Ubisoft Launches Anti-Piracy Countermeasures

[QuantumPion]

You're right, it is more complicated than that. The point I was making was that it's impossible to know if DRM affects sales from "sales pattern data" because every game is going to have different sales numbers regardless. To come to the conclusion that DRM doesn't stop people from buying games based on what is essentially guesswork is absurd IMO, and just shows that the person who wrote that (a D2D PR rep i'm assuming) has no idea what he's talking about.

Remember Stardock's release of Demigod? They prided themselves on having no DRM and being consumer friendly. Where did it get them? Multiplayer servers rendered useless by huge numbers pirates outnumbering legit sales. Loss of sales due to draconian DRM are orders of magnitudes less than unattained revenue due to pirates.

 

[mindcycle]

Remember Stardock's release of Demigod? They prided themselves on having no DRM and being consumer friendly. Where did it get them? Multiplayer servers rendered useless by huge numbers pirates outnumbering legit sales.

I'm not quite sure what your response has to do with what I posted. I'm talking about how uneducated someone sounds when they come to conclusions using data that doesn't exist.

Anyway, to address your post..

Loss of sales due to draconian DRM are orders of magnitudes less than unattained revenue due to pirates.

Based on what evidence? You seem to be forgetting that a pirated copy of a game can't be considered "unattained revenue", since there is no evidence whatsoever that it would have been a sale if it wasn't possible to pirate the game. This is what pro-DRM advocates can't (or refuse to) understand. A pirated copy /= a sale (if the option to pirate didn't exist) in the real world. There may be a percentage of pirates that turn into customers if the option to pirate didn't exist but there is no way to measure this, it's all guesswork and mostly FUD from publishers and pro-DRM advocates.

 

[aigomorla]

Loss of sales due to draconian DRM are orders of magnitudes less than unattained revenue due to pirates.

and how did the lack of DRM effect that?

You dont think there wouldnt of been a crack for the game if it was released?

Thats our argument we are holding.

So a software which has no DRM.. has more pirates stealing it...
Vs.
A software ridden with DRM... has to go get a hack and still pirate it....

You see the DRM didnt do anything, if anything not having DRM boosted popularity...

So then you force subscriptions to update / addon content... would be a better way to control piracy.

 

[wanderer27]

So a software which has no DRM.. has more pirates stealing it...
Vs.
A software ridden with DRM... has to go get a hack and still pirate it....

In the second case you also need to factor in lost sales due to DRM (I won't be buying) and the cost (Licensing and implementation time/costs) of the DRM.

Is it a wash?
Who can really say, but everyone is inconvenienced.

 

[v8envy]

Here is my personal data point. I'm in the software industry so I have a moral allergy to pirating my peer's work. I simply refuse.

However, as the DRM schemes keep getting more and more draconian and more inconvenient I've caught myself thinking how much easier it would be to simply download the titles with all the annoyances fixed. More than once.

In my view the ever more stringent and inconvenient DRM has been promoting piracy. Maybe that will stop if a DRM which actually works is ever developed, but until then I can see people on the fence being pushed over to the "torrent it" side rather than the "infest my system with hardware destroying malware" side.

 

[mindcycle]

Here's a real world example of DRM negatively affecting a customer. It doesn't have anything to do with Ubisoft or the OP really, but thought i'd mention it..

So I just recently bought Divinity 2 which comes packaged with SecuROM disc check DRM. Fair enough.. I've never really had problems with SecuROM disc check before and have played quite a few games that use it. I loaded up the game and it was incredibly stuttery in game, the menu took 10-15 seconds or more to pop up once you hit ESC, and in general was unplayable IMO. I tried every trick under the sun to get it to run decently, looking through forum posts and whatnot. I did finally come up with some settings that helped but nothing that truly fixed the issues entirely. Now here's the kicker.. I read a forum post where some guy suggested downloading a crack for the main exe and that it helped with his load times and responsiveness in game. So I downloaded it..
I immediately noticed a decrease in load times. The main menu started pulling up in maybe 1-2 seconds as opposed to 15. The game loaded saves faster, and I gained 15-20 FPS in game. No joke, I measured it with FRAPS. The game went from barely playable to enjoyable. All I had to do is get rid of SecuROM..

IMO, the biggest kick to the face about my whole ordeal is the fact that US version was released on Jan 5th 2010 I believe, but there has been a UK (english) version of the game available on torrents since 11/3/09! So removing SecuROM from the US versions would have made perfect sense because it isn't/wasn't going to stop piracy since the game was already out there. Yet, what did they do?.. Release a game where the pirated version is far superior to the actual retail counterpart due to unoptimized DRM code that didn't stop piracy at all..

 

[BladeVenom]

Remember Stardock's release of Demigod? They prided themselves on having no DRM and being consumer friendly. Where did it get them? Multiplayer servers rendered useless by huge numbers pirates outnumbering legit sales. Loss of sales due to draconian DRM are orders of magnitudes less than unattained revenue due to pirates.

The only mistake was that their servers allowed pirated copies on their servers without legitimate serial numbers. It didn't take them to long to fix the problem.

Doing what's best for their paying customers is one of the reasons they are popular, and it has earned them a loyal following. Changing that probably would be a bad move.

 

[Gothgar]

on the 2011 news: "Settlers 7 no longer profitable, online save/auth server shutdown, saves erased"

sounds like something EA just did, lol

I am not sure if I am for or against this yet... save games and being able to play offline come up occasionally

my internet was down the other day and I was able to play most of my steam games with no problem

 

[Niku]

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.

That does not necessarily mean in ones own home. I have broad band access in broad terms, with out being at home. Public terminals, cell phones, university or library. I do have it at home, but a large portion of americans, roughly just less then half of all, do not have high speed broad band access in their own living premises. Those large minority people have dial up or nothing. Mostly in rural areas. I work out of a computer store in the edge of a major urban area and we service rural customers. Most of them if they do not have VDSL have dialup. I am talking like around 1 in 10 have cable or DSL. Thats just where i live.

 

[toyota]

That does not necessarily mean in ones own home. I have broad band access in broad terms, with out being at home. Public terminals, cell phones, university or library. I do have it at home, but a large portion of americans, roughly just less then half of all, do not have high speed broad band access in their own living premises. Those large minority people have dial up or nothing. Mostly in rural areas. I work out of a computer store in the edge of a major urban area and we service rural customers. Most of them if they do not have VDSL have dialup. I am talking like around 1 in 10 have cable or DSL. Thats just where i live.

where in the heck is he getting that 94.5% of Americans have broadband access in the first place? I guess that must include those people whose only broadband option would be ridiculously priced slow satellite internet thats capped daily.

 

[wanderer27]

where in the heck is he getting that 94.5% of Americans have broadband access in the first place? I guess that must include those people whose only broadband option would be ridiculously priced slow satellite internet thats capped daily.

Good question.

Just on AT&T's side:

The writer adds: "However, AT&T in its filing doesn't offer a way to bridge the gap for that 20 percent of Americans relying only on landlines, nor does it address what an all-IP future means for the 33 percent of Americans who have access to broadband but do not subscribe.”

From - http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=443

and this one shows:

http://www.wtcut.com/newsletter/?p=1829

The highest percentage use is in very small European countries such as Liechtenstein and Monaco; by this measure, the U.S. ranks lower, with 22.1 percent of Americans getting broadband subscriptions. The UK, Germany, Japan, France and Taiwan all cluster between 20 and 24 percent; highest broadband rates among big countries include Korea, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.

I'm not seeing anywhere near the high numbers of high speed access that get's thrown around on these Forums - it's actually still fairly low.

Just because we're all geeks doesn't mean the average Jane/Joe is

 

[JoshGuru7]

I'm not seeing anywhere near the high numbers of high speed access that get's thrown around on these Forums - it's actually still fairly low. Just because we're all geeks doesn't mean the average Jane/Joe is

I cited some numbers and a source much earlier in the thread but you're right that there are still lots of people in the US without internet at all let alone broadband. That's not the question though, what really matters is how likely the average PC gaming geek is to have internet access. Your grandparents probably weren't going to buy Assassin's Creed 2 anyway.

 

[Ben90]

Here is my personal data point. I'm in the software industry so I have a moral allergy to pirating my peer's work. I simply refuse.

However, as the DRM schemes keep getting more and more draconian and more inconvenient I've caught myself thinking how much easier it would be to simply download the titles with all the annoyances fixed. More than once.

In my view the ever more stringent and inconvenient DRM has been promoting piracy. Maybe that will stop if a DRM which actually works is ever developed, but until then I can see people on the fence being pushed over to the "torrent it" side rather than the "infest my system with hardware destroying malware" side.

Seriously, its easier to install pirated games than it is to install them legitly nowadays. There are a few exceptions to this rule however as valve games *can* be a pain in the butt to get working without steam. I only purchase games based on the source engine as I know the controls arn't going to be rediculously loose like every other recent fps.

DRM is fundamentally flawed and there is no denying it. It only makes problems for honest people.

 

[wanderer27]

I cited some numbers and a source much earlier in the thread but you're right that there are still lots of people in the US without internet at all let alone broadband. That's not the question though, what really matters is how likely the average PC gaming geek is to have internet access. Your grandparents probably weren't going to buy Assassin's Creed 2 anyway.

But if the geek has a Laptop and is visiting said parents/grandparents/etc., they're going to be out of luck.

The exception would be if they (geek) have a Dial-up account, which may not even be viable for the DRM at hand.

Not picking, just another simple example of how this is a bad idea.

 

[toyota]

But if the geek has a Laptop and is visiting said parents/grandparents/etc., they're going to be out of luck.

The exception would be if they (geek) have a Dial-up account, which may not even be viable for the DRM at hand.

Not picking, just another simple example of how this is a bad idea.

exactly. I am screwed when I go visit my parents and even some of my friends. my parents could not stand dial up anymore but they had to get satellite because thats all that is available where they live. satellite is sketchy at best in the evenings plus they have a 250mb daily cap so dealing with most online games are not an option.

 

[Golgatha]

Ubisoft can go DIAF if they think I'm putting my savegames on their server only and am willing to sign up for yet another Online authentication scheme just to play some games.

I like Steam's Cloud feature because it leaves a copy on your computer and uploads the savegame when you're not in a game. Built-in savegame backups I like, draconian DRM where the game publisher holds all the cards...not so much.

From a business perspective, I imagine they want to compete with Steam, but I also imagine they will have one heck of an uphill battle. My suggestion to Ubisoft, just pay Valve and put all your games on Steam.

On a related note, I will treat all publishers who go Steam only as 2nd class publishers who only get game purchases of $20 or less from me, which is pretty much the financial breaking point at which I cease to care about resell rights. Those publishers who let me keep everything locally installed and respect my right to resell my game when I wish get more along the lines of $40-$50 due to the added value they are providing.

 

[JoshGuru7]

exactly. I am screwed when I go visit my parents and even some of my friends. my parents could not stand dial up anymore but they had to get satellite because thats all that is available where they live. satellite is sketchy at best in the evenings plus they have a 250mb daily cap so dealing with most online games are not an option.

I imagine dialup would be more than sufficient for this DRM scheme for the very reasons mentioned here.

There are obviously going to be situations where gamers will want to play Assassin's Creed 2 without having internet access. It's just not nearly as large of an impact as people are making it out to be. Ubisoft will trade 2% or 5% sales to people over internet concerns all day if they think it will make a 40% impact on game sales.

I don't think this is a necessarily a bad business decision even if Ubisoft is going to be requiring a broadband connection. People talk a lot on these forums about the success of MMOs, and all that Ubisoft is doing is releasing a game under some of the same restrictions (requiring internet) with some of the same benefits (increased difficulty of piracy). Many of the same complaints leveled in this thread could be directed at WoW.

 

[Liet]

It should just be called anti-customer measures.

You, sir, are correct.

I don't blame companies from attempting to protect their products. I do despise those attempts when they go overboard in penalizing their legitimate customers. Which I think everyone here will agree on, with varying opinions on where the line is drawn between acceptable and "overboard".

 

[smackababy]

DRM only effects paying customers. People who pirate the game, with the exception of the cracker, never have to worry about it. Even paying customers download the cracks to get rid of all the garbage that comes along with retail games.

 

[wanderer27]

Ahhh.

Yet another reason to not trust in this type of DRM or Companies in general:

Discontinuation of Xbox LIVE for Original Xbox Games

http://gamerscoreblog.com/press/archive/2010/02/05/gh789.aspx

 

[TheJTrain]

Building off that announcement, here's a great article why we shouldn't believe publishers who insist that either a) their authentication servers will never go away or b) they'll remove the requirement if they ever do.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...oints/7134-Experienced-Points-Activation-Bomb

--Snip--
When you ask a gamer to pay for a game with online activation, you are asking for a great deal of trust. Which is outrageous, since the entire reason the game has activation is because you refuse to trust them.

To my fellow gamers: Buy, or do not buy, but always be aware of what you're getting into. Because sooner or later the publisher is going to die, and when they go they will take your collection with them.
--Snip--

Which is why the only stuff I buy digitally or that has online authentication w/ or w/out install limits is stuff that's under $10 (D2D's 5-year anniversary saw some amazing deals for $5, and the Steam holiday sale was great too).

 

[wanderer27]

Because sooner or later the publisher is going to die, and when they go they will take your collection with them.

This is what is so difficult to get some people to comprehend . . . .

 

[Modelworks]

I see both sides. The gamer doesn't want to be encumbered with DRM and the publisher doesn't want to lose money. In a perfect world people would have the morals to not take what is not theirs.

I read a paper on theft in the real world vs theft online. They found that people would not do things like shoplifting for two reasons. One was that it was wrong to steal, the other was the fear of getting caught. Compared to online they found several differences. Online people felt that what they were downloading was not harming anyone because they were not removing a physical item that the stores could sell. The stores could still sell the game so they considered it no harm done, morals changed from 'it is wrong to steal' to 'it is wrong to steal unless what you are taking isn't a physical item' . The same people that would not steal from a store had no problem stealing using downloads.

The other issue was penalty for getting caught. Steal in a store and you get arrested. Steal online and if you are caught, very rare, you might get a notice to stop or delete the content. I think a solution for everyone involved is to increase the penalties for downloading and sharing retail software. Why should someone who grabs a $50 game in a store go to jail but not someone who downloads the same game ? The only issue I see with this is how to identify the person is knowingly downloading a retail item and making sure it is them at the pc on the other end.

If the risk of a police record was involved I doubt many would pirate. Then the publishers could drop all the DRM on everything from software to video, no need for any of it. DRM exist because the companies are treating everyone like pirates because that is their last recourse for recovering what is owed to them, the law is extremely weak in the piracy area.

 

[wanderer27]

The same people that would not steal from a store had no problem stealing using downloads.

The other issue was penalty for getting caught. Steal in a store and you get arrested. Steal online and if you are caught, very rare, you might get a notice to stop or delete the content. I think a solution for everyone involved is to increase the penalties for downloading and sharing retail software. Why should someone who grabs a $50 game in a store go to jail but not someone who downloads the same game ? The only issue I see with this is how to identify the person is knowingly downloading a retail item and making sure it is them at the pc on the other end.

If the risk of a police record was involved I doubt many would pirate. Then the publishers could drop all the DRM on everything from software to video, no need for any of it. DRM exist because the companies are treating everyone like pirates because that is their last recourse for recovering what is owed to them, the law is extremely weak in the piracy area.

The difference here is that the (physical) Store has actually paid for the item being stolen, so there is a concrete loss.
The digital copy is not "paid" for until the digital copy is sold and there is no physical reduction in inventory - so in effect there is no perceived "loss".
Yes I know there is the loss in sales to the Company, but in this case there is a perceived infinite supply at virtually no cost to provide additional units.


Don't get me wrong, I agree with you but I just wanted to put a little different light on things. I've read studies too where people will do things online that they wouldn't do in person - pretty much shows the dark side of Humanity.


There are better options than this overbearing scheme they are looking to implement, and I haven't seen a game yet that I'd be anywhere near willing to put up with this for.