DRM server transition to make some Ubisoft games unplayable starting tomorrow

Barfo

Lifer
Jan 4, 2005
27,539
212
106
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/...bisoft-games-unplayable-starting-tomorrow.ars

a planned server migration will temporarily disable the DRM servers for some of the company's Mac and PC titles, making it so only pirates with cracked, DRM-free versions of the games will be able to play.

Ubisoft Reflections founder Martin Edmonson said the company's DRM methods were a "quite morally correct" way to protect the company's investment in making games, arguing that "if there was very little trouble with piracy then we wouldn't need it."

LOL! and this is why I don't buy Ubisoft games.

*pat myself on the back*
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
Yea, I don't play MMOs because they have weekly maintenance when only pirates with private servers can play.

:rolleyes:
 

RavenSEAL

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2010
8,661
3
0
Yea, I don't play MMOs because they have weekly maintenance when only pirates with private servers can play.

:rolleyes:
You call these games MMOs?


  • Assassin's Creed - Mac
  • Tom Clancy’s H.A.W.X. 2 - PC
  • Might & Magic : Heroes VI - PC
  • Splinter Cell Conviction - Mac
  • The Settlers 7: Paths to a Kingdom - PC
  • The Settlers - Mac
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
So there will be an outage for "Some users". Inconvenient? Yes. PITA? Yes. Unfair? Yes. but hardly unheard of or unexpected. it had to happen eventually.

What I find most telling about the whole thing is where the article asks the question about when production houses stop hosting DRM servers entirely for "Classic" games. I play a number of classic games, some of which the developers went out of business. I purchased them back then and the production houses got their 30 pieces of silver. If i couldn't play the game anymore simply because the company went out of business, I would be really upset.

However, not to terribly long ago, Bioware turned off their user validation server for NWN2. They did do it in such a way that the authentication would fail but the players could still play, which is the way it should be. Maybe game companies circulate a "Patch" which de-activates DRM entirely for that product? Then you just have to find the patch. And shouldn't they do that for games that go in the discount rack anyway? Just saying.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
So there will be an outage for "Some users". Inconvenient? Yes. PITA? Yes. Unfair? Yes. but hardly unheard of or unexpected. it had to happen eventually.

No. When a company does work on their servers, the end user should never be locked out of playing SP games.


However, not to terribly long ago, Bioware turned off their user validation server for NWN2. They did do it in such a way that the authentication would fail but the players could still play, which is the way it should be.

Eh? Bioware never had any authentication servers for NWN2, or anything to do with the game. It was Obsidian/Interplay, and as a sp or local mp game, no authentication or DRM servers existed.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
No. When a company does work on their servers, the end user should never be locked out of playing SP games.

Not saying it isn't wrong. Just saying it isn't unheard of. And complaining about it isn't going to stop it. they are going to do what they are going to do. And since playing classic games is even more of of a niche than PC gaming in general, there isn't enough clout to change it.

And a brief outage is not a federal offense, whereas the disabling perminently of a game going forward might be.

Eh? Bioware never had any authentication servers for NWN2, or anything to do with the game. It was Obsidian/Interplay, and as a sp or local mp game, no authentication or DRM servers existed.

Potatoe/potaaaatoe. If you played Multi-player on a net game, there was an authentication server which you used to have to pass to get onto the Net games. And it went down sometime last year. And the workaround was that you failed authentication but the game still launched. Which was my point.

If I miss-spoke about Bioware/Obsidian, apologies. But it doesn't change the comment itself about an authentication server being decomissioned and the solution.
 
Last edited:

KaOTiK

Lifer
Feb 5, 2001
10,877
8
81
Besides the whole wrongness of the DRM.

What I find very troubling is 2 things.

1. They don't give a time frame for how long the outage will be.
2. They don't have backup servers to run the while main ones are down down so you wouldn't even have to worry about an outage to begin with.

Those are 2 pretty freaking basic things imo.
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
13,983
3,330
146
These drms do nothing for piracy. Just fire up pirate bay and I bet you will see all those games on there DRM free.
 

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
These drms do nothing for piracy. Just fire up pirate bay and I bet you will see all those games on there DRM free.

the real downside to the whole DRM thing is that it definitely impacts legit users more than it does pirates. In fact, DRM's only purpose (as far as I am concerned) is to deter legit consumers who have an interest in casual pirating from exercising that.

It's like locking your front door when you leave the house. A Real pro is not going to be detered, but a casual thief might think twice. Only now you have to keep your keys handy and have your hands free when you enter (to use the key). And buy/replace locks and lock-smiths. etc...
 

RavenSEAL

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2010
8,661
3
0
WAHHHHHHHHH, I CAN'T PLAY MY GAMES1111!213$!$#$@!

FUUUUU UBIsoftw!142=104i9=0912=0349=122141234%@Q%#%@%%@@!!!!
 

mindcycle

Golden Member
Jan 9, 2008
1,901
0
76
the real downside to the whole DRM thing is that it definitely impacts legit users more than it does pirates. In fact, DRM's only purpose (as far as I am concerned) is to deter legit consumers who have an interest in casual pirating from exercising that.

It's like locking your front door when you leave the house. A Real pro is not going to be detered, but a casual thief might think twice. Only now you have to keep your keys handy and have your hands free when you enter (to use the key). And buy/replace locks and lock-smiths. etc...

I agree. However, the problem with the lock comparison is that a lock on your door is meant to protect you as the buyer. DRM on the other hand does not protect the buyer, it "attempts" to protect the publisher, but there is no tangible benefit to the buyer whatsoever. In fact, in a lot of cases, that lock is so poorly designed that even the owner of the house (or the game buyer) can't get inside.

I just thought i'd point that out, not to say your necessarily wrong because I agree for the most part, but since John Riccitiello (CEO of EA) made that same comparison during the whole Spore debacle a couple of years ago. He was attempting to defend their limited install DRM, saying how it was beneficial to everyone and how people lock the doors at their house and how limited installs was the same thing. He didn't realize, or intentionally ignored, that limited installs didn't actually benefit anyone but him. That sadly seems to be a pretty common mentality amount CEO's and PR people at these massive publishers.
 
Last edited:

thespyder

Golden Member
Aug 31, 2006
1,979
0
0
I agree. However, the problem with the lock comparison is that a lock on your door is meant to protect you as the buyer. DRM on the other hand does not protect the buyer, it "attempts" to protect the publisher, but there is no tangible benefit to the buyer whatsoever. In fact, in a lot of cases, that lock is so poorly designed that even the owner of the house (or the game buyer) can't get inside.

I just thought i'd point that out, not to say your necessarily wrong because I agree for the most part, but since John Riccitiello (CEO of EA) made that same comparison during the whole Spore debacle a couple of years ago. He was attempting to defend their limited install DRM, saying how it was beneficial to everyone and how people lock the doors at their house and how limited installs was the same thing. He didn't realize, or intentionally ignored, that limited installs didn't actually benefit anyone but him. That sadly seems to be a pretty common mentality amount CEO's and PR people at these massive publishers.

I wasn't aware of John's comments (and am embarassed to have used something similar). Still, any new news is good news I guess.

I would disagree that there is no tangable benefit to the end user. It is by no means significant. Nor does it come anywhere near close to equaling the impact, but.... DRM does reduce rampant casual theft. If left unchecked, that theft would lead to greater losses by the production houses. Costs that would eventually find their way into the cost of future products (or cause the company to go out of business). No future products means no entertainment value to the consumer (preceived impact) and higher prices on future products (actual tangable impact or value by their lack). Also, the "Illusion" of protection that DRM provides helps to sway investors and stock holders, thus also positively impacting cost to consumer.

Is it by any stretch of the imagination equal? Absolutely not. Is the tangable recompense anywhere near as significant as EA and other production houses would have you believe? Again, no. But it doesn't completely 100% translate into money in their pocket either.

And finally, just a minor correction. A lock on the house door doesn't "Protect the home owner". it is little more than a socially accepted convention that says "I do not give you permission to enter." Which then sets up legal precident surrounding actual breaking and entering. If you have ever had to break down a door or jimmy a lock (for legitimate purposes), or worse, had it done to you, you would understand that even the most modern technology isn't really that "Safe".
 
Last edited:

mindcycle

Golden Member
Jan 9, 2008
1,901
0
76
I wasn't aware of John's comments (and am embarassed to have used something similar). Still, any new news is good news I guess.

No worries man. I think I even used that comparison before I read John Riccitiello's comments and the subsequent backlash back then. Below is a link to one of his retarded statements in case you had any interest. All of these guys basically say the same thing, that it's somehow not their fault that DRM "has" to be implemented, and then go on to blame their potential and existing customer base of being pirates.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/10/15/ea-ceo-half-spore-drm-protesters-were-pirates

And finally, just a minor correction. A lock on the house door doesn't "Protect the home owner". it is little more than a socially accepted convention that says "I do not give you permission to enter." Which then sets up legal precident surrounding actual breaking and entering. If you have ever had to break down a door or jimmy a lock (for legitimate purposes), or worse, had it done to you, you would understand that even the most modern technology isn't really that "Safe".

That makes sense. Same goes for DRM I suppose. To compare the lock analogy to DRM, it would be like two identical houses right next to each other. One has a dude out front selling a key for $60. People that buy that key have to use the key, scan their fingerprints, and in some cases have to do that twice, in order to enter. They also have to go through that process each time they enter the house and will automatically get locked out after entering with different people 5 times.

At the other house the door is opened for anyone to enter free of charge but with the stipulation that you're not really supposed to be there. There's also a bit of a maze, that will take about 5 minutes to navigate, to get into the living room. Once you get to the living room you can come back whenever you want without any restrictions and bring along anyone you'd like.

Not much incentive to want to go through the hassle of getting into the first house given that the same house right next door gets you the same stuff without the many potential headaches at the first house.

Maybe if we presented it in caveman style drawings to the CEOs and shareholders at these big publishers they'd actually get it. But i'm not counting on it..
 
Last edited:

PowerYoga

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2001
4,603
0
0
The DRM is unnecessarily draconian and doesn't stop pirating. So all it hurts is legit customers. I wouldn't have an issue with it if it WORKS, as in nobody with a pirated copy can play.

It doesn't. Pirates play the game DRM free and people who paid money for it can't play if the servers are down.
 

mindcycle

Golden Member
Jan 9, 2008
1,901
0
76
The DRM is unnecessarily draconian and doesn't stop pirating. So all it hurts is legit customers. I wouldn't have an issue with it if it WORKS, as in nobody with a pirated copy can play.

It doesn't. Pirates play the game DRM free and people who paid money for it can't play if the servers are down.

Exactly. And what's even worse is that Ubi's always online DRM hasn't stopped piracy for almost 2 years now. When it was first introduced I think it took a few months for pirates to crack it, can't remember the exact time frame, but it wasn't all that long. After that I think pretty much all of their releases were cracked day one or week one at the longest. For them to keep hanging onto this DRM system is ridiculous IMO, and just makes them look more and more retarded with every new game release using it.

That's how it goes though. Publisher X spends lots of money (millions, thousands, who knows..) to develop a new DRM scheme that at best works for a few weeks or months in the best case scenario. Then they continue to use it for a few years following even though it no longer does anything. I wonder what the next "total pirate stopping DRM" will be.. Ugh..