Ubisoft and new anti-piracy measures.

[Konrad]

Today the first details on Ubis new system against piracy came up. You need to have an active connection to the internet to play the games. Your savegames will no longer be stored on your PC. They will be stored on the Ubi.com-Servers. The first game to take advantage of the new system is The Settlers 7.

I'm not an anti-drm fanatic. We lead a calm relationship, it doesn't bother me - I don't bother it, but neither of us particularly wants to do the other any favours.

This new system however makes me lol real hard. Do they really think this is going to work? Thousands of simultaneous users constantly quick-saving to their servers? Sounds like a recipe for a fried server to me.

And I don't think the community will like this. Many players already complained about having to use the internet to install their games... While this is still reasonable because almost all gamers have at least limited web acess, forcing them to be hooked up just to play it seems a bit... excessive. This is a system that may work on home computers, but what if I want to play their game when I'm out of town? Or hell... when my ISP gives out.

[MyNameDidntFit]

The only way developers will not have the majority of gamers pissed off about anti-piracy measures is to remove them altogether -- and that wont happen.

Think back to 2004 with me... Steam comes out with Counter-Strike: Source and Half-Life 2. Gamers go up in arms because, holy crap, you need to connect to the internet to activate your game! Everyone is pissed off and raging in the way that only gamers can... until we get to the present day where Steam is a widely acclaimed and accepted piece of software, despite having an offline mode that requires you to log onto your account to turn it on.

In short: people will get over this, so long as Ubisoft don't turn it into a monumental cock-up.

[Lance]

In short: people will get over this, so long as Ubisoft don't turn it into a monumental cock-up.


Isn't that a given? :lol: But even when they do screw it up, the hard-core fans will still deal with it and the ones that aren't will Still complain - until someone else implements the anti-piracy method of having to fax or email your driver's license, credit card and birth certificate to the company every time you try to play the game. Then the whole she-bang will start all over again (until you have to give blood samples, retina scans etc etc)

[Landy]

I think it's alright IMO. PC gaming seems to be turning into a niche market, so whatever it will take for us to still get a few games to play these days, is fine by me. However, when they limit the games we own by giving us 3-5 activations, that's not acceptable. When i purchase a game, it's mine.

I see it very unlikely that anyone buying games these days (least the new releases), won't have an active Internet connection, when you've spent a bit money having a PC that's actually able to run the newest games. That's probably exactly what today's game dev's know or think aswell.

[MyNameDidntFit]

until someone else implements the anti-piracy method of having to fax or email your driver's license, credit card and birth certificate to the company every time you try to play the game. Then the whole she-bang will start all over again (until you have to give blood samples, retina scans etc etc)
It wont even have to be a worse method -- just a new method. As progressive as the PC technology and gaming industry is, the people that make up the community hate change more than they hate IWnet.



And I just realised that I haven't clearly stated: I'm perfectly fine with this.

[FlamingMetroidzd]

If it is so bad and sales are way down because of it, won't competitors highlight the fact that their system isn't so demanding in order to take the profits? Market is pretty good at regulating these kinds of things.

[CemeteryGates]

If it is so bad and sales are way down because of it, won't competitors highlight the fact that their system isn't so demanding in order to take the profits? Market is pretty good at regulating these kinds of things.

Except maybe when in theory, it seems the profits are in not having your game pirated, so everyone adopts these measures and there's no longer competition that can offer not using this as a market advantage.

[Lance]

Well, Ubisoft have defended themselves (sort of) here. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596&site=pcg)

What a joke. Do the powers that be at Ubisoft live in a make-beleive world where, just because they say it is, it means it will be.

I mean, lets take a few key points out of that.

"We wouldn't have built it if we thought that it was really going to piss off our customers."

Um, you have.

"We know that requiring a permanent online connection is not a happy point for a lot of PC gamers, but it is necessary for the system to work."

Obviously they don't care (or live in said make believe world)...

"It's hard for us to say, yes, from now until the day that we all die all of our games are going to include this," says their spokesperson, "but most will."

Who wants to start a Mature-Gamers pool on how long it takes for them to buckle to consumer pressure and remove the feature?

"The idea is to avoid that point as much as possible, but we have been clear from the beginning that the game does need an internet connection for you to play. So if it goes down for real for a little while, then yeah, you can't play.

"

This is the point that REALLY annoys me. I work in a corporate company that relies 100% on it's computer system - EVERYTHING we do revolves around this program we use and the developers promised us it would never be down for more than 5 seconds and that would be rare (I'm not joking here, they actually made that promise). Suffice to say, the frequency which we're left without anything to do because that program is down 2-3 hours at a time is hilarious (we literally can not function without this program).

Those servers WILL go down.... frequently. Be it overuse, their own idiocy or other variables. You get kicked for 5 seconds and loose say, an hour's worth of game time, or are unable to play for hours at a time is just plain unacceptable. And they obviously don't care from their attitude in that interview.

I for one will be boycotting any Ubisoft games until this feature is removed (regardless of how much I want to play it). I'm all for anti-piracy measures, but this is bordering moronic and in the end, consumer power dictates what stays and what goes.

The only other solution Ubisoft have, is to provide every player that buys their game with free internet access so they can actually play it (does anyone actually see that happening?)

Obviously piracy is a big issue, we get it, but this is the wrong way to go about it - alienating your entire consumer base just to try and stop the few (who will undoubtedly find a way around it eventually anyway) is like cutting your face off to spite your nose. (I know that saying's the wrong way around :))

[MyNameDidntFit]

You, like nearly everyone I've heard on this matter, are over-reacting, in my opinion.

Those servers WILL go down.... frequently.
Take Steam as an example here: how often is it off-line? Maybe once a month for maintenance? What is there to say that Ubi's servers will be any less reliable? Nothing.

On losing game time; it's a possibility, yeah, but so is your system/the game freezing. If you'd care to select quotes comprehensively, rather than those that support your over-zealous view, you'd have seen this:
With Settlers [VII], your game will resume exactly where you left off
This will not be the case with all games: as the article mentions, it will depend on the game itself -- with AC2 apparently reverting you to the last checkpoint, should your connection fail:
Assassin's Creed, if your connection cuts out, you'll be taken back to the last checkpoint

Obviously piracy is a big issue, we get it, but this is the wrong way to go about it - alienating your entire consumer base just to try and stop the few (who will undoubtedly find a way around it eventually anyway) is like cutting your face off to spite your nose. (I know that saying's the wrong way around :))
Anti-piracy measures aren't, contrary to popular belief, in place to stop piracy. Nor are they there to keep piracy from happening over a prolonged time. The primary role of the majority of DRM, and other measures, is to stop piracy in the initial release period; the period in which piracy can make or break a game's profit margins. If an anti-piracy measure succeeds in fending off the release of a cracked version of a game for even a couple weeks after the release, it has achieved it's goal.



In short: raaarrgh!

[Lance]

Ok, maybe I was being a little melodramatic :). But I wasn't intentionally trying to pick-and-choose the quotes.

Granted, some games will see less game time lost than others (in the case with Settlers/ACII example) but by their own admission we'll have to wait until we read reviews from "peers" to know what we'll be losing when we play - from a personal stand-point, I'd like to know exactly what I'm losing from the source - it's their job to fully inform us from the outset, not the "trial and error" method they're basically suggesting.

My objection to the system isn't so much the system itself (which I think is generally bad, but let's put that to the side for a moment) - it's the attitude of Ubisoft in doing it. They (like so many corporations) just don't care about the consumer base and more about their profit margin and they don't care who they have to step on to achieve that. Ok, I'll admit that I'm a little jaded from my time in the workforce, which has shown that clearly for me. Managers who earn big bucks don't care what the little people care about and only what their yearly bonus cheque is (take Wives vs Rockstar San Diego incident for example)

I just feel there's more - reasonable - ways of going that don't punish more people that do the right thing rather than those that don't. Education, Affordability, etc

And it's unfortunate, since all anti-piracy methods, while aimed at stopping piracy through it's profit margins, Have to be for the life of the game. Say Ubisoft release this "patch" after they stop supporting the servers of some games. Some people will intentionally wait until this point before buying the game, reducing their profits over the short term anyway and by that time a hack will have been found to circumvent the anti-piracy measure rendering the measure pointless in the first place.

All I'm saying, is at least have some respect for the people that buy your product. Many people won't buy a product simply because of the brand's reputation rather than the quality of the product itself.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Personally, as blunt (and possibly hypocritical, as I'm a gamer) as this may sound, I don't believe the gaming community at large deserves respect when it comes to matters of piracy, DRM and such.

Ubisoft aren't exactly going about this in the most amiable of fashions, but they're hardly going about it in the worst way. At least they're speaking plainly on everything they can. The one issue that I dislike is the one you mentioned of the "wait and see" theory for the manner of fail-safe each game will have -- though I'd like to think [hope] that Ubi will have the sense to change their stance here and let the consumer know on or prior release.

The "patch" they mention is a possibility, not a certainty, and so none but the hardcore pirates will be wanting to wait for that to save $50. The system will get cracked, yes, but as I mentioned it's that first sale period that matters; if Ubi's system stops the games being effectively cracked for that period then they have succeeded -- which, as little as many gamers would like this, would more than make up for any lack of profit from loss of sales due to bad media.

[Lance]

Admit it, you're secretly the owner of Ubisoft in disguise ;)

I'm kidding - thanks for the fun debate MNDF :) We'll have to wait and see how this method really does work out in the long term for everyone. One thing is for sure though - this is a huge risk for Ubisoft. It could either be a great success and the new "norm" of gaming, or a huge backfire. I will give them props for having the guts to try it though.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Aye, no matter which side you're on you can see that Ubi are putting their balls on the line. I doubt it will become a 'norm' of gaming, though. Only companies at least as big as Ubi would have the resources to maintain the required servers and have any modicum of surety in saying that they wont go down.

... unless Ubi turns this into something to rival Steam, which would be interesting, to say the least. If the DRM works, the system isn't too intrusive and Ubi slips into the DD market, it could well do that in a few years -- but that's a big if.

[Rob]

The only issue I have with Ubi's approach to DRM is the online only saves. I have no problem with requiring an internet connection to do DRM checks via a unique ID like Steam does. It bothers me (and Brett) that if Ubi servers fail then I can't save my game and I will get fn irate if I spend hours getting through a tough part of a map only to lose it all because of their failed tech.

Also I don't need another online content service. Steam does everything I want and hasn't let me down in years. Their sales events f*** my bank account gently and if Ubi thinks I am going to create yet another login and (if this is their plan) try to make me install more software then they can forget taking my money. I never really liked their games that much anyways.

[Konrad]

Their savegames aren't online only. They will be uploaded, but backups will be kept on your hard drive as well.

[Rob]

Ah ok then i'm going to go sit in the corner and wait to buy AC3 or the next Rainbow Six game. I have no more issues with their DRM.

wait...

Today the first details on Ubis new system against piracy came up. You need to have an active connection to the internet to play the games. Your savegames will no longer be stored on your PC. They will be stored on the Ubi.com-Servers. The first game to take advantage of the new system is The Settlers 7.

What did I miss there? Can you link to something mentioning the backups?

[Konrad]

Oop, I assumed for some reason you were talking about AC2 since i'm hung up on that.

[MyNameDidntFit]

if Ubi thinks I am going to create yet another login and (if this is their plan) try to make me install more software
You had no problem creating an EA account for BFBC2. Nor did you seem to have any issue with GFWL for your Dawn of War II...

... so, if I might ask, why would this be any different?

[Rob]

Bfbc2 is my already existing ea login that I have had for years and I own an xbox so I'm using my xbox live login for any live games. But I see where you were going so yeah one more login wouldn't kill me IF they will be providing unlimited backup of all my purchased ubi titles. Basically is they match or improve upon steams system then ill be a happy camper. Actually I don't think I have a reason to ever buy a pc game outside of steam so ill only be concerned with the reliabilty of their save system.

[MyNameDidntFit]

Heh, don't worry, I'm sure they games will be release on Steam too and, in true Steam fashion, they'll get Steam DRM added on top of the standard ;)

[Lance]

Update: Ubisoft have failed BIG time in their DRM attempt.

Here's just one article from Rock, Paper, Shotgun (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/03/08/ubisofts-drm-servers-broken-all-day/) regarding the major down time for legitimate customers.

We'll see shortly whether Ubisoft admit their mistake and back down or push forward in a misguided attempt to save face (no matter how many customers they force away)