Slashdot Mirror
Ubisoft Testing PC Prince of Persia Without DRM
Ars Technica reports that the upcoming PC version of Ubisoft's Prince of Persia will not feature any sort of copy protection. (Not including Steam downloads, of course.) After the backlash in recent months over the DRM in games like Spore and GTA IV, Ubisoft is giving gamers the chance to demonstrate that DRM actually increases piracy. One of Ubisoft's community reps had this to say about their decision: "You`re right when you say that when people want to pirate the game they will but DRM is there to make it as difficult as possible for pirates to make copies of our games. A lot of people complain that DRM is what forces people to pirate games but as PoP PC has no DRM we`ll see how truthful people actually are. Not very, I imagine. Console piracy is something else entirely and I`m sure we`ll see more steps in future to try to combat that."
Treating people like criminals will make them lose respect for you and that's a really bad way to make a sale. And yes, that includes snippy little remarks about "how honest" they are. I, personally, will never buy another game from this company so long as this dipshit is at the helm.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I look forward to not having to download virus/trojan packed keygens.
And it was crap!
Seriously, it was full of buggy lights that made the gameplay impossible to play... when everything turns so bright that you have no idea where you're going, it makes the game so boring that you don't want to play it anymore... therefore, i didn't want to buy the real game
Since the age of demos is long gone, the only way to try before we buy is to pirate the game... Off course, i'll buy a game that i think is great enough to be worth the money! Just like i got fooled into buying Mass Effect, it was a great game.... but the support for it is so crappy that it's impossible to do everything that it's supposed to do!
I download illegally games.... I'm not ashamed of it... It's like downloading a big demo... If only the game companies would understand that and the fact that most of the time, we don't buy their games simply because it wasn't an amasing game, therefore we are too lazy to get the real game and stick with the illegal version till we get bored of it...
I've heard the PC version is a fairly decent port, with the ratings approximately equal to the console versions. Does this mean that quality won't be an issue for how well the game sells?
Nuclear engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
ps, need crack
That would also show that DRM is moot as it has no effect on piracy. The fact is you will never lower piracy levels through DRM, as long as you can lock it up, there is someone who can unlock it. Copyright infringement is part of the cost of doing business in the gaming world.
Fact is people don't like to be treated like criminals, and if they well they might as well act like one to hold up their end of the bargain.
Ubisoft's actually bowed to customer pressure on DRM before. Consider Silent Hunter III and IV.
III shipped, if I recall, with StarForce---and Ubisoft eventually patched it out, and new bargain copies are completely DRM free.
IV, in response to the outcry over StarForce, shipped with SecuROM---which, of course, was patched out, and newly pressed CD's come without.
Basically, their habit seems to be to ship with DRM to try to preserve initial sales, and then bow to customer demand to keep bargain sales reasonable and keep old fans happy.
So, I suppose, the moral of the story is: don't buy Ubisoft games when they come out. Wait a year, until the game's down to fifteen bucks and they're stripped of DRM.
You cost Ubisoft most of the profit they might have earned from you had they released it DRM free, and then get the game DRM free at a dramatically reduced price.
I don't think that it would help really, most people pirate because they can't afford to pay that much. I know people that have 8000 song music collections, do you really think that @ 99 cents a song at most music download places they paid $8000 for their music? I doubt it.
I've refused to buy games with intrusive DRM. Now that someone is actually assuming customers are not criminals, its worth supporting the effort. Even if the boxed game just gets chucked in the back of my car and forgotten about.
Its not much of a carrot, but if it got around that people actually went out of their way to buy games without DRM, software publishers may just loosen their stance.
Alright
I'll spend my money on this one, just so I don't have to spend money on buying a legit Digitally Restricted game later.
Wait, what?
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
DRM is only one of many factors.
Another is the game itself....the music, the graphics, the gameplay, and stability.
In that same way...if Microsoft were to release a DRM-free operating system but it was sluggish (even more than Vista) or blue-screened often (more than Windows 9x)...I doubt people will buy it or use it even if it was free.
... but it will probably help sales. This is of course generally the more appropriate argument put forward by those of us who are anti-DRM. It's not about stopping pirates, the people who never plan on buying anything, it's about alienating the people who otherwise would buy the product. That of course is something they will choose to ignore, possibly, by just pointing at piracy traffic. And because they won't be able to directly gauge how many sales were directly from the lack of DRM, it is more likely they will look at the pirate traffic side of the equation, and claim they saw no difference. I honestly hope they can look at it from the positive perspective (sales gained) as opposed to negative (piracy traffic failing to drop). Or at least that the publicity generates enough good-will (and by that I mean good press) to be seen as a positive result in itself. All in all though, I'm happy to see a relatively bigger company willing to try this and keep the debate stirred up.
And yes it will be partially because of the fact that they did not include the DRM.
Although I feel in love with the game way back when it was 2d... I haven't played any of them since.
This seems unlikely to do anything for the amount of piracy, which will probably remain pretty constant, but it will save Ubisoft the license fees on DRM that will just be cracked in hours/days anyway.
People who want to pirate will pirate whether there's DRM or not. So while I understand the concerns of game developers/publishers, they may as well be burning the money spent on DRM license fees. That way, there would be some benefit to be had, fleeting as it might be.
Of course based on the comments of that Ubi official, it sounds like he's already expecting this to fail, and anything short of overwhelming figures to the contrary is going to be deemed a failure. If I were to don my tinfoil hat for a moment, I might think Ubisoft was using PoP as a justification for future DRM. They can point to how PoP PC had no DRM but it didn't affect piracy rates, so they obviously need MORE DRM in the future, and probably even more restrictive DRM. They seem all set to completely ignore that piracy rates (will likely have) remained constant and they saved the DRM license fees to boot, and proclaim the entire thing a failure. You can almost imagine that they have the press release already typed up and ready to be distributed.
As for myself, I imagine as far as Ubisoft is concerned I fall into the piracy category since I intend to make use of my GameFly subscription. If the game is good, I might look for a used copy for my 360, if not it'll just go right on back like Ninja Gaiden II.
-Aerogems-
Could it be that UbiSoft was a bit pissed at their former supplyer of DRM, because they themselves couldn't get rid of it from Rainbow Six when it caused too much trouble without stealing a crack from Reloaded? And when you couldn't find a new supplyer of DRM in time for the next release, hey, let's make a PR stunt out of it!
When God gives you lemons... well, I'd find a better God, but some just squeeze really hard.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
GoGamer.com currently has the game for $30, a great price for a recent release. Early reviews for the port seem very positive. I'll be buying this one. As far as voting with my dollar is concerned, I consider this a three-fer: (1) It has no DRM, (2) It has jettisoned the nu-metal "hardcore" posturing of the last two games that affirmed all the worst adolescent gamer stereotypes for the charming storybook quality of Sands of Time, and (3) It's $30, and I think the demand price curve for computer games is such that publishers should be pushing out more titles at lower price points. Oh, and (0) it's supposed to be great fun, as well, naturally.
These people already has their answer. DRM prevents piracy. Sure, we all know that it isn't true, but judging by what their rep says, they are only seeking to prove that there is something good about DRM, and this "trial" is only to prove that they are right, not to actually gather information. No matter what the results are, they will claim that they have confirmation of what they already believe.
The way I see it, the decision to remove DRM from the game would have been a collective one, as opposed to one made by just that one guy who said "A lot of people complain that DRM is what forces people to pirate games but as PoP PC has no DRM we`ll see how truthful people actually are.". So what if it was a challenge, are people just going to use it as an excuse to actually pirate the game saying "you are sure we'll still pirate the game? so be it then, we will!" , of course they will. Humans are greedy and selfish by nature, its not a matter of a gamer being selfish. A gamer is human, if they can get something for free, they will, its not a matter of law or being a criminal. Gamers are not branded as 'criminals' from the beginning, they're just acknowledge as selfish human beings like everyone else who will get something for free if they can.
Now what 'may' happen?
1) This DRM thing is not going to lessen the amount of downloads since those people who would have gotten it for free before, would still do so anyway, specially with the reasoning that downloaders give "its not a lost sale, i wouldn't have bought it anyway". Developers worked on this game for shitty wages, you wouldn't buy the game anyway? then don't enjoy it.
2) The only ones who would download are the ones who can fire up a downloader. Most people are not knowledgeable enough for that. Some people play games and they don't even know how to install windows. But NOW, even the people who at least know how to burn a DVD can share one single copy to their friends. Which means lost sales.
At None of this did I call people who do this "pirates", they're just greedy selfish humans and its enough to look out your window to know that the majority of people are that way. Specially for something they feel is as trivial as computer games. Its not going to increase the amount of global warming.
It's equal parts not wanting to pay and power and control. If it was just about DRM then music given freely on web sites with only a simple request not to repost wouldn't show up in minutes on download sites. There are a few people that have an issue with flexsibility but they are a small minority. The new POP will be on a download site within minutes of release since there is no crack needed and the downloads from such sites will dwarf legitimate purchases. Simple fact. The pirates will never quit so only two things will end the cold war, a fool proof copy protection method is devised or the game producers cry uncle and stop producing big title games. The number of people running pirates goes up steadily so eventually games won't be profitable, remember most loose money. Inspite of increasing grosses the expenses are going up even faster. Console games are at the biggest risk since the hardware with the exception of Wii looses money. Unless they make a good proof off the games they can't aford to make consoles. Casual games will survive mostly because people will make them for free if need be but the big title games may be facing a bleak future.
As an avid PC gamer who hates DRM I applaud this move. But I wonder about the motives behind it.
My concern is this: if piracy levels are as high on PoP as they are with DRM games, if Ubisoft is not moving more copies to consumers, and if the cost of game development is constantly increasing; then there is decreasing incentive for publishers to fund development for PC games. This ultimately hurts gamers like myself. Sure, there'll always be great developers like Steam and Id; but when major third parties abandon PC gaming (Epic and Crytek are notable devs that have expressed a desire to move to consoles) or cripple it (EA, Ubisoft) because there is no reason for them to cater to gamers like me, I ultimately am the one who loses from the decreasing selection of games on PCs.
In the hypothetical long term, when enough people leave PC game development, then others will fill the void. But then the interim looks kind of bleak.
While I think many game publishers have done a bad job of protecting their assets (with broken DRM schemes), I think people who justify "piracy" with the "normally I wouldn't buy the game" arguement have done just as thorough a job of ruining PC gaming. In any arms race, both sides contribute (equally) to the conflict, seem morally reprehensible to the other, and employ obnoxious propaganda to piss off those who just want to maintain the status quo (in this case, most gamers).
I hope they don't forget to analyze sales too. Some of the most pirated games are also the best selling, leading me to believe that at least a few pirates are just enacting their right to "try-before-you-buy".
After all, getting a refund from these companies is impossible... better safe than sorry!
Although in the case of spore, it was pirated a lot, and I really doubt anyone bought it after. :P
Quite honestly, Prince of Persia isn't as highly anticipated as Spore, GTA IV or a whole bunch of other games. Regardless of critical reception, it's a sequel, of a sequel, of a sequel that's gone on long enough they're re-using the original-original name. =P
Ubisoft may have put in a AAA effort (well, AA, since it's the Assassin's Creed engine already developed, right?), but it doesn't come across to me as an AAA title.
Now if they'd go DRM free on all their games for an entire quarter, or even a full year, then they'd have a real measure of the difference.
Instead they pick one game that isn't likely to appeal to the PC gamer segment (single-player strongly-console-like game in particular).
So sad you beat me to this
Why would they choose a game like prince of persia to ship with no DRM. It seems to me like they are riding the anti DRM bandwagon and releasing a not so great game with no DRM to boost sales. I mean how many posts are there here alone along the lines of "I will buy this game because it does not have DRM"
Measuring the number of pirated copies is pointless. The only relationship it has to sales is that the number of people who pirated the game is greater than or equal to the number who would have bought it rather than pirating if piracy was impossible. So if you have 10,000 pirate copies kicking about, you know that you lost somewhere between 0 and 10,000 sales.
Find a better measure. Hell, release two versions. PoP Red and PoP Blue one with DRM and one without, and compare the sales. Not the piracy rate. Actual sales! That's what makes money.
This is predicated on a whole lot of nonsense. Who in their right mind thinks that DRM increases piracy. DRM has very little to do with piracy at all. It only affects the people who legitimately buy the game, not the pirates. That's the point. The amount of people who would deliberately download a game because it has DRM is so minor it's silly. Hype is the single most largest factor on whether a game is pirated and that is a double edged sword
Congratulations to Ubisoft on coming up with their publicity stunt. Hope everybody recognises this and doesn't buy their game (or play it).
I record my sleeptalking
How are companies buying into the DRM thing when every single DRM scheme has been cracked within days of release? Prince of Persia will probably be pirated at exactly the same rate as any other game, since every other game is on the torrent sites, DRM or not.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
I would be very curious to know which angle they're looking to pursue at the end of this story. Honestly, as someone who's downloaded a piece or two of software, I would be surprised if the lack of DRM itself made any significant dent in the amount of piracy centered around this game. That said: 1) In Canada at least, this game is selling for $30 at retail. That's 30 CAD (~22 USD) as opposed to the flat 50 USD on steam. A very good argument in favor of lowered piracy rates right there, clouding any results. 2) This doesn't even begin to take into account the "try before you buy" crowd/theory (however you want to look at it.) If we were to presume that a) the majority of pirates download games to try, and buy them if they're good and b) that PoP is a good game and c) that these particular pirates would be yet more inclined to buy a good game at the lower $30 CAD price than $50 USD, if in Canada - then... you would see exactly the same amount of piracy but more sales. That is a very hard correlation/causation argument and not one I see the anti-DRM suits winning, frankly. So.. essentially, what I'm left with as a conclusion is that this is a PR stunt. No more, no less. Any conclusions they draw or announce as to the effect of DRM on game piracy are likely purely tangential, statistically unsound, and a post-primary-push PR effort.
Stuff.
This is not insightful, it pisses me off. What in HELL grants them entitlement to 8000 songs, whether or not they can afford it? Nothing, you say? I thought so. While I understand the gripes people have about paying good money for games that suck, I don't think piracy is justified. If companies are motivated enough, they will figure out a way to let prospective customers make educated buying decisions. But to suggest that people have entitlement to copyrighted works is utter nonsense.
USISoft has been surrounded by a slew of PR mistakes the last years and have accrued one of the worst reputations and word-of-mouth of any games publisher, second only to EA. Their DRM implementations have generally been horribly executed leading to widespread usability issues. Meanwhile DRM has become a hot topic.
Corporations are not really about providing good service and quality to the consumers, they're about making money. DRM now is bad PR.
At the same time the relatively small studio Stardock, that for a long time has produiced DRM-free games, have been riding the wave of topical recognition and have gained much consumer credit.
Of course UBISoft sees this. They are not bad marketers. UBISoft sees this as one way of mending their abysmal reputation. There's nothing intrinsically good or ethical about this, it is just marketing: leverageing the current medial discourse and try to appear as the pioneer of a new movement, and so to usurp the percieved leader position. This is simply what is known as "positioning" and "differentiation" in marketing lingo, something that has been practiced throughout modern business history.
In sum, this is a cynical ploy by a company that has a track record of hating and alienating its customers. It might lead to something better, but it is still not a change from the goodness of their black hearts.
This is not insightful, it pisses me off. What in HELL grants them entitlement to 8000 songs, whether or not they can afford it?
Actually, what real reason is there why people SHOULDN'T have 8000 songs? Let me answer that for you: there isn't any. Philosophically speaking, people are happier if they have all the songs they want, and there are no physical constraints involved, either.
This is different from, say, cars: obviously everybody would be happier with their dream car, but cars actually have to be built at a significant cost, so therefore, you cannot just give everyone a car more or less for free.
But songs? Why not?
If anything, the fact that most people cannot afford all the music they want despite the fact that it can be reproduced at literally NO COST indicates that there is a serious flaw in the current system.
I honestly can't figure out why anyone would complain about piracy when there's isn't a visible demo for this game. The honest people are being forced to pirate this game so they can make an informed purchasing decision. This alone will skew any erroneous figures that they will ultimately make... When will these companies learn?
Can we change from cars to something else this time? Maybe dogs? I took your dog for a walk and then i decided i will buy a dog from SOMEONE ELSE!
Or, i had a dog, but it was hit by a car someone else was testdriving, so now i have to get a new dog.
What happens if the game doesn't sell for some reason, like it sucking for instance? Will Ubisoft then say it's because it was widely pirated instead?? Just looks like a way to cover your bases to me.
for a dollar!
Joking aside, I'll actually buy this twice at full price. One for me, one as a gift.
I'm sorry but if I talked to my customers like that UbiRazz guy, I would be unemployed. He sounds like a complete cocktard. I hope they do lose money.
Gonna download the game from Torrent as soon as it comes up, then make a bank transfer of their fair share of the price of the game.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
So this dipshit is saying that his customers need to prove themselves? But people pirating games are not his customers. And DRM is something that doesn't affect 99.9% of pirates, but affects ALL customers.
And it is the people implementing DRM that are making the allegation that DRM forces me to buy the game. So the the game pirating community proved them wrong, and the people who wanted to buy the game but wouldn't because of the draconian rules imposed on them to deter the pirates--who, remember, are unaffacted by DRM--and now they are telling their customers that the onus of proof is on THEM?!
What the fuck are you talking about, man? Seriously. Did you go to college? You can always go back to community college and take some critical thinking courses.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
I don't understand how they expect to get accurate measurements of the number of illegitimately spread copies of the game in order to compare the numbers with a DRM-infected game.
Dr Superlove 300ml. I use my powers for awesome
and the people who wanted to buy the game but wouldn't because of the draconian rules imposed on them to deter the pirates--who, remember, are unaffacted by DRM--and now they are telling their customers that the onus of proof is on THEM?!
Should read
and the people who wanted to buy the game but wouldn't because of the draconian rules imposed on them to deter the pirates--who, remember, are unaffacted by DRM--now have the onus of responsibility ON THEM?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
"The point is to release a game without DRM and then massage the numbers "
NO, the point is to release it without DRM and evaluate the results.
The "massage the numbers" bullshit is what cynical assholes like you fabricate to continue believing your distorted opinion about companies is correct.
But you're just a cynical asshole.
Actually, what real reason is there why people SHOULDN'T have 8000 songs? Let me answer that for you: there isn't any.
Let me get this straight - you're suggesting that people are entitled to anything they can take merely because it exists? I write a song, and suddenly I've created an entitlement that will benefit anyone who thinks they ought to have it? What moral imperative do I have for involuntarily contributing to anyone else's well-being? ...But songs? Why not?
Because you derive value from them, just as you derive value from the car that you actually paid for. Why should you expect to get something for nothing merely because it's a song?
Your Community Rep is a total dipshit and this stinks of 'publicity stunt', but it does take balls to go against the current industry trend in such a way. I, for one, will buy a boxed copy of this as soon as I get the chance, more than one if it's cheap, and the older games too if there's one still being sold.
Again, thanks for removing the utter shit that is DRM.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
What the hell grants you entitlement stop people from using their electronics as they see fit? If Alice has an MP3, and Bob has a player, it is THEIR business what they do with their property. Not yours, and not the artists either.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
As along as you're not doing with property that belongs to me (or any other artist), has value to you, and yet you've refused to pay for (because you think you're entitled for some strange reason), then you're absolutely right - it is none of anyone's business.
Our title says it all. My grandson wanted spore after all the online reviews and the hype. It was so disappointing to find not only DRM, but also required 'online registration'. For this reason we did not buy it. So Spore is out of the question for us, as is 'Far Cry II' by EA and 'Red Alert 3' also from EA. If 'Prince of Persia' comes out with no DRM or online registration, then we will not only buy it, but also buy several copies just like we did with StarDock's 'Sins of the Solar Empire' of which we bought four boxes so all my grandchildren could play with it and with or against each other. We all know what happens when 'https' is used...you get worms, drm worms, corporate virii and other malware, spyware, bomware, scumware, creditandphonenumbersminersware and other crap...and ya cannot do anything about it because YOU ASKED FOR IT when you typed the malware URL into your browser or your friendly enemy program carried its own 'browser'. And 'https' is used in all registrations.
Because it's very likely that the person you are replying to has never been responsible for their own well being. Everything they have is been given to them. They have developed a belief that anything they want they get without having to put any personal effort into it.
"A lot of people complain that DRM is what forces people to pirate games but as PoP PC has no DRM we`ll see how truthful people actually are. Not very, I imagine."
Here's my take. This is a marketing ploy. He flat out states that he thinks people are not truthful and that they're going to pirate the game, DRM or no. My guess is that he's betting on the indignation of gamers actually buying the game, not for the game itself but as a symbolic purchase against DRM.
Of course it could all blow up in his face if the game sucks. Gamers hate DRM, but they hate a bad game just as much, if not more.
VMWare player is free too
DRM is only there for launch day, and to keep joesixpack from installing the game on all his friend's PC without effort.
Joesixpack wouldn't have to install the game on all his friends' PCs if more PC games supported gamepads and shared-screen multiplayer. Instead of buying one lawfully made copy and making three unauthorized copies, the player could connect the PC to an HDTV and have all four players play one lawfully made copy at the same time, as is normally done on the locked consoles.
Instead they pick one game that isn't likely to appeal to the PC gamer segment (single-player strongly-console-like game in particular).
Strongly console-like games appeal to owners of HTPCs (PCs with a TV-sized monitor, often seen in home theater rigs). Is there a problem?
Who in their right mind would assume the demand would remain equal if the pirated copy, for example, also required a disc to play?
Console pirates, for one. Only on recent revisions of the Xbox 360 and PLAYSTATION 3 consoles has internal storage on video game consoles surpassed the size of three game discs; until then, you needed an authentic or pirated cartridge or disc to play a game. Sticking to PCs, once games start shipping on BD-ROM instead of DVD-ROM and more PC models ship with an internal SSD (fancy name for what is effectively a CompactFlash card) instead of a magnetic drive, a lot of people aren't going to want to dedicate 25 GB to fully install each game.
He would if its a single player game (like Prince of Persia) and he wants to spread the joy.
I wish they announced this before I got it for the PS3. I want to support DRM games and so far PoP seems like it might be fairly good.
My only problem is that it looks like it's designed as a console game and may play better on my PS3. So I worry PC sales will be weak compared to console and they'll blame piracy.
Last thing I want is Ubisoft to pick up with restrictive DRM again. I won't buy anything DRMed from them again since I got Spliter Cell: Chaos Theory and NEVER was able to play it. It's captacular Starforce protection never supported 64 bit Windows.
No DVD required means that a) people (especially school kids) will split costs on buying one original copy and b) people who already own one find out that there's no DVD required and will tell their friends if it comes up in conversation, leading them to ask to borrow the DVD for a day.
"What if" piracy levels remain the same? Who are you kidding? This game will get pirated through the fucking roof, even more than if it was loaded down with copy protection, because now all the people that would play games but not have access or knowledge on how to copy it will now have the ability. And they won't know that the Ubisoft guy is challenging people to actually be legit here. They just get FREE GAMES w00t.
And what the Ubisoft guy probably doesn't (or actually probably does) know is that people use every completely fucking stupid justification under the sun to pirate their games. And that the simple act of him saying "the people that claim that DRM is the reason that they pirate, will in fact pirate anyway", is now going to be used in yet another completely illogical justification for pirating this game. "Well he said we would pirate it, so I'm going to, I'll show him".
In fact, I'm almost certain he knows this is going to happen and they are prepared to take the loss on a game they probably don't see as being popular on PC anyway. He is setting you idiots up for the fall, you're all going to walk straight into it and fuck it up for all of us, as this is then used as the primary example of why either the PC isn't financially viable due to piracy, or why DRM should be strengthened and made even more intrusive, and all the way down you're going to be bitching about it being someone else's fault.
Fact is people don't like to be treated like criminals, and if they well they might as well act like one to hold up their end of the bargain.
Your apparent complete and utter retardation boggles me only slightly less than the fact that you were modded insightful. You are criminals you fucking moron. Let me attempt to spell it out for you.
Games come out. People pirate them. Nowadays it's publishers but it used to actually also be the people that were actually writing the games themselves, you know, those programmers that you always think are such cool guys for creating these games you love. Anyway, whoever it is, they get wind of this piracy in whatever magical way they find shit like this out. Maybe they look at torrent sites with their new releases and the leechers and seeds in the thousands, or maybe they roll chicken bones across a painted floor and read the results, the how is not important, whats important is that THE PIRACY CAME FIRST.
So the next logical step is to attempt to prevent this. Maybe back in the day it was regarded as a competition, as a challenge to crack the system. Nowadays all you whiny fucks expect everything for free, and when the companies implement copy protection (I really wish people would stop using the phrase DRM, because it's merely a blatant attempt to distance from the fact that all they are trying to do is STOP PEOPLE COPYING WHAT THEY HAVE WORKED HARD TO CREATE), regardless of it's effectiveness, the pirates cry like fucking babies about it all, and then every action that the publishers take is mangled into a completely retarded justification for piracy, which they would have done regardless.
You've proven this already with your comment, but a quick browse of the comments placed so far just cements it further. Hell, some other idiot near the bottom is claiming that no demo is a justification for pirating a game. Others use price. There are likely to be more, each as stupid as the last.
If it's got no demo, look up as many gameplay videos as you can, read as many reviews are you can, see if you can make an informed decision.
If you can't, or if it's too expensive, wait until it drops in price.
If you don't like the copy protection or your just not sure about it, don't by the fucking game. People copying instead of buying is how we got here in the first place. No, you can't determine lost sales due to illegal copying, but if the game is worth playing, then the people that put the effort into creating the game in the first place just would like to be paid for their efforts, but that's apparently too much to ask, so feel free to make up shit as you go along to make yourself feel better about fucking over the guy that created the game you're enjoying.
We say we want DRM-free games. Some folks wear the badge of "I don't buy DRM software" as a matter of pride. The majority of us, however, are lying out our collective butts. The creators of World of Goo went out of their way to release a product with absolutely no DRM, and the result was a piracy rate over 90% (Google for this, it was widely reported). The game, by all accounts, is great, so it's not simply a matter of claiming that the title wasn't worth its own production.
I actually went out and bought a copy of the game when I heard about the piracy rate, because I really *do* want studios that publish good games without DRM to be rewarded for it. I don't know what the piracy figures are for Sins of a Solar Empire (another great, DRM-free game), but general findings do not seem to report this theory that gamers buy more copies of a game if it lacks DRM. The only way to convince studios that DRM is an economically bad policy is for DRM-free games to sell more copies. Given how entrenched the DRM mentality is within the industry, we probably need to make our collective case across both blockbusters and small titles. This way, DRM-free comes to be seen as inherent positive, rather than a situational/occasional boost in some cases and a detriment in others. If you're serious about wanting DRM to go away, buy the products. I'm not saying we should buy all of them, or buy the crappy ones, but if we don't invest in these companies, they'll be forced out of business or will feel they have no choice but to return to DRM.
Sounds like they want to guilt us into buying this game just to 'prove' that we hate DRM so much
I would like to say that this will show DRM pushers that DRM does nothing but harm sales, but I'd be wrong. I'm suspecting piracy will be just as rampant as other games. Many pirates claim that they pirate only to make a statement to publishers about DRM because they're big name developers, but look at world of goo. Shipped without DRM made by an indie developer, and still as pirated as anything else out there. Take away their reason for pirating, and they still pirate anyways. Most pirates out there are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, looking for an excuse to pirate. Yar!
Seriously dude, i think you're spot on about this. If I still had mod points i'd mod you up.
Ubisoft is giving gamers the chance to demonstrate that DRM actually increases piracy.
Actually, there are already games out there without DRM. We don't need POP to prove a point. What are the piracy numbers for Stardocks games (Galactic Civilizations 1 & 2, Sins of a Solar Empire)? Also, "World of Goo" doesn't contain DRM. The developers recently claimed they have very high piracy rates. According to them, they had 90% piracy rates - in other words 9 pirates for every legitimate buyer. Unfortunately, I think their method for calculating piracy was flawed, so I don't believe those numbers. A better test would be to figure out how many downloads those games have had over BitTorrent.
They don't sound like they're doing this for the right reasons. When this re-hashed console port to PC flops they'll blame it on piracy due to the lack of DRM. Maybe I'm just being cynical.
"You`re right when you say that when people want to pirate the game they will but DRM is there to make it as difficult as possible for pirates to make copies of our games. A lot of people complain that DRM is what forces people to pirate games but as PoP PC has no DRM we`ll see how truthful people actually are. Not very, I imagine. Console piracy is something else entirely and I`m sure we`ll see more steps in future to try to combat that."
Is that an exact quote? I seriously doubt that the person speaks with backwards apostrophes in his contractions. I also note that TFA does not have this reversal.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
A lot of people complain that DRM is what forces people to pirate games but as PoP PC has no DRM we`ll see how truthful people actually are. Not very, I imagine
Unfortunately this isn't a paired-observations test so the "experiment" (if you could call it that) is flawed. Prince of Persia has a totally different marketing campaign and genre of play than Spore, and these variables will confound the correlation between level of DRM and level of piracy-to-sales.
Original Post: Ubisoft Forum
I am currently in the process of installing Prince of Persia from a pirated downloaded ISO.
I intend to play this version until such a time as Steam makes Prince of Persia available for Australian customers. Even if I've finished it by that time I'll still purchase it to show my appreciation of a DRM-less game. I'm sure it's replayable as well but that's not really the point.
The point is that in my country we get absolutely fleeced by game retailers and as such I support online distribution mediums... even though Steam have jumped on board the "Let's rape Australians" train by giving us our own region and jacking up the price (I believe this was not brought about by profiteering but actually pressure from Australian retailers because they couldn't sell Call of Duty 4 on Australian shelves while Steam had it for like $40 cheaper).
I barely pirate games anymore because of Steam. I believe in paying money for good games. I tend to play a pirate game to see if I like it, then buy it on Steam if I do.
It is absolutely ridiculous that publishers expect me to fork out close to $100AUD for a game that I'm not even sure I'll like, not sure will run, not sure isn't full of a ridiculous amount of bugs (GTA4). Especially when Australian retailers have the most ridiculous no-returns policy imaginable.
After buying one of Ubi's previous games that installed hidden drivers as part of the corporate malware initiative, I'm never buying from them again. Receiving cash from me for a game is a privilege and not a right. If they cannot treat paying customers with a shred of respect, they don't deserve any money. I frankly don't care if they remove all corporate malware (DRM) from their games in the future. Reason being: it doesn't help me with the infected piece of software I have here.
I know that these CD checks are a conspiracy to make my disks wear out, so that I have to purchase new ones. This is why the Dominate/Manipulate Consumers Act (DMCA) exists.