Has Ubisoft's DRM Gone Too Far?

[thilanliyan]

there is no way this is normal.the only time i've reinstalled a game was after I had to rebuild my system (extremely rare),

that said, i'm not agreeing with install limits or DRM at all, but as always, some of you make it out to be way more than it is.

I just recently had a video card fail on me. So I took that out and installed a spare 8800GT I had. And when I get my card back from warranty repair (several weeks) I will reinstall it. There are 3 activations right there. I myself don't have this particular game but I'm just showing that it can be a problem for some.

Just because it is not normal for YOU does not mean it is not a regular occurrence.

 

[Arkadrel]

I think if you "buy" a game, you should be able to install it, play it, delete it so it doesnt take up space.

AND... be able to reinstall and play it as often as you want.
Even if thats 10 times over 5 years or so.. being limited to 3 times is some crazy sh*t, and I dont know why people put up with it.

I could go brush off my Baldurs Gate games right now and play those if I wanted.... I like having that option, even if its a old ass game.

 

[Bateluer]

I think if you "buy" a game, you should be able to install it, play it, delete it so it doesnt take up space.

AND... be able to reinstall and play it as often as you want.
Even if thats 10 times over 5 years or so.. being limited to 3 times is some crazy sh*t, and I dont know why people put up with it.

I could go brush off my Baldurs Gate games right now and play those if I wanted.... I like having that option, even if its a old ass game.

Man, I don't even want to count the number of times I've reinstalled BG1/2, PS:T, or Rome TW, or Civilization. By Ubi's policies, it could very well be in the hundreds for each.

 

[ImpulsE69]

If they go out of business, they will be replaced by another company that makes games. The more bad practices that get punished, the less likely future companies will use them.

I don't understand the sentiment that we have to support a company that does practices we don't like, because they won't be able to continue them if they go out of business. That is kind of the point of not supporting them. Other companies will make games. CDProjekt is a new company that is making high quality games, and more will pop up as well. If anything the popularity of video games will make it easier for new talent to make new games.

Agreed. Where does that even come from? Apathy? That's the whole point of business. If you fail, you fail. It's not up to the consumer (or government) to hold your hand. You either provide what the consumer wants at a price the consumer will pay and adjust as needed or you go out of business. There is always someone who will take up the slack.

If you like their stuff, support them. Otherwise, don't. That is the only power the consumer has.

As for install limitations..it's just dumb. Any REAL gamer (read: REAL) knows that you can come back to your favorites YEARS down the road. These are not ideas of gamers, these are ideas of greedy corporations. This isn't even an attempt against pirating. Anyone with half a brain knows this doesn't stop piracy at all. This is a blatant "we don't want you loaning, reselling, buying used our items so we can make more money". This is where it gets flip floppy because it's their right, however pissing off your customer base isn't a great way to move more product.

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Is there any reason that this is not a violation of the first sale doctrine? I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action against these practices.

 

[Arkadrel]

Is there any reason that this is not a violation of the first sale doctrine? I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action against these practices.

It probably says something about it in small print on the box somewhere... which would make sueing them a really hard thing to do and win.

But yeah.. its some really weird sh*t... same thing with windows...
Upgrade hardware... use another key... hope you dont run out of keys.

Whats facked up is a virus can force you to reinstall windows => lost keys => forced to buy new windows => mircosoft happy.

Its just reeeeally sucky for the end user.

(which is why anti virus makers are swimming in $, perphaps even glad/helping/makeing virus's.
Like those scam sites, where the virus makes you buy and pay for software to get rid of it)

 

[thujone]

I just recently had a video card fail on me. So I took that out and installed a spare 8800GT I had. And when I get my card back from warranty repair (several weeks) I will reinstall it. There are 3 activations right there. I myself don't have this particular game but I'm just showing that it can be a problem for some.

Just because it is not normal for YOU does not mean it is not a regular occurrence.

situations like this seem EXTREMELY common. You would think just the man hours of customer support to help people out in this situation would far outweigh the piracy concerns.


to me this seems like a blatant move to try and make people play on consoles instead of PC, but why do this on a PC only title?





nothing about this policy makes any sense to me

 

[mindcycle]

situations like this seem EXTREMELY common.

Agreed. I've upgraded my graphics card three different times over the course of the last year and i'm getting ready to upgrade my CPU. If I wanted to play Anno over the course of that year i'd be having to contact Ubisoft at least twice. That's a ridiculously huge waste of time give that I could easily pirated the game and not had to deal with that at all.

You would think just the man hours of customer support to help people out in this situation would far outweigh the piracy concerns.

You would think so, but i've heard that Ubisoft CS is pretty non-existent so that's likely how they get away with it.

to me this seems like a blatant move to try and make people play on consoles instead of PC, but why do this on a PC only title?

That and stop any used sales or game trading to maximize profits. Even if DRM does work to stop used sales or trading it still doesn't seem very consumer friendly to me.. Some companies (Amazon is a good example) go out of their way to make the consumer experience as friendly and easy as possible. Some do the exact opposite..

 

[BrightCandle]

Is there any reason that this is not a violation of the first sale doctrine? I'm surprised there hasn't been a class action against these practices.

Software companies like Steam are saying its because its licensed, they have not sold you a product as defined in this law. In the UK for example the Sales of Goods act should apply but Steam and the other games retailers don't agree. If the game doesn't work for whatever reason too bad, no refund.

Its not been tested properly in law yet, partly because the individual value is relatively low but we really do need someone with the funds and balls to get a ruling in our favour (or not). Just forcing the issue in court should bring attention to the problem and potential result in the right pressure to have the law applied, even if it fails to get the ruling we need.

I got close to taking Steam to court under the Sales of Goods act last year after I couldn't play F1 2011 but alas Codemasters fixed the problem literally hours before I completed my court application. I had got CM support on record saying it was broken and they were not going to fix it, that despite my system being compatible on the requirements they would not repair the problem with the game. Real shame they did as I was looking forward to challenging it.

 

[you2]

The DRM would not be so bad if after a year or so it was removed or tone down; but to date UBISOFT doesn't seem to get it. There are quite a few companies (not publishers) who do response. Look waht happened with witcher2 when there were DRM issues; the devs removed it. Larian recently removed the DRM from DKS.
-
I can understand the desire for harsh DRM when the game is first introduced (not sure if it is effective) but the fact is for some users (including myself) they do create problems over time. If the publisher(s) actually cared about the customer (when trying to figure out how to maximize profits) then they would address the long term issues. From a publisher perspective the game becomming unplayable is a 'good' thing because they ignore the customer-relation aspect and presume that the customer will just re-purchase the game. I.e, the solution is to simply not buy their games until they change their polices.
-
Will this approach work? Depends on the bottom line; as many publishers appear to have no soul (good will).

 

[AstroManLuca]

The answer is YES, and that nobody should ever buy anything from Ubisoft again, ever. Vote with your wallet.

The funny thing is, people have been doing this, and Ubisoft's PC game sales have slowed significantly. They just blame piracy and use it as an excuse to implement even stronger DRM. Which of course doesn't stop pirates from continuing to pirate their games, but it does lead to legitimate customers pirating their games anyway. That, in turn, increases the number of cracked copies downloaded, which just further validates their own deluded perception of the situation.

 

[Aikouka]

I have a 120Gb OCZ Vertex 3 SSD and it serves me very well but space is an issue and my steam list is constantly being cycled to accommodate that, games not being able to tailor themselves to my behaviour because of meaningless restrictions devalues the game to me, and at the same time it makes the cracked copy more appealing as a method of playing the game.

You don't have to put every Steam game on your SSD. We've talked about it in other threads, but creating a symbolic link will allow you to use your SSD for the games you care about and keep the rest sitting on an old and clunky mechanical drive.

 

[llee]

Put it this way: I don't see myself purchasing a Ubisoft game for the rest of my life.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

You realize that hard drive space is very cheap, right? I've never uninstalled a Steam game. I keep like 150 games installed, and most of them I've never even played. I'll get to them eventually...

Not cheap at all if you want to run on SSD. Also with the recent environmental disasters causing HDD shortages, even new HDD space is 2-3x more expensive than it used to be, some of the most popular 1TB drives such as Samsung's F3 could be had for as low as $49 but is currently $159 on newegg...

But yeah, with the prices of SSDs I'd have to spend over a grand if I wanted to keep my entire steam folder on solid state (whether it be a single drive or an array) without picking and choosing and just keeping everything installed all the time. I've compromised and use SSD cache for a HDD, but that is a compromise. If I had faster internet I very well might opt to pick and choose my games and then keep everything on a single ~500GB SSD or a pair of ~250s.

also, as others have already pointed out, there's always the issue of reformatting and of course the issue of some DRMs flagging for reactivation for a simple hardware upgrade such as a new video card.

 

[pontifex]

Agreed. I've upgraded my graphics card three different times over the course of the last year and i'm getting ready to upgrade my CPU. If I wanted to play Anno over the course of that year i'd be having to contact Ubisoft at least twice. That's a ridiculously huge waste of time give that I could easily pirated the game and not had to deal with that at all.



You would think so, but i've heard that Ubisoft CS is pretty non-existent so that's likely how they get away with it.



That and stop any used sales or game trading to maximize profits. Even if DRM does work to stop used sales or trading it still doesn't seem very consumer friendly to me.. Some companies (Amazon is a good example) go out of their way to make the consumer experience as friendly and easy as possible. Some do the exact opposite..

seriously, WHY did you upgrade your graphics card 3 times in 1 year? that is NOT normal.

 

[Maximilian]

seriously, WHY did you upgrade your graphics card 3 times in 1 year? that is NOT normal.

Who made you the judge of normal?

Besides even if that isn't normal its no reason to punish someone by deactivating their game. PC gamers shouldn't have to think about BS limited activations when buying a game.

 

[zerocool84]

I haven't bought a Ubisoft game since they've implemented their crappy DRM. I've never played an Assassin's Creed game and I never will because I won't support how they treat PC gamers. People need to learn to vote with your wallet.

 

[mindcycle]

seriously, WHY did you upgrade your graphics card 3 times in 1 year? that is NOT normal.

I built a new system early last year and bought a 9800GT that was on sale just to get things up and running since I had dropped a bunch of $$ on the build already. That wasn't really working out that great, for I think Metro 2033 which I was playing at the time, so I bought a GTS 450 that was on sale for like $100 over the summer. I just upgraded from the 450 to a 560 ti about two weeks ago since the 450 is getting kind of long in the tooth on some of the newer games.

Doesn't really seem all that crazy to me..

I personally know a fair number of people who update their graphics cards every 4-5 months on average and have been doing so for several years. IMO, there isn't a "normal" upgrade time period. Having a game publisher punish you for making a personal decision to upgrade a video card or CPU (which supports the computer hardware industry) is ridiculous any way you slice it.

 

[Kadarin]

The funny thing is, people have been doing this, and Ubisoft's PC game sales have slowed significantly. They just blame piracy and use it as an excuse to implement even stronger DRM. Which of course doesn't stop pirates from continuing to pirate their games, but it does lead to legitimate customers pirating their games anyway. That, in turn, increases the number of cracked copies downloaded, which just further validates their own deluded perception of the situation.

At this point, to me it doesn't matter any more how Ubisoft perceives the situation. What matters is that their income drops as close to zero as possible.

 

[pontifex]

Who made you the judge of normal?

Besides even if that isn't normal its no reason to punish someone by deactivating their game. PC gamers shouldn't have to think about BS limited activations when buying a game.

i never said it was right for DRM to be like that. i'm just saying that abnormal amounts of installs/hw changes are just as ridiculous as drm install limits.

 

[Nebor]

Not cheap at all if you want to run on SSD. Also with the recent environmental disasters causing HDD shortages, even new HDD space is 2-3x more expensive than it used to be, some of the most popular 1TB drives such as Samsung's F3 could be had for as low as $49 but is currently $159 on newegg...

But yeah, with the prices of SSDs I'd have to spend over a grand if I wanted to keep my entire steam folder on solid state (whether it be a single drive or an array) without picking and choosing and just keeping everything installed all the time. I've compromised and use SSD cache for a HDD, but that is a compromise. If I had faster internet I very well might opt to pick and choose my games and then keep everything on a single ~500GB SSD or a pair of ~250s.

also, as others have already pointed out, there's always the issue of reformatting and of course the issue of some DRMs flagging for reactivation for a simple hardware upgrade such as a new video card.

Most games derive almost no benefit from being on an SSD. I have a 600gb SSD with just windows & a few applications on it (using 48gb.) All of my games, which are all in Steam, are installed on a 3tb drive that I bought for less than $200 over a year ago. A small part of my reasoning is that Steam doesn't let you pick where to install games, but mostly it's the fact that most games don't benefit from SSD random access speeds.

 

[power_hour]

seriously, WHY did you upgrade your graphics card 3 times in 1 year? that is NOT normal.

Actually its not unheard of. Buy a video card, notice some artifacts, they send you a replacement. A month goes by and the card dies, you send it in and you pop in a replacement while you wait (Card #2). Vendor notifies you that your card is not repairable but will send you a better card (Card # 3).

With GPUs being so finicky these days I can see this limit being a problem.

And really, who at their HQ thought up this idea? Probably some exec who has a few kids and was getting tired of spending coin on upgrades for their PCs. Its a stupid idea and doesn't need to debated. You pay for a game let me install a hundred bloody times if I have to.

So yes this move goes to far in my books.

 

[you2]

Most games derive almost no benefit from being on an SSD. I have a 600gb SSD with just windows & a few applications on it (using 48gb.) All of my games, which are all in Steam, are installed on a 3tb drive that I bought for less than $200 over a year ago. A small part of my reasoning is that Steam doesn't let you pick where to install games, but mostly it's the fact that most games don't benefit from SSD random access speeds.

-
That;'s mostly true; I use my ssd as system disk and hd for steam. So my saves (which are very fast) go onto the ssd; but the games are on hd.

Basically hd have faster read rate for large blobs (streams, binaries). It is very disk dependent but generally around 64K to 128K is the break even point.
-
Btw newer drives linear read rate is >>> drives a few years old (sub 1TB). This makes perfect sense because rotational speed is constant; number of platters is constant seek time is constant but bit density has gone up. Naturally if your data is fragmented it totally fails (for perf) or if your games have large DB (whether it be sql or file system) then SSD will win.
-
It also depends on your SSD. A lot of the cheaper SSD slow down very quickly as you write/delete objects. The company I work for has done tons of benchmarking and life metrics on various drives (SSD/HD).

 

[AstroManLuca]

At this point, to me it doesn't matter any more how Ubisoft perceives the situation. What matters is that their income drops as close to zero as possible.

Sadly, they're still making money from console game sales. I expect them to have an Epic Games-style whine fest at some point where they declare they will no longer be releasing PC versions of their games.