Ubisoft's Draconian DRM Patched?

An anonymous reader writes "It appears that Ubisoft's controversial DRM scheme launched last year that required players to have a permanent connection to the Internet has been patched to no longer stop the game when connectivity drops, though an Internet connection is still required when starting the game."

Comments

Ubisofts DRM

[devxo]

While I previously had a fast constant internet connection, this year I moved to Asia and got to see how bad the internet connection can be at times.

Requiring an internet connection to start the game isn't really a problem, there aren't really that many situations where I would even want to be without one, but if the connection drops or becomes really slow at times it creates problems.

While I don't know how long this has been in effect, I haven't had any problems with my copies of Settlers 7, Assassins Creed 2 and Splinter Cell. Now I'm also more happy to buy HAWX 2, which I've been thinking of doing for a while.

That being said, I can predict this story will once again have just comments dissing DRM in general. Personally, I just want to enjoy the games and I'm getting too old to just rant about it while I can have actual fun too. As long as the DRM works, there is no problem for me. Combine this with the easiness of Steam and I'm more than happy to buy games.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[amiga3D]

DRM shouldn't get in the way of enjoying the game for legal owners. I hated companies that made my old 1541 disk drive hammer itself into oblivion with their crap copy protection. I'd end up finding a cracked copy that would load in 15 seconds instead of 4 and a half minutes. I don't mind paying for something useful but I hate buying crippled shit. I really don't play games anymore but if I did I wouldn't want anything that forced me to put up with a bunch on needless BS.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

...I haven't had any problems with my copies of Settlers 7, Assassins Creed 2 and Splinter Cell. Now I'm also more happy to buy HAWX 2, which I've been thinking of doing for a while....

You need to get yer self a girlfriend.

--Capt. Jack Sparrow.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[ScytheBlade1]

"When it works" isn't what bothers me. What bothers me is this disclaimer at the bottom of the steam page:

> A PERMANENT HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION AND CREATION OF A UBISOFT ACCOUNT ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THIS VIDEO GAME AT ALL TIMES AND TO UNLOCK EXCLUSIVE CONTENT. SUCH CONTENT MAY ONLY BE UNLOCKED ONE SINGLE TIME WITH A UNIQUE KEY. YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 13 TO CREATE A UBISOFT ACCOUNT WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. UBISOFT MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONLINE FEATURES UPON A 30-DAY PRIOR NOTICE PUBLISHED AT http://assassinscreed.com/ ... which to me says, "we can nuke your access to the game at any point in time, provided we give you 30 days notice on a website you're never going to check."

I own AC1, but I don't own AC2 or HAWX 2 for this very reason.

DRM is likely here to stay, at least to some degree, but this frightens the ever living crap out of me. Why would I throw money at a game where they can cut off access to it at any point in time for ALL of their customers, just because they don't want to pay the bill on those servers anymore?

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

or at the very least, better taste in games.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Settlers is one of the greatest game series of all time, mind you. The hours I spent with Settlers 2...

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[0123456]

Why would I throw money at a game where they can cut off access to it at any point in time for ALL of their customers, just because they don't want to pay the bill on those servers anymore?

So don't. The more of us who refuse to buy games which allow them to cut off users at any time, the less games will be released with such draconian DRM.

Personally I now only buy games that are DRM-free, or games which only use Steam for DRM as it can be run in offline mode.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[hedwards]

Personally, I only make an exception for steam when it's a ridiculous price, or I'm only interested in the data files. Steam was the easiest way to get the data files for pretty much the whole iD back catalog for use with 3rd party engines that have sprung up over the years.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

or games which only use Steam for DRM

Steam cultist remind me of Apple fanboys. "Oh but it's Steam, it's GOOD DRM!" Hilarious! It's still DRM that can disable your games at any time of their chosing.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[0123456]

Steam cultist remind me of Apple fanboys. "Oh but it's Steam, it's GOOD DRM!" Hilarious! It's still DRM that can disable your games at any time of their chosing.

a) Steam is likely to be around for a long time and has a strong incentive not to cut off old games since it's a distribution system as well as a publisher. If they cut off old games for publisher X, then people are going to stop buying all their other games too.
b) I've read that Steam has already been cracked, so if it does shut down I'm sure there'll be a 'permanent offline mode' hack within days.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[0123456]

Personally, I only make an exception for steam when it's a ridiculous price, or I'm only interested in the data files.

Personally I don't remember the last time I paid more than $9.99 for any game, be it from Steam, Gog or retail. The market is so competitive these days there's really no need to pay more than that.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

...are the same hours I spent banging your girlfriend.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

At that time, she would had been 8 years old. You like that?

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Ben4jammin]

Agreed...this is why I didn't buy Settlers 7, even though it looked like the type of game I like to play.

I wish these companies would spend as much time figuring out how many customers they lose due to DRM as they do making up BS piracy numbers

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Ben4jammin]

Yes, once you rid yourself of the "gotta have the latest games" mindset you can have a LOT more games for the money you spend. I rarely play games within the first year of their release...they are still "new" to me :)

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved it. They're nice and tight at that age. :)

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[sco08y]

or games which only use Steam for DRM

Steam cultist remind me of Apple fanboys. "Oh but it's Steam, it's GOOD DRM!" Hilarious! It's still DRM that can disable your games at any time of their chosing.

Or it can disable your games just because your connection isn't working. After I paid off my last credit card, I thought, okay, that was a stupid thing to agree to, so why would I ever agree to it again? And, so far, I haven't gotten another one.

I'm not so worried about DRM for games because, really, I don't need to play them and on the occasions where I can't it always forces me to do something more productive with my time. But, I definitely do find that it pushes me away from buying a game at all. It's just a lousy deal.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[SirClicksalot]

I don't mind paying for something useful but I hate buying crippled shit. I really don't play games anymore but if I did I wouldn't want anything that forced me to put up with a bunch on needless BS.

Same here. I hate paying for crippled products. I still play games, but specifically avoided buying the latest Ubisoft games: Anno 1404 with TAGES drm, Settlers 7 and Assassins Creed with this always online stuff. I own most other games in these respective series, but preferred not playing these to throwing money at their drm garbage. I don't think this new patch will change my mind. It is too little, too late. I guess Ubisoft can be happy - I don't pirate their games. I stopped playing them altogether. Problem is that I was a legitimate customer that never pirated their games before. I doubt the pirates had these problems.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, your mom watched.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Gadget_Guy]

I boycotted Steam for a very long time until I got drunk late one night and bid on the Orange Box on eBay. It sat around for many months until I finally got an ADSL line at home to use it. Since then I have purchased quite a few things from the service, but since I don't ever really own the titles, I only pay 2nd hand game prices for anything. Nothing over $5. My average price is $3.74 right now. This includes buying multi-game packs cheap and dividing the purchase price between each game.

If Steam has something cheaper than gog.com then I still buy it at gog.

Where Steam has proven to be a problem was when I was without Internet access for about a month while I changed my line and got a new provider. While you can still play games offline, I couldn't set it to be offline by default. I took about 4 minutes to timeout looking for the server. Unfortunately it was flagged to download an update of the Steam client (which it couldn't do) so I think that was what caused the problem.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[F.Ultra]

Problem is that they will think that that lost sale was due to pirates so they will try an even more intrusive DRM to remedy it.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Now sit back and add up the total price you paid for all the stuff on Steam at present. That's the value you'll be losing if Steam ever does go under.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Grimbleton]

I paid $20 today for Divinity II. That's the most I've paid for a PC game since Ultima IX.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[SanityInAnarchy]

Even if I were too old to rant about it, there's still some practical steps I can take. Between work and school, there's no way I can spend that much time on games, so I choose the ones I actually play carefully.

Put it this way: Why would you play a bad game when you can play a good one? There are so many games to choose from, it's actually getting reasonable to boycott DRM altogether. It's even getting reasonable to only play games which run natively on Linux.

I'm more than happy to buy games. What I'm not happy to do is have certain DRM on my system (actually as harmful as any malware), or vote with my dollars that shit like this is OK.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[skam240]

Whether Steam is or can be cracked is irrelevant, Steam is helping to push us farther and farther down the path of us "leasing" our games instead of buying them. As it stands now, when I "buy" a Steam game I really have no idea whether I'll be able to play the game five years from now or even a month from now when the game makes its mandatory check in with their servers. All I have to go on is the good will of some faceless corporate entity and the assurances of Steam fans that this could never happen or that there will be some wonderful work around that will be less convenient than just being able to install my game and play like I should be able to.

The worst part is, it's as easy pirating a game today as it was 10 years ago when all that was on games was Safedisc. Really brings home how ridiculous all of these inconvenient measures are, right?

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[stonewallred]

Eh, DRM will always be here, but the good news is so will the pirates and crackers. So you can enjoy the games, and not give the producers a single red cent.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

"DRM is likely here to stay, at least to some degree, but this frightens the ever living crap out of me. Why would I throw money at a game where they can cut off access to it at any point in time for ALL of their customers, just because they don't want to pay the bill on those servers anymore?"

It might be here to stay, but I won't notice it since I'm going to be playing the Humble Bundle 2 probably right up to when the Humble Bundle 3 comes around. (And if I do finish up with HB2 before that, I paid over the average in the last half of the sale so I still have the first HB games to fall back on.)

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[xded]

I hated companies that made my old 1541 disk drive hammer itself into oblivion with their crap copy protection.

No need to go so far back in time. StarForce has been doing the same with optical disk drives in recent years.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

Well, it can't get harder. When everything's said and done, you're still dealing with the same assembler instructions that can be disassembled just as easily as a decade ago.

And the fact that more and more companies rely on standard tools to create their games doesn't really make it any harder either.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

By then he probably got quite a few hours of entertainment out of it. At 3.74 bucks a game, hell, if every game gave him an hour of entertainment, he's still coming out way ahead of most other forms of entertainment I could think of right now.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

Settlers 7, R.U.S.E., two games I wanted. Badly. Want with a capital W. I rarely buy games at full price, these would have been the two for that year.

Guess it's UBI soft doubling as my conscience, telling me I should not pay full price for games.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

Wonder how long they can tell their shareholders that pirates get better and better at cracking their DRM the more and more they tighten it.

Because that's what has to happen, right? The more they tighten their DRM and the more DRM they add, the fewer boxes they sell. Following the "pirates" school of logic, this can only mean that the more DRM you pack into a game, the more interesting it becomes for pirates to crack it. It must be that nerd honor thing, the harder some obstacle is, the more interesting it is.

Here's a radical idea: Create some crappy, uninteresting DRM like we had a few years ago. It's gonna be so boring that nobody would want to be associated with the cracking of it. Cramps your style, ya know, no bragging rights and nothing, the other crews will snicker at you if you admit that you bothered to sit down with that.

I betcha it's gonna boost sales! And all because we bore those pirates!

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

And here's my problem: I WANT to give them not only a red cent but I WANT to buy that game legally. I DO NOT want to pirate a game (and hence I don't do it).

But there are games that I really, really wanted to have. Wanted to buy. Wanted to play. Yet I will not be able to do that because I am not willing to reduce my system security to zero and bend over to get an anal probe every time I want to play a friggin' game!

This is exactly the problem I'm facing here.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Z34107]

I miss two things about disc-and-box games: Being able to resell them, and the box. I do prefer my first-sale doctrines un-eroded, and I'm sitting in front of a bookshelf of old MicroProse games.

Steam is very palatable DRM because Valve is working on adding features to their platform - your save games follow your Steam account, you can install a game infinity times on infinity computers, you can still patch your games after the developer's site goes down, and Steam games don't make you hunt for a Ventrilo server.

Steam games permit 3rd party DRM, but games with extra DRM are labeled as such in the store and most publishers remove their DRM for the Steam version. Besides being unobtrusive and having a bunch of nifty features, Steam games typically feature less DRM.

It's really a matter of how badly you think Gabe Newell wants to delete your games. Given what he's done to other publishers, and done for indie gaming, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. As an unapologetic "Steam cultist", I'd say it is good DRM.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[KDR_11k]

Yeah, they really managed to keep me away from their Steam deals with their DRM bullshit. My connection can be pretty wonky and I don't want the game to commit suicide over something that shouldn't have any impact on it!

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[KDR_11k]

RUSE doesn't use the same DRM. That just adds to my suspicion that Ubisoft is just doing this to convince shareholders that the PC is dead and console games shouldn't get PC ports by killing the sales of their PC ports (except RUSE because that's the main version of the game).

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Scarletdown]

I miss two things about disc-and-box games: Being able to resell them, and the box. I do prefer my first-sale doctrines un-eroded, and I'm sitting in front of a bookshelf of old MicroProse games.

I liked a suggestion I saw recently on how to reclaim your first sale rights on Steam games. Simply create a new Steam account each time you buy a game from them (yay for unlimited GMail addresses). Then if you get tired of a game and want to resell it, sell the account it is tied to. Steam ToS says that you can't do that? Well, too bad for Steam. If corporations go to convoluted lengths to take away rights, then the customers can return the favor and go to whatever lengths are needed to reclaim those rights.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[hairyfeet]

I'll add another "legal user gets screwed" anecdote to yours showing why this crap sucks: Older Games. My older games play just fine on Windows 7 HP X64, hell thanks to MSFT's backwards compatibility they work without a hitch. What DOESN'T work is the &*^%*^&%*&%^* ring 0 DRM garbage! If you are lucky all you get is classic "insert disc" even though the disc IS inserted, and if you are not? Well lets just say I hope you have a dual boot or a very recent backup, because the ring 0 crap will turn your OS into a crashing unstable nightmare.

WARNING: Many of the older SecuROM and Starforce ring 0 "drivers" WILL NOT UNINSTALL ON X64! which means if it makes your OS an unstable mess you better be able to dual boot to rip it out from another OS, or be ready to restore from backup. Their "uninstallers" hosted on their websites DO NOT WORK ON X64, yet their garbage ring 0 DRM crap will happily try to jam its X86 buggy poo code right into your X64 kernel. What fun! How they are allowed to get away with that kind of behavior I don't know, because it IS malware, no different than Sony's rootkit or any other nasty your would pick up from the web. Can you uninstall it? Nope, just like malware. Does it cause instability? Yep, again just like malware. Finally do you have to have detailed knowledge of its inner workings just to remove it, such as which reg keys to toss or which hidden files are buried deep in system folders? Yep, strike three and you're out. If it walks like a duck and quacks it is a fricking duck folks.

That is why I pretty much shop exclusively at Good Old Games now. I like to be able to replay a game I liked, not just shitcan it because I have a new OS or the company doesn't "support" it anymore. With GOG there is NO DRM, NO phoning home, No limits to how many machines I can install it to that I own, NO limits to how many times I can redownload it and NO *&^%$*&$*& "Game Client" or other BS I have to run in the background just to use what I fricking paid for. If you haven't tried them they are having a massive holiday sale with nearly 300 games on sale, many of them half off their already cheap prices. They have something for everyone, shooters, RPGs, flight sims (including IL2 with all the expansions built in), puzzlers, platformers, you name it. So support the company that actually treats you like a customer and not a criminal, buy from GOG. This is a classic example where we can "vote with our dollars" and show companies that placing their games on GOG is a wise move. Oh and all games have been tested on X64 as well as X86 so no troubles! It all "just works" OOTB, but if you do run into a glitch their forums are top notch. Enjoy some DRM free gaming today!

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Scarletdown]

And here's my problem: I WANT to give them not only a red cent but I WANT to buy that game legally. I DO NOT want to pirate a game (and hence I don't do it).

But there are games that I really, really wanted to have. Wanted to buy. Wanted to play. Yet I will not be able to do that because I am not willing to reduce my system security to zero and bend over to get an anal probe every time I want to play a friggin' game!

This is exactly the problem I'm facing here.

If you really really really want to play it and make sure the publisher gets compensated, but don't want your system compromised, then the obvious solution is to purchase it legally, keep the box safely sealed on your shelf, then download a cleaned up version. Publisher doesn't like that? Well, call the wahmbulance for them. They got their money and you have proof that you are legally authorized to use the product that you purchased and paid for. And this is another way to reclaim first sale rights. If you get tired of the game, then you can uninstall and delete the crapware free version you have been using, and have a still sealed retail box to sell off to some other gamer.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[vux984]

Personally I now only buy games that are DRM-free, or games which only use Steam for DRM as it can be run in offline mode.

Steam is a minefield. Its extremely difficult to know what DRM you are getting with a steam title. It may just use steams own drm, it may ALSO tie into additional 3rd party drm, the game descriptions often mention drm that has been removed for the steam title or fail to mention drm that exists.

And I personally find steams drm offensive in a couple ways... I should be able to transfer games to another account. I'd be fine if there were restrictions on so that a title couldn't be transferred more than once every 90 days, and I'd even be fine if it cost a couple bucks in fees so steam gets something out of it and it can't be heavily abused for "sharing games", but I don't like that I can't give my brother a game I don't want anymore at all.

I -also- don't like that I can't be online playing different games from the same account simultaneously. I've got kids now, and they are playing all sorts of stuff... its beyond stupid that only one of us can be online at a time. I agree we shouldn't be able to play the SAME game simultaneously... but I should be able to play TitleA online, while my daughter plays TitleB.

Finally, while you can play steam games offline, you still rely on the steam servers to install / activate them so if steam disappears your "offline games" will expire drm death when your hard drive does.

That said, I do use steam occasionally but primarily pick up games at "ridiculously" low prices, such as the current holiday sales... I've picked up a few items already... I don't own any of the half life titles...and can get the entire half-life collection for $6 bucks today (as I happen to have l4d).... at that price point, for me at least, the steam DRM is acceptable.

Like the other poster, I also picked up the Doom pack for $8 bucks or whatever, primarily to get the wads for Doom/DoomII/expansions to use with ZDoomGL. :p

As I've inadvertanly plugged steam's holiday sale, I figure I'll plug gog.com's as well; as I've picked up a few classics with the money in my couch. MOO1+2, Might and Magic 1 through 6 pack, ...

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[F.Ultra]

I think they are willing to play this game until they go bankrupt. The games and media industry has gone this route for well ofter 20 years now and all their systems has been cracked and they still try new methods.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[nametaken]

Maybe there's a distinction here. I don't think I have a problem with DRM. I have a problem with paying someone and getting additional aggravations in return.

Steam's DRM has never aggravated me, and it offers me some added utility in return. Changing machines or rebuilding... Steam has always "just worked" for me. My stuff is kept together. I have one interface for managing gaming software. Contact with gaming friends is consolidated through steam, etc. It's not much, but it's something. And I guess I'm not worried about Valve shutting off access to my games... though I could see why more paranoid types might.

I get that there are people who have philosophical issues with DRM, but it seems that many of us look at the whole thing with a more practical eye and judge accordingly.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

I have generally been pretty supportive of Steam in the past, but lately it's been annoying me.

I'm doing a lot of modding for Fallout New Vegas, and it gets tiresome waiting for the steam to connect and load so I can test my mods. Even worse, because of Steam's DRM there is no way to bypass the game launcher, which is seems to crash more often than not... and half the time it works, after it launches the game it hangs and eats memory. Ugh.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[brinebold]

You can create disc backups of your STEAM games and there is a crack STEAM that will avoid the need to have STEAM's servers active. With only as much effort as cracking a single game's individual DRM, you can crack all your STEAM games if STEAM ever goes under (though I'd hope they'll release their own fix for that impending DRM issue while they are in bankruptcy proceedings). I like STEAM because I don't have to go around finding NoCD patches for every game I buy or have to repair my internet connection before I can play single-player games (I have never bought a game with this kind of DRM that had a single-player mode).

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey steam has already shutdown for me with my access to the games i purchased on its system disabled and that is despite the requirements for both of them and numerous other games on the steampowered website still including windows 2000 as supported... the steam software itself will no longer run on win 2k.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[MorpheousMarty]

Both Steam and Apple offer great experiences at the exchange of freedom. As right as you are that DRM is bad, the fact I can go to any computer windows or OSX PC and pick up right where I left of on Plants Vs Zombies is worth it. It's my money and the trade off is worth it.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

You can create disc backups of your STEAM games and there is a crack STEAM that will avoid the need to have STEAM's servers active. With only as much effort as cracking a single game's individual DRM, you can crack all your STEAM games if STEAM ever goes under (though I'd hope they'll release their own fix for that impending DRM issue while they are in bankruptcy proceedings).

No fucking way would they release a fix for the DRM if they faced bankruptcy. The administrators would hang the fuck on tight to that asset of control over the users.

Just because you like Steam it doesn't mean it cannot annoy you (at the very least) one day, so don't do what make you look like a fanboy.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[SCPRedMage]

Except that that sends a message to the publisher that the GP is willing to put up with the DRM, which he isn't. Part of the problem we're facing is just getting the right message across to the publishers.

If we buy it, whether we play the boxed version or the cracked version, all the publisher sees is another sale; the DRM is working!

If we don't buy it, whether we pirate it or not, the publisher sees lower sales; the pirates are killing our business!

Ether way, simply voting with our wallets here is not going to help. We need to be VOCAL about this. But if we buy their crap, they'll see us as a "vocal minority", since all the people who buy the game MUST be willing to accept their shitty DRM.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Grumbleduke]

Steam isn't DRM.
Steam contains DRM.

The distinction is quite important - while Steam does restrict what can be done with legally downloaded stuff, it does so in a manner that also offers a very good service to the legitimate customer. The best kind of DRM is that which rewards the legitimate user, rather than punishes the unlawful one.

Steam is far from perfect, and DRM is still bad, whatever form it takes, but I would much prefer that Steam-style DRM (i.e. link the game with an account which enables you to download the game wherever you like, whenever you like while the service operates, adds Cloud support, updates, a store and community stuff) become the standard than the generally less pleasant type that most other major publishers are using.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[brinebold]

I said I hope they would do that. I never said I thought it was especially likely. I would imagine the various publishers they license from might throw a tantrum over DRM removal and the legal team will block that during the shutdown process. However, like I said, STEAM copy protection has been repeatedly cracked and if it shuts down it will probably be already cracked or a crack will follow soon after the announcement.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

You're suggesting that I hand my money to a company that creates an artificially devalued product with a "feature" I decidedly oppose, then break the law by copying it?

If this is your solution, I guess your solution to two parties quarreling whether the window is to be opened or closed is to shut the window, then throw a stone through it.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Maestro4k]

So don't. The more of us who refuse to buy games which allow them to cut off users at any time, the less games will be released with such draconian DRM.

Except it doesn't seem to work that way. Lower sales than projected on a game that has draconian DRM, even with massive public outcry about said DRM, almost always get the losses attributed to piracy instead of the DRM running off legit customers. Even with many examples out there that games can make money even without ANY DRM (see both Humble Bundles, Sins of a Solar Empire, among others) the people in the industry pushing for DRM just refuse to believe it.

So definitely vote with your wallet, they don't deserve the money. But don't expect it to make a damn bit of difference in whether DRM continues to be used or not. These people have their minds made up that piracy is the cause of all sales problems, and nothing is going to convince them otherwise.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

And in the meantime we allow them to clog our legal system with more lawsuits and buy more laws along the man-with-red-flag-in-front-of-cars?

If there's some way to speed up the process, a lot of GDP could be saved.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

Oh. Nobody bothered to tell me. Too bad, I didn't buy it. And by now I learned that it's pretty much the same ol' real-time strategy formula and the RUSEs are gimmicks at best, so I'm not going to buy it now either.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Draek]

Ahh, yes, GoG. Over a year ago, there was this issue with Codemasters and their brand licensing for their TOCA series, that ended up in the game being made unavailable at all DD stores. If you had bought it from Steam absolutely nothing changed, you'd still be able to download and play your copy even today. If you bought it from GoG however, all you got was a nice email informing you they'd be removing it from the store at a certain date, and that after that you'd be on your own.

Suffice to say, I haven't been too eager to shop there since.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy did you get suckered. These companies put out extreme, unfair DRM, then they relax it a tiny bit where it's still unfair but not as bad and people like you praise them and suck their dicks and everything. Fuck you and fuck them. It's still a bullshit artificial restriction.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[rahvin112]

You have assurances from Valve that they've made publicly. These are relatively easy to find. For what it's worth I trust Gabe and by extension I trust Valve. That trust means I accept the tradeoff's of Steam (realizing I gave up several rights to get several benefits) and have the assurance that if steam ever goes down they will release the tools to crack the DRM off the games as they promised.

Valve isn't some faceless corporation, it's owners and managers are very well known and reachable. Maybe I'm a fool for trusting someone, but I trust Gabe to do the right thing and that means I trust Valve and Steam by extension. Maybe that's a dumb idea, but I don't think it's real nice of you detractors to point and steam and talk about evil that's never happened while slighting the character of Valve and Gabe. Because that's what it boils down to, that you think Valve and it's managers would some day be willing participators in fucking over every gamer in the world. Maybe we shouldn't trust anyone to do the right thing, but I don't like the idea of world where we can't trust anyone to do the right thing.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Which law is being broken? You're entitled to that copy.

In many countries you downloading it wouldn't be illegal, but distribution would be illegal. So as long as you aren't torrenting it you're OK.

If they sue you it might make for a good case against them.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[KDR_11k]

I guess Ubisoft is learning a lesson about the value of reputation the hard way.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[chromozone]

Ubi should realize how easy it will be for gamers to stay away from their games. Ubi has nothing THAT compelling that people would have a problem not buying a game from them for a good long while.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[vux984]

You can create disc backups of your STEAM games and there is a crack STEAM that will avoid the need to have STEAM's servers active.

Yes, once you know there is a crack for it, you can use any game.

With only as much effort as cracking a single game's individual DRM, you can crack all your STEAM games

Some steam games have additional DRM on top of steam's DRM. Don't assume you can crack a title, unless you've done it. (And then if there's an update to the game, you'll have to ensure you can crack it again...) Steam isn't really more or less work to crack than anything else.

if STEAM ever goes under (though I'd hope they'll release their own fix for that impending DRM issue while they are in bankruptcy proceedings

It would never happen. Here's how bankruptcy proceedings go:
a) company files for bankruptcy.
b) a court assigns a trustee to oversee the proceedings
c) the trustee oversee ensures that all assets are liquidated
d) the trustee oversees that creditors are paid back the proceeds of the liquidation in the correct priority and amount
e) the trustee ensures that the company takes no actions that would devalue any of its assets - this would harm the creditors by reducing the proceeds of the liquidation efforts. The company is legally obligated to get the most value possible for its assets... so it can't sell you a company car for $100 if its worth $5000.
f) the trustee ensures that the company makes no unauthorized payments - this would harm the creditors (if the company owes you 10 grand because you made them a loan, you can't be paid back before the bondholders, and other higher priority creditors... it doesn't matter that your the ceo's brother...)

Part e is the killer here. They legally can't remove the DRM, because that would devalue their steam infrastructure. When it gets liquidated its up to the company that buys it to decide what to do with it... if your really lucky that company wants to keep running steam, and things continue on much as they were with a facelift... or maybe that company bought the relevant piece of steam for some patents and to harvest user profile information, and shuts the servers down. There is really nothing valve can do about it.

The only way the drm comes of steam legitimately is if the owners decide to do it while they are still solvent.

I like STEAM because I don't have to go around finding NoCD patches for every game I buy

I like that about steam too. But I'm pretty annoyed I can't play two different games simultaneously. And I don't like that I can't give them away, nor even lend them to a friend. I can do all of these things with a traditional retail game.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Opportunist]

Yes, but the moment I have to crack it I break the local copyright law, unless I create (i.e. program) that crack myself.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

You can create disc backups of your STEAM games and there is a crack STEAM that will avoid the need to have STEAM's servers active.

Yes, once you know there is a crack for it, you can use any game.

With only as much effort as cracking a single game's individual DRM, you can crack all your STEAM games

Some steam games have additional DRM on top of steam's DRM. Don't assume you can crack a title, unless you've done it. (And then if there's an update to the game, you'll have to ensure you can crack it again...) Steam isn't really more or less work to crack than anything else.

It is a single crack that can be applied to the vast majority of games. Only games with a server check remain protected by anything other than Steam DRM (everything else is a disk or serial validity check) so most games are cracked with a single application rather than one per app. Even if they do have server checks, you are now at the same point where a non-Steam customer would be: if the publisher's servers are running then your game works but if not then it will require tracking down a crack.

e) the trustee ensures that the company takes no actions that would devalue any of its assets - this would harm the creditors by reducing the proceeds of the liquidation efforts. The company is legally obligated to get the most value possible for its assets... so it can't sell you a company car for $100 if its worth $5000.

Part e is the killer here. They legally can't remove the DRM, because that would devalue their steam infrastructure. When it gets liquidated its up to the company that buys it to decide what to do with it... if your really lucky that company wants to keep running steam, and things continue on much as they were with a facelift... or maybe that company bought the relevant piece of steam for some patents and to harvest user profile information, and shuts the servers down. There is really nothing valve can do about it.

The only way the drm comes of steam legitimately is if the owners decide to do it while they are still solvent.

Good point, however, the STEAM framework should be worth significantly more to someone who plans on harvesting the customer base too as their own customers. STEAM is worth much more intact to that company as shutting down these games would destroy any chance of salvaging those customers. I'd consider selling the framework to a company planning on keeping those customers to be a "fix" for that DRM issue and one that is likely given the inherent lifetime value of customer loyalty.

But I'm pretty annoyed I can't play two different games simultaneously. And I don't like that I can't give them away, nor even lend them to a friend. I can do all of these things with a traditional retail game.

According to the EULA you "signed", you almost certainly can't do any of the above except play multiple games ;) However, I have never had any problem playing multiple games with Steam. I play EVE online concurrently with a wide variety of other Steam-purchased games and have never had trouble. You can even play Steam games concurrently on multiple computers as long as you know how to use offline mode. Doing so is a violation of the TOS, EULA, and/or some other acronym for some contract nobody reads but so are most of the things you mentioned preferring physical games for.

Resale and donation are very valid points. Steam's structure is such that only all-or-nothing sales are possible and also disallowed by the TOS. The EULA of most games, however, also states the licenses are non-transferable so you cannot legally resell or give away the game but your odds of being sued for doing so are pretty much nil as long as you uninstall.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Update your 10 year old OS FFS!

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[Sparrow1492]

I'll one up you. I never buy a new game, and I find I'm buying most stuff off of Steam because they keep selling it to me via some fire sale or another. I also then get to run anything I buy pretty much on max resolution with phenomenal frame rates. I just wrapped up Crysis a while back and at max resolution it looked gorgeous. Not something I could have pulled off it I bought it brand new.

Re:Ubisofts DRM

[brkello]

Yeah, it is so awful being able to download games anywhere off your Steam account. I find it such a burden actually having to have an Internet connection this day and age. I mean...who has Internet connections? I mean, particularly Slashdotters...none of us must have Internet connections considering how much we complain about steam.

That's what bad with DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Crackers get the better stuff while legal users getting banned.

Re:That's what bad with DRM

[Opportunist]

And that's exactly what's wrong with copy protection: It hurts the honest customer and rewards those that copy the content. DRM is free market in reverse. And, oddly, the studios wonder why it fails.

When you usually buy something (compared to buying it "off a truck"), you get something extra. You get warranty, you get additional goodies packed with them, mail in rebates (ok, dubious value, but still), you get support, you get all the "comfort" you will lack when you buy it from some shady source. The honest customer that buys it legally gets additional protection and additional bonus material for his money.

With content and DRM, it's exactly the opposite. You don't get any sensible warranty anyway, you don't get any goodies anymore with your bought games (remember those good ol' days when there were some tidbits and trinkets packed with games? Or even a manual worth the name?), hell, you often don't even get sensible packaging. And on top of it all, you get your computer infested with drivers of dubious quality that sometimes also open up gapping security holes in your system.

As someone copying the content, you don't get anything "extra" either (so there's no difference here), but you also do not suffer from those copy protection drivers, "insert CD" nagging, mandatory online connection or are subjected to other patronizing.

Is it me or is it just plain STUPID to artificially devalue your product? Especially if you're up against someone who already hands it out for free?

Dear studios: The old tale of sun and wind betting who could get someone out of his coat applies fully here. You can NOT force people to buy something. You can convince him, but for that you have to give him what he wants! How much does it take to get that through your skull?

Re:That's what bad with DRM

[wisnoskij]

That was one of the best anti DRM argument I have ever heard.
Agree 100%.

Re:That's what bad with DRM

[Gordonjcp]

Dear studios: The old tale of sun and wind betting who could get someone out of his coat applies fully here. You can NOT force people to buy something. You can convince him, but for that you have to give him what he wants! How much does it take to get that through your skull?

The answer, of course, is for everyone interested to buy shares in Ubisoft. Then, as a shareholder, you can demand that the company work to improve the value of "your" investment. Now, since DRM clearly drives away customers, you can force them to remove it...

Re:That's what bad with DRM

[Opportunist]

Buy shares of a company that I deem doomed to fail? Do I look like I need a tax write off?

Re:That's what bad with DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know who you are referring to by 'studios', the people who make games? Development studios virtually never mandate the copy protection systems used, that comes from the publishers.

Re:That's what bad with DRM

[Opportunist]

Sorry, AC is right. Replace studios with publishes in the GP.

Non-Ubisoft games are easier to play

[Jugalator]

So I recommend those annoyed by this game to play those instead.

Re:Non-Ubisoft games are easier to play

[Anonymous Coward]

Bingo! That's what I've been doing. Don't buy Ubisoft games and it's not a problem in the slightest. Same with Steam.

Morons

[potat0man]

The guy who thought this up is a dope.

"Hey, let's make our product shittier and harder to use, I bet that will make us some money!"

I hope Ubisoft fires the moron who first pitched this idea to them over a year ago. I haven't purchased an Ubisoft game since they announced this last February.

Re:Morons

[OzPeter]

I haven't purchased an Ubisoft game since they announced this last February.

Me neither. But then again I don't play or buy games.

Re:Morons

[hedwards]

Isn't likely to happen. Most likely that moron is the CEO.

Personally, I won't be buying until they back off quite a bit more. I personally don't think that a failure to have internet access is a valid reason to keep me from playing a game I've paid for. Well, unless it's an online only game, like a game which has no single player game play.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, and NOW you will buy their games again... right?

Re:Morons

[Nimey]

No, they should fire the management involved in that decision.

Re:Morons

[potat0man]

Not if I have to be online to boot the game up. Which isn't the case with all of their titles.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works at Ubisoft, I can guarantee you that this practice will NOT stop. The CEO pretty much said so ... often.

Re:Morons

[potat0man]

Between games and hardware I spend over $100/month on gaming, of which Ubisoft has seen $0 this year. Here's the current value of my steam account: $1,927.88.

Re:Morons

[nedlohs]

And yet you not only read but post in an article about games?

Re:Morons

[noidentity]

Between games and hardware I spend over $100/month on gaming, of which Ubisoft has seen $0 this year.

Amazing, that's how much I've spent this year on electricity, Internet service, groceries, and rent!

Re:Morons

[OzPeter]

And yet you not only read but post in an article about games?

I'm sorry I missed the commandment that decrees that you can only read and comment on articles in which you have a first person experience. At this point I should also add a "whoosh" as well.

Re:Morons

[potat0man]

New Years Jokes. Blah.

Re:Morons

[IamTheRealMike]

If the increase in sales to people who would have pirated the game is greater than the number of people who give up because it's too hard to use then they will indeed make them some money. Given the 90%+ piracy rates these sorts of games see, they'd need to lose a hell of a lot of users to bad DRM if it's actually effective at stopping piracy. That said, last I saw this DRM was already broken by somebody building a server emulator. It seems there wasn't any kind of crypto on the challenge/response protocol, which is a rather bizarre mistake to make.

Re:Morons

[SleepyHappyDoc]

See, I just assumed he meant his parents' basement.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful, all it takes is for the VAC process to suspect that some file on your machine is a "hacking tool", and that $1927.88 will be worth zippo when one gets banned completely from Valve's servers with no recourse whatsoever.

Hasn't happened to me yet, but one reason I am leery of Steam is that some automated bot can throw a switch and permanently block access to any of my purchases just because it didn't like some file on the system.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

will you please take a shit in his car?

Re:Morons

[raving griff]

Except for the fact that a VAC ban only prevents you from playing on VAC-enabled servers in Valve games.

Re:Morons

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Given the 90%+ piracy rates these sorts of games see, they'd need to lose a hell of a lot of users to bad DRM if it's actually effective at stopping piracy.

It is possible to be 100% effective at stopping piracy and still not improve their bottom line one iota - if all the former pirates just decide to focus their attention elsewhere. That would probably be a net loss since a 90% drop in userbase would probably translate into a major loss in word-of-mouth promotion too.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

I did the same, except I have bought some of their older games on Steam that doesn't have that DRM.

Re:Morons

[westlake]

The guy who thought this up is a dope.
  "Hey, let's make our product shittier and harder to use, I bet that will make us some money!"

Perhaps it has.

Ubisoft is looking much stronger financially and PC game and digital sales (DLC, PSN and XBLA) have been a part of that. Ubisoft® reports first-half 2010-11 results [Nov 15]

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Ubisoft fires the moron who first pitched this idea to them over a year ago. I haven't purchased an Ubisoft game since they announced this last February.

"Sales are one down. You're fired!"

Re:Morons

[marcosdumay]

All* DRM schemes are cracked shortly after they are released. Some of them are cracked even before they are released. That happens because, despite your sugestion, it is impossible to have a proper cypto system doing it. It is impossible to create a challenge/response that pirates can't beat in a blink.

And that leads to my second point. Almost nobody will stop pirating your software because of DRM, but some people may stop buying (and pirate, or just go without) because of it. You have a situation where you want X*90% > Y*10%, but X is known to be very small. So, you can only hope Y is small too, because if it is even slightly big, you'll lose money.

* All the ones implemented on software. The ones implemented on hardware may be as expensive to beat that the pirates will only try after the product becomes sucessful. Of course, up to now, that possibility is just academical.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Ubisoft fires the moron who first pitched this idea to them over a year ago. I haven't purchased an Ubisoft game since they announced this last February.

Funny. Just last week I bought an UBISOFT game which did not even need the serial to install the single-player version of it (which is all I ever play). Ofcourse, it was a bit dated game from the bargain-bin, but nonetheless.

Another game I bought had STEAM DRM on it, so I downloaded the neccessary stuff to install and play it without even connecting to STEAM. That way I can be sure that when I ever think of wanting to play that game again I don't have to beg STEAM to allow me to again install it.

And yes, that is what draconean DRM has brought me to do : buy a game, and than going out to find patches to be able to install the bought game in a way I find acceptable (meaning: without being in a permanent choke-hold of someone I cannot even talk to, let alone reason with).

Yep, even though I bought those games I've still become a pirate. :-(

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

If the increase in sales to people who would have pirated the game is greater than the number of people who give up because it's too hard to use then they will indeed make them some money.

That's correct.

Given the 90%+ piracy rates these sorts of games see, they'd need to lose a hell of a lot of users to bad DRM if it's actually effective at stopping piracy.

The piracy rate is irrelevant to the discussion of lost sales. I remember the days when "shareware" was freeware with requested donations and sometimes a nag screen. When things started actually limiting functionality before payment, you moved on. There were very few people who would pay for something with DRM when they wouldn't without. They'd either get a new program or find a crack/keygen. And you seem to indicate that you realize that this DRM is broken, as is nearly all DRM out there, so the question of it being effective at stopping piracy is in question.

In all, I see no revenue benefit for first 6-month sales by having DRM. The DRM is most effective at blocking resale and enforcing content purchases.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Your CEO deserves to be shot in the head. You can tell him that.

Re:Morons

[Opportunist]

Hope you're in management. Productive people get downsized first when the sales drop.

Re:Morons

[Opportunist]

I could see a different problem moving their way, a "time shifted" drop in sales. Follow this list of events:

1. New, draconian DRM scheme gets implemented.
2. People notice that they can't copy and hence buy.
(so far, the DRM "works" well because it made people buy)
3. People get pissed because the servers are down, their connection drops and they lose game progress when the game shuts down, all sorts of troubles.
4. Company releases next game with draconian DRM
5a. People pissed off from last time turn to copies again (by now, the once new scheme has been cracked for sure).
5b. People pissed off from last time turn away from games with such DRM measures.

And here's where it falls apart. It will not hurt sales right away because few customers will know before they buy their first game with insane DRM hurdles. It might even take a few games (because not everyone buys every game from a certain publisher, Settlers 7 and, say, sports games do not really have the same target audience), but eventually everyone will in one way or another get caught in the tangles and get pissed at companies using such DRM.

And once these people start hating a company, it's gonna be hard to convince them that they "changed". People tend to forget easily, but not when they just forked over 50+ bucks for entertainment. No idea why, but people have a longer memory when you piss on their 50 bucks worth of entertainment than when you squander their tax money.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consumer I can tell you I will never ever buy anything from Ubisoft until this practice stops...

I am sure I am not the only one...

Re:Morons

[nabsltd]

Given the 90%+ piracy rates these sorts of games see, they'd need to lose a hell of a lot of users to bad DRM if it's actually effective at stopping piracy.

Since most people who don't pay for games won't ever pay for them, it only takes a small percentage of actual purchasers being pissed off about DRM to really cause a dent in the bottom line.

Re:Morons

[theArtificial]

All* DRM schemes are cracked shortly after they are released. Some of them are cracked even before they are released. That happens because, despite your sugestion, it is impossible to have a proper cypto system doing it. It is impossible to create a challenge/response that pirates can't beat in a blink.

It depends on your definition of short. Let me introduce you to Starforce.

And that leads to my second point. Almost nobody will stop pirating your software because of DRM, but some people may stop buying (and pirate, or just go without) because of it. You have a situation where you want X*90% > Y*10%, but X is known to be very small. So, you can only hope Y is small too, because if it is even slightly big, you'll lose money.

You mean all the people in other countries have income which they'll actually use to purchase a title? For example in Argentina it's easier to get pirated goods than legitmate, the vendors and the prices are local and "reasonable". This is a world wide problem. Frankly I don't think anyone outside of a 1st world country is a concern of these companies.

BTW Your english is very good, s/academical/academic.

Re:Morons

[sjames]

Or even if they just do without because they couldn't afford the game in the first place. In some cases because their parents won't buy it for them.

Re:Morons

[Scarletdown]

And yet you not only read but post in an article about games?

I'm sorry I missed the commandment that decrees that you can only read and comment on articles in which you have a first person experience. At this point I should also add a "whoosh" as well.

I reckon that is related to the same unwritten rule that seems to cause so many here to declare that they do anal whenever discussing legal matters. ;)

Re:Morons

[Scarletdown]

As someone who works at Ubisoft, I can guarantee you that this practice will NOT stop. The CEO pretty much said so ... often.

Please deliver this hand gesture message to your CEO.

1: Hold your right hand up, palm facing you, and thumb tucked in.
2: Wiggle the four raised fingers rapidly for a few seconds.
3: Wait for the CEO to ask what that was.
4: Tell him "It's an encrypted one of these..."
5: Lower all but the middle finger.

Re:Morons

[marcosdumay]

That's interesting. 400 days is a long time for a game, so I was wrong.

Now, about people outside the 1st world countries, well, the game sellers don't seem to be concerned about us either. Here at Brazil it is also often easier to find a pirated title than an original one (exception from games distributed through the Internet), and the original games are often more expensive here than at the US, so some people just import them, (I've helped a few people calculate the final price of importing). Those countries don't have a market as big as the 1st world ones, but it is a lot of money that those companies are letting on the table.

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

That's good to know. Guess I'll be torrenting their games rather than buying them from now on...

Re:Morons

[Anonymous Coward]

Let him rant, it's fun to see idiots bitching about things that make them look incredibly stupid.

What about the copyright infringers?

[cheekyjohnson]

As we all know, DRM puts a stop to copyright infringement. If they make it less effective (you have to try to piss off your customers as much as possible when developing a DRM scheme), then they'll surely crack it (completely unheard of)! This was just a bad decision all around. What they need to do is have it so all of their customers must beg for access to the game before they are allowed to play it.

Re:What about the copyright infringers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What they need to do is have it so all of their customers must beg for access to the game before they are allowed to play it.

Also, require an hourly DRM fee. Those activation servers have to be paid after all!

Just buy a console already

[judeancodersfront]

Given how badly the pc version of Black Ops was pirated I don't see much of a future for pc games with single player campaigns.

http://warfaceaps.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/call-of-duty-black-ops-breaks-even-the-illegal-download-record/

Re:Just buy a console already

[0123456]

Given how badly the pc version of Black Ops was pirated I don't see much of a future for pc games with single player campaigns

You missed the 'from big publishers who just regurgitate last years game with slightly better graphics' part. If the big publishers abandon the PC for consoles and leave it to the indie developers, I'd be quite happy... I've bought more indie games than big name games in the current Steam sale because so few of the big name games had any appeal.

Of course that will suck for ATI and Nvidia if no-one has a need for the most expensive 3D graphics cards. But there doesn't seem to be much use for them now when most games are designed for consoles with antique GPUs and ported over to the PC.

Re:Just buy a console already

[nedlohs]

That's funny, they conclude with

"Well as a publisher I’d have to ask myself why bother releasing a game for the PC at all? Why don’t I just give it away for free?"

After stating a minute earlier that the PC version made nine and a half million euros in sales. Given it's on an xbox already, the art and level design is all done, etc, etc. Yes why not not take 9 million euros that's on the table, that'd be rational.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason "no one has a need" for these things is that the engines utilizing said gpu features require such expensive liscenses no indie dev can afford them, not because they wouldn't utilize it if they could. (Some of these engines + dev kits come with DRM of their own notorious for wreaking havoc on dev machines).

Re:Just buy a console already

[hedwards]

It's really just a symptom of an industry that's rife with corruption and incompetence. The only reason why they're getting anything out of DRM at all is that they were able to buy enough legislators to get the DMCA passed. The DMCA includes weak protections for consumers where they exist at all.

Beyond that I'm not sure how to interpret the success of Indie developers that release sans DRM or GOG.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for it. If the big names move to consoles, so much the better. They won't be missed in the PC arena. In the console arena, they can put out a new Madden each year, and people will buy it in droves, just because it has higher detail on some wide-receiver's pants.

It is laughable. The big names in the game business whine all the time about "piracy" while they put out such buggy crap that they have to find an excuse why gamers just don't bother, while the true success stories (Blizzard, ZeniMax subsidiaries like Bethesda) just do the job and do it right. If all the other big names vanished from the PC gaming sector, I'd miss Neverwinter Nights and AD&D games, but other than that, there wouldn't be any tears shed.

I'd love some indie firm that is able to get a license from Hasbro for the AD&D IP, and do another Baldur's Gate-like game with a good amount of hours of gameplay. Hell, put out a Neverwinter Nights 1 with updated graphics, sound, tiles, and ability to have zone servers for persistent worlds, and watch the game sell for years at a steady pace, rolling in the bucks for a long time. NWN1 made a hit because the CD-ROM DRM got patched out, and the only "DRM" was a CD key permitting access to multiplayer facilities, which makes sense.

Re:Just buy a console already

[imthesponge]

PC users do have a much higher rate of theft than console users; there tends to be more dishonesty there. So I can understand the concern.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Barefoot Monkey]

PC users do have a much higher rate of theft than console users; there tends to be more dishonesty there. So I can understand the concern.

Wait - do you mean that having a PC increases your chance of being burgled, or that people at a higher burglary-risk are also more likely to own a PC?

Re:Just buy a console already

[Spad]

No, he's saying that if you own a PC then you're more likely to go around burgling other people.

Re:Just buy a console already

[marcosdumay]

Oh, yes, PC people pirate more often than console users. I'll have to ask the question the GP asked agains, since you didn't seem to have read it...

"Why take 9 milion euros that are just on the table if you could just not release on that market and have nobody copying the game for their PCs?"

If you noticed that I was comparing orthogonal values, well, you are very near a rational tought. Run.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Opportunist]

Well, I can understand why people did it. I mean, would you pay full price for something that could have been done as a 5 bucks DLC package?

Re:Just buy a console already

[Opportunist]

Erh... how?

One of the reasons they could put more detail on some pants is that they simply assume that you have a better rig a year later, can squeeze more polys and higher resolution textures in and your machine will be able to render it.

Doesn't really work with consoles, does it?

Re:Just buy a console already

[Opportunist]

The only reason for more copying on PC is that it requires a LOT less information on the user's part to copy. Even a soft mod requires at least rudimentary ideas how to a) get it and b) get it into your machine. Add the fear of bricking that 400+ bucks of hardware (because you can't just reinstall Windows if you blow it), the tendency to just fail (RROD et al) and you could see why fewer people copy on consoles.

Essentially, the reason is that PCs run copies out of the box, while you have to "adjust" consoles to really own them.

Re:Just buy a console already

[judeancodersfront]

Why not expect the minority of paying pc customers to pony up for an xbox if they really want to play it? I bet at least half of paying pc gamers have a ps3 or 360.

Re:Just buy a console already

[judeancodersfront]

So I don't own my console because I haven't modded it to play pirated games? That's a strange definition of ownership.

I actually like supporting game developers, too bad the majority of pc gamers don't feel the same way.

Re:Just buy a console already

[theArtificial]

The only reason for more copying on PC is that it requires a LOT less information on the user's part to copy

I don't think you've thought this through very far because the same thing can be said for consoles, lets start with the Dreamcast. Initially a boot loader disc was required to play copied games, as things progressed some of the games had the loader installed on them. Portable game systems have super cartridges available that you can load dozens of ROM onto. How about piracy on the PSP? Since when is getting a mod chip beyond the average user? Your average user doesn't know how to crack software either, they know how to download (or someone they know does) and they arguably know how to follow directions. Mobile phones can be jailbroken and you can install all the games you like... I'm sure the size of the PC user base has something to do with it as well.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting part is that most people who own consoles will also own a PC, as well as people who don't own consoles.

OMG, all video gamers are mobsters and drug dealers! Ban video games!

Re:Just buy a console already

[Anonymous Coward]

So I don't own my console because I haven't modded it to play pirated games? That's a strange definition of ownership.

Preventing the DLC I paid cash for being deleted remotely is a strange definition of ownership? I "own" something that can be taken away at any time?

I should accept that the console can be patched remotely at any time to include 'features' that are annoying? And yet I "own" the console despite the lack of control over it?

I actually like supporting game developers, too bad the majority of pc gamers don't feel the same way.

Heh. You just keep feeling morally superior, "please Mr Corporate, jizz on my face, I just love it so".
Hint: Payment is a two-way street, if I give you good money, I expect to receive something of worth in return — I don't pay for the "privilege" of being held by the balls. Admittedly, I don't actually pirate much of anything myself since I find most games [and movies, music] to be overrated so just steer clear of them but I don't begrudge others who do.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not expect the minority of paying pc customers to pony up for an xbox if they really want to play it? I bet at least half of paying pc gamers have a ps3 or 360.

Easy. If you stop releasing products on a particular platform then you surrender that platform to your competitors. If Ubisoft stopped releasing games on PC, EA would eat their lunch for them. If EA, Activision, 2K, SEGA and the other big publishers stopped releasing games on PC, the indie developers would expand and found their own studios which would then compete with the big studios and publishers on their console home turf.*

For all the studios' bitching about how it isn't worth making PC games, they still do because the smart [business] people in the companies recognise that doing otherwise could prove fatal in the long term. Personally, I'd love for this to happen, it would effectively reset game development on PC to the early days before big budget publishers had taken hold and established status quos; it would open the way for a new frontier of original games.

* Your attitude clearly indicates that you believe people who own PCs don't pay for anything which is bizarre given the massive software industry of which games are only a small part. There is a very important difference between making enough money to build a mansion out of gold bricks, making enough enough money to live comfortably and not making enough money to avoid going bankrupt. Even if consoles are (1) and PCs are (2), it doesn't matter; profit is profit and as long as something is profitable someone is going to do it even if the big studios won't. This also excludes hobbiests who create the significant number of quality FREE games (those "crappy" Flash games everyone loves to hate on, some of them have art, sound and gameplay that beats the more pathetic big studio offerings).

Re:Just buy a console already

[Opportunist]

Ownership is defined (at least in my law) as having the full rights to an object. That includes being allowed to sell, rent, use, retain, modify and destroy it as you please.

If I may not do any or all of those things with an object, I do not own it.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Opportunist]

The bar is just higher with consoles. Even if all you have to do is go out and buy some "super cartridge", you have to go out and buy something before you can download stuff from $download_page instead of just downloading stuff from $download_page.

I hope we can agree that soldering mod-chips to a console is not really trivial for non-technical people. And getting it soldered in for you is again something that raises the bar (not to mention the borderline-illegality or outright illegality of it, depending on your country).

With everything but PC games you have to leave the house or at least buy something (goods or service) as a non-tech person to play your copies. PCs do it out of the box, as stated above.

Re:Just buy a console already

[judeancodersfront]

Well according to your law no one owns businesses, property, houses, cars or money.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Opportunist]

Depends on the laws that dictate just what you can do with those things. I do not see a real problem yet.

You may sell, rent, modify and destroy a business you own fully. Where is your problem?

You may sell, rent, use, retain or destroy property. Now, I do not really know how to destroy something like real estates (at least not in a way that does not impact the area around it that does not belong to you), but if you can, so you may.

Same with houses.

You may also sell, rent, use, retain, modify and destroy your car. It might no longer be allowed on public roads, but that doesn't mean you can't turn your car into a police car or make it look like a giant dildo if you so choose. The only problem might be that you cannot use it on a public road anymore, but that does not mean you cannot modify it as you see fit.

Same with money. This ain't the UK, modifying and destroying money is not illegal. Dumb, maybe, because it ceases to be legal tender when modified and it ceases to exist when destroyed, but hey, your money.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Sparrow1492]

Same with money. This ain't the UK, modifying and destroying money is not illegal. Dumb, maybe, because it ceases to be legal tender when modified and it ceases to exist when destroyed, but hey, your money.

Actually, it is a violation of US Code to destroy US currency.

Re:Just buy a console already

[Opportunist]

The USD may be "the" global currency, but so far it's not the local currency. And afaik destroying Euro bills is not forbidden. Then again, I am not sure, it's not really something I looked into, I kinda doubt that I'll willfully and deliberately go ahead and destroy money I hold.

You might also notice that you're actually not the owner of the bill. It is issued as a representation of a value and you are (from a legal point of view) only the holder, not the owner, of the bill. You own the money it represents, but not the bill representing it.

Re:Just buy a console already

[eennaarbrak]

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. Problem is that, while game developers focus on the lucrative console market, the PC versions of their games will suffer in quality (don't believe me? Read the amazon reviews on Black Ops). That is if they even bother to develop for the PC - many game developers simply do not have the technical ability to produce games for the heterogeneous PC platform (PS3 and XBox hardware is pretty much fixed and easy to target).

I want my PC games to be made for the PC. I hate not being able to save my game at any point in time - these "checkpoints" used by console ports are horrendous. I also want to be able to configure my game to take advantage of my PC's hardware - console games are made for a fixed set of hardware, meaning that they rarely support the better graphics capability of modern PC GPU's. I also want PC games to be released after proper QA, not as an afterthought.

Is there a single AAA game developer left that still focuses on PC games? I may be wrong, but I have not seen a big PC-exclusive announcement in ages.

Re:Just buy a console already

[judeancodersfront]

Depends on the laws that dictate just what you can do with those things.

You cannot do as you please with those things. There are endless restrictions on how you can modify houses, businesses and property. Cars cannot be modified endlessly either. Catalytic converter modifications for example must be done by a shop and have to meet regulations.

Re:Just buy a console already

[judeancodersfront]

Try burning the bill and getting money from the government then. Burn one hundred pounds and then demand the value in gold.

most likely...

[TheSHAD0W]

They patched this probably more to reduce server load than to field customer complaints. Stupid idea in the first place, of course.

how many people...

[wan9xu]

...actually buy a game and run a cracked version just to get around the DRM? i confess to be one of them. not ashamed to be one.

Re:how many people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, i wont buy a game until there is a crack available for it.

Re:how many people...

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people actually didn't buy the game and cracked it just to 'stick it to the man' in the first place?

I think that people would think twice about 'stealing' stuff from a small indie-game developer, as opposed to a company which treats its clients like crap.

Re:how many people...

[Barefoot Monkey]

I used to be one as well - after being burned enough times I never bought a game without first getting a working cracked version. Then that became too much of a hassle. Fortunately about the same time as publishers started switching to DRM there has also been a rise in good games being sold without DRM or copy protection (high profile examples: Good Old Games, World of Goo, the Humble Bundles and the Indie Bundles). Now I don't even consider buying a game unless I can use it on my own terms.

Re:how many people...

[Elbart]

Financially supporting DRM and committing a crime. Yup, that's smart.

Re:how many people...

[ocdscouter]

He's playing both ends against the... middle? side? Well, I'm sure he's got a plan at any rate.

Re:how many people...

[theArtificial]

I don't do this for every title but I bought ACII over the holidays on Steam. It was around $19.99 for ACII plus the DLC. I've held off on the purchase because of the DRM and the price. My price point is usually around $29, I have no problem buying things I use, I have money and I regularly spend money on entertainment. However I used the scene release on the retail copy I have to bypass the connection crap.

Re:how many people...

[rebelwarlock]

...actually buy a game and run a cracked version just to get around the DRM? i confess to be one of them. not ashamed to be one.

I do that with some games, sure. Some games (like Dragon Age, in my opinion), are worth buying, even at new game prices. Some games just aren't.

Reminds me of a UserFriendly comic

[Killer Eye]

Reminds me of a UserFriendly.org comic from a few years ago...went something like this:

"Someone is force-feeding you 5 bricks while kneeing you in the crotch. Suddenly, they decide to feed you only FOUR bricks. Do you THANK them?!?"

Re:Reminds me of a UserFriendly comic

[0123456]

I was thinking more along the lines of 'well mister, I ain't going to rape your butt no more, but you sure have a purty mouth'...

Re:Reminds me of a UserFriendly comic

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, rape jokes are hilarious! over 9000 internets for you!

Re:Reminds me of a UserFriendly comic

[newcastlejon]

"Someone is force-feeding you 5 bricks while kneeing you in the crotch. Suddenly, they decide to feed you only FOUR bricks. Do you THANK them?!?"

If I didn't have a choice in getting fed bricks and kneed in the crotch, then yes. If, on the other hand I paid for the crotch-kneeing in the knowledge that I'd have to put up with the bricks, then no.

Seriously, though, if you buy a game knowing about the stupid DRM measures then I have no sympathy; if the measures weren't made clear before purchase or were foisted upon you after purchase then you have grounds to demand a refund.

I can understand people mocking Ubi for adopting such a customer-unfriendly policy but - to use the customary car analogy - bitching that your Kia can't do 200mph just makes me think you're a tool for buying it in the first place.

Re:Reminds me of a UserFriendly comic

[Quiet_Desperation]

Well, I *might* as misdirection as I plot their painful demise once I get free. Just sayin'.

Re:Reminds me of a UserFriendly comic

[Opportunist]

The problem is, most people don't even know about DRM. And the studios would certainly not enlighten people how they're bending them over.

It will take a bit for people to catch on. Give 'em time, they will learn.

Re:Reminds me of a UserFriendly comic

[Lord Kano]

I was thinking more along the lines of 'well mister, I ain't going to rape your butt no more, but you sure have a purty mouth'...

You, sir, are either as brilliant as I am or you are just as sick and twisted. That's pretty much what I thought when I read the summary.

LK

Re:Reminds me of a UserFriendly comic

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't people get their cocks bitten off that way?

DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy DRM shit anymore. Over Christmas I've spent $25 on 2x Humblebundle (one for me, and one as a gift). And I tell you, games like Aquaria and World of Goo are nice and refreshing. Hell, I wouldn't pay $5 for some DRM riddled shit like Assassin's Creed 2. With Aquaria, I will be able to enjoy them 50 years from now when I'm old and senile :) :) :)

On similar note, a friend very much enjoyed Assassin's Creed, but she noticed that the game "lagged". After disconnecting Internet connection, the game played perfectly smoothly. It turns out that their DRM causes delays in player input. After that experience, she never got Assassin's Creed 2 *because* of DRM. She said she would have spent $60 for that game, but since they added even more draconian DRM than the first (in 1st, it caused lag), it was a no-go. And yes, this is a true story.

So yes, I play games like EVE Online, World of Tanks, Quake Live and now I discovered great Humblebundle games like Aquaria, World of Goo and the rest of the pack :) I'm very pleased with Humblebundle and looking forward to next one!

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a bunch of horseshit. AC1 didn't use the "always connected" DRM scheme and the DRM has no effect whatsoever on player input. I disagree with this style of DRM completely, but this kind of FUD is not the answer.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[TheRaven64]

I stopped buying games when they started adding this DRM crap. Steam was the last straw for me. In the last few weeks, I've bought a load of stuff from gog.com. I've spent more on games from there over the past month than I did in total in the previous 5 years. They're DRM free, easy to install, and I can redownload them if I want. Best of all, most of them run happily in WINE / DOSBox / ScummVM.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Kitkoan]

AC, please read the post before replying. They said that the AC1 lagged due to it's DRM, not because it ways 'aways on'. And its not uncommon of DRM causing lag (the DRM does use up some resources to run on top of the game), in fact the game Elder Scrolls 3 Morrowind had many sources (including at least one magazine) suggesting to use a no-cd crack to speed it up (gave you on average 5fps). Their friend was concerned that AC2 would have even more DRM (the internet connection plus other possible DRM) which could slow down their computer even more and thats why they didn't buy it.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[fotbr]

After the amateur-hour crap that gog pulled a couple months back by taking their site offline with no explanation, I'll stick to steam and it's minimal drm. It's a personal choice to live with it, but I find their implementation acceptable; publishers that add extra drm on top of steam don't get my dollars though.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[imthesponge]

I agree that it can be a pain, but whatever they have to do to keep people from stealing.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Gadget_Guy]

They said that the AC1 lagged due to it's DRM, not because it ways 'aways on'.

Then how is disconnecting the Internet proof of DRM causing a slow down? If it isn't always on (and AC1 wasn't) then the internet status wouldn't make a difference. It is more likely that there was some other background task going on. Maybe even some virus.

I can't say for sure that Ubisoft's DRM doesn't cause slowdowns in AC2 because while I played #1 I avoid #2 for this reason.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Grimbleton]

I don't own a game that I DON'T use a no-CD crack on. Who wants to cart around a spindle of CDs just in case? (I do all my gaming on a laptop wherever I happen to be, YMMV, of course)

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Nogami_Saeko]

Likewise, Steam is fine. Steam plus any additional DRM will never get a penny from me (since the Bioshock fiasco).

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Opportunist]

But DRM doesn't do that. Quite the opposite. Especially when it goes berserk like that recent development of "always online" DRM and the server outages during release.

Imagine this talk on the schoolyard.

"Hey, got the new $game already?"
"Yeah, but it sucks, I couldn't play it at all, their servers are down."
(smug grin) "Oh, I had no problem. Here, I'll show you how...

And another happy copyer converted away from buying. Because the list

1. Buy game.
2. Install game.
3. Go online, try to register, try to get a server to accept your key
3a. Get irate when you notice that your key has already been used by a keygen user and call their support, try to convince their supporter that you are the honest customer.
4. get frustrated when their servers are overloaded and you can't play.
5. punch a hole into wall
6. return from hospital with your fist in a cast and notice that you FINALLY can register and play.

can be reduced to

1. Download game
2. Install crack
3. Play

And it doesn't take a genius to see which one is more user friendly.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Belial6]

That is my stance on consoles as well. If you look at my stacks of literally thousands of console games, the number of games I bought is in direct proportion to how easy it was to install games on mass media. The Atari 2600 being the single exception. There is no way that I am going to leave $60 optical disks out for kids to play with. I also am not going to have my kid carrying around $500 in cartridges when he takes his hand held out and about.

Heck, we don't even use our movie and music disks for day to day use. Originals are for long term storage, not day to day use.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[Belial6]

I keep thinking about using GOG. The system works well? From it's description, they are using the system that music and movies should use as well. The single notable exception is that they should include printable CD/DVD covers that include the game title on the spine.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[TheRaven64]

Do you have any evidence that DRM stops people from 'stealing'? Any at all? I have one data point that shows that it stops me from buying games, but I don't think I've ever met someone who bought a game because it had DRM. Generally the pirated version has the DRM stripped long before it gets to the user, so the person downloading it never sees it.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[yukk]

That's a great idea and you should suggest it to them.
I don't think it'd take much work to convert some of their artwork to CD compatible graphics or even to get the original designs and maybe modify them with a GOG logo.

Re:DRM?- I just play non-DRM games :P

[TheRaven64]

Yup, it works very well. Part of it (for me) has been that it's insanely cheap. Over Christmas I had a lot of free time and spending $3 on a game that I'll enjoy for several hours is really easy. I played through both Simon the Sorcerer games and Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project over the holiday, in between being sociable.

When you buy a game, it's added to your shelf (or someone else's, if you buy it as a gift). You can then download it and install it. It comes as a single .exe file for the game. The installer runs in WINE, so for DOS games you just run it in WINE then run the game in the native version of DOSBox, rather than the bundled Windows one. I ran the Simon the Sorcerer games in ScummVM - just run the installer in WINE and point ScummVM at the install directory. Newer games, like Total Annihilation and Duke Nukem: Manhattan Project I've also played in WINE.

You can also download some bonus stuff with each game. This is typically the manual and some wallpaper images related to the game. Occasionally you get a strategy guide and other stuff.

Any of the downloadable stuff can be redownloaded as many times as you want. It's probably worth keeping a backup somewhere in case the company goes bust (no DRM, so they will keep working as long as you have something that can run Windows or WINE and emulate x86), but if you are away from home and want to play a game, you can just download one from your shelf.

Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Jeremy Erwin]

When my ISP went out for a day and a half, I wanted to play some games to pass the time, but the games that appealed to my state of mind were all on steam-- and thus useless to me. (Yes, I'm the anti-social type--I prefer single player scenarios).

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Agret]

Then start Steam, it'll detect there is no internet connection available and ask to start in offline mode. Since you only prefer singleplayer games you should be able to run them no problem, if Steam says the game is unavailable leave the Steam window open and go into Steam\SteamApps\Common, look for your game folder and run the exe directly - it should work fine :)

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Jeremy Erwin]

Hmm...

unplugs ethernet cable, disables 802.11

Didn't quite work out that way. Got a "Steam needs to be online to update" message. Perhaps the Mac client differs substantially from the Windows version.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[risinganger]

No, that to me indicates you should launch Steam every so often to ensure it is up-to-date. I'm on a mac too but I get the same options as Agret did. It observed I had no network connection and asked if I wanted to start in offline mode.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[GrBear]

Didn't quite work out that way. Got a "Steam needs to be online to update" message. Perhaps the Mac client differs substantially from the Windows version.

Odd, because my Windows laptop plays steam games just fine in single player mode while offline. Infact, the majority of the time it's offline.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Jeremy Erwin]

Ah, there it goes.

Note to self: Play more games, more often.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Agret]

What's interesting about that theory is that if you are running it offline it should have no idea there is a new version available. I think the most important thing to do is make sure you sign on with "remember my password" ticked if you think there is a chance of you losing your internet.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Draek]

Try Impulse then. It still has DRM, but whatever its limitations I've yet to see them: I can easily login to the same account on two different computers at the same time, start up the same game on both then set up a match between them with *or* without internet connection throughout the whole ordeal. You do, however, need to be logged in to download updates, and I haven't tried downloading the same one simultaneously on both computers yet.

Only problem is they're a lot less picky than Steam when it comes to 3rd party DRM, so you can get some nasty surprises sometimes if you only look at the screenshots and price before buying, but most of the stuff in there is clean.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail. Must be online to put steam into offline mode. Fail hard.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[bakdor]

I have the Windows steam - Mac ought to be similar. There's an option (per game) that you can find by right-clicking on a game's name, and selecting Properties - then go to the Updates tab and make sure it says 'Do not automatically update this game' instead of 'Always keep this game up to date' - do this for every game you have installed, then when you start steam next time it should allow offline mode to work, without that 'needs to be online to update' message appearing. I don't know if this works for every Steam game, but it seems to works for every Steam game i have (eg: portal, halflife 2, popcap ones). If you want to update a game sometime, turn the option back on for that game (and maybe restart steam at this point?) - then turn it back off and restart steam again after any updates have completed. A little annoying, but this has worked for me without any problem.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Jeremy Erwin]

thanks for the tip. I'll try that.

Re:Internet connection shouldn't be required

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore that guy that said that, he doesn't know what he's talking about. The message you are getting is about the Steam client itself. The client checks periodically with the Steam website to see what the latest version is. It then caches that information, so if you shut it down before you've updated (assuming there is a newer client available), it'll complain when you next start it because it knows there is a newer client. The solution isn't to disable updating games (which btw, doesn't work very well; they'll still check for game updates when you run them, just not auto-download the updates), the proper solution is to do one of two things when you're planning on going to offline mode: A. Check for steam client updates (through the menu) before you shutdown for offline mode, or B. Shutdown and restart Steam before going into offline mode as it'll auto-update the client when you restart it that first time.

Makes a difference

[Ben4jammin]

I didn't realize how crappy my connection was until I started playing WOW...before with Steam only needing occasional access I didn't notice.

I switched providers once I realized how bad my connection was. I just don't think it is a smart thing to do to require constant connectivity...unless most other people have much better connection experiences than I have had. Seems like a recipe for disaster.

defeats its purpose

[StripedCow]

Ok, without a required connection during the game, it will be quite easy to crack this scheme: simply make a copy of the machine state just after starting the game. (For most people, this will be not so simple, but crackers can easily do this).

Re:defeats its purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

because the constant connection didn't get cracked?

Re:defeats its purpose

[Haedrian]

Like people hadn't already cracked the game before this patch...

DRMs always get cracked in the end. I'm pretty sure the only reason they're put into the game is to ensure that its not cracked in the first 'month' or so when the majority of the sales happen.

as long as people still buy the games

[devent]

As long as the people still buy the games from Ubisoft, they will not drop any DRM. My guess is that it was calculated (i.e. x% are pirats, y% are pissed, z% will still buy) and it makes more profit with the DRM then without. A lot of people just don't care until the servers are stopped or changed for a new game. In that case it will be just a press release "We are very very sorry but we have to terminate the activation service. Look at the EULA it's perfectly legal and you can do shit about it. So please just forgot this game and buy our new games now with more DRM because the pirates are forcing us to protect our IP.".

Re:as long as people still buy the games

[whoop]

They do this at the close of Steam's Christmas series of sales. I'm guessing AC2 and C&C didn't get the wonderful reception they were expecting. Of course, now it's too late to fix what they've blundered.

Steam has one more day, it could be another everything-previously-is-on-sale-again type thing for Ubisoft to pray they can make up some money...

Re:as long as people still buy the games

[Quiet_Desperation]

That's why I borrowed my sister's copy of AC2, and I'll borrow Brotherhood. That's one nice thing about console gaming- still easy to just borrow a game from someone else. They haven't started any limiting actions like tying a disc serial number to a console serial number on their servers. Geez, maybe I should just hush up. :-\ My PC gaming these days is older stuff I missed on Steam and GOG.

Re:as long as people still buy the games

[marcosdumay]

I guess they didn't calculated that. They can't know how many pirate the game, but made a guess, then they proceed to make the calculation: X are pirates, some n*X (0 < n < 1) won't be able to pirate anymore after we release our DRM, thus, we'll sell n*X extra copies with DRM. People stoping buying because of DRM probably only come on their calculations now, that people actualy stopped buying.

Also, if everybody stopped buying because of DRM they'll just say "Damn pirates!!!" and make their DRM worse all the way to banckrupcy.

Re:as long as people still buy the games

[Anonymous Coward]

The DRM on ACII was hacked so fast that the hackers weren't even laughing about it, they were disappointed.

Re:as long as people still buy the games

[TheSpoom]

They haven't started any limiting actions like tying a disc serial number to a console serial number on their servers.

Next generation, guaranteed.

They've been doing experiments with this on the smaller games that are distributed by download (i.e. WiiWare, Xbox Live Arcade, etc.) and DS online games, and it's only a small step to expand this to disc games (which would send an activation packet to the company's server, and thereafter would only operate on that one console).

Theoretically, signing should prevent people from modifying the executable as well as allowing the game to verify communications are indeed coming from the company, so if they can prevent people from cracking their signing infrastructure (like they did with the Wii), it would be a pretty good enforcement mechanism.

Re:as long as people still buy the games

[Draek]

They did an experiment years ago, and released their games without any DRM whatsoever for a while, Prince of Persia 2008 being the flagship of it, which is where they likely got their numbers from. Problem? I always got the feeling the experiment was heavily boycotted internally, when the CEO announced the experiment he basically said "go ahead, you dirty pirates, go and pirate it, we know you will", the game itself received almost no publicity to the point even finding it in stores was difficult, and then to top it off they made a sort-of epilogue DLC, but only released it for consoles leaving PC players in the dust.

Really, even leaving "piracy" aside, the game had plenty of reasons not to sell well, but go tell that to the dickish CEO.

Don't give Ubisoft your money.

[gumpish]

That's fine and good, but you really shouldn't be rewarding draconian companies like Ubisoft with your money. Either abstain or find a rationalization for your piracy. My favorite is, "if they're going to treat me like a criminal then I'll act like one."

Re:Don't give Ubisoft your money.

[Opportunist]

"Adjust the crime to fit the punishment"

Re:Don't give Ubisoft your money.

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite is, "if they're going to treat me like a criminal then I'll act like one."

Does that apply to airport security??

Re:Don't give Ubisoft your money.

[theArtificial]

That's fine and good, but you really shouldn't be rewarding draconian companies like Ubisoft with your money.

What I spend my money on is my business. So your rationalization is "Don't give them money if you like their product"? If you're so concerned about people spending money with draconian companies why don't you focus on the billions/trillions spent on the war.

Either abstain or find a rationalization for your piracy. My favorite is, "if they're going to treat me like a criminal then I'll act like one."

I already have a valid license so no need to pirate. Although, I'm sure I'm in the minority.

Re:Don't give Ubisoft your money.

[Osgeld]

I don't give them my money because I don't like their product, they could have the best damn game ever made, but I will not stand for the DRM crap

I dont buy their games, I dont pirate their games, Ubisoft does not exist to me

Re:Don't give Ubisoft your money.

[Draek]

My favorite is, "if they're going to treat me like a criminal then I'll act like one."

Here's hoping you apply the same policy towards the TSA ;)

year without drm

[Rinisari]

Relevant: http://www.yearwithoutdrm.com/

Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

If PC gaming is declining, it's because it's getting more difficult to play the games you payed for. It's what keeps me from playing on PC, not to mention that I won't be guaranteed to be able to play the game in the future if they stop supporting the game and server support is therefore discontinued. Steam is ok but it doesn't cover everything, and that's part of the problem. Different games require effort in different areas in order to get the game to run, and it's too much trouble in general so I stay off the platform completely.

Re:Exactly

[Gadget_Guy]

I don't have any stats in front of me, but I think that PC gaming might be increasing because it is getting easier to get titles due to services like Steam. We might hate the DRM, but the store is great and very convenient. However, you are right that stupid moves by the likes of Ubisoft do make things harder.

The big problem is that this will eventually extend to gaming consoles. Already we see the other bane of PC gaming being copied by consoles - that of buggy initial releases requiring large patches. I can see larger titles eventually coming from the various virtual marketplaces. Ultimately, I predict future consoles will be released without any optical drive. Always on Internet connection requirements won't be too far behind that.

Re:Exactly

[theArtificial]

I don't have any stats in front of me, but I think that PC gaming might be increasing because it is getting easier to get titles due to services like Steam.

Don't indy developers. Look at Minecraft and World of Goo. Lots of innovative ideas are being pushed by smaller teams.

Already we see the other bane of PC gaming being copied by consoles

I know what you're trying to say but consoles are PCs. Your keyboard is usually virtual but you've got the mobo, optical drive, ram, video, ethernet, and hard disk. I think part of the reason for patches is rushed and/or cheap development. Also look at the development houses which produce the titles that require patching. Not all console experiences are the same and it's possible to make a title that has been tested pretty well, look at Nintendo. Also are the patches that you're referring to exploit and balance issues for multiplayer games? If so, those are welcome.

Ultimately, I predict future consoles will be released without any optical drive. Always on Internet connection requirements won't be too far behind that.

Ugh. All hail the thin client. All that is old is new and the world is right again.

I would be.

[SanityInAnarchy]

It may not be as bad as pirating, but what you're doing is sending them a strong financial message: "It's ok to do this shit! I don't mind! I'll give you exactly as much money as I did before, I'll just be slightly more annoyed!"

If a game has enough DRM that I'd have to crack it just to play the way I want, or to protect my system, I'm not going to buy or play that game. I'll buy a different one with either no DRM, or DRM I can live with.

Need to be online to start in offline mode...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mine can only be put in offline mode when I am online. If I am offline, it says to start in offline mode, but then it won't, and says it needs to be online.

If I remember to turn it to offline mode before I go offline, it works fine, and I can stay in offline mode for the month I am at work, and play just fine (on my offshift hours of course). If I forget that before I leave home, I am screwed for the month.

I could rule the world.

[westlake]

Given it's on an xbox already, the art and level design is all done, etc, etc. Yes why not not take 9 million euros that's on the table, that'd be rational.

I'd like to have a dollar from every gamer geek who has complained about a console port to the PC.

Re:I could rule the world.

[nedlohs]

Who cares if they complain if they also hand over $12,000,000?

Re:I could rule the world.

[Opportunist]

Rule? You could buy the world!

Granted, not much difference these days...

Too little, too late.

[seebs]

When they shipped a single product with this, they went off my vendor list.

Forever.

There are way too many companies making games for me to deal with one like that. Same deal as with Belkin and their router which randomly redirected sessions to an advertisement. You screw up that blatantly or obviously, even once, and you're off the vendor list unless you are a genuine monopoly on something I really need.

Since Ubisoft can never be a monopoly on much of anything, they're gone.

Note that this is not an attempt to make them behave better. That would be "off the vendor list until you fix this". That is a recipe for companies like Amazon, which patent troll and spam, then back off a little bit until the complaints die down. I don't want to deal with companies I have to watch constantly because they've learned to just go ahead and do evil stuff and see who complains.

For utterly replaceable companies, the policy is "you're gone, bye". If they eventually die, great! Everyone wins. If they merely stop selling me stuff, because I don't buy from them, at least I win.

Re:Too little, too late.

[I_Lost_My_Puppy]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one.

Some people think I'm being ridiculous when I tell them why I won't buy anything with the name Belkin on it.

Re:Too little, too late.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people think I'm being ridiculous when I tell them why I won't buy anything with the name Belkin on it.

You're not alone in not buying Belkin stuff. Very much not alone.

He may change his mind eventually

[Sycraft-fu]

When EA starts to take away all of Ubisoft's sales. Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe Ubisoft's sales won't be impacted, however the fact that they patched it implies that they have. Perhaps their new games have not sold as well on the PC as they wanted. They figured with their new DRM they'd have far more sales, and in fact have had significantly less. If that's the case, and people keep boycotting it, it may go away eventually.

After all EA has backed WAY off on their PC DRM and they seem to be doing quite well. They seem to have found a balance between checking for pirated copies but that doesn't interfere with legit uses at all.

I can speak only for myself, but I won't buy Ubisoft's new games. Assassin's Creed 2 and Settlers 7 were on my list to buy, but I have not sue to the DRM. I didn't pirate them instead, I've just given them a miss. There are plenty of good games out there, I have games I've not yet even installed that I own, so I do not lack for options. If others do like myself, well it'll continue to hurt Ubisoft and in fact have the opposite effect of what they want. Their DRM will cost them more money to implement (as it is fairly complicated) but they'll get less sales as a result.

I'll meet companies half way. I can accept some DRM. Steamworks is ok, for example. However it can't interfere with my ability to play and enjoy the game. Requiring a net connection to play counts. Part of the reason to have single player games is to have something to play when my net connection dies (which let's not kid ourselves still happens even with good ones) or when I'm traveling.

Maybe they are just pragmatists

[Sycraft-fu]

People who will take NO DRM EVAR remind me of OSS fanboys, who sit running very few applications and having to pick and choose hardware carefully to maintain the "purity" of their systems, all while claiming "It is better here! Really it is!"

Some people are pragmatic about DRM. I'd be one of them. I'm ok with it. While I question its usefulness, I understand that publishers need it to feel safe so I'm ok. I'll meet them half-way. My requirement for DRM is that it doesn't interfere with my gameplay. I need it to not mess with what I want to do, like being able to play whenever I feel like, install on my desktop and laptop, not jump through hoops, and so on. So long as it meets that, I'm ok with it. I'd rather it not be there and think it is kinda a waste of money, but I'm pragmatic. I won't be a zealot about no-DRM if they won't be zealots about draconian DRM.

So I'm ok with Steam. In particular because the package provides great benefits along with the DRM, notably the "Install as many times as you like from an easy, fast download repository." That's a nice feature. The whole Steam package is pretty nice (installs, achievements, communication, etc).

Thus I won't buy games with Ubisoft's DRM, but I will buy games with Steamworks. I'd rather zero DRM, but I'm not going to be a zealot about it.

Re:Maybe they are just pragmatists

[Corporate Troll]

The "download on any computer" for me is the killer app. I don't game all that much, but my brother does. He got a new computer recently and as I'm the family geek I took the task upon me to configure and install all his stuff. End result: His GTA3 - San Andreas DVD won't install, neither does his The Sims 2 CD. Are they damaged? CRC errors do seem to indicate so, but who knows. It is interesting that the damaged optical media are those needed for gameplay but did work on his old computer. Basically, the "authentication" part stil worked, but installation data was lost.

I opened a ticket with Maxis for The Sims 2, but I don't expect them to help. Most likely they'll say: Buy a new copy. As for GTA3 - San Andreas... I told him to get it on Steam. There is a whole Rockstar Package for less than the original price he paid for GTA3-SA. He also has GTA4, but it didn't work on his old computer. It should now work, but I won't install it from DVD as it is also included in the same pack.

Basically, Steam is the best way to "backup" the games you have the right to play. Sure, they might close shop and my brother would be screwed again. However, with optical media, it seems you're screwed too.

So as long as Steam is up and running and I can play the games I paid for... I'm fine with it. The DRM doesn't seem that draconian to me. Most likely, I say that because I've never run into it. I'll probably will scream murder when I do.

They tried, and lost.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all pretty typical DRM saber-rattling.
Do any of you know that Ubi actually put the claim that DRM kills sales to the test before releasing their current DRM?
Prince of Persia 2008 released on pc with absolutely no DRM to see if people put their money where their mouth is. 75k pc copies were sold and over half a million players were playing it. They had to abandon the idea of releasing without DRM because the project ended up unprofitable, something that could have been avoided if less than half of those players had actually bought the game.

They won't be missed by you

[judeancodersfront]

But given how much multiplats are pirated by pc gamers I'd say a few million at least will be upset.

Why stop there?

[splerdu]

If you wait 5 years to play a game, you get to save a ton on hardware as well!

Piracy is cheap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Customer support is expensive.

Too bad they didn't have the due diligence to figure this out a year ago. Now if they remove the remaining startup check, they might be able to sell me a copy.

"connection is still required when starting"

[Culture20]

Not good enough for me yet. I don't always have internet service, and I'm not getting cable and DSL just to ensure my Ubisoft games work when I want them to. I'll stick with my 1990's manual-based DRM games, thank you very much. They haven't stopped working, and are actually more enjoyable. That or my wii.

"pwufessuh haiwypheet" of ITT Tech BLOWN AWAY 6x?

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially in the 1st URL below:

---

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34734160

http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34719276

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668

---

(ROTFLMAO!)

I seriously wouldn't listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.

Can't be bothered to give a fuck

[Legion303]

The DRM was "patched" by pirates before some of these games even hit retail. I guess it's good that Ubi got around to doing for their paying customers what Skidrow did almost a year ago for everyone else, but I'm finding it hard to care.

I bought Conviction (on ebay, fuck Ubi) for the 360, but if I'd wanted to I could have downloaded the Skidrow multiplayer cracked PC version of that as well. Ubi's DRM didn't even last a single day.

Ubisoft? = SHIT customer support.

[dogzdik]

I bought Chessmaster 10 and it was a Ubisoft game... signed up for the online tutorials and games at the site - which was a part of the contract.

.

Unfortunately something got messed up in the process with pass words and user names and delays in transmission etc., etc., etc.. and so I was no longer able to use the site and so I contacted them - with my special number and an explanation and asked for them to fix it.

.

Not only did they not fix the problem, they completely ignored my emails to them.

.

Well the game and tutorials are so good that I have personally recommended it to all my friends - and now they all play it too.

.

So fuck UBISOFT.

Not completely dead.

[ymgve]

I just looked into this a bit more, and if what I understand is correct:

These games do NOT require you to be always-on anymore
Splinter Cell: Conviction
Silent Hunter 5
Assassin's Creed 2

These games STILL requires you to be always-on
The Settlers 7
Prince of Persia 2010
Hawx 2
Probably a few others

As an aside, the the way they "fixed" the always-on issue is a bit interesting - instead of issuing new patches for the various games, they now download a separate program for each game that does what Ubisoft's servers used to do.

Re: Steam and DRM

[King_TJ]

As much as I strongly dislike DRM of all kinds, I'm willing to accept that like most things, it's a "tolerable disadvantage" to an offering, IF they manage to offer enough positives to offset it. In the case of Steam? I'm primarily a Mac OS X user these days, and this operating system has suffered from a lack of quality games written for it. When Steam promised Mac support, I was interested. I had Steam for years on my Windows PCs before that, but for Windows, it seemed like little more than a hassle.

Now, I look at it in a much more positive light on my Mac, because these guys were able to bring me several great games I was resigned to booting into Windows to play, previously; Team Fortress 2, Left for Dead 1 and 2, Portal, and Half Life 2. In all of these cases, the price was very reasonable too (especially for a Mac, where we're used to getting charged full retail price for a port of a game that's been out for over a year for Windows already!).

Now, it may be true that I "don't know for sure if I'll be allowed to play the games in 5 years", if Steam goes under or decides for whatever reason to deactivate the titles I paid for. But at the prices I paid for the OS X games I bought so far (about $10 for "Killing Floor", for example, and another $9.95 for Left for Dead), I really won't lose any sleep over it either. I got my entertainment dollar's worth out of all of them already. They even gave me free licenses for the games I'd bought previously on Steam, like Half Life 2.

On the flip side? There ARE some titles on Steam right now for the Mac I'd never buy through their system. Civilization 5 comes to mind immediately. They want about $50 for it. At that price? #1, I'm not even sure it's worth my money for a game that's really just an update to a game I've played MANY times before. But more importantly, $50 is too much to gamble/risk for a game tied to some company's online authentication system.

But we brought this on ourselves

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Now, since DRM clearly drives away customers

The trouble is, if it drives away some customers who won't buy an artificially crippled product, but it also prevents more potential customers from casually copying in the playground so they buy instead, then the DRM is probably a good investment for the company. It still means the honest part of the market is getting screwed while the dishonest part is benefitting, but the bottom line of the company is benefitting as well. Even DRM that only works for the first few weeks before a crack comes out can still be worth it in pure business terms.

Sadly, we have brought this upon ourselves: it is what we get in return for years of accepting lame arguments from the dishonest people about how information wants to be free, copyright infringement isn't theft, the big media companies deserve it, etc. Instead of enforcing the laws that are there to encourage businesses to develop good products with a reasonable expectation of profiting in return, we have taught the businesses that a confrontational attitude is the most profitable one to take, and that those of us who dislike DRM enough that we really won't buy broken products are insignificant relative to the number of freeloaders who would otherwise get away with it.

I don't see this changing unless and until either (a) more honest customers refuse to buy encumbered products (e.g., if DRM gets too irritating or popular sentiment changes), (b) more dishonest customers are compelled to buy if they want to play rather than freeloading (e.g., if we make a serious effort to enforce reasonable penalties in law), or possibly (c) the law starts enforcing advertising requirements and/or penalties for products that don't work properly or cause other damage because of poor DRM implementations.

Re:But we brought this on ourselves

[Opportunist]

The trouble is, if it drives away some customers who won't buy an artificially crippled product, but it also prevents more potential customers from casually copying in the playground so they buy instead, then the DRM is probably a good investment for the company.

That's why the "sweet spot" in DRM was reached with the Original-CD-must-be-in-drive copy protection. Hell, Doc Checks were good enough, at least as long as these docs came actually printed instead of on a PDF. It kept people from copying their game for their friend. And with the advent of online gaming, even this kind of copy protection (to defend against "playground copying") became pointless. Did anyone buy Black Ops for the single player campaign mode? Seriously? Does it have one at all?

I Stand Firm

[Gaian-Orlanthii]

I've been a PC gamer since the early '90s and I've lived through all the years when PC gamers became ever more reliant on hackers to defend their rights to make backups and sell to a third-party.
When Ubisoft announced this last DRM scheme of theirs, I simply boycotted them. Why should they get a cent of my hard earned money if they're going to treat me like a criminal before the shrinkwrap has even been removed the box?

Well you all know that Ubisoft aren't the first to treat us this way but in my case, I also had a dodgy unreliable internet connection. So it occurred to me that Ubisoft had invented another way to victimise me and blame me for it in the process.

So I said: 'Fuck Them'. The rest was easy. I don't care how 'awesome' anyone thinks their games are. I couldn't give a flying fuck how many webcomics are being so topical about their games. I could possibly piss on the reviewers who've stopped trying to be objective and factual.

If Ubisoft want another cent from me, they must reveal the names of those who came up with this idea in the first place, sack their entire upper management and publicly pledge to abandon all forms of DRM while the company exists.

Repeat this statement 1000 times and you know they'll start listening.

Actually

[Travoltus]

Ubisoft's CEO deserves to be driven into poverty and homelessness.

Let him off himself and give the rest of the world clean hands. :D

Humble Bundle

[cwtrex]

Seems people have forgotten to mention (or a simple reminder) that the Humble Bundle 2 was offering 11 games for less than $10 bucks ... ALL with NO DRM!!!

I, too, was looking into purchasing some Ubisoft games, but instead of dealing with their DRM while paying 50+ bucks for a single game, I found myself getting pushed toward these indie developers who are selling non-DRM games of decent quality on the cheap! Even better, is that the Humble Bundle 2 had the option for me to decide to pay more later to reward the developers if, as I'm playing through these games, I found the developers did an awesome job and deserve more compensation for their hard work for a job well done (rather than being ripped off from the start if it in fact ending up being a poorly developed game)!

If you some how haven't heard of the Humble Bundle 2, you can research about it and sign up to hear about the next Humble Bundle release here.

Refuse to buy

[Anonymous Coward]

I have made it a personal choice not to ever buy a product Ubisoft, companies like them ever again; no matters the product, and this is easier than you would think since we are talking about game companies.