Ubisoft Launches Anti-Piracy Countermeasures

[Pepsei]

If Bill Gates hasn't figured out how to fight piracy, what makes Ubisoft any different?
They should offer special items and such for pre-orders or online registration.

If bill gates went with blu-ray in the first place on xbox 360.... who knows... maybe ps3 would be cracked or perhaps xbox 360 and ps3 remains uncrackable.

 

[Gunslinger08]

nope, i actually cant recall the last ubisoft game i played owned but i can guarantee you i wont be playing one going forward.

I refuse to buy games that require an Internet connection for anything besides updates and multyplayer

Why? Do you turn off your internet connection everytime you start up a single player game? Do you game in areas without an internet connection?

 

[Elixer]

So because one person/group has tried and failed, they should all just give up? I don't begrudge these companies for trying to protect their work because I wouldn't want it happening to me either. Ubisoft is finally listening to all the complaints against SecuROM and Stardock and trying something less invasive and works more like Steam, which is by and large accepted by gamers.

Hold on there... Stardock is a company, they CARE about people who buy their software.
Read this:
http://kotaku.com/5043432/the-pc-gamers-bill-of-rights

Ubisoft uses starforce, and securom, both are crappy, both mess with your system, and both are useless for stopping piracy. Most all titles 'protected' by this kind of DRM is available within a week or so.

If they require a online connection to start game / save game then it is no sale.
If they have a offline mode, then it is a bit nicer, but still can be a pain if you didn't set it to 'offline' mode.
On steam, I know a guy who bought $350 worth of stuff, and then they lost power, and when it went back, they didn't have a internet connection. Now, he was really pissed, since steam wasn't set to 'offline' mode, so he couldn't play ANYTHING on steam for a few days.

This means, that if people BUY the software, they still think, and treat you like your a crook.

Just isn't right.

 

[Onita]

I'm not inconvenienced, nor are the 94.5% of American households who have broadband access as of 2009. And we're the 15th ranked nation in terms of broadband penetration. Requiring an internet connection is hardly an inconvenience in 2010.

Cite some stats. Many people don't have internet, much less broadband. I know both of my aunts cannot get broadband without paying a shitload for it.

 

[Lonyo]

I would say I'm not going to buy Ubisoft games anymore, for the sale reasons I don't use Steam, but it would be a lie.
I don't buy Ubisoft games because they don't make anything I want to buy, their DRM has nothing to do with it.
I almost considered pirating Assassins Creed once, but then I realised I couldn't even be bothered to do that.

 

[Onita]

Why? Do you turn off your internet connection everytime you start up a single player game? Do you game in areas without an internet connection?

I've gone days without an internet connection. You know what I like to do when I can't get online? Play games.

 

[pontifex]

What if your internet connection goes down or you are traveling and want to play the game you purchased without a internet connection?

I can understand using this type of DRM for multiplayer games, but for SP games it's simply not acceptable IMO.

If you're traveling, play another game. More than likely an internet connection will be available anyway, right? Wireless connections are everywhere these days.

 

[Pepsei]

nope, i actually cant recall the last ubisoft game i played owned but i can guarantee you i wont be playing one going forward.

I refuse to buy games that require an Internet connection for anything besides updates and multyplayer

I also remember when i was younger and ultima online came out, i told myself, i'd never pay a monthly fee for a game. then eq came.

I also remember years ago when steam first came out, i told myself, i'd never purchase something that i can't hold in my hand. and then the price drops so much (i guess the model works), it wasn't an issue anymore.

Oh I just remember, when windows 95 came out, i was like to hell with that, i still want to use MSDOS. "I'd never purchase windows 95"

and the rest is history. i guess eventually things will change where i get used to breaking my promise.

 

[mindcycle]

If you're traveling, play another game. More than likely an internet connection will be available anyway, right? Wireless connections are everywhere these days.

Why should I play another game and not the game I purchased? Why should I want spend money on something that I may or may not be able to play at any given time? I don't know about you, but my internet connection goes down for at least a few hours (total downtime) each month. Broadband just isn't 100% reliable yet and i'm not sure it will ever be. If one those instances of downtime happens to be when I actually have free time to play games, I would be pissed if I couldn't play my "SP" based game.

 

[lupi]

If you're traveling, play another game. More than likely an internet connection will be available anyway, right? Wireless connections are everywhere these days.

while on vacation over christmas I had 2 laptops, cell phone and 0 internet connectivity.

All the while living at a spot that's less than 60 miles from a multimillion populace US city(s).

 

[ZzZGuy]

Not much of a improvement at all. Not only is it online activation but you require internet access every time you want to continue a game.

Not everyone has internet access 100% of the time, and believe it or not some people don't have the internet in their homes.

 

[Nik]

I for one won't be buying a game that requires an internet connection to save. Especially for a single player game. Would any of you be willing to put up with this so Ubisoft can "fight" piracy?

Not a chance in hell. I won't be buying any such games either.

 

[pontifex]

Why should I play another game and not the game I purchased? Why should I want spend money on something that I may or may not be able to play at any given time? I don't know about you, but my internet connection goes down for at least a few hours (total downtime) each month. Broadband just isn't 100% reliable yet and i'm not sure it will ever be. If one those instances of downtime happens to be when I actually have free time to play games, I would be pissed if I couldn't play my "SP" based game.

I don't know of any gamers who only play 1 game and 1 game only. I would get a new ISP if you have that many issues. My ISP hasn't gone down in forever.

If you can't play another game for a few hours a month or even god forbid, go do something away from the pc for a few hours a month, then I don't know what to say.


I don't agree that it's an optimal solution, but no one will ever be able to make you happy.

 

[pontifex]

while on vacation over christmas I had 2 laptops, cell phone and 0 internet connectivity.

All the while living at a spot that's less than 60 miles from a multimillion populace US city(s).

wow, thank you for giving 1 very specific moment. you did notice i said "there will most likely be an internet connection", right? Notice the emphasis of certain words in that quote.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Ubisoft has made the "tool" that will stop piracy! I'm sure this won't be cracked in a couple of days.

 

[JoshGuru7]

I agree that there are a significant number of US households that do not have as of yet have the internet - probably as high as 20% based on extrapolations from the 2009 Nielsen's national TV panel study. That is also completely irrelevant when evaluating Ubisoft's decision.

Here's a better question. What percentage of PC gamers do not have access to the internet? Only 8% of PC owners did not have internet in 2009 (same study) and I would argue that the vast majority of those are unlikely to be part of Ubisoft's target demographic based on both age and income demographics. Of the remaining fraction of PC owners who are gamers without internet (2%?), there will be yet another (large) subset that will be unable to play Assassin's Creed 2 based solely on hardware requirements.

The point that I am belaboring into the ground here is that once you filter for Ubisoft's target demographic, it is entirely reasonable for Ubisoft to assume that they have internet access in their primary residence. The tiny fraction which will be overlooked are negligible next to any real gains made by Ubisoft in capturing supplier surplus.

Inconveniencing travelers is the more credible downside here. Sitting in a motel room on a business trip is the perfect excuse for some singleplayer gaming, and there is no question that Ubisoft's decision may cost them a few sales from semi-frequent travelers. However, the people most likely to travel are also the ones most likely to have contingency plans for connectivity such as a smartphone they can tether.

I can also cite my own contrasting anecdotal evidence. I've been on perhaps a dozen trips to several countries over the last two years and have had access to my Steam library at every single location. I even had WiFi access during the last plane trip I took.

Ultimately, I have zero problems with requiring internet connectivity and an account for even singleplayer games. This is not only an excellent DRM method but much preferred by myself to install limits or even simple disc checks.

while on vacation over christmas I had 2 laptops, cell phone and 0 internet connectivity.

Consider that disc checks are in many ways a more severe limitation. It would be easier for most people to find an internet connection while on vacation then it would be for them to bring their entire game library around with them.

 

[mindcycle]

I don't know of any gamers who only play 1 game and 1 game only.

Really? I typically play one game at a time until I either beat it or get sick of it.

My ISP hasn't gone down in forever.

Good for you. Not all of us are so lucky and only have a limited amount of options given the area we live in. I've been on 3 different ISP's over the past 5 years or so and my current provider (Comcast) has been the most reliable but it's not 100% by any means.

If you can't play another game for a few hours a month or even god forbid, go do something away from the pc for a few hours a month, then I don't know what to say.

That's not the point i'm trying to make. If I couldn't play a game for some unforeseen technical reason that would be acceptable. Not everything works 100% as there are always going to be conflicts with different computer setups. I would either spend the time to figure out the problem and fix it, or go do something else as you mention. But I ultimately have a choice in the matter. With a required internet connection you have no choice if you don't/can't obtain a connection, and while this may not affect you it will definitely affect someone. So why would I want to pay for a restriction like that?

 

[mindcycle]

Ultimately, I have zero problems with requiring internet connectivity and an account for even singleplayer games. This is not only an excellent DRM method but much preferred by myself to install limits or even simple disc checks.

This technology is essentially swapping one inconvenience for another. The war on piracy isn't going to be "won" by adding more roadblocks for your paying customers to hop over. Publishers need to be realistic and offer their customers greater incentives to purchase their games not additional hassles to deal with. Crap like this only serves to reduce sales from their actual paying customer base.

I won't be surprised if cracks show up within a week or two of this new technology rolling out, essentially making it nothing but another inconvenience for paying customers to deal with while pirates get the superior version.

 

[JoshGuru7]

With a required internet connection you have no choice if you don't/can't obtain a connection, and while this may not affect you it will definitely affect someone. So why would I want to pay for a restriction like that?

You would pay for it because you judge that the total risk (likelihood of internet interruption multiplied by the consequence of internet interruption) plus the cost of the product is less than the enjoyment you would receive from purchasing the product.

The second and third quote you reference from Pontifex establish that he thinks the likelihood and consequence respectively are each very low, and thus the total risk is (very low * very low) or very very low. It's no surprise, therefore, that a game requiring an internet connection is a minor deterrent at best to him.

Your response correctly identifies that there is a risk but the mere presence of "some" risk is not a deterrent by itself. It is your estimate of the severity of risk that governs your purchasing decision so arguments about the likelihood being small or the consequence being low are critical for this discussion.

 

[JoshGuru7]

This technology is essentially swapping one inconvenience for another. The war on piracy isn't going to be "won" by adding more roadblocks for your paying customers to hop over.

It depends on the size of the roadblocks and the level of inconvenience in both cases, does it not? As I stated above, requiring connectivity is vastly superior for me as a consumer than either disc checks or install limits.

I won't be surprised if cracks show up within a week or two of this new technology rolling out, essentially making it nothing but another inconvenience for paying customers to deal with while pirates get the superior version.

I think we agree that anti-piracy measures are often ultimately counterproductive. At the same time, "do nothing" is often just as infeasible in the politics of software publishing as it is in the politics of real life, no matter how superior it may be as a strategy. Therefore I endorse the option that is least bad.

 

[mindcycle]

Your response correctly identifies that there is a risk but the mere presence of "some" risk is not a deterrent by itself. It is your estimate of the severity of risk that governs your purchasing decision so arguments about the likelihood being small or the consequence being low are critical for this discussion.

My argument is about the lack of consideration toward Ubisoft's paying customer base given the technology they have decided to use. They want to paint the picture that it's going to be "better" than existing DRM technologies, but i'm not convinced. I understand what you are saying here, but risk to reward analysis is not a concern to me personally when deciding to purchase and essentially "support" a game and it's publisher. There is a good chance the game will work fine 100% of the time I chose to play it, yet morally I have a problem supporting a technology that I feel will only make the PC gaming industry weaker as a whole.

I think we agree that anti-piracy measures are often ultimately counterproductive. At the same time, "do nothing" is often just as infeasible in the politics of software publishing as it is in the politics of real life, no matter how superior it may be as a strategy. Therefore I endorse the option that is least bad.

When Ubisoft released Prince of Persia last year for the PC I picked it up during the first week for full price because I wanted to support their decision to not include DRM. They then shot themselves in the foot later on by not offering DLC for the PC thus making the console version superior. IMO, they are essentially doing the same thing here; gimping the PC versions of their games by including this new online auth technology.

I understand your reasoning behind supporting the DRM option that you deem superior, however I refuse to support the lesser of two evils. When they make the right decision and decide it's better to reward the people actually supporting them, and not punish them for actions pirates make, then they'll see my money again.

 

[JoshGuru7]

My argument is about the lack of consideration toward Ubisoft's paying customer base given the technology they have decided to use. They want to paint the picture that it's going to be "better" than existing DRM technologies, but i'm not convinced.

In an ideal world, we would both prefer it to carry no DRM. However, in the world in which we are forced to live several posters in this thread including myself have expressed that they prefer connectivity requirements to existing DRM methods. I have argued that this is a positive move, but I think at the least we can both agree that neither of us has proof that this is negative overall to Ubisoft's paying customer base. Therefore it is too earlier to say whether this is a lack of consideration or an improvement in consideration.

I understand your reasoning behind supporting the DRM option that you deem superior, however I refuse to support the lesser of two evils.

While you may not support the lesser evil, perhaps you can support a major evil devolving to a minor evil? Were you a Ubisoft VP, it is highly unlikely that you could implement a "do nothing" strategy without losing your position given the hyperbole (or severity depending on your position) surrounding software piracy. Therefore, the best you could achieve for PC consumers would be a series of incremental steps in the right direction rather than a single leap.

And now that I've put "do nothing" in quotes twice, it seems only relevant to include an Austrian perspective: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/01/the-boom-and-bust-rap.html

 

[pontifex]

Really? I typically play one game at a time until I either beat it or get sick of it.



Good for you. Not all of us are so lucky and only have a limited amount of options given the area we live in. I've been on 3 different ISP's over the past 5 years or so and my current provider (Comcast) has been the most reliable but it's not 100% by any means.



That's not the point i'm trying to make. If I couldn't play a game for some unforeseen technical reason that would be acceptable. Not everything works 100% as there are always going to be conflicts with different computer setups. I would either spend the time to figure out the problem and fix it, or go do something else as you mention. But I ultimately have a choice in the matter. With a required internet connection you have no choice if you don't/can't obtain a connection, and while this may not affect you it will definitely affect someone. So why would I want to pay for a restriction like that?

My question was 1 game and 1 game only. Not 1 game at a time. I'm sure you have several games you could play should you choose to.

I agree that not being able to play a game when you want to sucks, but really, is it that important in your life? You can't do something else?

Then don't pay for it, no one is forcing you to buy these games.

 

[ibex333]

Well the solution is very simple. I will not buy games that use this sort of system to prevent piracy. I would rather not play a certain game at all, rather than play it the way someone wants me to play it.

 

[ZzZGuy]

wow, thank you for giving 1 very specific moment. you did notice i said "there will most likely be an internet connection", right? Notice the emphasis of certain words in that quote.

I wave my magic wand and make all game of 2010 and thereafter use this DRM. I also wave my wand and bring down a ice storm/flood/hurricane/lightning storm/tornado (whatever works for you) and knock out your internet (but not power) over a long weekend with crappy weather so you are really bored and had just bought the game you've been craving for 3 years.

To support this now is to tell other other game makers to use this DRM, and your very reliable internet is subject to change.