That. And worse, the Hamburgler is out back giving away better, slap-free burgers for free.Iron Lightning said:
Ubisoft Says Always-On DRM, "A Success"
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
We hate it because in reality whenever someone makes some sort of DRM it takes hacker at most a few months to crack it. With this always on DRM it's just a matter of redirecting the server check to a virtual server that never exists anywhere but on your own computer using a special program. However the ones who actually buy the game will have problems with this years after they bought the game. Those who have gaming laptops and play while they're away from home wont be able to play it on locations such as the train. If Ubisoft's servers shut down you lose your unsaved progress, Civilization V actually lots a star from one reviewer because that kept happening over and over. Also as you said yourself. Some of us got bad internet connections. I've been on a connection where I get decent download and upload speeds, but it often disconnects for a few seconds. That has bugged me a lot playing online games since it results in lag or even being disconnected. That is OK however since in a FPS or a MMO all progress is saved on the server so nothing is lost but a few minutes where I restart the game. If this happened in a mission while I was playing Saints Row 2 however I would get really pissed at losing my progress because my internet sucks.Twilight_guy said:
Yeah, the process of getting rid of always on DRM is making it complex for the regular pirates to get it to work, but it also makes it worse for the consumer. They wont sell more by making it more annoying, but they might reduce the amount of pirates. Honestly I find Steam so convenient that I see no need to pirate any games and my current connection is very stable so this isn't a big problem. I also don't like Ubisoft games that much.
Oh great. Let's look at everything that's wrong with what they're saying.
"It reduced piracy."
Did it? How do you know this? What is your estimate of piracy rates based on? By definition, no pirate with any sense whatsoever is going to connect to your server, so that's not a good measure.
Estimates from sites distributing pirated material aren't exactly reliable either.
But hey. If you think you've reduced piracy rates, good for you.
Next question though:
Did this reduction in piracy gain you any sales? - Another one of those nebulous unknowns. Any answer is pure guesswork.
Did the DRM put anyone off buying your games? - Well, first and foremost, anyone without an internet connection, or with a slow one is a guaranteed loss. By some estimates that may be between 20 to 30% of the market.
Do your gains from 'extra sales' from piracy reduction make up for this?
That's not the only issue. Some people may take a dislike to your games on principle alone, or because your DRM has literally caused them actual problems.
This harms both direct sales, and your company's reputation. As well as having a negative impact on any games with such DRM on it.
In short, can you prove that the benefits of reducing piracy in this way outweigh the costs in terms of lost sales and damage to your reputation? (and thus, potentially follow-on lost sales above and beyond those of the games which implement this scheme themselves.)
Seriously. Are these companies in business, or politics?
"It reduced piracy."
Did it? How do you know this? What is your estimate of piracy rates based on? By definition, no pirate with any sense whatsoever is going to connect to your server, so that's not a good measure.
Estimates from sites distributing pirated material aren't exactly reliable either.
But hey. If you think you've reduced piracy rates, good for you.
Next question though:
Did this reduction in piracy gain you any sales? - Another one of those nebulous unknowns. Any answer is pure guesswork.
Did the DRM put anyone off buying your games? - Well, first and foremost, anyone without an internet connection, or with a slow one is a guaranteed loss. By some estimates that may be between 20 to 30% of the market.
Do your gains from 'extra sales' from piracy reduction make up for this?
That's not the only issue. Some people may take a dislike to your games on principle alone, or because your DRM has literally caused them actual problems.
This harms both direct sales, and your company's reputation. As well as having a negative impact on any games with such DRM on it.
In short, can you prove that the benefits of reducing piracy in this way outweigh the costs in terms of lost sales and damage to your reputation? (and thus, potentially follow-on lost sales above and beyond those of the games which implement this scheme themselves.)
Seriously. Are these companies in business, or politics?
I'd be much more interested in the number of PC sales there are for AC: Brotherhood, versus the sales for AC2. And also the number of console sales for each game. I'm sure that would be much more informative than this flimsy "it was a success" story.
When I heard about the restrictive DRM I researched what games used it and I avoid buying them.
I dont want the hassle of healing with them any more than other bugs. I was really excited to play a new game and DRM killed that interest, even ones on Steam. I dont want to be forced to use use my internet to prove I paid them money.
I dont want the hassle of healing with them any more than other bugs. I was really excited to play a new game and DRM killed that interest, even ones on Steam. I dont want to be forced to use use my internet to prove I paid them money.
hehe well id stay away from games like this ill newer get to own settlers ewen tho iwe liked it alot. and i do pirate some games altho i own alot more, if the game is worth owning you bet ill own it. well if the game is known for alot of dlc you need to perches like black ops iwe rather not own it.
I don't see why you can't start your own thread, there are plenty of people HERE discussing previous, relatively successful DRM schemes, that, while they have never worked fully, didn't fail to stop piracy AND take away from the finished product. Do you not think THIS: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2653-Piracy shows that there are no people willing to talk about DRM? Gabe Newel, someone who runs a company who has modernized a DRM system into something many people love, has been quoted here in video form discussing why his form of DRM is successful, by making it easier to access a product. Most modern DRM does not understand that, In fact, that has been a common theme of this thread. I personally think that the CD key, checking itself online to confirm it isn't a pirate version when an internet connection becomes available is the way to go.Twilight_guy said:
This system has no merits, and virtually nothing worth salvaging, It didn't do anything other than piss off paying customers it has no value as a look back except as an example of what NOT to do, and you, someone who says you don't want to feel like an outcast from your opinion, keeps pointing out people keep saying that this spectacular failure, and the resulting cry of sucess, deserves any discussion beyond "what were they thinking, this is a failure."
You want valuable discussion about DRM, try contributing something to it.
Hmmmm, their DRM stops/decreases piracy eh? Well then..."types thepiratebay.org"....searches "assassins creed 2" Huh, its still there! I wonder how that could be? Lucky me I don't play these games so I don't have to worry about shitty ass DRM like this. Its not even that I'm totally against DRM as an idea, used properly it will stop most people from easily stealing it who don't use torrents. But to the main bulk of pirates, this does absolutely nothing. At most it makes them occasionally have to recrack the game because of an update.
What I mean when I say those who don't use torrents is that it stops nonpirateers from easily getting it. If the movie industry was more properly DRMed we likely(pulling this "likely" out of my ass however) see that those movies aren't being streamed all over the internet, while it would change nothing for torrenting pirates. I think its fair that they want to protect their product and thereby protect their profits, nothing wrong with that. But when they are only inconveniencing or making their legitimate customers uncomfortable/angry is when they should be rethinking things.
[/rant that has been said >1,000,000 times]
What I mean when I say those who don't use torrents is that it stops nonpirateers from easily getting it. If the movie industry was more properly DRMed we likely(pulling this "likely" out of my ass however) see that those movies aren't being streamed all over the internet, while it would change nothing for torrenting pirates. I think its fair that they want to protect their product and thereby protect their profits, nothing wrong with that. But when they are only inconveniencing or making their legitimate customers uncomfortable/angry is when they should be rethinking things.
[/rant that has been said >1,000,000 times]
Because it's the internet, everything is serious business. However, the most obvious issue with DRM like Ubisoft's is that by trying to protect their game they are greatly inconveniencing their paying customers, while those that pirate the game get not only the game for free, but an arguably better playing experience overall due to not having to jump through hoops. They are punishing the people that pay them monies because they want more people to pay them monies. It's a completely backwards-ass approach to any semblance of customer appreciation/service.Twilight_guy said:
Eh..I dont see how it was an succes. I bought all the Assasins creed games in the summer steam sales, but I have to log in at Ubisoft as well as steam just to play any, OFFLINE! And I just checked and working copies offline of all games are up as torrents. This means that you get a superior product if you pirate it. How is that a sucess?
Okay, so you reduce piracy, but do you think people will buy your games when they have an annoying "internet connection required" feature? What the hell are you doing Ubisoft? You're not hurting piracy, I've played Ass Creed II and Brotherhood (and I bought them afterwards, don't bash on me) from a pirate site. All you're doing is pissing people off and reducing the people willing to play your games ...
Seriously. How many gamers don't have a dedicated internet connection these days? If you're from the developed world, I'm willing to bet that the answer is "not many".
Steam isn't overtly DRM. You can still play your games offline, and ultimately Steam is probably the best example of the idea that when you take away something, you offer a service that's just better. We've come a long ways from the dark ages of steam.Twilight_guy said:
People get behind Steam because it's a DRM that isn't shoddily coded and as a whole isn't really problematic. In four years of use I haven't really had a problem with it, ever.
Saying Steam isn't DRM or at least contains the components of DRM is like saying that a whale isn't a mammal. I don't know what "overtly" is supposed to mean but Steam is the most successful DRM ever. Also, most DRM, even Ubisoft's isn't shoddily coded, shoddy coding mean it doesn't work. If it was shoddily coded it wouldn't let you play even when the servers were up and the DRM would have been a much bigger fiasco (like 6 o'clock news big since that would be a major fuck-up). It's less about how well its coded and more about whether people support the core idea. They do for Steam but rarely do for anything else. Normally I wouldn't make such a big issue but the coder in me knows that their is a difference between good code and a good program. Maybe it's just because people can use offline mode or maybe it's because people trust Valve even though it has a monopoly and could in theory lock all games at the snap of their fingers. I dunno but I think popular opinion is the biggest threat to any future DRM plans. DRM seems like a more politically charged issue then the economy at times.acosn said:
DRM, SecuRom and all those sh1ts is what's gonna create more pirates. Personally, I don't mind paying 60$ for a good video game. But when they come up with all those "online-authentication-at-all-times-because-we-don't-trust-nobody" stuff,they're gonna piss many people without internet connection off (yes, it's rare but sometimes we're always on places without internet and nothing wears it off better than playing some singleplayer) or when their servers crash. So people will look to cracks not only because it avoids all that but it saves them money too!