That's not the point.
The point is that lots of gamers already have a persistent connection to the internet. That number only goes up over time as technology becomes cheaper and more widespread. To those with persistent connections, a DRM that requires internet access to play is no big deal. They might occasionally experience intermittent issues, but Ubisoft is basically banking on most gamers being the casual type (they are) and will just find something else to do.
JuJuFish said:
Love this logic.
I don't like invasive DRM. Company ABC uses invasive DRM in an effort to protect their work from being used without due compensation. Therefore, I am going to use it without compensating them to teach them a lesson!
One of the reasons to play SP vs MP games is lack of stable internet. Like, say, in airports, hotels, airplanes, trains and buses... Or even on wireless machines in your home. I have 3 gaming capable PCs in my house and only one is hardwired to the router. The others occasionally drop connections when the microwave is on.
This DRM is a massive value-subtract for a single player game. I won't say I'd never buy something with this kind of DRM, but I can guarantee I won't be paying day 1 A-title launch prices for a SP game with MP gaming drawbacks. Hell, many MP games recover from momentary connection loss gracefully, a SP game that does not is laughable.
So yeah, anything with this DRM is a "wait till it's $5 or less on Steam" for me and probably many others. Of course, by that time it should be cracked wide open and a hassle-free savegame stable version available for zero cost to those who don't feel like forking over money for a crippled version.
This DRM is a massive value-subtract for a single player game. I won't say I'd never buy something with this kind of DRM, but I can guarantee I won't be paying day 1 A-title launch prices for a SP game with MP gaming drawbacks. Hell, many MP games recover from momentary connection loss gracefully, a SP game that does not is laughable.
So yeah, anything with this DRM is a "wait till it's $5 or less on Steam" for me and probably many others. Of course, by that time it should be cracked wide open and a hassle-free savegame stable version available for zero cost to those who don't feel like forking over money for a crippled version.
kalrith
Diamond Member
- Aug 22, 2005
- 6,628
- 7
- 81
That's exactly what I would do as well. This is way too restrictive, and it's not as though it going to keep game cracks from existing.
Edit: However, unless it's a game that I just absolutely have to have, then I will shout my anti-DRM voice by not buying any of their games.
The big difference is one of those requirements should be completely unneeded for a single player game. It isn't that the requirement is difficult (though for some it is) it is that the requirement is useless.
It is like requiring a gutiar hero guitar for the next WOW expansion, totally uneeded and unwelcome.
Here's the other thing with your WOW comparison. Its pretty irritating when the wow servers are down and you want to play, but you know that you can't possibly play when their servers are down because it is online. But when you want to play a single player game and the server is down that is irritating at a whole new level. Having played GTAIV on a PC on more than one occasion when I fired it up I couldn't connect to GFWL and guess what, I couldn't load my saved games. It is exceptionally frustrating to want to load up a single player game and be told you can't because you can't make the connection to some other server elsewhere. You have zero control, at least in the GTAIV case I could play, just not my saved games. You hand over all control to a company that treats its customers as thieves until proven otherwise. The put no trust at all in the customer and yet ask you to trust them that it won't suck and if it does you can't return it anyways so too bad for you.
That is the point. When I purchased WoW, I purchased it because I fully intended to play online with other people. When I purchased Mass Effect 2, I had no intentions of ever using it for anything online. Therefore, there is no reason I should be forced to use a strictly single player game online at all times. In fact, I shouldn't even have to "prove" I am not "stealing" their game. The burden of proof is upon them. If they, the developers, cannot come up with a way to authenticate my game without innconviencing me, they deserve none of my money, nor will they get any.
Good thing you love this logic, because it works. Look at Spore. The DRM was so bad on release it became the number one pirated game. Therefore, the idea that company A uses invasive DRM that has been / will be proven to not stop pirates is easily taught a lesson at the expense of sales. Showing them that if they had, in fact, harassed the paying customers less they might have had more sales is a lesson well learned and easily taught.
I am against piracy to the fullest extent, but I am more against forcing honest people to do more to prove they're honest because a few others are not.
In this instance, DRM actually did me a favor.
I would have probably picked up Spore, but it's DRM was so offensive that I put it on my "hold" list.
After looking at some of the reviews and posts in regards to the game, I'm glad I didn't waste my time or money on it.
I'll take a run at another analogy of the difference between a reasonable technical requirement and an unreasonable arbitrary requirement, see if this gets the point across.
There's a requirement that you use gasoline in your car to make it run because it won't run on water. That's a reasonable technical requirement because of the state of the tech - we don't yet have cars that run on water. An unreasonable arbitrary requirement would be not only do we have to use gasoline in our cars, but we also have to drive with OnStar active & on an open line all the time, with the OnStar people able to listen to any conversation happening in the car, just because Honda/Ford/Audi says we do. It has nothing to do with the operation of the car itself, it's just an arbitrary requirement the manufacturer put on its customer because it felt like it knowing what its customers were doing while driving.
That isn't an arbitrary requirement at all. You have stolen that car for all they know! You are using something others steal, you have to be a thief.
I played it a friends house and was not impressed at all. Funny story though: apparently, the game uploads your creations automaticall and allows them to show up as random species in others games. My friend's son (who was 8-9 at the time) loved the game and gleefully made many species. The "overlords" of the online game saw fit to ban his account because of a phallical shaped being his son had made. Now, this was a big stretch of the imagination to see this thing as a penis, but he was banned nonetheless.
Last edited:
I normally don't care about DRM very much, I've never really had a problem.
But this is something that does raise my hackles, especially killing an in-progress game if the connection goes down, that's way out of bounds and complete and utter bullshit.
Someone in the corner office needs the rubber hose treatment, this isn't going to fly.
But this is something that does raise my hackles, especially killing an in-progress game if the connection goes down, that's way out of bounds and complete and utter bullshit.
Someone in the corner office needs the rubber hose treatment, this isn't going to fly.
The only problem is, this is going to fly, at least for this release. The next game that has the requirement will most likely sell far less. The majority of consumers don't take DRM into consideration until it adversly effects them. Once it does, however, they become vocal both in langauge to others and with their wallets.
Since this thread doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon and are rethreading on many of the ideas that were discussed in pages 1-4, i'm going to repost my original post in the hopes that any future posts will take into consideration what has already posted and will ultimately not post unless they bring something new to the table. Thank You 
P.S. Ubisoft sucks.
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.
P.S. Ubisoft sucks. 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.
JujuFish
Lifer
- Feb 3, 2005
- 11,513
- 1,083
- 136
Qbah
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2005
- 3,754
- 10
- 81
Why is it such a terrible terrible requirement to accept, that games, whether single or multi-player, will require an online computer? Yes, I get the whole single/multi-player difference. Yes, it's a new thing. Yes, I don't really like it. But if it won't affect me that much (as in drop the game constantly, cause saving problems, loading etc) I can see myself accepting it - should the game requiring it be fun for me. I am online anyway. It's a game, why does it matter if it's single-player or multi-player? In both cases you sit in front of a monitor and play.
When I was playing WoW and the servers were down was I upset? A bit, yeah. Though my "adventure" with this game was pretty unhealthy, so I was annoyed more than necessary. Did it matter once the servers went up? Not really, I forgot about the annoyance and the issue very fast. So if this thing would be infrequent I won't really mind, I guess.
And if it will help sales, why not? I don't really know anyone without a broadband connection - even my parents have a 4Mbps one at home. We will have to see the reaction though - but my belief is it won't really kill sales and may actually increase them. AC2 is a "hot" title and people will want to play it.
As for the fact that you're not connected all the time everywhere - seriously? Do you see yourself playing a game like AC2 in the train (those actually have WiFi now btw...)? Or on the bus? On a laptop? Really? Not to mention most airports have WiFi or you can use your phone as a modem and if that fails - play the game once you're home... I see it already: a 30 minute ride home and you pop out your laptop and play a game, on the bus/train... Heh. Yes, you need to do more to play the game and that will irk some people. But is it really a show stopper to not be able to "pop the gaming laptop out in a public place and game some"?
As for JujuFish:
Your words. Seems people you know find it acceptable to "punish" companies for using strict DRM by pirating their games (the "logic" crownjules is ridiculing). They don't like DRM in general and the harsher it is, the more they believe is their right to pirate the game. Now if they don't like the DRM - they shouldn't play the game. It's really that simple. They're trying to rationalize pirating (which is silly to say the least).
EDIT: I think if it was a bit milder, like checks after a save, autosave, checkpoint or load and not constantly (so only after your progress is saved) it wouldn't be as bad as it may be now. What do you all think? You still would need to be online, but connection issues wouldn't really be a dead-stop immediately after they happen. Only after an auto-save or a manual save or after you load a game. Also add an indicator if the connection to the server is down and that your game will break after the next save/load (with forced auto-saves this shouldn't be a problem - as the game will save if you want to progress further).
When I was playing WoW and the servers were down was I upset? A bit, yeah. Though my "adventure" with this game was pretty unhealthy, so I was annoyed more than necessary. Did it matter once the servers went up? Not really, I forgot about the annoyance and the issue very fast. So if this thing would be infrequent I won't really mind, I guess.
And if it will help sales, why not? I don't really know anyone without a broadband connection - even my parents have a 4Mbps one at home. We will have to see the reaction though - but my belief is it won't really kill sales and may actually increase them. AC2 is a "hot" title and people will want to play it.
As for the fact that you're not connected all the time everywhere - seriously? Do you see yourself playing a game like AC2 in the train (those actually have WiFi now btw...)? Or on the bus? On a laptop? Really? Not to mention most airports have WiFi or you can use your phone as a modem and if that fails - play the game once you're home... I see it already: a 30 minute ride home and you pop out your laptop and play a game, on the bus/train... Heh. Yes, you need to do more to play the game and that will irk some people. But is it really a show stopper to not be able to "pop the gaming laptop out in a public place and game some"?
As for JujuFish:
Your words. Seems people you know find it acceptable to "punish" companies for using strict DRM by pirating their games (the "logic" crownjules is ridiculing). They don't like DRM in general and the harsher it is, the more they believe is their right to pirate the game. Now if they don't like the DRM - they shouldn't play the game. It's really that simple. They're trying to rationalize pirating (which is silly to say the least).
EDIT: I think if it was a bit milder, like checks after a save, autosave, checkpoint or load and not constantly (so only after your progress is saved) it wouldn't be as bad as it may be now. What do you all think? You still would need to be online, but connection issues wouldn't really be a dead-stop immediately after they happen. Only after an auto-save or a manual save or after you load a game. Also add an indicator if the connection to the server is down and that your game will break after the next save/load (with forced auto-saves this shouldn't be a problem - as the game will save if you want to progress further).
Last edited:
JujuFish
Lifer
- Feb 3, 2005
- 11,513
- 1,083
- 136
Again, that logic is nowhere in my post. The people I know who are going to pirate it are doing so because they're pirates. They'd have pirated it whether it had the best DRM ever, or no DRM at all. They're merely more steadfast in their desires because of Ubisoft attempting to thwart them.
Pot. Frog. Water. Slllloooooowwww boil. Rachet.
When they did X, I didn't speak up because X didn't effect me. Etc.
Totally. Next thing you know Ubisoft will be shoving pirates into small camps with giant crematoriums.
You made it sound as though some of the people you knew who weren't purchasing it because of the DRM were instead going to resort to pirating to still play the game. These people do exist as Qbah pointed out and that is the logic I was referring to. That becoming part of the illegal problem these companies are combating (whether it's sound business or not is completely irrelevant) is somehow a solution.
Those were illustrations only, no reference was meant or implied on my part to Godwinize the discussion. The "I didn't speak because" thing started out as a reference to it, true, but it's been appropriated and applied to so many other things since then that at least IMO it's no longer a Godwinizing reference on its own.
Secondly, your hypothetical is false, given that the frog in the figurative pot is Ubisoft's customers (pirates remaining, as always, unaffected by how hot the water is).
Last edited:
JoshGuru7
Golden Member
- Aug 18, 2001
- 1,020
- 1
- 0
I find it interesting that many people would be perfectly happy with this DRM if not for their opinion that single player games shouldn't require internet access. An outside observer evaluating a single consumer may not detect a negative impact, yet the feeling of being wronged leads to strategic answers in this thread about boycotting the product.
The interesting part of all this to me is that most of the people in this thread feel directly wronged by Ubisoft rather than piracy. Why begrudge Ubisoft the option of trying whatever DRM scheme they want? It's not your product, it's their product.
There are also quite a few uses of the slippery slope fallacy in this thread but I won't respond to each. Basically, observing movement in one direction does not give you evidence to assume that the subsequent movement will even be in the same direction, let alone in the same direction with increased force. This DRM scheme could just as easily be a small wagon at the beginning of a very steep uphill section of a freeway crowded with semi-trucks travelling in the opposite direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy
The interesting part of all this to me is that most of the people in this thread feel directly wronged by Ubisoft rather than piracy. Why begrudge Ubisoft the option of trying whatever DRM scheme they want? It's not your product, it's their product.
There are also quite a few uses of the slippery slope fallacy in this thread but I won't respond to each. Basically, observing movement in one direction does not give you evidence to assume that the subsequent movement will even be in the same direction, let alone in the same direction with increased force. This DRM scheme could just as easily be a small wagon at the beginning of a very steep uphill section of a freeway crowded with semi-trucks travelling in the opposite direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy
I think you are wrong if you think people aren't upset with the pirates. The problem isn't that pirates exist its the companies response to pirates is to assume every copy of their software is an illegal copy until proven otherwise.
Its like securing your property against thieves. A lock and key is reasonable (or keycard for like office access). An armed guard that follows you around scanning your thumb every two minutes and if there is a hiccup in the system throws you out would be over the top.
For me it isn't about the internet connection directly (though that does sound irritating) its the surveillance of your activities while running their software. On top of the monitoring the idea that if they can't check up on you withing X amount of time then assume you are thief. I don't care about the internet connection but if you want my money you'll have to treat me better than that. I wouldn't shop at a store that set a security person to follow me the whole time and I won't give my money to a game company that does the same.
It's their product until I buy a physical copy, then it's my product (so says the courts), and they have to abide by the laws under which they are selling said product. Flouting the First-Sale and Fair-Use Doctrines is something that consumers should not tolerate from publishers.
Despite both your and the URL's inclusion of "fallacy" in the term, the wikipedia page clearly points out that Slippery Slope can either be used correctly as a valid argument, OR incorrectly & fallaciously. I don't think anyone here is claiming that any recent DRM is the "beginning" of anything at all. DRM has been slowly getting more strict for decades - I don't think there's any argument on that premise, as a general direction of things - I think I even recall you listing some of the examples over the years earlier in the thread. Recent exceptions like Stardock's approach and EA's approach on DA:O/ME2 are encouraging, that perhaps the until-now indomitable movement of ever-more-strict DRM might be coming to a halt.
Of course no one has any evidence of what this (or any other) DRM will or won't lead to - but should that stop those concerned from speaking their opinions in order to try and influence the eventual resumption of movement in a more consumer-friendly direction? I don't know the future. But I know what I don't want the future to be. Therefore I use my wallet and my keyboard to try to nudge it, however minutely, in the opposite direction.
- Jan 9, 2008
- 1,901
- 0
- 76
JoshGuru7 said:
This is exactly how I feel as well. If anything, publishers need to gain our trust so we'll buy their product, not the other way around. Getting angry at piracy isn't going to make it go away, just like yelling at a wall isn't going to make it move. Likewise, using draconian DRM isn't going to do much better, as has been shown in the past.
Now, realistically, is Ubisoft's DRM going to increase their sales? That's an unknown that neither I nor anyone else can answer. But my main concern is about the motivation behind strict DRM. Constant online authentication is not a customer friendly approach in any way, shape, or form. Like CountZero mentions, it gives the image that Ubisoft believes every customer is a pirate in their eye's until they prove otherwise. IMO and from a business standpoint, this isn't the right way to increase sales. A better method would be to provide your actual customers with greater incentives to purchase your product instead of punishing them due to the actions of "non-customers".
shortylickens
No Lifer
- Jul 15, 2003
- 80,287
- 17,082
- 136
Guys, this is not OT, this is not P&N.
We never, EVER use wikipedia as an argument.
Do you understand?
We never, EVER use wikipedia as an argument.
Do you understand?
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Give things 10 years and buying software in a box will be history as will owning copies of software and other media. If you look at things like the windows 8 features and where companies like google and even EA are spending money it is on cloud computing. Cloud computing is the holy grail of software. You no longer install software, your pc is a dumb terminal. It can do the processing but the software, the OS , everything else is over the network stored on a central server.
No piracy because nobody has anything to pirate. The movie industry loves this too because they can start things like netflix on demand but in much bigger ways. The only thing keeping it from happening is people do not have broadband fast enough everywhere , but that will change. Once the capacity is high enough to allow streaming of things like blu-ray then why would a studio sell you copies when they can charge you for every time you watch it ?
The same will happen with gaming where you pay either one time or a subscription and log on to play that game. The only thing stopping it is bandwidth accessible everywhere , and that will become a reality.
No piracy because nobody has anything to pirate. The movie industry loves this too because they can start things like netflix on demand but in much bigger ways. The only thing keeping it from happening is people do not have broadband fast enough everywhere , but that will change. Once the capacity is high enough to allow streaming of things like blu-ray then why would a studio sell you copies when they can charge you for every time you watch it ?
The same will happen with gaming where you pay either one time or a subscription and log on to play that game. The only thing stopping it is bandwidth accessible everywhere , and that will become a reality.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter