Because only pirates would be interested in playing the game without being forced to be connected to the Internet at the same time, amirite?whaleswiththumbs said:
Hacker Group Claims Real Ubisoft DRM Crack
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Publishers take note, putting DRM on a game means it will be pirated MORE!
While making a game of higher quality means it will be pirated less. (So you don't need a review to tell you how good a game is, just look at the number of illegal downloads divided by the number of legit sales
Also note that the cost of a game's development and its quality are not strongly linked. Imagine the profit margins for a publisher with the retail and marketing power of Ubisoft if they started churning out indie-like titles.
While making a game of higher quality means it will be pirated less. (So you don't need a review to tell you how good a game is, just look at the number of illegal downloads divided by the number of legit sales
Also note that the cost of a game's development and its quality are not strongly linked. Imagine the profit margins for a publisher with the retail and marketing power of Ubisoft if they started churning out indie-like titles.
I hate how people actually defend Ubisoft for this.
They deserve to lose every sale because they punished their customers.
That just isn't fair.
They deserve to lose every sale because they punished their customers.
That just isn't fair.
I do not even really play games on the PC, but im happy that this DRM was cracked. It's absolute crap that these companies insist on punishing the people who actually buy their games.
No offence but that guy who made skid row is a prick, ubisoft will now go a step
farther with a drm, 2 codes to start the game an online check up system and my personal favorite, the "operation flashpoint way" were the game sends message to see if you pirated the game which people who did buy it can fix but if you don't fix it the game increasing gets harder really really fast, to point were your fighting Thor on steroids with broken twigs.
farther with a drm, 2 codes to start the game an online check up system and my personal favorite, the "operation flashpoint way" were the game sends message to see if you pirated the game which people who did buy it can fix but if you don't fix it the game increasing gets harder really really fast, to point were your fighting Thor on steroids with broken twigs.
As I've said every time someone claimed this:
Thank you sir or madam hacker. Thank you for making their point. Now instead of slacking off on brutal DRM, it's going to get worse because YOU'RE PROVING THEY NEED IT!
(And before I hear it: Yes, Ubisoft are bastards for wanting to make money on the game they invested millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours in).
Thank you sir or madam hacker. Thank you for making their point. Now instead of slacking off on brutal DRM, it's going to get worse because YOU'RE PROVING THEY NEED IT!
(And before I hear it: Yes, Ubisoft are bastards for wanting to make money on the game they invested millions of dollars and hundreds of man hours in).
Also, sorry for the double, but the customers are punishing Ubisoft. They go without DRM, it's going to get pirated out of existence and then they can't make AC3. It is partially Ubisoft's fault, I'll agree but maybe if we weren't all so convinced that everything in the world should be free, maybe we wouldn't have this problem. The music industry had this exact problem and was on the verge of collapse for a while, and as MASSIVELY liberal as I am, I have no patience for people who seem to be under the impression that people trying to protect their product from people who think they deserve everything for free because they have a modem and a torrenting program.Pendragon9 said:
Sweet, does it work with Steam? Maybe I'll buy it now that there's a crack. Weird how that works...
Okay. So "always on" isn't undefeatable either. Big surprise. Can we maybe go back to appeals for decency, fair pricing, convenient digital distribution, DLC, and any of the other methods of addressing piracy that don't make paying customers feel like they've just put their money down to get locked into a prison?
This is a formal logical fallacy. The following is a valid argument:Plurralbles said:
A1) All things that are Pirates are NOT Consumers
A2) All things that Buy Games are Consumers
Conclusion) Pirates do not Buy Games
This argument works because the middle term, Consumers, creates a necessary disjunction between the entities Pirates and Game Buyers since we know Pirates are not Consumers and to Buy Games one must be a Consumer. It's essentially the transitive property in algebra.
The following is your invalid argument:
A1) All things that are Pirates are Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch
A2) All things that are DRM-Avoiders are Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch
Conclusion) All things that are DRM-Avoiders are Non-Consumers of Assassin's Creed 2
Problems) Fallacy of Four Terms [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_four_terms]
Crucially, this is a logical fallacy because the argument only states the relation of the two groups to a third group, Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch, not their relation to each other and then suddenly attempts to link the third entity, DRM-Avoiders, to the fourth entity, 'Things That Will Never Pay For Assassin's Creed 2', in the conclusion without showing its relation to any of the entities in the axioms. It relies on the following logical chain:
A1) All things that are Pirates are NOT things which buy Games
A2) Assassin's Creed 2 is a Game
Conclusion) Pirates will NOT Buy Assassin's Creed 2
Followed by the following illogical deduction:
A1) Pirates will NOT Buy Assassin's Creed 2
A2) Pirates are Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch
Conclusion) SOME Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch will NOT Buy Assassin's Creed 2
A1) DRM-Avoiders are Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch
A2) Pirates are Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch
Conclusion) DRM-Avoiders will NOT Buy Assassin's Creed 2
This Affirms the Consequent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent] as it assumes that Pirate entails Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch ergo Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch entails Pirate and invokes the trait 'Non-Consumer' then when we find that DRM-Avoiders entail Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch we conclude that Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch entails Pirate which invokes 'Non-Consumer' and ascribes it to DRM-Avoiders. This is logically invalid.
To analogise to another situation which works on the underlying fallacious logic of Affirming the Consequent:
Ubisoft is a Games Publisher
This is a Games Publisher
This is Ubisoft
This argument fails to see that whilst being 'Ubisoft' is sufficient to also be 'Games Publisher', being 'Games Publisher' isn't necessarily sufficient to also be 'Ubisoft' because nothing has been stated of the entity 'Games Publisher' other than that it includes 'Ubisoft'; it could also include 'EA', 'BioWare' ad nauseum.
Being a person who avoids a game at launch because of an aversion to DRM entails that one is a member of the same category of people as a Pirate, the category of Customers Who Do Not Purchase At Launch, however, it doesn't state anything else about the qualities of either the pirate or the DRM-avoider. It doesn't state whether the DRM-avoider possesses the crucial quality of Pirates i.e. that they never pay for games regardless of market changes (can never leave the category of non-consumers) or show how being a DRM-Avoider would invoke this quality of Pirates through an entailment.
The valid argument against the following invalid argument, to which you refer as the basis of your invalid argument, is the following:
(Unstated Axiom): All things that are Pirates are Non-Consumers
A1) All things that are Pirates are Copyright Violators
A2) Some things that are Copyright Violators are Non-Consumers
Invalid Creative Industries Conclusion) Preventing Copyright Violators prevents Non-Consumption
This is invalid because, whilst it is true that some things which are Copyright Violators are also Non-Consumers, no dependency is shown between Copyright Violators and Non-Consumers i.e. the entity Copyright Violators isn't shown to need to exist in order for the entity Non-Consumers to exist so there's no reason to believe that eliminating it will have any effect upon Non-Consumers. This is why eliminating Copyright Violation does not entail a sale gained, because a sale gained can only be achieved by eliminating the Non-Consumers, which this does not do. However, this says nothing of what can or cannot be done to coax DRM-Avoiders away from the Non-Consumer group.
Hope this helps to clarify why your statement was incorrect in a slightly more objective manner than just disagreeing.
Keep in mind that taking a month and a half for an AAA game to be cracked is basically unheard of. No one expects DRM to completely stop piracy, just to deter it somewhat. The idea is to stop the casual pirates who do it because it's convenient. Recall that even though it only took a few weeks to crack Bioshock, Irrational was very happy with their DRM because it stopped zero day piracy.
Did Assassin's Creed 2 receive a boost in sales because of the DRM, or was it hurt by it? I know the opinion of the majority on this board, but only Ubisoft knows for sure. I think this kind of DRM is here to stay, for the foreseeable future anyway.
Did Assassin's Creed 2 receive a boost in sales because of the DRM, or was it hurt by it? I know the opinion of the majority on this board, but only Ubisoft knows for sure. I think this kind of DRM is here to stay, for the foreseeable future anyway.
