Hacker Group Claims Real Ubisoft DRM Crack

[GamingAwesome1]

Good on the pirates. Ubisoft need to have their heads dunked in acid for this atrociously stupid idea!

 

[Danpascooch]

I can't believe it took this long, and seriously, Ubi should work more on the game and less on the DRM

 

[Danpascooch]

If I ever wanted ass creed 2, and on PC, i'd be sure to use this.

and I never pirate.
also:

WOW! that sure was unbeatable DRM!

Right from the start they said they would patch away the DRM if they dropped server support, so is Ubisoft really arrogant to think they can remove their DRM but nobody else in the world could figure out how to?

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I can't believe it took this long, and seriously, Ubi should work more on the game and less on the DRM

Took about a year and a half to crack securom, tages, and starforce... each.

Six weeks is pathetic.

 

[Danpascooch]

Yeah, sometimes is hard to control my seething anti-capitalist views, but when I see what those publishers and greedy assholes done to video games, it makes me wanna go on a crotch-punching spree.

But if you hate what they've "done" to videogames so much, it follows that you'd have no interest in playing them - and thus no reason to pirate them.

And if there was ever some magical era when videogames weren't about making a buck, I must've missed it: My copy of the 1985 release of The Bard's Tale has a $76.95 price tag on it.

I'm aware most people on the internet have nothing resembling a clue what "integrity" means, but you can't denounce something without first hand experience and retain any quantity of it.

The industry cheerleader's "if you don't like it don't play it" routine is the most prolific logical fallacy on the internet. Only a complete **** would comment on the state of anything without first hand knowledge, but it takes a bigger **** to say "if you don't like your first hand experiences, do not seek to either affirm or contradict your perceptions by continuing to seek first hand experience."

Also, this thread in general is rather chock full of the bullshit notion that anyone who is anti-drm is pro-piracy. Which is, suffice to say, disappointing. Just because the cores of two issues are at odds with one another, does not mean there are only two possible positions.

Piracy, like any sort of crime, isn't going away. The entirety of civilization was built upon value by scarcity. Digital information completely defies this model. You can't ascribe value to something that can be copied infinitely unless you control the sole means of production, which no one entity can. But attempting to protect digital information with more digital information is attempting to build a prison out of pillows.

The only real solutions to piracy are to either provide something tangible people want (as even the most devout pirate will be tempted to buy if they feel left out), or attack the means of distribution. Take all the money blown on DRM development and modify a bittorrent client (as they're all open source) to save all data to $null (or something) and stick a couple thousand copies on a couple thousand virtual machines on some absurd corporate line (oc-57) with dynamic IP addresses and drain the bandwidth. If you make piracy even slightly more difficult or unreliable, droves of pirates will simply give up... The scene hates p2p anyway.

Sometimes it really amazes me how far people will reach to justify the fact that they just don't wanna pay for their entertainment.

It really amazes me how far people will reach to justify happiness as a commodity.

So according to your bolded statement, If I absolutely hate a game, I should continue using up my free time to play it despite getting no entertainment value whatsoever?

Riiiiiiight....

 

[Danpascooch]

Yeah, sometimes is hard to control my seething anti-capitalist views, but when I see what those publishers and greedy assholes done to video games, it makes me wanna go on a crotch-punching spree.

But if you hate what they've "done" to videogames so much, it follows that you'd have no interest in playing them - and thus no reason to pirate them.

And if there was ever some magical era when videogames weren't about making a buck, I must've missed it: My copy of the 1985 release of The Bard's Tale has a $76.95 price tag on it.

Yeah but back then $76.95 was only like......$100

lol

 

[Danpascooch]

This isn't about Ubisoft making DRM in order to make more money at the expense of the consumer experience. It's about Ubisoft not only diluting the customer experience, but ALSO making LESS money by turning people over to pirating with their ridiculous DRM.

In other words, they're idiots.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

So according to your bolded statement, If I absolutely hate a game, I should continue using up my free time to play it despite getting no entertainment value whatsoever?

Riiiiiiight....

You're confused. If you absolutely hate a game, you would have had to first play it to know that. The "if you don't like it don't play it" routine assumes its possible to (dis)like something without first hand experience.

But if you hate the state of video games in general, you'd be a **** to simply stop playing them altogether.

 

[Danpascooch]

I can't believe it took this long, and seriously, Ubi should work more on the game and less on the DRM

Took about a year and a half to crack securom, tages, and starforce... each.

Six weeks is pathetic.

Yeah, but not for Ubisoft, I expected a crack within a week.

Congratulations Ubisoft, you are about .001% of the way to unbreakable DRM!

 

[MagnetoHydroDynamics]

[HEADING=1]CRACKERS OR PIRATES, NOT HACKERS![/HEADING]
You media people make us hackers dislike you slightly when you say so.
Crackers are evil law-breakers who use computers to gain access to things they shouldn't ("cracking" an administrator password as an example.)
Hackers are law abiding (although radical-thinking) citizens who just likes to mess with computers.

 

[Danpascooch]

So according to your bolded statement, If I absolutely hate a game, I should continue using up my free time to play it despite getting no entertainment value whatsoever?

Riiiiiiight....

You're confused. If you absolutely hate a game, you would have had to first play it to know that. The "if you don't like it don't play it" routine assumes its possible to (dis)like something without first hand experience.

But if you hate the state of video games in general, you'd be a **** to simply stop playing them altogether.

Why? If you hate video games altogether, it's your choice to stop.

I hate all opera, but I don't go to operas routinely just so I can say "through constant first hand experience I CLAIM TO BE JUSTIFIED IN DISLIKING THIS" I don't have anywhere near that much tolerance or free time.

 

[Starke]

Free use? I said Fair -*looks at previous post*-...damnit. I really must have been exhausted yesterday.

PFFFK SHHHHK I HAVE YOU NOW. PFFFFK SHHHHK

Okay, I'm done.

Anyway, I see what you are saying, but it doesn't make the courts any less stupid. How does it make any sense for a video to be taken down to "protect" the original content, when they are doing absolutely no harm, an actually promoting it? Lets use a recent example, and go with the Hitler meltdown parody videos from Downfall: In this example, a whole group of videos that parody a movie all the while getting people interested in the movie it is from and making people want to go out and watch it. Now, if you were the content company (or to be more accurate, the publishing/distribution company, since the original creators rarely have a say in how the bit they made is inflicted on the world) would you remove something that was helping your brand? Well, if you were functionally retarded like most of them tend to be, yes you would, since anyone anywhere using what you have the rights to for free is basically a free kick to the nuts in this day and age, but I digress. In a sane world, if someone was using your product for free, while not cashing in on it, and helping you cash in on it, there really is no reason to stop those people. But again, we live in bizarro world where customer's never actually own any of the media they buy, people can send DMCA Takedown letters for shit they don't even have the rights to, and it makes perfect sense to stab yourself in the foot when people are using your content for free.

/rant

Edit: This pretty much describes my rant

Yeah... I walked into this one. The Safe Harbor stuff is patent bullshit. In theory it pushes the rights enforcement over onto the content providers, and that does make sense from an administrative position. But, what ends up happening is shit like Downfall. Where companies decide something they own the copyright to isn't fair use, even when, as with this, it very solidly is. Also, Safe Harbor is a secondary liability issue, so, yeah, I walked into that one.

My previous argument stands, regarding bypassing DRMs though. The DRM section and the Safe Harbor sections are different parts of the DMCA. And, you have pinpointed the section of the DMCA that really does get abused the most egregiously, it's just, you know, not relevant to the topic of DRMs. No offense.

EDIT: The biggest issue with the Safe Harbor statute is that it's self executing. That means, this stuff never goes through a court, and it really needs to a couple times to cut down on the abuse.

 

[Jfswift]

I will not purchase Assassins Creed 2 because of the DRM. Ubisoft just lost a customer.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

So according to your bolded statement, If I absolutely hate a game, I should continue using up my free time to play it despite getting no entertainment value whatsoever?

Riiiiiiight....

You're confused. If you absolutely hate a game, you would have had to first play it to know that. The "if you don't like it don't play it" routine assumes its possible to (dis)like something without first hand experience.

But if you hate the state of video games in general, you'd be a **** to simply stop playing them altogether.

Why? If you hate video games altogether, it's your choice to stop.

I hate all opera, but I don't go to operas routinely just so I can say "through constant first hand experience I CLAIM TO BE JUSTIFIED IN DISLIKING THIS" I don't have anywhere near that much tolerance or free time.

Closed minds do not allow anything the chance to prove them wrong.

 

[Danpascooch]

So according to your bolded statement, If I absolutely hate a game, I should continue using up my free time to play it despite getting no entertainment value whatsoever?

Riiiiiiight....

You're confused. If you absolutely hate a game, you would have had to first play it to know that. The "if you don't like it don't play it" routine assumes its possible to (dis)like something without first hand experience.

But if you hate the state of video games in general, you'd be a **** to simply stop playing them altogether.

Why? If you hate video games altogether, it's your choice to stop.

I hate all opera, but I don't go to operas routinely just so I can say "through constant first hand experience I CLAIM TO BE JUSTIFIED IN DISLIKING THIS" I don't have anywhere near that much tolerance or free time.

Closed minds do not allow anything the chance to prove them wrong.

You should allow something to have the chance to prove you wrong. But you shouldn't constantly subject yourself to something you hate over and over so that you can claim credibility. That's just stupid.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

You should allow something to have the chance to prove you wrong. But you shouldn't constantly subject yourself to something you hate over and over so that you can claim credibility. That's just stupid.

You're oversimplifying. You can't say "games suck now" without playing "games now." As you can't counter "games suck now" with "don't like it don't play it."

That doesn't mean you must continually self-flagellate to justify your stance... unless your stance is important to you.

 

[Danpascooch]

You should allow something to have the chance to prove you wrong. But you shouldn't constantly subject yourself to something you hate over and over so that you can claim credibility. That's just stupid.

You're oversimplifying. You can't say "games suck now" without playing "games now." As you can't counter "games suck now" with "don't like it don't play it."

That doesn't mean you must continually self-flagellate to justify your stance... unless your stance is important to you.

I shouldn't? I thought you said like three posts earlier that anyone who said you shouldn't is "A bigger ****"

 

[Cynical skeptic]

in ways that are often aginst the law..... is this distinction really worth fighting over i mean no matter what when people think hacker they most people think of that guy on (insert tv show here ) that pushes the magic buttons and breakes into someone elses electronic things ( you know its true )

Well, every time you call a guy who just figured out how to use utorrent the same thing as the guys who cracked ubisoft's new DRM, you kinda insult the latter.

 

[Jennacide]

Honestly, I'm with the pirate group here. Companies like Bethesda and Bioware outright refuse to DRM thier titles now, admitting it's a lost cause. (ME1 was EA's doing, not Bioware, before anyone comments.) And Valve has been very outspoken saying DRM is a waste of time and effort, you need to offer the consumer some reason to get it on PC, not a reason against it. Steam may be DRM in the strictest sense, but it is also a perfect example of giving us more. Ubisoft just wanted to copy the idea of Steam but make it horrible experience, and serves them right for the pirates beating them.

Cause let's be honest here, if the pirates didn't win this one, we all lost.