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

[Qbah]

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.

Yes, people probably could be upset and I'm sure a few are. But it seems most aren't as the game is on the 3rd top selling spot on Steam now. And why does it matter if it's an online game or offline? Most people play online games so by definition they need 100% uptime. And there are a lot of those people willing to spend the money (aka WoW players). It's a rather safe bet from Ubisoft imo

So even though in theory this should be a deal breaker to many people, as you claim, in reality it is not and people are perfectly fine with it. As long as they get to enjoy the game, they don't care. And as I said, none of my friends had an issue with it, their reasoning being "well, I'm connected to the internet all the time so I don't care".

I wouldn't buy a game with this kind of DRM. Then again, I play on my Xbox, so I care even less. If there would be a game like that on Xbox, I wouldn't buy it. I can speculate though (as I did). I thought it would stop many people from buying the game, I was wrong (as many of the vocal people here). We are the minority and you don't make games for minority - you go bust if you do. Most people don't mind and it will hinder piracy (or push more people towards consoles). Either way - more sales for Ubisoft.

 

[mooncancook]

I simply won't buy games sold with this level of asshattery attached. The companies doing this will simply not listen to anything until it hits their pocketbook.

Sadly, I think there are too many sheeple out there who will happily buy and remain totally unaware of this until they lose game progress at some point and hit the support forums. At that point it'll be too late.

Class action follows for not informing customers up front?

 

[Qbah]

Class action follows for not informing customers up front?

Unless you didn't read the ALL CAPS information under 3rd PARTY DRM then yeah... I guess you can go to court (the only possibility being you can't read). Then again, how would you know how to call a lawyer, you can't read numbers either...

I'm sure there's also a necessary information included on the boxed version.

 

[Alienwho]

This will be cracked within days. Ubisoft is putting a giant target on its face and giving the double bird/F U/invitation to be humiliated by crackers and pirates. I don't see this as being a very large obstacle for pirates to overcome.

 

[mindcycle]

And why does it matter if it's an online game or offline? Most people play online games so by definition they need 100% uptime.

Most PC gamers don't play online games, they play single player games. Sure WoW has 10 mil subscribers, but not all of those people play WoW constantly and there are lots of them who probably don't play at all. Casual gamers make up most of the market, and they're playing peggle and solitare.

So even though in theory this should be a deal breaker to many people, as you claim, in reality it is not and people are perfectly fine with it.

I'm not claiming it's a deal breaker for anyone but myself. If people want to buy products that severely limit their rights as consumers, that's fine, it's their choice. However, just like the Spore debacle, i'm sure Ubisoft will see some severely pissed off customers when this shit really hits the fan. When you focus on non-customers over and above your actual customers, there are going to be issues.

I wouldn't buy a game with this kind of DRM. Then again, I play on my Xbox, so I care even less. ... We are the minority and you don't make games for minority - you go bust if you do. Most people don't mind and it will hinder piracy (or push more people towards consoles). Either way - more sales for Ubisoft.

I agree with you. Ubisoft (just like EA during the Spore debacle) is talking about percentages of people who will be affected by this DRM. To them it appears it will be a drop in the bucket. I remember EA claiming that under 1% of customers had issues with the DRM used in Spore. But the funny thing is, after all the bad press, complaints, boycotts, etc.. they decided to drop the activation/install limit based DRM when they realized it did nothing but piss off the people actually paying them money. I imagine that Ubisoft will realize the same thing very shortly.

 

[CountZero]

Yes, people probably could be upset and I'm sure a few are. But it seems most aren't as the game is on the 3rd top selling spot on Steam now. And why does it matter if it's an online game or offline? Most people play online games so by definition they need 100% uptime. And there are a lot of those people willing to spend the money (aka WoW players). It's a rather safe bet from Ubisoft imo

So even though in theory this should be a deal breaker to many people, as you claim, in reality it is not and people are perfectly fine with it. As long as they get to enjoy the game, they don't care. And as I said, none of my friends had an issue with it, their reasoning being "well, I'm connected to the internet all the time so I don't care".

I wouldn't buy a game with this kind of DRM. Then again, I play on my Xbox, so I care even less. If there would be a game like that on Xbox, I wouldn't buy it. I can speculate though (as I did). I thought it would stop many people from buying the game, I was wrong (as many of the vocal people here). We are the minority and you don't make games for minority - you go bust if you do. Most people don't mind and it will hinder piracy (or push more people towards consoles). Either way - more sales for Ubisoft.

I'd bet money that >=50% of the sales on Steam don't really know the extent of the DRM. I'm not saying it'd stop all of them from purchasing it but it would probably stop some.

Your last paragraph has two major fallacies. The first is that making a game without DRM would be making that game for the minority. Making a game with strict DRM excludes a minority whereas making a game with no DRM excludes no one. The second is that this will hinder piracy. I'd wager that *ANY* moderately popular single player game that has been released in the last 6 years no matter the DRM system employed has been pirated. This game will be no different. The DRM system will not at all equal more sales for UBI. If anything it will be a small loss of sales with no gain. Most people that were going to buy it do, some that were don't because of DRM and those that were going to pirate it will do it anyway.

 

[mooncancook]

Unless you didn't read the ALL CAPS information under 3rd PARTY DRM then yeah... I guess you can go to court (the only possibility being you can't read). Then again, how would you know how to call a lawyer, you can't read numbers either...

I'm sure there's also a necessary information included on the boxed version.

My response was based on "Sadly, I think there are too many sheeple out there who will happily buy and remain totally unaware of this". If it's written clearly on the box and they are unaware then they deserve to be screwed. But the DRM wording does not states that you'll lose all progress from last save (if such 'feature' is true) whenever a connection is lost, which can be a ground for complaints.

 

[CountZero]

My response was based on "Sadly, I think there are too many sheeple out there who will happily buy and remain totally unaware of this". If it's written clearly on the box and they are unaware then they deserve to be screwed. But the DRM wording does not states that you'll lose all progress from last save (if such 'feature' is true) whenever a connection is lost, which can be a ground for complaints.

To be fair, had I not read about this in several places and gotten confirmation from UBI I would have never guessed that any company would introduce a policy that boots you from a single player game if you lose connection with their server for any amount of time. Even if I interpreted the all caps warning in that way I would've assumed it was my own cynicism and that couldn't possibly be how it works.

 

[Qbah]

I'd bet money that >=50% of the sales on Steam don't really know the extent of the DRM. I'm not saying it'd stop all of them from purchasing it but it would probably stop some.

Your last paragraph has two major fallacies. The first is that making a game without DRM would be making that game for the minority. Making a game with strict DRM excludes a minority whereas making a game with no DRM excludes no one. The second is that this will hinder piracy. I'd wager that *ANY* moderately popular single player game that has been released in the last 6 years no matter the DRM system employed has been pirated. This game will be no different. The DRM system will not at all equal more sales for UBI. If anything it will be a small loss of sales with no gain. Most people that were going to buy it do, some that were don't because of DRM and those that were going to pirate it will do it anyway.

It is possible this form will be harder to crack and won't just require a simple .exe overwrite or 1-2 .dll overwrite. So it might be harder to play the game pirated and many people won't bother (due to them not knowing how for example). If they will want to play the game badly, they will need to buy it (either on PC or consoles).

I believe the protection in general is not only to make people buy the games legally, but also to stop pirates from playing it. It's naive to believe every pirate will buy a legal game if the DRM will stop him from pirating it, but at least they won't play it.

Since it was very easy to download a pirated game (still is for most of them) there is a temptation for everybody. And it's only human nature to give in to temptation. Sure, you might buy most of the games legally, but you might have a worse month or are short on cash or have to spend on something else. And a pirated game is easy prey then - just download and play, nobody will know anyway. "I'll buy it later or I'll buy the next game legally". A game that cannot be pirated easily won't be played by pirates. And perhaps some of them might even buy a legal copy.

A normal person, with steady income and a regular job, has no need to break the law. They can afford most casual things anyway - like gaming. And they won't be given a temptation to download a pirate either.

All of that IMO ofc

 

[JujuFish]

It's naive to believe every pirate will buy a legal game if the DRM will stop him from pirating it, but at least they won't play it.

It's naive to think DRM will stop piracy. Even Ubisoft expects their DRM to be hacked; they're just hoping it takes a while.

 

[TheJTrain]

Personally, I think $60 for AC2 with both DLC packs is very reasonable

I'm sure they're counting on the hope that they're including both DLC packs will ease folks' reservations on the price, but it's a consumer-unfriendly move, by definition.

Fewer choices = bad. More choices = good.

Bioware's "Project $10" is a more consumer-friendly way of doing almost exactly what Ubisoft is doing here. Ubisoft is forcing buyers to pay extra for DLC they may or may not want. Bioware puts it out there as an option that people can take advantage of if they want to, but are not forced to buy anything they don't want.

 

[Qbah]

It's naive to think DRM will stop piracy. Even Ubisoft expects their DRM to be hacked; they're just hoping it takes a while.

An excellent point. Basically, launching a game with no DRM these days means day one pirating will be huge. And some of that is lost sales. People have a nasty habit of doing things if they're easy and don't have any real punishment connected to them.

So the longer it will take for the DRM to be cracked, the longer the game will have time to be bought by people who may consider buying it (but would still pirate it if it's possible). And as I said, the newest Ubisoft DRM scheme doesn't really bother that many people I talked to (compared to activation limits for example).

Obviously people who consider only pirating games, won't buy it anyway. But at least they won't be playing the game until a working crack is available. And since that may take months, they can very well forget about it in the end.

 

[mindcycle]

So the longer it will take for the DRM to be cracked, the longer the game will have time to be bought by people who may consider buying it (but would still pirate it if it's possible).

Which is data no one will ever know and is mostly speculation by publishers.

Obviously people who consider only pirating games, won't buy it anyway. But at least they won't be playing the game until a working crack is available. And since that may take months, they can very well forget about it in the end.

But is preventing pirates from playing your game really worth inconveniencing your actual paying customer base to "maybe" sell more copies to people who don't buy games? Seems pretty ridiculous to me..

PC games sales are affected by poorly optimized ports, long delayed releases, DRM, etc.. way more directly than piracy. Those things are actual tangible evidence as to why PC games don't generate more profits. Publishers need to face reality and quit trying to make piracy out to be this huge problem. Piracy has always existed and will continue to exist. The smart thing to do is focus on your actual paying customers and provide them with greater incentives to buy your product, not to fighting a war you will never win. Stardock did it, there's no reason Ubisoft can't do the same thing. They just choose to stick their head in the sand instead.

 

[Qbah]

Which is data no one will ever know and is mostly speculation by publishers.

Well, they can't just have no protection... This will cause piracy for sure. An unsure person who will buy the game out of convince is a gained sale. Since pirating the game will be more hassle and they will need to wait to save a few bucks. Hence it will be easier to just buy the game (through Steam for example).

But is preventing pirates from playing your game really worth inconveniencing your actual paying customer base to "maybe" sell more copies to people who don't buy games? Seems pretty ridiculous to me..

Again, this is your personal view which seems to be a big minority (a part of which I am too). Most people don't care at all or enough for a 100% online requirement to be even an annoyance to them. All they need to care is that they're online and nothing more. And since they're online all the time, to browse stuff, Facebook, mail, news, etc it's not really a big deal (a deal at all for them) for a game to require it too.

 

[mindcycle]

Well, they can't just have no protection... This will cause piracy for sure. An unsure person who will buy the game out of convince is a gained sale. Since pirating the game will be more hassle and they will need to wait to save a few bucks. Hence it will be easier to just buy the game (through Steam for example).

Like I said, piracy will exist whether you or I want it to or not. Having no protection doesn't mean a product will be pirated anymore than if it had the most draconian DRM out there. Why? Because the pirated copy has no protection either way, it's either ripped out or not there to begin with. Employing DRM makes no difference in the end and only affects legit buyers.

Again, this is your personal view which seems to be a big minority (a part of which I am too). Most people don't care at all or enough for a 100% online requirement to be even an annoyance to them. All they need to care is that they're online and nothing more. And since they're online all the time, to browse stuff, Facebook, mail, news, etc it's not really a big deal (a deal at all for them) for a game to require it too.

You're right, it is a personal view. However, my view is based off evidence as well. I followed the Spore/EA debacle very closely and EA claimed more that just a few times that their DRM wasn't a huge deal and wouldn't affect "many" people. Yet at the end of the day they received huge amounts of negative press, frustrated customers, and eventually realized the DRM they were using was doing more harm than good.

Many people don't yet know, or haven't been affected by this new DRM, but rest assured that when they do it's not going to be very pretty for Ubisoft. You'd think they'd have learned already after the whole starforce thing.. lol

 

[smackababy]

Well, they can't just have no protection... This will cause piracy for sure. An unsure person who will buy the game out of convince is a gained sale. Since pirating the game will be more hassle and they will need to wait to save a few bucks. Hence it will be easier to just buy the game (through Steam for example).



Again, this is your personal view which seems to be a big minority (a part of which I am too). Most people don't care at all or enough for a 100% online requirement to be even an annoyance to them. All they need to care is that they're online and nothing more. And since they're online all the time, to browse stuff, Facebook, mail, news, etc it's not really a big deal (a deal at all for them) for a game to require it too.

1. Putting no DRM will not cause piracy. Piracy is caused by the want to play a game without paying for it. You cannot implement DRM to stop piracy. Pirates are ahead of the curve and game companies are trying to keep up.

2. DRM will not become an issue until it affects the individuals who have it. The majority of customers are uninformed and simply wish to enjoy their game. Of course, those that read the box and see the DRM don't think much of it until their internet goes out, and a game they paid $60 for to play by themselves, can no longer do this.

3. Paying customers are the ones being targeted in this DRM game. The majority of "pirates" are people who know how to use a torrent and replace a few files described in the readme. If they were truly against pirates (the few who can hack their attempts at forcing consumers through enough loop holes to stop hacks) they would stop targeting the wrong people. These publishing companies are getting large enough they can pressure the right people to get the original torrenter. You stop the release of a pirated copy, you halt the pirates for awhile. Eventually, there will be another, yes, but force out enough and you can scare enough normal people not to upload the game in the first place.


Simple CD checks are one thing, but this forcing of phone home is a little too big brother for me. I won't touch a UbiSoft game from here on out. Say what you want about pricing, but rest assured, even if I got the game for free without the DRM (read as pirated), I wouldn't dare install it to give them another player.

 

[AndroidVageta]

Most people don't mind and it will hinder piracy (or push more people towards consoles). Either way - more sales for Ubisoft.

Most people may not mind, yes. Will it hinder piracy? No. Will it push more people to consoles? No.

My view is this...if you already plan on pirating this game or pirate every game...then this DRM is hurting people that only buy games and dont pirate at all. If Im someone that pirates all my games then this DRM in no way would affect me. I would simply just pirate the game once a crack is available...which granted this may not be on launch day...and may be a couple months after the game is out (which was the case for games like GTA IV) but EVENTUALLY the game will be cracked, most likely even with local game saves.

Basically, if you pirate you have no intention of BUYING this game to begin with...so DRM really only affects those that are willing to pay. Piracy doesnt hurt the gaming community as those that pirate were NOT going to buy the game in the first place.

 

[you2]

Well - my projection is that this DRM will lower pc sales; ex will then claim that pc sales are lagging due to lack of interest and piracy and will produce more console games and fewer pc games.To be honest the last UBI soft game I purchased that I enjoyed was far cry (not far cry 2) so I'm not sure there is much of a loss here. The last 3 or 4 games I've purchased that I've enjoyed have been from other publishers (1c (KB series, space ranger 2)), total war, DA/ME2... so I'm not sure there is a big loss here. With games being produced like witcher, king bounty, total war, ... why mourn the loss ?

 

[Qbah]

1. Putting no DRM will not cause piracy. Piracy is caused by the want to play a game without paying for it. You cannot implement DRM to stop piracy. Pirates are ahead of the curve and game companies are trying to keep up.

2. DRM will not become an issue until it affects the individuals who have it. The majority of customers are uninformed and simply wish to enjoy their game. Of course, those that read the box and see the DRM don't think much of it until their internet goes out, and a game they paid $60 for to play by themselves, can no longer do this.

3. Paying customers are the ones being targeted in this DRM game. The majority of "pirates" are people who know how to use a torrent and replace a few files described in the readme. If they were truly against pirates (the few who can hack their attempts at forcing consumers through enough loop holes to stop hacks) they would stop targeting the wrong people. These publishing companies are getting large enough they can pressure the right people to get the original torrenter. You stop the release of a pirated copy, you halt the pirates for awhile. Eventually, there will be another, yes, but force out enough and you can scare enough normal people not to upload the game in the first place.


Simple CD checks are one thing, but this forcing of phone home is a little too big brother for me. I won't touch a UbiSoft game from here on out. Say what you want about pricing, but rest assured, even if I got the game for free without the DRM (read as pirated), I wouldn't dare install it to give them another player.

1. By allowing a game to be available in pirated form from day one, no DRM causes piracy. By giving people "on the fence" an option to get the game for free. Die-hard pirates won't buy it anyway but at least they will need to get a crack - hence a good DRM won't give them day one gaming. And people wanting to game and seeing no other option apart from legal (due to impatience, convenience or a sudden change of heart ) will cought the bucks for a legit copy. Add a huge buzz about the game and people will want to play this day 1 No crack available? Ohh well, might as well buy it.

2. If their internet goes out I'm sure they have other things they can do. Not to mention this should be very very rare. Unless you're a spoiled 5 year old that jumps and cries each time he doesn't get his toy or candy, this will be a non issue and the chance of it happening is slim at best for an even lower chance of reoccurring. If your local tower (for cell phones) has problems or you get a "No Service" message for a few minutes, do you scream bloody murder at your provider and swear to never use their services again?

3. Again, this seems to be a non-issue for people who have broadband. When was the last time you had an outage? And even then, how long was it? Surely those happen very very rarely. And Ubisoft will make sure their servers are up 100%e. If you have no power? You can't play anything else anyway. This doesn't install anything extra on your PC (like TAGES, SecuROM etc do). You just need to be online, that's it.

Simple CD checks or phone home each start won't stop anything and are borderline useless. A specially changed .exe is all that's required usually. So this doesn't delay pirated copies at all. You get that day 1 or even pre-release. Now those are useless.

So my take - hard to crack DRM + a lot of buzz = gained sales. People will want to play a game ASAP and no available pirated copy will force them into buying the game. Or not buy it at all - but those are die-hard pirates and nothing will change them (so they're not considered anyway).

EDIT (for AndroidVageta and mindcycle): My take is pirates are "gray" people for the most part. As in not totally rotten cheaters. If you inconvenience them enough (here: with a long wait for a working crack) and they want to play a particular game, they will buy it. This market isn't black (pirates forever) or white (legit users) imo. It's gray (pirates out of convenience - just download and play).

 

[wanderer27]

1. By allowing a game to be available in pirated form from day one, no DRM causes piracy. By giving people "on the fence" an option to get the game for free. Die-hard pirates won't buy it anyway but at least they will need to get a crack - hence a good DRM won't give them day one gaming. And people wanting to game and seeing no other option apart from legal (due to impatience, convenience or a sudden change of heart ) will cought the bucks for a legit copy. Add a huge buzz about the game and people will want to play this day 1 No crack available? Ohh well, might as well buy it.

2. If their internet goes out I'm sure they have other things they can do. Not to mention this should be very very rare. Unless you're a spoiled 5 year old that jumps and cries each time he doesn't get his toy or candy, this will be a non issue and the chance of it happening is slim at best for an even lower chance of reoccurring. If your local tower (for cell phones) has problems or you get a "No Service" message for a few minutes, do you scream bloody murder at your provider and swear to never use their services again?

So, if you buy a car that won't work or occasionally craps out on you in the middle of the Highway that's just fine and dandy ?

Not quite the same thing?
Well, yes it is - it's your property, you paid for it, it better damn well work.

3. Again, this seems to be a non-issue for people who have broadband. When was the last time you had an outage? And even then, how long was it? Surely those happen very very rarely. And Ubisoft will make sure their servers are up 100%e. If you have no power? You can't play anything else anyway. This doesn't install anything extra on your PC (like TAGES, SecuROM etc do). You just need to be online, that's it.

Simple CD checks or phone home each start won't stop anything and are borderline useless. A specially changed .exe is all that's required usually. So this doesn't delay pirated copies at all. You get that day 1 or even pre-release. Now those are useless.

So my take - hard to crack DRM + a lot of buzz = gained sales. People will want to play a game ASAP and no available pirated copy will force them into buying the game. Or not buy it at all - but those are die-hard pirates and nothing will change them (so they're not considered anyway).

EDIT (for AndroidVageta and mindcycle): My take is pirates are "gray" people for the most part. As in not totally rotten cheaters. If you inconvenience them enough (here: with a long wait for a working crack) and they want to play a particular game, they will buy it. This market isn't black (pirates forever) or white (legit users) imo. It's gray (pirates out of convenience - just download and play).

I have Broadband (Comcast) service and trust me, it's not as reliable as you think it is.
I've had multiple "service" outages just this year.

At other times, the service just plain drops out for several seconds.
If it weren't for the fact that the Cable Modem is sitting right by my System I'd most likely not even know service had gone out.
This sometimes happens several times a day.

I can guarantee you, with this DRM scheme I'd be noticing a whole lot more outages, and I'm sure we're probably getting ready to get a much clearer picture of just how reliable Broadband is.

 

[Qbah]

So, if you buy a car that won't work or occasionally craps out on you in the middle of the Highway that's just fine and dandy ?

Not quite the same thing?
Well, yes it is - it's your property, you paid for it, it better damn well work.

It's not fine but it happens. As with everything made by humans. Even offline games sometimes refuse to work and require patching. It doesn't stop you from buying them, now does it?

I have Broadband (Comcast) service and trust me, it's not as reliable as you think it is.
I've had multiple "service" outages just this year.

At other times, the service just plain drops out for several seconds.
If it weren't for the fact that the Cable Modem is sitting right by my System I'd most likely not even know service had gone out.
This sometimes happens several times a day.

I can guarantee you, with this DRM scheme I'd be noticing a whole lot more outages, and I'm sure we're probably getting ready to get a much clearer picture of just how reliable Broadband is.

Perhaps Ubisoft has taken steps to include very short time-outs for not dropping the current game? The game isn't out yet so we don't really know how strict this DRM is.

EDIT: As for reliability, I've been a hardcore WoW player for 2 years. Problems were very very rare and I played daily for two years. And even a small outage means zero play in this game. So many people play CS: S still and you need a very good connection for it with latency under 100ms. This DRM requires only a connection, I don't think it will be any problem at all for most people - so a high latency or low bandwidth won't really matter - I'm sure there's some flexibility built into it.

 

[mindcycle]

If your local tower (for cell phones) has problems or you get a "No Service" message for a few minutes, do you scream bloody murder at your provider and swear to never use their services again?

The flaw in your logic here is that with a cell phone you are required to have a connection to a cell tower in order for the service to work. With a single player computer game you aren't required to have a connection to the internet in order for the game to work. It's simply a restriction set in place by the publisher and isn't a technical requirement for the game to function like a cell tower would be for a cell phone. I get what you're going for here, but the logic you are using to make these comparisons is severely flawed.

 

[wanderer27]

It's not fine but it happens. As with everything made by humans. Even offline games sometimes refuse to work and require patching. It doesn't stop you from buying them, now does it?

Oh, absolutely I wouldn't buy something that is known to be glitchy - that is just a total waste of time/money/etc. as well as a great source of frustration.

In the case of most things, you can take the item back or have it replaced/repaired.
That's not really an option here - most places won't do a refund, and there is no guarantee they'll patch this out (they've phrased it gray enough to indicate this).

Perhaps Ubisoft has taken steps to include very short time-outs for not dropping the current game? The game isn't out yet so we don't really know how strict this DRM is.

EDIT: As for reliability, I've been a hardcore WoW player for 2 years. Problems were very very rare and I played daily for two years. And even a small outage means zero play in this game. So many people play CS: S still and you need a very good connection for it with latency under 100ms. This DRM requires only a connection, I don't think it will be any problem at all for most people - so a high latency or low bandwidth won't really matter - I'm sure there's some flexibility built into it.

Agreed. We don't yet know how truly onerous this is going to be yet, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[you2]

This is a naive and over simplification of the issue. First it will happen though we can bicker over the defn of frequent and infrequent. Likewise when it does happen the reaction will be very negative. It has little to do with % time of availability but rather intrusion and expectation. If every time your music device lost connection and stopped playing a stored song your reaction would likely be different than if the station stopped broadcasting. In the first case it is intrusion the second is technical difficulty. It has more to do psychology than availability. I purchased this [song, record, game] but I cannot use it because someone else might be misbehaving. This is rather different than the service is unavailable so it cannot be used.

Anyways the real question (and only one UBIsoft will consider) is how this impacts the bottom line. Do consumers accept it and buy the product AND does the effectiveness of this behavior increase overall cash flow.

My personal belief - though I have no real data - is the actual impact of piracy on the bottom line is real but relatively small. However large publishers like to blame piracy for all ills. This makes perfect sense esp when they have to answer to investors. They have committed no error in judgment (bad games, bad marketing, bloated budgets, bad strategy) rather the red ink is due to thieves.

There are probably valid examples where this has been the case and piracy probably does impact over all revenue by a noticeable percentage but well run companies in the PC gaming industry continue to be very profitable.

In the specific case of UBIsoft and Atari my gut feeling is that these companies have been run in a very shoddy fashion and piracy is playing a relatively minor role in their demise. But I have no data to support this argument.

1
2. If their internet goes out I'm sure they have other things they can do. Not to mention this should be very very rare. Unless you're a spoiled 5 year old that jumps and cries each time he doesn't get his toy or candy, this will be a non issue and the chance of it happening is slim at best for an even lower chance of reoccurring. If your local tower (for cell phones) has problems or you get a "No Service" message for a few minutes, do you scream bloody murder at your provider and swear to never use their services again?

.

 

[TheJTrain]

If your local tower (for cell phones) has problems or you get a "No Service" message for a few minutes, do you scream bloody murder at your provider and swear to never use their services again?

False comparison. I bought my iPhone expecting that I would need an operating connection to a cell tower to actually make a call - no surprise there, and although I get a little huffy when the connection mysteriously drops from 4 bars to 0 and then back to 4 30 seconds later, it's no real skin off my nose because the limitations of wireless connections are a very known, very expected quantity in today's tech. <b>BUT[/b] then I bought a game off the App Store, downloaded it, installed it, and started playing it. If the game that I bought & installed stopped freakin' working, on an otherwise perfectly healthy & operational piece of self-contained technology, just when my cell service goes out, that would be unacceptable.

One argument could be made defending Ubisoft as being able to make their own decisions and applauding them for being this clear, pre-release, about the restrictions they're placing on their customers, and that's sorta valid as far as it goes. They're setting expectations up front, after all, not waiting for people to spend their money and springing this on them after the transaction. The trump in my mind however is the blatant breach of the codified-into-law First-Sale Doctrine on purchases of copyrighted works (books, movies, music, games) on physical media (LPs, cassettes, CDs, DVDs). It was unacceptable when 2K Games, EA, Atari, Ubisoft, & Activision started requiring unique-account irrevocable registration online for physical copies, and this hasn't changed. By the court cases that have already been decided - Augusto v. UMG being the most relevant - (but are still being appealed by the losers in the cases - the publishers) it's clear that this kind of thing is illegal and hopefully the courts will show enough teeth to make the publishers knock it off.