• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ubisoft's "Always-On" DRM Hacked

TJCS

TJCS

Senior member
A group known as Skid Row has hacked Ubisoft's DRM that requires its gamers to have a constant connection to the internet and responded with the following statement:

"Thank you Ubisoft, this was quiete [sic] a challenge for us, but nothing stops the leading force from doing what we do. Next time focus on the game and not on the DRM. It was probably horrible for all legit users. We just make their lifes [sic] easier."
Click to expand...


These Skid Row guys take the heat to the game.

Full article @ CNET
 
It's been circumvented for at least a week, no? They just create an offline dummy "server" that runs on the local machine I think, and the game authenticates with that. Savegames are even good to go.

As for focusing on the game... I personally think Assassin's Creed 2 is fantastic. Excellent story, ridiculously detailed cities, long playtime, and amazing voicework.
 
I don't think that Ubisoft's actual goal is to "stop" piracy, unless they're that delusional. The best thing they'll manage to do with any DRM (from any company) is to delay piracy a bit, for perhaps a week or two, which might be during that period when a game is supposed to sell the most, after that (in the case of Ubisoft's new DRM at least) piracy kicks in as usual, it just can't be stopped. In the end if it did slow down piracy a bit then maybe they achieved their goal, or one of them.

What I wonder is if the slow down of piracy during the first week or two after a game's release is really that convincing for the undecided "consumers" (or potential pirates) to buy it or not. In other words I really do wonder if Mr. Joe without $50 to spend on a game right away (but with $50 somewhere in his bank account to spend on something) will really consider buying the game "because it still isn't cracked a week after the game is released"... I really do, I don't quite think that it's such a big deal, if they wanted to play a pirated copy from the start I don't think that they'll say "alright, screw it, I'll buy it".

I wouldn't perceive that as any convincing form of discouragement, to put it simply.
 
Last edited:
Zenoth said:
I wouldn't perceive that as any convincing form of discouragement, to put it simply.
Click to expand...
Consider Napster in 2001 and iTunes in 2010. Many of the previous Napster users are now purchasing music via iTunes because the piracy options today simply aren't as convenient relative to the alternatives as they were back then. Consumers who always purchase and consumers who always pirate are uninteresting in regards to the piracy/DRM debate, but there are a lot of customers in the middle of the spectrum who make economic decisions based on costs (monetary, moral, security, legal) and benefits (avoided costs, convenience). DRM that increases the costs of piracy can have a large influence on these consumers depending on implementation.

What we do know is that AC2 sold pretty well on Steam while it was either impossible to pirate or difficult to pirate. Clearly some of these sales were to marginal consumers, and therefore the effectiveness of the DRM was not zero. Whether the benefit outweighed the cost in user dissatisfaction is impossible to say, but it is easy to see that simply delaying piracy by a short amount could result in a positive net benefit for a DRM solution depending on the costs.
 
JoshGuru7 said:
Consider Napster in 2001 and iTunes in 2010. Many of the previous Napster users are now purchasing music via iTunes because the piracy options today simply aren't as convenient relative to the alternatives as they were back then. Consumers who always purchase and consumers who always pirate are uninteresting in regards to the piracy/DRM debate, but there are a lot of customers in the middle of the spectrum who make economic decisions based on costs (monetary, moral, security, legal) and benefits (avoided costs, convenience). DRM that increases the costs of piracy can have a large influence on these consumers depending on implementation.

What we do know is that AC2 sold pretty well on Steam while it was either impossible to pirate or difficult to pirate. Clearly some of these sales were to marginal consumers, and therefore the effectiveness of the DRM was not zero. Whether the benefit outweighed the cost in user dissatisfaction is impossible to say, but it is easy to see that simply delaying piracy by a short amount could result in a positive net benefit for a DRM solution depending on the costs.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Steam popularity and whether a game gets pirated or not are particularly related.
For instance, Modern Warfare 2 was at the top of the Steam Top Sellers list for quite a while IIRC, and yet there are stories like this: http://torrentfreak.com/the-most-pirated-games-of-2009-091227/
 
The other side of the argument (concerning whether or not 2-3 weeks of effective DRM actually helps sales) is that there are people who will most likely just stay away from the game entirely, or the reality that most people who are going to pirate it will likely wait to do so anyway.

I for one am a proponent of most forms of DRM. I think that it has it's place, but this form is overly intrusive and needed to be cracked. I guess my question is whether or not it makes any sense for a large company to paint a target on their backs like Ubisoft just did. They have gotten tons of negative press and have lost alot of credibility in many gamers eyes. The question is whether or not that will result in a long-term net loss in sales because people are less likely to buy from them; all at the expense of a short term (supposed) gain from having effective DRM for a few weeks.
 
JoshGuru7 said:
Consider Napster in 2001 and iTunes in 2010. Many of the previous Napster users are now purchasing music via iTunes because the piracy options today simply aren't as convenient relative to the alternatives as they were back then. Consumers who always purchase and consumers who always pirate are uninteresting in regards to the piracy/DRM debate, but there are a lot of customers in the middle of the spectrum who make economic decisions based on costs (monetary, moral, security, legal) and benefits (avoided costs, convenience). DRM that increases the costs of piracy can have a large influence on these consumers depending on implementation.

What we do know is that AC2 sold pretty well on Steam while it was either impossible to pirate or difficult to pirate. Clearly some of these sales were to marginal consumers, and therefore the effectiveness of the DRM was not zero. Whether the benefit outweighed the cost in user dissatisfaction is impossible to say, but it is easy to see that simply delaying piracy by a short amount could result in a positive net benefit for a DRM solution depending on the costs.
Click to expand...

You make a lot of assumptions here. Firstly that Napster and iTunes sales have any relation. In 1999 - 2001 era when Napster was huge there were not as many digital sales of music, but there were MORE retail sales of music (and total music sales have only declined throughout the decade!) So I think you have made some false connections in your assumptions. The truth is in 2000 there was not a very convenient way to PURCHASE music digitally. iTunes took off because it was the first to offer a service that customers were looking for. It also may have been somewhat larger because it was before any punishments were given out for piracy and because it was easily accessible.
 
Modular said:
The other side of the argument (concerning whether or not 2-3 weeks of effective DRM actually helps sales) is that there are people who will most likely just stay away from the game entirely, or the reality that most people who are going to pirate it will likely wait to do so anyway.

I for one am a proponent of most forms of DRM. I think that it has it's place, but this form is overly intrusive and needed to be cracked. I guess my question is whether or not it makes any sense for a large company to paint a target on their backs like Ubisoft just did. They have gotten tons of negative press and have lost alot of credibility in many gamers eyes. The question is whether or not that will result in a long-term net loss in sales because people are less likely to buy from them; all at the expense of a short term (supposed) gain from having effective DRM for a few weeks.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of companies come to realize there is not much point in putting a lot of emphasis on DRM. Didn't Apple recently stop placing DRM on its music files?

Usually DRM harms the legitimate consumer. Historically it has caused system problems or made the game unplayable for many retail purchasers. Sometimes DRM proves inconvenient for pirates, some games require specific workarounds or a lot of effort to make functional online, however nearly all are cracked.

This DRM is no exception. The servers were attacked when the DRM was released first (with a game called pirates i think?) and legitimate players could not play.

If the goal is to delay piracy then I think after the first month or so they should free the legitimate users from the DRM as well. This will benefit them in two ways: first it will create a delay from release to fully functional pirated copies. The second is that people who would have purchased the game but said that due to DRM they doubted they would (have heard many here say it) might decide to purchase the game after the one month release.

A third thing to consider is that more and more companies are giving perks to legitimate users and I think that it does in some form deter piracy of a good game. Leader boards, achievements (if done correctly), free DLC content, easily accessible community. I think when a game offers only a static single experience there is more of a chance that someone pirates it.

Of course everything here is simply my opinion, let us know yours.
 
The only consumer-friendly way to combat piracy is to put out a better product than the pirates do.

That's why titles such as World of Warcraft, and Steam-exclusive games such as The Orange Box, sell so incredibly well. It's also why Starcraft and Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2 were so tremendously profitable.

Instead of PUNISHING the pirates, services such as Steam, MMOs, and primarily online-focused games simply reward consumers by offering a better product. There's no form of piracy out there that can beat CD key server-side authentication FOR MULTIPLAYER. It's simply not possible, because all it takes is the master server revoking a CD Key and you have to reinstall with a new one. That's why alternate venues for pirates to play online (such as Garena) became big.

In short, fuck DRM, but kudos to developers who provide value to their consumers.
 
Zenoth said:
I don't think that Ubisoft's actual goal is to "stop" piracy, unless they're that delusional. The best thing they'll manage to do with any DRM (from any company) is to delay piracy a bit, for perhaps a week or two, which might be during that period when a game is supposed to sell the most. . . .
Click to expand...

True. But the first two weeks only sell the most for some genres, first person shooters, mostly. FPS game sales spike in those first two weeks or so, then drop off pretty quickly. RPG, RTS, and Adventure games, will typically sell 'average' but do it consistently for a few months. If the game is good anyway. If its bad, word gets out quickly, and sales drop fast.
 
fuzzybabybunny said:
It's been circumvented for at least a week, no? They just create an offline dummy "server" that runs on the local machine I think, and the game authenticates with that. Savegames are even good to go.
Click to expand...

No, they actually cracked the protection, the server emulation was created by someone else. Future UbiSh*t games with this protection will most likely be cracked rather quickly, which means legit customers will once again be the only ones effected by this garbage. Sad really.
 
Last edited:
mindcycle said:
No, they actually cracked the protection, the server emulation was created by someone else. Future UbiSh*t games with this protection will most likely be cracked rather quickly, which means legit customers will once again be the only ones effected by this garbage. Sad really.
Click to expand...

In the event they did, in fact, break the protection and are able to prevent reverse engineering of said "fix", it leaves Ubisoft in a position to reconsider their DRM stance. They could: a.) Come up with a new scheme of DRM, spending more money. b.) Roll out the current version and hope the pirates are bluffing. or c.) Do away with the DRM altogether and save paying customers from their garbage.

As unlikely as DRM-free games are, it will be interesting to see how they react towards this move on the pirates' parts.
 
Kudos to Skid Row!

I live in a location where there is no internet (broadband) and I have an Air Card (which works tremendously bad, on for 5 minutes, off for 5) so therefore an always on internet DRM has no place on my computer. Ubisoft is entirely off limits for me.

I have bought more music because of downloading from places like Napster (back in the day) than I would have without Napster. I got exposed to music I like that I would never have bought without my free sample. I bought atleast 30 CD's I wouldn't have. In fact I'm listening to one now 10 years later. Juno Reactor - Beyond the Infinite.

I don't support downloading pirated games, but I support removal of bad DRM for legit purchasers.
 
brandonb said:
I bought atleast 30 CD's I wouldn't have. In fact I'm listening to one now 10 years later. Juno Reactor - Beyond the Infinite.
Click to expand...
The sad part is that everything we're seeing these days is pointing toward a future where there will no longer BE physical media products to purchase anymore, it'll all be digital (which is unfortunate) and eventually subscription-based (which is tragic). They aich-ay-tee-ee *HATE* the fact that you made one ~$13 purchase 10 years ago and you're still enjoying it a decade later without having to pay anything else on top of that initial $13. Everything we've seen since the original Napster brouhaha has been aiming at a point where media content consumers will have to pay either a whether-you-use-it-or-not subscription fee or pay-per-view/listen/play on everything.
 
Jax Omen said:
The only consumer-friendly way to combat piracy is to put out a better product than the pirates do.

That's why titles such as World of Warcraft, and Steam-exclusive games such as The Orange Box, sell so incredibly well. It's also why Starcraft and Warcraft 3 and Diablo 2 were so tremendously profitable.

Instead of PUNISHING the pirates, services such as Steam, MMOs, and primarily online-focused games simply reward consumers by offering a better product. There's no form of piracy out there that can beat CD key server-side authentication FOR MULTIPLAYER. It's simply not possible, because all it takes is the master server revoking a CD Key and you have to reinstall with a new one. That's why alternate venues for pirates to play online (such as Garena) became big.

In short, fuck DRM, but kudos to developers who provide value to their consumers.
Click to expand...

Just a quick note here, most multiplayer games are hacked.

COD MW2 was multiplayer enabled until January patch. Even now you can download a hacked version and join a private match. Granted you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to do it.

COD 5 had a slew of servers enabled for the hacked version where the server would not check authenticity.

WOW even has servers up.

Everything on the Orange Box is fully hacked.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying I do think the best route is to offer more to legitimate users. Do this in the form of tournaments, leader boards, community, free DLCs, etc.
 
Lol. Just had to post this here since it's such an epic fail.

So not only was the new Splinter Cell fully cracked two days after release, the multiplayer was also cracked which allows pirates to play online for free.. What a joke Ubi's new DRM has turned out to be.

With a DRM system like Steam you can't play online even if you're running a cracked version of the software. They should have just gone with that. Seems like their DRM was pretty poorly thought out and/or programmed..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top