Ubisoft: Our DRM will "evolve, improve"

[shortylickens]

Nah, it'll just cause another gaming implosion. It'll rebuild . . . but probably start the cycle again because of idiot consumers.

Thats what I see.
The game world will burn and a Phoenix will rise, and assloads of people will lose their jobs in the process.
When it starts back up again it will be very different, not at all like it was before.

 

[lupi]

Well they have evolved my purchases to not include any ubi titles, so guess they have already met their goal.

 

[Golgatha]

They can do what they want and evolve it however they want. It still won't change the way I feel and I won't be buying any games from them any more.

It can evolve into whatever horrid monstrosity it wants to. I still won't touch it with a 10 foot pole though.

I did however buy Assassin's Creed 2...on PS3...used. Boycott while still getting to play their few good games FTW!

 

[smackababy]

DRM aside, I can't even think of any Ubisoft titles I'd purchase anyway. Until they evolve their titles to include something I'd enjoy playing, I don't even care about their failure of a DRM model.

 

[Rakewell]

DRM aside, I can't even think of any Ubisoft titles I'd purchase anyway. Until they evolve their titles to include something I'd enjoy playing, I don't even care about their failure of a DRM model.

Liking the games Ubisoft produces is not really the issue, here.

The issue is that they are selling something that doesn't work. There needs to be some sort of class-action lawsuit.

 

[Lotheron]

Liking the games Ubisoft produces is not really the issue, here.

The issue is that they are selling something that doesn't work. There needs to be some sort of class-action lawsuit.

All the while those that they are trying to prevent from playing the game are doing so with no issue at all. It's those that paid for the game that cannot. Sounds pretty f'd up, doesn't it?

 

[acheron]

Ubisoft's told Eurogamer that its "online services platform" for PC games will "evolve and improve" and is most certainly here to stay.

Ubisoft DRM becomes self-aware. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

DRM fights back.

 

[smackababy]

Ubisoft DRM becomes self-aware. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

DRM fights back.

Have you seen this boy? *Holds up picture of John Conner*

 

[mindcycle]

All the while those that they are trying to prevent from playing the game are doing so with no issue at all. It's those that paid for the game that cannot. Sounds pretty f'd up, doesn't it?

I agree, it is f'd up. The worst part about DRM is once the game is cracked, legit customers are the only ones having to deal with it. Pirates get the superior game experience at that point.

 

[nakedfrog]

It can evolve into whatever horrid monstrosity it wants to. I still won't touch it with a 10 foot pole though.

I did however buy Assassin's Creed 2...on PS3...used. Boycott while still getting to play their few good games FTW!

That's funny, I did the same thing. I bought the first one for PC, and would have done so for the second.

 

[Borealis7]

Luckily, UBISoft hasn't produced a game i wanted in yeeeaaaarrrrsssss.

 

[Adrenaline]

They can do what they want and evolve it however they want. It still won't change the way I feel and I won't be buying any games from them any more.

I fully agree. I was going to get SC: Conviction for my pc, but not with this crap attached to it.

 

[Golgatha]

That's funny, I did the same thing. I bought the first one for PC, and would have done so for the second.

Same here.

 

[JoshGuru7]

It's a mistake to argue that the role of DRM is to prevent piracy. The role of DRM is to raise the cost of piracy and as a result make purchasing the game look better in comparison to consumers who would otherwise be on the borderline between piracy and purchasing a legitimate copy.

The method to play a pirated copy of AC2 atm involves jumping through several hoops. These are not barriers to a pirate who has plenty of disposable time and would never have purchased AC2 anyway. However, for the people who might have purchased AC2 anyway the pirated copy is more inconvenient than the DRM, thus increasing the cost of piracy. Arguing that this DRM has "no effect" on reducing piracy is just silly because it clearly has at least some effect, however small.

Of course this could be a net loss for Ubisoft still if rise in demand due to increasing the cost of piracy were outweighed by a drop in demand due to the inconvenience inflicted on legitimate buyers. I'm just struck by all the wishful thinking in this thread that goes beyond recognizing this outcome as plausible to instead guarantee that it will occur with no facts or data. Do any of you even have sales numbers for AC2 before you made these bold predictions?

 

[Martimus]

It's a mistake to argue that the role of DRM is to prevent piracy. The role of DRM is to raise the cost of piracy and as a result make purchasing the game look better in comparison to consumers who would otherwise be on the borderline between piracy and purchasing a legitimate copy.

The method to play a pirated copy of AC2 atm involves jumping through several hoops. These are not barriers to a pirate who has plenty of disposable time and would never have purchased AC2 anyway. However, for the people who might have purchased AC2 anyway the pirated copy is more inconvenient than the DRM, thus increasing the cost of piracy. Arguing that this DRM has "no effect" on reducing piracy is just silly because it clearly has at least some effect, however small.

Of course this could be a net loss for Ubisoft still if rise in demand due to increasing the cost of piracy were outweighed by a drop in demand due to the inconvenience inflicted on legitimate buyers. I'm just struck by all the wishful thinking in this thread that goes beyond recognizing this outcome as plausible to instead guarantee that it will occur with no facts or data. Do any of you even have sales numbers for AC2 before you made these bold predictions?

Wow. Logic in a thread about DRM. I thought that was against the rules while posting in a thread like this.

 

[BladeVenom]

it shouldn't be hard to improve on something that sucks so hard. I have a feeling their idea of "improving" is different than mine, however.

qft

 

[PingSpike]

My wallet has evolved improved girth and an inability to be opened in the vicinity of Ubisoft titles. It is a natural defense mechanism.

 

[dguy6789]

sounds like steam.

Don't need the internet at all to play Steam games.

 

[Nik]

They can do what they want and evolve it however they want. It still won't change the way I feel and I won't be buying any games from them any more.

Yep.

 

[CountZero]

It's a mistake to argue that the role of DRM is to prevent piracy. The role of DRM is to raise the cost of piracy and as a result make purchasing the game look better in comparison to consumers who would otherwise be on the borderline between piracy and purchasing a legitimate copy.

The method to play a pirated copy of AC2 atm involves jumping through several hoops. These are not barriers to a pirate who has plenty of disposable time and would never have purchased AC2 anyway. However, for the people who might have purchased AC2 anyway the pirated copy is more inconvenient than the DRM, thus increasing the cost of piracy. Arguing that this DRM has "no effect" on reducing piracy is just silly because it clearly has at least some effect, however small.

Of course this could be a net loss for Ubisoft still if rise in demand due to increasing the cost of piracy were outweighed by a drop in demand due to the inconvenience inflicted on legitimate buyers. I'm just struck by all the wishful thinking in this thread that goes beyond recognizing this outcome as plausible to instead guarantee that it will occur with no facts or data. Do any of you even have sales numbers for AC2 before you made these bold predictions?

Nobody has the numbers that would tell the truth about whether the DRM was good or not which is "did they make more money with the DRM then they would have without?". The companies will always claim it was the right course of action (regardless of whether they have data to back it up) to admit otherwise is to admit you are liable for the lost revenue. The anti-drm folks will always say it was the wrong course of action despite the fact that they will never have the data to back it up.

The fact is that some people that bought these games can't play them solely because Ubisoft has implemented a new and different DRM scheme which serves their purposes exclusively.

As a consumer you have to ask yourself if it is worth the risk of being one of those people. It is as if McDonalds implemented a new efficiency scheme that saved them a bunch of money but didn't make much difference to the customer but the downside was that 1 in 100 customers will order and pay but not receive their food. As a consumer am I so concerned with McDonald's bottom line that I'd be willing to risk getting burned. The answer should be no.

As a gamer am I so concerned with Ubisoft's bottom line that I'm willing to put up with the DRM? No, I am not. I don't care if this new scheme does make them more money, that is irrelevant to whether or not I support it.

 

[tk149]

I caved in and bought AC2...on the PS3. I would have preferred it on the PC.

 

[pmv]

It's a mistake to argue that the role of DRM is to prevent piracy. The role of DRM is to raise the cost of piracy and as a result make purchasing the game look better in comparison to consumers who would otherwise be on the borderline between piracy and purchasing a legitimate copy.

True, the main role of DRM is to destroy the second-hand market. The second role is to try and move towards a 'service' model where, I suspect, the ultimate objective is pay-per-play. The third, and incidental, purpose is to shift the balance of power in the marketplace away from individuals and more to corporations. Ultimately we'll all be paying for 'services' rather than actually owning anything outright. I'm not sure I like that idea.

 

[Cheesetogo]

And of course, these games are all readily available and cracked on the pirate bay.

 

[JoshGuru7]

As a consumer you have to ask yourself if it is worth the risk of being one of those people. It is as if McDonalds...

There's no need to think of an imperfect analogy when we can just use AC2 as the example.

On an individual basis consumers can simply ask themselves whether they want to purchase AC2 considering both the arguments for (really good game) and the arguments against (price, internet connectivity requirement). I suspect the DRM doesn't matter that much to the average consumer compared to the price and the quality of the title but sales figures would give a clearer picture of this. DRM is monumentally important on these forums, but a 10% drop in price may very well have a larger impact among general consumers than a complete removal of the DRM implementation would.

I don't care if this new scheme does make them more money, that is irrelevant to whether or not I support it.

Clearly. That's not the tone of this thread, however, which mostly contains a bunch of posts claiming that this is a disaster for Ubisoft. I just don't see anything that supports that conclusion.

True, the main role of DRM is to destroy the second-hand market.

I don't really agree with this. Most of the DRM implementations are transferrable. Even the non-transferrable DRM implementations such as activation limits often increase the limits, allow resetting the limit by calling in, or even remove the limits all together 6+ months after release exactly when it would be most useful in disrupting secondary sales.

Most importantly, no DRM is nearly as effective at curbing resales as the "Free" DLC at launch that is tied to an account (ie. Cerberus). If developers can succeed in tying content to non-transferrable accounts then that completely restricts the second hand market without the need to monkey with DRM at all. You can bet they would still use DRM though, since it's real role is to raise the cost of piracy.

 

[smackababy]

The problem is though, they don't raise the cost of piracy for anyone except the pirates cracking the DRM. "Jumping through loops" to get a FREE game to work will always be better than spending $50 on a game that may not. The only thing excessive DRM does is cause headeaches for a) paying customers and b) the 3 smart guys releasing the crack. Sure, it may cut down on piracy SOME, but you're doing it at the cost of people already willing to pay. Do you think the people burned by Ubi-softs DRM are going to purchase another game from them? That is highly unlikely. Do you think because people couldn't pirate AC2 on release day they are going to go buy it? That is also highly unlikely.

If anything, they should be embracing piracy. At least then they can have a scapegoat when their crappy games sell terribly.