Ubisoft DRM

[toblix]

Everyone knows the story, the servers have been down for quite some time now. I wonder what the outcome of this will be. Do you think they'll just fix it and then keep it up, or will they release "cracks" as patches, drop the whole thing and hope to restore trust? I'm not "into" the industry enough to know what to expect from Ubisoft, but I think both sound likely.

[Brannigan]

Well since it was from denial of service attacks they'll just assume they've succeeded at punishing those pesky pirates and keep on trucking for a while at least.

[Chris]

I assume (well, I hope) they'll continue on for at least one or two more games, then give it up. I suppose in a best case scenario they'll give up after Silent Hunter 5, but considering they seem to have delayed entire game launches to coincide with this launch, I suspect they'll try to give it a couple security revisions before they flush it all down the toilet.

I really want to play Conviction on PC though, so I hope they sort this shit out.

[Sombre]

PGC posted this earlier, which I think is interesting

I think the thing to realise, regarding the cracking and piracy, that Ubisoft has a limited timeframe, limited funding, people and so on, whereas the pirates have infinite time, and infinite resources. It's eventually going to get cracked, so I think the fact that Ubisoft seem to have been doing several statements about "It's been a week and we're still going strong" (Never mind the actual DRM is kind of draconian!!) is somewhat....dumb.

[Patters]

  Chris said:

I assume (well, I hope) they'll continue on for at least one or two more games, then give it up. I suppose in a best case scenario they'll give up after Silent Hunter 5, but considering they seem to have delayed entire game launches to coincide with this launch, I suspect they'll try to give it a couple security revisions before they flush it all down the toilet.

I really want to play Conviction on PC though, so I hope they sort this shit out.

Yeah, I'm in the same position, I want Conviction on PC, with it being cheaper and my system of preference. I really hope they switch to Steam DRM too, which I guess is unlikely.

[elmuerte]

I don't care now good the DRM is for the publisher (and/or game devs). I'm only interested in how it affects me. Based on how it affects me it influences the maximum amount of money I'm willing to fork over. But this new DRM by Ubisoft affects me in such a way I'm not even considering to buy the game.

To be honest, this "unreachable server" issue didn't surprise me at all. If you look back to all past times a company introduced some online (DRM) mechanism is always came to a halt one way or the other in the first few days. This happened to Microsoft, to Valve, to Impulse, Apple, Blizzard, etc. And in pretty much all cases they could averted most of the issues. Some companies blamed hackers, or DDoS attacks, and others admitted their network was underpowered for the demand (which also looks like a DDoS attack).

In due time AC2 will be fully cracked and playable, and Ubisoft will probably take the next step and add a dynamic content factor to their DRM which is going to fail horribly. With dynamic content Ubisoft will host servers that compute part of the gameplay logic which is send back to the client. So you're basically running a single player online game. In the first week they won't have enough computing power to serve all. After a few months these machines will only cost money to keep active but don't generate new income. So they would probably shut it down, and thereby killing your single player game. And this concept will piss of even more people (at least the EA sports games from 5 years ago can be played offline).

And after that Ubisoft will either abandon the PC market completely, or go back to the "proven" DRM which is broken anyway but is "better" than nothing.

[JonCole]

  elmuerte said:

And after that Ubisoft will either abandon the PC market completely, or go back to the "proven" DRM which is broken anyway but is "better" than nothing.

I suspect the former. Such horrendous DRM just makes me think that they're fishing for a reason to duck out of the PC gaming space, and when the whole debacle results in low PC sales they'll just tell their shareholders and go console-only.

[buemba]

It's bad enough that they're charging $ 60.00 for the PC version of AC2, but requiring a constant connection on top of that is just absurd.

I actually wouldn't mind it that much if the game required a internet connection when you launch the game so it can ping a Ubi server to validate the session (granted I'd rather not even have that, but it's an annoyance I'm willing to stomach to play a game), but losing progress in a single player game because of a hiccup in my wireless connection? Screw that.

[syntheticgerbil]

I was actually gearing to start a thread on this about 3 weeks ago, but I messed up my browser window and lost all of my text.

But it makes me feel like Ubisoft is missing the point on their lost sales, much how they blamed DS pirating being the reason the shit they put out won't sell:

http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-blames-ds-piracy-for-50-sales-drop-141574.phtml

The PC market has always had a ton of pirates, no doubt, but I think maybe Ubisoft is expecting too much of a paying audience that isn't anywhere as big as it was a decade or two ago, even if the amount of personal computers owned has skyrocketed. Making a ridiculous online-only DRM system seems to have them desperately trying to prove a point that pirates will desperately try to disprove back.

Ubisoft has sort of just gotten way too big compared to the modest company of the 90s.

[SoulChicken]

Its a pain in the ass, because I've patiently waited to play this game on the PC and not on XBOX360. It is meant to be an excellent game and I'm keen to check it out.

[toblix]

  Chris said:

I really want to play Conviction on PC

Whoa, there. Just to make sure, did you explain why on the last cast? If you didn't, could you do so here? Not that I'm saying you're wrong to prefer the PC version, it's just that I've always considered the console Splinter Cell games better on account of the controls (more precision in movement than in aiming).

[JonCole]

Ubisoft: OMGZ IT WUZ HACKERZ

Public: Oh, fuck you, Ubisoft.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/08/ubisofts-pc-drm-verification-was-out-because-servers-were-atta/

[Erkki]

I think I'm just not going to play Assassin's Creed 2 or whatever future games where they have the same DRM.

[Jayel]

  toblix said:

Whoa, there. Just to make sure, did you explain why on the last cast? If you didn't, could you do so here? Not that I'm saying you're wrong to prefer the PC version, it's just that I've always considered the console Splinter Cell games better on account of the controls (more precision in movement than in aiming).

I dunno, after I got my xbox 360 controller working on the pc, I never had a reason to prefer xbox version. Racing games, platformer games, any games that doesn't require precision aiming, like Batman AA, Red Faction Guerrilla, even Just Cause 2 demo... totally I recommend getting a wireless xbox receiver for windows (you can get a cheap chinese knockoff from ebay for ~$20 and use the drivers from microsoft) even if you already have a gamepad from other manufacturers.

Anyway, back to topic...

A few thoughts:

I played Homeworld from 1999 last weekend again. Seeing as how there's absolutely no support for this game anymore, and it's not being sold anywhere either (although there's a good chance it will come to gog.com soon), this wouldn't have been possible if it had similar form of copy protection. It worries me that in the future, there will be no such thing as a "PC games collection" because they would all expire at one point.

Pirates are probably cheap, so if they can't pirate a game, they would probably go for the cheapest alternatives. If Assassin's Creed can't be pirated, they can either 1. buy the PC version for $60 and suffer the consequences of shitty copy protection, or... 2. get the console version for $40, play it, then sell it to EB or blockbuster for $30, and incur net cost of only $10. If they don't have a console, then well maybe the they will buy one now after realizing console gaming is cheaper.

edit: wow, the servers are STILL DOWN! If I was a customer I'd be furious.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Jayel

[liquid]

I'm not purchasing any game related to Ubisoft because of this. If that's gonna make them happy - so be it. I did lol, though, when their DRM servers got DDOSed

[Chris]

  JonCole said:

I suspect the former. Such horrendous DRM just makes me think that they're fishing for a reason to duck out of the PC gaming space, and when the whole debacle results in low PC sales they'll just tell their shareholders and go console-only.

I've seen a couple people mention that to me, and it just doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Why would you waste time and money and development resources making heavily PC-centric games like Silent Hunter 5 and The Settlers and the Anno series and then saddle them with excessive DRM simply to give yourself a way to exit the market? If you've already decided you don't need that market, just exit it.

Companies decide not to publish games on a particular platform all the time--just look at the Wii, and of course the PC in other cases. There's no need to construct an elaborate smoke and mirrors show. I have no doubt this is a genuine effort by Ubisoft; unfortunately, it's an extremely misguided one.

[Chris]

  toblix said:

Whoa, there. Just to make sure, did you explain why on the last cast? If you didn't, could you do so here? Not that I'm saying you're wrong to prefer the PC version, it's just that I've always considered the console Splinter Cell games better on account of the controls (more precision in movement than in aiming).

I don't know, I just like playing on the PC more. I never turn down games I want to play because of their platforms (except DSi which I still don't own), but in general at this point I'm pretty accustomed to playing games on my PC with a mouse and keyboard, so when I have the option, I go that route.

I like launching nearly everything I play through one centralized location, which is Steam on the PC, even if it wasn't purchased through Steam. If I need a controller, I've got one (although I still play most games with m/k), I can output video from my PC either to a high-res monitor or an HDTV, I can comfortably run most games at high graphics levels--overall it's a pretty good all-bases-covered gaming solution, and I rarely feel the need to play multiplatform games on a console.

[JonCole]

  Chris said:

I've seen a couple people mention that to me, and it just doesn't make any sense from my perspective. Why would you waste time and money and development resources making heavily PC-centric games like Silent Hunter 5 and The Settlers and the Anno series and then saddle them with excessive DRM simply to give yourself a way to exit the market? If you've already decided you don't need that market, just exit it.

Companies decide not to publish games on a particular platform all the time--just look at the Wii, and of course the PC in other cases. There's no need to construct an elaborate smoke and mirrors show.

I guess that for me, it's trying to bring order to a seemingly ridiculous situation. Sure, the idea of people scapegoating shareholders of publicly traded companies as reasons to implement draconian policies like stringent DRM is a little bit played out, but I can't help but think of a possible kernel of truth there considering how big of a disaster this seems to be.

  Chris said:

I have no doubt this is a genuine effort by Ubisoft; unfortunately, it's an extremely misguided one.

I have no problem deferring to your judgment on this one since I presume you have more clear window into some of these motivations, it's just such a huge disappointment to see great games like Assassin's Creed 2 and potentially great future games get saddled with such nonsense.

[miffy495]

I find it really interesting reading this thread while listening to episode 35 of the podcast where the thumbs are talking about C&C4's always-online model and how it's not such a big deal. I'm not really up on the intricacies of either system, so it seems like they're the same to me. Can anyone tell me what the difference is that makes Ubisoft's scheme such shit and EA's ok? For the record, I kinda think both are bullshit. The majority of my PC gaming is done on my laptop during slow nights at the end of a shift, and my work does not have wifi. If a game requires that I be online, my opportunities to play it are more than cut in half. To me though, both systems seem to be the same, or at least similar to the point that they're indistinguishable to the layman.

Help me thumbs. Explain. What's the deal here?

[JonCole]

  miffy495 said:

I find it really interesting reading this thread while listening to episode 35 of the podcast where the thumbs are talking about C&C4's always-online model and how it's not such a big deal. I'm not really up on the intricacies of either system, so it seems like they're the same to me. Can anyone tell me what the difference is that makes Ubisoft's scheme such shit and EA's ok? For the record, I kinda think both are bullshit. The majority of my PC gaming is done on my laptop during slow nights at the end of a shift, and my work does not have wifi. If a game requires that I be online, my opportunities to play it are more than cut in half. To me though, both systems seem to be the same, or at least similar to the point that they're indistinguishable to the layman.

Help me thumbs. Explain. What's the deal here?

The only difference I can pick out is that Assassin's Creed 2's DRM is supposed to be the be all, end all for Ubisoft DRM. There was no other indication that the C&C4 DRM scheme was going to be EA universal, so that might be part of it.

Then again, I haven't listened to episode 35 in a while (though it's coming up quickly in my Idle Thumbs backlog quest), so I don't know the exact attitude of the conversation.

[Brannigan]

  JonCole said:

The only difference I can pick out is that Assassin's Creed 2's DRM is supposed to be the be all, end all for Ubisoft DRM. There was no other indication that the C&C4 DRM scheme was going to be EA universal, so that might be part of it.

Then again, I haven't listened to episode 35 in a while (though it's coming up quickly in my Idle Thumbs backlog quest), so I don't know the exact attitude of the conversation.

I'm not really on the ball with c&c4 info, but aren't they providing some tangible rewards/content/thingys with that permanent connection?

[liquid]

  Quote

The reason is because the game's global player progression system will all live remotely on an EA server. While it allows players to log in to their account from any machine, it's incompatible with dedicated server support.

EA promises, however, that it's overhauled the game's networking to deliver a more stable experience, with quicker entry into games.

In other words: no. And you will have rage quitters fucking up your game. Makes me love S2 even more for putting the servers for Heroes of Newerth. I haven't had a game with more than 80ms ping and I've played over 300 games.

[elmuerte]

Would you keep going to a grocery store where they would search you every time you exit, just to check if you didn't steal anything?

[toblix]

I think it's just the perception of why it's there. In the case of C&C it give the player a whole bunch of stats and stuff (I guess), and you can argue that you need to be online to prevent cheating, etc. In the case of Ubisoft, it's explicitly stated to be a form of DRM, which gamerz hate.

With C&C you can of course make a case for why it should also work offline (with reduced functionality), but they can also say "well, we wanted it to be a completely connected experience" or something, and people will sort of buy it.

[toblix]

  elmuerte said:

Would you keep going to a grocery store where they would search you every time you exit, just to check if you didn't steal anything?

Wouldn't a more appropriate metaphor be a store that, if your router reset while you were shopping, removed all your groceries and moved you back to the entrance?