Thanks to DRM, Some Ubisoft Games Won't Work Next Week
hypnosec writes "Several of Ubisoft's biggest titles won't be playable as of next week thanks to a server move by the publisher and the restrictive DRM that was used in their development. This isn't just multiplayer either. Because Ubisoft thought it would be a smart plan to use always on DRM for even the single player portion of games like Assassin's Creed, even the single player portion of that title won't be playable during the server move. Some of the other games affected by this move will be Tom Clancy's HAWX 2, Might & Magic: Heroes 6 and The Settlers 7. The Mac games that will be broken during this period are Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell Conviction and The Settlers. This move was announced this week as part of a community letter, with Ubisoft describing how the data servers for many of the publisher's online services would be migrated from third party facilities to a new location starting on the 7th February. The publisher didn't reveal how long the transfer would take."
That should be a matter of minutes and since I would guess this is largely just a reading and verifying service, there shouldn't even be an interruption for game validation. There are other strategies to employ if that database dump takes a long time but nothing that should require an unknown downtime.
Uh, I do this stuff with two-bit websites that I don't even make a profit on. What the hell is money monger Ubisoft doing?
My work here is dung.
Complaints about this will NEVER MATTER until it impacts the bottom line.
STOP BUYING UBI GAMES.
Unless and until publishers see a recognizable impact on their sales that they can attribute to repressive DRM, they won't stop.
And remember, a lot of these guys BELIEVE the bullshit line about every pirated game is a "lost sale" so the negative impact of DRM would have to be a pretty massive number.
-Styopa
There's just so much wrong with this... it's amazing...
It just leaves me completely flabbergasted. I can't imagine this entire process coming to this point without someone, somewhere in the decision process saying "Who gives a shit what they think? Just do whatever's cheapest right now"
There's a reason there is no "Disagree" mod...
Failure in implementation of DRM, failure in how to build the DR portion of the datacenter, failure on how to do the transition, failure on how to provide some measure of compensation for intentionally breaking your customers' games.
Hello Ubisoft. Meet Sony. They'll show you around my shitlist.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I don't understand. I seem to be unaffected by this.
Now, on t' more pressin' matters. Where did I put that bottle o' rum?
Since their DRM is ineffective at actually stopping pirates, here we have the perfect example of "defective by design". Anybody with a DRM-cracked pirated version will not have any disruption. Nice job, Ubi.
I get heated over this kind of thing every time I pop in a DVD from Netflix. They send you discs without any special features that are loaded with up to 15 minutes of unskippable advertisements and previews. If I had just downloaded the move, I could jump right in. I am willing to pay, but I see nothing but disincentives to do so! Fools.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
I really want to buy Far Cry 3. Chances are however I will not be. Because Ubisoft is no doubt going to put their "always on" DRM on it. This article is the exact reason that that is unacceptable to me. So, Ubisoft can go about all they want championing how they're "putting it to those evil pirates" (roll-eyes) but in the mean-time they are losing out on me, yes, the person who wants the game but isn't going to submit to their idiocy. So, I lose because: no executive with a testosterone problem is going to back-off and admit he has shit for brains. And the cycle continues.
And as Gabe Newell so succinctly put it: Piracy is a Service Problem. So what's Ubisoft doing? Creating more value in the pirated versions. Way to go guys, golf-clap.
Shh.
that fixes those things before they become an issue. they even have their own trendy name :
razor1911
Read radical news here
First I stopped buying.
Then I stopped pirating.
Then I stopped caring.
You can "deliver better uptime" by not using DRM in the first place. Voila, 100% 'uptime' with no infrastructure required.
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
You wouldn't buy a new car that you had to call the dealer for permission every time you wanted to go for a drive.
You wouldn't buy a handbag that you had to ask the clerk to open for you every time you wanted to take money out.
You wouldn't buy a TV if you had to wait for permission from Time Warner just to watch the commercials.
So why buy DRM?
Brought to you by the Media Consumer Association of America.
How does this make you feel?
Is this Eliza?
>
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
* The single-player campaign is available in both online and offline mode (of course! Anything else would be outrageous!)
* However, if you ever lose connection in online mode, you're kicked out.
* Oh, and did I mention that in this overhead map strategy game, where a single map usually takes hours, campaign saves from "offline mode" are not compatible with "online mode" and you must effectively restart the game? LOL YOU CAN OF COURSE PLAY OFFLINE AT ANY TIM.. no, gtfo.
* And that a core component of the campaign mode are "Dynasty Items", "Dynasty Heroes" and "Dynasty Bonuses" which are unlocked during campaign mode and become persistent across games - except that they only work in online mode?
* So the story will make frequent references to wielding the Sword of Legendary Dragonslaying except that you have no such thing in your inventory and will never have it or any other uber-item because you decided like a chump to start in offline mode in case you were worried about losing connection while playing.
And that's aside from any other of the numerous gameplay issues and servers being down. A lobotomy of a game.
Everyone who can't play a game during this move should take Ubisoft to small claims court. Lawyers are not allowed in small claims court, so this is an advantage for you. Just claim the value of the game as damages and the cost to file the claim. If Ubisoft doesn't make an appearance, you win by default. If they show up and you lose, you still caused them to lose far more money than they got from you for buying their game. If you win and they fail to pay your claim, you can put a lien on them or have an equivalent value of their property seized.
If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
Gooooooood, especially when i look and i dont see any Ubisoft games on my shelf.
How does this make you feel?
Smug. DRM is why I stopped buying computer games a long time ago (I do miss the gaming scene sometimes). Yes, piracy costs sales -- they say DRM is for piracy, and DRM has cost them hundreds of dollars they would have gotten from me had they not treated me like the thieves they are. I'm sure I'm not the only one who refuses to buy anything that has less functionality than if I'd pirated it.
Stupid, stupid corporations.
Free Martian Whores!
I hope someone ambushes the convoy and destroys their servers. The backlash from "lol sorry your DRM games are broken forever" would be the most hilarious ever in the history of DRM.
I buy from gog.com since they seem to be actively targeting the anti-DRM crowd. Of course most of the computer games are quite old - still I didn't own all the good ones when they were new.
DRM is not for piracy, regardless what they say. Because guess what... piracy can usually find it's way around DRM. DRM is for the used game market, they simply don't want you to sell back the game you bought from them. That's the real goal of DRM.
But yes, they do say it's for piracy, and the side effect is that they treat all normal players as if they were pirates, while the real pirates work around the DRM and play it anyway.
So what you're saying is that Ubisoft don't already have a hot-backup to these database that is customer- and business-critical and needs to be up 24/7? They don't have a testing regime with a live copy of the dataset to test against? They couldn't have performed the migration piecemeal? They couldn't have done the migration in the background while the main servers take the brunt of the traffic and then - when and only when it was tested and working - started the background database serving queries instead?
Don't talk shit. This is a large system - millions of customers, always on, etc.etc. It's cost millions of dollars. If you need to take it down for more than a day (especially for PLANNED maintenance), it means you didn't implement it properly, don't test it properly, didn't even spec it properly, don't manage it properly and don't care about your customers. This is why redundant systems exist - for exactly these sorts of systems.
Do maintenance by all means, but taking it OFFLINE to do so with no backup system? That's just shoddy whether you're migrating a handful of MySQL instances or the back end of a large bank.
Best practices would be to stand up a new server and then transfer the data. If done right downtime would be measured in seconds. But no that would cost more money. Lets instead make the games legitimately purchased by our customers unplayable durrng the move. Once again the legitimate customer is punished while the pirate is unaffected. Chances are some exec thinks that if they can't get the server back online everyone will simply repurchase thier games when they get a new DRM server online.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.