Ubisoft's New DRM Cracked In One Day

Colonel Korn writes "Ubisoft's recent announcement that upcoming games would require a constant internet connection in order to play has been discussed at length on Slashdot ('The Awful Anti-Pirate System That Will Probably Work'). Many were of the opinion that this new, more demanding DRM would have effectiveness to match its inconvenience, at least financially justifying its use. Others assumed that it would be immediately cracked, as is usually the case, leaving the inconvenience for paying customers and resulting in a superior product for pirates. As usual, the latter group was right. Though Ubisoft won't yet admit it, Skid-Row managed to crack the new DRM less than a day after it was first released."

Comments

Glad to know...

[gad_zuki!]

that Skid Row has done something since "Youth Gone Wild."

Re:Glad to know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharing software freely is not piracy. If Skid Row was selling games, as some do, then you can call them pirates. For now, they are Robin Hoods.

Re:Glad to know...

[Zedrick]

I was wondering what you were talking about, and had to look it up on wikipedia. Turns out there's a rock/metal group called Skid Row that I had totally forgotten about. Unlike the much more memorable Skid Row that I know very well from the Amiga-scene.

Re:Glad to know...

[nacturation]

Unlike the much more memorable Skid Row that I know very well from the Amiga-scene.

It also does not refer to your underwear.

Re:Glad to know...

[MadKeithV]

They might be running the risk of "18 and life" too though.

Re:Glad to know...

[Ltap]

Crackers: the rock stars of the gaming world!

Re:Glad to know...

[fatphil]

Even most people familiar with the glam-metal band (yes, let's call a spade a spade) seem not to realise is that there was a progressive rock band from Ireland, featuring both Phil Lynott and Gary Moore of Thin Lizzy and solo fame, in the cusp of the 60s/70s which had the name first. Oh dear, I hope I don't have to explain who Thin Lizzy were, now...

You youngsters...

Priceless

[Greyfox]

Engineering hours building unbreakable DRM: $1.6M
Marketing devoted to managing customer hostility to new DRM: $800K
Lost sales due to customers boycotting your product: $2M
Having some wiseass kid from Sweden break your DRM on the first day: Priceless

Re:Priceless

[pushing-robot]

Funny? Try Insightful.

Oh, and:

Discovering you just spent a ton of money to make the pirated version more attractive: Doubly Priceless.

Re:Priceless

[clarkkent09]

While I find this story hilarious (if true), according to the article, the actual DRM scheme of requiring constant internet connection has not been cracked. What happened is that Ubisoft chickened out and didn't implement the scheme fully - it included a feature (to be enabled by a patch if necessary) that allowed games to be played without internet connection after all, and this is what has been hacked. My prediction: future games released without the said feature and the gamers screwed even more.

Re:Priceless

[Andorin]

While I find this story hilarious (if true), according to the article, the actual DRM scheme of requiring constant internet connection has not been cracked. What happened is that Ubisoft chickened out and didn't implement the scheme fully - it included a feature (to be enabled by a patch if necessary) that allowed games to be played without internet connection after all, and this is what has been hacked.

I didn't see that anywhere in TFA. The only place that mentions that is a single, anonymously left comment. Not exactly the most credible source.

Re:Priceless

[Joebert]

Some things money can't but, for everything else there's some random guy on the Internets Mastecard.

Re:Priceless

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I didn't get that from the article at all. What the article said is that Ubisoft said, "In the event that all servers are turned off we could patch the game to not require a server connection." That's a long way from "Ubisoft included a feature that allowed games to be played without an internet connection."

Or to use a car analogy, it's like saying that Honda includes a feature that allows their cars to be easily stolen and that by hotwiring a car, the thieves are just enabling that feature.

Re:Priceless

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The thing is, "requiring a constant internet connection" isn't something that you can just tack on in an unhackable way.

You can use the various DRMed binary obfuscation tricks to slow them down; but the hackers will eventually manage to neuter the internet checking stuff, producing a tame version that always returns what the program wants to hear, or a version of the program that doesn't even care.

The only way to really force the issue is to actually move large chunks of vital game code to the server, and only provide the output of that code to the client. For instance, they could hypothetically ship the game with absolutely no AI code, and have every NPC in the game controlled by AI code on their server, just as if it were a multiplayer game. The trouble with doing that sort of thing is twofold: One is latency. There are only certain parts of a game's code that can reasonably be moved 100+milliseconds away from the user. AI would be doable, if suboptimal, because of our experience with providing adequate multiplayer FPS results. It'd be worse than doing it locally; but DRM shows a willingness to hurt paying customers, so so what? Second is cost: the more code you move to your server, the more computational capacity you need to maintain for the supported lifespan of the game. The more data you need to transfer back and forth, the higher your bandwidth bills, and the more customers with marginal connections you lose out on.

The problem is, if the internet presence check is purely artificial, hackers will strip it out, just as they stripped out CD presence checks and offline serial key verification checks. If the internet component is vital, the hackers won't be able to simply strip the checks; because they'll be left missing whatever pieces are server side; but you run into new issues. If the vital component is static(certain textures or models or something aren't shipped; but are downloaded when needed) it'll be extracted and posted on bittorrent inside a week. If the vital component is dynamic(as in the AI example, where the client sends player location data and gets back a series of movement commands for NPCs) it cannot be usefully extracted; but you will take on substantial server load over the lifetime of the game, and whatever that dynamic component is will suffer from latency.

This is where another problem comes in. Since your servers cost money, you want to make the server-side dynamic component as computationally cheap as possible. The simpler it is, though, the easier it will be for hackers to simply write an equivalent version of whatever it is, and make that version, running locally, available in their cracked copies. Unless you can find something that is, simultaneously, computationally cheap to run, very hard to rewrite, and fairly insensitive to latency, you are screwed.

There may, in fact, at least for some games, be an aspect of the game that fulfills these criteria. In that case, anybody who wants to crack the game will, indeed, have to spend weeks or months doing real software engineering to re-implement whatever it was that you left off the disk and on your server(assuming a copy of that doesn't leak on day two, which would be embarassing) in addition to doing the basic cracking work required to defeat the artificial checks and any SSL style verification of the server the game binary is talking to.

Re:Priceless

[Ihmhi]

The thing is, they already spent a ton of money developing the DRM. They're still going to use the whole "activation server" bit, which as I understand it is currently in use. It would be hard to imagine that there aren't people still working on this even though a portion of the DRM for the game has been cracked.

Re:Priceless

[Grimbleton]

Actually, Hondas can't be simply hotwired, they have a chip in the key that... oh... um... carry on

Re:Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

The only place that mentions that is a single, anonymously left comment. Not exactly the most credible source.

You insensitive clod!

Re:Priceless

[im_thatoneguy]

The AI code doesn't have to be run remotely. You could just have it spawn weapons, healthpacks and enemies in the correct places using an encrypted positioning system. Then the crackers would have to meticulously play through the game itemizing every single xyz position for every spawn.

Re:Priceless

[mjwx]

You can use the various DRMed binary obfuscation tricks to slow them down; but the hackers will eventually manage to neuter the internet checking stuff, producing a tame version that always returns what the program wants to hear, or a version of the program that doesn't even care.

The problem with the way DRM is inserted into a game is the way DRM is inserted into a game.

DRM cannot be programmed in from the word go as this would severely hamper the development team, they'd spend as much time fighting their own DRM programming as fixing bugs and writing new code. With EA/Ubi/Take2 working their dev's like slaves with ridiculous and unmovable deadlines this is considered impossible. So DRM is tacked on after a games completion, it's developed by a third party (Thales, Sony DADC and so forth), purchased and then tacked onto the exe or other binaries. If it weren't for this fact DRM would be extremely difficult to crack as it would be rooted so deep. DRM also accounts for at least 15% of a games cost at retail as it's covered by a per unit license, A$20 with the difference between Civ IV retail and Gal Civ II retail.

So it is as you said, as long as the exe hears what it wants to hear from what sounds like the DRM it will run.

News like this makes me happy, Ubisoft spend millions on this DRM, talks it up and it gets broken on the first day. I can believe that there is some justice in the universe, Karmic retribution at work.

Re:Priceless

[nametaken]

Another downside to shifting that dynamic content to the server side, as a result of the increased infrastructure costs in the way of hardware, labor, bandwidth, etc. is that you're not going to run the servers for nearly as long as they currently run authorisation or simple match-making services. Now I REALLY don't want to buy your product, because you're going to render it useless in a few years.

I can still play Space Quest.

Re:Priceless

[sjames]

Or they own the server, grab the server based code and stuff it into the client.

Re:Priceless

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That would be essentially equivalent to the "If the vital component is static(certain textures or models or something aren't shipped; but are downloaded when needed) it'll be extracted and posted on bittorrent inside a week." case.

Given a mixture of gaming skill, inferential sleuthing through the game files(examining maps, quest dialog trees, and the like), and hacker tricks(find out where in memory the variable that stores your hitpoints lives and the challenge just isn't so serious...), it should be reasonably expected that a motivated attacker should be able to play through a game really fast. And, for any static information, it only has to be recorded once and then distributed through the usual illicit channels.

Plus, more seriously, if you want to distribute information to the client in little pieces, according to where the player is in the game, your client binary has to include a mechanism for summarizing the game state and sending the summary to the server so that the server knows what to send and when. Figure that mechanism out, and you can spoof the game-state summary messages to systematically request what you need. To combat that, the server could keep a running tally of what was reported, and when, by each and every client and attempt to detect impossible or inconsistent game-state progressions, which would indicate spoofing; but that, again, adds cost and complexity to the server side, and raises the odds of accidentally banning speedrunners, players who stumble across bugged quests, and whatnot.

If item spawning is dynamic, you avoid the one-time-download problem; but run into the server cost vs. ease of re-implementation issue previously discussed(server cost would likely be pretty low; but the threshold for re-implementing item spawning "good enough" for decent gameplay would likely also be pretty low).

Re:Priceless

[tlhIngan]

The only way to really force the issue is to actually move large chunks of vital game code to the server, and only provide the output of that code to the client.

Or, how about simply not permitting save games to exist anywhere but on the server?

As part of the "checking DRM" activity, it uploads the current game state to the server, effectively "saving" your progress.

When you log in again, it grabs the game state into memory and resumes from there.

Hacked games that run without internet connectivity can work just fine. Just you lose the ability to save and load your game.

The only real way around this is to either run a local authentication server (difficult if you use asymmetric keys), or use a debugger to save/restore the entire memory footprint - in which case your game saves start averaging around the 500+MB mark. Which can be worked around by making the application un-debuggable (there are APIs in Windows to prevent attaching a debugger), at which point you need a second computer to hook into the Windows kernel debugger to reset those attributes...

Re:Priceless

[Imaria]

There may, in fact, at least for some games, be an aspect of the game that fulfills these criteria. In that case, anybody who wants to crack the game will, indeed, have to spend weeks or months doing real software engineering to re-implement whatever it was that you left off the disk and on your server(assuming a copy of that doesn't leak on day two, which would be embarassing) in addition to doing the basic cracking work required to defeat the artificial checks and any SSL style verification of the server the game binary is talking to.

Or, some dickhead will just leak the code, or steal it right off of the servers you're running it on. If you up the game, the response will increase as well.

Re:Priceless

[aztracker1]

or you put the AI into a chip, and have that chip, and hell an updatable ROM on said chip, and load it via USB2.. basically making USB2 a cartridge system (update capable) for PC based games.

Re:Priceless

[Mr2001]

The only real way around this is to either run a local authentication server (difficult if you use asymmetric keys)

It's not that difficult: if you patch the game to disable the encryption, you don't need to crack the key, you can write an authentication/saved-game server that speaks plaintext. The patched game wouldn't be compatible with the official server, but that's not much of a problem.

Re:Priceless

[Jarjarthejedi]

How's the encryption supposed to work?
If it static-key encryption (same data sent every time) then it'll just be copied and sent to the client in exactly the same way.
If it's dynamic-key encryption then you've added a whole other layer of complexity and probably no more security as the only real difference is the key generation, which can either be cracked (if it's in the game's code) or replicated (if it's sent from the server).

Encrypting static data is not all that secure when the identity of the data can be learned, the connection easily tapped, and at least one part of the encryption code is in the user's hands.

Re:Priceless

[interkin3tic]

While I find this story hilarious (if true), according to the article, the actual DRM scheme of requiring constant internet connection has not been cracked. What happened is that Ubisoft chickened out and didn't implement the scheme fully - it included a feature (to be enabled by a patch if necessary) that allowed games to be played without internet connection after all, and this is what has been hacked.

I'm a little fuzzy as to the difference here. You say the DRM scheme of constant internet connection wasn't cracked... but then it sounds like people are playing without constant internet connection. I'm guessing I'm confused as to what "cracked" means here. I thought "DRM cracked" meant you could play a pirated game, that's not what's going on here?

Re:Priceless

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

(I realize that replying to yourself is sort of narcissistic; but I didn't think of this until just now...)

It strikes me that the challenges of server-based DRM techniques are actually strongly analogous, in many respects, with the challenges of hardware dongle based DRM techniques.

With both dongle and server setups you have a client(untrusted, presumably a nest of filthy pirate scum) where most or all of your binary is running. You also have a dongle or server which is computationally constrained but strongly trusted(at least compared to the client, no trust is perfect). You finally have a channel between them, either the internet or the USB bus.

In both cases, you face the problem of the dongle/server being an artificial requirement. You can build your binary to demand it and freak out if it isn't there; but the binary lives on the untrusted client, and so that can be stripped.

In both cases you have the option of getting around this artificiality problem by omitting vital parts of the program from the client and building them into the dongle or the server. In both cases, though, you are limited by the fact that computational power on the dongle or server is far more expensive, from your perspective, than computational power on the client(server computing power is cheap, per unit; but taking on the obligation to provide it on demand 24/7 for the next five years to everybody who bought a $60 box at retail, plus paying for bandwidth, isn't cheap. As for dongles, computational power, per unit, is way more expensive from a custom embedded chip fabbed and packaged to be tamper resistant and run from bus power than it is from the latest intel core whatever.).

In both cases, there are two basic ways that hackers can get around you. Either they re-implement whatever you have moved off the client, and modify the client binary to talk to their implementation, or they illicitly obtain a copy of your implementation(dongle clone or server own/leak).

There are some differences, though: The major advantage of the server approach is Global Knowledge. If every client talks to the server, and every client has a unique serial number, it is trivial to detect and reject cloned serial numbers(less trivial to know whether you are rejecting the cloner or the customer who legitimately purchased the retail box that the cloner targeted; but DRM isn't about customer satisfaction, so who cares?) With dongles, cloning is harder; but if some shady operation on the pacific rim decides to stamp out a million copies of one of your dongles, your client binaries will all happily accept them.

The major disadvantage of the server approach is bandwidth and ongoing cost. USB2 is a 480Mb/s bus. Even in the real world, it is pretty damn fast compared to virtually any residential internet connection. The latency picture is even better. The "ping" to a USB device is virtually nothing, while client/server ping across the internet will always be nontrivial. Further, there are plenty of places(travelling, military, etc.) where an internet connection is either uneconomic or unavailable and, even when it is, tends to have lousy speed or latency or both. Hardware is much more portable, and the speed of the local bus will always be the same. Plus, with local hardware, you face no further bandwidth bills or server upkeep expenses.

Re:Priceless

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Snarfing somebody's private key is, indeed, functionally impossible(at least without rooting their system and, if they happen to be using some serious FIPS certified crypto processor module, even then); but it is the client that still has to bother to verify the server before uploading.

Anybody with the skills needed to strip DRM could either overwrite Ubisoft's public key(which corresponds to the private key that they cannot obtain) with their own public key(corresponding to the private key that they know, since they generated it) or gut the whole authentication process, such that it always returns "success".

If you cannot modify or debug the binary(as would be the case on a nasty piece of DRM hardware, like a contemporary console without a mod chip) you are screwed either way, though you would also be screwed in the face of much simpler DRM measures. If you are on an open platform, you can tamper with the binary such that the server authentication would be of no use.

Re:Priceless

[Grimbleton]

The DEI part (Viper, etc.) for bypassing that only runs about $40, and can use the valet key. Not a huge expense.

Re:Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

future games released without the said feature and the gamers screwed even more.

You are seriously underestimating the cleverness of the crackers. There used to be an activation crack for zMUD that was essentially a proxy that accepted connections from zMUD that ran on the same machine. I'm sure something very similar could be done with these online activations.

Re:Priceless

[cgenman]

To be fair, DRM is always in waves. You create game 1 with how new DRM system X! It is cracked in a day. You create game 2 with an updated version of DRM system X! It is cracked in two days. You careate game 3 with an updated version of DRMX... etc.

Like a lot of things, DRM is really difficult to get right the first time. Of course the new "uncrackable" system was cracked in a day. The engineers are probably smacking their faces at some random loose end they forgot to tie up. Each next iterations will all be more effective, until it plateaus at the 1 - 2 week mark.

It's like open source software, except extremely closed and people fix security flaws by beating you and draining your will to live.

Re:Priceless

[cgenman]

Or hack the game to automatically write out item position to a file, then read from that file in the hacked executable. In the meantime, your server costs have gone through the roof.

Re:Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

The Starcraft 2 beta has been cracked to allow offline play with 3rd party AI. The AI isn't too advanced, but, considering that there was "replacement" AI for the original Starcraft, it'll only be a matter of time.

It will be cracked and pirated, no exceptions.

Re:Priceless

[Lazareth]

I'm no genius but even if that feature was not present the DRM should still be reasonably crackable. Or am I wrong? Sniff the traffic, emulate the DRM-related responses and fool the game to think it is connected? It is not like they're using a magic beam to transmit data. Of course I can see the problem in that the line is probably encrypted, but the fact is that you're sitting on Alice while she's talking to Bob. I simply don't see why an internet server should make the DRM that much harder to break. Please, enlighten me on where I am wrong :(

Re:Priceless

[neonleonb]

You can get into someone's apartment without breaking the lock. Maybe you break the window, or the door, or something else. The same can be true about computer code. The grandparent made a comment about which piece the crackers modified--it looks to him like they went around the internet connection part, rather than breaking it itself.

Re:Priceless

[MstrFool]

I have to consider the option of using a VM to run windows, then doing the debug from the host system there by rendering the windows anti debug APIs moot. In using a VM or even 'rooting' your own system you can get around the systems that would normally prevent the reading of the information. Really it's all just a loss for the vender that uses DRM as there will always be a way around it so long as it has to run on a system that the user controls. Though saying that, I am starting to understand the ideas behind Vista and Win7 being set up to lock the owner out of so much, while allowing remote users so much more power then can be accessed from the keyboard. Perhaps that is what MS is after. Trying to own the system and lock you out, so that the other venders can prevent people from finding how to break the DRM. Still, it will be a while before even that will be posible.

Re:Priceless

[Opportunist]

It would be static, but you would only get the info as soon as you actually play to the point where you need the information. You would not know that in level 20, section 2 there is a health pack on the right ledge. The crackers would have to play through the whole game, painstakingly map every inch of every level and collect the server replies, especially if the info is sent only as soon as you can actually get to "see" the item in the game.

Make different spawn positions for different difficulty levels and you can actually slow....

Wait a minute! Why am I using my brain power for the wrong side in this battle?

Re:Priceless

[blackraven14250]

Do the chips in the keys constitute a digital method for managing the rights to drive a given Honda?

Re:Priceless

[Atomic Fro]

Ubisoft has a fairly long track record of patching out the DRM after awhile. I wait it out and buy one of their titles I was lusting after when they finally do it. Unfortunately for them, thats when their games are near their cheapest. I was nervous this new scheme was going to be the end of that, but thankfully not, they left that option open. Gamers ended up not being hurt by their DRM, but it has hurt them a lot. Maybe they figured there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Re:Priceless

[JCZwart]

Another smart trick is what they did in Batman: Arkham Asylum. If your game isn't properly registered, you'll not be able to perform certain moves which are absolutely essential in finishing certain levels in the game. This accomplishes 2 goals:

i) The game checks for it being properly registered in a non-obtrusive way, because running a cracked game doesn't mean you'll not be able to play it, you just won't get very far.

ii) Hilarious situations ensue when people having illegally downloaded it ask question about this 'buggy behaviour' on the official forums (see this forum thread for an illustration of this).

Copy protection like this can be implemented in different sections of the code, thus making it very very hard for crackers to hack: once you'd have tackled one function that checks for the game being cracked, you'd might have missed on several others.

Re:Priceless

[Hurricane78]

Encrypted? And who would have to have a key for that, in order to run the game?

You fell for the same error that DRM is based on.

Essentially, “encrypted” means, you give a user the encrypted data, the decryption code (a list of commands) and the key (unencrypted), and expect him to not figure out that his CPU puts them all together by executing the list of commands on your behalf... or do somethign completely different with it. ^^

Re:Priceless

[Hurricane78]

So it is as you said, as long as the exe hears what it wants to hear from what sounds like the DRM it will run.

The “exe” doesn’t hear anything. It’s just a list of commands. You can change it. You can tell the CPU to execute the commands... in whatever way you like. Don’t execute this, but do this, etc.

It’s obvious that you would just put a JMP at the beginning of every DRM check routine, and then tell the CPU to have a go.

You can even have a debugger like IDA Pro run in the background, and in case of a DRM error, you pause the program, walk back the disassembled code to the last CMP that checked of DRM is available, change it to a NOP or a JMP in live memory, depending on which way is the “DRM OK” way, and continue the game like normal.

Back when this was simpler, I did it like this myself. Nowadays they create a convoluted system of obfuscations to make it very hard to find the right CMP. But crackers have just as complex de-obfuscation scripts and much better skills than I had back then. Especially virus (toolkit) writers. Since viruses and DRMed executables are very similar in many aspects. (E.g. Steinberg Cubase’s UI code is decrypted right before execution, by a special processor on a USB dongle. Which is why the cracked version, without the encryption, runs much faster. ^^)

Re:Priceless

[Hurricane78]

A dongle, unless it’s a FPGA or custom chip actually executing game logic, does not help anything.
Steinberg Cubase, an expensive program, had its entire UI encrypted, and only decrypted right before execution, by a USB dongle.
Which made it slow and unresponsive. (That’s why they couldn’t encrypt the core.)
Someone simply went, and managed to pipe the whole encrypted code trough the dongle.
Done.

As a result, the pre-decrypted program run significantly smoother. Some people even cracked their bought version because of that. (And/or because they needed the USB port.)

Re:Priceless

[Grimbleton]

I suppose in a way they do, though I wouldn't call it DRM in the same sense, as it's to protect the end user's investment, not the creator's

Re:Priceless

[tsm_sf]

The AI code doesn't have to be run remotely. You could just have it spawn weapons, healthpacks and enemies in the correct places using an encrypted positioning system. Then the crackers would have to meticulously play through the game itemizing every single xyz position for every spawn.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/

Re:Priceless

[FatLittleMonkey]

You end up selling something like the WOW client, but not charging the WOW subscription. Bad business model. If you are going to carry so much load on the servers, you might as well MMORPG and charge a sub.

Re:Priceless

[Nerdposeur]

...or, if the crackers don't care about being absolutely precise, they could just put the health packs and weapons wherever they want them, or write some code to randomize them. I don't see how that would cripple the game.

Re:Priceless

[mcgrew]

Like a lot of things, DRM is really difficult to get right the first time.

Other things that are difficult to get right the first time:

• Perpetual motion machine
• spacewalks without a space suit
• time travel
• flapping your arms and flying to the moon

Re:Priceless

[Dorkmaster Flek]

This was actually done with the PS1 game Spyro: Year of the Dragon. They actually built crack protection into the game code itself. There was a really interesting article on Gamasutra about it at the time. This, of course, added mountains of extra work for the programmers, but it's interesting from a technical perspective.

Re:Priceless

[danieltdp]

Fatality: Skid Row wins

Re:Priceless

[moose_hp]

[...] flapping your arms and flying to the moon

No, no, no, no, no.

The trick is not flapping your arms, the knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.

Then getting to the moon is the easy part.

Re:Priceless

[holmstar]

The point that clarkkent09 was making is that if it is relatively easy fro ubisoft to patch the game to allow offline play, it means that the DRM is not heavily woven into the underlying code of the game. In other words, it would be relatively easy to hack it such that the DRM is disabled.

Re:Priceless

[Spatial]

Um, isn't it usually the exact opposite? The initial version is more difficult to crack because its mechanisms aren't known. A partially known subsequent version is much easier than the first.

Re:Priceless

[cgenman]

I've spoken to DRM vendors before. Their goal was not perfect protection, or even what you'd consider normal protection. But a time-to-crack of 2 weeks.

That was it. They weren't trying to make a perpetual motion machine. They were attempting to make a machine whose motion lasted for 2 weeks. All they wanted was the initial sales spike to be as tall as possible. They were quite aware that what they were doing was delaying the game from being broadly available on torrent sites by a few days, in order to capture a few extra million dollars in sales. And after that, they knew it was basically useless.

Re:Priceless

[mcgrew]

Then why not sell it DRM-free after two weeks? Why piss off your best customers?

Re:Priceless

[T.E.D.]

...you're going to render it useless in a few years. I can still play Space Quest.

Ubisoft's point exactly.

Re:Priceless

[ivan256]

To be fair, DRM is always in waves. You create game 1 with how new DRM system X! It is cracked in a day. You create game 2 with an updated version of DRM system X! It is cracked in two days. You careate game 3 with an updated version of DRMX... etc.

Game 3 doesn't bring you to the logical conclusion you seem to be suspecting.

You create game 3 with an updated version of DRMX, and the crackers have a shell script that automatically cracks the game for them, and a relationship with the latest trendy reviewer to get the hacked copy out on the net a week before it's released.

Re:Priceless

[clarkie.mg]

I am just Cc Cv http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_8.html :

BioShock was released on 21 August 2007, sporting a new version of SecuROM protection incorporating an online activation method. It wasn't until almost two weeks later that a working crack for the game was released, and in fact the crack came from an unknown third party, because the established cracking groups had been unsuccessful in getting around this version of SecuROM. 2K Games' Martin Slater said in this interview:

        We achieved our goals. We were uncracked for 13 whole days. We were happy with it. But we just got slammed. Everybody hated us for it. It was unbelievable... There is a lot of strain on our content-delivery servers and things like that, where everyone has to download a 10MB executable. I don't think we'll do exactly the same thing again, but we'll do something close. You can't afford to be cracked. As soon as you're gone, you're gone, and your sales drop astronomically if you've got a day-one crack.

More recently, the online activation methods of Mass Effect and GTA IV have similarly prevented fully working pirated versions of these games from being available until at least several days after their official release, and definitely not before release. What most users don't consider is that 'day-one' or 'day-zero' piracy as it's called is disproportionately more damaging to a game's sales than at any other time, as this article explains:

        Day zero piracy is where a game is released for free by pirates before the official release. It's disastrous for the developer and publisher because whatever route gets the game out to the gamer first will be the favoured choice, so a game uploaded to the internet before the release date will have a huge impact on sales.

It's around the release period when marketing hype has reached fever pitch, and gamers are most excited about getting a game. If a working pirated version is available at the same time, the potential for lost sales is enormous. Pete Hines of Bethesda Softworks recently confirmed the same thing when discussing concerns about Fallout 3's release, saying in response to a question about day-one piracy: "Yeah, it's a huge problem. Huge."

Even the makers of StarForce DRM have said exactly the same thing regarding the use of their protection technology. On the StarForce forums they said this:

        The purpose of copy protection is not making the game uncrackable - it is impossible. The main purpose is to delay the release of the cracked version. Maximum sales rate usually takes place in the first month(s) after the game release. If the game is not cracked in that period of time, then the copy protection works well.

Re:Priceless

[EdIII]

I quite regularly disdain Star Wars quotes that are incorrect. Perhaps you meant, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Now just hand over your geek card quietly and nobody gets hurt.....

Re:Priceless

[AzuMao]

You aren't.

The hackers would just make a program that requests all of the data automatically. They wouldn't need to play through it themselves.

Re:Priceless

[soren202]

Nah, doesn't work.

You'd have to devise a system where the server knows where you are at any point in time, rather than a system where the user's computer simply asks for objects at intervals, meaning that, for your system to work, the servers would have to be able to sustain near mmo levels of bandwidth, which is ridiculous-expensive for something that will still be cracked in a month. The only workable methods to have it store item types/locations server side is to have the user's computer ask at certain intervals, which will require about one play through depending on the game for the hackers to get every item down, to have the computer know where items are, but not which items they are, or vice versa, in which case the hacker has half the information and only needs to figure out the second half systematically, or to piss off all customers without a reliable high bandwidth, low latency connection to the server, as well as any who have any sense of moral decency whatsoever.

On the bright side...

[binarylarry]

Ubisoft can always blame "those damn pirates" and claim the DRM development as a failed project tax write off.

And the pirates can still play the game for free with no issues.

And paying customers still get to take it in the ass, now AND when Ubisoft decides to can the online service.

Win, Win, Weeeeee

Re:On the bright side...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Ubisoft can always blame "those damn pirates" and claim the DRM development as a failed project tax write off.

Failed or not, business costs are pretty much always tax free - you only pay tax on profits.

Re:On the bright side...

[hardburn]

Ubisoft can always blame "those damn pirates" and claim the DRM development as a failed project tax write off.

Not only that, but also so their shareholders don't sue them for failing due diligence. I suspect that's the real reason for all the failed DRM systems.

Re:On the bright side...

[Pentium100]

But in that case they didn't need such massive DRM. They could have made a regular CD check or whatever. It would still be cracked in a day and it would still require pirates to download the crack, so the lazy (as you said) users would still have to buy the game.

Re:On the bright side...

[hardburn]

You guys are assuming that because a crack was made available in less than 24hrs that this somehow means that Ubisoft isn't going to make much money on the game.

No, I think we just hope they get buried for their crummy DRM. They'll probably make a heap of cash, anyway.

I'm sure the devs expected it to be cracked, maybe even quickly - but they'll still make good money from these games. Users are lazy ... many aren't willing to troll warez sites to find the crack

That argument works both ways; with really intrusive DRM systems, it's often easier to use a pirated version.

Re:On the bright side...

[grapeape]

But then the DRM really is pointless and is only done to punish legit users. Everytime some game publisher comes out with its "new unhackable drm" its defeated quickly. The sad part is they still keep touting the next one. The problem this time around is they concidered people who dont have constant internet connections (near me there are far more without broadband than with it) to be acceptable losses, then boasted about it resulting in further lost sales from people who flat out refuse to deal with them. All thats left are those who dont know about it but have a broadband connection and the pirates who are going to have it anyway. The likely scenario is much lower sales than the last version of the game and once again they will use the usual piracy excuse.

Im just wondering how they are going to handle the backlash when some guy out in some rural area gets the game and finds he cant play it at all and cant return it or better yet when he buys it for his kids and they use their per minute 3g connection racking up an insane bill. I fully expect a lawsuit within weeks.

Re:On the bright side...

[RsG]

You guys are assuming that because a crack was made available in less than 24hrs that this somehow means that Ubisoft isn't going to make much money on the game. I'm sure the devs expected it to be cracked, maybe even quickly - but they'll still make good money from these games. Users are lazy ... many aren't willing to troll warez sites to find the crack ... many don't even know how .... sure, they'll lose money from people who crack the game instead of buying it, but they'll still make a lot more from those that dont know how, or don't bother.

They already lost my money. I was halfway interested in AC2. Didn't buy it because of the DRM. Didn't pirate it. I have no intention of doing either.

This is a case where voting with your wallet is the way to go. If they see dropping sales figures as compared to the first game that aren't matched by rising piracy figures, then that tells them that some people out there have ethical reasons not to pirate, and are opposed enough to intrusive DRM crap not to purchase. A pirate doesn't interest them, but a lost customer does.

Re:On the bright side...

[aliquis]

And paying customers still get to take it in the ass

Ah, so there IS a reason to still buy the game after all! :D

Re:On the bright side...

[geminidomino]

This is a case where voting with your wallet is the way to go. If they see dropping sales figures as compared to the first game that aren't matched by rising piracy figures, then that tells them that some people out there have ethical reasons not to pirate, and are opposed enough to intrusive DRM crap not to purchase. A pirate doesn't interest them, but a lost customer does.

What, you honestly think a single one of them is going to go to "Looks like we fucked up with the DRM" when "Those damn pirates got us again!" is available for them to shift the blame to? You think the fact that it probably isn't true means a damn?

Re:On the bright side...

[RsG]

What, you honestly think a single one of them is going to go to "Looks like we fucked up with the DRM" when "Those damn pirates got us again!" is available for them to shift the blame to? You think the fact that it probably isn't true means a damn?

"Looks like those damn pirates got us again" only works as an excuse for flagging sales when the piracy rate rises. When the rate remains the same, and sales flag, this excuse is untenable.

Yes, some idiot PHB will look at the falling sales numbers and say "look! Pirates!" without examining the facts. Idiots will always ignore contradictory evidence, and management has no shortage.

But someone will, at some stage, take it into their head to look at the piracy rates and sales figures for games with draconian DRM. What will they see? Hopefully, they'll see an unexplained loss in sales not matched by a rise in piracy. That will tell them something. As will the inevitable tide of hate mail, doggedly bad product reviews and general bad PR.

You think a game company has never backed away from DRM schemes in the face of lost sales? It's happened before, and will happen again. EA did more or less exactly that.

But alright, lets take your point of view as fact for a moment, and assume Ubi's upper management has their heads so far up their asses they can't see they're driving away customers. What happens when Ubisoft losses too many customers? They die. Or at least pull out of the PC market. Someone else moves in.

Re:On the bright side...

[geminidomino]

The claim that they can measure "piracy rates" is propaganda at best. It's made up, so that it's very conveniently always "on the rise."

Re:On the bright side...

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually the stock holder SHOULD sue them. They are spending large percentages of the development costs on D.R.M. And it NEVER works as advertised, instead of protecting revenue it hurts it in lost sales and support costs.
      And it's the stockholders that need to be notified of this scam, boycotts and letters to the publishers just get ignored/ chalked up to pirates.
      They cannot ignore the stockholders. They risk far worse than just golden parachuting to the next company if they do.

Mycroft

Re:On the bright side...

[qbast]

I am sure that broadband connection requirement will be plainly indicated on the box. So lawsuit on what grounds? Illiteracy? Or inability to control your children?

Re:On the bright side...

[TheReaperD]

The reality is they will blame the pirates regardless of whether they are responsible or not. It is much easier to blame a 3rd party with no voice to defend itself than to admit failure of management policies. It is also likely that the managers will keep their jobs longer if they do so. So, they will blame the pirates, reality be damned.

Re:On the bright side...

[SharpFang]

Actually, they lost quite a lot of money. The DRM system costed tangible manhours of developer work, convertible to real money. Good several hundred thousands possibly. Since the purpose of it was defeated in day one, all this money went down the drain, because there will be exactly zero of return on investment on that part of project (and all the extra losses due to bad PR).

Re:On the bright side...

[atfrase]

This is a case where voting with your wallet is the way to go. If they see dropping sales figures as compared to the first game that aren't matched by rising piracy figures, then that tells them that some people out there have ethical reasons not to pirate, and are opposed enough to intrusive DRM crap not to purchase. A pirate doesn't interest them, but a lost customer does.

The problem with this is that these content industries (games, movies, music, etc) have the nasty habit of defining piracy figures in terms of sales figures. So if they see falling sales figures, they will claim that as proof of a corresponding increase in piracy. I suspect this DRM lunacy will not end until at least one major company follows this kind of logic all the way to bankruptcy; sales keep going down, DRM keeps getting worse, customers keep getting more annoyed, sales go down even more, until the company is just out of business.

The real tragedy is that even then, in their dying breath, that company will claim that they went under due to piracy, not due to producing a worse and worse product (as the DRM gets more and more invasive).

Re:On the bright side...

[randizzle3000]

The claim that they can measure "piracy rates" is propaganda at best. It's made up, so that it's very conveniently always "on the rise."

Also, remember that the "piracy rate" is inversely related to sales, so if sales decrease...

Re:On the bright side...

[StikyPad]

Unfortunately, most publishers don't see the options as DRM vs no DRM, but as DRM vs "Fuck you, we're only making console games then. Have fun playing nothing!"

Well, what a surprise

[He Who Has No Name]

$10 says UbiSoft doesn't learn from this. Again.

At least I can use this in combination with a legitimate copy, to get the best of both worlds.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Bios_Hakr]

I'm a big fan of Silent Hunter. But I won't buy or play the new one until they release it sans DRM. It's really funny; watching the videos from Subsim, you constantly see messages about "no internet" and then, a few seconds later, "internet reconnected". That sure helps you to remain immersed in a faithful WW2 sub sim. After all, Adolph would have won if not for his shitty broadband connection.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Subsim

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a fan of Silent Hunter as well. And I work for Ubisoft, so I can get it for really cheap from the company store. However, they would have to pay ME to play that shit. As a result, I'll be downloading it via bittorrent, just like the rest of you. Kudos to the clever hacker.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[ekhben]

That's the worst of both worlds.

If you pirate it, you are open for prosecution. It doesn't matter if you also have a licensed copy, you still committed copyright violation. If you're OK with that risk, and the BSA don't seem too trigger happy against consumers right now, then go ahead and pirate it, but be aware that risk always exists.

If you buy it, you are supporting UbiSoft. You are supporting their game development team, which may be good, but also the boneheads who selected this DRM technology. They will only be reporting on sales to their managers, and if they can spin a story that their decisions, including the DRM, resulted in higher sales, they'll get a pat on the back and a "jolly good, carry on." If you want to do all of that, go ahead and buy it, but be aware that you can't support just the game devs and not the boneheads.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[True Vox]

Why would the BSA ever be trigger happy against consumers? Isn't their name an acronym for Business Software Alliance? Consumers aren't businesses, by definition (or am I missing something?) Beyond that, you're right, right down the line.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Andorin]

If you buy it, you are supporting UbiSoft. You are supporting their game development team, which may be good, but also the boneheads who selected this DRM technology. They will only be reporting on sales to their managers, and if they can spin a story that their decisions, including the DRM, resulted in higher sales, they'll get a pat on the back and a "jolly good, carry on."

So if they release a game with nasty DRM and sales tank, they blame the sales on "piracy" and justify that as an excuse to toughen up the DRM.

If they release a game with nasty DRM and sales soar, or even remain steadyish, they assume that the DRM magically converted pirated copies into actual sales, and toughen up the DRM in the hopes that this trend continues.

In other words, we're boned either way.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[calmofthestorm]

While you have a point, consider that if you pay for it you make them think their DRM is acceptable. As a compromise, I suggest buying it, pirating it, and writing an angry letter explaining the situation. It'll be ignored of course, but it would make me feel better.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Wain13001]

You are missing something.

See: RIAA

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Aranykai]

How the hell can you "pirate" something you are licensed to use? This is why it is a bone-head move to use the term piracy when you obviously mean unlicensed distribution.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[X0563511]

You might be surprised. You may actually get a human to respond.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[hardburn]

The BSA also doesn't really care about home users that much. They prefer to go after offices. Faceless corporations against another faceless corporation doesn't get you nearly as much bad press as suing grandma.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[HeronBlademaster]

Technically you're only licensed to use it with the DRM enabled ;)

Re:Well, what a surprise

[bhtooefr]

What about not playing it at all? Don't buy it, don't pirate it. That'll kill them financially, and kill their mindshare.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[hardburn]

It is, in fact, illegal to download an MP3 that was ripped from a CD you otherwise own. I know it doesn't make sense, but case law says you're only licensed for fair use of that specific copy.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[calmofthestorm]

Well if that happens then they blame the pirates for lost sales, which is the current way game companies deal with poor sales.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[ekhben]

I guess it was a bone-head move, because I meant "made an unauthorized copy". :-)

Re:Well, what a surprise

[zill]

Personally I don't consider lawyers human.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[vertinox]

In other words, we're boned either way.

No. It means stop buying or pirating their shit til they are out of business.

IMO pirating a game garners some amount of game attention to a company (word of mouth sales) than just not buying it.

Then save spend your money on game companies that actually don't use DRM. They are a good deal out there.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Supurcell]

I think we've reached a point where pirates are not just a fringe group of people who just don't want to pay for games, but are actually the competition. They are releasing a similar product to yours(in fact, it is your product) only it's better.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[grapeape]

I dont pirate but I dont support anti-consumer crap like this either. Normally I will buy a game then get a no-cd crack but this one wont even get that..im just skipping it and all Ubisoft games. It makes me kinda sad because I really wanted to play Splinter Cell Conviciton on my 360, but buying anything from them on any platform is excusing them for their actions.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[CoopersPale]

If you work for Ubisoft I hope they're paying you

Re:Well, what a surprise

[RsG]

Well if that happens then they blame the pirates for lost sales, which is the current way game companies deal with poor sales.

Piracy rates are can be tracked. They'll know, to within a moderately narrow margin of error, how many copies were pirated, and they'll know exactly how many were sold. Both numbers will have been estimated prior to launch by the bean counters.

If the game fails to reach its sales quota, but is pirated more extensively than anticipated, what that tells them is that even more extreme anti-piracy measures are needed. The difference between sales figures and sales projections will be treated as "lost sales", with the blame placed on the rising piracy figures.

If the game tanks, and the piracy rates are no higher than expected, that sends a different message. It tells them that the piracy rates aren't to blame for the "lost sales" - customer boycotts are.

The only way to kill DRM in the long run is to convince the people making the decisions that it's costing them more money than it's worth. Don't buy or pirate Ubisoft's crap. Don't give them money or mindshare. Write them off as a loss, and buy games from publishers who don't treat their paying customers this way. Either they'll learn to do better, or the publishers who don't saddle their games with this crap will out-compete the ones who do in the long haul.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[b4dc0d3r]

I think what you meant to say is that uploading an MP3 when you don't own the copyright is clearly illegal, while downloading an MP3 you own is legally an unknown.

An online streaming music service (My.mp3.com) was shut down because it provided copyrighted music - even though the service checked to make sure you were licensed by requiring you to register the personal CD. So you can listen to you music online, anywhere, and not have to search for the CD. So they had to shut down, but the idea of downloading music you own was not tested in that case - only the right of the company to upload (which was determined to be nonexistent).

MAFIAA cases are based on uploading. Even their specious "making available" claim was based on the uploader being the copy provider, ignoring downloads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com

Re:Well, what a surprise

[b4dc0d3r]

Also forgot to add, you are not allowed to download things like console BIOS/firmware. Those are considered part of the hardware. You don't need a backup because if the firmware/BIOS is corrupt - it is treated as a hardware problem and the BIOS replaced, like any other defective part. So there's no fair use claim for those things, that might be what you were thinking of.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Totenglocke]

Except that with enough people boycotting due to DRM (and while publicly the companies will lie and say it's pirates costing them sales, not boycotts), eventually the companies will go bankrupt. Then the people who make the new companies to take over will be well aware that DRM caused the demise of the predecessors and they will avoid such mistakes if they hope to stay in business more than 5 years.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Totenglocke]

While you have a point, consider that if you pay for it you make them think their DRM is acceptable. As a compromise, I suggest buying it, pirating it, and writing an angry letter explaining the situation. It'll be ignored of course, but it would make me feel better.

I'd suggest pirating it and sending an angry letter. That way they get the angry letter knowing that you won't buy the game due to the DRM and you still get the pleasure of playing it as an additional "fuck you" to the company that screws over their paying customers. I'm very against pirating because you don't want to pay for something, but recently I got mad enough at game companies screwing over their paying customers that I started downloading DRM'd (and only DRM'd) games. I'm not paying for it anyways, due to the DRM, so getting a pirated copy doesn't harm them and I get the warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that if the evil bastards hadn't put DRM in, I'd have paid $60 for the game - due to their greed and general asshole-ish behavior, they got $0.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[atamido]

That's only true if you agreed to an EULA that specifies such. Or opened a box that contained such an EULA inside. Or talked to someone that once used the EULA to eat donuts off of. Otherwise, you should be fine.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

We get paid a salary. But we also get some residuals based upon the sales of our game. In this case, Silent Hunter and any other PC exclusive Ubisoft game are going to sell like shit for the next little while until this madness is stopped. The execs don't care, because they get to tell the shareholders that they are doing everything in their power to stop the evil pirates. So the execs get to keep their jobs and make tonnes of money. Everyone's happy, unless they are the developer, the consumer, or (ironically) the shareholder.

So, yes. Pirating the game does take a few coins from the pockets of the developers of this game. But it's but a small fraction of the sales anyway, so it really doesn't matter. The point is that if the piracy rate actually INCREASES, then the execs might actually have to answer for this nonsense at some point. They'll no doubt spin it to look like angels, but I'm sure that if the piracy rate is really high, then this might end at some point.

So, I say raise the jolly roger, but keep buying Indie games. That's where our future (hopefully) lies.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

Piracy rates are can be tracked.

no, they can't. they could track the number of unique seeders at any one time, but with dynamic ip's/vpn's/tor there's no way for knowing for certain how many people are leeching/hosting the files exactly. also, if I simply grab a copy from a closed network they haven't tracked that.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[hughperkins]

You're forgetting the Tragedy of the Commons.

It's not that hard for a company to do a study of the extent to which DRM encourages sales or not, eg by releasing one language version with DRM, and one without, and comparing sales between languages (I'm sure you can iteratively come up with tweaks and improvements to this experimental design).

It'd made a great project for some phD students in sociology or similar.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Kalriath]

The BSA doesn't give a shit if you pirate Silent Hunter 5.

The ESA most certainly does. But they can't be arsed litigating.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[MemoryDragon]

Hehe I think everyone thinks that currently, I am not sure if your management already got the message, but sheesh just look at your forums and those are your biggest fans. Not a single positive comment.
You guys really have a problem on your hands! I hope the person responsible for this has to face serious consequences (which wont likely happen due to being the CEO)

Re:Well, what a surprise

[blackraven14250]

the developer, the consumer, or (ironically) the shareholder.

In an economy of choice, the consumer is a variety of shareholder.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[blackraven14250]

They can estimate bittorrent based on the number of seeds and leeches on torrent trackers just by looking at isohunt or doing a tally from something like Bit Che. That's the majority of your pirated copies of games right there, which should give you a good estimate of a total number pirated.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[blackraven14250]

but with dynamic ip's/vpn's/tor

Average torrent user != average slashdotter

Re:Well, what a surprise

[gcountach]

That's a nice theory. The real world implementation of this is no matter how well the game sells, blame the pirates for not selling more.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Hurricane78]

Except that the second one is never going to happen, and that in the first case, they will die in the long run.

So in other words, they are boned either way. ^^

Re:Well, what a surprise

[tehcyder]

That sure helps you to remain immersed in a faithful WW2 sub sim. After all, Adolph would have won if not for his shitty broadband connection.

I'd have thought if you were that interested in WWW2 authenticity you'd know how to spell Hitler's name...

Re:Well, what a surprise

[hardburn]

The Mp3.com case did handle this specific situation:

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in In re Aimster, also discussed (hypothetically) the propriety of space shifting:

Someone might own a popular-music CD that he was particularly fond of, but he had not downloaded it into his computer and now he finds himself out of town but with this laptop and he wants to listen to the CD, so he uses Aimster’s service to download a copy. This might be a fair use rather than a copyright infringement, by analogy to the time shifting approved as fair use in the Sony case. . . . The analogy was rejected in UMG Recordings v. MP3.com, Inc. . . . on the ground that the copy on the defendant's server was an unauthorized derivative work; a solider ground, in light of Sony’s rejection of the parallel argument with respect to time shifting, would have been that the defendant’s method for requiring that its customers "prove" that they owned the CDs containing the music they wanted to download was too lax.

(Emphisis mine)

It is not legal to torrent a CD (or game, or whatever) you own. You have to make the copy yourself. Which is why things like the DeCSS case are so problematic--they took away the only legal way for you to exercise certain fair rights.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[y_axis]

Well if that happens then they blame the pirates for lost sales, which is the current way game companies deal with poor sales.

Piracy rates are can be tracked. They'll know, to within a moderately narrow margin of error, how many copies were pirated, and they'll know exactly how many were sold. Both numbers will have been estimated prior to launch by the bean counters.

If the game fails to reach its sales quota, but is pirated more extensively than anticipated, what that tells them is that even more extreme anti-piracy measures are needed. The difference between sales figures and sales projections will be treated as "lost sales", with the blame placed on the rising piracy figures.

If the game tanks, and the piracy rates are no higher than expected, that sends a different message. It tells them that the piracy rates aren't to blame for the "lost sales" - customer boycotts are.

The only way to kill DRM in the long run is to convince the people making the decisions that it's costing them more money than it's worth. Don't buy or pirate Ubisoft's crap. Don't give them money or mindshare. Write them off as a loss, and buy games from publishers who don't treat their paying customers this way. Either they'll learn to do better, or the publishers who don't saddle their games with this crap will out-compete the ones who do in the long haul.

Even if they could determine how many copies were pirated, an illicit download does not necessarily equal a lost sale. Some of those downloads for sure could have been sales, but in my experience (and that of the malcontents I sometimes call my friends), many people download the game, play it for 20 minutes, decide it's not for them, uninstall, delete and move on. On the other hand, there are also those that download it, play it for 20 minutes, decide that yes, they like it, and then purchase it. It's not black and white.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[Spatial]

If the game tanks, and the piracy rates are no higher than expected, that sends a different message. It tells them that the piracy rates aren't to blame for the "lost sales" - customer boycotts are.

That would make the execs look bad. Therefore, such a circumstance is not physically possible. Instead, the pirates have simply evaded detection because they are sneaky and evil.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[RsG]

They can estimate bittorrent based on the number of seeds and leeches on torrent trackers just by looking at isohunt or doing a tally from something like Bit Che. That's the majority of your pirated copies of games right there, which should give you a good estimate of a total number pirated.

Thank you, you beat me to it.

An addendum to this point I'd like to make is that the numbers you pull from torrent trackers are meaningless by themselves. To arrive at a useful comparison, you need to examine the rates for many different games to get a sense of what's normal.

If someone wants to find out why their game did poorly, they can compare the ballpark number of downloads to the industry average, to find out if it was pirated more extensively. If piracy is not found to be the root cause, but backlash from the DRM is, that should get our point across.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[RsG]

Even if they could determine how many copies were pirated, an illicit download does not necessarily equal a lost sale. Some of those downloads for sure could have been sales, but in my experience (and that of the malcontents I sometimes call my friends), many people download the game, play it for 20 minutes, decide it's not for them, uninstall, delete and move on. On the other hand, there are also those that download it, play it for 20 minutes, decide that yes, they like it, and then purchase it. It's not black and white.

I'm not disagreeing with any of the points you raised. My point was more about getting a message across to the industry, in language the suits will understand.

Look at it another way. You and I both know piracy is not a black and white issue. The executives making the decisions re:DRM don't. To the suits at the top, it is a simple us-versus-them fight, with the paying customers losing regardless of who "wins".

Piracy won't convince them they've made a bad decision. Sales lost to boycotts, or bad reviews due to DRM, or angry hate mail, are another matter. Make it such that the DRM used here hurts them badly enough, and they'll back away from it.

Re:Well, what a surprise

[An ominous Cow art]

World Wide War?

Re:Well, what a surprise

[phillipsjk256]

This comment bugs me. When the "piracy" rate increases, the execs conclude the DRM wasn't harsh enough. The correct solution is for people to vote with their wallet and free time by not playing the game at all. If both sales and piracy drop, the only conclusion is that people are avoiding the game. The only question remains: are bad reviews or DRM the cause?

I am considering sending a paper, bilingual letter to Ubisoft explaining why I don't play their games. Historically, the problem was steep hardware requirements. I was blissfully unaware of DRM and its chilling effects. I am now reluctant to buy new hardware because most recent video cards implement things like HDMI, which in turn implements High Definition Content Protection (encrypts video signal from your machine to the display).

When I told my brother to avoid Assassin's Creed 2 (or any recent Ubisoft game) he pointed out he doesn't have any Ubisoft games. This is the person who bought Spore and the DLC (Ugly and cute) despite my objections with the DRM. I can honestly say I am the only person in the family remotely interested in Ubisoft games. I also won't touch them if they implement DRM. I have been using GNU/Linux for 10 years. DRM (like disk checks) tend to make the games less reliable when run under WINE. "Phone-home" checks like Valve's Steam and Ubisoft's Online Services Platform are likely to work, but I also refuse to buy games that do "phone home" DRM checks. It is bad enough that you want me to run a binary without access to the source code. Relying on the goodwill (and continued existence) of the company is a red flag for me (that is to say, it may be justified for a MMORPG or similar).

The sad thing

[bbqsrc]

The really sad thing about this DRM being cracked is as much a win to the consumer as to the pirate. The pirate gets a game that functions under more circumstances than the consumer, which I imagine will lead to more consumers being pissed off at Ubisoft and resulting to pirate a game they've already paid for just so they can fucking play it without having a connection to the internet 24/7.

Good job Ubisoft, alienating customers will surely lower piracy rates and raise your stock prices.

Re:The sad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no, because *I* will no longer buy Assassin's Creed 2 and people I know will not buy it either because of the DRM. I do not wish to dick around with cracking tools just so I can play a game.

But I'm certain Ubisoft would say they didn't want my money in the first place :)

And yes, the first game (Assassin's Creed 1) was good but was very laggy every time Ubisoft's servers crapped out. The solution was to unplug the ethernet cable to get a game you paid for playable!! So, no Ubisoft crap for me anymore.

Re:The sad thing

[DeadboltX]

This DRM crack benefits legitimate consumers as well, since you can apply it to a legitimate copy of the game. Pirates have INCREASED the value of the software by allowing it to work offline.

Re:The sad thing

[Tromad]

The thing is I actually buy games. I really want to buy Dawn of Discovery, and most likely the new Settlers game. But I'm sure as hell not going to put up with the DRM. It pains me to say this but maybe the way to go is like Dragon Age; no DRM for the basic game, but if you want extra content you have to link it to an account. Oblivion didn't have ANY DRM (not even a CD key) and surely it made tons of money. I'm getting so tired of this shit maybe it is time to switch to a console, although I tend to like RTS/Tycoon/Empire building games which are typically poor on the console.

Re:The sad thing

[aussie_a]

With that option on the table, buying games is silly and even considering doing the console thing is absurd.

Some people actually like to support the people who produce entertainment they find entertaining. I know its a shocking concept thanks to today's "me, me, me" generation. But people who have morals do still exist.

Re:The sad thing

[Solandri]

Actually no, because *I* will no longer buy Assassin's Creed 2 and people I know will not buy it either because of the DRM. I do not wish to dick around with cracking tools just so I can play a game.

But I'm certain Ubisoft would say they didn't want my money in the first place :)

No, they'll point to your lost sale and claim it's because you pirated it.

Re:The sad thing

[Voyager529]

I do not wish to dick around with cracking tools just so I can play a game.

*facepalm* You didn't get the memo? Getting AC2 to function properly IS the game. It just has a long, interactive ending sequence.

Re:The sad thing

[dc29A]

Oblivion had SecuROM as DRM.

Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[mrbene]

Given that:

• No DRM is perfect, and is therefore guaranteed to be cracked.
• Hosting cracks is semi-legal at best.
• Semi-legal sites tend to be supported by crappy advertising (at best) or malware installation (at worst)

I propose that, by shipping games with DRM, software vendors are promoting the dissemination of malware. This means that DRM is a direct contributor to spam, botnets, and all the other nasties that infest our Internet.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[Andorin]

Speaking of "socially irresponsible," DRM doesn't expire with a copyright, meaning that once a protected work falls into the public domain, people won't be able to use the work according to their rights under copyright law. Unless someone can point me to a clause in the DMCA that allows the circumvention of public domain works, that is. But people shouldn't have to crack public domain works to exercise their rights, whether it's legal to do so or not. (Plus, with anti-circumvention tools blanket-banned by the DMCA... well, I guess it doesn't matter whether it's legal, does it?)

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[maxume]

No, the problem is people that give them money because they just can't resist shiny.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[darkmalice]

I agree wholeheartedly with that first dot point. the developers/companies forget that the DRM code/algo what have you was created by humans and as with anything human-designed it isn't invulnerable, different thought patterns and ways of thinking will always find a way around something.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter really. Nothing released today is ever going to enter public domain (or, in any case, during any of our lifetimes). Copyright laws are almost getting worse than DRM... almost...

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[bertoelcon]

What is this public domain you speak of?

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[sys.stdout.write]

But people shouldn't have to crack public domain works to exercise their rights

Having the right to do something is not the same as having the right to be able to do it. I have the right to pilot a flying Tyrannosaurus while wearing a cowboy hat in my backyard, but that doesn't mean that manufacturers of such dinosaur [1] have to provide me with one.

[1] Please tell me they exist

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[langelgjm]

Unless someone can point me to a clause in the DMCA that allows the circumvention of public domain works, that is.

The DMCA would only apply to access control mechanisms that protect an underlying copyrighted work. There is case law on this; simply cracking an access control mechanism is not enough to run afoul of the DMCA, there has to be something copyrighted that is being protected by it (e.g. not just a short number for example). (However, cracking and access control mechanism to a copyrighted work without infringing the work will run afoul of the DMCA, so the law is still idiotic).

In this case if the work's copyright had expired, there would be no valid copyright in question, so the DMCA would not apply. But your point about the ban on distribution of tools in interesting... since in this hypothetical situation, a circumvention tool would probably contain material that could crack access controls on both copyrighted and copyright-expired works.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[daniel.b.douglas]

Do you have a pilot's license, an exotic animal permit, and the right to use the airspace above your lawn for recreational pruposes?

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[calmofthestorm]

It's ok since copyright in America (and most countries due to treaties) is perpetual.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[bbqsrc]

I'd happily allow him to serve a life sentence if it would stop DRM. Modern day salvation anyone? :P

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[rxan]

I propose that, by shipping games with DRM, software vendors are promoting the dissemination of malware.

So the pirates who supply cracks containing malware, or on sites that have malware, are not the ones to blame? I propose that, you are an idiot.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[Karganeth]

That argument is completely absurd (which makes me wonder the hell modded you +5 insightful!?). Just because you don't like DRM doesn't mean you can use broken logic to argue against it. You cannot blame DRM creators for malware because it doesn't make sense. It would be like blaming and then sentencing the woman for being raped (as she was wearing an attractive outfit). The fuckwits who try and fail to download cracks (and instead end up downloading malware) are entirely responsible for having an infected machine.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[zill]

That's quite a pessimistic way of looking at things.

I prefer to think of it as "all copyrights expire the day after I die".

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[pclminion]

Just because you don't like DRM doesn't mean you can use broken logic to argue against it. You cannot blame DRM creators for malware because it doesn't make sense. It would be like blaming and then sentencing the woman for being raped (as she was wearing an attractive outfit).

Uh, no. The logic isn't broken, and it's not at all like your example (which I don't comprehend whatsoever). What it's like is Prohibition, which as we all know, was pretty much single-handedly responsible for the creation of the American Mafia.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[bdwlangm]

But does the Tyrannosaurus have the right to swoop down and eat your cowboy hat? I hope it does.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[mrbene]

I agree that holding a publisher responsible for any specific machine infection is far fetched.

However, my proposal is that since DRM exists, there exists a demand for cracks served by semi-legal sites. This semi-legal source of installable code (which wouldn't exist without DRM) is a contributing factor to overall infections, rather than any specific one.

What I'm saying is more "Because sexual urges exist, people are raped." However, while we can't really do that much about sexual urges, we can do away with the urge to bypass DRM - by eliminating DRM.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[MindlessAutomata]

Well, it depends whether or not Disney IP would near coming into public domain.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[Andorin]

The expiration of copyright has never guaranteed you access or rights to the use of primary sources.

In today's age, where almost any media can be digitized (which makes it possible to make the media available to the public), why shouldn't it? It hasn't historically, but back then they didn't have computers and the Internet.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[Alphanos]

Public domain? That's communist talk!

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[broken_chaos]

Standard IANAL disclaimer. Just an interested amateur.

Copyright is life of the author + 70 OR 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation (in the United States). Life+70 is only used in some cases (non-anonymous, non-pseudonymous, non-work-for-hire) -- most works are under the flat 95 years from publication (or 120 years from creation for anything not published). But other countries have different laws -- Canada is life+50 instead of life+70, for example.

What the GP was referring to, however, was how essentially nothing becomes public domain these days, due to *constant* lobbying by large corporations to extend and restrict copyright, patents, and trademarks (major extensions in the USA happening in 1976 and 1998 -- life+50/70 in 1976 and life+70/95 in 1998, both of these commonly believed to have been passed specifically as a result of Disney lobbying to 'protect' Mickey Mouse). That and the complexities of copyright law and revisions to those laws that make it nearly impossible to tell if a work is covered by copyright or not unless it was published prior to 1923 (which means it's definitely not).

Once past 1923 (but before 1976), it depends on if a work was ever registered and renewed or not -- and by god, there are massive disputes over many works from this period (were they registered, who renewed them, were they renewed, who had the rights to renew them at the time, etc...). If published, registered, and renewed, it's 95 years from publication for any works between 1923 and 1976. If not published (but registered and renewed -- I don't think many, if any, works fit this), it would be 120 years. Once you hit 1976, it depends on if the work is covered under the life+70 or the flat 95. If the work has a non-anonymous, non-psuedonoymous author, and was not a work-for-hire, then you have to find out the date of death for the original author and add 70 years. If the work was anonymous, pseudonymous, or a work-for-hire, then the flat 95 applies. Unless that work was unpublished, in which case it's 120 years instead (and don't ask me what the barrier for 'publication' is, I have no idea). I also have no idea which does/doesn't apply if there are multiple authors or anything else vaguely unusual about a work's authorship.

Anyway, this applies for works in the USA. International copyright probably gets even more nasty with the varied treaties/extradition/etc. Basic rule of thumb, currently, is that the USA has the longest copyright and anything before 1923 is therefore safe. Anything after that, you'd need to do a lot of research on who does/doesn't hold the rights. Or take a gamble that no one will care/notice -- but that's probably not smart.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

What is this public domain you speak of?

Disney killed it.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[madpansy]

we can't really do that much about sexual urgers

Legalize prostitution.

Eliminating the choice for companies to include DRM isn't right if a society values and enforces copyright. Though, the value of copyright is questionable, so I would not oppose eliminating that instead.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[FrangoAssado]

The expiration of copyright has never guaranteed you access or rights to the use of primary sources.

That's true, but nobody said anything about primary sources.

The thing is: if I own a book, when the copyright expires I can legally copy the book and distribute the copies as I wish. Things have been this way for a very long time.

Now, since the DMCA, I can't legally make copies of whatever is protected by DRM even when the copyright expires . Even if I'm technically able to break the encryption, the DMCA states it's illegal to circumvent any copy protection.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[moco]

Public domain is where a copyrighted work ends 100+ years from now()

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[khellendros1984]

But those games aren't truly free, unless the copyright was relinquished by the rights-holders into the public domain. They're usually called "abandonware", or various other cutesy things. Legally, someone holds the copyright still....it's just not being protected. And copyright doesn't work like a trademark; it doesn't disappear just because the company isn't protecting it.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[khellendros1984]

Someone noted above that it's illegal to circumvent the copy protection on a copyrighted work. When the copyright expires, so does the DMCA's protection of that work.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[metacell]

"Public Domain" is a collection of books, movies and games of dubious origin that fails to teach respect for intelletectual property. The RIAA told me so!

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[metacell]

Now, since the DMCA, I can't legally make copies of whatever is protected by DRM even when the copyright expires . Even if I'm technically able to break the encryption, the DMCA states it's illegal to circumvent any copy protection.

That's an interesting point, never thought of that. I'd mod you as "Insightful" if I had points.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[mok000]

Who's talking about blame?

DRM is more like forcing women to wear a chastity belt, but everyone who has paid you for a key can rape them...

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Your argument only works if you believe that pirates are not pirates by choice (or the choice is somehow coerced). Otherwise, it's entirely the pirates' fault.

In fact, if anything, I would say it was the pirates responsible for coercing the media companies into trying increasingly restrictive DRM. So, it would be the pirates' fault anyway.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[QuoteMstr]

Of course it is. But since when are companies socially responsible?

If companies were people, we'd call them sociopaths. No, the law must force companies to abide by acceptable standards of behavior. A company will do everything it can, ethical or not, to maximize profit while staying in the bounds of the law. Therefore, to change behavior, the law must change.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[cbuosi]

yes, until those years are reached, and it will be expanded againg and again and again.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[broken_chaos]

We'll see in a few years. If copyright terms are extended around 2015-2018 (2018 being when works from post-1923 should start expiring again), then the pattern will definitely hold true.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[tehcyder]

I propose that, by shipping games with DRM, software vendors are promoting the dissemination of malware. This means that DRM is a direct contributor to spam, botnets, and all the other nasties that infest our Internet.

Ah, so what you're saying is that software vendors who ship games with DRM are morally equivalent to child pornographers?

Let's think of the children, and ban DRM now!

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[StikyPad]

The DMCA may be idiotic, but at least it has stopped piracy.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[StikyPad]

Here's a jimmy joke about your momma that you might not like: Mutual exclusivity is not required for exclusive distribution of a value; nor does nonexclusive distribution imply that minority values are significant. In other words, shut the fuck up.

Re:Is DRM socially irresponsible?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I put it in my comment. I said in my sig, read the comment. But still you insist on skim reading my post, omitting the details, and criticising it for not having the details you refused to read! Jesus Fucking Christ, WTF is wrong with you!?

Let me repost my original comment, with some emphasis for the intentionally thick and the genuinely stupid:

Your argument only works if you believe that pirates are not pirates by choice (or the choice is somehow coerced). Otherwise, it's entirely the pirates' fault.

In fact, if anything, I would say it was the pirates responsible for coercing the media companies into trying increasingly restrictive DRM. So, it would be the pirates' fault anyway.

These should have been enough to tell you that I wasn't suggesting any kind of exclusive blame, merely diffusing the exclusive blame laid upon the software companies over and over and over again.

I suppose you skipped right to the phrase:

Otherwise, it's entirely the pirates' fault.

This is true! Unless their choice was coerced, which I explicitly mentioned, then this is true! How would it be, at all, the software company's fault if they had no influence over the pirate's decision? If there was some coercion, then it would be partially the company's fault, proportional to the amount of coercion in play. As I was trying to say, before a certain knee-jerking, strawman-burning asshat had a sudden attack of constipation of the brain, there's very little coercion going on here. The pirate has no right to access the game in the form that he chooses, and Ubisoft's decision to place this DRM on its new titles in no way affects the rights of people who choose not to buy from them.

So yeah, within a reasonable margin of error, it's entirely the pirates' fault for pirating and not the game company's. If you can't find a way to resolve this mentally other than hurling cookie-cutter ad hominems at the person who point it out, then please say so up front, so nobody attempts to take your opinion seriously again.

Ubisoft hates Troops

[headkase]

And others with limited connectivity. I hope this DRM fails and fails hard, if only to scare other publishers away from something that is truly anti-customer (not consumer).

Re:Ubisoft hates Troops

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Hey, after a hard day of trying not to die for real, being able to respawn might actually be pretty relaxing....

Re:Ubisoft hates Troops

[FrozenFOXX]

troops don't need to play ubisoft games, they have the real thing

You're right, troops from nearly any country are tasked with being 15th century assassins.

Wait a minute, WHAT?

Re:Ubisoft hates Troops

[MightyDrunken]

Amusingly this could create the situation, where because of this crack many people who could not play now can. This could mean that Skid-Row's DRM crack will actually increase Ubisoft's sales.

Re:Ubisoft hates Troops

[citizenr]

Ubisoft hates Troops

its ok, WHOLE WORLD hates US Troops.

Re:Ubisoft hates Troops

[oneplus999]

I hope this DRM fails and fails hard, if only to scare other publishers away from something that is truly anti-customer (not consumer).

Search and replace "assassin's creed" with "spore". No, they will not learn.

Normally vs. Now

[Voyager529]

Normally I actually pay for my games. In most cases, I do it the old school way - I buy physical discs from physical stores. Lately though, companies like Ubisoft seem like they're treating me like a criminal for giving them my money. At this point, they're really making it more convenient for me to prove them right.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[DarkkOne]

If you pirate the game you say "I wanted to play this game badly enough to track down a pirated copy." I guarantee there's someone out there who sees that and says "so if we just made the DRM better, they'd be FORCED to play us." The only way to win is to just skip the game, and give your money to the devs who don't put DRM on their games in the first place. Pirating games, for ideological reasons as much as for financial ones, just reinforces the horrible cycle. There's no game out there so good that you can't just skip it. The sad thing is, though, that some developers have noted that releasing a game DRM free doesn't really decrease the rate of piracy. Plenty of people who are stealing the game are doing it because that's what they do, rather than for ideological reasons. The idea is often to prevent casual sharing, such as one person burning copies of the disk for his friends, and almost any DRM does that. Heck, even DVD CSS pretty much does that. Most nontechnical people can't copy DVDs but still use them, and that's "good enough." I know you guys all think it's some big ideological thing to hate DRM, but there's two bad guys in this war. Hate both of them. You can't seriously expect companies to regularly say "hey, steal our work all you want." They're going to put in any protective measures they can come up with that they think will help their profit margin, and as long as it's profitable to do so (as long as piracy is so rampant) they're going to keep doing it no matter how long you shout "it's hurting your customers" at them - if it were really, really hurting their customers as much as you try to make it sound, it would also be hurting their bottom line enough for them to see the point.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[timmarhy]

the effort required to "track down" a copy is far far less then the effort to earn the money to buy the game, so there will always be people who will go for the torrented copy no matter what.

business also can't ever be expected to make games so cheap they can compete with free.

i don't however think DRM that phones home constantly and causes problems with your PC even after playing should be an acceptable answer. I think the answer lies not in DRM, but in content being provided post sale which can only be accessed with a key system. you can make key systems as good as uncrackable because the server reponse stays with the publisher. it releases the gamer from retarded restrictions like perminately on DRM and provides enough incentive for people to buy the game.

sure people will probably pirate the base game, but they will loose out in the long run not getting extended content. just look at how successful WoW is.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[DarkkOne]

Honestly, I've long felt Episodic content was almost a better answer. Give me a $10 game that's 1/6 the content of a normal game. Give it the ability to download the next 'episode' as I go and I can pay $10 for each new sixth of the game I want to play. If I don't enjoy a game enough to beat it, I can only pay the $30 for the half of it I played. I'd probably spend more on games if I knew I was mostly going to only be playing for the bits I used, since I'd be more willing to take gambles.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[timmarhy]

I was talking about a crypto key system, but anyway....

wtf does "too big to fail" have to do with anything anyway? all i'm getting from your post is random background noise.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[timmarhy]

i think $90AUD is a retardedly high amount for a game as well. what if i get it and it's shit or i don't like it? you can't return it because of the DRM.

the idea is much like shareware back in the 90's, which is where massive hits like doom started and got the following they have today. except instead of an incomplete game you get the full thing with extra content for purchase later if you want it.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[Paspanique]

Agreed... Between this and Activision or EA buying out successful studio to turn them to the dark side or Steam that totally controls your all your games(I got my whole Steam library of games disabled for 2 weeks trying to correct a mistake made by PayPal, which has convinced me to steer clear of steam or the likes or create a new profile for every game) using it... It's really a wonder how someone keeps on just buying games instead of following the "Easy road". Seems like us legit customer are the ones getting it up. People pirating have such a easy access, it's sickening.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

At this point, they're really making it more convenient for me to prove them right.

Really? Physically, they're not. You have to wait for half a day before the DRM is cracked, as opposed to the hour it takes to drive to the nearest store and copy the disc.

Morally? Perhaps, but it depends on your morality. It certainly doesn't square in mine. The way I see it, pirating a product thanks to restrictive DRM, as opposed to choosing not to buy it, is a little like beating the shit out of an attacker then robbing him instead of just beating the shit out of him. The extra self-indulgent flourish is a little excessive.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[pnuema]

Your lesson: steer clear of Paypal, not Steam.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[sixsixtysix]

but what about your right to sell the game when you are done?

Re:Normally vs. Now

[DarkkOne]

If I go to the movies and watch something, I can't then resell the ticket for someone else to watch it. If I go to a concert, the same is true. Same with theatre. At least with episodic content *I* can reconsume the content as much as I like. Sure there's something to be said for reselling things, especially when they're as expensive as a $60 game. But there's been a history of entertainment you can't resell since before the internet even existed. The misconception that you have a "right" to resell anything is kinda silly. I can resell the disk it's one. I can't resell the experience unless that which provides the experience (be it a person or a piece of software) consents to providing that experience a second time (such as accepting ticket stubs from an old performance for a free repeat performance for loyal fans, or some such promotion). Honestly, I don't resell disk based games anyway most of the time. If a game's only worth $40 to me, I don't buy it for $60 then hope to resell it before its value drops below $20, I just wait until it costs $40. I also don't resell my clothes when styles change. Or my food when it goes bad. I don't understand what the fixation with reselling videogames is when so much else in our lives is one-way consumption, or could be resold (such as clothes) but few people care to.

Re:Normally vs. Now

[sixsixtysix]

there's been a history of entertainment you can't resell since before the internet even existed.

of course there has, but there has also been a history of a decent secondary market for video games, as well as movies and music. if we are going to throw that away because of entertainment's hitory, then we can go back to a time before copyright.

Seriously

[blackholepcs]

Did no one see this coming? Every time one of these customer-raping companies says they have achieved new levels of DRM-Uncrackableness, they are proven wrong within 24 hours. How stupid are these people to continue to waste millions of dollars trying to secure their software from being pirated, only to have their efforts shown for naught within a day, three days at the most? And how do they not fucking understand that all they are truly doing is pissing off customers and running their company name into the ground? Every time I hear about a company pulling this crap I get more disgusted with software companies. Oh, I know they have a right to protect their properties and profits and all that jazz. But, damnit, consumers have a right to expect a certain level of quality and usability WITHOUT draconian restrictions and double talk and non-ownership-of-a-product-you-paid-to-own type bullshit. This is EXACTLY the reason I choose to pirate a large amount of the games I play. I paid for Mass Effect because of the outstanding (to me) gameplay and story/graphics. Same goes for Dragon Age : Origins, The Witcher, Boderlands, and Divinity II : Ego Draconis. Yes, there is a bit of DRM to those games, but it isn't anywere near as retarded, insulting, lame, fucked up, and basically fucking illegal (or at least it SHOULD be illegal) as forcing me to be connected to the internet to play a god damned single player game that, other than the fucking DRM, has abso-fucking-lutley no reason to connect to the internet. Fuck Ubi and I hope with all seriuosness that Assassin's Creed 2 gets cracked and becomes the most pirated game in history while simultaneously becoming the biggest financial failure in the history of video games. Maybe then these companies will stop with the DRM and find a mutally agreeable way to protect their work without screwing over their customers.

Insolvent Company

[headkase]

Exactly, what *when* they go out of business? Because on the scale of what gets done when a company is bankrupt customers are dead last. There are no more customers: the company is gone. What matters at that point is creditors and the more your owed the higher you are on the list. If there is no non-restricted version held in escrow with a lawyer who has explicit instructions to release when the company goes insolvent then FACT: Your purchase is gone.

Re:Insolvent Company

[Andorin]

I read a FAQ about this DRM scheme on Ubisoft's website. They said they would release a patch if they ever shut down the game servers that lets you play offline.

Not that I believe it, of course. Just sayin'.

Re:Insolvent Company

[headkase]

If they are still in business. If they go out of business its a whole different ballgame. Customers no longer exist to be pleased then.

Re:Insolvent Company

[TheSunborn]

No they did not. They said such a patch could be made. It does not currently exists and the question they don't answer is. If Ubisoft lose all their money, and go bankrupt, who is going to pay the developer for making the code to remove the drm.

Re:Insolvent Company

[Zaphod The 42nd]

Its not really about when they go out of business; just look at companies today. NOBODY keeps game servers up for the entire lifetime of fans using the product. Hell, they just canned ALL xbox online functionality, and I was reading about all kinds of other games shutting down their servers, as soon as nobody's buying it anymore, its not profitable, so they shut it down and move on. If you ask em now, sure, they're gonna make it look like they'll be up for the life of the company, but thats completely unrealistic.

I wish all developers would realize that in the real world you market at your CUSTOMERS. A business is concerned with profits, not vigilantism. If a game is playable single player, it should never lose the ability to be played on the proper hardware, even a hundred years later. Requiring a connection to a business owned server is ludicrous.

Re:Insolvent Company

[calmofthestorm]

Seems to me like the correct solution (from their perspective) ought to be to release a game with tons of DRM, sell it for awhile, then disable the DRM once it's no longer profitable. This is, of course, if they intend to stay in business and wish to avoid alienating customers from future purchases.

Re:Insolvent Company

[Aranykai]

It does exist. It was just released by skid-row.

Re:Insolvent Company

[X0563511]

All it would take is one employee (who takes pride in his/her work) to release the "patch" itself, or the information required to do so.

Assuming Skid Row didn't do just that the hard way :)

Re:Insolvent Company

[Kitkoan]

I read a FAQ about this DRM scheme on Ubisoft's website. They said they would release a patch if they ever shut down the game servers that lets you play offline.

This is also in consideration that they legally can do something like that. Ubisoft is both a developer and a publisher. Any game they develop can have the DRM like that removed (games like Assassin's Creed 2 and Silent Hunter 5) but games they were just the publisher and they don't own the actual game is another story, I'm pretty sure they'd need the makers permission to do that (games like Settlers 7 (made by Blue Byte), Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood (made by Techland) and R.U.S.E. Art of Deception (made by Eugen Systems).

Re:Insolvent Company

[RsG]

Seems to me like the correct solution (from their perspective) ought to be to release a game with tons of DRM, sell it for awhile, then disable the DRM once it's no longer profitable. This is, of course, if they intend to stay in business and wish to avoid alienating customers from future purchases.

Been done at least once that I know of. UT2004 (IIRC) shipped with a DRM scheme that required a CD to be detected in the drive. Within a month, they patched this functionality out. Essentially, they reasoned they'd look good to the customers by doing this, and any good the DRM did in delayed cracked copies from finding their way onto the net was over and done with - even if the DRM worked on the launch day (which is a big if), you can bet in a month it'd be long cracked.

Re:Insolvent Company

[Zaphod The 42nd]

No! You aren't listening! The correct solution is just not to have DRM, because it accomplishes nothing productive to the business, and to just release your games, and collect the profits from where you may.

piracy should be considered as non-issue to software business as the price of tea in china.

Re:Insolvent Company

[__aasqbs9791]

IIRC, they did that because of problems with the system (it failed to detect some valid store bought CDs or with certain drives, or wasn't able to do it reliably for some reason.)

Re:Insolvent Company

[O('_')O_Bush]

Part of it was released by Skid-Row. Specifically, the part that made it so you don't have to be constantly connected to the internet.

The patch UBI Soft was talking about included the fix that Ski-Row made, as well as the server-side save files and game content files that you still need to get from connecting constantly to unlock the majority of the game.

All SR has done so far is given parts of game the ability to be played without internet, the same way some games can be played without a CD using a no-CD crack. They haven't cracked the game such that you can play the FULL game without still having to connect to the internet.

For that, they'd need to get UBI Soft's serverside files.

Re:Insolvent Company

[Shadow of Eternity]

In my experience it's usually the other way around, GPGnets excuse to fucking up both Supreme Commander games and just dropping them was that they needed the publisher's permission to do anything.

Re:Insolvent Company

[mjwx]

If Ubisoft lose all their money, and go bankrupt, who is going to pay the developer for making the code to remove the drm.

Ubisoft could be ordered to release it's code by a court. This wont pay for developers but it will make it legal for someone else. Legality is the issue here, given the source code any bedroom coder could remove the DRM (maybe an exaggeration but you get the idea).

The problem is that a consumer protective court like the EU would be reluctant to do this. As was said before, customers always come dead last.

Re:Insolvent Company

[JustNilt]

That's probably technically true but as I understand it the publisher is generally the one insisting on DRM in the first place.

I know several Valve devs personally now and worked at Microsoft in the Games division around the time Xbox was released (dated, I know). Most game developers I've dealt with get that the fans are what make their game, not marketing or corporate BS, and they complain bitterly about it.

Anecdotal, sure, so YMMV.

Re:Insolvent Company

[kupekhaize]

I was worried about just such a thing due to the number of games I've purchased from Steam. The list is up to 71 now, with some including some expensive new games. I was worried about losing access to them some day, and so I emailed Steam's support department. This is what I got back:

Subject: RE: End of life for steam authentication servers? - [4131-****-****] [********]

From: Steam Support
Date: 11/3/2009 2:12 PM

========= Please enter your reply ABOVE this line =========

Hello,

A staff member has replied to your question:

Hello *********, Thank you for contacting Steam Support. In the unlikely event of the discontinuation of the Steam network, measures are in place to ensure that all users still have access to their Steam games. If you have any further questions, please let us know - we will be happy to assist you.

Anytime you wish you can view your question online:
https://support.steampowered.com/view.php?ticketref=****-****-****

It is up to each person on whether or not to believe them, but it was enough for me. "Measures" doesn't seem very specific to me, but I just assumed it was some kind of a software patch that permanently turns offline mode on. I've purchased something like 25 games since then... Their xmas deals racked up quite a few extra dents in my bank account, but they had a lot of $5 deals too. They aren't perfect. Most games can be redownloaded an unlimited number of times, but some of the newer ones are limited on # of installs or still have DRM, but at least Steam warns you about the DRM ahead of time.

BTW, Attention UBisoft: Its very unlikely I will ever buy one of your games again after the DRM systems you've been implementing lately. Yes, Steam wants an internet connection, BUT IT WORKS IN OFFLINE MODE TOO FOR UP TO LIKE 2 WEEKS AT A TIME AS WELL with most games, except, ahem, YOURS. Kick me out of my game if my net connection goes down? Ubisoft, that's bull***, and you've lost me as customer for a long time. I'm obviously not one of the pirates you're so worried about, yet you won't be getting any of my money either. NICE JOB YOU MORONS.

Re:Insolvent Company

[cgenman]

Three years down the road, who is going to remember enough about the game to patch it? How about ten?

Who, exactly, is going to care that much about an old game when they're busy looking for a new job?

Re:Insolvent Company

[stony3k]

I prefer to support gog.com, since they release games DRM-free. I can download the games I buy as many times from as many machines as I want and keep playing them for life. Voting with my wallet, even.

Re:Insolvent Company

[codeguy007]

And who is going to sue for release of the source code to the game? A Bankruptcy court is not going to force a company to release intellectual property such as source code. They are trying to reclaim losses for the creditors and thus sell the code and rights to the highest bidder.

Re:Insolvent Company

[mjwx]

And who is going to sue for release of the source code to the game?

ummm...

let me think about that.

The customers, any of the other debtors, the actual developers.

As for what gets released, that will be up to the court. It's not unheard of for courts to order code to be released.

Re:Insolvent Company

[cbhacking]

Blizzard has taken a similar, though different, approach to this with WarCraft 3 and StarCraft. The online servers for both games are still active, and both will still check your CD key (meaning you can't hav ea bunch of people using the same copy go online at once) but they patched out the requirement of having the CD in the drive. This has made LAN parties much easier - I've played a ton of SC and WC3 LAN over the last few years - as well as making the games playable on computers without CD-ROM drives. It does make it easier to give your friends a copy of the game, but CD-level anti-copy has never been very effective and the games incorporate no phone-home requirement, so it's not like this was hard to do before. If they want to play online with you (or with others at any time that you might want to go online) they need their own copy, though.

Re:Insolvent Company

[aussie_a]

Indeed. People bitch and moan about how awful it is that shows like Firefly get cancelled, and then they turn around and illegally download the shows. If you aint willing to put money into a product, don't whine about it. With all the amazing entertainment being created on a weekly basis, there is heaps available that fits your tastes and requirements (e.g. If you require there be no DRM, there's plenty of quality entertainment available that lacks DRM).

Re:Insolvent Company

[Opportunist]

They said they would release a patch if they ever shut down the game servers that lets you play offline.

Skid Row did that for them already, it seems, no need to bother.

Re:Insolvent Company

[blackraven14250]

People bitch and moan about how awful it is that shows like Firefly get cancelled, and then they turn around and illegally download the shows

The real problem isn't the people who do it in this order.

Re:Insolvent Company

[JCZwart]

And even if they seriously plan on doing so at this moment, who says they will remember their promise when they are about to shut them down? Or when they are forced out of business? Taken over by someone who doesn't feel like releasing control over their intellectual property? See this article, which discusses exactly what you mentioned, and several other hollow promises...

Re:Insolvent Company

[Registered Coward v2]

Exactly, what *when* they go out of business? Because on the scale of what gets done when a company is bankrupt customers are dead last. There are no more customers: the company is gone. What matters at that point is creditors and the more your owed the higher you are on the list. If there is no non-restricted version held in escrow with a lawyer who has explicit instructions to release when the company goes insolvent then FACT: Your purchase is gone.

More importantly, if such code exists it would have some value - people would be willing to pay to get it so their games still play. As such, in bankruptcy, creditors would take control of those assets, just like any other assets, to help satisfy the debts. It would then be in their best interests to sell the patch to anyone who wants it. Oddly enough, piracy would now work in their favor - more people might actually buy a patch than actually bought the game. Talk about Karma...

Here's a question for a real lawyer - could a company released such a patch right before declaring bankruptcy, knowing they were shutting down and the patch had value for the creditors; but now was worthless?

Re:Insolvent Company

[ShakaUVM]

>>NOBODY keeps game servers up for the entire lifetime of fans using the product.

Indeed. And sometimes you just shutdown your Madden servers after a year, so as to make your customers buy the new version of Madden!

Customer Service? Why, what's that?

The lack of dedicated servers was why I decided not to buy CoD:MW2... I still play Quakeworld after all these years, and that's only possible because fans keep servers running and a community together. You can't even play half the old online games for the PS3 any more, even if you wanted to, since the servers are no longer running.

Re:Insolvent Company

[Renozhin]

A business is concerned with profits, not vigilantism.

An ironic example of where this is reversed would be Diablo 2, where Blizzard released a patch only months ago. The ironic part, of course, is the issue with Starcraft 2 and (likely) Diablo 3.

Re:Insolvent Company

[aj50]

Supreme Commander did this too.

Re:Insolvent Company

[extintor]

Many thanks for the link to gog.com, I now know where I should buy games :)

Re:Insolvent Company

[codeguy007]

And who is going to sue for release of the source code to the game?

ummm...

let me think about that.

The customers, any of the other debtors, the actual developers.

As for what gets released, that will be up to the court. It's not unheard of for courts to order code to be released.

Umm the customers have no standing in Bankruptcy court. They only way they could encourage the court would be to offer to buy the code.

Since releasing the code is apparently not unheard of you are going to need to provide examples of I am sure this very rare practise. Just because you say it's so doesn't a make it so.

Re:Insolvent Company

[wbo]

The concept behind gog.com is nice (releasing DRM-free versions of slightly older games). However I have found many of the games to be missing content that were in the original releases.

For instance I purchased the Incredible Machine 3 but the years have taken a tole on the disc and it now has several bad scratches that make it unreadable. I purchased the Incredible Machine Mega Pack from gog.com and quickly discovered that gog.com stripped the excellent Red-book audio track from the Incredible Machine 3 leaving only the MIDI version.

Now they do provide the soundtrack as a separate download but there is no way for the game to use those audio files instead of the MIDI versions so the overall experience is not nearly as nice as the original CD release.

gog.com appears to do the same thing with other games that originally used Red-book audio (Descent for instance) and appear to be unwilling to release the games in the form of a CD image with audio tracks that could be burned and played like the originals with their full audio score. For DOS games, they use DosBox and DosBox has had support reading red-book audio directly from a CD image for a long time so there is really no excuse.

Re:Insolvent Company

[david_thornley]

Who's got standing to sue? The developers may be owed some pay, but either they own the code and can release it or it's work-for-hire, and they have no claim. Customers might object, but there's probably no service agreement that the court could enforce, and even if there was the court might well rule that the customers are owed money back, so line up with the other creditors. The other creditors are unlikely to sue for release, and even if they did, why would the court go along with that?

The purpose of a bankruptcy is, very simply, to pay off creditors as much as possible. The court will oversee the liquidation of all assets to maximize the amount of money available, and give that to creditors according to the law. (There may be exceptions, in terms of property offered as security for a loan; I'm not certain of the details.)

Therefore, the court's job is to maximize the value of the bankrupt company's assets, which includes source code and other material under patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret law. That's probably not going to be done by releasing source code without compensation. About the only way to do that would be to have some organization offer a substantial amount of money, in which case they might well get it as part of the liquidation.

At this point, promises made by the company before bankruptcy aren't binding. They promised to release a patch? Well, they also promised to pay VLC, Inc. a lot of money, and they promised to pay their employees, and so, by definition, not everybody is going to be happy. (Bankruptcy, by legal definition, happens when a company owes more than it has, and has no reasonable chance of rectifying this. There are forms of bankruptcy where the company will continue, but in that case they've still got the servers, presumably.)

Therefore, the only way you could trust such a promise is to have whatever is necessary in escrow, ready to go, and out of their legal control. Any other promise could be legally binding only until it's actually useful.

Re:Insolvent Company

[Anonymous Coward]

The cracked game seems to be working just fine*, including normal local savegames, full campaign, multiplayer, etc. The only thing missing is the UPlay achievements and saving into the UBI online "cloud". And the online requirement of course ;)

* "fine" in the sense it works just like the retail version, full of bugs though

fail

[timmarhy]

from a typical business mind set i can totally see why software houses do DRM. the problem is that the supply and demand models that our businesses run on don't actually apply all that well to digital media. there is an infinate supply, and demand can change in a single day, based on a one news article.

instead of focusing on selling goods, they should suck it up and realise they are selling a service and model themselfs around the hospitality industry where customer satisfaction is king.

Re:fail

[Renraku]

Oh, you mean like MMOs? Not much issue with piracy in MMOs. Ask Blizzard if anyone has ever pirated World of Warcraft.

Re:fail

[kronosopher]

Oh, you mean like MMOs? Not much issue with piracy in MMOs. Ask Blizzard if anyone has ever pirated World of Warcraft.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic but this has in-fact occurred. A few loosely associated development groups have backwards engineered WoW's server software and run their own private servers. These servers are usually really private because Activision/Blizzard has effectively squelched their presence on the greater web with DMCA take-downs and other forms of legislative trolling.

At some point this occurs to some degree with all popular MMOG's, but unfortunately requires staggering amounts of effort updating emulators to work with new content and server protocols. At the same time the developers are being stifled and squelched by publishers, making it increasingly difficult for developers to remain interested as fighting publishers is directly contrary to an independent community's modus operandi. Such development effort is typically put forth by uber-fan geeks who are less interested in a destroying publishers profit margins and branding than they are about using the game as a canvas to express their own creativity. IMO this is a wholesomely legitimate and noble effort, and like BioWare including custom mod creation toolkits it adds considerable long-term value to a game service.

Usually the open nature of emulator development and the lack of overall direction initially leads to a lot of in-fighting among communities about implementing features that may or may not mimic exactly official servers. Therefore developers tend to release multiple implementations that match as closely as possible to a specific version of official server software to work with a range legacy game client versions, therein massively increasing the amount of effort required to maintain the emulator. People are usually willing invest the energy necessary so long as a sufficiently sized community is allowed to grow without publisher interference. Additionally, these indie development groups tend to solidify over time into pseudo-publishers, releasing their own flavors of the game and sometimes even rewriting the game client altogether(effectively creating a new product).

Aside from being a great source for publishers to scout and hire impassioned developers who are already trained, said communities are qualitatively what give games lasting value. IMO nothing is more paramount in developing a well-respected brand than enabling your players freedom in such a way.

In order to assuage publisher fears that emulators may impinge on their profit margins I think they legitimately have the right to keep emulators from charging subscription fees during(and even after) the lifespan of their official service. So long as indie services remain free the publisher is at no cost effectively creating an enormous avenue for genuinely wholesome or at least benign interest in their products. Unfortunately this is not in line with managements typical knee-jerk reaction to what they perceive as competition. I can only assume said reaction is the result of an overall lack of confidence in their own developers to continually create compelling and worthwhile content.

Re:fail

[kronosopher]

the problem is that the supply and demand models that our businesses run on don't actually apply all that well to digital media.

Generally even minor threats to corporate relevancy are perceived as negative and consequently worthy of extinguishing. This is a problem of economy, as you allude. Publishers are responding in ways that are typically valid in older models to manufacture artificial scarcity, therein elevating price-points which line their pockets and bankrupt gamers(financially and intellectually). What publishers don't seem to realize is that this practice is very costly, only partially successful, and at direct odds with the abundant emergent nature of digital media. While continuing to neglect what potentially could be a significant competitive edge, they leave themselves open to others to invalidate their archaic thinking and either force them to adapt or destroy them entirely.

DRM, like any other effort to squash freedom, is a symptomatic response to a lack of technological sophistication in the society. This selfish thinking permeates almost every industry in the world today and creates gross misrepresentations of value that further debase the economy and plummet society into deeper depression. The internet has ushered in one of the few abundant resources we have, aside from water and air, information. Digital media abundant, does not adhere to any classic economic model of scarcity, and therefore any effort to circumvent that is costly, totally superfluous, and doomed to fail.

Re:fail

[Killjoy_NL]

google: warcraft private servers

Re:fail

[BikeHelmet]

But who cares? They're the most successful MMO in existence. Everyone can have their pie.

Most pirates find the WoW pirate servers not that fun, and go back to the paid ones. If they do find them fun, then they can stick with them.

Everyone gets whatever they enjoy!

nfo file

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed the quoted nfo file on TFA's page. It made me wonder how many people out there only ever see nfo files as random bizarre characters with no alignment, rather than the relatively aesthetically pleasing monospace-font designed pages that they really are. Case in point, compare the quoted block in the article with this.

People are always in denial

[rudy_wayne]

Imagine a person, in a casino, sitting at a slot machine. They're pumping coin into it and steadi;y losing everything. They know that they should walk away, but they can't. Walking away means admitting to themself and others that they lost. And so they keeping telling themself that if they keep playing long enough, they will win back enough to at least break even.

The same is true of Ubisoft, Microsoft and all the other companies who keep pumping money into the DRM slot machine. Year after year they keep coming up with new DRM schemes to replace all the previous ones that have failed (ie, all of them). They can't stop. To stop would be an admisison of failure. An admission that even if they created uncrackable DRM, the extra sales revenue wouldn't even come close to covering the cost of creating and maintainging new DRM schemes.

It would be funny, it it wasn't so stupid.

Re:People are always in denial

[TBedsaul]

It would be funny, it it wasn't so stupid.

It's still pretty funny...

Re:People are always in denial

[Culture20]

The thing is, they _know_ that they can create an uncrackable DRM which would help stop piracy: a physical USB dongle and an RSA token. The problem is that doesn't help stop resale, because the physical USB dongle and RSA token can be resold to a new person with the software. So they don't do it, because it's not about piracy.

Re:People are always in denial

[zill]

They keep playing because their friend's co-worker's distant relative once won a jackpot.

Many "successful" DRM schemes exist today - PS3, Steam, et cetera. These one-in-a-million success examples are what's driving the entire industry towards DRM.

Re:People are always in denial

[luckymutt]

I'm not quite picking up what your putting down...can I have a car analogy, please?

Re:People are always in denial

[QuantumG]

Umm.. if you actually think that'll work I've got this bridge I'd like to sell you.

Let me tell you of the totally unbreakable DRM: OnLive.. assuming it ever ships.

Re:People are always in denial

[an unsound mind]

Steam is not a successful DRM scheme - Steam DRM is frequently cracked. Steam is a successful distribution service.

Re:People are always in denial

[xtracto]

Tell that to Autodesk's 3d studio max. I worked soooooo well for them.

Re:People are always in denial

[Spad]

Dongles can be defeated with emulators and RSA tokens can be generated artificially if you know the serial numbers.

Re:People are always in denial

[Hurricane78]

And so they keeping telling themself that if they keep playing long enough, they will win back enough to at least break even.

And that is the error in logic. Since all those games have one simple rule: The more you play, the worse are your chances for break even. The example is roulette: There is not only black and red. There also is zero. And double zero.
The more you play, the more often you will get on those. The more you will lose.
So as a conclusion, there is only one thing to do: Choose the amount you want to risk, bet it all in one turn, and then walk away and never ever play again. Because after that, the only winning move, is not to play. And it only gets worse.

I hope the analogy also includes this. ^^

Btw: DoubleZero would be a clever name for a cracker group. :)

Re:People are always in denial

[LordVader717]

Trust me, it's about piracy. They still don't like used games, but that's barely a problem for the PC market. Dongles are just too expensive to implement properly. Even on a $40 game, there isn't much space for a $5 Dongle after the store takes their cut and the fixed costs are counted for.

Re:People are always in denial

[Darkfred]

Your analogy is backwards.

The slot machine that the publishers keep pumping money into is the PC game industry. Developers want to release PC games, but doing so is just not profitable and piracy takes sales away from the SKUs that are actually profitable (consoles). If DRM fails they will just stop making PC versions.

This is a last ditch effort to save pc gaming. But pc gamers keep piling on the hate, trying to make this fail.

I think you are just waving farewell to pc gaming. Good going.

Re:People are always in denial

[Tom]

Been there, done that, cracked it. You weren't yet around when the C64 was the coolest kid in town, I figure?

Re:People are always in denial

[harl]

Alter the program so it doesn't check the dongle. Next!

Re:People are always in denial

[Culture20]

My first console was a Fairchild. IMO, best console controller until the Wiimote. My first computer was a Trash 80. C64s were for the cool kids.

Re:People are always in denial

[Anonymous Showered]

The "war on drugs" campaign is a similar tale...

Re:People are always in denial

[Tom]

Then you should've remembered that dongle-based copy protection was cracked about 30 years ago. Is it time for a revival already? :-)

And what is there plan for people who don't have g

[Joe The Dragon]

And what is there plan for people who don't have good internet / have high pings? stand by and let buy the game and just download a hacked exe?

Re:Thanks a lot

[Andorin]

All you're doing is screwing over the people who actually want to support the game developers.

The DRM developers are doing that a lot more effectively than the DRM crackers are.

You're all dicks

[rxan]

Developers: Lets not put DRM in our software so that everyone can play the game without problems!

Management: I don't know about this...

Pirates: Awesome! We can steal the game and play it for free with no problems!

Customers... Oh, too bad there are no customers because everyone stole the game.

Management: Developers, I'm sorry, but our last game didn't make any ROI so you're all fired.

Developers: We should have used DRM...

I love how everyone bashes DRM without thinking of the consequences of not using any. Pirating is far too widespread. For every person who pirates a game, less games are made for the PC for this very reason. Pirates blame the developers for using DRM, the quality of the game is reduced for actual customers, yet the pirates are the one to blame.

Stop trying to spin the argument, pirates. You're the very reason that this shit happens.

Re:You're all dicks

[Andorin]

I love how everyone bashes DRM without thinking of the consequences of not using any. Pirating is far too widespread. For every person who pirates a game, less games are made for the PC for this very reason. Pirates blame the developers for using DRM, the quality of the game is reduced for actual customers, yet the pirates are the one to blame. Stop trying to spin the argument, pirates. You're the very reason that this shit happens.

I'm feeding the troll, but... prove that a downloaded copy is a lost sale and I'll concede your point.

(you might also consider the hypothesis that DRM exists not to stop piracy, which it doesn't, but to lock customers to specific devices and/or to get them to re-buy the same content over and over, which it does.)

Re:You're all dicks

[Ksevio]

The issue is that DRM really doesn't help all that much to stop piracy. In order to be effective, the DRM has to work against EVERY SINGLE PERSON. As soon as one person cracks it, they throw up the torrent of the DRM-free version and that's where all the casual pirates get it from. No expertise is needed on the general pirate parts, just one hacker.

With the game Spore, it was very obvious that the DRM had been cracked - the game was one of the most pirated ever, but it was also highly profitable. The only thing was the paying users had to deal with a crappy DRM system, while the pirates didn't. People still bought the game though despite getting a worse version AND having to pay for it. Just think how many people would pay if it were an equal version!

Re:You're all dicks

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh ..... No.

See, you may have had a point, except that Stardock proved that you're line of thought is wrong. They released Galactic Civilizations 2 without any DRM. It was a success for them, with many buying it simply because it had no DRM and they wanted to support the company.

DRM is shit and will always be shit. Piracy should be viewed as a cost of doing business, not as an excuse to wage war against the people you're trying to sell to.

Re:You're all dicks

[Lehk228]

when was the last time DRM prevented a game from being available to pirate?

Re:You're all dicks

[RML]

Customers... Oh, too bad there are no customers because everyone stole the game.

You are assuming that no one would buy a game unless forced to by DRM... which must mean that you yourself wouldn't buy a game unless forced to by DRM.

Speak for yourself, pirate.

Re:You're all dicks

[Zerth]

What, like when Stardock released their first couple games without any DRM? They seemed to grow pretty quickly for somebody without customers.

Although now that they're big, they've adopted some "no-need to crack" honor system DRM just to satisfy the suits.

Re:You're all dicks

[Andorin]

The anti-piracy person is the troll.

Your post is called "You're all dicks."

I never said anything about lost sales.

Make-believe lost sales to piracy make up the entire point of your post. "Customers... Oh, too bad there are no customers because everyone stole the game."

Re:You're all dicks

[rxan]

That's not the argument I'm making. It's that pirates are the problem and they blame the companies. Without pirates, DRM would not be required and this whole article would be moot.

Re:You're all dicks

[rxan]

You are assuming that no one would buy a game unless forced to by DRM...

LOL. Without pirates there would be no need for DRM! Yet still, pirates blame the companies for a problem that they themselves caused.

Re:You're all dicks

[Culture20]

I love how everyone bashes DRM without thinking of the consequences of not using any.

The consequences? The consequences are we go back to the 1980's-90's software culture, and I'd actually pay money for a computer game again. Sure, there might be annoying wheel-spinners or license keys, but the companies might be able to afford cloth maps again, or wishbringer stones, or paper manuals with associated fluff. As things stand now, I play my old games, and only buy occasional used ones for my Wii and Xbox. The kids who copy computer games from their friends when they have $0 grow up to be adults who buy games when they have $$$$, unless those games don't work. I stopped buying PC games right after Mechwarrior4, because the DRM on that piece of crap wouldn't work in any of the 3 CDROM drives I owned, and MS's tech support said: "go buy another drive; hope it works" I gave it to a friend. Back then I still believed it was anti-piracy copy protection. Now I know it was the beginning of the PC software industry's war on end-users (not customers; their customers are the middle-men like COMPUSA who get stuck with gamebox overstock and sell it at a loss until they go out of business).

Re:You're all dicks

[rxan]

What is a single grain of sand in the eye of the storm? Sorry... that's two grains of sand.

Re:You're all dicks

[Andorin]

It's that pirates are the problem and they blame the companies.

Right, because Ubisoft et al. have no responsibility whatsoever for their actions. They are being forced to include draconian DRM with their games! They have absolutely no other options... not even, you know, innovating and changing their business model to suit the changing world... or, you know, giving a crap about their customers...

Without pirates, DRM would not be required

Do you honestly believe that Ubisoft, the MPAA, etc would drop DRM if piracy stopped dead? Why would they?

Re:You're all dicks

[Red_Chaos1]

Here's how your scenario looks in reality:

Developers: Lets put DRM in our software so that we can be certain our game will never be pirated! :>

Management: Brilliant! :D :D :D

Pirates: LULZ! Hack/crack ALAKAZAM! >:D

Customers: Why doesn't my game work right? >:O

Management: Developers, I'm sorry but customer outrage over our draconian DRM scheme has caused sales to tank, so we have to lay you off. :-/

Developers: We should have left DRM out of the equation. ;_;

DRM does not work, period. It fucks up users machines, slows down games, or causes a game to be pirated more than bought. Nobody likes being told what to do with something they bought and paid for. I bought, it's mine, I'll do as I please with it. Try to tell me otherwise, and you'll regret it one way or another. It's really not rocket science, Jr.

Re:You're all dicks

[natehoy]

I love how everyone bashes DRM without thinking of the consequences of not using any. Pirating is far too widespread.

You do realize, I hope, that DRM also doesn't stop piracy, and the only thing DRM offers to the paying customer is envy that the pirates are enjoying a better playing experience than we are.

Pirates blame the developers for using DRM,

Pirates blame no one, they just pirate the game. They laugh at DRM. They break it within days of its release, and do their thing. Their thing is wrong. It is not prevented in any way by DRM.

the quality of the game is reduced for actual customers

Agreed.

yet the pirates are the one to blame.

I'd agree, except for the absolute and utter proof that DRM has no effect on large-scale or even for the most part casual piracy. DRM prevents someone who does not want to break the law from breaking the law, but in general the people who are affected by DRM are the ones who want to pay for what we use. DRM is a sign on the door of a house saying "ON VACATION FOR A MONTH, LOCK BROKEN, PLEASE DON'T ROB ME". The honest people wouldn't have anyway, and the thieves aren't hampered by it.

The only thing DRM prevents is backups by people who have paid for their copies and don't want to break the law, or "home piracy" (someone buys one copy and wants to use it on multiple computers, etc).

Stop trying to spin the argument, pirates.

Simple facts. No spin. I have purchased each and every game I've ever played. I also quickly developed the habit of downloading the pirated version of the game to actually play it, because I've had games fail because my DVD drive was too old or too new (Ubisoft, I'm looking straight at you), or because of conflicting DRM schemes that break each other. I've also been reluctant to take my $50-75 original CDs that may not be backed up to a LAN party where they are subject to damage.

The ONLY reason I used to pay for games is because I feel it's important to compensate the studios for their hard work and efforts. But I pirate copies of them afterward because I want to be able to use what I paid for, and I can't afford to keep swapping DVD drives out because one game doesn't like the presence of one drive, and the other game doesn't like the presence of the only drive the one game will run on, or the installation of a game puts on SecuROM that fucks up my drive for running another DRM scheme, or any one of a number of problems I have run into. I've had to completely reload XP twice (and reactivate that) just to undo the damage done by DRM schemes.

After a while, I just got sick of it. I stopped buying games. I don't pirate them, either. I just don't play any more. It's not fun any more, when something that is intended to entertain requires that I turn pirate or risk the operation of the rest of my computer. I don't even play the $750 in games I have purchased any more.

Re:You're all dicks

[Andorin]

As another poster said, proving that a game downloaded equals a lost sale is not required.

It is required. If you can't prove that downloaded copy = lost sale, which you can't, you have to demonstrate that the percent of downloaded copies that are lost sales equals a moral and financial justification for throwing millions into DRM schemes that piss off your fans and are easily cracked anyway.

If you can't demonstrate that, you end up with a greedy, immoral software company and a handful of worshipers who routinely chug their Kool-Aid. (This would be you.)

Re:You're all dicks

[Your.Master]

It depends how you define DRM. The updates require a unique serial number. Used copies are unsupported. Installing from their store requires activation and signature validation from an internet-connected machine.

Even then, one game that is successful despite no DRM doesn't by itself invalidate the idea that DRM helps profitability. Who knows what Galciv2's sales would have looked like with bad DRM. Higher? Lower? We can speculate but we can't know.

The funny thing is, we can change the answer. The number one way you can manipulate the answer is by buying non-DRM games and neither buying nor pirating DRM games. One example not all that informative, but if we establish a consistent pattern of DRM --> profit inverse correlations, that says something.

Re:You're all dicks

[woopate]

I know personally people in the following three groups:

1. People who buy games without DRM (They do exist, depending on your definition of DRM), but pirate games with it.

2. People who purchase games after pirating it in order to give appreciation to the developers of what they consider a fantastic game.

3. Pirates who would never give their money to the developer under any circumstances.

Groups 1 and 2 invalidate your hypothetical situation, and group 3 do not cause loss for the developer.

This whole stealing thing kinda gets a little hazy when the 'stealing' does not deprive the seller of a copy of his product to sell to someone else. Especially when the concept of selling stuff came from limited resources, when the resource in question is infinite in quantity. There is no "Mass Effect well" that will run dry, nor will we have a Peak Intellectual Property Crisis.

Re:You're all dicks

[rxan]

Your post is called "You're all dicks."

The title is merely frustration over the fact that everyone blindly sides with the pirates. But nice way to focus on the point.

Make-believe lost sales to piracy make up the entire point of your post.

No. The point is that pirates are the ones to blame for this very problem. The focus was not on sales. What else am I supposed to call the people who by the game?

In a make believe world where a company can survive on people who use their product but do not provide revenue, your logic would work. Unfortunately, people have to make money to produce more content.

Re:You're all dicks

[DMalic]

- no-one sane is advocating for removal of online authentication, which actually works - a basic check to keep people from simply copying CDs can be helpful Forget the people who torrent; they're too hard to stop.

Re:You're all dicks

[Andorin]

The focus was not on sales.

If lost sales aren't the problem, then what the hell are you whining about?

Re:You're all dicks

[Pentium100]

Management: Let's put this DRM to guarantee that the game isn't pirated.
Developers: Great! Let's do it!
Crackers: Let's crack the DRM.
Pirates: Let's wait for the crack. ...a day later...
Crackers: Done!
Pirates: Great!
Customer: This stupid game doesn't work on my computer. Maybe my friend can help me make it work...
Friend: Oh that's because of the DRM, just go to site x and download the cracked copy.
Customer: Thanks! Oh, there are more games there and they all are available for free, nice!

The bottom line is that pirates still get the game for free whether it has DRM or not. The only difference is that putting the DRM in costs the company some money.

Your argument would be valid if the DRM worked. It doesn't, so, for the pirates, it's the same, just the paying customers are inconvenienced.

Re:You're all dicks

[rxan]

Do you honestly believe that Ubisoft, the MPAA, etc would drop DRM if piracy stopped dead? Why would they?

Do you honestly think that companies would invest money to create DRM if piracy had not become so widespread? See what I did there?

Re:You're all dicks

[Zironic]

DRM doesn't affect pirates at all, they just crack use the 0-day crack and play their game perfectly DRM free so the only people that are actually affected are the genuine customers.

From the Pirates perspective, what's the difference between a 0-day crack and a DRM free game? That you have to copy one file manually?

This is the sad, horrifying truth of the singleplayer game market, regardless of your DRM you're pretty much forced to rely on the customer paying out of their sense of honor because your DRM /will/ be cracked. (When it comes to multiplayer games the developers have access to the ultimate DRM that is centralized servers where they can make sure that each player has a unique cd-key)

Re:You're all dicks

[vertinox]

BULL SHIT

I say this because I know one company who sells tons of games and they use no DRM:

Paradox Interactive

Before they were self publishing, their publisher required them to have DRM in the store release, but the lead Dev patched it out in an official patch a few months later.

Now they self-publish and host Gamersgate, which beyond the download check, the game itself is completely copyable without any DRM whatsover.

Does that mean people pirate their games? Yes, they do, but players like myself have basically spent hundreds of dollars on their games because:

1. They have no DRM
2. The developers are active with speaking directly with users on the forums
3. They have open beta patches with registered users to test bug fixes with the gaming community rather than throwing stuff out there.

Yes, being a successful gaming company can be done without DRM.

Re:You're all dicks

[woopate]

The effort required to pirate a game:

1. Go to pirate website
2. Search for software
3. Wait
4. Install
5. Crack (copy a file)
6. Play
7. When patches come, re-crack (copy a file)

The effort required to purchase a game:

1. Go to store (takes transportation and time)
2. Search for software
3. Pay money (60 bucks, or the cost of the amount of time it took to download it given the purchaser makes 20 bucks an hour.)
4. Go home
5. Install
6. Play (inconsistent results due to DRM, often disc required in drive)
7. Patch (inconsistent results due to DRM)

The effort to pirate a game is easier than purchasing a game, regardless of DRM. Pirates get a disc image that they mount, with the crack inside, which they copy. Games with Starforce or SecuROM or something else, it's all the same effort to a pirate.

Re:You're all dicks

[Andorin]

Do you honestly think that companies would invest money to create DRM if piracy had not become so widespread?

Media executive: Hmm... if we put technical restrictions on our content that stops people from using these newfound copying powers that the Internet and personal computers have given them, we can make them buy the same content over and over each time we issue a new format. We can also make them buy a new copy of each bit of media that they want to put on a separate device (iPod, second computer, backup drive, etc). We can also make them upgrade to the newest edition when we stop supporting the old one (this is where Ubisoft shuts down AC2's servers when AC3 comes out).

Re:You're all dicks

[jamesbulman]

I actually agree with you, but your fighting a lost cause here.

The George Bernard Shaw quote would seem to apply: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig, you get dirty; and besides, the pig likes it."

Re:You're all dicks

[Therilith]

Without DRM:
Management: Lets not put DRM in our software so that everyone can play the game without problems!

Pirates: Awesome! We can copy the game and play it for free with no problems!

Customers: This game is awesome!

With DRM:
Management: Let's spend a lot of money on DRM instead of improving the game.

Pirates: Awesome! We can copy the game and play it for free with no problems!

Customers: WTF? Why won't this stupid game work?

Re:You're all dicks

[Andorin]

Not EVERY download is a lost sale but prove to me that there isnt a significant group that would buy it otherwise but get it for free?

That group exists. Nobody can prove that it is or is not significant.

People need to be honest why they download stuff. Many say 'oh I want to try it before I buy it' LIAR. I know my reasons. I wanted to play free games.
People say 'they wouldnt buy it anyway'. LIAR. I know my reasons. I wanted to play free games.
People say 'I cant get the game anymore'. LIAR. You can get a copy of just about every game out there with a little bit of looking. I know my reasons. I wanted to play free games.

Nice unfounded generalizations cast on everyone who uses p2p.

Re:You're all dicks

[xtracto]

love how everyone bashes DRM without thinking of the consequences of not using any. Pirating is far too widespread. For every person who pirates a game, less games are made for the PC for this very reason. Pirates blame the developers for using DRM, the quality of the game is reduced for actual customers, yet the pirates are the one to blame

And the funny thing is that DRM does not stop copyright infringement at any level. You do not even need to know how to apply a patch to play a pirated game.

The way it works these days is like this:
1. The game is released *with* DRM
2. Someone cracks and distribute the DRM
3. Someone else applies the crack and packages the whole game patched.
4. All the copyright infringers download the game already without DRM, they install it normally and run it without inconvenience.

The problem with DRM is that when adding it to some software, developers are in effect making such software less user friendly. This makes the cracked, Non-DRM software subjectively better for customers, and at less price.

Why do you think World of Warcraft does not have this "widespread piracy" problem? because the paid content is *better* than the cracked content.

Re:You're all dicks

[Mycroft_VIII]

The conclusion likely stems from assumption that the persons who reach a high enough level to require drm are smart enough to see that it does not achieve the effect of stopping piracy or even slowing it in any meaningful way.
    Thus there must an ulterior motive. And for corporate officers this motive is money.
Now since they are spending a substantial amount on these schemes that do not do what they purport they must achieve an income higher than their cost in some other way.

Any suggestions? The popular ones are a) kill resale so anyone who want to play the game 'legitimately' must buy new. and b) force those who loose/scratch the disk to either re-buy or go without patches.

    Of course Other scenarios do suggest themselves to me. It's possible the drm makers are feeding the stockholders fud to pressure the corporate officers into buying their malware, or threatening to.
    Or possibly there are kickbacks/bribes involved (though the scale suggest we would've heard at least a healthy dose of rumors).

      Just don't assume those making the call to add drm are ignorant of how quickly it gets broken or lack the intelligence learn from all the previous failures and assume this time will be different.

      If they get some short term gain against piracy it's most certainly a pleasant bonus, and likely unexpected.

Mycroft

Re:You're all dicks

[LingNoi]

Do you honestly think that companies would invest money to create DRM if piracy had not become so widespread?

DRM has nothing to do with piracy. It's all about preventing game stores from selling 2nd hand copies and keeping 100% of the money rather then cutting the publisher in.

Re:You're all dicks

[LordLucless]

Consequences of using DRM: Development costs, bad publicity, it gets cracked first day, pirates pirate it.
Consequences of not using DRM: Pirates pirate it.

For every person who pirates a game, bugger all happens to the number of games that are released. That number's been rising for years, and shows no sign of stopping now.

Re:You're all dicks

[SharpFang]

Without drought there would be no need to nail owls to barn doors...

Re:You're all dicks

[SharpFang]

I think they just gained a customer.

Re:You're all dicks

[Hurricane78]

Total control of the universe!!!(?) ;)

I thought that was the point of a big corporation.
You know, with all the white kitty stroking, iron gloves, capes with stand-up collars, minions, goatees, underground bases, etc ;)

Re:You're all dicks

[Hurricane78]

And that is the best game advertisement I have seen in a long time, right there!

Honesty deserves honesty. Respect deserves respect.

(But one thing you need... in the big buy button in your games list’s detail page. ^^)

Re:You're all dicks

[Hatta]

I love how everyone bashes DRM without thinking of the consequences of not using any.

What exactly would be the consequences? Anyone who wants to pirate can pirate, easily. In fact, it's easier to pirate than to play an uncracked game. So logically, the consequences of removing DRM would be no change in the number of people who pirate, and an increase in legit users.

Re:You're all dicks

[Hatta]

Without pirates, DRM would not be required

Why is DRM required? What is it required for? We know for a fact that it does not stop piracy. So what is the function of DRM that makes it necessary?

Re:You're all dicks

[TheRaven64]

And a lot of people still pirated GC 1 and 2. How does this disprove my point that the pirates are the problem, exactly?

Because the game was pirated and the studio still made money. The pirates are irritating, but defining your business strategy based on their existence is an emotional response, not a sane economic one.

Writing DRM costs money. Testing DRM costs money. These detract from your bottom line. DRM that doesn't work perfectly (i.e. all DRM) irritates some of your customers, which increases support costs and reduces repeat custom. The costs of writing, testing, and supporting the DRM eat into your profits before the first sale is made.

Preventing people from pirating the game doesn't increase your profits. Persuading people to buy your game increases your profits. Now, possible a lot of the people who pirate the game would have bought it if some set of conditions were different. Possibly none of them would - they'd just have pirated something else.

The people that you should care about, if you want to run a successful business, are your customers and your potential customers. You should be spending money retaining customers and converting potential customers into actual customers. Chasing pirates is a waste of your time, and draconian DRM just alienates your customers, turning them into someone else's customers.

Entertainment is not a scarce commodity - if you want to treat me like a criminal then I'm quite happy to spend my entertainment budget with your competitors. No, I won't pirate your product - if I did that then I might accidentally mention it to someone else and generate a sale for you, and I have no intention of providing advertising for a company that doesn't want me as a customer.

Re:You're all dicks

[BronsCon]

American McGee's Alice, one of my favorite games of all time, requires the disc to be inserted in order to play.

Now that my primary system is a netbook, thus, no optical drive, I have been forced to download a cracked copy in order to continue playing the game I paid for.

Is that a lost sale? NO! I wouldn't have bought a 2nd copy, as that copy would have been as fucking useless as the copy I ALREADY OWN.

Fuck. I'm not a goddamn pirate but I had to resort to piracy to use a product I already paid for because the system I want to use it on doesn't support its DRM.

How did I get the damn game installed in the first place without a CD drive? Easy, I have a USB CD drive, but I don't carry it everywhere I go (it stays on my desk, and I'm often not at my desk).

Mind you, Alice was the last commercial PC game I every bought, and is likely the last I will ever buy. I've bought a fair number of indie and console games recently, though. No DRM to fuck me over later.

Re:You're all dicks

[mcgrew]

I love how everyone bashes DRM without thinking of the consequences of not using any.

Funny, the original DOOM did quite well not only without DRM, but giving it away for free! Cory Doctorow partly credits his posting his novels on the web for his being on the NYT best seller list. DRM is a relatively new (albeit retro - more later) thing. Not having DRM never killed any games or game companies before, are there that many pirates? Is the younger generation that much more dishonest than mine (and the one after mine) was?

Back when I was heavily into the gaming scene there was a site called Planet Crap for game discussion (it could still be there for all I know), and Warren Marshall, then head of Epic (probably still is) was there a lot. Ironically (or maybe hypocritically), Marshall thought the same way you do, that anybody who could pirate games would because everyone's dishonest. He based this on the fact that he, himself was a pirate in college! But the fact is, most people AREN'T dishonest and WILL pay for their stuff.

Back when games came on floppy they instituted DRM schemes that like now, invariably failed. The gamers themselves massively boycotted any game that had DRM, and it went away -- until a new generation of suckers willing to put up with the fact that paying for a game got you less than pirating it was born.

DRM not only cannot work, it is completely unnecessary. Unless, of course, the publisher has ulterior motives, such as killing resale, or in the case of the RIAA, killing the competetion.

Disclaimer -- I do have a dog in this fight. My daughter manages a GameStop store, and GameStop sells used games. DRM isn't about piracy, it's about keeping my daughter from selling used games.

Re:You're all dicks

[mcgrew]

Yes, I honestly do, because it isn't about piracy! Game companies put DRM on their games to keep their legitimately purchased games from being resold. If I buy three used games for twenty bucks each, that's sixty bucks I don't have to buy a new one. The RIAA wants p2p stopped because they want to keep indie music out of your ears - they have radio, they don't need it. If I buy three CDs from an indie band, that's fifteen bucks I don't have to buy an RIAA CD.

If there were no pirates at all, the game and record companies would invent them.

Re:You're all dicks

[Opportunist]

The problem here is, it does not affect the ones that it should affect. To bring the mandatory car analogy into play, it's like putting in an elaborate lock in your car that requires you to push the key in, press five buttons at the same time as you turn the key and sing a certain secret melody to start it, while the general starting mechanism stays the same and can be hotwired just as easily as it ever has been.

And if that doesn't stop the car thieves, we have to add more buttons to press, but we'll leave the easily hotwired starting mechanism the same.

The problem is not whether or not pirates are a reason to put in DRM. The problem is that these people are not affected by it. It has never, in not a single case, stopped copying. Usually not even for a while, as it is claimed to "at least enable sales for that important first two weeks". The only ones affected by it are those that are the ones that you need not affect: Your paying customers.

So, at best, you don't achive anything in respect to copying. At worst, you piss off your customers if, as in this case, your DRM cripples the game and renders it unusable, but again only for your customers. You don't hurt the ones that copied the game.

Yeah no surprise

[DrugCheese]

This is not the first internet based anti-piracy tool circumvented. There have been plenty in the past.

Human deterrent

[redkazuo]

How about this DRM:

1. Ubisoft creates a reasonably simple (read cheap) traditional DRM;
2. Ubisoft promises to donate five thousand dollars to cancer research for each day the game goes without being cracked, for a year.

I think they'd have better chances that way. Don't you?

Re:Human deterrent

[timmarhy]

you haven't played online games much have you. a lot of the people on there are childish dicks.

Re:Human deterrent

[DMalic]

No. The problem is that you're not relying on the average person, or even most people, to be honest. You're relying on the most sociopathic immoral uncaring bastard of a cracker to refrain from cracking the game. That's destined to failure.

Re:Human deterrent

[bdwlangm]

I think that's in great spirit, but unfortunately, it only takes one dick.

Re:Human deterrent

[Pinhedd]

yes but those childish dicks aren't capable of cracking DRM. The guys who are capable of removing it might actually go for something like this

Re:Human deterrent

[Nimey]

How about they just stick with Steam's DRM and call it a day?

Re:Human deterrent

[LordLimecat]

Youd get someone who would crack it simply to troll everyone else and ruin it for the cancer researchers.

Re:Human deterrent

[Cee]

How about this DRM:
1. Ubisoft creates a reasonably simple (read cheap) traditional DRM;
2. Ubisoft promises to donate five thousand dollars to cancer research for each day the game goes without being cracked, for a year.
I think they'd have better chances that way. Don't you?

Not really.
First, why not just release the software with no DRM at all and just require that the software never gets shared on the pirate bay in order to donate to this charity?
Second, Ubisoft would in some ways takes the cancer research organization as hostage. Basically Ubisoft would say: "you might not like us, but do you really want people to get cancer? Then don't pirate our games." They could actually just donate the money no matter what instead.

Re:Human deterrent

[metacell]

Ok, but how about this? "Don't pirate this game, or this puppy here gets it!"

Or maybe not...

Re:Human deterrent

[kronosopher]

A lot of people everywhere are childish dicks, even here on Slashdot.

Re:Human deterrent

[kronosopher]

Exactly.

Re:Human deterrent

[imakemusic]

...and Ubisoft would come out of it looking like the good guys.

Re:Human deterrent

[Hurricane78]

And what do they have to do with the crackers?

But hey, I bet many crackers actually would prefer to crack it faster, so more cancer patients die... if then 4chan attitude is any indication.

Re:Human deterrent

[yk4ever]

I reckon that "cancer research" and "carbon footprint" are most fashionable toys that filthy-wealthy westerners enjoy nowadays?

Nice ivory tower you have, guys.

Re:Human deterrent

[redkazuo]

I know it's out of fashion to reply to your own thread, but:

The great thing about cancer research is that it benefits everyone in the world. You must be very young not to have anyone in your or your wife's family that had any sort of cancer yet. *Everyone* wants to see their loved ones' chances improve.

But yes, it could be replaced by any other charity.

Re:Human deterrent

[redkazuo]

That sounds true, and added to the fact it seems like it only takes one fool to ruin it for everybody, it may look like a terrible idea.

But look, the point is that most people have some close person who had cancer. Maybe the crackers had/have someone with cancer in their family. They'd probably reconsider going public. If we're in any luck, someone along the chain will.

It sounds too risky, but I'm serious. If it goes wrong in the first week Ubisoft hasn't spent much at all. And, like imakemusic said, they still would have bragging rights. Oh, and look at them now.

Finally, think of the effect on the media and the crackers' own supporters.

Re:Human deterrent

[IICV]

Yes, but the childish dicks usually aren't the guys who are actually capable of cracking a game.

any games shipping sans drm these days?

[thenextstevejobs]

you'd think some companies might enjoy the sort of publicity and awareness they'd get out of having a lot of people use their software... and without fear on top of it!

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[Mex]

EA has very lenient DRM, I believe.

Also Ubisoft's past title, Prince of Persia, released without any copy protection to much fanfare. I imagine that was a disaster sales-wise, and now they'd rather have the DRM.

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[geminidomino]

Ironically enough, all that DLC is available, you guessed it, in the cracked version.

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[RAMMS EIN]

``#cue all the "butbutbut that game didn't sell well because I didn't like that game, not because of the lack of DRM" comments.''

Ok, I'll take a crack at that (no pun intended).

Why would the game have sold less well because it lacked DRM, all else being equal?

It can't be because the lack of DRM meant that the game was available for free download, because, as we've seen, that goes for games with DRM, too.

So I'm back to "it didn't sell well for reasons unrelated to DRM", unless someone can point out a good reason why including DRM would have made it sell better.

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[CeramicNuts]

I just picked up Civilization 4 Complete -- DRM free. The initial release of Civ4 had securom. The Complete set also includes the 2 exansions and Colonization. I was glad to purchase this one.

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[Pentium100]

...OnLive..

That will stop game piracy. Also, this year I should get a fiber connection with ~80mbps bandwidth (unlimited* data amount) to other countries, so I should probably be able to use it. It would be interesting to see an average American on an average American connection try to use it. I hope they do not run into any bandwidth caps.

* it is still limited by the speed, so 80mbps = ~26TB/month

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[MemoryDragon]

Well for Ubisoft using the Goatse image as Startup screen for the game probably would have cost them less sales.

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[metacell]

That move must not have turned out as well as all the loud "customers" on Slashdot claim it would.

I read the post by the Ubisoft employee, and he (or she) is really only saying the game was more pirated than previus Prince of Persia games, and that he's very disappointed that people don't want to pay for their games.

Isn't it possible that the game was downloaded a lot just because expectations were initiallly high?

I just have a hard time understanding how DRM can make much of a difference to pirates, since games are up on BitTorrent sites within days anyway. The only situation where I see DRM making a difference, is when a friend buys the game and you attempt to copy it directly from their original disk. But who does that these days? It's faster and easier to download it from a BitTorrent site.

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[hansamurai]

Positech Games, the guy posts on Slashdot too.

http://positech.co.uk/

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[supersloshy]

you'd think some companies might enjoy the sort of publicity and awareness they'd get out of having a lot of people use their software... and without fear on top of it!

Civilization IV and World of Goo are two, and the latter can be played (with more features and configuration options) on Linux as well as Windows/Mac/Wii. I highly recommend these for being not only DRM free, but a heck of a lot of fun!

Re:any games shipping sans drm these days?

[H0NGK0NGPH00EY]

Check out games by Stardock (Sins of a Solar Empire) and Kalypso Media (Tropico 3). Those are two PC game companies that have publicly stated positions against heavy-handed, paying-customer-punishing DRM.

Re:And what is there plan for people who don't hav

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you can always just walk away and not play. It's not like you don't have any choice in the matter.

snake oil salesmen rake in the cash again

[hAckz0r]

While you said

guaranteed to be cracked

in jest (that humor itself is priceless), I certainly could not agree more. The reality of DRM is that the whole concept is flawed, by the logic alone. In that you have to give the user everything they need to run the app, or listen/watch to the media, so what is there to prevent someone skilled with IDA Pro from making it work for their own purposes after the DRM manages to sufficiently piss them off? So, you there you sit, you have the key, you have the data/code/bitstream, and you have the algorithm. Nothing prevents you from hacking apart the code and putting those three pieces back together in a different way other than what was intended, except for a few badly written laws like the DMCA. That's not a prevention, it's just a social mechanism that just serves to make the hackers self-righteous in their own mind, and therefore even 'more likely' to feel justified in 'getting back' at 'the bad-guys' (not my frame of mind, but its out there).

The sad thing is that with the use of DRM everyone looses, EXCEPT for the one peddling DRM as the 'answer to everything'. It's not. Reality could not be further from the truth. Yet these modern-day snake oil salesmen always manage to walk off with millions of dollars in their pockets while everyone else, including the owner of the copyrighted media being 'protected', get the shaft. It only hurts the owners bottom line, stiffs the purchaser who can't use the product, and the snake oil salesman lives in a big mansion somewhere on a hill. What is wrong with this picture? What we need is a new set of laws to protect us from snake oil salesmen, in that if you promise your product is going to do XYZ then you should not be legally shielded by some EULA when you promise something that is known by real experts to not be true. Selling a 'solution' under false pretences is the way I see it. If you sell snake oil you should pay the price.

btw - If you honestly believe that DRM can actually work, then Have I got a bridge for you!!...

Re:snake oil salesmen rake in the cash again

[StikyPad]

or listen/watch to the media

I realize you probably inserted "/watch" after the fact, but it got me thinking.. It's weird that listening requires a preposition while watching does not. They both imply paying attention, either visually or auditorily, yet "I'm watching to you listen me," looks like utter nonsense.

Remote Server Execution could work as DRM

[Raystonn]

If some significant portion of the game was actually computed on the remote server, then "cracking" it would not be possible. One could attempt to "hack" a user account on the remote server to get the free play, or a shady developer could attempt to reverse engineer the networking protocol and implement a fake remote server others could run. The latter would only prove useful if the portion of the game run by the server was trivial. Otherwise, the developer would essentially be reimplementing vast portions of the game him/herself and should just make their own game anyhow.

Re:Remote Server Execution could work as DRM

[MichaelSmith]

OTH it would provide an easy way for users to extend the game.

Re:Remote Server Execution could work as DRM

[woopate]

But then you guarantee that once the servers shut down, customers lose their game. It would take a pretty insane patch to make the game work without a remote server if a "non-trivial" portion of the game was being run on said remote server.

Re:Remote Server Execution could work as DRM

[Raystonn]

Not really. If the remote server software was written for the same platform as the client software, all they'd need to do is ship the server software in a patch. But this is besides the point. They don't have to guarantee the game will work forever. They can lease it to you for a limited time period. Most software with an EULA these days already contain a clause indicating you own the physical medium but are only leasing the software on it. So this isn't a big stretch.

Re:Of course pirates always get a superior product

[Pentium100]

They didn't have to pay for it, duh.

Yes, they didn't, but that's not the reason why the pirated version is superior. It is superior because it does not ave the DRM. If Ubisoft offered both versions for sale at the same price, the non-DRM version would be bought more than the DRM version.

How could businesses possibly match that and make money?

Mozilla, Opera, various Linux companies somehow manage that, though I don't know how.

Re:No you're a dick

[Theswager]

trillions?

lol@ubisoft

[nataflux]

Hack the planet!!!

Re:Thanks a lot

[zill]

4. Congressmen who enacted the DMCA.
5. Anyone who wasted their time to discuss this silly issue.

I wonder

[wisnoskij]

is it just far far harder to try to protect from piracy then it is to crack, or is Skid-Row just more talented then their employees.

I understand anything is crackable, but this 1 day cracking that happens most of the time is just excessively quick.

Re:I wonder

[JSBiff]

I think it has to do with the fact that true logical contradictions can't really exist in nature: the whole idea behind DRM is to try to give someone access to the software, but not give them access to the software. Because that is, at least seemingly, a logical contradiction, it's just about impossible to pull off.

In the end, every legitimate copy has to give the user access. Any system that gives 'authorized' access can be potentially exploited to grant 'unauthorized' access. As one example, let's consider a DRM system that consists of individually encrypting every 'authorized' copy of a game with a different crypto key, then requiring the user to download the key to decrypt that copy. Well, once the key is downloaded, the 'authorized' user can then use the key to decrypt the copy, then have unencrypted copies to share on the Internet.

Any system that relies on code inside of the executable itself to verify it's own authenticity is potentially subject to code patches that simply disable the verification step (or short-circuit it with the equivalent of replacing the authorization function with a function which just always returns the 'correct' value to get the rest of the code to continue).

Etc, etc.

The prevailing wisdom seems to be that to make a game 'crack-proof', you make an online game. Theoretically, with an online game, a determined enough person or group could reverse-engineer the protocol and server-side logic, and re-implement the server, although, admittedly, that is probably a very daunting undertaking.

That is the 'best' DRM simply because you are never granting the end-users direct access to the program - you are basically sending inputs over the network, and receiving the output of the program. It's sort of analogous to never having a copy of a word-processor on your computer, but only receiving pdf files of the final, finished product (ok, that might not be a perfect analogy, but I hope you can see what I mean).

But, for games which execute locally, I stand by my original assertion that trying to give someone access without giving them access is a logical contradiction, and so, fundamentally impossible. That's also true of audio and video, as we have seen over and over again.

It only takes one.

[KingSkippus]

The only thing that I'm surprised about is that companies remain so obstinately stupid in trying to implement Digital Rights Restrictions.

Anyone who has ever been involved in software development knows that even when it comes to relatively simple systems, all it takes is one minor SNAFU, one little bug, for the whole thing to be laid bare before skilled hackers. And it doesn't even have to be a problem with your code; it can be in anything from firmware to the operating system to libraries you've linked to to the compiler you used. Add to this the fact that Digital Rights Restriction systems are hardly anything but relatively simple; they typically encompass very complex encryption, heavy duty mathematics, picky dependencies on very specialized hardware and/or software and/or connectivity requirements, etc.

Also, how many people did it take to write your Digital Rights Restrictions system, and how smart were they? Let me tell you, it's not like there's just one guy holed up in a basement somewhere working on cracking the Digital Rights Restrictions of a popular game. There are thousands, maybe tens of thousands. And they all want that reputation boost (or sometimes even financial gain) of being The One Who Cracked [insert game title here]. Oh, and maybe your people are smart, but these people are frickin' brilliant.

Yet still, these companies are under the delusion that after decades of abject failure after abject failure by companies much bigger and more motivated than they are to stop software theft, they're going to be the ones that come up with the magic bullet, that special recipe that will keep their software locked. So sure of it, in fact, that they're continually willing to invest a lot of time, money, and effort into their futile pursuit. The reality of the situation is that all it takes is one. One hacker, one flaw, and every cent you poured into your Digital Rights Restrictions system is *poof!* gone.

I'd like them to hire me to create the Digital Rights Restrictions system they use for their next game. I'll charge them a few thousand dollars and put a text file on the root of the installation media that says, "It would really mean a lot to us if you would not copy this game illegally, so please don't. Thanks!" Now, I know you're probably thinking, "But Skippus, people would be able to copy the game from day one!" My contention is that I've saved them tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and my Digital Rights Restrictions system lasted just one day less than the one they would have otherwise spent so much money on.

Re:It only takes one.

[Machtyn]

The other way to make companies realize that the DRM system doesn't work is to write them a letter to the effect of:

I would have bought your game, but its DRM system made it a pain to play. Naturally, I could buy the game and get the crack after a day or a week, but then you would not have learned your lesson. Therefore, I abstain from buying (and playing) your game.

Re:It only takes one.

[aliquis]

I'll charge them a few thousand dollars and put a text file on the root of the installation media that says

Isn't something similar part of OS X copy protection? Text within a kernel module or something such. Can't understand how I can't find it using Google.

This post won't earn me any credits =P, the actual text would had :D

Re:It only takes one.

[lena_10326]

To be honest, I don't think you get it. How many regular, normal users are going to google/torrent the hack? Then scan it for trojans? (Believe me most copies will have one.) And then install it from the cryptic readme text file? I'm talking non-geeks. People who send their PCs to the geek squad. People who've got no idea how a byte is different from a bit. You know, the other 99.7% of the user base. Well, I'll tell you: very few. They use DRM because DRM works on the majority of consumers. You are thinking from the perspective of a consumer--not of an executive on the board. If DRM causes the company to lose 10% of their base but pickup a new 11%, they don't care.

Re:It only takes one.

[sortius_nod]

So what you're saying is that it's ok for companies to dick 99.7% of their customer base, who would never pirate the game in the first place, just to delay downloaders from getting it by a day?

I love that kind of rationale.

See, it's not about the 99.7% of people. They buy the game, whether it's easy to crack or not. To me, fucking them over isn't a good thing at all, you lose 99.7% of your revenue. Look at what happened with EA. They screwed consumers with Spore, they saw the outrage from the people who don't download, and changed tactics. I even recall an article a little while ago where EA were contemplating not locking pirates out of buying DLC.

Unfortunately it seems that the company gamers love to hate, EA, is learning from their mistakes. Unfortunately companies like Ubisoft, Activision and the likes aren't. This isn't about boycotts, this is about people getting burnt and not buying from a publisher again.

Personally I feel that this move toward DRM isn't to ensure people pay for product, it's to ensure people pay for the next version of the product. You can't play a game that requires an internet connection if the DRM servers no longer exist for that game.This has happened in the past (one game that comes to mind is the last FIFA World Cup game, no servers, no online play). It really disheartens me that there's such stupid comments flowing about such a serious issue.

Re:It only takes one.

[hughperkins]

You know, it's possible that DRM is a sort of viral marketing campaign in a way. I mean, now everyone knows Ubisoft has just released a new game, and everyone's basically implying that, if it wasn't for the DRM, it'd be a really awesome game, that everyone wants to play, and if no-one wants to play it, why is everyone talking about it?

Maybe DRM is a little bit like a girl playing "hard to get"? Everyone likes to get something they need to work for a bit. That's what levelling is all about.

Re:It only takes one.

[Jedi Alec]

See, it's not about the 99.7% of people. They buy the game, whether it's easy to crack or not. To me, fucking them over isn't a good thing at all, you lose 99.7% of your revenue. Look at what happened with EA. They screwed consumers with Spore, they saw the outrage from the people who don't download, and changed tactics. I even recall an article a little while ago where EA were contemplating not locking pirates out of buying DLC.

And, speaking from anecdotal evidence, I had no reservations shelling out good money for Dragon Age and Mass Effect. Had EA kept up their old tricks I most likely wouldn't have done so.

So from this one geek gamer to the corps...make it convenient and enjoyable for me to give you money, and I will. Screw me over...and I'll be happy to reciprocate.

Re:It only takes one.

[Mycroft_VIII]

Even better, write the stock holders about how the company they've invested their hard money on is blowing it on stupid schemes that don't work.
      Seriously, the companies won't listen, they'll just blame any revenue decrease to piracy and blow money on even more elaborate drm.
      Also drm isn't really about copy protection so much as stopping re-sale and forced eol so you eventually have to buy 'Wonder game XVIIIIVIIX, the quest for more cash' with new improved names for the same old crap.
      But they claim DRM is to stop piracy and protect revenue (and thus shareholder value). Once the shareholders see DRM as a waste of money it'll go away fast.
        Get the stockholders involved and they'll move heaven and earth to avoid a major issue.
Why so many don't get this confuses me.

Mycroft

Re:It only takes one.

[cp.tar]

Isn't something similar part of OS X copy protection? Text within a kernel module or something such. Can't understand how I can't find it using Google.

This post won't earn me any credits =P, the actual text would had :D

You mean the part where it is said that OS X may only be installed on Apple-branded hardware?
I’ve always wondered whether that was why they gave you those Apple stickers. Instant Apple-branded hardware!

Re:It only takes one.

[Opportunist]

But don't you think for them a simple "insert original CD to start" protection wouldn't have been enough? Hell, a "protection" that reads the gaps that only faithful 1:1 copy tools could reproduce (you know, those "hacking tools" like Alcohol) would have sufficed, no need for an invasive driver.

Incidentally, that would also have been a protection I could have accepted, and I would have bought the game, along with those 99.7% you mention.

Re:It only takes one.

[pcolaman]

And include a footnote that games made by developers such as Stardock that refuse to use stupid DRM would be next on your list of games to buy. (or insert random other company that obstains from retarded DRM)

Re:It only takes one.

[Xest]

Or to give a more simple reason why DRM doesn't generally work, PCs are open systems, the content has to become available to the system at some point whether it's encrypted, or sent across the network. It still has to end up on a system whose memory and executable code at run time can be peeked and poked at will.

The only real workaround is to process some game logic and such server side, but that is going to cost the company a lot in terms of processing power, a lot in terms of bandwidth, a lot in terms of additional development effort, but perhaps, a lot of embarassment when said servers fail and the game keels over for a few days.

DRM is pretty much a lost cause from the off, it's not that it requires too high a degree of developer skill to implement properly, it's simply that it really can't be implemented properly, at least, not without massive extra cost to the company that would likely outweigh any profits the game will make, and not without severe detriment to the game experience.

Really, it doesn't matter if you had some god like developer that could implement a DRM scheme without making a single mistake, it'd still be a DRM system designed to run on an open system at the end of the day and would hence still be inherently vulnerable. DRM basically tries to say "You can't do this", except it's saying it on a system where you can anyway, and where that can overrides the can't because the user gets priority over control of the system, not the DRM.

Re:It only takes one.

[Jurily]

You, sir, are a moron.

How many regular, normal users are going to google/torrent the hack?

None, they'll just get it with the game itself.

Then scan it for trojans? (Believe me most copies will have one.)

Look for the comments attached to the release, it'll tell you everything you need to know.

And then install it from the cryptic readme text file? I'm talking non-geeks.

People are not retards. By their second game, they'll know what "copy cracked exe over the original one" means.

I'm talking non-geeks. People who send their PCs to the geek squad. People who've got no idea how a byte is different from a bit. You know, the other 99.7% of the user base.

Irrelevant, they'll have geek friends. Sure, I have friends I'd rather trust with a house plant than a computer, but who the fuck are you to tell them they can't play with games they've already downloaded? (Mind you, in this country, it's legit for personal use.)

They use DRM because DRM works on the majority of consumers.

No, it works on the majority of their customers. Everyone else just gets it already cracked.

If DRM causes the company to lose 10% of their base but pickup a new 11%, they don't care.

DRM won't ever get you new sales. The game will, if it's good and/or marketed enough.

Re:It only takes one.

[popo]

> "So sure of it, in fact, that they're continually willing to invest a lot of time, money, and effort into their futile pursuit."

Yes, that is amazing. But what's *more* amazing is that the companies who invest all that time and money also invest so heavily in PUBLICIZING their DRM awesomeness. Such publicity is not only a massive invitation and challenge to the hacker community -- but it elevates the status of the hacker who ultimately cracks the code. All that time and money not only bites the publisher in the rear end, but ultimately becomes a massive publicity campaign for the very enemy the publisher hoped to foil.

Re:It only takes one.

[juasko]

Or does he refer to the part saying "Don't steal Mac OS X" dig for it in ur intel based mac. Bah I really dislike the intel platform, if only PPC would have had a brighter future damn you Big Blue.

Re:It only takes one.

[Alioth]

In which case, why come up with these hugely elaborate schemes? If a simple check for the game media in the drive will defeat normal users, why bother wasting the time to make DRM more sophisticated than this?

Re:It only takes one.

[complete loony]

In that case, the most trivial of restrictions would suffice. You don't need to tie each person to an internet connection. Just a simple generated key check would be enough of a road block for most people.

Re:It only takes one.

[MemoryDragon]

I think some people at UBISOFT should read Dilbert more often...
This is practical Dilbert practice what they applied here, and speaking of lost sales
they probably already lost more sales over the DRM scheme than it cost them to even implement it.

Re:It only takes one.

[Nitage]

How many regular, normal users are going to google/torrent the hack?

Exactly the same number who would have gone with the torrent if this DRM system hadn't been used. So they haven't gained anything. However, they will irritate customers who don't connect to the internet when playing games - for example, people who take their laptops on flights for entertainment.

Re:It only takes one.

[Dr_Barnowl]

I think there are possibly two tiers of copying though.

When I was a kid, the (ZX Spectrum) games were on audio tapes. Almost every kid I knew who was into games had a twin tape deck. This produced an imperfect analogue copy of the game and obvious wasn't much good for more than one or two generations.

A smaller subset had a Multiface, which was basically a hardware non-maskable interrupt generator - it would halt your machine and swap a few kilobytes of the RAM for a debugger - which just happened to have a facility to dump the running state to tape - who'd a thunk that this would get used for piracy! This produced a copy that was as good as your tape hardware. You could even use an audio encoding that was much faster than the original game media (with somewhat mixed results on bad hardware).

We didn't have the internet, or things would have been much easier - most of the difficulty of piracy back then was finding a kid that a) had the game you wanted and b) liked you enough to let you copy it. Some years later, I found myself immensely pleased with how easy it was to download archived Spectrum games from Norwegian FTP sites - largely because a game that used to take 4 minutes to load into the computer was taking around 4 seconds to download.

In the modern world... a game with zero DRM can be copied just by shoving in a flash drive. This is the same "playground" level of piracy - easy, social, no consequences, and essentially free of cost. People thought no more about doing it than they thought about making mix tapes for friends.

For DRM ,the cracking groups will remove it anyway. But to get their product, you have to search online, download large amounts of data, take the risk that someone shoved a trojan into the installer, take the risk that it's actually 4GB of Estonian donkey porn, etc. Which is a fixed cost regardless of how expensive the DRM was.

And it's a higher cost than saying "Hey Chuck, I hear you got Estonian Donkey Smasher II, mind if I copy that?" and copying it onto your USB drive, which will be faster and have lower risk. I know people who trade NDS ROMS like this 16GB at a time (you need a special device to take advantage of this, but unlike the Multiface, it doesn't cost about 4 times what the games cost).

When I was a kid and pirated games like crazy, I couldn't afford to buy them. Back then, the cost getting a pirate copy was low compared to the £10 or £20 (in 80s money) that I just didn't have.

These days, I buy my games, because the price of the game is low compared to the hassle of finding a copy from a reputable cracking crew, working out who's a reputable cracking crew in the first place, downloading it, etc, etc etc. And because I think artists deserve to be compensated. The glaring exception is NDS games... I'll pirate them first in general ; and I don't feel guilty because most of them are utter trash, and no way am I taking the £20 hit of buying them, playing them for 20 minutes, finding out they're crap, and selling them back to the game store so they can do the same thing to some other poor sucker. Things I actually enjoy like Zelda and Professor Layton get bought, new and not pre-owned. The DS has a "demo" facility where you use the WiFi link to try things out in stores, but none of the UK stores run demos.

When I was a kid, I didn't have anything to offer them, so I feel no guilt about my years of piracy - I was too young to have a job and there's no way in hell that my parents would have paid for my games habit.

I find a small amount of DRM acceptible (just enough to make it difficult to "casually" copy is fine by me), but it gets too much when the game won't run reliably because of the extremely edgy disk checks or whatever. I liked Assassins Creed, but there's no way I'm buying the sequel.

So I agree - there's no point in them shelling out top dollar for the latest most heinous DRM. They should put on something basic, reliable and cheap, just to prevent "playground" piracy. And they should make games that 30-something professionals want to buy, rather than snot-nosed kids, because they are the guys who have i) enough money to buy games ii) not enough time to screw around securing a pirate copy.

Re:It only takes one.

[JCZwart]

How many regular, normal users are going to google/torrent the hack? Then scan it for trojans?

Google/torrent the hack? Not many. Google/torrent the entire hacked game? Many more, perhaps just as many as who torrent brand new movies.

Scan it for trojans? Not very many, they'll just install the trojan as well. That's your regular user: why think intelligently when there's no apparent need? Another reason for game publishers to not go that way: do not feed the bot nets...

Re:It only takes one.

[raju1kabir]

Even better, write the stock holders about how the company they've invested their hard money on is blowing it on stupid schemes that don't work.

Yes, any company would be glad to send you a mailing list of their millions of stockholders.

Re:It only takes one.

[lena_10326]

So what you're saying is that it's ok for companies to dick 99.7% of their customer base, who would never pirate the game in the first place, just to delay downloaders from getting it by a day? I love that kind of rationale.

I never said that nor did I imply it. Do not attribute to me things I did not say. It is dishonest and it turns you into a liar.

I said the GP was not thinking like a board member. He clearly wasn't, nor are the majority of the insolent slashdorks buzzing around this topic.

Re:It only takes one.

[lena_10326]

First. The hugely elaborate schemes are elaborate by way of implementation, which is of the concern of the developer, not the user. For the user, they click a button to start the game and it just works--like magic. Second. Windows makes burning a CD look like a file copy, which most users know how to do. Your comparison terrible.

Re:It only takes one.

[lena_10326]

Your logic is very bad. It's exactly the opposite. The more road blocks the DRM throws up and the more complicated the hacks are, then the more skilled one has to be to overcome them. Increasing complexity => decreasing pool of users capable of getting the hacked version. Stop thinking weakest link in the chain. Think from the company's perspective for risk reduction of piracy

Re:It only takes one.

[selven]

The interesting thing is that for crimes that are easy to do and get away with, like uploading files (I realize that's not a crime, but bear with me) and shoplifting chocolate bars is that psychology is the best defense. Shaming potential thieves by putting up a "please don't do it" sign actually works. Putting in technological defenses does nothing and also attracts the kind of people who are interested in a challenge.

Re:It only takes one.

[complete loony]

No, I'm not. When you are talking about copying bit's around, the equation is not "Increasing complexity => decreasing pool of users capable of getting the hacked version". It's "Increasing complexity => decreasing pool of users capable of getting the first hacked version". Once that's done the barrier to piracy is reduced to "using a search engine" or perhaps "hanging out on the right forum". After that first hacked version is produced, all DRM schemes are equivalent.

Re:It only takes one.

[L4t3r4lu5]

The trouble is that "playground piracy" as you call it is also trivially bypassed these days. Daemon Tools, a mini-image, and your local media check is circumvented. Or a NOCD crack. Or a memory-resident trainer. All of which are kilobytes in size (mini-images usually around the 2-3MB mark) which on today's connections is a few seconds of work. You can try 10 different schemes in under half an hour until one works. It's cost- and time- effective.

Re:It only takes one.

[Flipao]

We're in 2010 and it's taken a day for a suposedly uncrackable copy protection mechanism to be picked apart. Now people who pay for the game are screwed if their net goes down, whereas people who pirate it can play without restrictions.

Does this seem fair to you?, screwing 99% of your user base to delay pirates for a day?

Re:It only takes one.

[tehcyder]

The flaw in your argument is that 99% of customers just buy the game anyway, and the DRR is sufficient to stop casual copying.

Re:It only takes one.

[tehcyder]

So what you're saying is that it's ok for companies to dick 99.7% of their customer base, who would never pirate the game in the first place, just to delay downloaders from getting it by a day?

But if you're one of the 99.7% and you neither know nor care that you're being dicked, does it matter?

Re:It only takes one.

[Unipuma]

The only problem is that they just told everyone 'Don't buy our game, pirate it if you want to have a good experience'.

If this was viral marketing, I'd fire the drone... uhmm.. marketeer.

Re:It only takes one.

[Dr_Barnowl]

The level of piracy I'm talking about is the kind of level where you just put the original and a blank into two sides of a tape deck and push a button.

The difficulty of cracking an ISO or a straight copy of the game folder tree might have decreased, but it's still cracking, and still requires extra effort... I remember the second era of my gaming childhood, 16-bit games on disk, where you had a profusion of cracked game distributions and disk copying tools. In this case you became dependent on the cracking crews - either to produce a cracked copy, or a tool that copied disks with better fidelity.

If you assume that DRM will be broken within 24 hours of your game release, regardless of it's cost, the limiting factor for it's spread becomes the upload bandwidth of the set of people with a cracked copy.

Since the vast majority of people can't crack games, basic DRM cuts this initial spread of your game immensely. If you have zero DRM, that set of spreaders is potentially everyone who bought the game.

Of course, in the internet era, that's not saying much. In the "playground era", it typically meant that the number of people you could source games from dropped in number, which limited their spread a bit.

And as you point out, it's easy for even non-crackers to spread a virgin ISO, but I'd be willing to bet that the requirement to crack the game and source those cracks still slows the initial spread somewhat... whether it's significant, who knows. I don't think anyone ever ran a randomized controlled trial on it and I don't see how you could.

Re:It only takes one.

[tehcyder]

You know, it's possible that DRM is a sort of viral marketing campaign in a way. I mean, now everyone knows Ubisoft has just released a new game, and everyone's basically implying that, if it wasn't for the DRM, it'd be a really awesome game, that everyone wants to play, and if no-one wants to play it, why is everyone talking about it?

I hope you don't work in marketing if that's your idea of a good marketing campaign.

Re:It only takes one.

[HungryHobo]

First. The hugely elaborate schemes are elaborate by way of implementation, which is of the concern of the user when it means that their product breaks more, is less reliable, requires a net connection for a single player game etc etc etc. For the user, they click a button to start the game and an error pops up reading "unable to connect to game servers, please try again later" . like shitty design.

Second. Windows makes burning a CD look like a file copy, which most users know how to do but since most off the shelf DVD copying software will pay attention to a simple "do not copy" flag those people still won't get past it.
Only the most token, basic, simple copy protection scheme is needed to stop 99% of average users.

The other 1% of users won't be stopped by any DRM scheme no matter how much money you waste on it or how much you cripple your software.

Your understanding terrible.

Re:It only takes one.

[HungryHobo]

Wow.... just wow.... you really haven't got a clue have you.

Just one person has to crack your DRM.
just one person of all the millions out there has to be smart enough to handle your useless "Increasing complexity" and believe me.
There will always be one who is either stunningly smart or just lucky.
No matter how much of a shit hot programmer you think yourself there will always be some kid with the time and brains to tear any copy protection you build to shreds.
And they do this purely for fun.

Activision seemed very proud about their scheme and how it was built from the ground up to be unbreakable and yet it took a tiny fraction of the time it took to write it to break it.

The number of cracked copies available is not a function of how many different groups have managed to crack the copy protection.
Only one person has to manage it and then exactly the same number of people can download it.

Start thinking weakest link in the chain.
Think from the company's perspective for risk reduction of second hand sales.

Re:It only takes one.

[lena_10326]

You are missing the point completely. This is not about performing the initial hack. Going by the topic it's already been done. Any idiot can see that. The point is the hacked software must be hunted down, installed, and configured above and beyond normal installation of a legit copy. That is what I'm talking about.

Re:It only takes one.

[L4t3r4lu5]

Some clever soul found out which files the cdcheck looks for in some copy protections and put them in an iso, then messed around with the internal file structure to make it look like a 700mb / 4.7gb image when it was in fact only a 3mb file.

I guess it's not trivial from an end user perspective, until someone more intelligent than you or I has done the legwork.

I've lent the Worms code book to a friend, though! :D

Re:It only takes one.

[lena_10326]

Just one person has to crack your DRM. just one person of all the millions out there has to be smart enough to handle your useless "Increasing complexity" and believe me. There will always be one who is either stunningly smart or just lucky.

Just like the other poster, you are also an idiot. I made it very clear my point is not about the initial hack. I'm losing my patience with morons such as yourself who have poor reading comprehension. Maybe you should not post again to my thread.

Btw, I have a policy of not repeating myself to every bonehead with the same reply. You'll just have to navigate the posts to figure it out.

Re:It only takes one.

[shobble]

from kextstat (essentially lsmod for OSX):
104 0 0x63b000 0x3000 0x2000 com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X (6.0.3) <75 7 5 4 2>

Re:It only takes one.

[HungryHobo]

In which case a simple CD check performs exactly as well.Any idiot can see that.

Re:It only takes one.

[HungryHobo]

The GP was not thinking like an incompetent and technically ignorant board member.

Re:It only takes one.

[mikael_j]

Yeah, there's still some file somewhere (can't remember if it's in a kext or whatever) that has their "please don't copy this" text. What's interesting is that Apple makes a buttload of money, by the game industry's logic they should've been bankrupt ages ago since they don't really have any copy protection for their OS (unless you call using EFI instead of BIOS copy protection but that's like saying that distributing your game on DVD is copy protection because everyone else uses CDs).

/Mikael

Re:It only takes one.

[HungryHobo]

and you clearly have not read or understood what all these people are trying to hammer in.

I made it very clear my point is not about the initial hack.

You implied that tougher copy protection somehow has an effect on the number of people who pirate.
Which is false.
The only place where tougher more restrictive copy protection makes any difference is during that initial hack.

After that no matter if the copy protection on the unhacked game was a simple CD check or a massively complex draconian shit-fest the steps the pirate has to follow are exactly the same.

From the day the first copy is cracked all copy protection schemes are equal from the multi million dollar system like activision tried or a budget "please insert disk" checks.

It's traditional to have made at least one coherent, well thought out, logical argument before bitching that you don't want to repeat yourself.
You seem to have forgotten that step.

Re:It only takes one.

[Aklyon]

no, DRM will eventually kill it.

"hey, my huge library of games don't work anymore!"
"sorry, our servers have been shut down. please purchase [game] [sequel title/year]."
"screw that! I'm never playing computer games again! >( "

Re:It only takes one.

[MaDeR]

"and you can kiss PC gaming goodbye."
Indie market will WARMLY welcome it. I don't think big game publishers can afford losing of PC gaming market.

In other words, you are bullshitting, dear sir.

Re:It only takes one.

[3vi1]

>> I don't think you get it. How many regular, normal users are going to google/torrent the hack? Then scan it for trojans?

One. And that kid's going to give the patched version to 300 non-geek's at his school and every friend in his local CUG so that he can be their hero - it's been going on like that for at least 25 years. No DRM would mean less incentive for people like that to actively spread the cracked version.

Re:It only takes one.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 20+ years of down loading things from the "scene". I have have never ever, not once, exactly zero times received a virus, trojan, or any type of malware.

You should a fundamental lack of understanding about how the scene works. Releases are put out by different groups. These groups care about their reputation. Greatly. The scene talks. The scene has politics and drama. The scene would not put up with someone releasing malware. It's a community.

I'm not saying malware isn't out there. Hell peopleofwalmart.com infected two desktops here last week. Sure people who download from some random link on google are going to get bit. Limewire and Bearshare installed malware as part of the program. People agreed to the malware. If you find an established community you don't even think about dealing with this stuff.

Re:It only takes one.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If you want that to work, include photocopies of recipts for games you did buy. Because otherwise everyone will assume you're the the guy on the right.

Re:It only takes one.

[Goaway]

And "the scene" is also extremely insular and elitist and the last thing they want is to actually provide anything to normal people.

So the vast majority of people will not be getting their warez from any scene, but from some dodgy second-, third- or fourth-hand supplier down the chain who might have done lord knows what to the software in the meantime.

Re:It only takes one.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

(Mind you, in this country, it's legit for personal use.)

Which country?

DRM won't ever get you new sales.

Sure it will. That's why companies love cloud-computing. It's DRM that works.

Re:It only takes one.

[brkello]

Your view is the popular one here. And certainly over restrictive DRM is going to lose customers. But I think it should be pointed out that you have absolutely no idea how DRM effects sales. You can't know if someone would just decide to buy a game if they couldn't get a pirated copy. Just as I can't know if the company didn't use DRM that people would buy the game. Sure, you can get a few anecdotal things on Slashdot of people claiming they would. But it really seems that most of the piracy crowd on here are ready to get pissed at anything minor to justify not paying for stuff.

Obviously, the claims of game companies losing millions of dollars due to piracy are false. But you stating that DRM won't cause some people to buy the game that otherwise wouldn't is also garbage.

I swear though, every DRM article is the same on here. Someone needs to just compile all the +5 posts on here and put it in one post. Slashdot mods the same things up every time despite all the intellectual dishonesty in them.

Re:It only takes one.

[brkello]

I agree. Though I think it should just have a cd key and that should be enough. Save money on not developing complicated DRM and still stop the non-techs from pirating.

Re:It only takes one.

[Jurily]

if they couldn't get a pirated copy

[citation needed]
Could you please show me an example game that's not on the internet bundled with a working crack?

The only business model I've seen work to date is Blizzard's: "Hey, here's the game, have fun. But if you want to play on our server, you'd better pay up." They're not selling *software*, but access to the server, and while other servers do exist, they can't keep up with even the client changes, much less new content.

Ubisoft tried the same, but they had it ass-backwards: access to a server has no meaning in a game that can function perfectly without it.

Re:It only takes one.

[TheRaven64]

I can only provide anecdotal evidence, but I will not buy any product that comes with DRM. I've bought DRM'd products in the past thinking 'this allows me to use it in all of the ways that I want' and then been bitten later. Now, it's just not worth my time. I still occasionally play games that I bought in the early '90s; I won't buy something with a remote kill switch again.

I can't be bothered to deal with potential trojans either, so I don't pirate. Lots of entertainment companies are happy to sell me their products without requiring DRM, so they get my money instead.

Re:It only takes one.

[TheRaven64]

I hope he does work in marketing! And if he doesn't, I recommend him strongly to all of my competitors.

Re:It only takes one.

[Skychrono]

What you said was amazingly insightful to me. There are three types of people. Honest people that'll always buy games. Pirates. And people that become pirates if there's no DRM at all. Since we will never stop a Pirate, you should worry about the third category. Disc-check DRM is all that we really need. (With an optional, more complex Steam style validation for netbooks or people that hate discs) For the record, I'm pro-DRM, for the purpose of protecting works, but against most current implementations.

Re:It only takes one.

[lethalwp]

would you do the same thing to ask for games that run under linux?

This is nonsense, $$$ is the mighty word, no letters/mails will change that. But in the case of linux, it's even worse: they don't dare/invest porting games to linux, and don't talk to me about games that are 5 years old.

In the mean time, i got a ps3, never played & bought so many games these last 2 years than in my whole life.

Re:It only takes one.

[upuv]

You start to care about 1 second after you realize the game died because you wireless connection in the house just dropped out.

You just got bent over and dicked.

Now you care.

Re:It only takes one.

[upuv]

With a lot of new machines not even coming with s CD/DVD/BluRay drive that system is no longer viable.

Re:It only takes one.

[Opportunist]

So because hardware manufacturers are too cheap to put a drive in the machine you want to bend over and take it up the rear?

So it's true. We were finally turned from customers who choose to consumers who get to swallow whatever they're being fed.

Re:It only takes one.

[Machtyn]

There is an adage, for every complaint you receive, there are 10 who didn't say a thing. So, a business that wants to continue will listen to their complaining customers, actual or potential.

For almost every letter or e-mail I've written, both positive and critical, I've had a positive or satisfactory outcome.

Re:It only takes one.

[upuv]

I never said I wanted to be bent over. You jump to a lot of conclusions for such a basic statement.

To word it slightly differently. I said it's not viable to have a disk as a means of proof of purchase for a basic copy protection scheme.

Not putting in a drive is not a function of cheap manufacturers it a function of consumer choice. People choose not to have them and thus choose to by equipment with out them.

And at what point did I mention, imply, state or suggest that I am willing to blindly accept the crap that is being fed my way. ( I didn't )

If anyone is feeding rubbish into someone else's mouth it was you with the wild conclusions and speculation.

Before you rant in the future I suggest you think before you type.

Re:It only takes one.

[RockDoctor]

Even better, write the stock holders about how the company they've invested their hard money on is blowing it on stupid schemes that don't work.

Yes, any company would be glad to send you a mailing list of their millions of stockholders.

You only need the name of one stockholder, which you can get in one of two general ways : research to find an existing stock holder, or become a stock holder yourself.
Once you've found your stockholder, get them to ask suitably worded questions at the next AGM, OGM or EGM. You may need to have a certain minimum stockholding to get the right to ask awkward-bastard questions, and you may need more to force the questions to go into the annual report.
That's the case in this country ; what the case is in yours, I don't know.

Re:It only takes one.

[smidget2k4]

Exactly. I have had no qualms spending my money buying games on Steam. I don't have to keep track of installation media, go to a store, or do much of anything to get my game and start playing. The only downside is that, in order to play offline, you basically have to predict internet outages.

And of course if Valve goes under and takes Steam with it I only have their word that they won't screw their customers... but...

Sure beats having to go to the store or put up with terrible copy protection. I only have to put up with somewhat annoying have-to-be-online copy... oh... wait...

Re:It only takes one.

[Creepy]

True enough - the more you tell a cracker the software is uncrackable, the more embarrassing it is when they crack it, and even worse if it is in the first 24 hours. In my pre-teens and early teens the harder it was to crack, the more fun and challenging it was to crack. In my mid-teens I kind of fell out of that scene though... too little time (unlike most teens, I was almost always busy with some activity - sports, music, RPG groups, etc).

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubisoft Sinks DRM Piracy Claims

http://kotaku.com/5485502/ubisoft-sinks-drm-piracy-claims

Actually, it might work.

[ericvids]

Actually, it might work.

You have to make the distinction between people who distribute CRACKS and people who distribute the SOFTWARE itself (presumably along with the crack). The latter people are usually the sociopathic, immoral, uncaring bastards. That, and they are usually pretty DUMB (they sometimes end up accidentally distributing software with malware on it). So dumb that I highly doubt these people would have skills to crack the software themselves.

The crackers, on the other hand, are usually pretty brilliant people (they reverse-engineer binary software after all) who just didn't have money and didn't (or refused) to make the connection between "illegal" and "immoral".

Many of these guys even claim in their release notes, "If you like this game, buy it!", which points to the likely possibility that they just cracked these things to get their fair-use rights back.

Re:Actually, it might work.

[DMalic]

Nonono. I'm not claiming anything about "people" who distribute cracks. I'm saying that you are relying on the MOST sociopathic, immoral, uncaring bastard in the entire world who creates cracks. Somewhere out there is someone who just doesn't care. That's why lots of antipiracy (and the "just don't pirate" rhetoric) is flawed; when dealing with this many people you have to forecast behavior and your model has to account for outliers.

Re:And what is there plan for people who don't hav

[Luke Wilson]

And what is the plan for people who don't have computers that meet the system requirements? stand by and let them buy an old game, used?

I told you so

[__aaoyac5342]

This is why I buy games, don't open them but instead download them because of the stupid DRM that plagues legitimate copies. No I don't wish to always have the disc in the drive. No I don't need an internet connection for single player games. No I don't want to install copy protection software. Make a good game and I will buy it.

I would have bought 100 copies of the game

[judeancodersfront]

to give to everyone at work. Now I'm forced to pirate the game and it makes me want to cry since I've always bought my games and I really wanted to pay for 100 copies. My little girl is sick with the plague and told me the other day that seeing me cry just makes her feel worse. P.S. You can trust my story because I'm an internet forum poster.

Re:I would have bought 100 copies of the game

[Voyager529]

Your sarcasm and skepticism is noted, and you're entitled to disbelieve me if you so choose. However, I do in fact purchase video games when I want them. As suggested by another poster, I'm not purchasing this one, nor have I purchased CoD:MW2, nor have I pirated either. In fact, I didn't even download Mass Effect 2 when it was leaked early, even though I'd already paid for it in full. The point I was making was that when it's harder to USE a purchased copy over a cracked one, and more problems arise with the purchased ones, it feels like the publishers are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like they're saying "We don't want to make PC games anymore because of piracy. Let's make it so challenging to use a legitimate copy that even customers who want to purchase it need to download a crack in order to make it work, then we can show that 90% of customers are using cracked copies to the point where the bean counters in Accounting agree."

Re:No you're a dick

[ae1294]

Without pirates no DRM would be needed. Your line of reasoning still proves exactly what I said: pirates are the original problem, not the companies.

What is your fucking problem? Someone somewhere is ALWAYS going to pirate so shut the fuck up and move out of your parents basement already.

And I can promise you even in your fairy tail omg ponnies world where no one ever pirated a game there would still be DRM. Please fucking note D.R.M. stands for Digital Rights Management and not Pirate Control Management. Theses companies don't want to sell a product they want to rent one for a limited time but at the same fucking price.

Please for the love of god just shut the fuck up already you fucking moron...

Re:I think movie ticket prices are retardedly high

[timmarhy]

actually you can get a refund if you leave in the first 15 minutes, but the moment you enter that serial key you can't return that game, so you FAIL.

Prove that at least 25% of pirates aren't cheap

[judeancodersfront]

pricks who can easily afford the games. When piracy rates of pc games are around 90% even a 10% increase in legit sales is a huge amount.

Re:Prove that at least 25% of pirates aren't cheap

[Totenglocke]

Being able to afford a game has absolutely nothing to do with why a large number of people pirate - are large number of people pirate because they refuse to pay to get ass-raped with DRM.

Re:Prove that at least 25% of pirates aren't cheap

[Andorin]

Nobody can prove anything about the motives and capabilities of everyone who uses p2p. That's the point. Which means the question is:

Given that there is no effective way to stop copyright infringement that respects fair use, along with more fundamental rights (such as privacy and presumption of innocence), and given that there is an unknown percent of p2p users who would buy if they couldn't download, is converting that unknown percent of users into paying customers worth the cost (both in terms of finances and peoples' rights) of draconian anti-piracy measures?

Governments are supposed to implement the least restrictive laws and policies possible to achieve a goal. It makes far more sense to tell Big Media to shut up and innovate than to try to force unreasonable, not to mention ineffective, copying controls on the entire world.

Re:Prove that at least 25% of pirates aren't cheap

[judeancodersfront]

There are clearly people that can afford the games but are choosing not to purchase them. Or did the millions of people that torrented Crysis all have basic computers with 56k modem connections and integrated gpus? You can use politicized terms like "Big Media" but allowing piracy hurts content producers at all levels. When piracy rates get too high content producers and capital will leave for greener pastures. People get mad at companies like Ubisoft for pushing this type of crap but the pirates are the real problem. They're the ones that have been driving pc developers to consoles and will continue to do so even if all pc developers get together and swear to never use DRM again. The World of Goo devs tried being nice and going DRM free and their game was pirated at 90% like everything else.

Re:Prove that at least 25% of pirates aren't cheap

[LingNoi]

You simply don't have a clue what you're talking about. Pirates haven't driven PC developers to consoles. Consoles are simply more popular hence the flock of developers looking to cash in. It is simple economics, more market share means more money to be made. It has nothing to do with piracy.

Console games get pirated just as much as PC games, even more so. In my county most people own two xboxes. One for live and one for everything else.

Also funny you mention world of goo because this is exactly what they said on that 90% figure..

One thing that really jumped out at me was his estimate that preventing 1000 piracy attempts results in only a single additional sale, this supports our intuitive assessment that people who pirate our game aren’t people who would have purchased it had they not been able to get it without paying.

Also this from the same World of Goo blog post..

either way, ricochet shipped with DRM, world of goo shipped without it, and there seems to be no difference in the outcomes.

It's obvious you've never been into an investment meeting with a publisher. The first thing they want to know is market share and ROI, with those things as the major factor it's a no brainer that everyone has moved to consoles. Piracy has nothing to do with it.

Re:You're penis is very very small

[ae1294]

Do you honestly think that companies would invest money to create DRM if piracy had not become so widespread? See what I did there?

God damnit I'm sick of these motherfucking shills on this motherfucking site...

How many more times am I going to have to fucking tell you to SHUT THE FUCK UP. You are a pathetic piece of shit who clearly doesn't fucking understand how shit works in the really real world.

D.R.M stands for Digital Rights Management those words answer your fucking question.

Re:I think movie ticket prices are retardedly high

[judeancodersfront]

not where I live and the reason you can't return pc games is because at some point the return rate became too high. People were just copying the games and then returning them. Honor systems don't work when it comes to pc gaming. You can see this with DRM free games that still have piracy rates of around 90%. Too many people are expecting someone else to pay.

Re:Thanks a lot

[Anonymous Coward]

6. Santa Claus

Publishers don't like 90% piracy rates

[judeancodersfront]

anymore than Stardock liked having their demigod servers overran by pirates. DRM works just fine on PS3 games and many MMOs as well. The problem is ineffective DRM, not the idea itself.

Re:You must know what this will cause right?

[buss_error]

Good job, Skid-Row! You have hastened the end of PC gaming as you know it. Congrats.
.

I think the companies that release stupid DRM'ed games have more to do with it. If I like a game, I'll pay for it. Bucks aren't THAT hard to come by. Heck, I'll skip lunch a few days a week if things are that tight. I could stand to lose some weight anyway.

First, why should a game cost $28M USD? More money doesn't a better game make. If my single player game (legitimately purchased - I'm not advocating ripping off someone that doesn't choose to place their product under GPL - their choice) borked because the crappy ISP dropped cell delineation, I'd consider that broken. By intent. Why would I buy something I know is broken from the get-go? Ubisoft has nothing to worry about on my account - I won't by their software, ever. I won't play their games - ever. People that make such breathless mistakes as this DRM'ed abortion likely made other mistakes as well. We just can't see them. It's closed source. If you need a crack to make a game work correctly, I'd say you're better off without the game - or the crack.

Re:Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe someone modded me off topic for saying this was going to happen in the last Slashdot story....

Re:Another idea

[caubert]

They really should learn from Audio Software devs. They have not cracked Cubase 4-5 (allthough H2O did a brilliant job on Cubase3), and they can't crack software that requires PCI-plugged cards like some VSTs and stuff.

I was wrong this go around

[erroneus]

My predictions were on the first side which was that the DRM would be effective but would basically piss off their users, both legal and not resulting in a pile of disinteresting crap.

My presumption was based on the presumption that they would do this DRM *right" by making it difficult to crack. Clearly, they make it not so difficult which I did not expect. After all, what I expected was that something that was so important to them to be implemented with all the care and diligence as Microsoft's Windows Vista. You know, that OS no one uses that has DRM up the wazoo where all internal program communications are encrypted to avoid media being ripped through playback and stuff like that?

Well, I'm going to risk being wrong again by saying that "It's not over yet..." They will issue an update to the game such that it can't be played without an update being applied or something like that... the update, of course, fixing the problem and/or making it more difficult in the future.

Re:I was wrong this go around

[soccerisgod]

The more difficult you make it to crack, the more annoying it gets for the user. This is because you have to get more and more intrusive and less permissive with what you do to the PC of your customer, and obiously you can't sell your games with a hardware dongle just to make it more difficult for crackers. On the other hand, a typical cracker will enjoy a challenge and at worst will need a day more to crack your super duper copy protection.

A very similar situation exists for hardware manufacturers in the west that have trouble with the Chinese copying their hardware designs - you can go to any length of trouble and efford to protect your hardware from being copied, like removing the chip prints, or trying to prevent them from just microscoping the inside of your chip, but in the end it's all in vain because their motivation is strong enough to overcome anything you throw at them.

Copy protections in general have only one use: to prevent the dumbest of people who don't know how to get cracks from the internet from copying stuff.

Ubisoft claims it lacks features.

[mwvdlee]

Ubisoft claims it lacks features.
For instance, the cracked version lacks the requirement for a continuous online connection.
The cracked version lacks the occasional lag caused by the internet connection, nor does the cracked version have the feature where the game gets useless when Ubisoft shuts down their servers.
It also lacks all other DRM available in the original game.
So yeah, the pirate version is lacking features.

Re:Ubisoft claims it lacks features.

[Opportunist]

Hmm... I could live with that, after all, I'd save 50+ bucks.

Maybe they could market it like this. You can play the cracked version as some sort of demo, and if you want to see those advanced, new features in your game, go buy it!

Re:Ubisoft claims it lacks features.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just looked around on some forums and it looks like you can only play the first mission with a pirated game and you'd have to download the other levels from ubisoft's servers. Maybe it's just a bug, but who knows.

And the whole thing is not really cracked. Silent Hunter had the option to store the safegame offline and that's what the crackers used. As far as I know Ass Creed won't come with that option, so you probably wont be able to save your game if you pirate it.

Re:Ubisoft claims it lacks features.

[blackraven14250]

Guh, what? Bioware decided to go to the extent of making you download every level past the first, so you HAD to buy the game from them? That's even more insane than a constant internet connection to a DRM server requirement!

Re:Ubisoft claims it lacks features.

[Aphoxema]

Then someone with a "legit" copy just needs to get through the game the first time.

Re:Ubisoft claims it lacks features.

[Mashdar]

I believe they were using Microsoft's definition of feature.

Re:No you're a dick

[geminidomino]

Without pirates no DRM would be needed. Your line of reasoning still proves exactly what I said: pirates are the original problem, not the companies.

Yeah, pay no attention to those dirty, thieving bastards who are buying the games secondhand, 100% legally. Because the publishers certainly aren't. Nope. Not a bit.

Idiot.

Observation. No one mentions the name of the game

[upuv]

At the time of writing this. I scanned all subjects. Not one actual single mention of the actual game name has been made in the subject lines. NONE. 72 replies and 1 article and not a single subject with the name of the game. A couple of acronyms but no names. However mentions of DRM and variations on DRM are common. This says something. Some of the responses are full on rants about DRM. Interesting piece of social observation I think. Almost like a mob mentality. Herds of people charging for a cause that isn't fully defined. However it is true that this thread is more an extension of the original article. So one could say this is the giant "I TOLD YOU SO YOU GREEDY SONS OF B@#$@%". type response. I still marvel at the fact the people seem to have forgot the subject of the problem. ( hmmmmm. , ) P.S. I personally think this moronic attempt at DRM was a finical Cluster F#$& and will have serious issues for Ubi. However this post is more about the thread than the subject.

So was Sony stupid for implementing DRM in the PS3

[judeancodersfront]

Would you have told them that it would be a waste of time?

You missed the point : used games != piracy

[AwaxSlashdot]

You all missed the point : this new DRM target was to lock every game to a single account. With such an association, you can not resell your game anymore. As such, they don't even care if the DRM is cracked in 10 years or 10 millisec : you can not legally resell a game that was legally purchased.

In France, 40% of purchased games are used games. I guess that the figure should be more or less the same in other western countries.

So, let's say 100 people are buying the game and 200 are stealing it. Only 60 of them are giving money to the editor, the 40 others are giving money to the reseller shop (fees) and lowering the acquisition cost of a portion of the 60 ones. The 200 pirates do not pay anything and the editors have given up on them.

Now, with this "no more used game" DRM, honest people might not all buy the game : a few because they dont like DRM but most of them won't buy the game because they won't be able to lower their acquisition price buy reselling it. For the editor, as long as there are still 61 people paying the full price for the game, they win. You now have +39 pirates but you have +1 giving money to the editor.

Re:Surprise!

[Opportunist]

Not at all surprising. Not despite but because it was so elaborate.

The bigger your defense ring, the more likely it has a weak spot. The more elaborate, complicated, twisted and, eventually, bloated your protection is, the more likely it has some weakness that can be exploited. And as with physical defenses, your attacker does not have to tear them all down. One hole in the wall is enough for him. He needn't dismantle your tripwire-loaded, alarm-guarded, multilayer steel door. He can easily just go through the drywall that surrounds the rest of your "secure" room.

as always...

[smash]

... pay for DRM infected stuff - get shafted.

download the warez, have a product with superior functionality.

The days of code-wheels, manual page references, etc were bearable. If you bought the game, it wasn't a major hassle.

Relying on internet connectivity, particularly shit that seems to stream data at something like 128kbit (from memory) is just bullshit. Some countries have ISPs that charge for data. Fucked if i'm going to pay for data to play a game I already fucking bought, that isn't an MMORPG!

If publishers put more effort into putting out a decent game, rather than spending millions on the next generation of DRM that will just inevitably be cracked anyway, we'd all be better off.

Back in the day, you'd get incentives to buy the game, like posters, t-shirts, a decent manual or whatever. Now? A nice big "Fuck you".

Well "Fuck you" ubisoft, I'd download the game to play it just out of spite, but my guess is that as with most of the current crop of games coming out, its barely worth the cost in bandwidth...

Devs should take a look at

[KalgarThrax]

What these guys are doing: http://www.wolfire.com/overgrowth.
Sure they are living in their parent's basement, but they seem genuinely talented, both artistically and technologically. Other game developers that are trying to cater to billions have already given up and have nothing to complain about.

Re:You must know what this will cause right?

[Mashiki]

Good job, Skid-Row! You have hastened the end of PC gaming as you know it. Congrats.

Oh I know I'm replying to a troll but I've got to say this...piracy is a much bigger problem on consoles then on PC's.

Very understandable, Skid Row basically had to!

[Opportunist]

Skid Row had to hurry and come forwards with the crack, if only just to protect their copyright and IP, so they don't their crack abused without permission by UBIsoft like ReLoaded had theirs.

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/19/0239227

Re:won't crak all the drms

[Pentium100]

That one will go down very fast.

It's an audio watermark, supposed to be inaudible. I wonder if it would survive being recorded to a cassette or a reel tape. Or maybe just adding some random wow&flutter digitally would distort the watermark.

I don't have a PS3 or I would try to hack this myself. If I watch the movie on my PC it would play and the DRM would be ignored.

Re:You must know what this will cause right?

[Opportunist]

"Protect" their property by devaluing it? Yes, devalue. What's the value of a product? By its definition what someone else is willing (and able) to pay for it. No product has an intrinsic value. They have manufacturing cost, but that does not equal their value. I could make a table of pure gold with a manufacturing value of a few million, if not billion, USD, but I doubt I'd find anyone stupid enough to buy it. It does not represent this value.

So value is dependent entirely on the buyer's esteem of the product. And a game that limits me more than a game of equal properties (in this case, the original compared to the cracked game) is less valuable.

So, essentially, DRM means you increase the cost of manufacturing (actually, DRM, since you pay at a per-unit base, is about the ONLY major cost in a game that depends on the units produced/sold, most of the rest of your costs are unit-independent) to lower the value of your product.

I dunno, I am no MBA, but I know that much about business that INCREASING your cost to LOWER the value of your product is ... umm, stupid?

If anything kills PC gaming it's the trend to spend more and more money on things that drive away more and more paying customers.

Re:So was Sony stupid for implementing DRM in the

[s0mmie]

Yes. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/25/playstation_cracked_wide_open/

Easier crack of their DRM scheme

[MemoryDragon]

Just dont buy the garbage, I dont even care to get some patches from the black market, I simply do not buy their stuff anymore until they stop this scheme.
And believe me I bought more than a handful of games from them the last 10 years!

Not all it was made out to be.

[Alkonaut]

If it was "cracked in one day" then this DRM scheme wasn't all it was made out to be. It was a simple "cd-check" style DRM that could be cracked by simply removing the checking from the code, or by creating a local server responding in the way the game expects. A real DRM scheme requiring permanent internet connection would of course not include the whole game in the installer, period. The best idea would be to have logic such as NPC AI hosted on remote servers.

I just don't buy that "all DRM will always be cracked within a day". For media perhaps, because of the analog hole. But for logic, you simply can't crack code that you don't have on your computer. You can circumvent it by writing another implementation, but at that point you just cannot be sure that the cracked version is all that the original is. DRM is here to stay, and for games (unlike for media), creating an undefeatable DRM should be really simple, by simply keeping half the product on the sellers side.

The other argument is that all DRM is evil because it is an inconvenience for paying customers and not for the pirates. That may be true, but that is just a fact of life. Inconvenience for honest people is created by dishonest people. The lock on your front door is that kind of inconvenience. You could refuse to buy a door with a lock in it if you want to (since you don't like that YOU are inconvenienced by someone elses dishonesty). But you don't. You buy the door with the lock and never think twice about it.

As far as "permanent internet connection" is concerned, it's just not an inconvenience anymore. Internet connection to a computer is the same as an electricity connection. My computer is completely useless without power, and all but useless without an internet connection. If the power goes down I could whine about the game not saving checkpoints often enough. The same could hold for internet connection. Sure, the electricity requirement is a true requirement while the internet connection is artificial, but it would not annoy me any more when my savegame is lost because of internet outage or a graphics driver failure than when it is lost because of a power blackout.

Re:Not all it was made out to be.

[shermo]

As far as "permanent internet connection" is concerned, it's just not an inconvenience anymore. Internet connection to a computer is the same as an electricity connection. My computer is completely useless without power, and all but useless without an internet connection. If the power goes down I could whine about the game not saving checkpoints often enough. The same could hold for internet connection. Sure, the electricity requirement is a true requirement while the internet connection is artificial, but it would not annoy me any more when my savegame is lost because of internet outage or a graphics driver failure than when it is lost because of a power blackout.

Woah hold on. So you never travel with a laptop? You don't live in a region with unreliable internet service? You don't have a monthly cap on your internet usage?

I think you'll find a lot of us do. Everyone's situation is different and it's completely false to equate 'power' with 'internet'.

So now it's "Ubisoft Awful Anti-Pirate System..."

[Arancaytar]

...that is utterly worthless to boot.

How unreliable

[SmallFurryCreature]

See, you proof it.

And to remain on-topic: HAHA!

Off topic, but fundamental to the discussion...

[Snufu]

If there existed a method of Digital Rights Management that:

- was completely invisible to the user,
- installed nothing on your client,
- had negligible computational overhead,
- worked perfectly (100% of legitimate copies pass, 100% of illegitimate copies rejected,)
- rigorously respected your privacy,
- added no cost to the product,
- smelled lemon fresh.

Would you be in favor of or oppose this hypothetical implementation of DRM?

Re:Off topic, but fundamental to the discussion...

[TheRaven64]

Not really fundamental to the discussion. It's like asking 'if a cheap consumer-grade CPU could execute NP-complete algorithms in a few seconds on any input data, would you still recommend RSA?' The DRM system that you propose is not just difficult, it is not even theoretically possible. In logic, this kind of argument is called ex falsio quodlibet, meaning that if you start with a false axiom you can derive any statement as true.

So, to answer your question, if there were a herd of unicorns grazing in the churchyard across the road, then yes I would be in favour of DRM.

Re:Off topic, but fundamental to the discussion...

[mcgrew]

Pretty big "ifs" there. I would say yes, provided it also didn't stop me from reselling the product when I was done with it, and didn't stop me from distributing copies when its copyright ran out.

If I could flap my arms and fly to the moon, would I do it? No, I'd asphyxiate as soon as I left the atmosphere. Pretty much the same thing though.

Re:So was Sony stupid for implementing DRM in the

[andydread]

Woops! Sony got their arse handed to them.

Re:Surprise!

[Aphoxema]

Just insert an tag. I think that will grossly deliver the sentiment, more or less.

Re:Surprise!

[Aphoxema]

Just insert an tag. I think that will grossly deliver the sentiment, more or less.

Damnit, I meant to say <Eric Cartman>. I should take advantage of the compulsory Preview feature.

Re:Observation. No one mentions the name of the ga

[Dunbal]

You want specifics? Google this:

0841A394BFEBDB60E2F463A10D15BD6B4198C5C0

You're solving the wrong problem

[Moraelin]

You're IMHO seeing the wrong problem, or rather just one half of the problem.

While a system like this won't and didn't stop piracy, it might just achieve what other systems have failed, and that the publishers have been whining for for a decade: it might just revoke a lot of honest customers' consumer rights.

Let's face it, one of the things they _have_ before whined about, and occasionally even tried to prevent, is that you can buy a second hand copy on eBay instead of paying them for it. You know, just for like any other product out there. You can buy a second hand car, a second hand lawnmower, even a second hand gun, but God forbid that you might buy a computer game second hand.

Tying your right to play to an account on their servers, well, pretty much means you can't sell the game without selling the account. If you registered more than one game on one account (I dunno this one, but for example EA's accounts are tied to an email address, and Joe Average only has one email address), it means you have to give someone access to them _all_ when you wanted to sell one game, and might also mean they get to use your DLC points, post in your name, see your details, and depending on how it's implemented it might lock you out while they play on that account. Heck, some of these might apply even without selling it, but even when just letting your kid play the game after you're done with it or viceversa.

It just added a layer of pain in the ass for every Joe Average out there who isn't even considering piracy at all, but just tries to exercises what passes for consumer rights in any other domain.

Re:Of course pirates always get a superior product

[LordVader717]

Mozilla, Opera, various Linux companies somehow manage that, though I don't know how.

Mozilla's income is mainly from search box deals and a majority of work is done by volunteers. That's not how games work. People have become so cushy about not having to pay for software that they forget that some stuff costs a lot of money. Guess what's probably the no. 1 usage for Amazon's search box in Firefox? Games.

only a matter of time

[Ephemeriis]

Others assumed that it would be immediately cracked, as is usually the case, leaving the inconvenience for paying customers and resulting in a superior product for pirates.

Well, I never assumed it would be immediately cracked... But it was only a matter of time. Eventually some bored or determined person out there is going to get around to cracking it. It may take long enough for some impatient people to go out and buy the game instead of pirating it... But it is going to be cracked.

And when that happens, you've got a choice of either paying cash for a game that won't work when your Internet goes down... Paying cash and then breaking the law to crack that game you just bought... Or pirating the game from the start so that you've got a game that works with no Internet for free.

And the publishers wonder why piracy is rampant.

Re:Is "/." socially irresponsible?

[broken_chaos]

I do understand the difference between the three quite well. The references to patents and trademarks were intended to be in passing, as they have had lobbying groups pushing for changes in the past, very similarly to how copyright law has.

I also realised that sentence worked poorly shortly after I posted it. The parentheses should start with "major copyright extensions..." Does that make you feel better?

Thinking like a board member

[KingSkippus]

I am thinking exactly like a board member.

"Wait now, we spent how much licensing/writing this scheme to restrict digital rights for people? And it was cracked when!!?"

My line of thought would be: How much profit would we make selling a game without Digital Rights Restrictions versus how much would we make selling a game with Digital Rights Restrictions? Well, let's see, there's the obvious direct cost of licensing/creating the system that we would save. Plus, it doesn't do any good anyway, because the so-called "pirates" are going to crack the system anyway and the vast majority of people who were going to buy the game before are still going to buy the game. Also, we don't risk the PR nightmare of the Digital Rights Restrictions having a bug that could negatively affect their gameplay. Oh, and we can actually use it as a marketing point in selling the game.

Not imposing Digital Rights Restrictions is win-win proposition for both the company and the consumer. The only people who lose out are the people who write Digital Rights Restrictions systems, and as a board member of a company that now has nothing to do with them, I couldn't care less.

Re:Thinking like a board member

[Kelbear]

That's not how these people think. This is /standard/ CYA (cover-your-ass) strategy for any office.

Inquiry: "What have you done to stop all this piracy!?"

1)
Response: "I initiated/contracted a DRM system."
Result: Piracy, but at least it looks like you did something.

2)
Response: "I don't think it'd help to spend money on DRM, it'd only reduce our sales"
Result: Piracy, but now it looks like you didn't do anything!

The boss probably got to where he was by protecting himself from looking bad. DRM is an easy sell to guys like him. He needs an excuse. Otherwise he is relying on the hope that the investor will believe his story about DRM being ineffective.

It's much better to be a man of "action". Guys who do things and shake things up. That's how you get noticed. Politicians do the same thing. Nobody wants to be the guy who doesn't increase any programs and doesn't spend any money on new things. He looks useless, even if he ends up balancing the budget! So the politicians all campaign on making things happen, spending money, cutting taxes...and then they leave the problem of paying for it to whoever comes after them. And whoever comes after them does the same thing because being a man of action is still better than being the guy who did nothing at all.

Re:Thinking like a board member

[IICV]

If I was in charge of these things, I would go back to the feelies of old - every version of the game, not just the super expensive ultra-collector's edition comes with some physical object(s) related to the game's backstory. It could be something as simple and cheap as a couple of bottle caps from Fallout, or a paper map, or a mini-sword keychain fob. In the game itself, there's an optional but really neat side-thing that depends on the feelies; for instance, Morrowind's paper map had little Xs that marked various non-obvious points of interest. With the bottle caps, you could have a serial number that results in winning an in-game pre-war lottery, or maybe have some special runes on the sword.

Hell, you could even do something awesome and elaborate - once the player beats the game using the special runes on their sword keychain fob, they get a special code and can mail in the sword to receive an upgraded version from ingame, depending on which ending they got. There's no way the pirates can crack that, and it'll give the people who enjoy playing your game a reward for actually buying it - and a way of showing off to all their friends that they beat your game.

That's really the basic problem with DRM: it's all stick, and no carrot. In a large market, the people who hit their customers with sticks will inevitably lose out to people who entice their customers with carrots.

Don't forget the most important feature

[Moraelin]

Don't forget the most important feature: the gamme suddenly shutting down and dumping you at the desktop without warning or saving, if your internet connection as much as hickups. (Dunno about other providers, but at least T-Online still has at least one mandatory disconnect per day.)

I don't know about you, but if my game doesn't randomly crash to desktop, it's just not the same thing dammit. It's like I'm not even playing an Ubisoft game ;)

Re:So was Sony stupid for implementing DRM in the

[Boldoran]

Except DRM on the PS3 does not screw over your normal customers and make the pirated game the supperior version.

Re:So was Sony stupid for implementing DRM in the

[MrZilla]

And it took how long before it was cracked?

Echo that

[QuaveringGrape]

There are lots of game companies that don't use DRM...and what's more they have come out and made a point of it. Examples: Wolfire, 2dBoy, and Unknown worlds, just to name a few.

Enforce storing the savegame data in the cloud

[Goodl]

that way if you want a cracked version you can have it but have to do it all in a single sitting. inconvenient and makes going legit attractive if you like the game. Didnt they do this with Dirt2?

Back to CARTS! YES!!!

[Xanavi]

USB Cartridges. Think how cool they could look. Maybe crazy ones with built in physics cards or storage. I'd think that would be pretty cool

Developper ethics

[DrYak]

you're not going to run the servers for nearly as long as they currently run authorisation or simple match-making services. Now I REALLY don't want to buy your product, because you're going to render it useless in a few years. I can still play Space Quest.

This all boils down to the developer's / distributor's ethics.

Just like Valve promise that, before hypothetically folding down, they are going to release patches to remove DRM protections from their own steam-powered games, some developers could promise (as in : "it's a part of the contract they signed on with the distributor") that, in case of the distributor shutting down the servers, or the developers bankrupting, a locally-installable server *would* be distributed.

Just the same way as lots of now abandoned MMO can still be player on unofficial servers. Except now, the release of the necessary material to run unofficial servers is part of the initial agreement.

Well that requires developers and distributors which will stick to their promise. And no complex shifting of hands for IP (20 years old software still property of some current company after a long chain of buys/sells, which refuses to release the components, on the grounds that it still exists and thus the "in case of bankrupcy" clause doesn't fulfil. And the original developers nowhere to be found)

Paradox does use some DRM

[listentoreason]

... at least according to their CEO. In general, it does look like "most" of their games are DRM-free, but I was unable to find a clear statement about when and what. The example above is Majesty 2: The Fantasy Kingdom, the DRM in question is Stardock's GOO.

I am currently only buying DRM-free games. I patronize GOG extensively, they explicitly state they never use DRM. The games are older, but they have many good ones, the prices are excellent, and ... NO DRM. I'm very interested in Paradox, but want to be able to know - clearly and explicitly - which games lack DRM

ubisoft devs == stupid?

[Surt]

The way to make an online system uncrackable seems totally straightforward, I wonder if the developers are stupid or they weren't willing to make secure DRM.

Where is the obligatory Simpsons quote?

[Holammer]

"Ha Ha!"

Re:Another idea

[Voyager529]

Let's count the fail...

-You can't assume that people have PCs with the capacity of adding a PCI card. All slots could be used, or they could be using a gaming laptop. An average user could also simply cringe at the thought of opening their PC, and yes, I do know some like that.

-You can't assume that people would be WILLING to dedicate a PCI slot to play a game without any additional advantage. In my book, that's just as unreasonable as this always-online crap.

-You can't compare adding hardware that provides end user benefits to hardware that only satisfies a DRM requirement. I don't use Cubase, but I have used a Matrox RT-2000. Matrox makes specific plugins for Premiere that will do things like render multiple 3D transitions and overlays with color correction in real-time. While it's a bit less revolutionary today with i7 processors and OpenGL plugins, I remember seeing 700MHz P3's with 128MBytes of RAM and Windows 98 doing stuff like that, and it was only possible because of the proprietary hardware that also had the benefit of reducing piracy. The hardware solution you propose can only have the task of enforcing DRM, which is quite the waste of a PCI slot.

-Making a game work on XP, Vista, and 7 x86 and x64 isn't horrifically difficult. There's not a whole lot of low-level stuff going on, so debugging on multiple operating systems is relatively simple. Add a PCI card into the mix, and now you need drivers for it. Since drivers tend to be among the leading cause of system instability along with viruses on the Windows platform, do you REALLY want a bunch of game designers to start writing device drivers for an unnecessary piece of hardware for at least six different operating systems, all of which have a different driver stack (okay, you can argue that a well-written Vista driver can work on 7 as well, but it will still need to be tested and debugged).

-This post is among the best breakdowns of DRM issues I've read in a LONG time. A PCI card, even if you put half the game data on some onboard flash memory, is still vulnerable to the tell-the-binary-what-it-wants-to-hear problems AND the dump-your-RAM-during-a-playthrough tactics. Oh, and there's likely some means of modding the driver to make the flash memory come up as a regular storage device and just dumping the data that way. No matter how it gets sliced, at the end of the day, putting half the game on a DVD and the other half on a PCI card still puts both halves of the puzzle in the hands of the user.

-Comparing users of Cubase/Protools/Avid to gamers is a problem, because you've got two different user sets. Gamers are in it for personal enjoyment. If they have a game and play it, they're happy, and it doesn't go much further than that (multiplayer, yes, but the point is that use of the product is the reward by itself). Cubase et al users are, in the majority of cases, in a studio environment where they are charging musicians $$$$$$$$$$$ to record their music. Again, the PCI cards required usually provide some advantage (lower latency, accelerated processing, higher bit depth, multiple I/O, XLR I/O, etc.). If a card costs $500, that cost is covered in a fraction of a day's worth of studio time, and getting caught is a huge problem, too. You can't compare people who are spending money to make money, and people who are spending money just to have fun.

Paradox Interactive

[Agent0013]

I went to the site of Paradox Interactive to see what they have and I find that they made the Penumbra series. Those are nice games. Kind of a puzzle first person. Lots of eerie quiet sneaking. Not a lot of fighting. I guess I am a customer of them and didn't even know it. The games were very easy to download and install, so that is cool.

Re:Surprise!

[icannotthinkofaname]

That's very nice and all, but how is it incomplete? In the last link in TFS, the comment is introduced in a less-than-friendly manner. They call it "Ubisoft's 'please believe us' statement".

So, um...what's the pirated version missing, other than a snowball's chance in hell of enforcing the DRM?

C'mon Slashdot!

[Joe Snipe]

Not one technical account of how it was cracked? Are we not nerds?

DRM that frustrates legitimate users is futile

[FoolishOwl]

A fundamental problem with DRM is that it's a constant irritant for legitimate users. So, many legitimate users will install the legitimately purchased game, then download the "cracked" version, to bypass the annoyance of DRM. Also, since the DRM is developed independently of the game itself, a frequent source of bugs is conflict between the DRM and the game, so installing a "cracked" version can be a way to overcome bugs. So, a lot of legitimate users will purchase and install the game, then download and install the "cracked" version, and will feel ethically justified in doing so.

Consequently, any game with DRM that frustrates legitimate users will create demand by legitimate users for "cracked" versions ... which will be used by illegitimate users as well. DRM of this sort is self-defeating.

Doesn't quite work

[danaris]

There's a serious problem with your analogy, though:

The game publishers are making money. They're raking it in hand over fist. It's an incredibly lucrative industry.

Which is why they can afford to keep throwing money down the drain alienating their customers and making it more difficult for legitimate purchasers to use their own games: because those same people will keep coming back to buy the next Halo, or Mass Effect, or Sims, or whatever their next game is, whether it be a glorious diamond or a piece of cheap glass.

Dan Aris

99,7% ?

[clarkie.mg]

To be honest, I don't think you get it. How many regular, normal users are going to google/torrent the hack?

To be honest, I don't think you get it. Do you think a company would bother developing DRM schemes if 99,7% of the buyers didn't care and bought whatever they can ?

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_4.html :
The report concludes that "...by the end of 2007, there were more than one billion PCs installed around the world; nearly half have pirated software on them." ... For 2009, the most pirated PC game as reported in this article was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. The PC version had a staggering 4.1 million downloads via torrents alone compared with an estimated 200,000 - 300,000 actual sales via retail and Steam

http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_8.html :
As yet another example of removing DRM not leading to any reduction in piracy, the game Demigod has been pirated so heavily in its initial release period that it has caused the game's servers to effectively go down. Out of the 120,000 connections made to the game's servers, over 100,000 were by confirmed pirates, leaving only around 18,000 legitimate purchasers.

Very interesting article.

Why do they do this to themselves?

[pugugly]

To (probably mis)quote Scott Adams "Well, that didn't take long, even for here"

Pug

Again Pirate version more user friendly.

[upuv]

Seriously.

As long as DRM makes the legit use of product more annoying than the illegitimate version this is a never ending battle.

The statement. "This DRM is unbreakable." Is always false. Who ever says it should be fired on the spot. For either being an idiot or misleading the shareholders..

When DRM puts additional requirements on the user it will always result in lost sales. People are fundamentally lazy. When it's easier to use the cracked/hacked/broken/mangeled/slightly buggy version you will loose money.

The legit version MUST have more actual value than the pirate version in order to generate real cash flow. For example: There are no real pirate versions of World of Warcraft because only proper versions are the ones that can give access to the real content. Yes it's a different kind of game. But it does illustrates the point very well. The legit versions of the Ubi games do not add value to the customer. As a matter of fact they do the opposite. Thus making the pirate versions more attractive than the real.

Where is the value add compensation? Something that would restore the balance. The legit version adds annoyance of always on net. But it adds the value of ?????.

Online game saves are not a value add. They are again an annoyance. Once those servers go down you don't have access to your save files. And they will go down on occasion. That now becomes and announce rather than a value add.

Being online enhances the game play how? I mean real enhancement. Not sales talk enhancement that a 12 year old kid doesn't care about.

For the N-th time. DRM only succeeds when it either adds value to the user or enables access to value add that exceeds the value loss of the DRM. ( I mean real value add. )

UBI managed to made a sucker from the honest buyer

[valduboisvert]

So why buy an annoying product when you can have a better one from a hacker? UBI really shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Re:It only takes one. but I second that!

[Geotopia]

""But Skippus, people would be able to copy the game from day one!" My contention is that I've saved them tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars and my Digital Rights Restrictions system lasted just one day less than the one they would have otherwise spent so much money on."

Excellent synopsis and nice touch of humor. You can come work for me when I finally get my company going:)

On the serious side, the Movie, Video, Music, Games, and software business really have some wrong-thinking people at the helm, or at least idiot lawyers influencing the top brass. That anyone in a vibrant profitable company would sit around thinking of ways to protect intellectual property from being abused by their paying customers is idiocy in play. Just keep cranking out good stuff, and ignore this fictitious loss-by-piracy of sales that would never materialize anyway, and better yet, think of ways of turning pirated copies into sales leads converting them into paid copies. Musicians or their publishers should be stuffing the P2P networks with lower quality and perhaps shorter versions of their songs to bring on new sales (gosh, sounds like the AM radio controversy 3 generations ago!) Game makers should post FREE versions of their games. Make them shorter, or slightly disabled (enabled enough to get hooked), or better yet, put advertising inside the game, and then again, stuff the P2P networks with these official versions. Getting all draconian and punishing your paying customer base is true lunacy!

Final note, copyright and patent law is a false monopoly granted only by government. The market doesn't need IP protection* and IP protection isn't supported by the market. It's certainly not supported by any legal theories of equity. Games makers or any other purveyor of a virtual product are welcome to do whatever they'd like to increase their sales and profit margins, but everyone should take note and remember that the entire construct of intellectual "property" is an act of fiat by government, originally instituted so that creators have an incentive to be creative. But this rootkit crap and DRM is destructive and is backfiring on the various industries. For proof in the past, check out the section of the Copyright Act called "Compulsory Licensing".

* I'm referring to DMCA restrictions of an individual copying their own purchases, not the wholesale duplication and distribution of bootleg media.

Money down the drain

[Databass]

Welp, there's whatever UbiSoft spent on this scheme down the drain. What did they spend on this thing? A million bucks? I hope the one day of protection they got out of it was worth it.

The way I've always seen it is, every pirated copy MIGHT be a lost sale. Sure, some people who would have otherwise bought it will pirate it and not pay. But many of the pirates are people who had zero intention of buying the game anyway, but will give it a spin just to see what it is about if the only cost is one click and a few minutes of bandwidth. A small percentage of those may actually like it enough to pay for it. Myself, I'm not going to pay for nor even pirate Assassin's Creed 2. What does it say when I don't even care enough to show interest in the game for free?

Now, the people who make their living convincing the UbiSofts of the world to buy DRM are of course going to try to assume that every pirate represents a lost sale. "Heck, some of these people would probably have bought a copy for the kids too- so we'll just go ahead and say each pirated copy equals _1.2_ lost sales! That's like a kajillion sales lost! Give us that cool million dollars, and all those pirated copies will immediately convert back to cold, hard cash! You'll be RICH!!!" UbiSoft's decisionmakers have their eyes turn into dollar signs and fork over the million bucks.

Then some guys crack the thing in a day. Does the DRM team give the cool million bucks back if their DRM gets cracked that fast? I seriously doubt it. So all UbiSoft really did was lose a million bucks on DRM and annoy their legitimate customers.

The cracked game IS NOT working

[Silver Surfer 1]

Like many are claiming it is.

the crack will let you get into the game, but will prevent you from progressing past the tutorial mission. It is funny seeing some people bitch that they cannot start a campaign as suggestions to fix this are to buy the game.

Silent Hunter 3 had starforce and there is a stickied thread over on the UBI forums on how to install the game using a crack.

Silent Hunter 4 had securerom on it and on the final patch removed copy protection from the game.

I see no reason to doubt that when the time is right copy protection will be removed from Silent Hunter 5 as well.

With the new graphics and much better modding tools that allow scripting SH5 a year from now will be the best Subsim to date.