Slashdot Mirror
Ubisoft's Authentication Servers Go Down
ZuchinniOne writes "With Ubisoft's fantastically awful new DRM you must be online and logged in to their servers to play the games you buy. Not only was this DRM broken the very first day it was released, but now their authentication servers have failed so absolutely that no-one who legally bought their games can play them. 'At around 8am GMT, people began to complain in the Assassin's Creed 2 forum that they couldn't access the Ubisoft servers and were unable to play their games.' One can only hope that this utter failure will help to stem the tide of bad DRM."
I don't know anything else that should be said here.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
Down or DDoS? We all know exactly how easy it was going to be for an outsider to screw everyone.
Skid-Row will soon have a fix for this problem. This will also lessen the strain on Ubisoft's servers!
Why would this stem the awful DRM? They have the money, gamers are still going to play, life moves on.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Stop supporting games with this kind of DRM
Actually, the proper term is Digital Restrictions Management.
DRM only exists to restrict, period. Any use of "Digital Rights Management" is due to marketing.
I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble feeling sorry for people who support DRM (those who bought the game).
They paid for it. They got what they wanted.
Find someone else's sholder to cry on.
First time I've heard of a DDoS attack being used to break DRM...
Can't find it now, but definitly NOW the DRM protection WILL be the discussion topic on the schoolyard. And maybe company lunchrooms too. People who bought the game will ask around, especially their "IT clued" friends what they could do to play what they paid for, and they will be informed about how to get cracks.
People who never pondered cracking will now be introduced to it. So far they did actually buy their games. Either because they simply didn't know about it or, worse, because they didn't want to go through the hassle and thought that paying 50 bucks is easier, faster and less of a problem than futzing about with cracks and copying this and cracking that and executing this registry tuner and writing that into the registry...
Now they learn that buying games leads to more futzing, more frustration, more "it doesn't just work" than finding it in P2P and downloading it. Legal copies just lost the only edge they had over cracked ones: Ease of use and "just working".
Great job, UBIsoft. Just as the software industry finally regained some footing in the battle against copying, you go and aim the bazooka at your (and the industry's) foot.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You knew the game had this DRM, you knew that it was susceptible to server crashes, you whined about it endlessly, AND THEN YOU WENT OUT AND BOUGHT IT ANYWAY. How stupid can you get? Ubisoft must be laughing their heads off.
It's as if nobody learned the first time about DRM when Microsoft shut off its MSN Music Store DRM servers, thus having people locked out of their own music they bought legitimately.
For those who got burned, it's not like people weren't warned. If you bought the game, you got what you deserved.
--
BMO
Please do not post about illegal activities and or downloads.
The response summarizes the situation appropriately:
WTF I posted a link to google that shows how to play since UBIcraps servers are down and you call it ILLEGAL activities? RAbble rabble! I will never buy another ubisoft product and I advise you to do the same!
Several DRM schemes have only involked a reaction in the tech community such as slashdot while the general public carried on not caring.
This shambles has made it painfully obvious to the masses of the dangers of DRM.
The 45 page thread is evidence of it and is quickly filling up with hatred. Comments such as "I'll never buy from you again" which usually tend to be hyperbole this time ring true.
Hopefully the end result of this is that the public won't have a short attention span and make true on their threats of not buying from them again.
When I saw this story: *laughing for 5 mins* *gasping for air* *laughing for another 2 minutes* wooooooooooooooooooooooooo! ha ha ha
The guy behind mIRC did this, and I still remember reading an interview with some guy probably years after the first release where he was one of the early people who had actually paid for it assuming that he had to. He was like number 10+ or something such.
So yeah, works great having people pay if they like the product, or not ..
We should all send flowers or candy or something to Ubisoft Headquarters. They've done more with one game launch to torpedo the use of DRM than a thousand indignant ./ stories and editorials.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
the german law 69d UrhG allows cracking of software that you legally own and that won't work otherwise...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
In Germany, EULAs are non-binding if they're not presented before the sale. There's no way to disclaim fitness for the obvious purpose of the program either. Furthermore, if modifications are necessary to make the program work as intended, then such modifications are legal even without the author's consent: Happy cracking. Last but not least, the vendor who sold the defective product must either take it back and refund the price or fix the problem.
UbiSoft really screwed up.
You should look into Stardock. They're an independent studio/publisher based in Michigan that have some pretty top-notch games. They're also widely known to have a very pro-gamer stance on DRM.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
DRM manages rights the same way prisons manage freedom.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Depends on your point of view. It is their rights that are being managed, not yours. Personally, I just won't buy this shit.
It also might trigger the 'interoperability' exemption of the DMCA. After all, cracking the program is only used to let the game work properly..
1) Gamers may try and return the game. I suppose Ubisoft could refuse to issue refunds but that opens them up to lawsuits. Like it or not, a sold product does have an implied warranty of fitness, meaning that it will work for the purpose you sell it. If it doesn't, customers can get their money back and if you won't give it to them, a court can and will force the issue.
2) It puts off people who haven't bought the game yet. Not everyone buys a game on the day it comes out. Plenty of people wait a bit. Well, they see this, realize that it is true if the auth servers are down there's no game to be played, and decide "Nah, I'll buy a different game." I mean we do not at all lack for good games these days, people can and will take their money elsewhere.
3) It can lead to these people refusing to be customers again. Sure you got their money this time, however a business does not live based on selling one product. You need repeat sales. People who get burned by this (or just hear about it) may decide to give Ubisoft products a miss in the future because of it.
The idea of "Oh well they got their money," is rather short sighted. When businesses operate like that, screwing people over and saying "We already got the money so who cares?" the end result is often the business suffering or going broke in the future.
I'd try to understand why people pirate my games. Off the cuff:
They might not want to pay the asking price. To lower my asking price, I need to either reduce costs or increase sales volumes enough to cover the price change. Without having any studies to investigate this, I would personally suspect that there are too few people who would be willing to pay at any given price below current shelf prices to justify the drop (eg, if you charge 1/2 the price, you won't have 2x the sales, replace "2" with "n" and the statement holds true). I wouldn't bother doing anything about this category of pirate, because they would never pay the price, so I'm just throwing away money trying to stop them playing.
They might not want to wait for the game to be released in their region. I either need to lrn2globalmarket or use an online distribution model. Both are feasible. Both have been done successfully. A game publisher not investigating how they can do near-simultaneous global releases, and ways they can ship electronically, is a game publisher on a trajectory into a dirt nap right now.
They might be fed up with games that don't work as well as the pirated version. This should be a no-brainer. A game should perform better if it's legit than if it's pirated. Simple idea with no real analysis behind it: you can tie in social services. UbiSoft could have a social platform for high scores, game achievement rankings, online guilds and forums, all tied to a CD-key based account, and common across all their games to amortise the cost of development and maintenance.
A company that clearly has done this research is Blizzard Entertainment. They get all three of these things right: older games are cheap enough that the second-hand market is pretty much dead, they can be downloaded (multiple times, tied to your battle.net account), and battle.net offers online play and ladders using game keys, a very simple and cheap to operate protection system. People still pirate Blizzard games, but I doubt it has a very significant impact on their bottom line. And having done their research, they've probably got other mechanisms in place that I haven't even thought of.
UbiSoft, on the other hand, have fucked themselves sideways with a broomstick. They've spent millions on a flaky DRM system, they're offering an expensive product with more restrictions than the pirate copy, and they haven't even released it in the US yet. It's like they've got a CEO with a significant golden parachute clause in his contract that's just waiting to be fired by the board.
Just because your connection to Verizon is up doesn't mean their connection to some other arbitrary network is working reliably.
I use Time Warner and a cablemodem.
One day, my net connect starts getting "spotty". Connect. Disconnect. Repeat all day long. After a couple of days it goes down altogether. I put in the call. Guy comes out and looks at the cable and shows me where a squirrel had been nibbling at it. Replaces the cable bit on the pole, off he goes. Cable goes right back down again. Put in another call. Another guy shows up, twiddles something, gets a good meter reading, and bails. Repeat this for about three months. Last guy finally fixes the problem - a router box upstream was foobaring my entire block's connection. Nobody on my block was getting internet, cable, anything through TWC. Dozens of customers complaining daily and it took them three months to finally figure out "gee the whole block is down, let's go look at the router for this block."
So a few weeks later, a lady calls me. A customer survey drone wanting to know about my "experience". I tell her how frustrating the whole thing was. How does she conclude the call?
By asking if I'd consider a package deal to have my telephone run through their modem too.
This entire planet is mad, you know.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What everyone predicted has happened. /b/tards decide to DDOS them for "pool's closed" - they only care that they cannot play the game they BOUGHT) it will become a massive one.
The servers fail just after the game is released, tens (hundreds?) of thousands of customers are highly unsatisfied, not to say irate.
This is already a PR disaster, should the servers keep failing (whatever the reasons - the people don't care if your servers are to weak to handle the load or if some
Oh, and since Silent Hunter 5 was already cracked I suspect a crack for Assassin's Creed 2 won't be long.
So in a way, Ubisoft, you decided to ignore the warnings, now your tears, they taste delicious.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
The original idea of copyright, the whole "exchange" thing going on here, is that a content producer is granted a limited, exclusive time period to profit from a work before it becomes public domain, as the nature of any form of information allows unlimited copying anyway. In the US Constitution, this exchange is established to promote the advance of arts and sciences, and it is a reasonable way to encourage content creation as an actual profession. All understandable...
When a company places nasty digital restrictions management garbage on their information product, especially this kind of phone-home to use / read sort of nonsense, it completely removes the part of the exchange that the public receives. The public, the people, via government allowed a limited time for the content creator to exclusively profit from their work before it enters the public domain, and that is the concept of "copyright." DRM, especially this kind, breaks the agreement. It destroys the very foundation of the concept. Therefore, I do not consider any such work to be copyrighted. I am not a lawyer, etc... but I am someone who understands what copyright is for, and that it has become something else entirely. Unlimited terms (beyond a human's lifetime), means it is not under copyright. Permission-every-time sorts of access models mean it is not under copyright.
I know very well that these matters are settled by throwing money at lawyers and congress-creatures, and therefore, my opinion means nothing in a court of law. I also know that I do everything in my power to ensure that people understand the concept of "intellectual property" is against the very nature of information, and is a disgusting concept that has come about through purchased laws.
Now is the time to send a message to Ubisoft that this sort of intrusive DRM will NOT be tolerated. If the servers had stayed up and people just refused to buy the game, they would have written the poor sales off as being caused by "pirates." Now, you have a chance to prove otherwise. Every single person who bought this game on PC should return it to the store. Yes, most will attempt to deny the returns due to policy, or to exchange with a new copy since that one is perceived as damaged/defective. Do not stand for this. Tell them that yes, it is defective, but ALL copies are defective. Let them know that the software itself works just fine on your computer, and in fact ran EXACTLY the way it was supposed to. However, you are forced to return it because it does not work properly on yours or ANY system, because Ubisoft's servers weren't online to allow you to play a game that you legally purchased and met all the requirements for being able to play.
Ubisoft won't be able to shrug it off as "piracy" when their sales numbers for this game begin to shrink due to returns and angry retailers. THIS will hit them in the pocketbook more than a simple, dubiously effective boycott. When they are forced to start handing money back because of their failures, that will speak much louder than never having been paid that money to begin with.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Actually, I think that Digital Rights Management is actually the correct and honest-to-God description of it. They just hope you'll misunderstand whose rights they are protecting, and what those rights might be. A lot of people for example seem to think that if it mentions "rights", it might be your rights. In reality, it's about what rights they can give themselves to shaft you. E.g., their unilaterally self-given "right" to revoke your legal customer rights, by preventing you from reselling the game.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Here's the problem - that works wonderfully as a theory. It fails utterly in practice.
Really? Based on what metric?
The simple fact that PC game developers are still in business and still making money, despite wasting who knows how many millions of dollars every year on failed anti-piracy measures is all it takes to prove otherwise. And that's not even mentioning the small developers that are being successful despite using no DRM whatsoever. Here's just one excellent example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins_of_a_solar_empire. Here's a bit I'm quoting from the page itself: "As of September 2008, Stardock's CEO, Brad Wardell, has stated that the game has sold over 500,000 units, with 100,000 of those being digital download sales, on a budget of less than $1,000,000. It sold 200,000 copies in the first month after release alone." And since the sources for that quote are extremely relevant here, I'll link those as well. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20026 http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/14383
The only possible metric you can use that would make what you said in any way correct is the one the big corporations use: that every pirated copy is a lost sale. So I guess it "fails utterly" if your metric is that they aren't making near as much money as they "could" be.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.