-ups, though, is "I've talked to our support department, and they're getting thousands of emails from legitimate paying customers who are unhappy with the service we are providing." Being a paying consumer gives you influence over these types of decisions. Maybe not a lot, but in bulk it makes a fairly strong message. The difference being you've already made the step of investing time and money in this product: it makes it easier for a publisher to make a similar gesture of, for want of a better word, trust. And it definitely makes it easier for people inside the company who care about these things to say "For the good of our paying customers, we should change." (And yes, these people can exist.)

    Conversely, all not buying it could do is show there's no market for those games on the PC. The mind that cares only about money, as suggested previously in this thread, does not care about the protests of those that don't buy the games. Instead, they'll just not bother with the PC version and save some money on development costs.

    The bottom line, in my humble opinion, as one from 'the other side' so to speak, is that change does have to come from within the company, but if it's ever going to work it needs to be supported by genuine paying customers. The Internet is infamous for being a haven for the loudest, most cynical people on the planet. Most people just ignore the noise that issues forth from the majority of its many corners (let's be honest, there's a lot of crap out there). In order to be heard and taken seriously you have to make a step to stand out. Sometimes that just means being a legitimate paying customer. That alone gives your voice more weight than a hundred 'I am not buying this out of principle' comments.

    Note: I do not work for Ubisoft, and calls for people to legitimately buy the game as a means for being heard is not guaranteed to work. It's all just my opinion based on the understanding of how I think things work (based on my personal observations).

    Posted from my iPhone, so excuse any errors!

  • jellyhead #74 2 years ago

    Good points, Grog and i did think about the same things but eventually i decided that i did not want to risk supporting a form of DRM that i do not want and which potentially limits how often i can play the game as can be seen by the server outages. It's not a road i want to go down so i can't find it in my heart to support it.

    There's no guarantee that Ubisoft would listen to their customers and in my experience they're actually pretty bad at it for the games of theirs i own. The state of SH4 and the lack of patching for Far Cry 2 for example. What soured me most was Ubisoft releasing paid-for DLC before patching Far Cry2 and after that i'm playing a wait-and-see game with Ubisoft and their customer relationship management.

    I might change my stance in future but Ubisoft have a lot to prove to me first.

    edit: had Greg not grog, sorry matey.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 21:56

  • Shikasama #75 2 years ago

    Greg, good post but it has one fundamental flaw.

    It doesn't matter what the developers read, the developers don't make these decisions. It's the guys who get hard ons for bar charts and think slackening a tie on Friday is fun that make these decisions.

  • SheffieldSteel #76 2 years ago

    Developers do not have time to read every comments thread on the internet. Even if they did, developers are not publishers. It is publishers who call the shots on DRM.
    There is no way that, having given these people your money, you are going to convince them that their DRM was a bad idea. Even more than pirates (who cannot even be reliably counted) you have provided them with a statistical demonstration that their system works. No amount of "politely worded protest from dissatisfied customer" email is going to convince someone who is - let's face it - so far divorced from our view of reality that they felt this DRM was a good idea in the first place.

    ETA: ninja'd, so...

    The one way that you MIGHT be able to persuade Ubisoft to remove this DRM is if enough people were to put the cost of the game in a lawyer's escrow account and sign an affidavit saying that they willl place an order when the DRM is removed. Only then will Ubisoft have any idea how much money they are "leaving on the table".
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 21:58

  • HenrikHansenDK1631 #77 2 years ago

    Why are they expressing them selves in the past tense??

    The problem is more current than ever!!

    And does their claim mean that 95% is affected 5% of the time and that 5% is affected 95% at the time??

    I am appalled to realize that Ubisoft is more concerned about workable piracy copies than realizing that even conceiving a DRM system like the one they has implemented is a CRIME!

    Its obvious vulnerbility, which has now been prooven (hackers or not) is reducing their optional moral actions to just one:

    The immediate recall of this immoral DRM system which is punishing legal and paying customers and the issuing of a patch making the game playable offline, not to mention their deepest apology.

    I myself for that matter (a solid customer of Ubisoft products since Far Cry I) have made my last payment to Ubisoft before that has happened.

    BR Henrik

  • MaxiSleep #78 2 years ago

    Itunes removed DRM

    And sales increased.

    On the other hand a lot of customers who had bought music from windows based drm shops got shafted when the schema was discontinued.

    Note - the marginal utility of an item without drm is higher then the marginal utility with it. Publishers are morons not to take accounts of this.

  • jellyhead #79 2 years ago

    It was statements like this that really made me rethink how much they think of their customers and what we're expecting from their 'service'.

    What happens if Ubisoft take the DRM servers offline for maintenance, or suffer a technical breakdown?
    In the case of a server failure their games will be taken offline, and you'll be unable to play them. "The idea is to avoid that point as much as possible, but we have been clear from the beginning that the game does need an internet connection for you to play. So if it goes down for real for a little while, then yeah, you can't play."

    It's like they almost care.

    From Ubi DRM: Their side of the story in Feb. Sorry, If i can find an EG link i'll replace that one :)
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 22:53

  • paketep #80 2 years ago

    The only ones being attacked here are the poor bastards that still buy from Ubi. And the attackers are not the pirates, precisely.

    Until we stop buying completely from the likes of Ubi and Infinity Ward, we're going to keep suffering this BS useless DRM systems that let pirates play while paying customers are left freezing in the cold.

    Don't give your money to distributors like Ubi or Activision.

  • Grogmonkey #81 2 years ago

    A couple of follow up points:

    I don't know Ubisoft, the quality of their customer service or the way their dev teams communicate. It could be things will never improve from a DRM perspective just by virtue of the way their company is structured. However…

    A committed dev team will always find time to guage feedback. If feature A is announced and it gets a huge amount of negative opinion against it, unless it's right at the end of the dev cycle, there's always time to change it or improve it (although most of the time developers may know better in terms of feature A's context in the rest if the game and therefore ignores all negative feedback anyway). But, in my opinion, it's a poor dev studio that doesn't make a point of guaging opinion and anticipation of a title. Not EVERY forum thread, no. But important/high-profile ones? Absolutely.

    Developers work directly with the publishers on all facets of the game. At some studios, it's even the developers that get the DRM into the game (and therefore have direct contact with the actual developers of the DRM). And I can guarantee there are conversations going on right now amongst dev teams everywhere about DRM solutions, which ones are effective, which are least intrusive, and so on. Regardless of who ultimately makes the decision on what DRM to use, the dev team will have direct access to them. Even if one individual can't talk directly with whoever makes the final decision, there are team leads, producers, directors, and Lord knows who else who DO have direct access. If the dev team cares enough, it's ridiculously easy to get word to who makes the decisions and start a discussion about the best use of DRM.

    Heck, a lot of the time the guy who makes these DRM decisions is going to be working full time with the dev team, and probably be in the office a lot of the time. All it takes is some discussion between party A and party B about the merits of not seeming to screw over your fans with restrictive DRM to go from 'always Internet connected, one install, one machine' DRM to something less Draconian.

    What I would guess happened with something like AC2 was it was a small team handling the port, probably under some tight deadlines, who didn't think (or didn't care) to ask about the DRM policy. Even if they did, a small porting team probably doesn't have the clout to have an influence on what DRM was used. But if it had been the full AC2 console team? I wouldn't be surprised if they could argue Ubisoft's publishing wing down.

    One final point: there's not as big a divide between publishers and developers as I think people imagine. It's not always as simple as creatives on one side, suits on the other; good vs evil. There's a lot of cross-over. Heck, John Schappert (current COO of EA) cut his teeth as a programmer on Desert Strike. It might not always be the case, but it's far too over-simplistic to just assume everyone in publishing only cares about money and has never played a game in their life. A lot of the time, it just takes someone inside their organisation to point out the merits of keeping the fans sweet (a long term money maker, in the sense that you don't drive away your business by using restrictive DRM). At the moment, it may simply be the case that no one is opposing the voices from the shareholders that are saying "you have to do something about piracy." If no alternatives are given, there's not much a publisher can do but be seen to be doing everything they can to protect the shareholder's investment. And, while appeasing the shareholders is important, a decent argument ( emphasising how friendly DRM is good for business) can silence even the most DRM hungry shareholder.

  • Eraysor #82 2 years ago

    @paketep

    AFAIK, doesn't MW2 just use Steam as its DRM? Steam is not even remotely in the same league as Ubisoft's DRM.

    EDIT: Also, @Grog

    The one problem I see with the publisher/developer interaction on this issue is that this DRM is being applied to all of Ubisoft's PC games. I'm not sure one developer could turn the tide against the entire publisher, especially when a lot of them are in-house and wouldn't really be able to jump ship easily if they cared enough.
    Edited by 1 at 08/03/10 @ 23:52

  • Darren #83 2 years ago

    @bad09 & FooAtari - Hang on... you both think it's fair to complain about something you've had no experience of?!? I suppose you're the kind of people who moan about how crap a game is that you've never played based solely on other people's opinions then? ;)

    I *am* entitled to moan about the DRM because I purchased the game and I've experienced the problems with it first hand. Saying I should not have bought the game because of the DRM presumes that I should have known that hackers would attack UbiSoft's servers on Sunday preventing me from playing the game or that UbiSoft couldn't cope with the demand, whichever is the truth.

    Moaning about the DRM while point-blank refusing to buy the game achieves absolutely nothing. Buying the game and complaining about it does IMO because if UbiSoft has any sense they know that if their customers have bad experiences then they'll be less likely to buy future games from them. As a paying customer I have the right to voice my complaints over the DRM and hopefully UbiSoft will take notice otherwise they WILL be losing a customer.

    What it came down to for me was a simple choice of how much I wanted to play this game versus how much I was opposed to the DRM. Would the few issues I'd have with this DRM outweight the enjoyment I'd get from the game itself bearing in mind the excellent reviews it got on the consoles? As I said earlier the answer to that last question is, yes, the DRM is annoying without a doubt when it doesn't work as it should but when it did I was able to play and enjoy the game for many hours. I can't lie and say I regret buying the game because the truth is, despite the DRM issues, I don't. I have complained about it though numerous times on the forum and sent an email to UbiSoft so maybe they'll take note of them?

    The good news is that I was able to play the game fine tonight for over three hours until *I* chose to quit it.

  • Keivz #84 2 years ago

    So many comments and not a single UBI supporter. Hmm...

    Well, I personally support this new DRM wholly and completely. I applaud UBI for trying new ways to protect their shit from would be pirates.

    Ideally this scheme should be largely transparent to the end user (which for the most part it is from what I hear) and should protect their game (so far so good). I personally have never had a single issue with DRM on any of the games I've played, ever. I can forgive UBI for a few hiccups at launch (this is PC gaming afterall); I'm confident things will be ironed out.

    I think the initial shock and all the complaints will die down after awhile and people will come to accept it--if it works. I mean having to have a constant internet connection to play a game isn't exactly a foreign concept. Every game with online multiplayer requires it (for the multiplayer component obviously), as does one of the highest selling PC games of all time. Granted those without stable internet are left out. For now, I suppose 'get with the 21st century' is a bit harsh. But times they are a changing...

    I don't have the game yet (doesn't hit stores until 3/9 here in the US) but I'll be getting it day 1. If this DRM is somehow successful (one can dream), then I'm confident the singleplayer PC experience will live on and I don't think it will drive away people from the best gaming system on the planet. Heck, we may even go back to the days before delayed PC releases were commonplace and PC specific features actually meant something.

  • PenguinJim #85 2 years ago

    @ Darren: "@bad09 & FooAtari - Hang on... you both think it's fair to complain about something you've had no experience of?!? I suppose you're the kind of people who moan about how crap a game is that you've never played based solely on other people's opinions then? ;) "

    I complain about slavery, rape, murder, and hundreds of other injustices too, but I haven't been raped or murdered (this week). Do I need to have been homeless to give money to a charity for the homeless? Do I need to have suffered at the hands of Ubisoft before I try and warn people of the dangers? Do I need to have become addicted to heroin to warn others against it?

    What's the difference? :p

  • smelly #86 2 years ago

    Oh right.. so the drm was sooo easy to crack that the pirates felt the need to attack their servers in an attempt to stop this drm from continuing.

    .. Sounds to me like the pirates had problems getting around the drm (if they did do at all 100% succesfully) and are now trying to just make the service seem bad so it's not used again... Same old pirate scum tactic.

    .. and yet the gamers take the PIRATES side yet again.. as opposde to the side of the company who actually MADE teh game they want to play so much (who the pirates are desperate to rip off).

    When you see DRM - dont blame the software publishers - blame the pirates. But you probably wont... Sheep as people tend to be.

  • smelly #87 2 years ago

    @Darren : So was it the DRM's fault you had problems with your game. Or the pirates who attacked the server?

    Who is it you have a beef with here exactly?

  • jellyhead #88 2 years ago

    smelly, i'd be annoyed at Ubisoft for putting in such a weak system that can be so easily taken down by pirates, rather than technical issues obviously eh Ubisoft, and with no contingency plans or official word. If you're going to force me to use your service to play your games at least make out you care for my custom but Ubi have been nothing but arrogant about it.

    But hey, i'm one of the customers they drove away with this DRM so apparently i'm not entitled to explain why i decided not to play their games.

  • UncleLou #89 2 years ago

    @Darren : So was it the DRM's fault you had problems with your game. Or the pirates who attacked the server?

    While it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, it doesn't matter one bit for the honest customer. Fact is, people bought the game, and couldn't play it, because Ubi's DRM failed - and failed in exactly the way people predicted. I've been a staunch defender of all kinds of DRM in the past, and haven't pirated a game since the C64 days, but too much is too much.*

    edit:
    * That doesn't mean I'll start pirating now, mind.
    Edited by 1 at 09/03/10 @ 10:49

  • Darren #90 2 years ago

    @PenguinJim - Why are you talking about rape and murder? They are nasty things that no-one wants to experience (particularly the latter as its a one-way trip!), the total opposite of games! And acceptable DRM is supposed to be neutral/unnoticeable to the user! Unless you've played a game or experienced this new DRM for yourself then you cannot honestly comment on how they worked for you personally as everyone has different opinions and experiences. ;)

    @smelly - I'm not and never will be a fan of this DRM even though I expected minor issues prior to buying the game but I was willing to endure it so long as it didn't intrude too much and stop me from playing AC2. Now that I've played the game for a few days I'd definitely like to see this DRM gone for good, replaced by something that doesn't require a permanent internet connection because if it wasn't for the DRM then I (and I suspect many others) would have had no problems at all.

    When the DRM is behaving itself I'm having a great time with the game (some 23 hours worth) and the amount of hassle I've had is comparatively small although still annoying nevertheless. That's why I've complained about it to UbiSoft. I can complain to them because I bought the game and experienced these issues for myself! :p

    If people want to avoid AC2 because of the DRM then they can do that, it's their choice. However, I'm sure the developers had nothing to do with it and it seems to me grossly unfair to me to ignore what is a great game just because the publisher decided to use an annoying DRM scheme. There's a chance, albeit a small one, that UbiSoft will take note of its customers' complaints on the forum and via emails and drop this DRM, perhaps even patching it out of AC2.

    As for those hackers bombarding the AC2 servers... if they do exist then they're childish idiots IMO who are doing themselves no favours and just annoying the people who bought the game like me, turning what was iffy, badly thought-out but just about bearable DRM into something a lot more annoying due to the long waits and sudden game quits.

  • Darren #91 2 years ago

    Or to put it more simply (in case you don't want to read what I wrote above), I'm willing to put up with the DRM only because the game itself is so superb and, thus, worth playing in spite of the annoyances with the protection scheme. It was my choice at the end of the day and I don't regret it at all.

    Kudos to the developers for creating this wonderful game and a big boo-hoo-you-suck-big-time to the publishers, UbiSoft!!!

  • _tangent #92 2 years ago

    @Darren

    Just a couple of small points:

    a) All a consumer can really do to effect change in a product is refuse to give it their patronage. I can see, from one perspective, your point about it being "unfair" to punish the developers of a great game because the publishers have foisted a restrictive, draconian DRM system on the customer base, but ultimately, ACII is a single product, warts and all, and should be treated as such. You could level the same argument at anything; for example: this TV has terrible picture quality, but it's really well designed, so i'm not going to punish the guys who designed it because people in charge of the electronics fucked up. Ultimately, if you want the market place to change, you have to vote with your wallet.

    b) Of course you have a right to complain - i don't think anyone is questioning that. What people ARE questioning is the likelihood of those complaints being effective. From ubisoft's perspective, you've already paid for the game. You could sit there all day and tell them how much you hate the DRM system, but i suspect their attitude is going to be "but it didn't stop you buying the game, did it?" If their contention is that they're preventing instances of piracy with this DRM, and therefore selling more copies, they'd have to be convinced that the copies they WEREN'T selling due to dissatisfaction, outweighed this increase before they'd consider taking it out. By purchasing the product with full prior knowledge of the DRM, then complaining about it after the fact, you're reinforcing the perception that the DRM is something the customer base might not like, but that they WILL tolerate.

    c) The idea that someone need purchase and play the game in order to voice a valid complaint about the DRM system is not a fair criticism. The complaints about the DRM system are not that it somehow renders the game unplayable on a day to day basis, under nominal operating conditions, but rather that IF it breaks - and it has, as predicted, broken - paying customers will be unable to play. This is a philosophical dispute with the design of the DRM system, not a criticism of the practical experience with it, and so one need not have played the game in order to hold the opinion - no one disputes that IF the network connection/DRM servers go down, the game will be unplayable.
    Edited by 4 at 09/03/10 @ 14:37