So in essence, the DRM has "worked"

[FK120]

As a highly anti-DRM person i have to admit, this type of DRM has essentially killed day0, and week1 piracy. Granted the way they did is completely asinine and stupid, especially by remotely putting files on their servers in order to progress. Doing so throws a bullseye on their unprotected servers so the pirates can DDoS the servers to hell in order to bypass the DRM check. Moreso it affects the legitimate buyer by nullifying their ability to play, while pirates and legitimate buyers could play at the same time in the old model.

Remember that DRM is supposed to curb initial piracy, not remove it completely. All products will be cracked in due time, it's a matter of it withstanding the initial onslaught and protecting the most important duration of the game's life for increased revenue. Granted the PC version was a test subject which didn't need to sell at all considering that Ubisoft covered their costs and made profit with just the two console versions...

It's a damn shame that more companies might be implementing this type of security on their products. While they all do have the right to implement something like this, it's more hassle for those willing to pay rather than those willing to wait it out. It wasn't very smart to delay the PC version, especially when this game was for such a niche market 6 months later. What difference is another month and a half going to make to those who wanted to wait?

While we all technically buy licenses for software, it concerns me that more and more companies are turning to the control everything dystopia that novels from the last century warned about. It's also irritating as hell to see people simply bend over and take it willingly, thus dragging the rest of us with them. I'm an econ minor, so i find this entire industry fascinating because it's one of the best test models for unregulated capitalism to run rampant. It's somewhat disappointing that most consumers seem to have failed basic economics; because they fail to understand that supply and demand consists of a consumer and a supplier.

/disappointment

[Menace]

If consumers worked together they wouldnt have let DRM happen. This not being the case, im still waiting for some1 to stand up in the crowd and scream "RPG INCOMMING!"

[MDrm]

Worry not too much, seems PC gamers are standing on this one. From a cursory read through many forums, from those who bought ACII some are saying they won't touch any other ubisoft game with this DRM anymore, and ACII has done very badly on sales, just check all the retail and online charts. Settlers7 is also not doing well.

[brabee]

Doing so throws a bullseye on their unprotected servers so the pirates can DDoS the servers to hell in order to bypass the DRM check. Moreso it affects the legitimate buyer by nullifying their ability to play, while pirates and legitimate buyers could play at the same time in the old model.


Are you even serious about this? If pirates or whoever DDoS the servers, its THEM who hinder the ability of legit customers to play the game.



While we all technically buy licenses for software,...

Not technically, you ALWAYS pay for a licence of software. That is how IP law works. And always has worked.

[DarthWolf]

Not technically, you ALWAYS pay for a licence of software. That is how IP law works. And always has worked.

So license can't be stolen ergo piracy is not theft?

[sfade]

Not in my opinion, but if by 'worked' you mean slowed piracy but at the cost of having produced obviously poor sales results and alienated a big portion of their consumer base, so much so that they had to essentially offer a cheap 'bribe' as a result of the DRM.

Yes, I suppose if you define that as success you could call it such. I consider it a big warning sign to other publishers not to make the same mistakes. I'm admittedly biased though, since this DRM has effectively prevented me from purchasing no less than three (3) Ubisoft games I would have otherwise bought on day one.

I'm pretty much done with any debate on the merit of the system, at this point I simply will not purchase products which use it and that's that. It's no real loss to me, it is to them. They depend on the consumer dollar for their existence, consumers do not depend on their game for the same (customers also have the choice to go elsewhere to purchase entertainment, which many will certainly exercise).

[brabee]

So license can't be stolen ergo piracy is not theft?

No its not, copyright infringement is the right term.

[Snus]

Are you even serious about this? If pirates or whoever DDoS the servers, its THEM who hinder the ability of legit customers to play the game.
If Microsoft knowingly creates a vulnerability in windows that allows your computer to get hacked, do you defend Microsoft's right to create the vulnerabilty and blame the hacker? When vulnerabilities do occur, Microsoft takes the blame. If hackers are involved, they take the blame too. The blame is not one sided.

UBI has knowingly created a vulnerability in their DRM by making everything dependent on the functionality of their servers. Both UBI's DRM and DDoS attacks are to be blamed for hindering the ability of legit customers to play the game.

[brabee]

If Microsoft knowingly creates a vulnerability in windows that allows your computer to get hacked, do you defend Microsoft's right to create the vulnerabilty and blame the hacker? When vulnerabilities do occur, Microsoft takes the blame. If hackers are involved, they take the blame too. The blame is not one sided.

UBI has knowingly created a vulnerability in their DRM by making everything dependent on the functionality of their servers. Both UBI's DRM and DDoS attacks are to be blamed for hindering the ability of legit customers to play the game.

Interesting point. However, as long as a company does everything it can to protect its servers, then you can hardly blame anyone else but the assailant IMHO.

[Zukabazuka]

Worry not too much, seems PC gamers are standing on this one. From a cursory read through many forums, from those who bought ACII some are saying they won't touch any other ubisoft game with this DRM anymore, and ACII has done very badly on sales, just check all the retail and online charts. Settlers7 is also not doing well.

PC doesn't do so good in sales compared to consoles generally,
MW2 being the most played on steam still didn't beat 360 or PS3, even though its a FPS game.

Second once again there are other reason why it didn't sell good on PC

1. It was first for 360 and PS3 for about 4-6months ago
2. Not everyone bought it on Steam but retail
3. A lot of PC users have consoles.
4. They are most likely waiting for a price cut for the game.

About Settlers 7, maybe people don't like it so much?

[MDrm]

PC doesn't do so good in sales compared to consoles generally,
MW2 being the most played on steam still didn't beat 360 or PS3, even though its a FPS game.

Second once again there are other reason why it didn't sell good on PC

1. It was first for 360 and PS3 for about 4-6months ago
2. Not everyone bought it on Steam but retail
3. A lot of PC users have consoles.
4. They are most likely waiting for a price cut for the game.

About Settlers 7, maybe people don't like it so much?

Let me quote from the other thread, since you seem insistent in those invalid points.

PC users is not the same as PC gamers. Lots of console gamers have PC, they are PC users, PC gamers use the PC primarily for playing, so I don't think that excuse sticks at all. A PC gamer would rather play a game on the PC and it was quite evident that the demand for ACII was there and it was huge. Look at ACI for a perfect example, all your points applies to ACI as well and yet it hit #1 on most charts and kept that position for weeks. ACI was released much later than 4 months for the PC.

Those arguments are not convincing and are really starting to sound as a preemptive excuse if the numbers show SH5 and ACII did poorly.

So, those points you make, were made for ACI as well and yet ACI was weeks in #1 in most charts. ACII had more demand, and did very poorly. Those points are nothing more than a preemptive excuse preparing for the failing sales numbers.

[MDrm]

And other thing, I keep saying this over and over, PC does better than consoles most of the times when it comes to total net revenue for each gaming company. Check their investor pages, you can't have more hard data than that.

Sick and tired of hearing the same rehashed excuse over and over again to justify anything in PC gaming, from draconian DRMs to poor quality games and support.

[insanefred]

DRM worked better than butter. True story

[lordfrikk]

Last time I was here about week after ACII was released and now I come here to see another of THOSE threads again, LOL. Don't you have anything better to do with your life? :/ I should probably find something better to do myself, since commenting in the 1001th Ubisoft DRM topic isn't a really fulfilling.

Also: did not buy.

[Jito463]

I'm still waiting for some1 to stand up in the crowd and scream "RPG INCOMMING!"

RPG? Role-Playing Game? ;)

[Scared]

So far the DRM has stopped the pirates from getting access to the full game but the question is, at what cost (which others talked about before).

How many of the pirates went "screw it, I will buy the game"? I bet not many.
How many potential customers went "screw it, I'm not buying it with this horrible DRM"? A hell of a lot more than the previous category.

They have had a small win in one part but have put off a large number of their fans.

[FK120]

So far the DRM has stopped the pirates from getting access to the full game but the question is, at what cost (which others talked about before).

How many of the pirates went "screw it, I will buy the game"? I bet not many.
How many potential customers went "screw it, I'm not buying it with this horrible DRM"? A hell of a lot more than the previous category.

They have had a small win in one part but have put off a large number of their fans.

Hence the "worked". It did deter initial piracy, but it nullified the IP protection by putting off potential customers. Most likely this resulted in a leftward shift in consumer demand compared to if it didn't have DRM... But it has in effect, stopped piracy which is what most idiotic companies seem to have in mind, rather than making good games.

[Royas]

Interesting point. However, as long as a company does everything it can to protect its servers, then you can hardly blame anyone else but the assailant IMHO.

Gotta disagree. It's Ubisoft that designed in a very vulnerable point failure into our single player game experience. Deliberately! I don't care why their servers might fail, if they aren't up 24/7 under any and all circumstances for every single paying customer, they've failed. It's their design flaw, it's their fault, period. DDoS attacks notwithstanding, if Ubisoft hadn't made the customer dependent on their servers, then there would have been no problem.

[eckertt001]

Since the game is already available at a discounted price in various forms, you can be assured the game is not performing as well as they would like you to believe. Point specific, the console version alone is already discounted to $29.99. You can compare that to, lets say Batman: Arkham Asylum which still sells for $39.99.

You know things are bad when a PC Game reviewer can't even do an effective review of the game when the DRM is interfering with that, as shown in the various blogs.

[Snus]

Hmm.

Ubisoft implements online DRM.
Games doesn't get hacked right away.
Frustrated customers that can't connect disable firewalls and use DMZ.
Customer gets hacked right away.

[mriguy]

Yes it worked...and...

In a few weeks Ubisoft will have to post their sales numbers and we will see how well it really did. Now, they can no longer use pirates as an excuse for the poor PC sales numbers. They will try to blame the DoS attacks (if you believe them) on some of the numbers and will write off the full retail value of the games they gave away as compensation in order to distract investors from the fact that this DRM is a total PR failure. Of course Ubisoft will announce it as a complete success.

I can not wait for the "spin" on the upcoming financial reports.

Meanwhile, they lost 3 sales from me as I spent my money elsewhere.

[Exinjeru]

Ignoring the pro-drm or anti-drm stances. I consistently wonder about the inner workings at Ubisoft and other big companies.

Some massively ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ executive comes to some programmers and says "We'd like to make DRM to protect our software".
Fair enough, but then isn't it the programmer's job to start telling the executive that having the entire system reliant on one key connection that has to remain perfectly flawless at all times is a poor idea that will never work in practice?

Are programmers so unethical in their work that they'll hand over a completed but flawed DRM software and collect their paycheck for it? Well, probably.

Generally the know nothing executives that run large companies and don't seem to know anything about their market, much less any kind of basic business sense, need teams of people to tell them when they're doing something wrong, or when something just won't work in reality. It seems like lately, especially in these large videogame publishing companies(and maybe Lucasfilm), we have just hit a sudden and massive lack of people to tell their executives when something is a bad idea.

I guess I'd blame the economy for making executives so fire happy towards people that disagree with them.

[mriguy]

Generally the know nothing executives that run large companies and don't seem to know anything about their market, much less any kind of basic business sense, need teams of people to tell them when they're doing something wrong, or when something just won't work in reality. It seems like lately, especially in these large videogame publishing companies(and maybe Lucasfilm), we have just hit a sudden and massive lack of people to tell their executives when something is a bad idea.

I agree with you 100% !!

However, you can not excuse Ubisoft's ignorance on common large business bureaucracy. There are plenty of really good companies; Valve, Blizard, CCP, Relic, Bioware, Bethesda and even EA is trying to redefine itself. I am really excited about PC gaming and where it is going. Look at Mount and Blade's communinty or Natural Selection 2 being financed solely by preorders for a product that has not even had an alpha release.

As more publishers shun the PC gamer others take its place. Personally, I could care less if Ubisoft went exclusively to the console. They are dead to me anyway. This DRM is stupid.

[djuara]

Generally the know nothing executives that run large companies and don't seem to know anything about their market, much less any kind of basic business sense, need teams of people to tell them when they're doing something wrong, or when something just won't work in reality. It seems like lately, especially in these large videogame publishing companies(and maybe Lucasfilm), we have just hit a sudden and massive lack of people to tell their executives when something is a bad idea.


You assumed that the executives are going to listen to a lowly programmer. I'm sure a lot of people inside Ubisoft told the executives that the DRM is a bad idea, but then the executives just tell them they have negative thinking and they should focus on the positive instead of negative. Or just tell those that oppose the DRM that how they know it'll fail if they never try? A successful person is one that not afraid of trying new thing. :)

[in.meinem.turm.]

In a few weeks Ubisoft will have to post their sales numbers
:confused: Even Valve doesn't tell you their sales numbers.

and even EA is trying to redefine itself.
You have heard about the DRM they are using for C&C4? Hint: It's the really annoying brother of this one. And still they have less threads complaining about it over there. I wonder why. Maybe because no one really cares for the game anyways.

[Exinjeru]

You assumed that the executives are going to listen to a lowly programmer. I'm sure a lot of people inside Ubisoft told the executives that the DRM is a bad idea, but then the executives just tell them they have negative thinking and they should focus on the positive instead of negative. Or just tell those that oppose the DRM that how they know it'll fail if they never try? A successful person is one that not afraid of trying new thing. :)

I'm talking about answers that are common sense, like "You can't maintain a constant online connection over the internet, you will always see momentary connection losses"

There's no debate if that's true, it's a fact. It can't be overcome with a positive outlook. Even the USA/Russia diplomacy line that's designed to never be disconnected ever, has momentary connection losses for a few seconds while it restores the connection automatically.

The original version of this DRM didn't just pause the game, it dropped you out of the game if it lost connection for even a second. That would be the version of the software that was delivered to Ubisoft with no one telling them it wouldn't work well.

[djuara]

:confused: Even Valve doesn't tell you their sales numbers.

Ubisoft is a publicly traded company and they have to release their financial report. From that you can figure out the total income they get from PC platform which will show the result from their games that use the DRM since they didn't release anything on PC without the DRM this year.

[brabee]

Gotta disagree. It's Ubisoft that designed in a very vulnerable point failure into our single player game experience. Deliberately! I don't care why their servers might fail, if they aren't up 24/7 under any and all circumstances for every single paying customer, they've failed. It's their design flaw, it's their fault, period. DDoS attacks notwithstanding, if Ubisoft hadn't made the customer dependent on their servers, then there would have been no problem.

Yeah I understand that. But lets be honest here, you can do whatever you want and still, somebody will come and break through any measures you might have.
People who - as it seems - are finally breaking through AC2 DRM are pretty good prove, dont you think?

[Exinjeru]

50% of the problem could have been corrected by just having the DRM check the server less often. It was tested and it stops the game seconds after connection is lost. Mass effect was originally going to have this sort of DRM, but EA actually changed their mind... they must have still had someone at EA to tell them how the internet didn't work that way, because I know EA doesn't really listen to customer complaints either.

If the DRM just checked the ubisoft server every couple minutes that would massively reduce the chance of a player ever getting kicked out of the game due to a momentary lag on their internet connection. It would also have reduced the load on the Ubisoft server and possibly reduced it's vulnerability to DDOS attacks, as well as making it easier to filter the attack out.

Really whether you're against DRM or not, what no one should accept is software that doesn't work right. Whether it's the game or the game's DRM.

[LtPinback]

A DRM system that turns away legit customers from buying the game cannot be said to be a working model. Now that the DRM is defeated I hope they remove this draconian DRM ASAP so that I may buy and enjoy the game.

[Zukabazuka]

50% of the problem could have been corrected by just having the DRM check the server less often. It was tested and it stops the game seconds after connection is lost. Mass effect was originally going to have this sort of DRM, but EA actually changed their mind... they must have still had someone at EA to tell them how the internet didn't work that way, because I know EA doesn't really listen to customer complaints either.

If the DRM just checked the ubisoft server every couple minutes that would massively reduce the chance of a player ever getting kicked out of the game due to a momentary lag on their internet connection. It would also have reduced the load on the Ubisoft server and possibly reduced it's vulnerability to DDOS attacks, as well as making it easier to filter the attack out.

Really whether you're against DRM or not, what no one should accept is software that doesn't work right. Whether it's the game or the game's DRM.

It did work, it stopped the pirates on day one and even later, I say let it be in. Its not like all those who play MW2, TF2, CS 1.6, CSS, BF2, 2142, BC2 have problem playing online.

If those who have made the crack have to have a server up and running we can do the same to them. I think they don't really wanna bother keeping a server up and running for every other crackers out there. You know it might cost a lot for them.

[MDrm]

It did work, it stopped the pirates on day one and even later, I say let it be in. Its not like all those who play MW2, TF2, CS 1.6, CSS, BF2, 2142, BC2 have problem playing online.

If those who have made the crack have to have a server up and running we can do the same to them. I think they don't really wanna bother keeping a server up and running for every other crackers out there. You know it might cost a lot for them.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, have you? The crack is an offline, local server in your own PC it seems and all those games you mentioned, they are MULTIPLAYER. ACII is a SINGLEPLAYER game. There's a difference and a big one at that.

Now that it seems it's officially cracked, ubisoft keeping this DRM will only lead to one single thing, and that's a ton of lost sales. Nobody will play a game with this DRM when they can play without.

Thank god the 4Q closed before this crack was out. At least we'll know if the DRM had an impact on sales, as many of us predict it will have.

[ufarax]

For the last eight months I pinched my pennies. I saved enough to by a new rig. Core i7 970 Extreme. Corsair Dominator GT (1600) 6GB. Corsair 800D case. H50 Hydro cooler. Geforce 285 GTX (will upgrade to 480 when available). Four Velociraptor 300 gig 2 mirror 2 stripe. (Very weary of SSD). Ultra X4 1200-Watt Modular Power Supply. EVGA X58 SLI Classified E760 motherboard. I purchased the CPU last. To my horror:confused: I will receive a free copy of AC2. What to do? I had planned never to buy the horrid thing. I guess I could use it to benchmark my rig. I actually called the company and asked for another game. I was told the promotion was from Intel. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. I am not overjoyed. The CPU arrives Wednesday. Will I or won’t I install that expletive. I probably will.:mad:

[DJ_Professor_K]

It did work, it stopped the pirates on day one and even later, I say let it be in. Its not like all those who play MW2, TF2, CS 1.6, CSS, BF2, 2142, BC2 have problem playing online.

If those who have made the crack have to have a server up and running we can do the same to them. I think they don't really wanna bother keeping a server up and running for every other crackers out there. You know it might cost a lot for them.

Congratulations in comparing full MP games to a SP game.

[Mr. Indeeds]

♥♥♥♥ who cares. It works fine for me and everyone I know that owns the game. Never had problems with Internet connections or their servers, the game ran fine and no cracks were made for almost a month, a bit longer and it would've been a month.

[brabee]

For the last eight months I pinched my pennies. I saved enough to by a new rig. Core i7 970 Extreme. Corsair Dominator GT (1600) 6GB. Corsair 800D case. H50 Hydro cooler. Geforce 285 GTX (will upgrade to 480 when available). Four Velociraptor 300 gig 2 mirror 2 stripe. (Very weary of SSD). Ultra X4 1200-Watt Modular Power Supply. EVGA X58 SLI Classified E760 motherboard. I purchased the CPU last. To my horror:confused: I will receive a free copy of AC2. What to do? I had planned never to buy the horrid thing. I guess I could use it to benchmark my rig. I actually called the company and asked for another game. I was told the promotion was from Intel. Never look a gift horse in the mouth. I am not overjoyed. The CPU arrives Wednesday. Will I or won’t I install that expletive. I probably will.:mad:

And then you ll be back to tell us that it actually isnt as bad as all the people who never experienced it say.
Mark my words ;)

[ufarax]

I don’t like to be inconvenienced. This DRM is an unneeded hastle. Last year I spent over $1000 on PC Games. I spent over $470 this year on steam alone. I will never purchase a UBISOFT game with this DRM.
They have made nothing that cries “I must have it”. They are an insignificant company. Prince of Persia
Has run its course. The Splinter Cell franchise should be mothballed. Silent Hunter has sunk. Far Cry 2
Was a disaster. We are witnessing the self destruction of an insignificant Publisher. My advice is simple.
Make your DRM more complicated hurry your demise. When they are gone no one will notice. :D

[SunriseDriver]

♥♥♥♥ who cares. It works fine for me and everyone I know that owns the game. Never had problems with Internet connections or their servers, the game ran fine and no cracks were made for almost a month, a bit longer and it would've been a month.
Indeed, Mr. Indeeds. :D
It's the best game I've seen since AC and GTA IV and some extra DRM can't stop me from playing this game.
(Still can't understand people who refuse to play the game (that they wanted so much) just becasue of DRM or Live etc.)

[Exinjeru]

The DRM "worked" at stopping pirates. It also stops a good percentage of legitimate players. The DRM software itself doesn't actually work that well and was poorly designed.

It stopped pirates, but at a huge loss of customer freedom. It "worked" but at a cost that most players are apparently completely ignorant of.

Enjoy paying $60, then $15 a month to play Assassin's Creed 3. With no multiplayer. Don't worry, to make up for it, it tracks how many beggars you've shoved and other meaningless stats, along with your bank account number.

It would have been nice to play Beyond good and evil 2 before Ubisoft went out of business, but it would probably just have Uplay on it now, so I couldn't buy it anyway.

[MDrm]

Indeed, Mr. Indeeds. :D
It's the best game I've seen since AC and GTA IV and some extra DRM can't stop me from playing this game.
(Still can't understand people who refuse to play the game (that they wanted so much) just becasue of DRM or Live etc.)

Consumer rights, read about it and you'll know why we won't touch the game no matter what until the DRM is taken away.

[Zmidponk]

Not technically, you ALWAYS pay for a licence of software. That is how IP law works. And always has worked.

I keep seeing people say this, and it amazes me to no end.

This is NOT how IP law works, nor has it EVER been how IP law works. This is how people like software publishers would like you to THINK how IP law works with software, simply because it's software. In reality, IP law as regards software is absolutely no different to IP law as regards, say, books. In brief, this is that, if you buy a copy of something, whether that be a book or a bit of software (or film, or music album, etc, etc, etc), you gain all ownership rights over that particular copy. However, you do not gain the IP rights, or copyright, of that particular thing. This means that, with certain 'fair use' exceptions, and, in some places, the exception of the owner making a backup copy for their own personal use, you do not have the right to make copies of this thing, or derivitave works, or partial copies, or anything else of that nature, without the permission of the copyright holder.

[Mark_VI]

I keep seeing people say this, and it amazes me to no end.

This is NOT how IP law works, nor has it EVER been how IP law works. This is how people like software publishers would like you to THINK how IP law works with software, simply because it's software. In reality, IP law as regards software is absolutely no different to IP law as regards, say, books. In brief, this is that, if you buy a copy of something, whether that be a book or a bit of software (or film, or music album, etc, etc, etc), you gain all ownership rights over that particular copy. However, you do not gain the IP rights, or copyright, of that particular thing. This means that, with certain 'fair use' exceptions, and, in some places, the exception of the owner making a backup copy for their own personal use, you do not have the right to make copies of this thing, or derivitave works, or partial copies, or anything else of that nature, without the permission of the copyright holder.

There are a bunch of conflicting court rulings out there that muddy the issue in the US.

My argument is a simple one: how can it really be a license and not a sale when you can't see the license terms until you buy the un-returnable software? That doesn't sound like a fair contract to me. Furthermore, when the publisher has no mechanism to take the physical copy back from you, how is it a license?

[brabee]

In brief, this is that, if you buy a copy of something, whether that be a book or a bit of software (or film, or music album, etc, etc, etc), you gain all ownership rights over that particular copy. However, you do not gain the IP rights, or copyright, of that particular thing.

You need to distinguish between the book, CD, DVD or whatever and the IP material on it.

You may gain complete ownership of these, but, you only gain the right to use the copy. You do not gain ownership over it.

[MDrm]

And here is another shining example (http://www.bluesnews.com/s/109085/the-settlers-7-drm-woes-continue) of how this DRM is really working. And with more and more reports of ACII being truly cracked I remind everyone to read what Ubisoft said (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=237724&site=pcg) if the DRM was cracked and wonder what they will do now.

[Royas]

You need to distinguish between the book, CD, DVD or whatever and the IP material on it.

You may gain complete ownership of these, but, you only gain the right to use the copy. You do not gain ownership over it.

I have yet to see an actual, detailed license for any book I've ever bought. Plus, with the book, cd, whatever, I'm allowed to do pretty much whatever I want with it, short of copying it and selling/giving away the copies. I can sell it. I can copy it for personal use. I can lend it to a friend. I can rent it to somebody. All things the software publishers would like us to think we can't do. Traditionally, these are all things we consumers are allowed to do with media and IP, the publishers are flying in the face of many years of established tradition in their greed and lust for control.

And given that some courts in the US have applied the Doctrine of First Sale to supposedly licensed software, I'd say there's an argument for treating software as a product. Just like everything else. Trust the corporate lawyers to try to complicate the matter.

[UxmalTrekker]

I’ve watched the ongoing DRM debate unfold over the weeks since the release of Assassin’s Creed II, as I was interested in the title, but I never participated in any discussion on any forum. However, now that apparently a fully working pirated version is available to the public, and some people from both sides of the argument are claiming that the DRM has served its purpose, I have to ask a question. ‘What am I missing?’

Either I don’t possess a vital piece of information concerning this issue, or I’m incredibly obtuse, because I don’t understand how this DRM actually served its publicly stated, intended purpose. I’ve seen numerous people claim throughout the life of this debate that the DRM was successful simply because it stymied day one piracy. Yes, we all know that there was no day one pirated version, but what exactly did Ubisoft gain by that? Did a large percentage of the people that were intent on obtaining the game for free, through piracy, throw up their arms in defeat because they couldn’t download a pirated version within the first twenty-four hours and subsequently give in by purchasing a legitimate retail or download copy? If this is the case how does Ubisoft know this? What are their sources for this information? By delaying the pirates did Ubisoft gain revenue or even stop the company from losing revenue? (Again, if so, how do they know this?) And revenue, as we all know, or more specifically instantaneous revenue, is the single most important thing to the people controlling large companies – their raison d’etre - often in disregard of other relevant factors, both tangible and intangible. So I ask again, how did Ubisoft gain?

Pondering the situation as deeply as possible, for the life of me, I can’t see where Ubisoft gained at all, even with the appearance of a fully pirated version being held off for close to a month. Were PC Gamers so mesmerized by this title that they felt an uncontrollable compulsion to obtain it by any means possible, even legitimately paying for it when they initially had no intention to do so, within x amount of days or forever suffer because of it? Obviously that wasn’t the case as I and other potential, legitimate customers did not purchase the game. And if anti-piracy, potential customers like me didn’t buy it, what is the likelihood that unscrupulous pirates did? Perhaps after six months or a year or when the price has considerably dropped a percentage of those foiled pirates would purchase it. But having only a few days or even a few months pass it seems unlikely that the vast majority that were determined to get it for free would consider legal purchase. So what really was the success?

The only ‘successes’ that I could come up with are the bragging rights for delaying the pirates longer than usual and the potential for spinning this delay into positive numbers contrived for a board of directors or a shareholders meeting. Having worked for a large corporation, and subsequently been forced to suffer through both types of meetings, I know that scenarios like this certainly do play out. And this spun information would be looked upon favorably, as from my experience these groups are most interested in two things: the bottom line and that everything is ‘perceived’ to be fine. In this case the perception of fine being that the pirates were given a right thrashing and that a quantity of sales were gained and not lost because of the success of the DRM.

Also, in the case of Assassin’s Creed II, if one of the more astute attendees at these meetings questions why sales are seemingly low Ubisoft has the built in excuse that the game was so extremely popular on the consoles, where it was released months before, that it didn’t leave that large of a potential market for the PC. It would also probably be ‘explained’ that had the DRM not been successfully in place sales wouldn’t have been nearly as high as they were. This would be followed by nodding and congratulatory back slapping as the level of hubris in the room would increase accordingly whilst thoughts of victory and power filled some heads. Granted, this whole ‘success’ scenario is speculation on my part, but I posit this possibility because I’ve seen similar happenings unfold, in all of their sickening glory, in front of my very eyes. Regardless of whether or not that speculative scenario played out in some form, you can be almost certain that any mention of lost sales due to consumer outrage will be downplayed to suggest that only a very, very miniscule number of real potential customers didn’t actually buy the game, with the reason being supplied that they didn’t posses a reliable internet connection. And that most of the outrage will be chalked up to disgruntled pirates screaming at the top of their lungs because they were beaten. This would be summed up by stating that they gained many more sales than they lost because the DRM was successful. Cue the congratulatory back slapping once again.

The other possible success, the one that really gnaws at me, is the power of control gained over the legitimate consumer base. For anyone that purchased any of the games covered by the new DRM scheme Ubisoft has gained control over how, when and where you play the legally obtained product. And yes, I know that MMO’s and online shooters have the same kind of setup and control, but for those products the scheme is absolutely, positively necessary in order to play the game it was meant to be played. For a single player game it is absolutely, positively unnecessary. Also, I fear that moving single player gaming to this persistent online environment is just another scheme for publishers to reach more deeply into our pockets without them having to put forth any effort to create something new in order to do so. There is great potential for profit in controlling every facet of how we game. Perhaps I’m wrong about this; then again, perhaps not. Maximizing profits is the corporate credo – get as much as you can for as little cost and as little effort as possible.

The other aspect of this effect on the consumer is the squashing (at least potential squashing) of the secondary market, which is one of the few consumer rights we actually have in regard to games purchases. Someone in another topic suggested that Ubisoft isn’t interested in the five or ten dollars we could get for selling a game on the secondary market. And that person was absolutely correct; the publishers don’t care that we can make a small portion of our money back, they already have the full amount from the initial purchase. Where Ubisoft and other publishers would and most likely do have interest is in the fact that somebody else could then buy that second hand game in lieu of purchasing a new copy from them and thus the company would potentially lose out on twenty, thirty, forty, fifty or with ACII, even sixty dollars depending on where the current price point resides. In addition to the economics involved, and more importantly, I can’t understand why anyone would freely and willingly give up any right that they have, regardless of the context/circumstance. Doing so is never a sound idea. Losing freedoms/rights is a very easy thing to do because someone is always willing to take them from you; getting them back, however, is a nigh impossible thing.

As the situation currently stands, publishers distinctly have the upper hand over gamers in the rights department. Look at how many unfinished, unpolished, bug-ridden, poorly supported titles are released each and every year and the relatively small amount of recourse that legitimate consumers have in response. How many times has each one of us walked away from a legally purchased game in utter disgust because it was essentially a defective product? And in how many of those instances does the publisher do everything that they can in the venue of customer support to make us satisfied?

This segues directly into my second big question. If DRM is truly intended to combat piracy then why aren’t the restrictions which are forced onto legitimate, paying customers patched out as soon as the game is hacked if the DRM scheme itself cannot be fully removed? Why are the people that opened their wallets to procure the product legally, and thus supported the company’s business endeavors, forced to endure further inconvenience and restrictions while those that illegally obtained the product suffer no inconvenience or restrictions at all?

If implementation of DRM is truly about combating piracy then the war is lost as soon as the software is hacked and therefore the intended, publicly announced function of said DRM becomes completely unnecessary. So if the DRM no longer serves the function that publishers tell us that it is there to serve, then I have to ask once more “Why does the DRM remain actively in place after it has been rendered useless?” Why would any company continue to needlessly place restrictions upon its legal customer base when it is no longer necessary and in the process of doing so alienate more and more of that customer base? Why, in fact, would these companies risk alienating customers to such a high degree that a percentage of them may not be returning for any more of their products in the future? I fear that the answer to this relates to the ‘success’ that really gnaws at me which I covered above. I hope I’m wrong, I really do. But, I don’t see any evidence to the contrary. Again, maybe I’m missing something relevant. If I am, please point out what that missing piece is, because I’d really like to know.

Publishers could convince a lot of us skeptics that highly restrictive, highly invasive DRM schemes are truly an effort to combat piracy by doing two simple things:

1. Remove any and all DRM restrictions as soon as the game has been successfully pirated, even if the pirated version appears on day one.

2. Guarantee the consumer right to sell the product on the secondary market through providing some kind of a reset service.

In other words, protect the rights of your valued customers, as they are what keep you in business. If these things were done and if the questionable publishers made a concerted effort to begin publishing only finished products, with excellent customer service (this includes company representatives actually answering inquiries in an honest and timely manner), with demos for everything, and with ongoing support for their games (ala Valve with Half-Life) those questionable companies just may be surprised at the level of support that they would receive in return. I know that the chances of this happening are in the realm of a pipedream, but it is feasible. It would also be the professional thing to do.

Regards,
Uxmal

[MikeHaggar]

No since the game has now been successfully "cracked".

its not an actual crack, its a server emulator that you run on your pc but it works just as well and you can play the game offline and everything. saves, achievements etc everything works fine. and since it runs off the original .exe there is no risk off crashing or decreased stability or anything like that.

[MDrm]

+1 rep Uxmal.

There's another, probably unwanted effect by Ubisoft that this DRM has now caused.

From what I hear, the crack isn't really a crack but a server emulator. You don't touch the game's files at all, don't alter it, anything, you don't crack the game because it's not a crack but a bypass that doesn't modify any of the games files. As we all know tampering or modifying the files is illegal. But now nobody is modifying anything. What now?

A very dangerous gray area has now been opened, because offline servers are used by a LOT of people and you can't simply make them illegal, or all LANs would become illegal.

Ubisoft may have gotten a whole lot more than what they bargained for and may open here a very, very dangerous legal precedent either way.

[Chapa9dj]

Pirates playing it for free while us loyal customers get screwed again.
I don't care anyway, i don't regret paying $65 dollars. The game is tremendously amazing and well worth the money.

[MDrm]

Pirates playing it for free while us loyal customers get screwed again.
I don't care anyway, i don't regret paying $65 dollars. The game is tremendously amazing and well worth the money.

The game, yes. The DRM, no, not worth any money.

[Royas]

+1 rep Uxmal.

There's another, probably unwanted effect by Ubisoft that this DRM has now caused.

From what I hear, the crack isn't really a crack but a server emulator. You don't touch the game's files at all, don't alter it, anything, you don't crack the game because it's not a crack but a bypass that doesn't modify any of the games files. As we all know tampering or modifying the files is illegal. But now nobody is modifying anything. What now?

A very dangerous gray area has now been opened, because offline servers are used by a LOT of people and you can't simply make them illegal, or all LANs would become illegal.

Ubisoft may have gotten a whole lot more than what they bargained for and may open here a very, very dangerous legal precedent either way.

So, it may actually be LEGAL to "crack" this game? Technically and in practice? I don't think that's what Ubisoft had in mind when they put in the DRM. Not a good precedent for them to set. I don't even think you can call that cracking, to be honest.

[MDrm]

So, it may actually be LEGAL to "crack" this game? Technically and in practice? I don't think that's what Ubisoft had in mind when they put in the DRM. Not a good precedent for them to set. I don't even think you can call that cracking, to be honest.

Exactly. It's not cracking because no file is modified or even touched. And the question becomes, now what? Banning local servers would have repercussions that may affect every one, since even a simple LAN is a form of local server, yet how to approach this question?

Ubisoft really screwed this in more ways than one. Whatever happens, it will not be pretty since I can't even see a legislation being coherent about this new form of piracy. It was easy to say that you can't modify files, but now no file is modified at all.

Good grief, I'm actually researching EU and US laws to get some idea of what may happen. Ubisoft may have opened inadvertently a can of worms that will do everyone a lot of harm, consumers and companies alike.

[cristianesza]

+1 rep Uxmal.

There's another, probably unwanted effect by Ubisoft that this DRM has now caused.

From what I hear, the crack isn't really a crack but a server emulator. You don't touch the game's files at all, don't alter it, anything, you don't crack the game because it's not a crack but a bypass that doesn't modify any of the games files. As we all know tampering or modifying the files is illegal. But now nobody is modifying anything. What now?

A very dangerous gray area has now been opened, because offline servers are used by a LOT of people and you can't simply make them illegal, or all LANs would become illegal.

Ubisoft may have gotten a whole lot more than what they bargained for and may open here a very, very dangerous legal precedent either way.
Nah they just need to work a bit more on encryption for the next games.

The way the connection between the game and the server was encrypted allowed them to keep the game uncracked for about a month, surely if they hire the right people the next games will be safer.

[MDrm]

Nah they just need to work a bit more on encryption for the next games.

The way the connection between the game and the server was encrypted allowed them to keep the game uncracked for about a month, surely if they hire the right people the next games will be safer.

The method is now known, it will be a simple action of updating the local server to match the ubisoft's servers. And so we're back at square 0 and pirates are now playing the game.

Ubisoft said it would consider taking the DRM away (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=237724&site=pcg) if this was pirated. I now want to see what they'll do.

[lordfrikk]

Nah they just need to work a bit more on encryption for the next games.

The way the connection between the game and the server was encrypted allowed them to keep the game uncracked for about a month, surely if they hire the right people the next games will be safer.

There is no encryption involved. It's as simple as question? -> answers pairs. Game asks and if the server responds correctly, the game continues. Reason why it took so long is probably people tried to actually remove those checks, as in - use usual cracking methods. Why is there no scene release is kind of mystery, though. Some guy/gal called Dormine wrote a short python server and exe, that is able to sniff the communication and save it to a file. It should work for other Ubi games, but that yet remains to be seen.

[FK120]

To those saying that the DRM hasn't worked...

It has worked, the main purpose of DRM is to eliminate the initial impact of piracy regardless of the legitimate customer's experience. You all know for a fact that DRM never works in the legitimate customer's favor and only benefits the publisher. If it works correctly, you gain nothing; if it works incorrectly, your system goes to hell.

The DRM has worked. It has curbed piracy for a month, which is more than the norm. I'm highly anti-DRM, especially one like this; but i'm not going to denounce the effectivness of the initial DRM. The DRM has stopped people from playing the game for free, but it's other effect is that it's stopped people from trying to give money to Ubicrap.

It's going to be interesting to see how Ubisoft plays this now; since it's been cracked but the quarter is almost over. They can't blame piracy for a lack luster quarter, the global cracking equation is now out. What now?

[MikeHaggar]

It has worked, the main purpose of DRM is to eliminate the initial impact of piracy regardless of the legitimate customer's experience. You all know for a fact that DRM never works in the legitimate customer's favor and only benefits the publisher. If it works correctly, you gain nothing; if it works incorrectly, your system goes to hell.And how many sales do you think they won by that? 2? 3?

[DJ_Professor_K]

+2 rep to Uxmal, for his big wall of text that was really well ellaborated, really well said and nice points given, everyone should read his wise words.

[Malachiasz]

I happened to play Assassin Creed 2 on my friend's computer. His version was "pirated" which boiled down to changing host file and creating virtual server on one's PC. Game then connects to this virtual-fake server and thinks that it is connected to Ubisoft servers. Enough said that game works perfectly and the internet connection is not necessary in this case. After playing a while I was suprised how good this game is. Since price of AC2 went down I would gladly buy this game... but this DRM repels me. I have strange feeling that I'm not the only one who struggles with this dillema.

[UxmalTrekker]

MDrm and DJ_Professor_K,

Thanks for taking the time to read my huge post, for your responses and for the positive rep., it’s much appreciated. Also, I was unaware of the particulars surrounding the crack so thanks for supplying that information as well MDrm. With the nature of this crack (or whatever term will be applied to this particular case in the future) it does now seem that the proverbial can of worms may be opened and ready to squirm. Unfortunately, if that is the case it will most likely only serve to further escalate and quicken the pace of the DRM wars.

Concerning my humongous post, I was really hoping for at least a few responses from some of the pro-DRM people on the forum considering how adamant a number of them have been in support of the new Ubisoft scheme. I was truly serious when I asked if I was missing something, but nobody seems to want to defend the scheme with facts or particulars.


To those saying that the DRM hasn't worked...

It has worked, the main purpose of DRM is to eliminate the initial impact of piracy regardless of the legitimate customer's experience. You all know for a fact that DRM never works in the legitimate customer's favor and only benefits the publisher. If it works correctly, you gain nothing; if it works incorrectly, your system goes to hell.

The DRM has worked. It has curbed piracy for a month, which is more than the norm. I'm highly anti-DRM, especially one like this; but i'm not going to denounce the effectivness of the initial DRM. The DRM has stopped people from playing the game for free, but it's other effect is that it's stopped people from trying to give money to Ubicrap.

It's going to be interesting to see how Ubisoft plays this now; since it's been cracked but the quarter is almost over. They can't blame piracy for a lack luster quarter, the global cracking equation is now out. What now?


FK120,

I appreciate that you are anti-DRM and at the same time are keeping an open mind for points from both sides of the debate. But how exactly (details/particulars) has the DRM for Assassin’s Creed II been successful? Yes, the pirates were held off for more than a month but what did Ubisoft gain by this? As I pointed out in detail in my post above, it is highly unlikely that any pirate just admitted defeat and purchased the game after only approximately a month. But it is likely that more potential customers than are reflected on this forum, or on Ubisoft’s forum, have not purchased the game because of the DRM scheme and all of the factors involved with it.

With this in mind I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that probability is firmly on my side because of the circumstances and thus state that it is much more likely that Ubisoft has lost sales and revenue over this debacle rather than gained them, or even mitigated loss. The only possibility for success that I can see is in the arena of PR. But a PR victory cruising through a wake of lost sales is a pyrrhic victory at best. And it could only be viewed as a victory on the surface, and that’s dependent upon a lot of smoke and mirrors being used to obfuscate the truth of the matter.

Of course, if you have specific information concerning the ‘success of the DRM’ or believe that I am not considering a vital factor involved please relate it. I have never been infallible and don’t plan to be any time in the future so new information is always appreciated.

Regards,
Uxmal

[MDrm]

It's going to be interesting to see how Ubisoft plays this now; since it's been cracked but the quarter is almost over. They can't blame piracy for a lack luster quarter, the global cracking equation is now out. What now?

No, the quarter is already over, 31 March was the end of the 4Q.

[Royas]

Exactly. It's not cracking because no file is modified or even touched. And the question becomes, now what? Banning local servers would have repercussions that may affect every one, since even a simple LAN is a form of local server, yet how to approach this question?

Ubisoft really screwed this in more ways than one. Whatever happens, it will not be pretty since I can't even see a legislation being coherent about this new form of piracy. It was easy to say that you can't modify files, but now no file is modified at all.

Good grief, I'm actually researching EU and US laws to get some idea of what may happen. Ubisoft may have opened inadvertently a can of worms that will do everyone a lot of harm, consumers and companies alike.

I don't think they CAN ban local servers. That has nothing to do with Ubisoft, and they don't have any control over those. That's not part of their IP, after all. Ubisoft may have just put them in a position where they are helpless to stop the crack, more than usual I mean.

It's still illegal to distribute the original game files, though, but history has shown just how good publishers are at stopping that part of piracy. The good thing here is that now Ubisoft is going to be shown as the weaselly liars they are. Dollars to donuts, they aren't going to patch out the DRM even though the game is cracked. They'll probably say something like "Oh, server emulation doesn't count" or some other sort of weasel words. Patch? I doubt it.

[MDrm]

I don't think they CAN ban local servers. That has nothing to do with Ubisoft, and they don't have any control over those. That's not part of their IP, after all. Ubisoft may have just put them in a position where they are helpless to stop the crack, more than usual I mean.

It's still illegal to distribute the original game files, though, but history has shown just how good publishers are at stopping that part of piracy. The good thing here is that now Ubisoft is going to be shown as the weaselly liars they are. Dollars to donuts, they aren't going to patch out the DRM even though the game is cracked. They'll probably say something like "Oh, server emulation doesn't count" or some other sort of weasel words. Patch? I doubt it.

Yes, a huge, dangerous gray area has now opened up thanks to ubisoft's actions. I told everyone the DRM would come to bite them in the rear. At this point I'm unsure what will happen to be honest, all the things I'm reading on forums point for a local server running offline.

I honestly am a bit curious to see what happens next when this emulator hits the public sites. I'm sure that having a server to bypass a DRM is sort of illegal, but I'm not even sure the EULAs mention such a specific case, and certainly, from what I've been reading, the law, both EU and US, doesn't seem to mention a local server in specific terms.

Interesting times are coming, it seems. All thanks to ubisoft, who probably didn't see this coming at all.

[Jito463]

Yes, the "Law of Unintended Consequences" strikes again. Ubisoft just made it easier to pirate their games (relatively speaking), with no chance of game-breaking bugs introduced by a modified executable.

I also said this would come back to bite them, but I'll be honest, I didn't have this in mind when I said it.

[tippy25]

Someone should have told Ubisoft, "Prepare for unforeseen consequences."

[MDrm]

This is going to become a real nightmare for everyone. Ubisoft will have to defend its games but scaling the DRM to be even more aggressive will likely put most pro-DRM defenders on the side of those against it as the measures may start getting truly ridiculous, so they might use criminal law against piracy, but said laws in the EU and US are too vague concerning computer games that weren't tampered with.

See, the point here is that even if anyone downloads a dvd image of the game, it already has the DRM so it is protected against piracy by default. The server only redirects the game's traffic but does not mess with any game's files whatsoever. So what to do now? The laws are too vague about specifically bypassing attempts but on the other hand pirates will now have the game fully at their disposal.

This is going to become a real nightmare and ubisoft may go down in history for reasons they don't want to be remembered for, because I can see very easily this DRM hurting all the games companies because of this gray area if they all adopt a constant net connection DRM.

[tippy25]

I see your point and agree fully. There are two ways this can play out:

1. Ubisoft does the right thing and removes this type of DRM from all their games because it is now technically legal to "crack" the game since it's not truly cracking and no game files are modified and the DRM is nothing more than a hassle for everyone involved, and other developers follow suit because they don't want to reopen Pandora's Box.

2. Ubisoft ramps up the DRM, modifies the EULA to include the server emulation, they sell fewer games, fall by the wayside, and all kinds of legal hullabaloo take place. From the legal ♥♥♥♥-storm, one of two outcomes is most likely to happen: DRM like the one Ubisoft is using is deemed a violation of consumers' rights and therefore illegal, or an unenforceable ruling that private offline servers used to bypass the DRM are illegal.

[Metall_pingwin]

"worked"

No. There is no point in stopping piracy for the sake of stopping piracy. Developers want to increase their sales, stopping piracy is only the means. If they stopped pirates, but their sales remained low or lower then it did not work.

Successfuly defeating piracy would always result in higher sales. Nobody combats piracy on purely moral grounds.

[Mark_VI]

"worked"

No. There is no point in stopping piracy for the sake of stopping piracy. Developers want to increase their sales, stopping piracy is only the means. If they stopped pirates, but their sales remained low or lower then it did not work.

Successfuly defeating piracy would always result in higher sales. Nobody combats piracy on purely moral grounds.

As far as I can tell the developers have little to do with this DRM. I doubt anyone at Ubisoft Montreal has much of a say in the DRM scheme, it probably comes from higher up since Ubisfot is using this scheme on all of its titles now.

I don't mean to belittle your point, but the corporate world isn't so simple. Even if reducing piracy and upsetting customers worked out to a net gain of zero someone at Ubisoft will use the "success" of this to justify some silly promotion or bonus. The board can work up some numbers that show how wonderful the DRM is and spin it to the shareholders. Hasn't the last decade or so shown that these corporate types can make the numbers justify whatever they want? Think of all of the factors they can ignore when quantifying the "success" of this DRM, it isn't hard to present a skewed picture.

[FK120]

MDrm and DJ_Professor_K,

Thanks for taking the time to read my huge post, for your responses and for the positive rep., it’s much appreciated. Also, I was unaware of the particulars surrounding the crack so thanks for supplying that information as well MDrm. With the nature of this crack (or whatever term will be applied to this particular case in the future) it does now seem that the proverbial can of worms may be opened and ready to squirm. Unfortunately, if that is the case it will most likely only serve to further escalate and quicken the pace of the DRM wars.

Concerning my humongous post, I was really hoping for at least a few responses from some of the pro-DRM people on the forum considering how adamant a number of them have been in support of the new Ubisoft scheme. I was truly serious when I asked if I was missing something, but nobody seems to want to defend the scheme with facts or particulars.





FK120,

I appreciate that you are anti-DRM and at the same time are keeping an open mind for points from both sides of the debate. But how exactly (details/particulars) has the DRM for Assassin’s Creed II been successful? Yes, the pirates were held off for more than a month but what did Ubisoft gain by this? As I pointed out in detail in my post above, it is highly unlikely that any pirate just admitted defeat and purchased the game after only approximately a month. But it is likely that more potential customers than are reflected on this forum, or on Ubisoft’s forum, have not purchased the game because of the DRM scheme and all of the factors involved with it.

With this in mind I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that probability is firmly on my side because of the circumstances and thus state that it is much more likely that Ubisoft has lost sales and revenue over this debacle rather than gained them, or even mitigated loss. The only possibility for success that I can see is in the arena of PR. But a PR victory cruising through a wake of lost sales is a pyrrhic victory at best. And it could only be viewed as a victory on the surface, and that’s dependent upon a lot of smoke and mirrors being used to obfuscate the truth of the matter.

Of course, if you have specific information concerning the ‘success of the DRM’ or believe that I am not considering a vital factor involved please relate it. I have never been infallible and don’t plan to be any time in the future so new information is always appreciated.

Regards,
Uxmal

No, you've hit the nail on the head. It's why the DRM has "worked". The quotations in the thread title mean it's a half assed victory. It's kept piracy at bay with a certain cost in the form of lost sales. On paper this is a win for Ubisoft, however in the theoretical and more logical thought processes this is more than just a major loss for them. I am looking at this from a purely capitalistic viewpoint while disregarding the unmeasurable quantitative figures.

We all know that the DRM technically has failed because it's turned off so many legitimate customers from actually purchasing the game, but the only thing it's succeeded at is keeping pirates at bay. And while that doesn't encompass the entirety of the DRM problem, this DRM addresses the root reason of why DRM was created in the first place; to stop piracy.

It didn't increase sales, we all know that for a fact. Be real though, DRM isn't there to increase legitimate sales... it's there to stop people from getting the same half assed product for free. Plenty of crappy games have DRM on it to stop people from playing it for free.

Again, when i'm talking about "working" (which is a sarcastic form of working, hence the quotations), i'm looking only at a stopping piracy perspective. Increased sales are an autonomous variable.

[Ciaos]

It's kind of a shame. I saw my flatmate playing AC2 and wondered if he actually bought it but it was a cracked version. Despite despising this DRM, if it had actually prevented piracy, it would go a long way in improving sales and in the future, lowering prices for all games.

Hope they remove the DRM now its cracked. Bit pointless really.

[DJ_Professor_K]

It's kind of a shame. I saw my flatmate playing AC2 and wondered if he actually bought it but it was a cracked version. Despite despising this DRM, if it had actually prevented piracy, it would go a long way in improving sales and in the future, lowering prices for all games.

Hope they remove the DRM now its cracked. Bit pointless really.

This kind of DRM would never improve sales, actually no DRM improve sales, but the content of the game does.

As long the DRM isn't problematic, what makes a game sell is it's content, content good enough to make anyone (pirates alike) want to buy the game.

Also, DRMs don't prevent piracy, neither lower it, they can only delay it for a bit, and evan by delaying it, it doesn't mean pirates will give up and buy the game.


All this story is sad, and now, you, like me and lot's of people are now waiting for the DRM from AC2 to be removed like they promissed, but again, it's just another lie from ubisoft.

Still waiting to play AC2... guess i still have a long wait to wait :(

[nautsch]

Interesting point. However, as long as a company does everything it can to protect its servers, then you can hardly blame anyone else but the assailant IMHO.

Wrong. The problem is the flawed System.

Imagine a hole in your roof, which was produced by the guy who build it, because he sucks at roof building. Now you say, as long as the guy holds an umbrella over the hole as good as he can, he is not to be blamed. A little drop of rain here and there is to be expected.

UBI built a broken system and is to be blamed for it.

[Ciaos]

This kind of DRM would never improve sales, actually no DRM improve sales, but the content of the game does.

As long the DRM isn't problematic, what makes a game sell is it's content, content good enough to make anyone (pirates alike) want to buy the game.

Also, DRMs don't prevent piracy, neither lower it, they can only delay it for a bit, and evan by delaying it, it doesn't mean pirates will give up and buy the game.


All this story is sad, and now, you, like me and lot's of people are now waiting for the DRM from AC2 to be removed like they promissed, but again, it's just another lie from ubisoft.

Still waiting to play AC2... guess i still have a long wait to wait :(

I agree. But I was hypothesising that if this DRM had never been cracked, despite being draconian in nature, would be good in the long run for PC Gaming. Piracy is an issue, and this was not the solution.

Hopefully one day a system that works can be implemented, but as even MMO games can be emulated on a private server, I don't think its possible.

[UxmalTrekker]

No, you've hit the nail on the head. It's why the DRM has "worked". The quotations in the thread title mean it's a half assed victory. It's kept piracy at bay with a certain cost in the form of lost sales. On paper this is a win for Ubisoft, however in the theoretical and more logical thought processes this is more than just a major loss for them. I am looking at this from a purely capitalistic viewpoint while disregarding the unmeasurable quantitative figures.

We all know that the DRM technically has failed because it's turned off so many legitimate customers from actually purchasing the game, but the only thing it's succeeded at is keeping pirates at bay. And while that doesn't encompass the entirety of the DRM problem, this DRM addresses the root reason of why DRM was created in the first place; to stop piracy.

It didn't increase sales, we all know that for a fact. Be real though, DRM isn't there to increase legitimate sales... it's there to stop people from getting the same half assed product for free. Plenty of crappy games have DRM on it to stop people from playing it for free.

Again, when i'm talking about "working" (which is a sarcastic form of working, hence the quotations), i'm looking only at a stopping piracy perspective. Increased sales are an autonomous variable.


Alright, I get it, FK120. You’re coming at it from the perspective that Ubisoft set a goal for how long the DRM would hold out against being pirated, regardless of any subsequent detrimental occurrences to the actual business; such as lost sales, lost revenue and consumer alienation. I apologize; I was fixated on the economics of the situation and missed the depth of the sarcasm in your post. But looking at it from that perspective, that all sane and relevant business factors are just chucked to the wind, then yes, I have to agree that this DRM was a ‘success’.

After rereading that particular post and a few of your other ones, I get the feeling that you may be nearly as confused as I am concerning the total lack of business logic applied to this situation of DRM. I completely understand that many companies create goal oriented projects. In the case of Ubisoft with Assassin’s Creed II their goal was obviously to implement a DRM scheme that would last ‘x’ number of days without being pirated. Barring that they had completely unrealistic expectations for that goal, I would definitely surmise (as it seems that you would as well) that they reached said goal, most likely even exceeded it. So, since the target goal was achieved their DRM project was successful. However, as anyone that has ever worked in business knows, achieving a project goal/successfully completing a project does not necessarily equate into a success for the business. In fact, pretty much the only thing that matters in the long run is ‘did the benefit outweigh the cost’. Regardless of whether the various publishers are utilizing DRM in an attempt to recoup what they view as lost sales from piracy or are merely utilizing it “to stop people from getting the same half assed product for free” all I can see is the benefit being absolutely buried by the cost.

If the reason for implementing DRM schemes is to recoup what the publishers view as lost revenue from piracy, there’s not a chance in hell that they’re even coming close to having the benefit outweigh the cost. A very simplistic cost to benefit formula for this would be something like:

(Benefit) Revenue from converting would be pirates into paying customers must exceed –
(Cost) Total expenditure for development/purchase and implementation of DRM + Total revenue lost due to potential customers not purchasing product because of the presence of the DRM.

If the reason for implementing the DRM is the, more easily attainable but completely detrimental to the bottom line, desire to keep people from playing for free the first day or so, then there is never a monetary benefit. The only benefit that I can come up with (besides the spin for the board and the shareholders) is not having the company website flooded with complaints that other people are playing for free while “I paid for the game”. (???) This could hardly be considered a win for the business side of things.

Maybe I’m coming at this situation from much too stringent of a logical mindset and not allowing the creative side of my brain to interject anything on the subject, but to me this is absolutely absurd. I know I’m probably preaching to the choir here and just rambling off information of which you are already aware, but I’m trying to wrap this situation in at least a modicum of sense and I figured that you, or somebody else, may provide some insight that I’m not considering. However, no matter how I approach this I keep coming back to that first question I posted in my humungous opening salvo in this thread – ‘What am I missing?’ I know from experience that companies/corporations do really stupid things every day, but if DRM is really an effort to combat piracy then these publishers are just throwing money down the toilet. And they’re not doing it just once, on a pilot program to check viability, but over and over again on a losing cause. So what am I missing?

If a representative from one of the large publishers could fill in the blank with a satisfactory answer explaining how DRM is effectively combating piracy, an answer that doesn’t reflect an effort to gain more control over the gaming consumers, I could pull out some pom-poms and start cheering for them and DRM. So, how about it, do any of the Ubisoft representatives that visit the Assassin’s Creed forum want to make a fairly well-spoken convert?

Regards,
Uxmal

[Exinjeru]

But DRM is not about piracy. It's about removing ownership of the game from the end user, turning games into a service instead of a product, and killing the used games market.

Piracy takes a bite out of profits, but the used games market takes a much bigger bite.

[djuara]

But DRM is not about piracy. It's about removing ownership of the game from the end user, turning games into a service instead of a product, and killing the used games market.

Piracy takes a bite out of profits, but the used games market takes a much bigger bite.

Then why the requirement for constant online? To stop used games market, you don't need an intrusive DRM. All you need is to tie up a cd-key to an online account. Or just use Steamworks.

[in.meinem.turm.]

But DRM is not about piracy. It's about removing ownership of the game from the end user.

You cannot remove anything that the user never had.

[tippy25]

You cannot remove anything that the user never had.

I keep seeing people say this, and it amazes me to no end.

This is NOT how IP law works, nor has it EVER been how IP law works. This is how people like software publishers would like you to THINK how IP law works with software, simply because it's software. In reality, IP law as regards software is absolutely no different to IP law as regards, say, books. In brief, this is that, if you buy a copy of something, whether that be a book or a bit of software (or film, or music album, etc, etc, etc), you gain all ownership rights over that particular copy. However, you do not gain the IP rights, or copyright, of that particular thing. This means that, with certain 'fair use' exceptions, and, in some places, the exception of the owner making a backup copy for their own personal use, you do not have the right to make copies of this thing, or derivitave works, or partial copies, or anything else of that nature, without the permission of the copyright holder.
10 char

[oto niel]

@OP

People wanting to pirate X game, will wait as long as needed to, the whole day 0 argument is another CEO type of excuse.

[Ravenger]

@OP

People wanting to pirate X game, will wait as long as needed to, the whole day 0 argument is another CEO type of excuse.

Some gamers are impatient. If your game is leaked before release then they may well be tempted to pirate it just to get it early, if only for bragging rights.

Stopping 0 day piracy is probably the best way to ensure that customers who would have bought your game aren't tempted to pirate it, because the quickest way to get it is to buy it.

That's where Steam gets it right. It's impossible to pirate a Steamworks game before release because the executable isn't downloaded until the game unlocks on release day. Nowhere near as big an inconvenience to the customer as the requirement for constant internet connection to play the game either.

[brabee]

You cannot remove anything that the user never had.

Was just going to say that...

[oto niel]

That's where Steam gets it right. It's impossible to pirate a Steamworks game before release because the executable isn't downloaded until the game unlocks on release day. Nowhere near as big an inconvenience to the customer as the requirement for constant internet connection to play the game either.

I fully agree.

[freeloader105]

Worked for about a month. But somehow I don't think it paid off for Ubi.

[Exinjeru]

You cannot remove anything that the user never had.

Was just going to say that...

Even if all software is technically a license to use the software, 99% of the PC games I own I can put into any computer and play them.

I purchased a disc and can play that game when and how I please, they are a product and not a service.

[Royas]

Even if all software is technically a license to use the software, 99% of the PC games I own I can put into any computer and play them.

I purchased a disc and can play that game when and how I please, they are a product and not a service.

I add to that, the courts in the USA have treated software, technically licensed software, like products. Not services, not a license. There's been some contradictory rulings on that, but it's pretty clear that the EULA isn't the be-all and end-all of the deal. In other words, just cause the publishers wants it so, don't make it so. It's a really big gray area.

That's a can of worms the publishers do NOT want opened. If the courts start to treat all software as a product, a lot of what they like to shove down our throats in the way of EULA's and TOS's could very well be illegal. That's not something any of the publishers or developers want to risk.

[brabee]

I add to that, the courts in the USA have treated software, technically licensed software, like products. Not services, not a license. There's been some contradictory rulings on that, but it's pretty clear that the EULA isn't the be-all and end-all of the deal. In other words, just cause the publishers wants it so, don't make it so. It's a really big gray area.

That's a can of worms the publishers do NOT want opened. If the courts start to treat all software as a product, a lot of what they like to shove down our throats in the way of EULA's and TOS's could very well be illegal. That's not something any of the publishers or developers want to risk.

In my opinion, its impossible to say if software is either a product or a service, however, it is definitely very close to the definition of a product.

As you say, it is a grey area and we all know why - because the "entitled entities" (auhors, licensees...) want to have as much rights as possible. Thats why they put so much bullsh*t into EULAs...

[MDrm]

So in order not to create a new thread about the DRM, here's this article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ubisoft-our-drm-will-evolve-improve).

Allow me to quote it:

"Ubisoft's told Eurogamer that its "online services platform" for PC games will "evolve and improve" and is most certainly here to stay.

"Most forthcoming Ubisoft PC titles will use our online services platform," a spokesperson explained, adding, "As with any online technology, we are constantly working to evolve and improve it."

Ubisoft's online platform requires PC gamers to be connected to the internet while they play. But problems arise when authentication servers are unavailable or unresponsive. This was felt first with Assassin's Creed II and Silent Hunter V and then more recently with Settlers 7.

The result has been fans unable to play games they've purchased, sometimes for days at a time.

Upcoming Ubisoft PC titles include Splinter Cell Conviction, Pure Football, R.U.S.E., I Am Alive TrackMania 2, Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands and Ghost Recon Future Soldier. "

So they are actually going to escalate the DRM? Am I reading this well? And notice how Ubisoft calls the DRM now, mentioning it is an online platform. I can only speculate the implications of the term, but they are not good.

What's more interesting about this statement however is that there's a need for this statement. I've been in the financial world for too long to recognize one thing right away, when statements like this are issued, they are issued because the product is suffering and they need people to focus attention on it. Or in other words, the sales are probably not as great as ubisoft hoped.

Can't wait for the 4Q figures. The comments on the article are also a good read.

[Quasar]

Doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, so I'll just say that the Ubisoft DRM has now been completely defeated - it is possible to play AC2 without having to deal with their always-online rubbish, and every mission/side quest works as intended. This means that, if you're playing a pirate copy of the game and the Ubi servers go offline, the game is still fully playable.

Piracy now officially offers better customer service than a legal purchase.

[Metall_pingwin]

Doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, so I'll just say that the Ubisoft DRM has now been completely defeated - it is possible to play AC2 without having to deal with their always-online rubbish, and every mission/side quest works as intended. This means that, if you're playing a pirate copy of the game and the Ubi servers go offline, the game is still fully playable.

Piracy now officially offers better customer service than a legal purchase.

At least they have all those first day sales to-

oops. No they don't.

[MikeHaggar]

Doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, so I'll just say that the Ubisoft DRM has now been completely defeated - it is possible to play AC2 without having to deal with their always-online rubbish, and every mission/side quest works as intended. This means that, if you're playing a pirate copy of the game and the Ubi servers go offline, the game is still fully playable.

Piracy now officially offers better customer service than a legal purchase.
I have mentioned it :P
But hey guess what, it's not like it can be mentioned enough.
The best part is that now that DORMINE and the other people that helped make the server emulator have figured this out so "cracking" the other games will be much easier for them.

[UxmalTrekker]

So in order not to create a new thread about the DRM, here's this article (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ubisoft-our-drm-will-evolve-improve).

Allow me to quote it:

"Ubisoft's told Eurogamer that its "online services platform" for PC games will "evolve and improve" and is most certainly here to stay.

"Most forthcoming Ubisoft PC titles will use our online services platform," a spokesperson explained, adding, "As with any online technology, we are constantly working to evolve and improve it."

Ubisoft's online platform requires PC gamers to be connected to the internet while they play. But problems arise when authentication servers are unavailable or unresponsive. This was felt first with Assassin's Creed II and Silent Hunter V and then more recently with Settlers 7.

The result has been fans unable to play games they've purchased, sometimes for days at a time.

Upcoming Ubisoft PC titles include Splinter Cell Conviction, Pure Football, R.U.S.E., I Am Alive TrackMania 2, Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands and Ghost Recon Future Soldier. "

So they are actually going to escalate the DRM? Am I reading this well? And notice how Ubisoft calls the DRM now, mentioning it is an online platform. I can only speculate the implications of the term, but they are not good.

What's more interesting about this statement however is that there's a need for this statement. I've been in the financial world for too long to recognize one thing right away, when statements like this are issued, they are issued because the product is suffering and they need people to focus attention on it. Or in other words, the sales are probably not as great as ubisoft hoped.

Can't wait for the 4Q figures. The comments on the article are also a good read.


Thanks for, once again, staying on top of things MDrm (+ rep when I hit 50 posts for always keeping the community informed). Did everyone happen to notice how the Ubisoft spokesperson flatly states that this is definitely going to happen and that it is not contingent upon showing signs of effectively combating piracy, or even showing some real promise in that arena? I don’t know about anyone else, but that complete lack of focus on their DRM combating piracy makes me believe even more strongly that the DRM was never meant to do that in the first place.

Now, if you’re an Ubisoft executive and you see that millions of people are actually convinced to abandon their senses and swallow this new system by buying your games, where do you go next? Well, wouldn’t the next logical, corporate minded step, be towards either a monthly fee per game or a flat monthly fee in order to access the “online services platform”.

I can see the press release from Ubisoft HQ now: ‘Due to the extreme popularity of a number of Ubisoft’s (the spokesperson will have to insert the company name as many times as possible for marketing reasons) recent releases we are seeing the limitations of our current “online services platform” being reached. So in order to provide the best service and the best gaming environment possible and to best meet the expanding needs and desires of our loyal customers, it will be necessary for us to evolve the scope of our “online services platform”. This is quite an exciting opportunity for both Ubisoft and our customers as it will pave the way for the future of PC gaming. (Insert more comments about excitement and caring about loyal customers here.) However, a groundbreaking venture such as this will require quite an investment on Ubisoft’s part. So in order to guarantee that Ubisoft can continue to provide all of the great services that we have in the past and to meet all of our customer’s growing needs indefinitely for all of our titles, beginning (insert random date here) we are going to charge a very small monthly fee in order to access the “online services platform”. The fee will be used exclusively to maintain and constantly evolve the “online services platform” bringing more functionality and benefit to our customers over time. Plus, being a paid member of the Ubisoft “online services platform” will come with a number of immediate benefits, over and above those already being received by our current users. (This is where a laundry list of items – some of which are already in place like cloud saves and achievements – will be spewed out with great vigor and enthusiasm. What the benefits will almost certainly amount to is a mostly useless pile of garbage that cost Ubisoft nothing or next to nothing – things like Sam Fisher’s pink pajamas and bunny slippers and Ezio’s, John Wayne Gacy clown costume.) We want to thank all of our loyal customers for all of their fantastic support thus far in this endeavor and greatly look forward to ushering in a new and exciting era of PC gaming with them.’

Maybe this won’t happen. But, if I’m one of the suits that controls the direction of the company, I’m most certainly going to be considering it as a viable possibility. There won’t be an attached startup cost since the “online services platform” is already in place, thus it would be persistent return for little to no new effort. If the other major publishers adopt the always online system, like EA looks to be doing, I can almost guarantee that something like this will happen. If the others balk at adopting this, regardless of what EA does, Ubisoft might not go this route. But, there will be a next step, there always is. However, the pirates won’t be the ones to pay, as Ubisoft has no way of getting to them. Unfortunately, as always, the people who will pay, and pay, and pay, are those gullible enough to continue supporting this company.

Regards,
Uxmal

[zeus710]

DRM failed!

There is already an emulator that lets you play offline.

[brabee]

Doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet, so I'll just say that the Ubisoft DRM has now been completely defeated - it is possible to play AC2 without having to deal with their always-online rubbish, and every mission/side quest works as intended. This means that, if you're playing a pirate copy of the game and the Ubi servers go offline, the game is still fully playable.

Piracy now officially offers better customer service than a legal purchase.

True! Ubisoft even wants us to believe that it was them and not the pirates who made the whole freakin game!

[MDrm]

I can see this DRM evolve into a sort of online store, yes. My policy of buying games goes like this, if I can buy it from the developer directly, than I do it. If not, I'll try and see what online store best gives me and the dev a best deal, like Gamersgate supporting Paradox titles and Impulse for supporting Stardock ones. If not I'll buy the game where it's sold more cheaply. I only buy through Steam for games that need Steam. Funnily enough if ubisoft's DRM had a good offline mode I probably would buy their games from their store, since I am 99.99% sure this DRM will become something like Steam but far worse. But while this DRM is in effect, no sale for me.

However industry figures are talking that Steam makes profits in the 9 numbers figures and I think those inside the games industry know I'm hitting the mark here so having a propriety store competing with Steam is a dubious decision at best. I so much want more online stores, competition is always good, but not like this, not this way.

While this DRM exists, I will not buy nor touch any ubisoft game.

EDIT: Seems I'm not the only one figuring that Steam does 9 figures (http://www.industrygamers.com/news/onlive-is-doomed-says-alex-st-john/). "Is anybody out there aware that Valve is doing a 9-figure downloadable gaming business for premium titles already?" Seems PC gaming is far from dead.

[freeloader105]

The thought of having another game delivery platform seems very over-the-top and unwarranted to me. Not to investors worldwide, maybe, but to me, the consumer, it is.

Good thing I don't care about 90% of their games.

[jabroni619]

Worry not too much, seems PC gamers are standing on this one. From a cursory read through many forums, from those who bought ACII some are saying they won't touch any other ubisoft game with this DRM anymore, and ACII has done very badly on sales, just check all the retail and online charts. Settlers7 is also not doing well.

Really? Most of what i've read from people who bought ACII are saying they've had very little to no issues with the DRM. I guess by "some" you mean very few but just trying to make it sound like a lot to support your opinions.

[MDrm]

Really? Most of what i've read from people who bought ACII are saying they've had very little to no issues with the DRM. I guess by "some" you mean very few but just trying to make it sound like a lot to support your opinions.

Well, like I keep saying, find me a forum that has the majority of the users defending this DRM. But since you are talking about people who bought any game with this DRM, here's a (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/04/07/settlers-7-still-plagued-with-drm-problems-two-weeks-after-launc/) little (http://www.bluesnews.com/s/108146/ubisoft_s-drm-failure) list (http://games.on.net/article/8521/Australian_gamers_unable_to_play_Settlers_7_due_to _DRM_woes) off (http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2684/ubisoft-drm-problems-caused-by-hacker) the (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=238085&site=cvg) top (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ubisoft-settlers-drm-problems-not-completely-resolved) of (http://kotaku.com/5506062/ubisofts-drm-kicks-australia-while-its-down) my (http://www.playnoevil.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/2903-Ubisoft-DRM-problems-continue-for-Settlers-7.html) head (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62683). Unless you're trying to say very few people live in Australia or the UK, that is.

So yes, a LOT of people are having problems. Just because you aren't having or a group of people in forum aren't doesn't mean everybody isn't having problems. And now that it seems the DRM was cracked or emulated, the pirates have effectively a better experience than us, legitimate customers.

I honestly can't understand how anyone can even defend this type of DRM.

[Exinjeru]

When I buy games on Steam I do it understanding that I'm buying the service from Steam. Whether steam unlocks all my games if they go out of business is secondary, but I know that I trust Steam/Valve with this business model FAR more than I trust Ubisoft.

I didn't really like Steam when HL2 came out, but all my Steam frustrations never came close to the hassle I've experienced with SH5 and Ubisoft's thing. I accepted Steam because I trusted valve enough to think they would improve the problems with Steam, and they did.

Again, I really don't trust Ubisoft.

[Jito463]

@Exinjeru
Fortunately, I didn't encounter the same problems others had with the HL2 release. I had already purchased it through Steam on pre-order, and was playing it at 4am the morning of release (didn't plan on it, but I woke up early and decided to stay awake, heh). Valve really did drop the ball on the HL2 launch, though.

But as you said, Steam has improved greatly since then. And Valve has long ago earned my trust, something Ubisoft would have to work very hard to gain at this point. Considering I've already been burned before by Ubi, they have a long road ahead of them before I even consider trusting them.

And so far, I don't see any indication of them heading in the right direction anytime soon.

[Royas]

Really? Most of what i've read from people who bought ACII are saying they've had very little to no issues with the DRM. I guess by "some" you mean very few but just trying to make it sound like a lot to support your opinions.

I'm sure there were a lot of people who had little or no trouble with the DRM. Mind you, there's been a lot of trouble with the Settlers servers, with people being unable to play since release, but I'm sure the majority are fine. The problem is, there are a goodly number of people who aren't even willing to try the DRM in these games. I don't care if it works flawlessly most of the time, I'm not interested, Ubisoft has lost 4 sales from me alone so far.

I doubt the DRM has generated any real sales, and I know for a fact it's prevented sales. In that way, it's a failure.

[Furious Dre]

UbiSoft's only decent IP (IMO) is AC. Everything else they make is crap.

Maybe they should follow in Valves steps. Make pirating the game give you much less enjoyment than if you paid. I don't think you'll see people playing the co-op version of Portal 2 :) And even if it is cracked, it's gonna be more hassle to do it than it's worth (Look at L4D/2 private servers lol.)

They only care about consoles though. I don't really blame them, but if the day comes that it's more profitable to focus on the PC market than the console market... I hope to god that most people on PC turn their back to Ubisoft (and Activision/IW).

I can dream, can't I? :(

[MomentDEFINED]

UbiSoft's only decent IP (IMO) is AC. Everything else they make is crap.

Maybe they should follow in Valves steps. Make pirating the game give you much less enjoyment than if you paid. I don't think you'll see people playing the co-op version of Portal 2 :) And even if it is cracked, it's gonna be more hassle to do it than it's worth (Look at L4D/2 private servers lol.)

They only care about consoles though. I don't really blame them, but if the day comes that it's more profitable to focus on the PC market than the console market... I hope to god that most people on PC turn their back to Ubisoft (and Activision/IW).

I can dream, can't I? :(

I think you should take another look at some of the products Ubisoft has put out over the past several years. In all seriousness, AC1 was not THAT great of a game, though I am glad I can say that the sequel is far beyond it. However, I think that saying an entire companies catalog is essentially crap in comparison to a franchise with really only two high profile titles is pretty close-minded, be that your opnion or not.

Of course, this is only MY opinion.

[jabroni619]

Well, like I keep saying, find me a forum that has the majority of the users defending this DRM. But since you are talking about people who bought any game with this DRM, here's a (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/04/07/settlers-7-still-plagued-with-drm-problems-two-weeks-after-launc/) little (http://www.bluesnews.com/s/108146/ubisoft_s-drm-failure) list (http://games.on.net/article/8521/Australian_gamers_unable_to_play_Settlers_7_due_to _DRM_woes) off (http://www.nowgamer.com/news/2684/ubisoft-drm-problems-caused-by-hacker) the (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=238085&site=cvg) top (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ubisoft-settlers-drm-problems-not-completely-resolved) of (http://kotaku.com/5506062/ubisofts-drm-kicks-australia-while-its-down) my (http://www.playnoevil.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/2903-Ubisoft-DRM-problems-continue-for-Settlers-7.html) head (http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62683). Unless you're trying to say very few people live in Australia or the UK, that is.

So yes, a LOT of people are having problems. Just because you aren't having or a group of people in forum aren't doesn't mean everybody isn't having problems. And now that it seems the DRM was cracked or emulated, the pirates have effectively a better experience than us, legitimate customers.

I honestly can't understand how anyone can even defend this type of DRM.

I didn't say "everybody isn't having problems" I countered your point that said people who bought the game said they won't buy another UBI game by saying most people who bought the game are NOT saying that. Like I've also told you before, which you conveniently ignored, is that people aren't going to post about how great the DRM is, there's no need to, they buy the game, they play it and it works as intedned.

The ones creating threads by in large are the ones who feel they have something to complain about. There is actually one thread in this forum, just a few threads down that talks about not having issues with the DRM. These threads are rare, not because everyone is having issues, but because people who aren't (which is the majority) don't feel the need to post about it, they're just playing.

Another thing you're failing to understand (again) is that calling out people who make baseless statements about the DRM is not the same thing as defending it. If you're going to talk about bad it is, perhaps you should have more to backup your point besides the downtime that happened during the first week. That's essentially all you've got. That's over, it's done, the DRM works and it's seamless. You double click on the game and it just works. Rest assured, I'm not the only one that can play the game without problems. But how would you know? You're complaining about something you've got no experience with. (still)

[MDrm]

Rest assured, I'm not the only one that can play the game without problems. But how would you know? You're complaining about something you've got no experience with. (still)

And never, ever will have experience. Many great games coming out like Mount&Blade Warband that proves that a good game sells over AAA shallow titles and over draconian DRM any time.

I do love it when you say "If you're going to talk about bad it is, perhaps you should have more to backup your point besides the downtime that happened during the first week. That's essentially all you've got."

Let me quote one of the many articles I linked for you:

"We love the anticipation that builds up in the weeks leading up to the launch of a new game in one of our favorite franchises. That's why we think Ubisoft has stumbled upon a really clever marketing technique with its real-time strategy PC title, Settlers 7, which many users (about 50 pages worth on this forum thread) are still unable to access two weeks after the game launched due to problems with Ubisoft's DRM authentication servers.

A Ubisoft rep commented on the issues to Eurogamer, explaining, "our technical teams have made progress but we are not yet able to say that the issue is completely resolved." Hey guys, take your time. Just keep letting that anticipation build up in your player base. Once they're finally able to play, we're sure they'll thank you for the extended expectancy."

Guess what, it's 2 weeks and a half since S7 was released and this article is dated 7th April. And guess what, people are having problems with the DRM. And guess what again? Ubisoft representative confirmed people are having problems in this article. So if a ubisoft rep says that, I'll take their word over yours that the DRM is going smoothly, thank you very much. Love it when the DRM defenders throw red herrings and misdirections. Like I said before, anyone who defends this DRM is, in the words of Mr Franklin, giving a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, and they deserve none. And it seems ACII has been fully cracked too, so whether the DRM is seamless or not, pirates are having a better experience by being able to play offline.

Oh, and just to make a point of how most DRM defenders are full of nothing but hot air and corporate spin, how about some links (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/2191076848) on ubisoft's (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4721051016/m/2601041848) own forums (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/1801042338/p/32) about people who bought their games with this DRM? I could find you tons more in their own forums.

The 4Q should be out later this month. Then we'll see how successful this DRM has been in making games sell more. And I couldn't care for any excuses of ACII being out for consoles long ago and all that. The 4Q will put to rest any doubts from either sides of the discussion about the effectiveness of the DRM in selling more games for the PC, and at least I'm thankful the ACII crack came out after 4Q was over and I hope they don't crack S7 for a long time just to see the 1Q 2011 figures.

Anyone who defends this kind of DRM just makes George Orwell toss in his grave and deserves everything they'll get down the line.

[Jito463]

@jabroni619
I don't have to experience it to know that it takes all rights and power away from me, and puts it squarely in the hands of Ubisoft. They control where I can play, when I can play and how I can play. Never, in the history of gaming, has a single-player game had so much control wrested from the hands of the consumer.

It doesn't matter how many are affected by the DRM, be it one, one thousand or one hundred thousand. Ultimately, while that's a problem, it's not the core of the issue.

It's about control.

Ubisoft wants to take it away, and I'm not willing to give it up. I dare say that this one sentence alone, sums up this entire argument. How willing are you to give up your control, to the very people you're paying money to?

This question has been asked time and time again through the years, and most of the time that involves a give-and-take situation. The publisher relinquishes some control to us, and in return we relinquish some control to them.

Sometimes that leads to confrontations (e.g. the "limited activations" in SecuROM, not to mention StarForce), but usually it's pretty amicable. Ubisoft has shown, time and again, that they want to have *all* the control, and they don't want to relinquish anything. This is simply the latest debacle.

The proverbial straw that broke the proverbial camel's back, if you will.

[jabroni619]

I'm not that paranoid. I'm not worried about UBI telling where and when I can play the game. It hasn't happened yet and I doubt it's ever going to. Thus far I've been able to play AC2 as freely as I've been able to play any of my other games. This is the same experience the vast majority of people who actually have the game have had.

I'm just glad I had pre-ordered the game well before I read about any of this DRM stuff some of you are spouting off daily. Had I not, I may have been to scared to purchase the game, but now I know first hand that 90% of the anti-drm rhetoric is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims and scare tactics to push your own anti drm agenda.

[jabroni619]

And never, ever will have experience.


And thus, you will always not know what you're talking about when discussing a topic you're so passionate about.

[Royas]

And thus, you will always not know what you're talking about when discussing a topic you're so passionate about.

One doesn't have to stick a fork in one's eye to know that it will be an unpleasant experience. And if MDrm is anything like me, they've been burned by DDRM (that's Draconian Digital Rights Management, a term coined on the EA forums with Mass Effect 1) before this. For me, it was Bioshock and their online activation, limited installs and downloaded .exe file. I couldn't get it working for 2 days, because of their failures.

It is unacceptable that Ubisoft has designed a DRM that has a single point of failure. Their servers, their connection. A single point failure, under nobody's control but theirs. I don't care why the servers aren't working. I don't care if it was a DOS attack, I don't care if it was downed cables, I don't care if the cleaning lady unplugged the server overnight to use her vacuum cleaner. The mere fact that they can fail (and will fail, any engineer will tell you that) is enough for me.

It's all about control, and I like to keep control over my own games, thank you very much. And that's not paranoia, that's just acknowledging a fact... corporations will almost always take things too far in the name of making a buck.

If Ubisoft patches out this DDRM in, say, six months, I will be able to accept their actions and will buy Ubisoft games again... after the patch. Until then, there are lots of alternatives, something Ubisoft needs to learn the hard way.

[jabroni619]

One doesn't have to stick a fork in one's eye to know that it will be an unpleasant experience.

Most of us have been poked in the eye at one point or another, so you do in fact have experience, enough so to say it will be unpleasant, but not enough to describe in detail the feeling.

This isn't quite the same thing since like I've said numerous times, most people who have the game don't have issues with the DRM and its by in large people that don't have the game that have the issues. It would be difficult to find anyone who would enjoy a fork in the eye whether or not they've experienced it, so yeah, not quite the same thing. Not even close actually.

There are plenty single point of failures that will keep you from playing a game. Power supply, processor, motherboard, hard drive, monitor, etc etc. I'll bet the UBI servers have more redundancy built-in than most peoples personal computers.

[Jito463]

I'm not that paranoid. I'm not worried about UBI telling where and when I can play the game. It hasn't happened yet and I doubt it's ever going to. Thus far I've been able to play AC2 as freely as I've been able to play any of my other games.

It's not about paranoia, they already *ARE* telling us when, where and how we can play their games. You say you've been able to play AC 2 as freely as any other game? Have you tried running it from a laptop not connected to the internet? By forcing us to be connected to their servers for authentication purposes only, for a single-player game that does not inherently require the internet, they are controlling our access to the game. They have all the control, we have none.

[jabroni619]

No, I haven't and if you're really going to bust open your laptop to play a game in the middle of nowhere then maybe the game isn't for you. Let's look at practicality though, are you REALLY going to play the game on your laptop in a place that has no internet service? You may say "just beucase you won't doesn't mean we won't" but I find it very hard to believe that me and literally everyone I know are really that unique of individuals, so i'm forced to conclude that this is yet another one of the many highly unlikely scenarios that you guys come up with.

Is it possible that UBI servers will go down and never come up? Sure, statistically it's not impossible.

Is it possible that you might want to play AC2 on your laptop in the desert or the beach. Sure, it's possible

Neither are very likely though

[djuara]

Whenever someone does something absurdly bad, there'll always be someone around to defend them, no matter how morally reprehensible the situation. It's human nature.

From http://www.gamingtrend.com/forums/index.php?topic=38242.msg653173#msg653173

[Jito463]

@jabroni619
You can't honestly be that obtuse? How is it up to your, or Ubisoft, to determine when and where I can play my games? Even with Steam, all I have to do is set it to offline mode, and I can play games wherever I want. I've even recently taken to loading up light games on my little AMD-based netbook I carry around with me (Deus Ex, Torchlight, etc). Just because it holds no interest for you, doesn't mean you, or Ubisoft, should be allowed to dismiss that right for everyone else.

That is completely arrogant and downright rude. I come with a way that they are controlling my access to the game, and all you can do is try to dismiss my argument as if it's not important.

And no, I don't have any intention of playing AC 2 on my netbook, that's just the one I carry with me most often.

[jabroni619]

I didn't say it's not important, I specifically asked you when you would be in such a position and you just said you wouldn't be in your last sentance.

So you're concerned about not being able to play a game in a situation that you'll never be in. Makes sense.

[Mark_VI]

Jabroni,

I think you're missing the point everyone here is trying to make. Right now would the DRM work OK for many of us? Yes. Let's take this to a silly extreme. Since I don't pirate would it hurt me to allow Ubisoft to come to my house whenever they want and inspect my computer? No, but clearly I'm giving up too much privacy at that point.

For me it's the principle. When I pay for a product I want to be able to use it when I want to and how I want to. All of us have to decide for ourselves at what point the publisher is taking too much control over our ability to play as we wish. For me a persistent online connection for a single player game is over the line. It obviously isn't for you, but can't you at least see where I'm coming from on this?

It is actually inevitable that at some point in the future Ubisoft will shut down their servers. Servers cost money to maintain, plain and simple. None of us know when that will happen or if Ubisoft will actually patch out the DRM at that point. It is possible this software could become unusable. I like to go back and play old games, heck my old NES still works and I've been known to fire it up from time to time. I shouldn't have to worry that I won't be able to play a game I've payed for.

[jabroni619]

You're against the principle of the DRM, I fully understand that and that's all well and dandy, what I take issue with is painting scenarios that are highly unlikely to happen or even won't happen as pointed out above.

If you're REALLY that worried about "control" you shouldn't buy ANY steam games what so ever. Since this thread is full of people who over emphasize things that are highly unlikely to happen, you should be equally as enraged since there is the possibility of steam removing all the games you've purchased and or completely removing your account all together, thus taking away your control to play ANY of them including your ability to play offline. Since you're all so worried about what "could" (but won't) happen, I'm surprised you haven't' boycotted steam all together. I mean, why compromise your principles there?

[Snus]

You're against the principle of the DRM, I fully understand that and that's all well and dandy, what I take issue with is painting scenarios that are highly unlikely to happen or even won't happen as pointed out above.


Highly unlikely?

Did you really think that internet is freely available and reliable everywhere except beaches and deserts? Did you consider that some people not only suffer from lack of a good signal, but too much interference? Did you think Ubi's DRM works flawlessly with all routers? Did you think no one uses firewalls? Have you not noticed the threads on Ubi's forums complaining about connection issues?

How can you possibly claim that connection issues are highly unlikely for a product that is 100% dependent on a connection?

[DarthWolf]

Someone should have told Ubisoft, "Prepare for unforeseen consequences."

Haha good one.


Now I hope that heads will drop in ubi for this.
Dose SH5 got bypassed to? If so I request from ubi that this patch they mentioned has to be on cd mailed via post office on cost of person that implemented/invented this drm.

[MasterJan91]

I wont'post details but since short the pirates made a good working crack to get around the ubisoft DRM, this also means that they now know how to crack the next ubisoft games which will use these DRM. Medal of honor for instance, or splinter cell conviction, the upcoming new Prince of Persia, Ghost recon future soldier and so on.

So, the DRM only worked the first month after the release of this game, it won't work anymore with the upcoming releases from ubisoft. so you could say it failed...

[UxmalTrekker]

Jabroni,

While I very much appreciate that you hold a certain perspective on the issue of DRM and are willing to debate/defend it, I have to agree with Mark_VI in the fact that you seem to be missing the real point of what is being presented. The issue of connectivity is more of an aspect supporting other arguments, rather than an argument all unto itself. There are actually much deeper issues involved. Many more aspects to consider, aspects that must be looked at together as a cohesive whole in order to get a firm understanding of why many of us can not, and will not, support any more DRM absurdity.

With this in mind, that there is more to it than something like the simple issue of connectivity, and since you seem very passionate in your stance, I would ask that you actually enter into a real debate discussing the factors that are truly at the heart of the matter. Since I can’t speak for others on the forum, even those who profess to share my viewpoints on the subject, I propose that you begin the debate by reading and rebutting my first post in this thread (Post #46, the first entry on page 4).

I guarantee you that I will calmly and rationally debate the subject. In addition, I will admit when you make a valid point and/or have an argument that invalidates my own. A good argument is a good argument, regardless of whether I make it or it’s made against me. I would ask that you do the same in return. I would also ask, even though the post is fairly long, that you actually rebut every point and not just pick out one or two aspects that you believe to be weaker than the rest and thus derail the debate before it can begin. If you can’t rebut something, admit to it. Also, please bring substance to your rebuttals and not answer with the equivalent of ‘no it isn’t’ as that doesn’t provide anything to really consider. Use evidence wherever possible to support your position. If the circumstances surrounding the particular factor in question don’t allow for any hard evidence, then at least use anecdotal evidence/precedent (economic or psychological precedent dependent upon the specifics of the particular subject or whatever is appropriate) to expound on your answer.

One last thing, I would also ask that you keep in mind when reading and rebutting my post that Ubisoft planned/plans on implementing this DRM scheme on “most forthcoming Ubisoft PC titles” regardless of whether or not it is has any impact whatsoever on piracy. In other words, this particular DRM scheme is not truly aimed at combating piracy but about setting the groundwork for Ubisoft’s “online services platform”. It’s about potential for Ubisoft to make more money off of legitimate customers (and about gaining control over those customers to open even more doors for profit in the process), not about hampering pirates. (See the details and link to the press clipping provided by MDrm in post # 88 on page 6.)

I hope that you respond and provide some insight that I and others have not considered on this topic. However, if you don’t respond I’ll have no choice but to assume that you are unable to bring anything substantive to counter my points on the subject. But, hopefully you will answer, as I look forward to a good debate and gaining some new insights and perspectives.

Regards,
Uxmal

[DJ_Professor_K]

And Uxmal does it again *gives full support*

Mind if i ask who the hell you are, Uxmal? :P

It's rare to see someone who thinks before posting and keeps hes head cool during these discussions.

Anyway:

I wont'post details but since short the pirates made a good working crack to get around the ubisoft DRM, this also means that they now know how to crack the next ubisoft games which will use these DRM. Medal of honor for instance, or splinter cell conviction, the upcoming new Prince of Persia, Ghost recon future soldier and so on.

So, the DRM only worked the first month after the release of this game, it won't work anymore with the upcoming releases from ubisoft. so you could say it failed...

I wouldn't say it failed becouse of that, since every DRM is bound to be cracked sooner or later, and obviouslly every future game with it will be cracked too.

What we could see if it failed or not, is:
- Did pirates buy the game, from being tired of waiting?
- Were the sales hurt by the use of this DRM?

There are a few other questions we might add in order to know if the DRM worked or not, but those 2 are more than enough to pinpoint if the DRM did it's job or not.

[Royas]

Most of us have been poked in the eye at one point or another, so you do in fact have experience, enough so to say it will be unpleasant, but not enough to describe in detail the feeling.

This isn't quite the same thing since like I've said numerous times, most people who have the game don't have issues with the DRM and its by in large people that don't have the game that have the issues. It would be difficult to find anyone who would enjoy a fork in the eye whether or not they've experienced it, so yeah, not quite the same thing. Not even close actually.

There are plenty single point of failures that will keep you from playing a game. Power supply, processor, motherboard, hard drive, monitor, etc etc. I'll bet the UBI servers have more redundancy built-in than most peoples personal computers.

Power supply = My control
Processor = My control
Motherboard = My control
Hard drive = My control
Monitor = My control
Computer overall = My control

Your system may be a point failure (as is your electricity, etc) but it is hugely different in one way. Having a working computer is a necessary point failure, not a deliberately engineered point failure. You have to have a computer, because that's what the game is run on. You have to have a constant internet connection, because that's what Ubisoft decided. If they removed that, you could still get the full experience of the game. It's an unneeded complication, added by their choice. Therefore, even one person having a problem is unacceptable, as it is being caused by a deliberately added point of failure.

Given that the Settlers has been unplayable for a couple of weeks for many, many people, I'd say that Ubisoft's redundancies are inadequate. Again, unacceptable. If they are going to engineer a deliberate point failure into their game, they'd better bloody well make sure it will work, all the time, without exception. My computer fails and I can't play? That's my problem. Their connection fails, for any reason, and I can't play? That's their problem.

Again, I don't have to suffer an issue to know it might be unpleasant. I've never broken my leg, but I'm absolutely positive that it would hurt. I've seen others suffer from similar, I'll learn from their example. I've seen others have problems with this DRM, I'll do the same.

And, as I said, the problems are irrelevant, it's about control. I'm not going to pay a company to control my game time. I don't see any reason to trust them. Ubisoft is a corporation. Morally, they only have a duty to make money for their stockholders, nothing else. Given what they have in the EULA (they can shut down all servers with 30 days notice, no guarantee of a patch or anything else) I don't understand why anyone would trust them. If they really meant to patch this out eventually, WHY ISN'T IT IN THE EULA? All we have are a bunch of maybe's, we'll consider it, perhaps, that's the plan... no commitments. Where I come from, if you mean to do something, you back it up. I see none of that from Ubisoft, just a bunch of PR double talk and lies.

[Jito463]

So you're concerned about not being able to play a game in a situation that you'll never be in. Makes sense.

I said I didn't plan to play it on my *netbook* (you know, an underpowereed laptop that definitely wouldn't play AC 2 even with a net connection?), not that I didn't want to play it on the go at all. Next time, read a little more closely.

You're against the principle of the DRM, I fully understand that and that's all well and dandy, what I take issue with is painting scenarios that are highly unlikely to happen or even won't happen as pointed out above.

I doubt anyone here is entirely against DRM (though there might be a few), and I didn't get that impression from Marks' post. What we're opposed to, is the amount of control taken away from us by this specific DRM. It's the same principle behind the arguments against limited activations in some forms of SecuROM.

Anyone using Steam, already has accepted the concept of an online DRM, but Steam allows some control to remain in our hands. This give-and-take is what makes Steam an acceptable DRM, where Ubi's is not. Ubi just wants to take-take-take, and no give.

[cristianesza]

I doubt anyone here is entirely against DRM (though there might be a few), and I didn't get that impression from Marks' post. What we're opposed to, is the amount of control taken away from us by this specific DRM. It's the same principle behind the arguments against limited activations in some forms of SecuROM.

Anyone using Steam, already has accepted the concept of an online DRM, but Steam allows some control to remain in our hands. This give-and-take is what makes Steam an acceptable DRM, where Ubi's is not. Ubi just wants to take-take-take, and no give.

What control has been taken away?


You have your game installed on your computer, it's not streamed through onlive (that's a really evil DRM).
You can play it whenever you want, if you don't have internet it's your problem. Just don't buy the game if you are living in the middle of the amazonas.

If you normally have internet but suddenly have a shortage just use a wi fi or dial up. The game plays just fine with any connection, even at unstable bandwidth.

You will be able to play it in 50 years (I doubt the Windows version then will support it though). If ubisoft shuts down their servers they will patch out the DRM from the game, it has been said hundreds of times already and if you don't believe them it's your problem, read from the source rather than repeating what everyone says. Steam could shut down their servers too and you're not complaining about that.

[MikeHaggar]

dial up isnt free. why sould you have to bother?

[sfade]

I guess Ubisoft is gambling that the considerable resistance to their new product control methods will ebb and consumers will cave in.

They appear to want to go head to head with the likes of services such as Steam, but are doing it with a hugely inferior platform an infrastructure.

It appears to me to be set up for massive failure at this point, as I personally know of half a dozen people who had planned on buying but did not purchase AC2 strictly because of this constant flawless online DRM requirement. Conversely I know of not a single person who purchased it because of the DRM. This is unusual in that, with other DRM methods, I've known folks from both sides of the barbed fence (some that didn't buy, and some that did as a result of the impact of DRM).

Ubisoft is playing a dangerous game with the gamble. Personally I think it's both premature and generally going to meet with scorn, disapproval, and ultimately financial loss.

[UxmalTrekker]

DJ_Professor_K,

Thanks for the kind words and the support, they are much appreciated. As far as this:


Mind if i ask who the hell you are, Uxmal? :P

Well, I’m just a guy who loves a good debate, but one that isn’t too fond of pointless argument. My less than satisfying time in the corporate world really drove home how detrimental pointless argument (and various other things) can be. Plus, if Jabroni chooses to engage in real debate, one of two things will happen. Either he’ll make his points better than me and ‘win’ the debate, which means that I’ll have new information and new perspectives to ponder. Or I’ll make my points better and ‘win’ the debate and thus have my position on the issue further solidified, as it would have held up under scrutiny from a member of the opposing side. In addition, if my arguments are compelling enough, they just may convince Jabroni to more deeply consider some of our perspectives. And that could never be a bad thing. I believe that either way I get something worthwhile out of the endeavor.

Also, I definitely agree with your summation here:


What we could see if it failed or not, is:
- Did pirates buy the game, from being tired of waiting?
- Were the sales hurt by the use of this DRM?

There are a few other questions we might add in order to know if the DRM worked or not, but those 2 are more than enough to pinpoint if the DRM did it's job or not.

These two points seem to be largely ignored from the majority of those supporting this DRM. Anyway, thanks again.

Regards,
Uxmal

[Jito463]

What control has been taken away?
If you have to ask this, then you haven't been following the conversation.

You have your game installed on your computer, it's not streamed through onlive (that's a really evil DRM).

But your ability to play it is controlled exclusively by Ubisoft.

You can play it whenever you want, if you don't have internet it's your problem. Just don't buy the game if you are living in the middle of the amazonas (sic).
If I don't have internet access at a given time, and can't play the game, then it's my problem *CAUSED* by Ubisoft. Also, even if I have internet, I could still be locked out if Ubisoft's servers are out (or being DDoS'ed).

If you normally have internet but suddenly have a shortage just use a wi fi or dial up. The game plays just fine with any connection, even at unstable bandwidth.

Not everyone has ready access to an open WiFi, and dial-up isn't available without paying an additional fee for most people. That statement is simply ignorant.

You will be able to play it in 50 years (I doubt the Windows version then will support it though). If ubisoft shuts down their servers they will patch out the DRM from the game, it has been said hundreds of times already and if you don't believe them it's your problem, read from the source rather than repeating what everyone says. Steam could shut down their servers too and you're not complaining about that.

They have *NOT* said they will patch out the DRM. What they have said, is that "it's in the plan", and "it's in the goal of the overall plan". They have made no commitments to removing the DRM. And their previous track record on these issues proves that they're more likely to just brick the game, than to do the right thing and patch it out.

Valve, on the other hand, has proven time and again that they have the consumer's interests in mind. You're forgetting one important factor in trust, it has to be earned. Valve has earned my trust, where Ubi has - time and again - done just the opposite. They have done things that have earned my distrust in them.

Could you explain to me why you feel so strongly about Ubisoft's DRM, that you feel compelled to defend them? I've already explained (numerous times) why I am opposed, and quite "vocally", too. I'm just curious why you are so strongly in favor of it.

[cristianesza]

But your ability to play it is controlled exclusively by Ubisoft.
So is with Steam. With Steam there is an offline mode that works for a month until they have to fix it via patches because it's broken, truth be told most Steam users play with Steam in online mode.

If I don't have internet access at a given time, and can't play the game, then it's my problem *CAUSED* by Ubisoft. Also, even if I have internet, I could still be locked out if Ubisoft's servers are out (or being DDoS'ed).
If the Steam servers go down you won't be able to play any Steamworks/SteamCloud game either. I don't see you bashing Steam for that reason.

They have *NOT* said they will patch out the DRM. What they have said, is that "it's in the plan", and "it's in the goal of the overall plan". They have made no commitments to removing the DRM. And their previous track record on these issues proves that they're more likely to just brick the game, than to do the right thing and patch it out.

As I said it is your problem if you don't believe them. As far as I recall they have already removed (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/07/ubisoft-drm-snafu-reminds-us-whats-wrong-with-pc-gaming.ars) troublesome DRM in the past, why wouldn't they do it again? even if they do it so shamelessly as in the past.

Valve, on the other hand, has proven time and again that they have the consumer's interests in mind. You're forgetting one important factor in trust, it has to be earned. Valve has earned my trust, where Ubi has - time and again - done just the opposite. They have done things that have earned my distrust in them.

Honestly I trust more Ubisoft on patching the DRM from their own (a few dozens) games than Valve patching ALL the games on the Steam service (hundreds, or thousands of games in the future). I doubt if Valve goes bankrupt they will take the time to write patches for ALL the games that are available in the Steam network, they will only patch their own house titles but all the other non-steamworks games that you have bought will be lost.

Could you explain to me why you feel so strongly about Ubisoft's DRM, that you feel compelled to defend them? I've already explained (numerous times) why I am opposed, and quite "vocally", too. I'm just curious why you are so strongly in favor of it.
I couldn't care less about Ubisoft. What I defend is the right of a propietary software developer/publisher to protect their work with a reasonable method. And in my experience requiring an internet connection that phones home while I play is more reasonable that some third party software that installs rootkits on my machine such as SecuROM, or that could potentially fry my DVD reader such as StarForce.

I don't defend Ubisoft as a company. I only realize that the real responsible for the existence of DRM is not Ubisoft (or any other developer), it is the pirates that force them to put such schemes in place, to delay PC titles, or to port them very poorly to the PC. And suddenly when one dev/publisher decides to try one new technique every bozo out there comes raging without many good arguments against it.

I guess you could have your own legitimate reasons to bash a DRM technique (ie: your internet will go down, or you don't trust their word of patching out the DRM if it doesn't work). You see it as a greedy company that wants to control your games. I, on the other hand see it as a company that is doing the best it can to keep producing PC games rather than leaving the market and focusing on consoles as other companies have done (such as Epic).

[jabroni619]

Jabroni,

While I very much appreciate that you hold a certain perspective on the issue of DRM and are willing to debate/defend it, I have to agree with Mark_VI in the fact that you seem to be missing the real point of what is being presented. The issue of connectivity is more of an aspect supporting other arguments, rather than an argument all unto itself. There are actually much deeper issues involved. Many more aspects to consider, aspects that must be looked at together as a cohesive whole in order to get a firm understanding of why many of us can not, and will not, support any more DRM absurdity.

With this in mind, that there is more to it than something like the simple issue of connectivity, and since you seem very passionate in your stance, I would ask that you actually enter into a real debate discussing the factors that are truly at the heart of the matter. Since I can’t speak for others on the forum, even those who profess to share my viewpoints on the subject, I propose that you begin the debate by reading and rebutting my first post in this thread (Post #46, the first entry on page 4).

I guarantee you that I will calmly and rationally debate the subject. In addition, I will admit when you make a valid point and/or have an argument that invalidates my own. A good argument is a good argument, regardless of whether I make it or it’s made against me. I would ask that you do the same in return. I would also ask, even though the post is fairly long, that you actually rebut every point and not just pick out one or two aspects that you believe to be weaker than the rest and thus derail the debate before it can begin. If you can’t rebut something, admit to it. Also, please bring substance to your rebuttals and not answer with the equivalent of ‘no it isn’t’ as that doesn’t provide anything to really consider. Use evidence wherever possible to support your position. If the circumstances surrounding the particular factor in question don’t allow for any hard evidence, then at least use anecdotal evidence/precedent (economic or psychological precedent dependent upon the specifics of the particular subject or whatever is appropriate) to expound on your answer.

One last thing, I would also ask that you keep in mind when reading and rebutting my post that Ubisoft planned/plans on implementing this DRM scheme on “most forthcoming Ubisoft PC titles” regardless of whether or not it is has any impact whatsoever on piracy. In other words, this particular DRM scheme is not truly aimed at combating piracy but about setting the groundwork for Ubisoft’s “online services platform”. It’s about potential for Ubisoft to make more money off of legitimate customers (and about gaining control over those customers to open even more doors for profit in the process), not about hampering pirates. (See the details and link to the press clipping provided by MDrm in post # 88 on page 6.)

I hope that you respond and provide some insight that I and others have not considered on this topic. However, if you don’t respond I’ll have no choice but to assume that you are unable to bring anything substantive to counter my points on the subject. But, hopefully you will answer, as I look forward to a good debate and gaining some new insights and perspectives.

Regards,
Uxmal

Well I'll admit I did not go back and read your other post, but unless you said something different there than what's been said countless times in this thread and other similar threads like it, it's not really necessary.

I understand your points, I really do, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as some people make it. If you're someone that is really going to play this game in locations where you won't have Internet access or if you're someone who has very poor Internet connectivity then I fully understand why you would boycott this game and others like it. Maybe it's my closed mindedness talking, but like I said previously, I find it hard to believe that the position I and everyone else I know is in is such a unique one, which is to say.

1) I've got a stable cable connection
2) I don't disconnect my PC when gaming
3) The times I'm away from home AND don't have access to wifi are when I'm out with friends or doing something where playing the game is not even an afterthought

Now, if you don't fit into the above, meaning, you don't have a stable connection, or you DO disconnect your PC from the net while gaming or you often find yourself in a situation where you want to play the game and have no Internet access then you should ♥♥♥♥♥, moan and complain and boycott the game.

I just have serious doubts that all the people who bring up such scenarios ever actually find themselves in one. Maybe some of you are just better human beings than I am. Standing up for the less fortunate gamers by boycotting the game even though you yourselves likely won't be affected by the inherent shortcomings this type of DRM introduces.

[jabroni619]

These two points seem to be largely ignored from the majority of those supporting this DRM. Anyway, thanks again.

Regards,
Uxmal

It's ignored becuase neither side has the data available to prove their argument one way or the other. Simply asking the question as was done here doesn't mean anything.

[Jito463]

So is with Steam. With Steam there is an offline mode that works for a month until they have to fix it via patches because it's broken, truth be told most Steam users play with Steam in online mode.

Not true. Once you go into offline mode, it stays in offline mode, until you revert to online mode. And even if some patches do break it, at least they're trying. More than you can say for Ubisoft.

If the Steam servers go down you won't be able to play any Steamworks/SteamCloud game either. I don't see you bashing Steam for that reason.

Care to point out any of these games? I'm not aware of any. I'd be glad to find out, though. I'm not being facetious, I honestly don't know of any. I've heard of that with AvP, but I've also heard that it's incorrect and you can still play without internet (which seems more in line with Valve's view towards DRM and treatment of customers).

As I said it is your problem if you don't believe them. As far as I recall they have already removed (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/07/ubisoft-drm-snafu-reminds-us-whats-wrong-with-pc-gaming.ars) troublesome DRM in the past, why wouldn't they do it again? even if they do it so shamelessly as in the past.

That's rich. You're using an incident where they released a no-CD crack as an "official patch" to prove they removed DRM? As soon as it was pointed out, they immediately removed that "patch", and never put anything else back up in its' place. That's not proof that they removed anything, it's proof that at least someone at Ubi was an idiot, and probably got fired for it.

Honestly I trust more Ubisoft on patching the DRM from their own (a few dozens) games than Valve patching ALL the games on the Steam service (hundreds, or thousands of games in the future). I doubt if Valve goes bankrupt they will take the time to write patches for ALL the games that are available in the Steam network, they will only patch their own house titles but all the other non-steamworks games that you have bought will be lost.

They don't have to patch the games, just Steam itself. Since Steam handles all the authentication, it's the only point in the system that would require a change.

I couldn't care less about Ubisoft. What I defend is the right of a propietary software developer/publisher to protect their work with a reasonable method. And in my experience requiring an internet connection that phones home while I play is more reasonable that some third party software that installs rootkits on my machine such as SecuROM, or that could potentially fry my DVD reader such as StarForce.

Then we apparently disagree on what is "reasonable". While I concede that Ubisoft has every right to put any form of DRM on their games, I also have the right - as a consumer - to voice my opposition when I feel they've stepped over the line. And mark my words, they have stepped over the line.

I don't defend Ubisoft as a company. I only realize that the real responsible for the existence of DRM is not Ubisoft (or any other developer), it is the pirates that force them to put such schemes in place, to delay PC titles, or to port them very poorly to the PC. And suddenly when one dev/publisher decides to try one new technique every bozo out there comes raging without many good arguments against it.

I'm glad I have good arguments then. I'd hate to think you were calling *me* a bozo. Name-calling is completely uncalled for, so I'm glad you weren't directing that at me.

/sarc

I guess you could have your own legitimate reasons to bash a DRM technique (ie: your internet will go down, or you don't trust their word of patching out the DRM if it doesn't work). You see it as a greedy company that wants to control your games. I, on the other hand see it as a company that is doing the best it can to keep producing PC games rather than leaving the market and focusing on consoles as other companies have done (such as Epic).

I'm glad you admit there are legitimate concerns over this DRM. And I never said they were greedy, but I would say they're naive (and possibly downright stupid). Just ask those in Australia, who still - last I heard - cannot play Settlers 7 because Ubi dropped the ball (and still hasn't fixed the problem). Over 2 weeks since release, and Ubi hasn't resolved the issue with their authentication servers. Are you saying it's the fault of the internet provider for every one of those individuals?

It's been proven, time and again, that better games and customer service will bring in more sales than a heavy-handed DRM, that affects customers more than it does the pirates.

[MrBungle]

The DRM has not worked. It has in fact, discouraged many potential buyers. So they my be having their whole little day 0 no piracy victory, but that doesn't change the fact that they lost a large amount of customers as well as a large portion of their respect. Also, since the DRM has been cracked, future Ubi releases such as Splinter Cell will be cracked even quicker. So there goes their awful DRM system. Not only does it bother the hell out of users, it's now useless.

[Ph0rn0]

This entire thread is a prime example of why the PC gaming industry is dying. You people spend so much time crying and ♥♥♥♥♥ing and starting petitions to boycott games based on some sort of unfounded sense of self entitlement to download games for free, or pathetic arguments about the impositions DRM places on gamers liberty. Why would developers waste their time trying to please such an asinine bunch of miscreants, who will always find something new to complain about. ♥♥♥♥♥♥s like you are killing this industry, not DRM.

All of these arguments about how the the quality of the game stops piracy, not DRM, actually made me laugh out loud. AC2 is an excellent game. You would know this if you weren't so busy throwing tantrums like a bunch of spoilt rich ♥♥♥♥♥s who got a red ferrari for their birthdays instead of the PINK one they specifically asked for, and actually bought the damn game.

I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ what kind of DRM a publisher attaches to a game, as long as i can play it. AC2's DRM works fine, and the game is awesome, that's all you need to know. Shut the ♥♥♥♥ up all of you, and just buy the damn game. It really is as simple as that.

[Jito463]

So, I'm guessing you don't have anything relevant to add to the discussion? I thought not.

Anyone else just basking in the irony of someone complaining about complainers, while doing nothing but complaining and adding nothing to the discussion?

[MomentDEFINED]

So, I'm guessing you don't have anything relevant to add to the discussion? I thought not.

Anyone else just basking in the irony of someone complaining about complainers, while doing nothing but complaining and adding nothing to the discussion?

Dude why add to the conversation?

IT WORKS FOR HIM AMIRITE?!

[Ardbug]

This entire thread is a prime example of why the PC gaming industry is dying. You people spend so much time crying and ♥♥♥♥♥ing and starting petitions to boycott games based on some sort of unfounded sense of self entitlement to download games for free, or pathetic arguments about the impositions DRM places on gamers liberty. Why would developers waste their time trying to please such an asinine bunch of miscreants, who will always find something new to complain about. ♥♥♥♥♥♥s like you are killing this industry, not DRM.

All of these arguments about how the the quality of the game stops piracy, not DRM, actually made me laugh out loud. AC2 is an excellent game. You would know this if you weren't so busy throwing tantrums like a bunch of spoilt rich ♥♥♥♥♥s who got a red ferrari for their birthdays instead of the PINK one they specifically asked for, and actually bought the damn game.

I don't give a ♥♥♥♥ what kind of DRM a publisher attaches to a game, as long as i can play it. AC2's DRM works fine, and the game is awesome, that's all you need to know. Shut the ♥♥♥♥ up all of you, and just buy the damn game. It really is as simple as that.

Lol thanks man, just woke up and that was a great laugh, thanks, but usually people end their post with "/end sarcasm" when making posts like that, someone might think you are serious when you forget, anyway thanks.

[gxs]

Lol thanks man, just woke up and that was a great laugh, thanks, but usually people end their post with "/end sarcasm" when making posts like that, someone might think you are serious when you forget, anyway thanks.
You just forgot to type /sarcasm.
I agree with Ph0rn0.

[MDrm]

So, I'm guessing you don't have anything relevant to add to the discussion? I thought not.

Anyone else just basking in the irony of someone complaining about complainers, while doing nothing but complaining and adding nothing to the discussion?

Needed a good LOL and that guy supplied it, thanks!

Anyway ph0rn0 basically summarizes the position of the pro-DRMs quite well. Which is to say, no reasoning but a lot of chest thumping.

[UxmalTrekker]

Well I'll admit I did not go back and read your other post, but unless you said something different there than what's been said countless times in this thread and other similar threads like it, it's not really necessary.

I understand your points, I really do, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as some people make it. If you're someone that is really going to play this game in locations where you won't have Internet access or if you're someone who has very poor Internet connectivity then I fully understand why you would boycott this game and others like it. Maybe it's my closed mindedness talking, but like I said previously, I find it hard to believe that the position I and everyone else I know is in is such a unique one, which is to say.

1) I've got a stable cable connection
2) I don't disconnect my PC when gaming
3) The times I'm away from home AND don't have access to wifi are when I'm out with friends or doing something where playing the game is not even an afterthought

Now, if you don't fit into the above, meaning, you don't have a stable connection, or you DO disconnect your PC from the net while gaming or you often find yourself in a situation where you want to play the game and have no Internet access then you should ♥♥♥♥♥, moan and complain and boycott the game.

I just have serious doubts that all the people who bring up such scenarios ever actually find themselves in one. Maybe some of you are just better human beings than I am. Standing up for the less fortunate gamers by boycotting the game even though you yourselves likely won't be affected by the inherent shortcomings this type of DRM introduces.


Jabroni,

I appreciate you responding, but I’m disappointed that you didn’t at least take a few minutes to read the post to which I referred you. Had you actually read it, you most certainly would have found it to be extremely different from the circular argument in which you found yourself entrenched throughout pages seven and eight of the thread. In fact, there is not one mention of ‘internet connectivity’ contained within it. Instead, the post speaks to some of those deeper issues that must be looked at as a cohesive whole in order to begin understanding the perspective that many of us share.

Looking back at my request for a debate with you I’m not sure why you assumed that I was only speaking about ‘internet connectivity’ when I specifically referenced that as an “aspect supporting other arguments, rather than an argument all unto itself” and that the debate would be about “the factors that are truly at the heart of the matter”. I’m also a little confused that you felt it was unnecessary to read the referenced post because you assumed that it was merely a rehash of the connectivity argument, but then spent the rest of your reply to me rehashing your perspective on that very argument.

Now, I’m not trying to bust your balls here, Jabroni (honestly I’m not), but thinking about it further it seems that you are somewhat fixated on ‘internet connectivity’ being the whole issue at hand and are unable, or unwilling, to look past that. I’m guessing that you’ve never once considered that in all the years that DRM has been around no headway whatsoever has been made on stopping piracy. (Evidence is in the form of - illegal download numbers having increased, not decreased over the years, and publishers continually yelling louder and louder every year that piracy is taking money that should be theirs.) And, most importantly, with each successive iteration of DRM, the restrictions on the paying customers have increased while no impact has been felt by the pirates. So, in practice, there is escalation against those legitimately supporting the business and nothing against those who undermine it. Now, that’s highly annoying. And, with this trend firmly established, what makes you believe that it will stop here, at a point of restrictiveness that you find acceptable? Will you wait until the restrictions and/or monetary obligations become unacceptable to you before you’re willing to put some thought into things? By then it will be too late, because the restrictions will already be in place. Then, when you do finally think about things and subsequently voice your opinion somebody else will respond to you in the way of defense ‘It works for me, and that’s all that matters’. But, that’s really not all that matters.

Again, I’m disappointed that you are unwilling to even consider trying to expand your scope or understanding in regard to the real issue but are willing to argue one small point. I actually posted the request for a debate specifically to you because, even though you were chasing your tail in a circular argument, you appeared to be someone that had the potential to grasp beyond what he was saying. If you reconsider, and find yourself willing and able to debate more than ‘internet connectivity’ and the fact that ‘it works for me’ my offer for a debate remains open. In all earnestness, I want to debate the issue because I’m not nearly arrogant enough to believe that perspectives other than mine hold no value.

Regards,
Uxmal

[Maurn]

Hello

Sorry if anybody mentioned this earlier in the thread, but:

I happen to know, that the DRM haven't been cracked yet, but there are certain ways to play the game illegally (and offline)! I won't say how tho, for many reasons, but it IS possible to download the game and play it now.

[Kyuushuu]

Personally i don't mind the Ubisoft DRM. I'd rather have to be online constantly then have limited installs like many companies have had for DRM.

[Ph0rn0]

Anyway ph0rn0 basically summarizes the position of the pro-DRMs quite well. Which is to say, no reasoning but a lot of chest thumping.

You're right, all of the anti-DRM supporters are well informed academics who argue their points eloquently, and are able to completely justify why companies shouldn't be allowed to take measures to curb piracy during the most profitable time in a game's life.... please.

There is great logic behind boycotting a game because you can't steal it. You can argue that game companies shoot themselves in the foot because they are FORCING you NOT to buy their games due to the OUTRAGEOUS attempts at stopping people from STEALING them, and you get to complain about how badly they have imposed on your personal liberty by imposing an OUTLANDISH requirement that you have an internet connection of all things. You get to complain on the internet (which apparently you don't have), and when the game is cracked a month or two later you can download it illegally and say "See! You can't stop piracy, they forced me to download it by implementing draconian DRM measures, now look how much money they have lost. They are doing it to themselves. I will laugh when they go bankrupt and say I-Told-You-So". Every way you look at it it’s a win-win amirite?

Let’s look at whom this problem actually affecting:

- In 2008-09, 78% of Australian households had at least one computer, while 72% had an internet connection.
- Of all household with internet, 86% had high speed broadband.

For all the Americans here wanting local context:

- In 2009, 81% of American households had at least one computer, while 78% have internet access.
- Of all household with internet, again 86% have high speed internet access

Do you honestly think that the 4% of Australian households, and 3% of American households, that have a computer but do not have internet are up in arms because they can't play assassins creed? Do you honestly think that this demographic even play computer games (other than solitaire)?

When you move away from the issue of connectivity and into the arguments about escalating restrictions, impact on sales, and drawing more money from consumers, we just get into wank territory. I would wager that maybe 1% of the people posting in this thread actually believe that these arguments are the reason they are angry about DRM. The other 99% are just jarateed that they couldn’t steal it easily.

To the people arguing that making good games stops piracy, not DRM, and that companies should spend more time on the game itself and not the DRM, would you care to explain to me why there are so many comments like this on the♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ (direct quotes):

- i just finished the game today its the best game i have ever played before
- XCELENT GAME GUYS THANK'S AGAIN!!!!!!!!VIVA LA REVOLUCIA!!!!!!!!!
- i have just completed this game 2 hours ago and i can say that this is the best game.
- FINALLY CRACK THANKS MAN!!!!!!!GAME IS AMAZING!!
- I just beat this game last night and I have to say.....O-M-F-G! The end of this game blew my mind and caught me so offguard and I just can't wait to pirate the third one, lmao.

This DRM doesn't stop you from playing the game. Granted there may have been server issues for the first couple of days, but how greatly has that affected your ability to play the game overall? One, maybe two days without being able to play? Gimme a break. People who complain about DRM create the problem, and it is no doubt inevitable that the future of gaming will be entirely console or cloud based because of ♥♥♥♥ like this. Devs are eventually going to give up trying to stop people from stealing their games on PC, and as much of an avid PC gamer as I am, I will welcome these new systems just so I won’t have to read any more of these threads of endless complaining because unemployed timmy tightass couldn’t afford to pay $50 for a computer game.

This issue is as black and white as it can possibly be, and anyone arguing under the facade of social injustice or internet connectivity issues are either uninformed or full of ♥♥♥♥. Buy the game, play the game. Simple as that. Nothing, not even this DRM, is stopping you from doing that. ♥♥♥♥s

[jabroni619]

Uxmal, I didn't read your other post because it was likely a long winded one and my attention wanders easily.

The people at UBI aren't idiots. I highly doubt they put forth this DRM thinking it would curb piracy forever. They wanted to stop the initial piracy and they did just that. It stopped Day 0, Week 0 and even Month 0 piracy.

You're trying to make a point that you cannot prove. "How may would be pirates ended up buying the game and how many would be consumers didn't?" seems to be the question you're asking. I don't have the answer and neither do you. Whatever it is you're trying to prove by asking that, you can't. Like I said before, simply asking the question doesn't mean anything.

The would be consumers who aren't buying the game are doing so because of the Internet connectivity issue, which is why I'm bringing it up. If you want to debate points lets debate points. Debating something that neither of us can prove is rather pointless.

If you can keep the replies to 300 words or less, that would be greatly appreciated.

[Jito463]

I agree with Uxmal, we need to get back to the core of the issue. I believe I summed that up earlier with this post (http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14411004#post14411004). The internet connectivity issue is a problem, but ultimately it boils down to the amount of control they want to take away from us. I don't give up my rights so easily.

[jabroni619]

I double click on the game, the game launches, I play it. It's all the control you NEED, despite what you may WANT.

Oh, and Uxmal, you don't think that at least part of the reason downloading as increased over the years is due to the simple fact that broadband Internet is far cheaper and more widespread now than it has ever been in the past? I don't know about you, but I think that's a huge reason.

[Ciaos]

You're right, all of the anti-DRM supporters are well informed academics who argue their points eloquently, and are able to completely justify why companies shouldn't be allowed to take measures to curb piracy during the most profitable time in a game's life.... please.

Sarcasm won't get you anywhere.

There is great logic behind boycotting a game because you can't steal it.

You missed the point.

You can argue that game companies shoot themselves in the foot because they are FORCING you NOT to buy their games due to the OUTRAGEOUS attempts at stopping people from STEALING them, and you get to complain about how badly they have imposed on your personal liberty by imposing an OUTLANDISH requirement that you have an internet connection of all things. You get to complain on the internet (which apparently you don't have), and when the game is cracked a month or two later you can download it illegally and say "See! You can't stop piracy, they forced me to download it by implementing draconian DRM measures, now look how much money they have lost. They are doing it to themselves. I will laugh when they go bankrupt and say I-Told-You-So". Every way you look at it it’s a win-win amirite?

Firstly, this DRM is cracked. Now why is it here? It didn't stop piracy, it worked for about a month. So now, what is the superior product? The cracked version where I can play on the go, or the DRM version which means I can't use my Gaming Laptop.

Many people only play SP games when their net is out or when they're travelling on the train or something. Do you think that it is not a legitimate concern?

The cure is worthless if it is a temporary cure and causes more discontent and ill feeling than it cured.

Let’s look at whom this problem actually affecting:

- In 2008-09, 78% of Australian households had at least one computer, while 72% had an internet connection.
- Of all household with internet, 86% had high speed broadband.

For all the Americans here wanting local context:

- In 2009, 81% of American households had at least one computer, while 78% have internet access.
- Of all household with internet, again 86% have high speed internet access

Do you honestly think that the 4% of Australian households, and 3% of American households, that have a computer but do not have internet are up in arms because they can't play assassins creed? Do you honestly think that this demographic even play computer games (other than solitaire)?

Because everyone here is American or Australian. Because they all take in account reliability of ISPs. They all consider the possibility of Ubi Servers having issues. It also completely ignores Gamers who game on the go.

Not to mention you didn't mention where you got that information.

When you move away from the issue of connectivity and into the arguments about escalating restrictions, impact on sales, and drawing more money from consumers, we just get into wank territory. I would wager that maybe 1% of the people posting in this thread actually believe that these arguments are the reason they are angry about DRM. The other 99% are just jarateed that they couldn’t steal it easily.

Now you're making stuff up. 99% of posters here are annoyed because they didn't pirate it? Seriously get out.

To the people arguing that making good games stops piracy, not DRM, and that companies should spend more time on the game itself and not the DRM, would you care to explain to me why there are so many comments like this on the♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ (direct quotes):

- i just finished the game today its the best game i have ever played before
- XCELENT GAME GUYS THANK'S AGAIN!!!!!!!!VIVA LA REVOLUCIA!!!!!!!!!
- i have just completed this game 2 hours ago and i can say that this is the best game.
- FINALLY CRACK THANKS MAN!!!!!!!GAME IS AMAZING!!
- I just beat this game last night and I have to say.....O-M-F-G! The end of this game blew my mind and caught me so offguard and I just can't wait to pirate the third one, lmao.

Firstly you just pulled those comments from anywhere. There are far more reasons AC2 sold horrifically on the PC. Maybe the 6 month delay? Shoddy porting? The DRM? They can't blame piracy for first week poor sales now because it did work for a bit.

You never see piracy being enough to completely screw up sales of ME, ME2, HL2 etc. Gabe Newell got it right.

This DRM doesn't stop you from playing the game. Granted there may have been server issues for the first couple of days, but how greatly has that affected your ability to play the game overall? One, maybe two days without being able to play? Gimme a break.

You're missing the bigger picture.

People who complain about DRM create the problem, and it is no doubt inevitable that the future of gaming will be entirely console or cloud based because of ♥♥♥♥ like this. Devs are eventually going to give up trying to stop people from stealing their games on PC, and as much of an avid PC gamer as I am, I will welcome these new systems just so I won’t have to read any more of these threads of endless complaining because unemployed timmy tightass couldn’t afford to pay $50 for a computer game.

This is BS. PC Gaming isn't dying. It is merely shrinking in ratio to console gamers, and that is due to the influx of Casual Gamers in the past 10 years. PC Gaming is growing, but the huge console boom with the Playstation in the 90s the majority of profit will be from consoles.

PC Games make a profit and that is why developers release it on the platform.

This issue is as black and white as it can possibly be, and anyone arguing under the facade of social injustice or internet connectivity issues are either uninformed or full of ♥♥♥♥.

The word bigoted comes to mind here.

Buy the game, play the game. Simple as that. Nothing, not even this DRM, is stopping you from doing that. ♥♥♥♥s

You don't get it.

[MikeHaggar]

Personally i don't mind the Ubisoft DRM. I'd rather have to be online constantly then have limited installs like many companies have had for DRM.
thats like choosing between eating dog ♥♥♥♥ or drinking piss

[sfade]

The people at UBI aren't idiots.

From all available experience with them, I find I disagree.

They may not ALL be idiots, but by and large the company seems to be directed by idiots the past couple of years. They've been driving their reputation and franchises into the ground, and I don't think it's long before they start hurting because of it. That's purely speculation on my part, but I believe it to be accurate.

[MomentDEFINED]

Limited installs don't really bother me, as most limited installs are refreshed after a month or so. I don't have THAT many locations that I feel the need to install my PC games in, and I don't think I've ever really seen an unreasonably low number.

[sfade]

Limited installs don't really bother me, as most limited installs are refreshed after a month or so. I don't have THAT many locations that I feel the need to install my PC games in, and I don't think I've ever really seen an unreasonably low number.

There were a number of titles that do not 'refresh' the limited numbers at all, ever, unless you make a toll call (effectively paying additional fees to access your original purchase).

The problem with install limits, and why so many object to that DRM scheme is that is does NOTHING to stop piracy (and in fact makes casual piracy actually easier). It's squarely aimed at used game sales and trying to exterminate the right of first sale.

Piracy is just the smokescreen they use to excuse limiting your ability to install the game, it really has nothing to do with piracy at all.

[MDrm]

Ah yes Ph0rn0, you use misdirection, tons of false information and assumption, insulting everyone and calling us pirates and simply missing the big picture. Not going to even answer that wall of insults and misinformation since it's quite obvious for anyone who actually does a bit of research that all you write can be easily dispelled.

As for hard data, go to investor.ea.com, go to the investor section of ubisoft, activision, THQ, Bethesda, any company you like, look at their quarterly reports, look at the net revenue per platform. PC gaming is dying? Since you can't get more hard data than financial statements from the companies, PC is actually the platform that brings the most money in average for them.

PersianImmortal was also from Australia, as ph0rn0 implies he is from. Just sayin'

[MomentDEFINED]

I don't make the assumption that DRM's sole purpose is to eliminate piracy. Used game sales are a BIG issue in the industry, and I'm all for them cracking down on them. Especially considering that used game prices are ludicrous.

Again, can you actually give me an example of a title that didn't have any sort of refresh? If you really need to make an extra call to install the game again, what happened to require so many installs? I don't see making a phone call and paying these extra tolls as a big issue.

Regardless, I would STILL prefer to make a phone call than be connected to the internet constantly in a game that HAS NO ONLINE COMPONENT.

[UxmalTrekker]

Oh, and Uxmal, you don't think that at least part of the reason downloading as increased over the years is due to the simple fact that broadband Internet is far cheaper and more widespread now than it has ever been in the past?

Jabroni,

That’s a very good point there about broadband. I would also add to your point that over the past five years or so more homes have a computer and more homes have multiple computers further increasing the possibility of downloading.


You're trying to make a point that you cannot prove. "How may would be pirates ended up buying the game and how many would be consumers didn't?" seems to be the question you're asking. I don't have the answer and neither do you. Whatever it is you're trying to prove by asking that, you can't. Like I said before, simply asking the question doesn't mean anything.

I’m glad you brought this up. You’re right; I can’t definitively prove my point on this subject because the hard, factual numbers aren’t truly attainable. So what I’m doing is the same thing that Ubisoft and other publishers are doing, except from a consumer’s point of view.

The Ubisoft DRM stopped day zero, week one and month one piracy. I’m not disputing this. But what did Ubisoft gain by delaying the pirates? Just as I can’t definitively prove my point for a lack of hard numbers, neither can Ubisoft prove that they gained even a single sale from the delay, for that same lack of numbers. So essentially, without a single shred of evidence to back up their position, the publishers continue to escalate restrictions onto the paying customers under the banner of fighting piracy.

The only hard numbers we do have are the total number of illegal downloads that the publishers pull out to justify their next, more highly restrictive to the customer, iteration of DRM. So using the only factual numbers available to us (just like the publishers do), those downloads, regardless of broadband and regardless of the number of computers out there making it easier/more attractive, the DRM systems are not even putting a dent into the piracy numbers.


[B]The people at UBI aren't idiots. I highly doubt they put forth this DRM thinking it would curb piracy forever. They wanted to stop the initial piracy and they did just that. It stopped Day 0, Week 0 and even Month 0 piracy.


The would be consumers who aren't buying the game are doing so because of the Internet connectivity issue, which is why I'm bringing it up. If you want to debate points lets debate points. Debating something that neither of us can prove is rather pointless.

As for the people at Ubisoft not being idiots, how do you know this? I most definitely do not. Plenty of corporations are headed by idiots, often times as a result of greed and hubris. Certainly the name Enron conjures up thoughts of idiocy. Or how about the banking firms that took their federal aid and disbursed big bonuses to their executives?

Not all would be consumers chose not to purchase ACII because of the internet connection. I have not purchased it and I have a fast, perfectly reliable connection as do others who have chosen not to buy.

To be honest, Jabroni, I would have no problem with any DRM scheme if:

1. Any and all restrictions were removed immediately after a pirated version was available. Just basic sense to not inconvenience your customers for no reason.

2. There was a reset service so that I could sell any game that I wanted on the secondary market, as is my consumer right. (Yes, that aspect of Steam bothers me as well. But the pros of Steam greatly outweigh the cons, although I am thinking more about it now.)

3. Publishers could show any evidence that DRM is impacting piracy.

I could live with just the first two conditions being met and would probably purchase any game in which I had interest, regardless of the initial restrictions, if they were. But, we both know that the likelihood for those conditions being met is slim to none. So, that brings me right back to my suspicion that DRM is not really about combating piracy. I’m sure it was at first, but it doesn’t look to be any longer.

And we’ll have to fundamentally disagree on asking the question. Asking any question, especially one without a clear cut and definitive answer opens us up to possibilities that we might never otherwise have considered. From questions often comes understanding, as well as answers.

Regards,
Uxmal

[zingar]

people keep complaining about this? this is ridiculous
what is so wrong with being connected to the internet all the time EVEN IF ITS A SINGLE PLAYER GAME? do you pay your internet provider per byte used or something?
most people (not me, but most people) are connected to routers and routers normally are connected 24/7. i doubt you disable your lan or pull the plugs while youre not using the internet...
ive seen some nonsense about losing control... control of what? jesus, are you sure youre talking about a game here or is it politics?
did some random guy from ubisoft interrupted your game while you were playing and played for you? did your pc suddenly stopped responding to your keyboard/mouse and some misterious guy took control of it?

and yes ive read many posts here but they dont tell us any facts, they seem more philosofical crap than anything else. only thing you can complain about is when servers went down, because otherwise you have no reason at all to complain. and even that was for a really short time

[sfade]

I'm not your personal google, sorry but not going to waste my time. Most people who ask to be spoon fed everything are hardly interested in actually educating themselves. If you are motivated enough, you look it up yourself.


If you really need to make an extra call to install the game again, what happened to require so many installs? I don't see making a phone call and paying these extra tolls as a big issue.


I don't consider three installs as 'many', technically speaking it would most likely be described as 'few'. And if you are happy wasting time having to make a string of calls or racking up some toll fees for all the games you already purchased every time you upgrade your PC components, more power to you. This is exactly why I like STEAM, I can play my games offline and I don't have to deal with any bulls--- hoop jumping (as long as I avoid the titles on STEAM that require said hoop jumping).

The entire reason most of the 'activation/install limit' schemes now regenerate installs over a period of time is thanks to people who spoke up and objected to such limits so vocally. You are welcome, by the way.

I, and many others are willing to reasonably compromise with publishers about DRM... however, when their methods impinge on my ability to use a product I legitimately paid for because they engineered a single-point-failure system into the product or a virtual automatic self-destruct switch, I will most certainly make my displeasure public on forums and via word-of-mouth.

I'm all for retarding piracy but I can not and will not support systems which, for all practical purposes make pirated/altered/emulated versions the better 'product'. Ubisofts constant flawless online requirement, and other publishers unreasonably restrictive installation limits put products which implement them over on the 'will not buy this crap' list.

The 'War on Piracy' is much like other 'War on xxx' scenarios, they are a Sisyphean effort that have no conclusive victory, only escalation until at some point the burden becomes so onerous that people realize it.

As far as used game market being a problem: pure bulls---. It's simple and easy way to extract extra profit margin with little to no effort. It's purely a matter of trying to eliminate the well established right of first sale in the name of nothing but corporate greed. I don't blame corporations for being greedy, that is their nature... I do blame them when they try to weasel the end user out of their legitimate rights in the interest of pursuing said corporate greed.

[MDrm]

As for the pirate argument, even the US government seems to be doubting piracy is really that damaging (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-423).

Conclusion of the study: Piracy can be as beneficial as a detriment. And this is the US government that made the study, not some biased company.

[Exinjeru]

Personally I feel that there is an apparent increase in piracy because there is an increase is poorly made games.

Pirates will play anything because they don't pay a cent, if they get a bad game they just shrug.

Consumers avoid buying bad games, trying to save their money for life and better games.

What do you get? An overhyped game comes out with high piracy and poor sales, the publisher blames piracy.

I still prefer Valve's stance on piracy "maybe you should make better games"

[jabroni619]

So better games will decrease piracy? Yeah ok, keep feeding yourself that line. Someday you may actually believe it.

[Jito463]

No, better quality games will not decrease piracy, and in fact, it may increase piracy because of more interest in the game. What it will do is increase sales. And ultimately, the number of sales is what matters to a development company, not the number of pirates.

[MDrm]

No, better quality games will not decrease piracy, and in fact, it may increase piracy because of more interest in the game. What it will do is increase sales. And ultimately, the number of sales is what matters to a development company, not the number of pirates.

And let's not forget that one pirated game is not the same as a lost sale. If the game is good there's a good chance a pirate may buy the game just to support good games.

[jabroni619]

Let's also not forget the sky isn't always blue, the sun isn't always shining, and people don't always get along. I wonder what your definition of "good chance" is. Can you put a percentage figure on it? Because I personally think there is a much better chance that someone who pirates the game will never even think about buying it after they've successfully pirated it. Sure, there may be the occasional person who really is downloading the game to see if they really want to spend money on it, but a GOOD chance of that? I hardly think so.

Jito, clearly better games are going to sell more, I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

And 1 pirated game may not be 1 sale, it may be 0 it may even be more than 1. How may people do you know that enjoy gaming but aren't as computer savvy as you? I know plenty, if I say "hey, this is the hottest FPS out right now you should go buy it" they'll go out and buy it. If I say, "hey, this is the hottest FPS out right now, here's a copy" they don't buy it.

[Jito463]

Jito, clearly better games are going to sell more, I don't think anyone is arguing that point.

The publishers' obviously are. They seem to think that sales would be absolutely fantastic, if they could just get rid of those pesky pirates. No matter how many legitimate consumers get burned along the way. If they just focused more on making their games enjoyable, rather than stopping people from pirating them, we'd all be much better off.

Should they take precautions to try and prevent piracy? Sure, I have no problem with that. But when it affects the consumer far more than it does the pirate, it's time to change course.

Ubi, on the other hand, has decided to double-down on this crazy mess they've gotten themselves into. And we, the consumer, will suffer because of it.

[jabroni619]

Well that's the debate isn't it? How much does it really affect actual consumers? By actual consumers I mean people who have the game. I've made my position pretty clear on that matter. Most actual consumers don't think it affects much if at all... Let me rephrase, most actual consumers KNOW it has affected them minimally to not at all. There are exceptions of course, and they probably happen about as often as a pirate who downloads a game, likes it, then purchases it.

[djuara]

Well that's the debate isn't it? How much does it really affect actual consumers? By actual consumers I mean people who have the game. I've made my position pretty clear on that matter. Most actual consumers don't think it affects much if at all... Let me rephrase, most actual consumers KNOW it has affected them minimally to not at all. There are exceptions of course, and they probably happen about as often as a pirate who downloads a game, likes it, then purchases it.

Tell that to the whole Australian customers who bought the new Settlers. Affect them minimally? Do you call not being able to play at all being affected minimally?

[DJ_Professor_K]

Tell that to the whole Australian customers who bought the new Settlers. Affect them minimally? Do you call not being able to play at all being affected minimally?

Just to add that: it's not only the AUS, there are several people on Uk, sweden, italy and a few other EU countries unable to play S7 too, luckly (luckly!?), it doesn't affect country wide.

[UxmalTrekker]

Probably the most pertinent point that I’ve raised thus far came in post #141 to Jabroni as a series of interconnected questions.

And, most importantly, with each successive iteration of DRM, the restrictions on the paying customers have increased while no impact has been felt by the pirates. So, in practice, there is escalation against those legitimately supporting the business and nothing against those who undermine it. Now, that’s highly annoying. And, with this trend firmly established, what makes you believe that it will stop here, at a point of restrictiveness that you find acceptable? Will you wait until the restrictions and/or monetary obligations become unacceptable to you before you’re willing to put some thought into things? By then it will be too late, because the restrictions will already be in place. Then, when you do finally think about things and subsequently voice your opinion somebody else will respond to you in the way of defense ‘It works for me, and that’s all that matters’. But, that’s really not all that matters.

So I now put these few questions out to everyone that supports continually escalating DRM. What restriction will be too great for you? And at what point are you willing to consider that things may reach your personal limitation to what is acceptable? If anyone believes that a great multitude of companies/corporations don’t continually test the waters of passivity in order to see how far they can go, to see how much they can get away with, then you’re not living in this reality. Companies do this, governments do this, and schoolyard bullies do this. The only way to stop it is to not passively give in simply because right now ‘it works for me’. If you answer that no restriction is too much then you’re not being truthful, everyone has a limit of tolerance with everything.

Think of it like this. Ubisoft establishes its “online services platform” and EA follows with its version. After that, with the risk taken by others and enough gaming consumers happily onboard, Activision establishes its own version and so on down the line until every major publisher uses a similar online scheme. Is that the end of things? Will there be no more steps, no more escalations? That is highly doubtful. These are companies looking to maximize profit and they have an established willingness on the part of their clientele (that’s the gaming consumers) to just fold like a house of cards in a strong wind to any restriction/demand that is imposed upon them. So, what is next? Will it be fees to access servers for old games because those are no longer considered feasible to maintain as is, since being older there is no new revenue to support them? Remember, the extra ten bucks for the initial purchase of the game (since all games will be sixty U.S. dollars) will only go so far, especially when the title is no longer selling. Will there be a fee simply to have the privilege to access the “online services platform”?

Maybe the publishers won’t go the route of maximizing their potential profits. Maybe they’ll be completely content having things remain at a status quo. Maybe the shareholders, the boards of directors and the CEO’s will believe that they definitely have enough money and that they don’t need anymore. Thinking about the possibilities is not being alarmist, but rather sensible. We see the practices of big business every day in the news and around us. So to consider the possibility that some companies just might be looking to get more out of us is hardly unrealistic. I’m betting more people will be willing to look at things if and when they are being hit in the wallet.

With the trend firmly established by the publishers, to not at least question what the next step could be is merely wallowing in ignorant complacency. The issue, most definitely, is not simply just the current restrictions of Ubisoft’s DRM, regardless of what people supporting the DRM say. Rather the issue is a comprehensive set of factors with one very large and looming question on the horizon – How far will the publishers go and how far will we let them? Head off potential problems before they become full blown problems and before you’re neck deep in the sh*t with no viable way out. If you wait, it’s too late.

Regards,
Uxmal

[kreed_uk]

So I now put these few questions out to everyone that supports continually escalating DRM.

Gosh, you really do need to knock down the size of your posts. I'm sure that most of them can be shortened by 2/3. Anyways..

I doubt that anyone actually supports continually escalating DRM. The guys who have bought Assassin's Creed 2 just don't have a problem with the one that has been implemented by Ubisoft, that's all. It's just frustrating having to hear all the crying coming from the anti DRM guys.

If a company ever release a game that implements a DRM that I don't agree with I would simply not buy the damn thing. No need for me to start a movement/cult and try to convince everyone to hate it as much as I do. It's their product they can do whatever the hell they want to do with it.

[LtPinback]

@Uxmal

If this keeps escalating we are going to end up on our way back to the Arcade :eek:. For those not old enough an Arcade is a noisy place with coin operated game machines. :p

On a side note. Any reaction by Ubisuck on the defeat of the new DRM scheme?.

[Jito463]

@kreed_uk
Even if it's part of a game series that you've come to appreciate, and you really want that next game to see how the story progresses? It's not just about philosophical differences of opinion on the DRM. I would like to continue the story and see where they've taken it, but this DRM is a bridge too far.

So I voice my concerns in the hope that Ubi will listen and make the right choice of removing the online requirement from their game(s). How else will they know why we aren't buying the game, unless they hear from us?

On a side note. Any reaction by Ubisuck on the defeat of the new DRM scheme?.

I think I heard Baghdad Bob making a comment about there being no crack available, and that everything is perfectly fine.

[jabroni619]

Uxmal, if you call pirates not being able to properly play AC2 for well over a month vs getting it the game even before the paying public does with games that have no or far less effective DRM's "no impact" then there is no need to debate with me any further because we have a very fundamental difference of opinion on what "no impact on pirates" means. Not unlike the fundamental difference of opinion that MDrm and I have of what "a good chance" means. To me "no impact" means pirates were not impacted, clearly it means something different to you.

You'll have to excuse me for not reading past the second sentence of your posts. I'm always up for a good debate, especially one like this where the topic is heated but the discussion civil for the most part. There's a serious case of TL;DR with your posts. Get to the point, say what you have to say and I'll respond in kind. You're not being graded, there is no need to make the posts 2-3x longer than they need to be in an effort to sound overly eloquent with your words.

[sfade]

You'll have to excuse me for not reading past the second sentence of your posts. I'm always up for a good debate, especially one like this where the topic is heated but the discussion civil for the most part. There's a serious case of TL;DR with your posts.

This is the third time you have failed to read the posted content (as you yourself proclaim above), so how would you be able to judge the quality of his full post? Invent some sort of precognitive ability? Get out from under the bridge, seriously.

Quite simply, he isn't at fault and can't be blamed for your lack of attention span or apparent dislike of using vocabulary. His points were clear, though many, and there was no padding in order to appear 'more eloquent' as you seem to insinuate.

TLDR translates to 'You are not really interested in an exchange of ideas, or for that matter anything intelligent other than spewing your own self-important vitriol at everyone else'. Read, reply and contribute, otherwise you are simply trawling for the sake of trying to stir up silt. :rolleyes:

Well that's the debate isn't it? How much does it really affect actual consumers? By actual consumers I mean people who have the game. I've made my position pretty clear on that matter. Most actual consumers don't think it affects much if at all... Let me rephrase, most actual consumers KNOW it has affected them minimally to not at all. There are exceptions of course, and they probably happen about as often as a pirate who downloads a game, likes it, then purchases it.

Lets take your logic and apply it to another more serious scenario. The government decides that too many people are using cars for smuggling. They mandate the necessity that vehicles be constantly connected with a 'roadway operation authorization system'. A vehicle that fails to connect or is disconnected for whatever reason ceases operation immediately, the system has no fail-safe or back up in the case of unjustified failure of service. It probably wouldn't affect you, but it could, does that make it acceptable or right?

Just because this is only entertainment we are talking about doesn't mean it's any less important. Entertainment is a chief source of cultural exchange and even information.

[james_2k]

Just because this is only entertainment we are talking about doesn't mean it's any less important. Entertainment is a chief source of cultural exchange and even information.
sure. compare the use of a car with playing a game. good work. /facepalm

[Ciaos]

Uxmal, if you call pirates not being able to properly play AC2 for well over a month vs getting it the game even before the paying public does with games that have no or far less effective DRM's "no impact" then there is no need to debate with me any further because we have a very fundamental difference of opinion on what "no impact on pirates" means. Not unlike the fundamental difference of opinion that MDrm and I have of what "a good chance" means. To me "no impact" means pirates were not impacted, clearly it means something different to you.

You'll have to excuse me for not reading past the second sentence of your posts. I'm always up for a good debate, especially one like this where the topic is heated but the discussion civil for the most part. There's a serious case of TL;DR with your posts. Get to the point, say what you have to say and I'll respond in kind. You're not being graded, there is no need to make the posts 2-3x longer than they need to be in an effort to sound overly eloquent with your words.

TL;DR Read his post.

[MDrm]

sure. compare the use of a car with playing a game. good work. /facepalm

Uh, actually both come from industries that move billions of dollars. Your point being?

[MDrm]

What all the pro-DRM brigade fails to see is this simple point, which I'll make it short so they don't go TL;DR

A DRM is only as effective as the people buying the game. If it stops pirating and also stops people buying the game it has failed. Period.

[jabroni619]

Just because this is only entertainment we are talking about doesn't mean it's any less important.

Actually yes, it is WAY less important. You anti-DRM guys are getting more and more ludicrous with each post. I'll summarize.

1) Worrying about a problem that likely won't affect you and grossly exaggerated the issues

2) Asking the question "how may pirates bought the game vs lost sales" due to the DRM, insinuating that the data supports your POV even though you don't have this data available.

3) Thinking there is a "good chance" pirates will buy a game AFTER they've successfully pirated it as long as they like it enough.

4) A DRM that successfully stopped pirates for over a month has been translated to "no impact"

5) Playing a video game is no less important than being able to drive on public roads.

I'm sure there is more I'm missing.

You may translate TLDR to whatever you wish. Based on the examples I've provided above, we clearly don't share the same sense of reality.

I read one of his posts and it was longer than it needed to be. I read the first couple sentences of his subsequent posts and skimmed the rest, same pattern, longer than needed to be. I don't need to read every word or have precognitive abilities to recognize that. I'm sure there is merritt hidden somewhere in there, I just don't have the desire to sift through a short story to find it. Everyone else has been able to state their points in short, concise posts with enough grammar and vocabulary to make it easy to read, understandable and more importantly, not a chore for others to read.

[tippy25]

There's going to be a TL;DR cliff-notes style summary at the end of this post.

Jabroni, you seem to have a hard time figuring out why so many people do not like this DRM. You also have a habit of not answering the questions posed to you. I'll try to keep this short since you don't seem to like reading. I'll address each point

1) If you wait until a problem directly affects you, then it's too late. Go read the poem "First they came..." by Martin Niemöller to get an idea of this concept.

2) You don't have any data to support your side, either, yet you insinuate that your unsupported POV is more valid than our unsupported POV. Everyone I know who has pirated a game or music buys said game or music if they like it. I'm willing to bed that several others who are making this point also have similar experiences. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't know anyone directly involved in piracy. We at least have personal experience behind us.

3) That's actually been my experience. If it's good enough, they buy it, otherwise it gets discarded.

4) The pirates still got the game and now have a superior gaming experience due to not having to worry about a momentary lapse in internet connectivity or Ubisoft server stability. We already waited 4 months, what's one more? While "no impact" in its strictly literal sense is inaccurate, it's more like the impact was so small that it is negligible.

5) You clearly don't understand metaphors. Also, I like to drive for fun. I'm not the only one. Also, I've used video games (namely Garry's Mod) to help me with my homework on at least one occasion. Don't simply dismiss something because you don't understand it.

TL;DR version - Too bad, go back and read it. You might learn something.

[jabroni619]

You actually didn't address anything, and you obviously have not read despite accusing me of the same thing. If you had, you'd know what you posted in #2 is completely inaccurate. I have NEVER brought up that issue, only responded to it when it was brought up by the other side. Nor have I even hinted that the data (which doesn't even exist) supports my POV. In fact, it was a fellow on your side that was saying that the "pro DRM" side was "ignoring the question" btw, this was the same guy that you are now saying I could learn something from. So how is it that I'm insinuating the data supports my POV when the guy you're so passionately backing up himself said it was being ignored by people like me? (to which I replied that it's being ignored becuase the data isn't there to support either side, and he agreed with) Nice try, but try again.

Metaphors are useless when they're so off base that they become meaningless, i'll throw one back at you... You might as well not ever drive a car, because if you do, you run the risk of getting killed in an accident, and if you wait for it to actually happen, it's too late. See what I did there?

I'll throw it right back at you, go back and read, you too might actually learn something. And if you're going to debate the topic, try to at least figure out who said what first.

[cristianesza]

Everyone I know who has pirated a game or music buys said game or music if they like it. I'm willing to bed that several others who are making this point also have similar experiences.
You must have very nice friends, and you must be yourself a very nice pirate indeed.

The average pirate does not buy games. See how many anti-DRM threads were started before the game was cracked, and how many were started after?

None. Only a bunch possibly legitimate customers stayed here discussing the issue in the already existing threads while all the other ranters just torrented the game as soon as it was cracked and forgot the whole thing, which is what they were going to do anyway if the game didn't have any kind of DRM.

This sudden lack of participation is a good sign that there were very few people concerned about the DRM, but they were joined by a massive amount of pirates who just needed an excuse to bash ubisoft hoping that they will remove the DRM if many "legit customers" complained enough.

I'm also betting that if Splinter Cell Conviction doesn't get cracked in a few days you will see the same amount of threads started in that forum with the same "customers" annoyed by the issue, until the game will get cracked and then they will stop as well.

[MDrm]

You must have very nice friends, and you must be yourself a very nice pirate indeed.

The average pirate does not buy games. See how many anti-DRM threads were started before the game was cracked, and how many were started after?

None. Only a bunch possibly legitimate customers stayed here discussing the issue in the already existing threads while all the other ranters just torrented the game as soon as it was cracked and forgot the whole thing, which is what they were going to do anyway if the game didn't have any kind of DRM.

This sudden lack of participation is a good sign that there were very few people concerned about the DRM, but they were joined by a massive amount of pirates who just needed an excuse to bash ubisoft hoping that they will remove the DRM if many "legit customers" complained enough.

I'm also betting that if Splinter Cell Conviction doesn't get cracked in a few days you will see the same amount of threads started in that forum with the same "customers" annoyed by the issue, until the game will get cracked and then they will stop as well.

Yawn, more misdirection and again calling all those who oppose the DRM pirates. Same tired old argument, no facts just insults.

BTW, everyone who was against the DRM is still here and any new thread started concerning the DRM is closed, so we keep it to one thread.

Troll harder, won't you?

[cristianesza]

Yawn, more misdirection and again calling all those who oppose the DRM pirates. Same tired old argument, no facts just insults.
The facts are there, go count how many anti drm threads were started after the crack. Besides no one is calling you specifically a pirate, I just find it curious how the participation on this subject has been reduced recently and only a few people stayed while it was such a hot subject just a few days before the crack.

BTW, everyone who was against the DRM is still here and any new thread started concerning the DRM is closed, so we keep it to one thread.
I haven't seen any anti-DRM thread closed after the game was cracked because none was started.

Troll harder, won't you?
Maybe you're right, I should assume good intention and I'll think that after the emulator was created everyone went out to buy the game (though I haven't seen it go up on the Steam stats) and then they downloaded the server emulator (I did see that one go up on the download stats of some warez site) just so they will be able to play their legitimate game this summer when they go on vacations to the Sahara :)

[MomentDEFINED]

This topic became highly uninteresting about 7 pages ago.

[Jito463]

This topic became highly uninteresting about 7 pages ago.

And yet you still find it interesting enough to post in? :)

[MomentDEFINED]

And yet you still find it interesting enough to post in? :)

I keep getting emails about people rehashing the same crap they said pages ago, and then one side brings up some reused points, the other side says they need cold facts where the evidence does not exist blah blah blah. There are no new ideas being brought to the discussion, and it's come down to arguing semantics. Time to unsubscribe.

[jabroni619]

lol, I don't think i've ever seen a heated thread that DIDN'T end up that way. You are right of course.

[sfade]

Metaphors are useless when they're so off base that they become meaningless, i'll throw one back at you... You might as well not ever drive a car, because if you do, you run the risk of getting killed in an accident, and if you wait for it to actually happen, it's too late. See what I did there?

I see that you need to look up the definition of 'metaphor'. You seem to be confusing it with sarcastic parody.

[jabroni619]

I did the same thing you did. Funny you didn't recognize how ridiculous it sounded when it came from you.

[djuara]

The facts are there, go count how many anti drm threads were started after the crack. Besides no one is calling you specifically a pirate, I just find it curious how the participation on this subject has been reduced recently and only a few people stayed while it was such a hot subject just a few days before the crack.


I haven't seen any anti-DRM thread closed after the game was cracked because none was started.


Maybe you're right, I should assume good intention and I'll think that after the emulator was created everyone went out to buy the game (though I haven't seen it go up on the Steam stats) and then they downloaded the server emulator (I did see that one go up on the download stats of some warez site) just so they will be able to play their legitimate game this summer when they go on vacations to the Sahara :)

BTW, I'm still here too. I think one reason you see the anti-DRM seem to die down because AC2 is now an old news. Most who was interested in AC2 PC have now given up on ever playing it in near future on PC platform. In addition to that, Settlers is now the big focus since Ubisoft screwed up even harder with that game. Customers from a whole region can't play at all for over a week and some still can't. Ubisoft can't blame people DDoS the server since this time the whole screw up is Ubisoft's fault.

[Ardbug]

The customer is always right, so when a game sell as poorly as this one then it means the developers/publishers did something wrong, its their job to make me the customer fork over my money, and since the decision is mine and the money are mine then Im always right, and in this case they really didnt make many customers part with their money.

[sfade]

I did the same thing you did. Funny you didn't recognize how ridiculous it sounded when it came from you.

No you did not. I applied the logic you used to a more serious alternative situation, one that made complete sense from the perspective of function and result. It was what you correctly identified as metaphor because you recognized the validity of the comparison even if you did not like the result (leading to your attempt to mock it as 'ridiculous'). Your previous parody came from a post someone else made, it had and has nothing to do with me whatsoever. If you want to try and establish a parallel, don't start by drawing loops.

You were unable to offer a satisfactory rebuttal because you have none which to put forth, your own logic when applied to the more serious scenario reveals it's failings. The product, whether car or software should not be intentionally designed in a way that puts it's practical reliability in any other hands but the person who purchased it. That's the most obvious of the flaws, though not the only one.

I'm confident that the reason you reply by twisting your own recycled rhetoric into a balloon animals is because it's all you have left.

It is the same with replies which rely on positions such as'but it's just a stupid game not your life'. Such a reply exposes the fact that there is no adequate refutation other than attempting to devalue the seriousness of the argument by insinuating it is unimportant.

I assure you, I take the issue of DRM, validity and acceptability of EULA agreements and the rights of consumers (especially for software purchasing) quite seriously. If you do not, why are you here? (That, of course, was rhetorical as I already have a good idea).

I will admit that I actually appreciate your presence, even if I think it woefully ignorant. Your poking the issue with a stick keeps it alive and in the public eye, and the more people who are aware the better it is for those who wish to keep DRM policies in-line with reasonable compromise for those consumers who do wish to legitimately acquire their product without putting a noose around their own necks.

For the TLDR crowd: It's probably time for your Methylphenidate.

[Saolite]

I doubt this will mean much to most people, but I felt it prudent to at least post something on the topic of the DRM.

Below is a source of how well, financially, Ubisoft is doing.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/UBI?countryCode=fr

A secondary source, to back up the first, can be seen here :
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=UBI&m=PA

And of course, as a fail-safe, even a third source :
http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/overview?symbol=UBIP.PA

But to summarize, if people don't take the time to actually look or can't understand the three links above --

Ubisoft, in June of 2009, reached the highest stock prices they have had in a long time -- since '08, as a matter of fact. As time goes on, the stock wavers slightly through July to August, were suddenly it takes a drastic fall. Why? I don't know. Regardless, ever since then, the stock has declined, and continued to decline up to even Today, where in recent weeks it has been at an ALL TIME LOW.

What does this mean? January was when they publically announced the DRM, and at first the stock rose up....but sharply fell. And continued to fall. Oh, it's risen a little as of mid-April, but it's still in that same record-setting low for Ubisoft. Maybe somewhere, some Shareholder who knew something of DRM's, cried panic, and sold....and then others subsequently sold, or perhaps a lot of people just lost A LOT of money -- which both are also plausible at the same time. Either way? It was not a pretty sight.

So regardless of wether people belive that the DRM " worked " or not, Ubisoft took a HUGE hit in the stock market. Now, most people may say " Well what the hell does that matter? We're gamers! Give us games! "

Ubisoft is a publicly traded company. Guess what? If it's stock goes under, the company goes under ( there have been very, very rare exceptions to this ). The DRM apparently had some negative impact on Ubisoft. Was the estimated $250 million dollars it cost them in stock alone worth limiting pirating for three weeks? That's a question you have to decide for yourself. Would you pay $250 million dollars to keep your product " safe " for three weeks? Because that's how long it took for someone to figure out the " work around " to the DRM.

Now, let me explain how I got $250 for a moment, so no one believes I pulled that number from a magic hat. Ubisoft's high in '09, leading into 2010, was $17.73 per share. They had 37,658 shares on the market.

$17.73 x 37,658(million) = $667,676.34(million)

Now, the stock price is at 10.88 at the time of this post.

$10.88 x 37,658(million) = $409,719.04(million)

They lost, in the span of announcing the DRM, this :

$667,676.34(million) - $409,719.04(million) = $257,957.30(million)

And there is, roughly, the calculation, based SOLELY off of hard, updated facts from MULTIPLE sources.

So for those who believe that the DRM helped Ubisoft, financially? It didn't.

At least, not in my perspective. I couldn't justify spending $250 for a three-week protection plan. And that is financially, alone, without even taking into account the loss of customers ( some permanent losses due to this ) they had over the DRM. People can support and defend the DRM all they like, but numbers and facts do not lie. Statistics do not lie. At least, not these, where there are DOZENS more sources with the same exact listings, down to the CENT.

This is all, of course, due to the DRM, as the sharp plunge happened in January, with the announcement of the DRM -- and the subsequent protests that followed. Some companies may not listen to their customers, but they do to reviewers -- and when a REVIEWER is having problems just reviewing the game due to a DRM, it makes its own statement.

Now, as for my personal opinion as to the DRM itself? I believe 100% that the DRM is a complete and utter failure. Steam itself is enough to stop cracks BEFORE the game is actually released. Where as seen on the console variants of Assassins Creed 2, Modern Warfare 2, Borderlands, etc, they were cracked/pre-sold/whatever weeks before their initial release, and played before their initial release.

However, Steam is not obnoxious enough to force you to be online to play games -- which is why many people LIKE Steam, apart from its convenience and the random deals they have on good games. Because they can play OFFLINE. Why does Offline matter in a world where high speed internet is readily available to most of the world? Because, as many people have stated in this thread, the internet is not perfect. Internet connections are not perfect. My brother bought Assassins Creed 2 for PC, I bought it for Console. Guess what? The AC2 servers were down for two days. I played, he didn't. They came back up, he played. Nex tday, our ISP ( Internet Service Provider ) does doing updates on their network, our internet flickered. He was kicked off, I went happily along gaming despite losing connection to Xbox Live.

When a games DRM hinders gameplay experience, becomes obtrusive or obnoxious, then it has gone too far. It is the same concept of janitors ( no offense to any in that profession ). DRM should be seamless; unnoticeable unless one actively looks for it. Janitors clean, keep to themselves, do their job, and do it right, then move on. Not make a ruckus, spill buckets, unplug cords, etc. Steam is a prime example of this. Steam is not perfect, but it is less of a hassle than some of the DRMs that have come into play lately.

And many people, MANY people, have work related to travel. Is there internet 20,000 miles in the sky? Not likely. Is there high speed internet on trains, or in cars? Again, not that I am aware of. How "often" does this occur? Very regularly; as in, 1 in 5 people play single player, casual games ( who are gamers ) while travelling for work. Prime example of this is AC2, with a great single player core -- and no multiplayer. At all. Yet it demands constant internet connection. Settlers 7. Many like to play it for the single player aspect, but not all, yet the single player people are required to maintain an internet connection. Wifi at hotels -- spotty at best. Not a good chance of passing the online test there, either.

These scenario's are more common place than people believe. So people can say that " You have an always online internet connection! Just use it! Travel? Play another game! " ....sorry, but the answer to that is, as has been seen, the Ubisoft Servers also play a role in this. They go down? Nice, your awesome internet connection means nothing until they get them fixed. So you just assassinated a target in AC2? ...no cutscene for you! ( it happened to my brother ).

Though other people have a point, that the DRM itself also seems more geared towards control, rather than stamping out piracy. Yes, piracy happens. No, it is not cool. But it still happens, and as other people have pointed out, the results of piracy are not detrimental towards lost sales. And I say this, knowing people will start pulling numbers such as " Well if 100 people pirate, and that's $60 a game!" Yes, I know, that's $6,000 right there. But guess that? Two hundred thousand people bought the game. $12,000,000 from two hundred thousand copies sold. Do you think a huge company with that kind of revnue, such as Ubisoft, will cry about $6,000? Sure, every company wants to maximize profits -- but they just net over $11,000,000 and lost less than $1,000,000 AT MOST from piracy. At MOST. And that might be a bit extreme, but I am giving people supporting the DRM the benefit of a doubt that they believe that the DRM will stop that much loss, and if people actually pirate THAT much ( which they don't, or some AAA title games would simply die from lack of actual sales ).

So in effect, this DRM is also about control -- controlling when a person can play the game. Where they can play the game. How they can play the game? That's probably going to follow up at somepoint. People with control usually don't enjoy giving it up.

So for all those people who bought the game and claim to not have a problem? I applaud that you are among the few, because I have seen many ( and I can list them on in these forums if it becomes an issue of relevance of data and proof ) who have paid for their game and are unable to play it 2/5 times that they would like to. Which, 2/5...you may say that is so little, that it should be dismissed. If even 1/10th of the time you wish to play the game, but can't, it's too much. Especially in this day and age.

[DJ_Professor_K]

(...)

I'm amazed at the work you had to do this and yet know that about no one will fully read it.

For that heres a little rep for your hard work.

You pointed out what many had but evan more extensenvly, good job ;)

[Ranmaru]

This topic became highly uninteresting about 7 pages ago.

Just like the game and our concerns torwards future ubi pc releases.

[MDrm]

I doubt this will mean much to most people, but I felt it prudent to at least post something on the topic of the DRM.
...

+rep. I wouldn't go as far to say the DRM is a major reason for the declining stock prices, stock prices are a very complex issue, however it sure is one of the factors that weighing it down as low PC sales do have an influence on stock prices. If the DRM had been a success in terms of sales the stock price wouldn't have been falling as sharply as it's been falling, I can guarantee that. The DRM may not be the major variable for the declining prices but it's sure helping it.

But unfortunately you'll get the DRM brigade screaming the stock prices mean nothing, that you're a pirate, etc.

[Nagger]

It sure worked to some extent. It has nothing on the StarForce record of SC: Chaos Theory that took 400 days to crack though.

Would be nice to see some sale statistics and compare it to a similair game with zero-day piracy though.

[MDrm]

And again, for everyone crying that piracy is very high on any medium, US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus. (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars)

[kreed_uk]

I doubt this will mean much to most people, but I felt it prudent to at least post something on the topic of the DRM.

Below is a source of how well, financially, Ubisoft is doing.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/UBI?countryCode=fr


Ubisoft, in June of 2009, reached the highest stock prices they have had in a long time -- since '08, as a matter of fact. As time goes on, the stock wavers slightly through July to August, were suddenly it takes a drastic fall. Why? I don't know. Regardless, ever since then, the stock has declined, and continued to decline up to even Today, where in recent weeks it has been at an ALL TIME LOW.



it looks as if it has been rising since Feb if you look at the 6m forecast??



http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/UBI?CountryCode=FR

[MDrm]

Indeed, from Feb onwards it's been rising. Though a 1y estimation shows a hell of a plunge that made its lowest point on Feb. Most likely cause the slump on videogame markets as sales fell across the board. Since Feb it's been steadily increasing though not to the heights of its 1y high.

Interesting.

[kreed_uk]

Indeed, from Feb onwards it's been rising. Though a 1y estimation shows a hell of a plunge that made its lowest point on Feb. Most likely cause the slump on videogame markets as sales fell across the board. Since Feb it's been steadily increasing though not to the heights of its 1y high.

Interesting.

Look at the 1y forecast for electronic arts, now there are some serious plunges. In comparison, Ubisoft’s drop has been quite steady actually. Electronic arts was also hit bad during Feb.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/erts

[MDrm]

Look at the 1y forecast for electronic arts, now there are some serious plunges. In comparison, Ubisoft’s drop has been quite steady actually. Electronic arts was also hit bad during Feb.

http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/erts

Hmm, a quick research seems to determine the main cause of the plunge for all game companies is the slumping games market in all platforms due to the depression. Games are luxury goods and hence one of the first goods to be cut out of a family's budget in determent for essential goods and services. The rise of Ubisoft's stock since Feb appears to be Just Dance 2 and other console titles that seem to be doing very well, the market regained confidence in ubisoft enough to raise its stock price.

The 4Q figures should, if ubisoft maintains the tradition, be released by the end of the month, beginning of next month's time.

[Saolite]

Stocks are weird; they fluctuate mildly on any given day, let alone over a year time span. But I only pointed it out that in January, a lot of stock holders lost a LOT of money from the sharp plunge, and it was in Februrary that Ubisoft hit their record low of all time. Coincidence that it happpened in the same time that the DRM was announced? I'm not paranoid by any means, but that is simply too coincidental. And yes, EA stock has indeed fallen quite a bit, but yet its shares are still worth significantly more than Ubisoft. Some may claim this is due to EA being a bigger company, which it is, and it certaintly does influence it, but Ubisofts record high was on par with EA at some points, before their DRM fiasco, and before the decline in the later months of '09. Also, EA stocks have been on the RISE as of recently, and have not fallen quit as harshly as Ubisofts has. Many gamers have been hurt over EA and their previous business practices, but gamers more these days are looking hopefully at EA, due to their current business parctices and taking into account their customers. They, at least, learned from previous failures and likely the failures of others. But what does this have to do to the topic? It does show that Ubisoft has declined steadily over the past six months -- with the sharpest plunge in January.

Yes, Ubisoft is slowly gaining it's prior marketability back -- but we can't really attribute that to PC sells, as most of my friends buy Ubisoft games.....for consoles. Which will rise the price of stocks. Especially after the DRM was released, those with consoles bought Ubisoft games for consoles. The same can also be said for most publishers/developers that have multi-platform releases, but with EA, they are generally very open about saying " We screwed the pooch with this one. We're sorry. " At least, that is what I have got over the past years with EA at each juncture that they did something questionable. Granted, not all issues, they have said that -- but a few of them, they have.

The only way to make the best possible decision if the DRM effected PC Users vastly and hurt Ubisoft ( more than Ubisoft has already been hurt by it, reputation wise and stock wise ) will be to see the sales report in the PC market vs the sales report in the console market, which should add up to their total sales -- unless they have some other department of revenue. Do they make....t-shirts or something? In any case, the pro-DRM users may call me a pirate or whatever they like, but if it isn't obvious that I'm super anti-piracy at this point ( I own almost 2 copies of all games that I like -- one for PC, one for a console, as I want both experiences ), then they just don't know how to read between the lines or are taking things far out of context.

Would anyone know where Ubisoft would release their sale information for this quarter? Stocks are well and good, but it would be nice to have other facts as well to support that the DRM did in fact hurt Ubisoft PC Sales.


Some may call me going far out of my way to actually look this up and take an active interest in it, but I'm one of those people who WANT to be able to play offline if the unforseeable happens, and I like the majority of the gaming community actively debates this topic, because it IS an issue -- if even am a minority of people are effected, it is STILL an issue.


And... AC2? I have it for console, so the pro-DRM people might say just play it for console, but The Settlers 7 is PC-Only. And that game I would greatly desire to play, but after the horror stories that dwarf even AC2 DRM issues, I had to draw the line.

[Nagger]

+rep. I wouldn't go as far to say the DRM is a major reason for the declining stock prices, stock prices are a very complex issue, however it sure is one of the factors that weighing it down as low PC sales do have an influence on stock prices. If the DRM had been a success in terms of sales the stock price wouldn't have been falling as sharply as it's been falling, I can guarantee that. The DRM may not be the major variable for the declining prices but it's sure helping it.

But unfortunately you'll get the DRM brigade screaming the stock prices mean nothing, that you're a pirate, etc.

not having the DRM would allow not only for greater casual piracy, but also the dreaded zero-day piracy, so in the end I'm rather sure that they would have even lower sales without DRM.

[MDrm]

not having the DRM would allow not only for greater casual piracy, but also the dreaded zero-day piracy, so in the end I'm rather sure that they would have even lower sales without DRM.

When the game is good, it sells. Look at Stardock, Paradox Games. Even the most used example of piracy, Demigod, is a misdirection since even Stardock's CEO said that despite the high level of piracy at release time the game sold really, really well, and still does.

If the game is good people will buy it. Heck, even the US government has now published a study that pretty much destroys all the arguments anti-piracy people have been making. It's as I've always said, piracy is neither simple nor easy to quantify, and a pirated copy is not a lost sale.

[Nagger]

I'm not claiming that a pirated game is a lost sale. Even EA has agreed to that years ago.

Fact is that game development is becoming increasingly more centered around consoles, simply because it's easier for developers to get paid for their work there. It doesn't mean that the PC is dying or anything, but it does make the PC more of a secondary platform and reduce the quality of games we get.

Don't you find it strange that with consoles and the PC having an equally large user-base, the console sales typically outnumber the PC sales by anything in between 5:1 to 10:1?

Releasing games without DRM has been tried and it is in no way a solution. Even if it does increase goodwill and sales amongst honest gamers, it's unable to cover the loss caused by increased casual-kiddie-piracy. (in cases where the target audience is different I'm sure it does work, like in the case of Paradox's Hearts of Iron 3 that I bought and saw no trace of DRM. For most games this is not the case though. Take for example Prince of Persia, which had no DRM and failed sales wise)

"destroys all the arguments anti-piracy people have been making"? I don't think so, you should read this article http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

[MDrm]

I'm not claiming that a pirated game is a lost sale. Even EA has agreed to that years ago.

Fact is that game development is becoming increasingly more centered around consoles, simply because it's easier for developers to get paid for their work there. It doesn't mean that the PC is dying or anything, but it does make the PC more of a secondary platform and reduce the quality of games we get.

Don't you find it strange that with consoles and the PC having an equally large user-base, the console sales typically outnumber the PC sales by anything in between 5:1 to 10:1?

Releasing games without DRM has been tried and it is in no way a solution. Even if it does increase goodwill and sales amongst honest gamers, it's unable to cover the loss caused by increased casual-kiddie-piracy. (in cases where the target audience is different I'm sure it does work, like in the case of Paradox's Hearts of Iron 3 that I bought and saw no trace of DRM. For most games this is not the case though. Take for example Prince of Persia, which had no DRM and failed sales wise)

"destroys all the arguments anti-piracy people have been making"? I don't think so, you should read this article http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html

Oh God not that link again. It is considered a very badly researched and biased article on piracy. We've been through that too many times and we've debunked it thoroughly or you could read someone who debunked that article point by point (http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-reverse-fallacy-of-impartiality). Be sure to read the entire series. And here's an example (http://www.the-prism.com/index.php?topic=1481.0) of what people think (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F20%2F178259&from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashd ot%29) of the article on the net.

And go see investor.ea.com, investor pages at Ubisoft, investor pages at any company and watch which platform brings most net revenue in average. That's right, the PC. So please, spare us of your argument, we've been through them by that article's author here and we've debunked it. Basing your opinion of piracy on that article is a serious error. Besides, did you read the article where I point out that the US government literally tells that any piracy study in existence nowadays is bogus? Because that's what the US government, not any random person, the US government says, and that includes 100% of all the data collected by the tweakguide's article.

[Ciaos]

Don't you find it strange that with consoles and the PC having an equally large user-base, the console sales typically outnumber the PC sales by anything in between 5:1 to 10:1?


This is completely incorrect. Since the console boom if the 90s, gaming on the whole has been increasing. However, PC Gamers have not nearly increased as much as the owners of consoles.

Why are more games 'consolized' so to speak? The rising market of the console means that the ratio of profit made from that platform is increasing.

PC Sales and gaming isn't dying, its consoles getting more and more successful.

[jabroni619]

No you did not. I applied the logic you used to a more serious alternative situation, one that made complete sense from the perspective of function and result. It was what you correctly identified as metaphor because you recognized the validity of the comparison even if you did not like the result (leading to your attempt to mock it as 'ridiculous'). Your previous parody came from a post someone else made, it had and has nothing to do with me whatsoever. If you want to try and establish a parallel, don't start by drawing loops.

You were unable to offer a satisfactory rebuttal because you have none which to put forth, your own logic when applied to the more serious scenario reveals it's failings. The product, whether car or software should not be intentionally designed in a way that puts it's practical reliability in any other hands but the person who purchased it. That's the most obvious of the flaws, though not the only one.

I'm confident that the reason you reply by twisting your own recycled rhetoric into a balloon animals is because it's all you have left.

It is the same with replies which rely on positions such as'but it's just a stupid game not your life'. Such a reply exposes the fact that there is no adequate refutation other than attempting to devalue the seriousness of the argument by insinuating it is unimportant.

I assure you, I take the issue of DRM, validity and acceptability of EULA agreements and the rights of consumers (especially for software purchasing) quite seriously. If you do not, why are you here? (That, of course, was rhetorical as I already have a good idea).

I will admit that I actually appreciate your presence, even if I think it woefully ignorant. Your poking the issue with a stick keeps it alive and in the public eye, and the more people who are aware the better it is for those who wish to keep DRM policies in-line with reasonable compromise for those consumers who do wish to legitimately acquire their product without putting a noose around their own necks.

For the TLDR crowd: It's probably time for your Methylphenidate.

I've been rebutting your points for the last several days. You not finding them "adequate" is your own opinion. I feel the same way about your own rebuttals which is why I coined it as ridiculous. And yes, thinking that playing a game is just as important as using public roads is nothing short of ridiculous.

You are correct that the comment in my previous post came from a post someone else made. It does however have relevance to you as well as it was equally ridiculous.

[MDrm]

I see that a lot of the argument against no DRM in games uses Prince of Persia. I use that game as an argument that good games sell, bad games don't. I bought that PoP, it was decent, nothing more than that. And if you think that PoP was so good that it should have sold, then why is it that ubisoft is now returning to the old PoP formula with the Sands of Time? Seems even the publisher saw the game for what it was, a meh experience. Having no DRM comes as almost irrelevant in this game since the game was, at most, decent, and people didn't buy it because it wasn't as great as the previous PoP trilogy which, once again, is a formula ubisoft is returning again after the no-DRM PoP.

Good games always sell. Sins of a Solar Empire and Demigod have no DRM and still sell like hotcakes. The best DRM is putting quality into the game and not invest in a DRM.

[MDrm]

I've been rebutting your points for the last several days. You not finding them "adequate" is your own opinion. I feel the same way about your own rebuttals which is why I coined it as ridiculous. And yes, thinking that playing a game is just as important as using public roads is nothing short of ridiculous.

You are correct that the comment in my previous post came from a post someone else made. It does however have relevance to you as well as it was equally ridiculous.

Your opinion would carry more weight in this debate if only you hadn't admitted to not reading people's posts.

[Nagger]

I see that a lot of the argument against no DRM in games uses Prince of Persia. I use that game as an argument that good games sell, bad games don't. I bought that PoP, it was decent, nothing more than that. And if you think that PoP was so good that it should have sold, then why is it that ubisoft is now returning to the old PoP formula with the Sands of Time? Seems even the publisher saw the game for what it was, a meh experience. Having no DRM comes as almost irrelevant in this game since the game was, at most, decent, and people didn't buy it because it wasn't as great as the previous PoP trilogy which, once again, is a formula ubisoft is returning again after the no-DRM PoP.

Good games always sell. Sins of a Solar Empire and Demigod have no DRM and still sell like hotcakes. The best DRM is putting quality into the game and not invest in a DRM.

I wonder if there's any solid statistics on the efficiency of DRM anywhere though, because otherwise it's just pointless debating it.

I do know for sure that I have seen plenty of comments along the lines of "fack this, I'm just gonna buy the game instead" when people get tired going through all the semi-working cracks to play games with some of the more powerful DRM solutions.

Would be interesting to compare the sales of SC Chaos Theory with a similar game released at the same time.

[djuara]

I wonder if there's any solid statistics on the efficiency of DRM anywhere though, because otherwise it's just pointless debating it.


http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350

As we believe that we are decreasing the number of pirates downloading the game with our DRM fixes, combining the increased sales number together with the decreased downloads, we find 1 additional sale for every 1,000 less pirated downloads. Put another way, for every 1,000 pirated copies we eliminated, we created 1 additional sale.

Though many of the pirates may be simply shifting to another source of games for their illegal activities, the number is nonetheless striking and poignant. The sales to download ratio found on Reflexive implies that a pirated copy is more similar to the loss of a download (a poorly converting one!) than the loss of a sale.

Though that doesn’t make a 92% piracy rate of one of our banner products any less distressing, knowing that eliminating 50,000 pirated copies might only produce 50 additional legal copies does help put things in perspective.

[ArecBalrin]

I've not read every page but the discussion seems to have been mostly sensible. My vague summary:

Has the DRM worked?

It depends on what you mean by 'worked'. The primary overall purpose of it we must remember was to increase the sales of the game and Ubisoft's revenue. AC2 has performed catastrophically bad in comparison to the first game on PC and there is some consensus that this is primarily because of the DRM. So if the question is re-phrased as:

Has the DRM increased sales and Ubisoft's income from PC sales?

No, absolutely not. It has likely had the opposite effect.

If we phrase the question as:

Has the DRM stopped pirates?

This is more complicated. The problem all publishers in every entertainment media market have is that they deliberately and despite the problem with it being pointed out to them, they consider all or the majority of known or estimated pirate copies to equate directly to a lost sale. They see all pirates as belonging to a hypothetical group with very strange purchasing habits: people who would buy a product if piracy weren't an option. Repeatedly they can be heard making the argument "we can't compete with services giving away our property for free, why would people pay for it when they can get it for free?". This is genuinely what many of them think the motivation of pirates are: "why should I pay when I can get it for free?". This does imply that those who do purchase things only do so either out of fanboy loyalty or because they are unaware of any place or means by which they can obtain without paying.

I think this psychology is disturbing; they're attributing sociopathic tendencies to their consumers and in doing so reveal they are projecting. So the question is once again more enlightening if it's modified and specified:

Has the DRM stopped pirates from demo-ing the gameplay?

Going by the reports, you can't play the full-game, you can only 'wander around'. But seeing as this was the thing most people were anticipating about AC2 and was the most fun in the original and many didn't care for the story anyway, obtaining the pirate copy for the purpose of seeing what the gameplay is like is entirely possible without suffering Ubisoft's DRM.

Publishers of a rabid 'anti-pirate' bent just don't consider the proposition that people pirate to demo and will buy the real thing if they like it. They think the pirate that obtains a game for free as a substitute for a purchase is more likely than a pirate that obtains for free what they would never purchase anyway.

They need to be told this is irrational.

[jabroni619]

Your opinion would carry more weight in this debate if only you hadn't admitted to not reading people's posts.

What does me not reading ALL of Uxmal's posts have anything to do with my reply to sfade who's post I did read? The anser is nothing, you're just reaching now.

I haven't commented on topics I haven't read, which is more than I can say for some people. See post #179 and 180 for a good example of that.

[MDrm]

What does me not reading ALL of Uxmal's posts have anything to do with my reply to sfade who's post I did read? The anser is nothing, you're just reaching now.

I haven't commented on topics I haven't read, which is more than I can say for some people. See post #179 and 180 for a good example of that.

Not reaching at all but I do support that a good debate entails that all messages are read and understand, otherwise it won't be a debate, and by your own admission of not reading posts, regardless of their length or author, is not a good way to build a good debate.

[jabroni619]

Not reaching at all but I do support that a good debate entails that all messages are read and understand, otherwise it won't be a debate, and by your own admission of not reading posts, regardless of their length or author, is not a good way to build a good debate.

There were about two or three posts from a single author that I did not read entirely though because of their length. I skimmed them and hit certain points I saw in there with my replies. My discussion with that particular person ended several pages back and I have read every post since then and even before then since I joined this discussion. So yes, you are reaching. You'd have a point if I was commenting on things I had not read, but that isn't the case, so your opinion on this matter is rather baseless.

I assure you, my reply to sfade would not have changed if I read all of Uxmal's post.

The funny thing is that if you go back and read the posts I refferred to above (which you didn't do, you just immediatly replied to the "reaching" comment I made. surprise surprise) you'll see that dispite me skimming Uxmal's post, I obviously read more than the guy critisizing me for not reading it. Classic case of pot calling the kettle black. Practice what you preach brotha.

[kreed_uk]

Oh God not that link again. It is considered a very badly researched and biased article on piracy. We've been through that too many times and we've debunked it thoroughly or you could read someone who debunked that article point by point (http://dbzer0.com/blog/the-reverse-fallacy-of-impartiality). Be sure to read the entire series. And here's an example (http://www.the-prism.com/index.php?topic=1481.0) of what people think (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08%2F12%2F20%2F178259&from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashd ot%29) of the article on the net.


Huh, what article isn't biased. The article you linked to was written by a guy that said he was "a supporter of file-sharing" a nice way of saying that he supports piracy.

The tweakguide article is a fantastic article and you are going to see it linked a lot more often.

I actually followed the debate between the Anti-DRM guys and PersianImmortal (author of the article) before he was banned and in my opinion he always had the upper hand.

Here are his posts if anyone wishes to have a read.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5427767

[DJ_Professor_K]

The tweakguide article is a fantastic article and you are going to see it linked a lot more often.


There is a diference from a fantastic article, and a fantastic author.

The author is a fantastic guy, but this article about PC piracy is the 1 of the worse articles i've read.


If you actually have any knowadge of the matter, you know that the article is biased, if you know nothing and read it, you will bow down to every single word from it.

[kreed_uk]

There is a diference from a fantastic article, and a fantastic author.

The author is a fantastic guy, but this article about PC piracy is the 1 of the worse articles i've read.


If you actually have any knowadge of the matter, you know that the article is biased, if you know nothing and read it, you will bow down to every single word from it.

Like I said the article is fantastic. I have no idea if the author is fantastic or not. What knowledge do you have on the matter? Did I say the article wasn't biased? Can you point me in the direction of an article that isn't?

I don't know that much about the subject, I'll admit that, who does? I definitely don't bow down to its every word it's just that most of the points raised can be verified by using common sense. Either way it’s up for everyone to read. It’s likely that if you are pro piracy, you’ll hate it and if you aren’t you'll love it. It’s a shame that people can’t be more objective but hey that’s life.

[MDrm]

Huh, what article isn't biased. The article you linked to was written by a guy that said he was "a supporter of file-sharing" a nice way of saying that he supports piracy.

The tweakguide article is a fantastic article and you are going to see it linked a lot more often.

I actually followed the debate between the Anti-DRM guys and PersianImmortal (author of the article) before he was banned and in my opinion he always had the upper hand.

Here are his posts if anyone wishes to have a read.
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/search.php?searchid=5427767

So you'll dismiss the debunk of that awful tweakguide's article because the author supports file-sharing? Ok then, how about the US government, going to talk against them too? They admitted all statistics about piracy are bogus, and as such anything that article uses for data collecting is bogus.

The article I linked is still the best debunk of the tweakguide's article. Tweakguide's article is badly researched, highly biased, subjective and totally misleading. PersianImmortal and me and the rest of the guys here had enough discussions where we debunked him at every turn, he was a very biased person.

And did you read the other links I linked about slashdot's reaction to his article too? It ain't pretty either. Here, let me quote the best opinion there that sums up his article beautifully:

"I call BS on this article, from a number of different angles!

One of the biggest reasons is lack of logical coherence. The author cites lots of numbers, but then does not actually put them together in an objective way to actually support his conclusions. In fact, his conclusions appear to be foregone. He seems to have ignored a good body of evidence that would lead to different conclusions.

For one example, he cites an article about game piracy on Macs. The article mentions the "pirate's argument" that it is okay to pirate because that person would not have bought the product anyway, therefore there is no lost sale. However, the article only discusses this topic from the point of view of whether it makes a valid moral or ethical argument.

The cited article (and main article too) ignore that several university studies have in fact shown that somewhere in the neighborhood of 80% of piracy occurs when there would not have been a sale anyway. (In most cases because there was insufficient money to purchase the product, but there are several other reasons this occurs.) That may not be a sound ethical argument in favor of piracy, but that is irrelevant. More to the point: it is an economic reality. Economic realities are; they exist. Simply putting them down as unethical is to ignore the actual causes, and possible solutions, for the situation. Further, trying to prosecute -- and especially fine -- people for not buying a product they probably could not afford to buy anyway is completely counterproductive. It offers no societal solutions to the actual problem; it simply fosters fear and antagonism. And backlash, as the RIAA and MPAA are finding out, probably too late to do them much good. They were warned by the society of their customers, but they did not listen.

In another example of faulty logic, the author indulges in the classic logical Post Hoc fallacy argument to conclude that piracy causes DRM, not the other way around. (For those not familiar, this is the argument that because one thing happened after another, the earlier event must have caused the later event. This does not follow: in fact it is just as likely that some third event caused them both.) In particular, he states that a game that was released with no DRM resulted in lots of downloads, then claims that "The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM." When in fact his "evidence" shows nothing of the sort.

As a systems manager and tech (and now Software Engineer) with many years experience, I can testify that there are a great many cases where, in fact, DRM causes piracy. One example is when I worked for an engineering company, which used quite a few proprietary programs for certain involved, specialized calculations. Many of those programs came with various forms of DRM. And I can tell you this in complete honesty: every one of the programs that used DRM failed on us. Almost always at an important point in the project. And I mean that literally: every single one of them failed, without exception. And in every case, the cause of the failure was the DRM. Further, our calls to support for the software were almost always unproductive: "You must not have installed it properly." or "You must have been tampering with the copy protection". Nonsense. We had paid a lot of good money for the software and were not about to treat it so casually.

In such cases, we were forced to either try to break the DRM ourselves, or to try to find a cracked version of the software, just to get the functionality we had already paid for! Which technically made us pirates. But it was DRM that forced us into piracy, not the other way around. Keep in mind that this was specialty software for which there was often no alternative product available. But just FYI, the invariable DRM failures did cause us to look for alternative products. Our official company policy became (this is true): "If there are alternative products available, or we can write our own, even if they are not as good, we will do that rather than buy programs that use any form of copy protection."

As a third example, on page 9 the author gives a decidedly (and pretty blatantly) one-sided presentation of StarForce, SecureROM, and Steam. In this presentation, he states, in effect, "even if these are rootkits or run at Ring 0, so what?" He further states that other tools used by users to crack DRM also install device drivers, and run at Ring 0.

For someone who is trying to make ethical arguments, this is worse than weak, it is biased almost to the point of outright dishonesty. The clear ethics here are these: the mentioned tools employed by end users are there voluntarily and openly: the user is aware of what is being installed and gives consent. In the case of DRM, the user is usually not aware and did not give consent for "secret" software to be installed at a level that can even override the operating system. There is a VERY BIG ethical issue there. And not just ethical, but practical. As a computer professional, I insist on being aware and in charge of what is being installed on my hardware and what is not, at ALL times!

The author completely ignores this issue, and unilaterally takes the side of the DRM vendors. To call it bias is to be complementary.

In summary, this article, while calling itself "thorough", is only thorough on the one side of the argument. It completely ignores important facts, causes, and ethical arguments for the other side of the issue.

This article is best ignored, for being the propaganda that it so clearly is."

http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1069333&cid=26186727

And do yourself a favor and actually read the Divided by Zer0 debunk point by point. It is one of the most respected intellectual blogs out there and certainly has more weight in the academic world than tweakguide's heavily biased and subjective article.

EDIT: And if you think having the upper hand means constantly insulting everyone around him, sure, he had the upper hand.

[MDrm]

It’s a shame that people can’t be more objective but hey that’s life.

Indeed, otherwise the tweakguide's article wouldn't have been created if the author had been objective in the least.

[sfade]

I'm with MDrm on this one. That article is horrendous, stance on DRM put aside and not even entering into my opinion on the piece, it is so terribly biased that it practically oozes arrogance and booms rhetoric.

It's damaging to tweakguide's reputation as a source of accurate and trustworthy information. The fact that the author showed up here (assuming it actually was him, and not someone looking to discredit him), acted like a complete tool and got himself banned only further exemplifies the quality of the source of this so-called piece of 'journalism'. Strike that, a more accurate term would be 'editorial' at best, because it lacks any sense of objectivity necessary to qualify as good journalistic material meant to establish an objective view of the subject.

In short, it's just some blog spewing opinion and should not be mistaken as fact.

[djuara]

The way the tweakguide article was written is that the author made up his mind then selectively search data to support it but even then he didn't do a good job in selecting his data, you can draw the opposite conclusion if you analyze his own data.

[MDrm]

Again, another opinion on the article in slashdot:

"Agree with the above poster. The article is a classic example of tendentious writing. It wouldn't stand even the most basic requirements for an entry level university essay.

It is written arrogantly and from an pro-industry perspective. Point by point, it consistently takes sides but continuously claims it is not doing so. There is no underlying theory or methodology other than "examine every aspect of game piracy". :rolleyes:

1) The article starts with the author claiming neutrality and utter non-bias
2) The article seems to have been laid out beforehand, written as intended and fleshed out with quotes and references where found as supporting his theses
3) Sources are quotes selectively to further his preconceived conclusions
4) Alternative interpretations are ignored or dismissed
5) There is no source criticism
6) Frequent hand waving and usage of weasel words
7) Interjected unsubstantiated strong conclusions, as "The evidence is overwhelmingly clear: DRM does not cause piracy, piracy results in DRM."

Also, you gotta love an author who writes a long article, POS as it is, proves a "printable" link, which takes you to a page which says "if you want to print it, print each page, schmuck"."

An article is biased, a research study is not. Tweakguide's the former while pretending to be the latter.

[kreed_uk]

Gosh you guys have really come out of the woodwork, on this one, haven't you.

Like I said it all depends on your opinion to begin with. I'm really not going to defend it anymore as doing so will be pointless. We'll end up going around in circles and to be honest, I really can't be arsed. You can continue bashing it if you wish. I'll let people make up their own minds.

[MDrm]

Gosh you guys have really come out of the woodwork, on this one, haven't you.

Like I said it all depends on your opinion to begin with. I'm really not going to defend it anymore as doing so will be pointless. We'll end up going around in circles and to be honest, I really can't be arsed. You can continue bashing it if you wish. I'll let people make up their own minds.

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d10423.html

There, that's the US government from the voice of the Copyright Office speaking that articles like tweakguide's are worthless. Again, this is the US government.

So yes, people have already made their mind, and a quick google for the article shows that in most forums where this is posted people saw through the pretentious article for what it is.

So yes, thank god that people have made up their mind.

[kreed_uk]

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d10423.html

There, that's the US government from the voice of the Copyright Office speaking that articles like tweakguide's are worthless. Again, this is the US government.

So yes, people have already made their mind, and a quick google for the article shows that in most forums where this is posted people saw through the pretentious article for what it is.

So yes, thank god that people have made up their mind.
The article is basically saying that piracy is a major problem for the PC as a gaming platform. Many PC gamers are pirates so it's no surprise that this article will hit a nerve and many will be trying their hardest to discredit it.

I can’t really say much about that 15000 word text file you provided a link to.. I’ll get back to you on that one....

[djuara]

The article is basically saying that Piracy is a major problem for the PC as a gaming platform. Many PC gamers are pirates so it's no surprise that this article will hit a nerve and many will be trying their hardest to discredit it. I can’t really say much about that 15000 word text file you provided a link to.. I’ll get back to you on that one....

Are you a PC gamer? Are you a pirate? :)

The article is inaccurate because it tries to compare PC game sales vs multiple console sales. Instead of comparing like PC game sales vs XBOX 360 game sales and PC game sales vs PS3 game sales, the article compare PC game sales vs PS3+XBOX game sales and then conclude that piracy cause lower PC game sales compare to console. The actual data show PC game sales higher or equal to the sale of games on single console platform.

PC game piracy is a problem but so are console game piracy. In fact in most third world countries, console piracy is as big or bigger problem than PC piracy. For example: At Jakarta, you can find more store selling bootlegged console games than PC games because it is easier to play than PC games. You don't need to know how to copy crack or how to run server emulator to play console games. Is it much easier to search and download AC2 PC then download the emulator and figure out how to make it work? Or is it easier to play the console version?

[kreed_uk]

Are you a PC gamer? Are you a pirate? :)

I used to be a pirate but I feel that as I've gotten older, I've learned to better appreciate the work that goes into the games I play.

[MDrm]

The article is basically saying that Piracy is a major problem for the PC as a gaming platform. Many PC gamers are pirates so it's no surprise that this article will hit a nerve and many will be trying their hardest to discredit it. I can’t really say much about that 15000 word text file you provided a link to.. I’ll get back to you on that one....

I do urge you to read the Divided by Zer0 blog, all 5 articles on the tweakguide's article, and the .gov link. I'm sure you'll find it an interesting read.

[djuara]

I used to be a pirate but I feel that as I've gotten older, I've learned to better appreciate the work that goes into the games I play.

Which is why piracy is not always bad. Because you pirated before now you buy more games. If you didn't pirate at all, then it is possible you're now not a gamer and find another hobby.

It is the same as the study that show people who download music also buy more music compare to those that don't.

It is the same as my experience. When I was in high school, there are no original games for sale in my country. So I played pirated games but when I was studying in US, I continue to play but I bought my games instead of pirating them. Now I'm back to my country but because of Steam, I can easily buy original games so there is no need to pirate stuff.

[kreed_uk]

Which is why piracy is not always bad. Because you pirated before now you buy more games.

I don't think you can use that logic as you can apply it to almost anything to say that it's not that bad. It would have been a lot better if I were never a pirate to begin with.

I do urge you to read the Divided by Zer0 blog, all 5 articles on the tweakguide's article, and the .gov link. I'm sure you'll find it an interesting read.

I will read the Divided by Zer0 articles but I'm afraid that the wisdom contained within that long .gov document will remain, forever, a secret to me.

[MDrm]

I will read the articles but I'm afraid that the wisdom contained within that long document will remain, forever, a secret to me.

Which one, the .gov or the Divided by zer0?

[Nagger]

What bothers me about the issue of piracy is the fact that consoles outsell the PC so badly in retail sales while the userbase is about equally large.

Maybe the cause of the problem lies in the target audience though? With the PC gamers being much more tech savvy and used to the open standards of their platform, they are just more prone to piracy?

None of you anti-DRM dudes actually support theft of IP, right?

[kreed_uk]

Which one, the .gov or the Divided by zer0?

I mean I will read the Divided by zer0 one. Sorry.

[Ardbug]

None of you anti-DRM dudes actually support theft of IP, right?

Thats probably the 700th time a pro-DRM dude have asked that question / made that accusation.
We are on the steam forum, a forum for a store that sell games with a built in DRM, wich should tell you 2 things, first of all we probably accept some form of DRM since as mentioned its already in the games we buy, and second that we probably buy games since this is a store outlet forum, some of us have more than 100 games on steam alone, are those signs of pirates or customers ?

Is it really so hard to accept that people wont put up with stupid restrictions on the games they pay good money for even if you will ?

[ArecBalrin]

What Ardbug said. Stop being tarded Nagger.

[MDrm]

What bothers me about the issue of piracy is the fact that consoles outsell the PC so badly in retail sales while the userbase is about equally large.

Maybe the cause of the problem lies in the target audience though? With the PC gamers being much more tech savvy and used to the open standards of their platform, they are just more prone to piracy?

None of you anti-DRM dudes actually support theft of IP, right?

1) PC games are moving to digital stores, and so are sales. REtail in PC gaming is becoming more and more irrelevant. Investor pages for each gaming company has the PC platform as the platform generating most net revenue in average. How many times must I point to the only hard fact that matters? PC gaming makes the most in average for every gaming company, PERIOD. Doubt me, go check the investor pages yourself.
2) This is why people have no respect for pro-DRM defenders, always calling everyone who doesn't accept draconian measures as pirates. No, I won't accept a draconian measure because I will not give freedom to play SP games anywhere for a false sense of security.

I mean I will read the Divided by zer0 one. Sorry.

Ok. The US government study basically concludes that all studies of piracy are totally unreliable, biased and that it's close to impossible to assess the impact of piracy on an economy due to its complex nature. I do hope you find the zer0 blog articles interesting.

[Nagger]

Thats probably the 700th time a pro-DRM dude have asked that question / made that accusation.
We are on the steam forum, a forum for a store that sell games with a built in DRM, wich should tell you 2 things, first of all we probably accept some form of DRM since as mentioned its already in the games we buy, and second that we probably buy games since this is a store outlet forum, some of us have more than 100 games on steam alone, are those signs of pirates or customers ?

Is it really so hard to accept that people wont put up with stupid restrictions on the games they pay good money for even if you will ?

It just seems that you people are all very worried about your end-user experience, but the fact that the people who make the games for us are having their ♥♥♥♥ stolen by pirates and that many developers don't even make it in the industry today dosen't concern you at all. Is it just simple egoism or what?

What Ardbug said. Stop being tarded Nagger.
u mad bro?

[MDrm]

It just seems that you people are all very worried about your end-user experience, but the fact that the people who make the games for us are having their ♥♥♥♥ stolen by pirates and that many developers don't even make it in the industry today dosen't concern you at all. Is it just simple egoism or what?

Oh, so the study made by the US Government is all wrong then, when they say those claims by developers of lost revenue is, you know, widely exaggerated?

Let me guess, you know more than a paid study by the US Government Copyright Office, for sure.

EDIT: Indies are making in the industry quite well though, shock horror huh! Mount&Blade Warband has been doing better than most AAA titles? Why? Because it's a damn good game. INdies are making it, greedy companies aren't because their games are awful.

Therefore cool story bro.

[Nagger]

1) PC games are moving to digital stores, and so are sales. REtail in PC gaming is becoming more and more irrelevant. Investor pages for each gaming company has the PC platform as the platform generating most net revenue in average. How many times must I point to the only hard fact that matters? PC gaming makes the most in average for every gaming company, PERIOD. Doubt me, go check the investor pages yourself.
2) This is why people have no respect for pro-DRM defenders, always calling everyone who doesn't accept draconian measures as pirates. No, I won't accept a draconian measure because I will not give freedom to play SP games anywhere for a false sense of security.


1. Digital sales only go as far as doubling the sales of PC games, which means that PC sales are still behind the console sales by several times. I'm gonna see what I can find in terms of the ivnestor pages you spoke of...

2. I never called anyone a pirate, where did you get that from? It's just that you all are so fanatically against DRM so I wanted to make sure that you actually view piracy as a problem, cus there's plenty of kids out there who don't.

[Nagger]

Oh, so the study made by the US Government is all wrong then, when they say those claims by developers of lost revenue is, you know, widely exaggerated?

Let me guess, you know more than a paid study by the US Government Copyright Office, for sure.

EDIT: Indies are making in the industry quite well though, shock horror huh! Mount&Blade Warband has been doing better than most AAA titles? Why? Because it's a damn good game. INdies are making it, greedy companies aren't because their games are awful.

Therefore cool story bro.

can you quote the part that says that the develoeprs are widely exaggerating or something? As far as I saw that report just spoke of counterfeiting in general. I have however seen multiple quotes of developers having piracy as the main reason of them moving to the consoles, why should they be lying?

[MDrm]

1. Digital sales only go as far as doubling the sales of PC games, which means that PC sales are still behind the console sales by several times. I'm gonna see what I can find in terms of the ivnestor pages you spoke of...

Please do. Net Revenue is the figure you're looking for, since it's the total number of sales minus all the costs, so it's basically the liquid profit for each platform and often the only figure they put on the reports when they compare sales per platform.

2. I never called anyone a pirate, where did you get that from? It's just that you all are so fanatically against DRM so I wanted to make sure that you actually view piracy as a problem, cus there's plenty of kids out there who don't.

Piracy is a problem, as this DRM is. I view them as equal evils that should be gone for good.

can you quote the part that says that the develoeprs are widely exaggerating or something? As far as I saw that report just spoke of counterfeiting in general. I have however seen multiple quotes of developers having piracy as the main reason of them moving to the consoles, why should they be lying?

"uses assumptions that have raised concerns among experts we interviewed, including the assumption of a one-to-one rate of substitution and questions on how the results from the surveyed countries are extrapolated to non-surveyed countries."

EDIT: and

"It is difficult, based on the information provided in the study, to determine how the authors handled key assumptions such as substitution rates and extrapolation from the survey sample to the broader population,"

Find those quotes and you can read the context about how they were made.

[djuara]

What bothers me about the issue of piracy is the fact that consoles outsell the PC so badly in retail sales while the userbase is about equally large.

Maybe the cause of the problem lies in the target audience though? With the PC gamers being much more tech savvy and used to the open standards of their platform, they are just more prone to piracy?

None of you anti-DRM dudes actually support theft of IP, right?

Actually this is inaccurate. Ubisoft's own number show that the sales of PC games is comparable to the sale of console game on single platform. Console only outsell PC when you lump all of them together compare to PC. On some quarter Ubisoft's PC game sales is higher than XBOX 360 game sales or PS3 game sales, but of course it can't beat console if you compare PC sales with XBOX360+PS3+Wii.

[ArecBalrin]

u mad bro?

Am mad bro.

But please stop with the emotive crap and stick to points. From your above post I can recognise just one: some developers don't survive and many games are 'stolen'. I have problems with the premises you expect the rest of us to just presuppose.

First, every pirate copy does not equate to a lost sale and of the little solid evidence that has been produced: eliminating one-thousand pirate copies only gained a single extra sale. Depending on the method used to achieve this, to gain one sale at the cost of a lot of goodwill between developer and player-base is insanity.

Second, you're using a rhetorical device favoured by the big media companies and you're probably doing this without even realising it: you're talking about the developers. The record industry talks about artists and studio staff, the film industry talks about writers, acting newcomers and studio staff, so the publishers in the games industry talk about developers. So that's little guys, sympathetic guys you know. Kind of distracts from the very wealthy hard to empathise big guys doesn't it?

So publishers talk about developers because they know we like developers more than we like them. It's publishers who mainly decide on the DRM after all. Developers don't fail because their work is pirated; they fail because their publishers squeeze them and when consumers attack the publishers, they hide behind the developers they suck dry. Piracy or no piracy, publishers kill developers.

[Nagger]

Finding this kind of sale statistics data on the net seems to be harder than most other info, so it's gonna take a while. First I just want to make myself clear though.

I'm not here to bash or flame, the only reason for why I speak is because I'm concerned over the future of traditional PC Gaming. By that I mean the kind of gaming where you buy a single product, either through retail or DD, for about 40EUR, which takes about 2-3 years to develop and gives you a gameplay, a story with 20+ hours and often an unlimited multiplayer mode. In other words gaming as we know it.

Even if the PC platform is doing well as a whole, with revenue coming from MMO subscriptions, micro transactions and such, I'm afraid that traditional gaming will keep falling behind and migrate to the console platform unless it gets its direct funding through either retail or DD.

Publishers in the gaming industry definitely need to improve a lot. We might be starting to see that with EA increasingly taking the role of actually being the publisher with its partner-deals where developers get to keep their IP and independence.

[djuara]

Finding this kind of sale statistics data on the net seems to be harder than most other info, so it's gonna take a while.

If you can't find the data, what made you think that PC sales is much lower when compare to a console platform which made you blame piracy? That inaccurate tweakguide article?

[djuara]

Ubisoft's first half 2009-10 sales:

http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2149.pdf

Look at the 2009/10 data per platform

NDS 23%
PC 17%
PS2 2%
PS3 15%
PSP 5%
Wii 22%
XBOX360 14%
Autres 2%

Note that PC at 17% outsold PS3 at 15%. PC at 17% also outsold XBOX360 at 14%. Of the three non handheld console platform, only Wii beat PC.

Now look at at the previous year 2008/09.

NDS 37%
PC 14%
PS2 3%
PS3 21%
PSP 4%
Wii 11%
XBOX360 9%
Autres 0%

PC at 14% outsold XBOX 360 at 9%. PC at 15% outsold Wii at 11%. Only PS3 at 21$ outsold PC.

So how can anyone based on that claim that console games outsold PC and blame piracy problem? PC sales is comparable to sales of single console platform. The only way you can claim that console outsell PC was if you compare 1 platform vs multiple platform like what the tweakguide guy did.

We find:

PC = 17%
XBox 360 + PS3 = 31% (roughly 2x sales)
Wii + XBox 360 + PS3 = 53% (roughly 4x PC sales)

For the 6 months prior to that:

PC = 14%
XBox 360 + PS3 = 33%
Wii + Xbox 360 + PS3 = 41%

Does that make sense to you? Compare 1 platform vs 2 or 3 console platforms? How can we take his article seriously after he made these comparisons?

[Nagger]

If you can't find the data, what made you think that PC sales is much lower when compare to a console platform which made you blame piracy? That inaccurate tweakguide article?

thing is that the PC has a lot more gamers than any individual console, so essentially that means you have less sales per person when it comes to PC.