Ubisoft Says Always-On DRM, "A Success"

[Frostbite3789]

Completely out of touch. Not just two sandviches short of a picnic, but the basket, tea-cloth and even the refreshments.

They're actively praising their most hated point. Even Kotick doesn't do that.

It is a bit funny that you would condemn DRM more or less, while referencing a Valve game. You know, those games that force you to use Steam. A form of DRM, whether you like admitting it or not.

Ubisoft is being incredibly ridiculous with what they label a success, but it's hard to swallow when gamers want to pick and choose which DRM they want to condemn. Steam is just as intrusive as what Ubi does. You have to jump through hoops to get it to play offline and even then, I ran into problems getting games to start if I was offline that ran through Steam.

 

[omicron1]

"With our new DRM system, piracy is down 10%!

...Of course, sales are down 30%, but... Look over there! A distraction!"

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

The average customer doesn't give a flying fuck about drm and probably doesn't even know what it is.

As for piracy, their stupid client was cracked 3 weeks or so after release, and all new games with the same drm will be out on ze torrents in no time.

they're wasting their money

 

[DirgeNovak]

Ubisoft has seen "a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection."

I guess Ubisoft has also seen a clear reduction in sales of their titles which require a persistent online connection. But they're not talking about that.

 

[Azriel Nightshade]

It does not matter how much the fans complain about DRM. If the games keep selling in the millions then the cries for DRM removal fall of deft ears.

 

[shrekfan246]

You know what I want to see? Never-Online DRM. They could make it the most draconian thing ever: If you connect to the internet, even just for a few seconds, you're locked out of the game for X amount of time. Then even the pirates don't get to play it!

 

[gring]

Ubisoft has seen "a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection."

They've also seen a clear reduction in sales from legitimate customers as well. So how exactly is this a "success"?

 

[BenzSmoke]

And that's why I haven't touched a Ubisoft game for the PC ever.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Always-on drm is a success: it has successfully persuaded me to stop buying Ubisoft products entirely. They don't care, of course, so fair's fair.

About the same for me, actually. I have avoided getting AC 2 and Brotherhood because I can't always trust my connection and don't favor the idea of being kicked midgame when the internet hiccups.

 

[Sylveria]

In business class, this is a behavior they called "Escalation" where people continue to invest in a failing idea despite evidence that the costs of continuing outweighs the benefits. They've convinced themselves that this is a good idea, despite there probably being no evidence that supports their statements that this is a deterrent for piracy or evidence that probably shows the exact opposite; that this increases piracy and decreases legitimate sales. Them not being able or willing to divulge any actual study or statistics says to me they don't exist.

 

[infohippie]

You know what I want to see? an actual discussion of what this DRM means. I've seen lots of people who instantly sputter a gut reaction and condemn it immediately but that's incredibly short sighted. There are lots of issues to discuss here, not the lest of which is why people hate it so much (and don't give me that crap about you just hate DRM or your internet connection sucks there is more to it and you know it). I want to know why people keep blasting DRM and why stories keep getting put it. Its not about simply hating the thing, this is on the level of a zealot crusade and I want to know why. As far as I'm concerned though, it's never going to happen because people are just too angry to talk all they can do is yell. Ah well, maybe DRM should treat use like means spirited children, we sure act like it.

Quick and simple answer: accepting something as restrictive as this is telling the rest of the industry "Treat us as badly as you like; we don't care and will keep buying any old shit you churn out." It won't stop getting worse until we tell them "No, this is going too far." DRM like this is Ubisoft testing the waters, seeing how far they can go in exerting after-sales control over their product. Those of us who believe that once we buy a product it is ours are being told our views are unimportant. If enough people buy this product, what will the next level of DRM look like? Because you know they will never stop increasing it if we don't stop them by refusing to give them any money.

Incidentally, I think DRM is a bit of a misleading name. I propose we refer to it as TURDS - Technology Users' Rights Denial System. Would you buy a game that included TURDS?

While I'm only one person, I refuse to buy an Ubisoft product on PC. If I really want to play it I'll get it on console or just do without. As long as I'm being treated like a criminal they can continue to cheekily eat from the underside of my ass.

I honestly don't think that's enough. If you really want to show Ubisoft that you won't stand for being treated like this, you should refuse to buy their products on any platform. Because you can be sure that once they've driven away all their PC customers, they'll start crying about piracy on consoles and start pulling this kind of shit there too. We need to hit them hard in their sales across the board.

 

[Royas]

Given that Ubisoft is just another big corporation, and that experience has proven that big corporations will always spin the data to make themselves look good (and the truth be damned), I'd take anything they say with a whole shaker of salt. That's what PR types do, they lie by using the facts. It's an artform, really, and it's even easier when you get to make up your own facts and figures that nobody can confirm.

Ubisoft can count me as a former customer for any game that has this DRM on it. It may be reducing piracy (doubtful at best) but it's definitely reducing sales.

 

[Enrathi]

I want to know why people keep blasting DRM and why stories keep getting put it.

Well, Shamus has already explained it far better than I can. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/5930-The-Impossible-DRM]

To be fair, if you're going to bring up that, then you should probably also bring up the sequel article about the one kind of DRM he felt might actually work: Ubisoft's [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7467-Experienced-Points-Impossible-to-beat-DRM].

I'm still unwilling to completely bash Ubisoft's DRM system. Sure, it didn't work for long. But it may just have worked for long enough. And it's got a better record of actually working than any other form out there. Yes, it's horrible, and that's why we should hate it, but we can't haul out the usual 'And it doesn't even work!' arguments here unless we can back them up.

Not to rain on your parade, but here's the last two paragraphs from the article you linked.

Of course, if publishers did this it would be a case of destroying the industry in order to save it. They would stop the pirates, but they would also stop quite a few consumers. The system would be slow to develop and expensive to produce, all so that they could (maybe) slightly increase sales on the PC, which is already the smallest platform on the market.

So I give Ubisoft credit: They have come up with a system that can eventually work. But it's still a waste of money, abusive to legitimate customers, and criminally short-sighted. It's a dumb idea, but they're doing a great job at it.

They've lost a couple of sales from me due to this DRM. I wanted to buy Silent Hunter 5, but this DRM stopped me. EA also lost a sale of C&C 4 for the same reason.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Well, that settles it. I will not be buying from them again. And I don't even play on the PC. No, I refuse to support a corperation who does this sort of thing and then claims it works.

If I must have a game, I will aquire it legally second-handed.

 

[DarthFennec]

Ubisoft, you're so stupid ...
Guys, don't pirate Ubisoft's games. In fact, don't play them at all. With this shit in place it's not worth it.

 

[BlindChance]

Not to rain on your parade, but here's the last two paragraphs from the article you linked.

Oh, no question, and no raining there either: I'm in agreement. Ubisoft's DRM is the most draconian, awful thing we've seen. But it is, possibly, a horrible system that works. Every other system is easily dismissed: "It sucks, and it doesn't work, so why are you even trying?" But Ubisoft's might just be, "It REALLY sucks." "But it works, so we're using it."

Now, as has been pointed out, it also might NOT work. Hard to say. But it worked on Assassin's Creed 2 for something like 6 weeks, which may just be long enough. I don't know how long it worked on other titles.

 

[Superior Mind]

A success? For who? The way I see it the Ubisoft always-on-DRM games caused more people to turn to piracy. Myself for instance. I bought Assassin's Creed 2 and after five hours of trying to get into the fucking thing I had to download a crack. It was the only option I had.

 

[duchaked]

LOL "Do you steal our games? Y/N"
gee I wonder what to pick...

guess Brotherhood on the PC LOST sales?

 

[NormalityImpaired]

i generally do not play PC games, but even i think this kind of DRM is a big mistake by Ubisoft, and is going to hurt them in sales. Unless they are trying to get out of the PC gaming biz by screwing over a large consumer base, in which case, mission accomplished.

 

[Tanis]

They're being serious, right?
I mean, really?

If ANYTHING would drive a legit consumer to piracy it's when the best way to play the game you've bought it downloading some kind of crack/modified version of it.

Ubisoft has probably LOST more sales than they'll EVER admit to because of their stupidity.