Ubisoft Launches Anti-Piracy Countermeasures

[Cattlegod]

i like this idea. though instead of ubisoft doing this, it should be a consortium of all video game publishers and centralize it so all games you buy (steam, ubisoft, EA, etc) are all on one server so you only need one account.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Prediction: There will be a 'Fixed EXE' for it a couple of days before the game actually hits retail.

Probably a week or three actually, but settlers 8 will be cracked before it's out.

Incase people think that this will be uncrackable, people who crack this stuff are already used to looking at assembly/packets/memory and watching debuggers, ultimately for something to run it has to be stored in memory and sent as opcodes to the processor so it doesn't matter if it's never saved to harddrive as an exe though the first time it's broken will probably take some time; subsequent times will be near instantly cracked. I don't really care about cracking that much, but I have an interest in assembly so I'm vaguely familiar with what goes into breaking DRM/trial software.

 

[TheJTrain]

My main problem with this is the same problem I have with other physical, disc-based retail games that force a purchaser to "register/authenticate" online using a unique account ID (i.e., Steamworks and the like). The publisher is using an online registration requirement to circumvent the clear intent and meaning of the First-Sale & Fair-Use Doctrines governing usability and transferability of purchased copies of copyright-protected works. No one argues that 100% digitally-purchased content should be transferable (but it'd be nice) 'cause when you buy a game on Steam and download it, we all know what we're getting into and you're tied into Steam for that game. But when a consumer buys a disc-in-a-box from a store, that's a physical copy of copyright-protected media content and there are laws in place governing what that consumer MUST BE allowed to do with it. One of those principles is that he now OWNS that particular physical copy and can transfer ownership/title/license/usage of it to any one person he chooses, provided he does not retain possession of the physical media on which the copy resides. These registration schemes that force a physical disc-purchasing consumer to register his game and tie it irrevocably to his unique userid prevents that First-Sale-protected right. Steamworks does it with Dawn of War II, Modern Warfare II, every Valve game available at retail, and others. Now Ubisoft is going to do the same thing. It's downright unconscionable. I refused to buy MW2 because of that, and I'll be damned if I buy a Ubisoft game crippled by that restriction (and I'm an Ubisoft fan, Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed, Beyond Good & Evil, etc. etc.).

 

[wanderer27]

This Poll/Survey just came out:

http://savygamer.co.uk/2010/02/01/digital-rights-and-wrongs-the-state-of-drm/

There are some real gems of Wisdom in here

Do you think your customers will happily accept the DRM that Ubisoft is planning to release, that will require constant internet connection?
No comment

This is just sad on so many levels

Does DRM in general affect interest levels amongst purchasers?
Results from our recent survey show that 58% of our users believe DRM is negative and that the majority of users polled (70%) would be more likely to purchase a DRM-free title over one that had DRM wrapping. That said, we haven’t seen any sales patterns to indicate the our customers are specifically NOT buying games because of its DRM.

I could spend hours on the stupidity of this thing . . .



From another site, this may explain why my Drives went into PIO mode some years back:

Being in PC repair I can attest that the latest DRM can be worse than most viruses. If you get Starforce or SecuROM mixed together, or either of those with any other like SafeDisc, well lets just say I hope you look back on the days of unstable Win9x fondly, because you will be getting a taste of those times. I can't even count the number of DVD drives of customers I had to throw away because Starforce or SecuROM decided they were "dirty evil filthy pirates" for actually having a burner and threw it into PIO mode and burned their drive smooth up.

This guy still pretty much sums up the whole thing - coarse as he is:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt-mt4BpnfAN-o/how_anti_piracy_screws_over_people_who_buy_pc_games/

 

[Staples]

I like this new system.

Without reading the thread, I am sure there are tons of people who complain that their internet connection might go out although for most those people, their internet has never gone out and they just want to complain for the sake of complaining. Here is something, I might get hit by a bus if I cross the street but guess what? I still do.

Sounds like this will probably kill resale too but I am fine with it. I buy most games off Steam as it stands now.

 

[Lorne]

Umm,, The thred title is incorrect to the real topic.
I thought Ubisoft was going to help pirating and thought that odd and popped in only to read the opposite.
I thought it should have read "Ubisoft launches piracy countermeasures", Maybe thats just me.

Sorry if this was brought up, I read only a little and skipped to the end.

 

[toyota]

I like this new system.

Without reading the thread, I am sure there are tons of people who complain that their internet connection might go out although for most those people, their internet has never gone out and they just want to complain for the sake of complaining. Here is something, I might get hit by a bus if I cross the street but guess what? I still do.

Sounds like this will probably kill resale too but I am fine with it. I buy most games off Steam as it stands now.

theres no probably to it killing resale because the game is tied to the user. also it isnt uncommon to lose internet connection where I live. it goes out several times a month. sometimes its only for a few minutes but that alone would pause the game and I would be worried about not being able to save my progress when that happens.

 

[Munky]

I like this new system.

Without reading the thread, I am sure there are tons of people who complain that their internet connection might go out although for most those people, their internet has never gone out and they just want to complain for the sake of complaining. Here is something, I might get hit by a bus if I cross the street but guess what? I still do.

Sounds like this will probably kill resale too but I am fine with it. I buy most games off Steam as it stands now.

The problem is not that I need a constant internet connection, but rather that Ubisoft maintains control of a game that I friggin paid for. If I buy a game, I should be able to use it on any computer anywhere I want, however I want, and however many times I want. This is complete BS because while I buy a retail copy of the game, it's really only a partial copy, and without constant verification from Ubisoft, I might as well be buying a coaster in a fancy box. Completely unacceptable.

 

[Zargon]

^^^
what he said

 

[Kalmah]

Some key things about this that I would like to point out.

Somebody else already mentioned this:
I don't want specific games to be tied to specific game publisher websites.. It needs to be centralized with one account for all games from different publishers. I don't want to have to remember user credentials from steam, ea online, ubisoft and whatever else shows up in the mix. I can't remember the last ubisoft game I ever bought.. so if one game did come out, that is one more user/pass that I have to jot down somewhere and hope that I don't lose it so when I want to play that game again 10 years from now...

For the very reason mentioned above, the game now has to be worth that amount of trouble. Only the large high-budget games are going to make its way through.. leaving the middle-ground games behind.. which will be picked up by piracy to avoid the trouble. This will make game developers have to go 'all or none' when making a game.. which is fine I suppose.. But I occasionally don't mind playing low budget games. They can be extremely fun.
This is going to make it so new game developers don't have much of a chance to compete if everything goes by this model.

...which is why is all needs to be centralized. Steam has done a good job at this so far in my opinion.

My other issue is this:
I recently pulled out my 10 year old baldur's gate 1 game.. as well as dungeon keeper, warcraft 2.... I can still play these games because I have them on disc. What happens when EA buys up other IPs? Are they going to keep all the original copyright mechanics in tact? Will they shut down these old authentication servers? Will I be able to play ALL games that I have bought now 10 years from now?

And the last thing:
People complaining about internet going down etc.. Come on guys, you buy a car, sometimes your car breaks down... same thing. You deal with it. The only difference here is that it's not going to affect your ability to go to work or whatever else. There are other things in life to enjoy. If your internet goes down for 4 hours find something else to do. Things break, shit happens. What breaks here is going to get fixed for free though.

 

[ZzZGuy]

<Snip>

And the last thing:
People complaining about internet going down etc.. Come on guys, you buy a car, sometimes your car breaks down... same thing. You deal with it. The only difference here is that it's not going to affect your ability to go to work or whatever else. There are other things in life to enjoy. If your internet goes down for 4 hours find something else to do. Things break, shit happens. What breaks here is going to get fixed for free though.

I sometimes travel for work. I have spent months in work camps (think crummy apartment) where there is no internet or it is not worth the trouble to get. I could take my laptop on a 2 hour trip on a company bus, then pay $20 in cab fair to go to the nearest internet cafe to spend another $10 to get online, and if I miss the bus back it's a $200+ cab ride back. Books are not an option because of luggage weight issues, and there is NOTHING else to do 80% of the time I'm off. You and anyone else can go [insert inappropriate term(s)] if you expect me to go through all this EVERY time I want to load up a damn game.

It irks me to no end that people can not imagine another human being can be without the internet for any length of time.

 

[pmv]

Not for me at all. Personally I just _hate_ the way the new technology, i.e. the internet, is being used to gain more power and control for the companies that make software (including, but not limited to, destroying the second-hand market). Its all moving to a 'service' paradigm rather than a product one and I don't like that at all. Its odd, the same technology that has taken control _away_ from the music industry, appears to be giving more power _to_ the software one.

I personally _don't_ regard internet access as something to take for granted or that I will always have, heck prices only dropped enough to make it affordable for me a couple of years ago, and I still might decide to drop it at some point. Why should I pay a quite significant monthly fee (to my ISP) just to be able to use something I already paid for? And its not as if the internet here is entirely reliable even if you have it.

I dunno, its an anesthetic objection as much as anything, I'm not seriously saying its a privacy issue in practice, but in general principle I don't see its any business of this company to know when I chose to play a game, or that I should in effect have to ask their permission every time I do so. Imagine if every time you wanted to read a book on your bookshelf you had to first phone up the publisher and confirm it was OK by them?

But the market will decide, if this is what most consumers accept then whatever will be will be, I don't demand the rest of you see it the same way as I do, but I just find it really annoying.

 

[pmv]

Umm,, The thred title is incorrect to the real topic.
I thought Ubisoft was going to help pirating and thought that odd and popped in only to read the opposite.
I thought it should have read "Ubisoft launches piracy countermeasures", Maybe thats just me.

Sorry if this was brought up, I read only a little and skipped to the end.

Yup, "anti-piracy countermeasures" is a double-negative, and clearly implies they are introducing measures to defeat DRM. Should be 'anti-piracy measures'.

 

[crownjules]

Some key things about this that I would like to point out.

Somebody else already mentioned this:
I don't want specific games to be tied to specific game publisher websites.. It needs to be centralized with one account for all games from different publishers. I don't want to have to remember user credentials from steam, ea online, ubisoft and whatever else shows up in the mix. I can't remember the last ubisoft game I ever bought.. so if one game did come out, that is one more user/pass that I have to jot down somewhere and hope that I don't lose it so when I want to play that game again 10 years from now...

Gamers already bitch enough, we do not need to add monopolization of digital content distribution to the list.

 

[aigomorla]

next generation kids > Ubisoft anti hack.

Sorry, but the new kids will always be smarter then the old kids.
And the old kids can never block out the hacks from the new kids.

I think DRM is honestly kinda stupid.
EVERY GAME OUT THERE has a hack for it.
And EVERY GAME TO COME OUT will have a hack for it.

Its the circle of life for a game....

DRM's only hurt the real people who really pay for the games...

 

[mindcycle]

Does DRM in general affect interest levels amongst purchasers?
Results from our recent survey show that 58&#37; of our users believe DRM is negative and that the majority of users polled (70%) would be more likely to purchase a DRM-free title over one that had DRM wrapping. That said, we haven&#8217;t seen any sales patterns to indicate the our customers are specifically NOT buying games because of its DRM.

This is pretty hilarious to me. All they have to do is read through a couple gaming forums or through the Amazon rating system to realize there are quite a number of people who don't buy games specifically because of the DRM used.

And how could they use sales patterns to come to the conclusion in that last sentence there? That's the most baffling statement to me.. How do they expect to do any sort of meaningful analysis on people who aren't, and couldn't possibly, be a part of said data set? Those people aren't buying the games.. So 20,000 people bought Game A (which contained massive amounts of DRM) through D2D, and 40,000 bought game B (which contained not DRM) through D2D, or vice versa. Yep.. The obvious conclusion is that DRM isn't a factor in people "not" purchasing games.. lol

The survey portion says it all.. over half of their customers have a negative reaction to hearing a game has DRM of any kind.

 

[coloumb]

It irks me to no end that people can not imagine another human being can be without the internet for any length of time.

I think you are part of the small % of those who don't have access to constant internet access so you of course are not considered an important part of the overall scheme of things.

Companies need to stop inventing new ways to DRM protect their software - it's just not working. Most games are cracked/released into the wild before the retail version hits the store shelves. There will ALWAYS be hackers and crackers and leechers lurking around the corners no matter what.

It just seems they create more problems and unnecessarily waste more $$$ with each mutation of DRM. Hell - it's already been proven that if you create a good game [or price it so it doesn't require you to dip into your retirement account] - it will freakin sell like hot cakes.

 

[Zargon]

yeah

it they didnt waste a few mil on DRM, they would double that in extra sales

 

[pontifex]

This is pretty hilarious to me. All they have to do is read through a couple gaming forums or through the Amazon rating system to realize there are quite a number of people who don't buy games specifically because of the DRM used.

And how could they use sales patterns to come to the conclusion in that last sentence there? That's the most baffling statement to me.. How do they expect to do any sort of meaningful analysis on people who aren't, and couldn't possibly, be a part of said data set? Those people aren't buying the games.. So 20,000 people bought Game A (which contained massive amounts of DRM) through D2D, and 40,000 bought game B (which contained not DRM) through D2D, or vice versa. Yep.. The obvious conclusion is that DRM isn't a factor in people "not" purchasing games.. lol

The survey portion says it all.. over half of their customers have a negative reaction to hearing a game has DRM of any kind.

not as simple as that either. If Game A is a Barber Shop Sim set in 1864 and Game B is the latest overhyped FPS game, then you really can't compare that either.

 

[mindcycle]

not as simple as that either. If Game A is a Barber Shop Sim set in 1864 and Game B is the latest overhyped FPS game, then you really can't compare that either.

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.

 

[zerogear]

I like this new system.

Without reading the thread, I am sure there are tons of people who complain that their internet connection might go out although for most those people, their internet has never gone out and they just want to complain for the sake of complaining. Here is something, I might get hit by a bus if I cross the street but guess what? I still do.

Sounds like this will probably kill resale too but I am fine with it. I buy most games off Steam as it stands now.

Shortsightedness. Because it doesn't affect you, you think it won't affect anyone else?

 

[TheJTrain]

Shortsightedness. Because it doesn't affect you, you think it won't affect anyone else?

My thought exactly.

 

[Coldkilla]

I like the idea. Hope it works.

 

[BladeVenom]

Yup, "anti-piracy countermeasures" is a double-negative, and clearly implies they are introducing measures to defeat DRM. Should be 'anti-piracy measures'.

It should just be called anti-customer measures.

 

[QuantumPion]

It sucks, is annoying, and is a pain in the butt. But I don't blame Ubisoft one bit and will still buy SH5 when it comes out with the same DRM. The people you need to blame are the pirates (and anyone that says "screw your stupid DRM I'm going to pirate it out of spite"). Piracy of PC games has gotten completely out of control and is killing the industry.