Impossible (to beat) DRM

[HolidayBrick]

My biggest problem with this style of DRM is that once servers go down (after enough time passes, money runs out, companies die off, whatever). The game disc and data is useless unless they patch it out of the game. If someone wants to play AC2 on PC in ten years is it even going to be possible without piracy?

 

[Fists]

"The boss you're supposed to fight won't show up, a door won't open, or you won't get a key item you need to progress"

That used to happen to my [legitimate] oblivion game all the time

 

[Seanchaidh]

Publishers have been bemoaning that 90% of their sales have been lost to piracy. While I pretty much agree that 9 out of 10 PC players are pirates, it's important to remember that not every download is a lost sale. The skulls of
John Riccitiello and Bobby Kotick (heads of EA and Activision) are particularly well-armored against this concept. But here we have a well-reviewed, high-profile, AAA title, with incredibly dense coverage that was ostensibly impossible to pirate for six entire weeks. (Which is when the bulk of sales take place.) If every download was a lost sale, then a piracy-proof game should have somewhere in the ballpark of ten times the usual sales. Assassins Creed 2 should be burning up the PC sales charts, dwarfing the sales numbers for its predecessor. Looking around at the sales charts on VGChartz, it would appear that this is not the case.

While that's all true, and understand that I'm not endorsing DRM either, we might look at some other factors that taint the quality of this experiment.

The first is the availability of substitute goods. So we can't play Assassin's Creed 2 for a little while without actually buying it. But we can go pirate another game that doesn't have offensively unnecessary DRM. So while it's true that not every download is a lost sale, it's also true that not every lost sale caused by downloading is even a download of the same game. We can expect the aggregate affect of the existence of piracy to have market effects even for games with 'unbeatable' DRM. In this case, Assassin's Creed 2 was competing with other games that can be pirated, and a game that someone might not want quite as much still has the advantage of having no price at all. Video game intellectual property is somewhat commoditized, especially as long as they continue to be very similar to each other. So in order to test the effect of piracy on the industry as a whole, you'd have to actually put ridiculous DRM on everything, and for quite awhile.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

Experienced Points: Impossible (to beat) DRM

Congratulations, Ubisoft, on making DRM so awful that it might eventually work.

Read Full Article

Great article as usual sir.

Your point that every pirated copy is not a lost sale is a valid one. People who want to pay will pay. People who won't don't. All DRM does is deter potential buyers from buying. I for one do pay for games but play for single player enjoyment. I am not always connected to the internet. Having a system that depends upon it seems like they are doing everything in their power to stop me from buying.

Maybe in a decade when the entire free world is wireless and high speed, then maybe.

 

[AceDiamond]

You guys are forgetting the Rockstar Approach to DRM. Make terrible PC ports with annoying background programs.

They got rid of said annoying background programs (or at least not as annoying) as of releasing Episodes From Liberty City on the PC

 

[lacktheknack]

Based off this idea, maybe they could have a DRM like this that:

A: Allowed for server hiccups, and

B: Deactivated after six weeks?

I wouldn't have a ton of trouble with that, and a lot of pirates would be deterred to the point of actually buying the game. And really, allowing for server hiccups would make the whole thing SO much more tolerable.

 

[lacktheknack]

People who want to pay will pay. People who won't don't. All DRM does is deter potential buyers from buying.

That's not entirely true. A good tenth of people who don't want to pay, WILL pay if there's no alternative. That is still a lot of people. Although it is deterrent, you are correct.

 

[Seldon2639]

imagine the cognitive dissonance thats going to occur when someone finally does implement an unbreakable DRM, and the game STILL sells like crap. youll hear the sounds of executive's head exploding all over the place. meanwhile, indie devs will just tool right along, selling their games without DRM (and save money from not licensing DRM), develop a loyal customer base, and not sweat the "lost" non-sales from piracy just like they have been for a while now.

[Needs Citations]

You're like the Apple commercials touting how Macs don't get viruses, as if some part of the architecture of the machine makes it more resilient. Macs didn't get viruses because they were such a small market that it's not worth it to make a virus.

Indie games don't "lose" many sales due to piracy because they're simply much less popular in general. Lemme put it more simply:

I would wager that there's little piracy of even non-DRM indie games because there's a lot less exposure, and the games aren't as in demand. It's the reason I can simply lock my door, while the bank has armed guards. Yes, people can steal from me, but the reward from stealing from me is much less. Indie developers don't reject DRM because they 'don't sweat' it, it's because it's less of an issue for them. But, a hot property worth millions (or hundreds of millions) of dollars, you protect with everything you have.

Fort Knox has more security than an ATM, go figure.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

People who want to pay will pay. People who won't don't. All DRM does is deter potential buyers from buying.

That's not entirely true. A good tenth of people who don't want to pay, WILL pay if there's no alternative. That is still a lot of people. Although it is deterrent, you are correct.

I don't know if the number is actually that high, but I get what you are saying. I actually wouldn't be surprised if they lost more paying customers due to DRM than they did to piracy.
Even if 1/10 piraters would pay for the game, I wonder how many out of ten who don't pirate chose not to buy the game because of DRM.

 

[Seldon2639]

Putting yourself in a developers shoes it's easy to understand why they get mad at people stealing (yes pirating is stealing) their product.

Your statement is purely and utterly wrong. Copying is not stealing. Copying can be copyright infringement. As much as the corporations like to demonize copying, it is a legitimate function of daily life. Copying is probably the most important way to learn and we are all guilty of it. Copyright law may make it illegal to copy a copyrighted work but it is by definition not stealing. To steal, something has to be taken away and no such thing occurs when you copy something.

Yeah, we've all seen the pictures.

But that argument only works for a very, very, very specific definition of "stealing". In point of fact, theft includes not only "larceny" (which is the theft of tangible property), but also the unlawful acquisition of "money, labor or property" (in California, governed by the California Penal Code Section 487). So, your argument is both highly semantic, and simply specious.

To conflate 'copying' with 'theft of intellectual property' is a bit like saying that because everyone walks, we're all equally guilty of walking away from a bank with stolen goods. Yes, we've all also taken drugs. What matters is not whether one copies information, but whether one does so legally. Copyright violations are a theft of the labor that went into the creation of that data. In the same way that I'm stealing from J.K Rowling if I republish Harry Potter as Larry Hatter, even if I do so without making any money.

Please, stop trying to make a silly distinction between piracy (in the sense of illegally obtaining intellectual property) and 'stealing' (in the sense of illegally obtaining property

No company demonizes copying, they use it every day, and expect customers to use it. And most of us copy things in legally acceptable ways, and copy legally acceptable things. But, to say that "eh, copying is copying, don't demonize it" is a bit like saying "eh, drug use is drug use, don't demonize it" as a way to explain why Heroin is okay as long as Asprin is.

 

[Abedeus]

Sorry, Shamus. Your method would've failed too. You know why?

Before they cracked the game for good (as in, copy/paste a crack and enjoy), I used an even simpler solution they'd come up with.

Illegal. Remote. Server.

Basically, they made the game connect to their server instead of Ubisoft's. Game still checks for updates and connection to Ubi, but when it fails to download saves, you can still launch the game and play.

Now they updated their launcher to work with Local Mode, so you don't even have to connect to their servers...

 

[addeB]

So a unbreakable DRM would basically just stop people who won't buy the game from playing...

Which I think is pretty fair all in all.

Yeah, but if I where a developer i wouldn't mind if those who can't afford my games pirated 'em as long as I was making money from other people.

 

[KillerRabbit]

I'm betting Ubi made a loss on the PC version. Serves 'em right, too.

From what I have understood, all Ubisofts games are cracked already?

 

[veloper]

I just found out this shit is nothing new and has already been done by Eidos and M$ without anyone taking notice.

I made the mistake of buying Batman for the PC.

You cannot save that game without an online connection to games for windows live.
Getting this to work is the most frustrating experience I've ever had on the PC.

 

[Dr_Steve_Brule]

Steam is the only DRM I use, mainly because they're the good guys in the industry.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

I just found out this shit is nothing new and has already been done by Eidos and M$ without anyone taking notice.

I made the mistake of buying Batman for the PC.

You cannot save that game without an online connection to games for windows live.
Getting this to work is the most frustrating experience I've ever had on the PC.

They hide it pretty well, but you can make an offline "live" profile for arkham asylum.

The reason ubisoft's system was different is there was no "opt out" option for online saves.

The amount of people here who think onlive is possible without magic future technology at every point of the service model (each piece of which would make the webtv guy (yes, its the same guy) billions if he applied them anywhere else) is very disappointing.

Steam is the only DRM I use, mainly because they're the good guys in the industry.

Careful, this site is very anti-steam. From what I understand, one of the anointed writers (read: this one) doesn't like it, and formulated a pretty crappy argument against it. So everyone around here bleats that argument like demented sheep.

 

[Snacksboy]

For the record (if it hasn't been said already): There's been a server emulator available since one or two weeks after release. This crack is just a an easier way for the pirates to play the game.

 

[Woodsey]

Alright, supposing the game has only just been broken (I'm still not sure about what I think concerning the first-day crack rumours) it doesn't work.

Why?

It blocked legit-buyers from playing a game for 2 weeks after releases (Settlers 7 I believe) and AC2 has locked people out numerous times for days on end.

Oh, and an entire country was also blocked at one point.

I don't know about about everyone else's version of something working, but that ain't it for me.

It's almost as if Ubisoft are saying:

You can either take the easy way and buy the game, which will result in it breaking down all the time and your gaming experience being ruined.

Or you can work (or wait) your ass of for a few weeks or months and voila, now you can play the game offline without any issues!

Assassins Creed 2, being a pain in the ass for everyone.

The most annoying thing being that the game is fucking brilliant.

I bought it on the 360 back when it released (I'm sorry, I cannot wait for 3 months for no particular reason!) and it was incredible. Now all its famous for is being the first to use their shitty DRM.

Second. Silent Hunter 5 used it first. I don't know if Command and Conquer 4 used the same system or one based on it, but either way... But yeah, you're right. Good game famous for the wrong reasons.

My mistake, although there's only a day between AC2 and SH5!

C&C4 did use a system very much like it, and even had the audacity to claim it wasn't DRM. Their excuse was that you need to be connected all the time the game can update your scores online; if they didn't feel the need for DRM (as they're claiming here) then they'd of set up a system where scores can be updated the next time you login online, and where people who aren't connected can still play.

 

[RikSharp]

you can chalk me up as another lost sale as a result of this DRM. I'm neither buying it nor pirating it even though i was looking forward to it.
not everyone has internet all the time. not even Ubisoft (as quite a few people have found out)
I wouldn't be surprised if there was more people that did not buy the game because of the DRM than people that did buy the game that would have otherwise just pirated it.

 

[Delusibeta]

Skidrow modified a grand total of one file to crack AC2. A single file under 700kb. They did not emulate the DRM server, they completely removed the DRM, as it was located primary in a single small file.

Oh boy, insta-cracks ahoy!

Seriously, if you big up your DRM and bugger people who legally purchase it, leaving your DRM in one file is a schoolboy error. Back to the drawing board, Ubi, your DRM is now toast.

Honestly, considering the popularity of Steamworks and Impulse's GOO with consumers, I'm surprised that the vast majority of developers are still attempting to drive up a wall with their own branded DRM and failing in both protecting their games (except perhaps the first batch) and in gaining the support of their fanbase. And even then, the most effective anti-piracy is patching the crap out of your game and throwing in loads of free content (see: Team Fortress 2, Galactic Civilisations etc.)

[Edit] Going to hand out props for a post from the GOG forums (specifically, from this thread [http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/the_future_of_drm].) The following is truth in a box:

The trouble is that publishers need to blame something other than the quality (or lack thereof) of the game if sales are low. The easiest method is to just blame pirates, then trump up piracy figures for the shareholders. More disenfranchised customers begets lower profits begets more draconian DRM begets more disenfranchised customers, etc etc. Thus, it ends up spiraling towards the inevitable worst case scenario (no profits for the company, nobody playing games).

To break this cycle, the management of a company would have to step forward and admit they made a mistake. This might also force them to admit that they have, perhaps, been making lousy games all along. This would almost certainly get them fired by the shareholders (never get between an investor and their earnings! ). So... I am not holding my breath... at least not for the bigger publishers already well into the DRM death spiral.

I think holders of intellectual property should have their rights protected, but driving off everyone just to get rid of pirates defeats the purpose a bit. It is very much a throwing the baby out with the bath water situation. I know we disagree on how to deal with Intellectual Property, DarrkPhoenix, but I think we can both agree that the way DRM is heading is just plain retarded .