Ubisoft's New PC DRM Really Requires Net Access, Ends Game If Disconnected

[Golgatha]

As much as I hate this new DRM from UBI, I think there's a silver lining. You see, this DRM scheme is bound to affect a lot more people than things like SecuROM, and people will lose in-game progress because of it. This will cause then to look for the why of it, and thus our position against draconian DRM is strengthened as a whole.

Unfortunately, it also has the side effect of moving more PC gamers towards consoles. Sadly, even for me, if it plays best with a controller, I will most likely buy a console version of a game over the PC release anymore to avoid the anti-consumerist DRM included with many recent games. e.g. Dirt 2, Batman AA. Both of those games would run better on my PC and look better as well. However, I just refuse to deal with GFWL when I don't have to and the games are best played with a controller anyway. I'm especially glad I didn't get Batman AA on PC because I most likely would have downloaded a no-CD crack (I see no reason to put a disc in the drive for a game that's entirely installed on my HDD) and that would've messed up my game playthrough for sure.

 

[Nebor]

I can't really imagine it stopping pirates any more than connecting once per session would, and they have easily cracked once per session.

I'm not sure what you mean by "once per session." I don't have a great understanding of how gaming DRM works.

Perhaps if you had to call a phone number to voice verify your identity and receive a key that could launch the game every time? Similar to getting a new Windows activation key, but with some way of verifying that you'd purchased the game, maybe verifying the last 4 of the credit card used to buy the game.

 

[MStele]

This is all interesting because in the last few years EA went through a similar transition with DRM. They initially decided that harsh DRM was the way to go to stop piracy, just like Ubisoft. Anyone remember Spore and Mass Effect? Its important because Mass Effect was originally supposed to have limited activations as well as the requirement of needing an active connection to "phone home" every so often to validate the install. This isn't much different than the Ubisoft strategy, except that Ubisoft wants to keep the line open all the time.

EA learned a hard lesson from this. Even though gamers love to game, there is elastic demand associated with it. When they pull crap like this, gamers respond with their pocket books. Through these growing pains, EA learned that they needed a less tramatic approach to DRM while still protecting their interests. While its not perfect they found their compromise, and I think we should support them because its fair. Both Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 were released with simple disc check as media DRM. Neither has activation, nor any other online requirement to play the game. The catch is that if you want to use DLC or any other online component, you have to register the code that comes with the game and log in to access the content. With ME2 they even went so far as to offer the ability to purchase a code for the online component for ~$15 in the event you bought the game used and wanted to use DLC. I think EA/Bioware has a great DRM strategy. It isn't perfect, but at least it gives us the benefit of a doubt while providing them with a device for future profits that could offset losses due to piracy. Create a good product, and people will buy it.

I'm hoping Ubisoft quickly learns that even though their intentions are good it will be couterproductive.

 

[JoshGuru7]

This is a real answer for me: I would not even pay $1 for a copy of Assassins Creed 2 on a Steam sale. In fact, even if I got it free with a video card or somesuch deal, I wouldn't install it. Ubisoft put themselves permanently on my "Never Buy/Play" list with this latest bit of DRM hijinks.

I agree that you mostly believe that today. At the same time, I think the number of people in this thread who will believe that long term irregardlesss of both game quality and monetary price is stastically insignificant.

Answers like this remind me of a transit freight survey I looked at where every respondent said that one of their largest concerns was getting a guaranteed spot on a vessel sailing. At the same time, they all answered that they were extremely unwilling to pay a small freight surcharge in exchange for getting a guaranteed spot. The answers are conflicting, but perfectly rational when you realize that people voice their opinions strategically and it was in their own best interest to lobby for getting guaranteed spots for free. Of course once the system was implemented, every freight company that said they were "very unwilling" to consider the surcharge jumped at it since it was far less expensive then the risk of late deliveries and overtime expenses.

Threads like this provide people a good chance to rail against DRM and the unenlightened companies that still burden the poor PC consumers with it. They are not meaningful as any kind of evaluation of how people will actually act, and it's not clear at all that this is a poor business decision for Ubisoft. You have two conflicting forces as demand decreases in response to DRM depending on how much consumers dislike it, and demand increases in response to DRM as Ubisoft is able to sell software to people who would have otherwise pirated. I simply don't know which of these forces will be larger.

 

[TheJTrain]

Through these growing pains, EA learned that they needed a less tramatic approach to DRM while still protecting their interests. While its not perfect they found their compromise, and I think we should support them because its fair. Both Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 were released with simple disc check as media DRM. Neither has activation, nor any other online requirement to play the game. The catch is that if you want to use DLC or any other online component, you have to register the code that comes with the game and log in to access the content.

It's even better than that - even though the one-time-use code limits the use of that DLC to your unique EA Account, it does not then irrevocably tie the use of the game to your unique EA Account (meaning the game itself remains transferable), nor does it require you to be online to use the DLC you've already downloaded & installed. Once you've got it installed, you can play offline to your heart's content, with all the DLC installed. EA did good with that one.

I think EA/Bioware has a great DRM strategy. It isn't perfect, but at least it gives us the benefit of a doubt while providing them with a device for future profits that could offset losses due to piracy. Create a good product, and people will buy it.

I'm hoping Ubisoft quickly learns that even though their intentions are good it will be couterproductive.

EA, formerly the root of all evil, is the only one learning and trying to come to compromises with their customers (and that's who they're compromising with, not the pirates) - not Activision, Atari, or Ubisoft. I'm excited about the DRM mechanic they went with on DICE's BF:Bad Company 2. For the first time ever AFAIK, purchasers are given a choice as pertains to the DRM that happens when you install:
1) do a one-time-per-install internet authentication (a la Bioshock/Mass Effect 1/etc., but with an allegedly resettable 10-install limit), after which you can play offline without the disc in the drive, or
2) play offline from Day One, never having to go online ever, but requiring the disc to be in the drive every time.

Choice 1 is obviously for the folks who complain about the laborious chore of having to swap discs when they change games, and Choice 2 is obviously for the folks who complain about the invasiveness of having to ask permission (even once, or years from now) from a server that may or may not be there. Finally, a publisher has learned that Choice/Options/Variety is a Good Freaking Thing! More options, Good; fewer options, Bad. Selling AC2-PC for $60 and including both DLC packs is another example of Ubisoft not understanding this elementary staple of a free-market economy.

Keep in mind that although the biggest draw of BC2 will certainly be online multiplayer, it has a single-player campaign also, just like MW2. And although I'm thrilled with EA's inclusion of options around the DRM, I'm still unhappy with the way BF2142 (and assuming BC2 will be the same) irrevocably ties your game's serial to your unique EA Account, making it completely untransferable (no handing it down to my little brother when I'm done). I didn't know 2142 did that until a couple years after I bought it, but it's a testament to how great that game is (and how great I expect BC2 to be) that I didn't mind so much when I found out (and still play it from time to time) and will overlook it for BC2. BC2 will be the *first* game I knowingly, willingly pay more than $10 for that does that.

Speaking of which, to JoshGuru's point, I'm exactly the kind of guy he's talking about. Passed completely on Riddick: Dark Athena because of the DRM, but bought it for $5 from Direct2Drive during their 5-year anniversary sale. I'm still on the fence what I'll do when Splinter Cell Conviction comes out - I was really looking forward to it, but this DRM is unacceptable for a full-price purchase of a single-player game.

 

[ScorcherDarkly]

Requiring me to maintain an internet connection during a single player game is absolutely ridiculous. Ubisoft isn't getting my business as long as this practice is in place.

 

[mindcycle]

Ubisoft tried to defend it's crappy PC DRM

PC Gamer recently caused an uproar when it revealed just how malevolent Ubisoft's awful PC DRM was, informing the world that future Ubi games will kick you off your session if your Internet connection ever drops. While right-thinking people believe this is pathetic behavior, Ubisoft has defended itself. Or tried to, anyway.

"As long as you do not quit the game, the game will continue to try to reconnect for an unlimited time," says Ubisoft, as if that makes it better. "Once the game is able to reconnect, you will immediately be returned to your game.

"Where exactly you are reconnected in the game may differ from title to title. Settlers 7 reconnects at the exact point where the connection was lost, AC2 reconnects you at the last checkpoint. There are many checkpoints so you're back to the point where you got disconnected in no time."

According to Ubisoft, everything is alright because the game only boots you if the Internet connection is down for a prolonged period of time and it won't kick you if the connection slows. Of course, this still means that you can't play Ubisoft games on a laptop outside of the house and that if your network is down for any reason, you're not allowed to use the software you paid upwards of $40.

via: http://www.destructoid.com/ubisoft-tries-to-defend-its-crappy-pc-drm-164289.phtml

 

[Regs]

Yikes, that's a horrible idea.

 

[slag]

Requiring me to maintain an internet connection during a single player game is absolutely ridiculous. Ubisoft isn't getting my business as long as this practice is in place.

Out of curiousity, do you have broadband on your gaming pc and normally stay logged in on your connection?

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

I could still potentially buy this.

And then I'll download a "less than legitimate" copy that isn't crippled by poorly thought out UbiSoft DRM.

So then, ironically, I will be supporting the game and at the same time increasing the numbers of copies pirated.

I've done this for less DRM, I have no qualms about doing it again.

 

[CountZero]

Out of curiousity, do you have broadband on your gaming pc and normally stay logged in on your connection?

Does it matter? You keep harping on the idea that it is a low barrier of entry but its a completely uneeded and unwelcome barrier.

It would be like Activision requiring a Guitar Hero guitar connected to the PC to play the next WOW expansion. Sure maybe it wouldn't impact a lot of people but that doesn't mean it is good, it doesn't mean it wouldn't impact some people, and it would be just as useless.

 

[MStele]

Out of curiousity, do you have broadband on your gaming pc and normally stay logged in on your connection?

Whether his connection is persistant is beside the point. Many people game on computers that don't have persistant connections, whether it be because of they are on laptops, rural internet access, or are on quota systems. I bet if people had to have internet connections just to watch dvds or blu-ray discs they just purchased they'd have an absolute fit. What if your smart phone powered down and locked you out any time there was a signal drop.

While you could argue that gaming is optional and thus we are subject to be puppets to the whims of the developer, this new trend has wide reaching consequences within society. In this case, it is in fact the principle of it that matters more than the action itself. If they want to make software use conditional, then they need to be honest with the fact that they are renting licenses and not selling them, and lower the price to an appropriate level on par with netflix or gamefly. People understand that DRM is necessary for the most part, and are willing to accept a certain level on inconvenience to enjoy our hobby, but there is a critical mass of BS that will eventually be hit where people will just say screw it and move their attention and their money somewhere else.

It is true that the majority of us have persistant connections, but it is for that reason that we are being punished, instead of being thanked for giving them a manner in which to provide their service and make money. The internet should be seen as a source of prosperity, not an avenue for control.

 

[zagood]

I have broadband. I stay online 24/7. I don't have a laptop. I've been accepting of DRM and (knock on wood) haven't had any problems with it.

That being said, this is the most ridiculous DRM concept I've ever heard of. I wasn't planning on buying AssCreed II anyway (hated the first one), but I was pretty excited about The Settlers 7. Now there's no way I'll buy it. Not going to boycott Ubi, just not going to buy games with this specific DRM. They've just gone too far.

 

[wanderer27]

This probably sums it up best:

What happens if Ubisoft take the DRM servers offline for maintenance, or suffer a technical breakdown?
In the case of a server failure their games will be taken offline, and you'll be unable to play them. "The idea is to avoid that point as much as possible, but we have been clear from the beginning that the game does need an internet connection for you to play. So if it goes down for real for a little while, then yeah, you can't play.

"

For more from the latest update:

http://www.actiontrip.com/link.phtm...videogames.com/article.php?id=235596&site=pcg


Here's a link to the other threads on this:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2045315

Follow up:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2051566

Poll:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2052122

 

[mindcycle]

This probably sums it up best:
What happens if Ubisoft take the DRM servers offline for maintenance, or suffer a technical breakdown?
In the case of a server failure their games will be taken offline, and you'll be unable to play them. "The idea is to avoid that point as much as possible, but we have been clear from the beginning that the game does need an internet connection for you to play. So if it goes down for real for a little while, then yeah, you can't play.

"

lol They have no idea what they are getting themselves into. Below is another one of their answers from the interview..

How will I know what I'll lose? *referring to being disconnected during play
"You'll have to wait for the reviews, and to hear what your peers are saying."

This is hilarious to me. They are basically saying that we'll need to wait for player reviews to roll in until we know the real impact of this shitty DRM. Makes you want to preorder the new Splinter Cell hu..?

 

[raystorm]

Can you imagine playing this game and you make this huge jump and then right when you are in the air ..POW... disconnected! LOL What a disaster. The game's steam page already updated with the DRM information and that $60 price point. I refuse to support this drm and its a port of a months old console game.

This is from the steam page:

A PERMANENT HIGH SPEED INTERNET CONNECTION AND CREATION OF A UBISOFT ACCOUNT ARE REQUIRED TO PLAY THIS VIDEO GAME AT ALL TIMES AND TO UNLOCK EXCLUSIVE CONTENT. SUCH CONTENT MAY ONLY BE UNLOCKED ONE SINGLE TIME WITH A UNIQUE KEY. YOU MUST BE AT LEAST 13 TO CREATE A UBISOFT ACCOUNT WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT. UBISOFT MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONLINE FEATURES UPON A 30-DAY PRIOR NOTICE PUBLISHED AT http://assassinscreed.com

cancel online features upon a 30 day prior notice too? oh lordy

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

I could still potentially buy this.

And then I'll download a "less than legitimate" copy that isn't crippled by poorly thought out UbiSoft DRM.

So then, ironically, I will be supporting the game and at the same time increasing the numbers of copies pirated.

I've done this for less DRM, I have no qualms about doing it again.

But you'd still be supporting the DRM, how does that help?

 

[TheJTrain]

I was holding out hope that maybe they'd see the outcry and keep it out of Splinter Cell Conviction, but alas, I'm resigned to wait for the inevitable fire-sale price. Maybe sales will be so rock-bottom that we won't have to wait for the Steam Holiday Sale to get it for $7.50!

 

[raystorm]

Assassin's Creed 2 is already #4 under top sellers in steam??? lol

 

[KaOTiK]

Assassin's Creed 2 is already #4 under top sellers in steam??? lol

Yeah, makes me sad. There are way to many lemmings out there. The silent majority kill any efforts the vocal minority of us try in defending against this crap

 

[Niku]

I have never been so consistently let down a game company.

 

[Qbah]

Yeah, makes me sad. There are way to many lemmings out there. The silent majority kill any efforts the vocal minority of us try in defending against this crap

Or maybe, just maybe, people don't mind this DRM? You got like 5 million people playing WoW (I don't count the other 6 million Chinesee) that don't mind the constant online requirement. Looks like quite a few of them play other games too. Or people in general don't find it too restricting. And they just want to enjoy the game.

Btw I really don't like this DRM but it looks like I'm in the minority. Talked to a few friends and they don't mind it at all since they're online 100% of time anyway.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Or maybe, just maybe, people don't mind this DRM? You got like 5 million people playing WoW (I don't count the other 6 million Chinesee) that don't mind the constant online requirement. Looks like quite a few of them play other games too. Or people in general don't find it too restricting. And they just want to enjoy the game.

It depends a lot on the game. Personally, I think $60 for AC2 with both DRM packs is very reasonable since it's a pretty huge game and this type of DRM only knocks a few bucks off what I'd be willing to pay otherwise. The DRM scheme here doesn't bother me very much for a single game, since I have hundreds of games and can simply play something else if I don't have access to the internet.

However, there is something to be said for larger system effects. Should most games eventually adopt this DRM strategy then I would be willing to pay much less than I am now, and the titles that shipped DRM free would see a large boost in demand.

 

[you2]

Actually it is quite a bit worse than that. Not only do you have to maintain an internet connection; but UBIsoft sever has to (a) stay up and (b) maintain an internet connection.

While I'm sure (actually I really shouldn't be sure here) they have some network and machine redundancy given the high level description of their system (and the slop in most of these system - just look at GFWL) I'm fairly confident there will be periods of disconnect while you have internet connection.

Now perhaps things have not been described accurately (UBIsoft history (to me) suggest they have) and we are being too harsh).

Requiring me to maintain an internet connection during a single player game is absolutely ridiculous. Ubisoft isn't getting my business as long as this practice is in place.

 

[mindcycle]

Or maybe, just maybe, people don't mind this DRM? You got like 5 million people playing WoW (I don't count the other 6 million Chinesee) that don't mind the constant online requirement.

The WoW argument that you and others have mentioned doesn't really hold water IMO. WoW is a multiplayer game which is played online, thus an internet connection is essential to play the game. With Assassins Creed 2 an internet connection isn't needed at all as it's a single player game. Requiring an internet connection is an extra roadblock that legit customers will have to deal with so Ubisoft can fight against people who aren't customers of theirs and probably never will be.