Pirates have to wait an extra month while the crackers try to sort out the twisted mess.Irridium said:
(Not worth it!)
Ubisoft Says It's Not Giving Up on "Always-On" DRM
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
(Not worth it!)
Effective, cheap, and easy to do. Thats why its such a good DRM tool.
As for the people saying otherwise, I honestly doubt any of them are legitimately inconvenienced. The demographic for those inconvenienced is so small, Id wouldnt count them at all. If you bought the game, you had to be hooked up to the internet. If you dont have internet, pay your bills/dont steal wifi from your neighbors (you dont need to be gaming if you cant afford internet). I dont know of a single human being who has their gaming machine not hooked up to the internet.
Its a good system, Im just tired of the QQing when no LEGITIMATE problems arise from it.
As for the people saying otherwise, I honestly doubt any of them are legitimately inconvenienced. The demographic for those inconvenienced is so small, Id wouldnt count them at all. If you bought the game, you had to be hooked up to the internet. If you dont have internet, pay your bills/dont steal wifi from your neighbors (you dont need to be gaming if you cant afford internet). I dont know of a single human being who has their gaming machine not hooked up to the internet.
Its a good system, Im just tired of the QQing when no LEGITIMATE problems arise from it.
I quite expect Ubisoft is looking at something else and not actually planning on going back to that ugly system.
Though they could also be looking for another stupid train to get on. Time will tell.
Though they could also be looking for another stupid train to get on. Time will tell.
It's like Schools in the south saying they're not giving up on segregation.
Edit: Although less catastrophic to society of course.
Edit: Although less catastrophic to society of course.
![Fr]anc[is](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/93/93202.jpg?1620797781){kind=avatar}
M-kay, not like I care. You see, my life hasn't diminished in quality since *gasp* I've stopped buying Ubisoft games. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who can live without Ubi's stuff, right?
I don't know where you get your propoganda but you need to do better research. Running servers for every single current Ubisoft game is neither cheap nor easy, and the effectiveness begins to drop when servers have to be put into downtime, creating more a burden for those that stay on. This wouldn't even be a big deal except for the fact right now Ubisoft is putting out excellent titles.Uber Waddles said:
There also comes into the equation that Ubisoft doesn't charge for server use(not yet anyway), so the only income to pay for server maintenance and the techs that run them is game sales. No monthly subscriptions or micropayments coming in as what occurs with MMO's.
I am willing to bet that the reason Ubisoft is taking the DRM off of those titles is simply that it isn't cost effective to as the price has gone down on those titles as well as sales. If you want an example, consider that currently the subscriptions that Blizzard take in for WoW make a tiny bit of profit per subscription. Salaries, server maintenance, replacement costs, and utility costs eat up most of that $15.00. The real money happens when the playerbase hits a certain number where the profit starts counting for something. The microtransactions when people buy their twinkly flying horses help in that regard as well. Ubisoft was basically trying to do the same system, only without that recurring income. It's economic suicide.
Reference: What it takes to keep World of Warcraft running [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.144229-What-It-Takes-To-Keep-World-of-Warcraft-Running?page=1]
It depends on when Ubisoft gets around to sharing with Steam the patch needed. I would try running a verify game cache(under the game's properties) to give it a kick in the pants.Fr said:
I'm not so convinced we should be damning Ubisoft here. The crack for their 'always on' DRM took a very long time to achieve; depending upon which crack you acknowledge as the working one, maybe as long as six weeks. In hacking circles, that's an eternity.
The argument against DRM has always been overwhelming to me: It doesn't work to stop theft, and it annoys your paying customers. Well, this DRM is probably the first one we've seen that broke rule #1: It stopped theft, for six weeks. How many extra sales did that gain Ubisoft? No way really to tell; I'd argue the evidence says not many, but that's up to debate.
Now, it's true, it did it at the expense of a massive overblow of rule #2: It annoyed the hell out of customers. But here's the thing; Ubisoft can still claim, legitimately, that they did so for a worthwhile price, i.e. six weeks of non-theft. That's a much stronger position than most DRM products. The defence of those is usually, "Well, it got hacked immediately, pissed off our paying customers and gave the pirates a stronger product than we do. But at least we're doing something!"
So. Go ahead and argue the DRM is horrible. I'll agree. But let's not pretend that Ubisoft didn't manage something no modern DRM system has. They have every right to be proud of their overzealous little tyrant of a program, because it worked.
Edit, because this hadn't gone up when I began writing:
This is just a hunch, but my guess is that the people who are eagerly awaiting the cracked versions for download on the torrents are the same people who want it as quick as possible; ideally on launch day, or no more than a month thereafter. That's why that six week window is amazing, and why it may just have increased sales. The very people who are most likely to pirate are also the ones most likely to want the game early. The ones who will buy it a year after release are more likely a more casual crowd, who are in most circumstances less likely to pirate games. Some will, make no mistake, but they're a minority.
Also, as a general rule, companies care less about long term sales than they do about initial sales. I have no idea why this is. Again, that's mostly a hunch.
The argument against DRM has always been overwhelming to me: It doesn't work to stop theft, and it annoys your paying customers. Well, this DRM is probably the first one we've seen that broke rule #1: It stopped theft, for six weeks. How many extra sales did that gain Ubisoft? No way really to tell; I'd argue the evidence says not many, but that's up to debate.
Now, it's true, it did it at the expense of a massive overblow of rule #2: It annoyed the hell out of customers. But here's the thing; Ubisoft can still claim, legitimately, that they did so for a worthwhile price, i.e. six weeks of non-theft. That's a much stronger position than most DRM products. The defence of those is usually, "Well, it got hacked immediately, pissed off our paying customers and gave the pirates a stronger product than we do. But at least we're doing something!"
So. Go ahead and argue the DRM is horrible. I'll agree. But let's not pretend that Ubisoft didn't manage something no modern DRM system has. They have every right to be proud of their overzealous little tyrant of a program, because it worked.
Edit, because this hadn't gone up when I began writing:
It's not just that. It's that it's not really relevant anymore.RejjeN said:
This is just a hunch, but my guess is that the people who are eagerly awaiting the cracked versions for download on the torrents are the same people who want it as quick as possible; ideally on launch day, or no more than a month thereafter. That's why that six week window is amazing, and why it may just have increased sales. The very people who are most likely to pirate are also the ones most likely to want the game early. The ones who will buy it a year after release are more likely a more casual crowd, who are in most circumstances less likely to pirate games. Some will, make no mistake, but they're a minority.
Also, as a general rule, companies care less about long term sales than they do about initial sales. I have no idea why this is. Again, that's mostly a hunch.
The sad thing is that things like this actually can increase piracy. I for one had to copy my own damn game when it came to playing Hitman: Codename 47 last year. For some reason, the authentic version didn't play but a burnt copy with a no cd patch worked. Go figure.
I think some may have had similar motivations with Ubisoft's silly DRM. Not out of any desire to steal the game, but rather a desire to be able to enjoy the game without having to have a 24/7 high speed connection.
I think some may have had similar motivations with Ubisoft's silly DRM. Not out of any desire to steal the game, but rather a desire to be able to enjoy the game without having to have a 24/7 high speed connection.
It doesn't matter if you have a T-3 line wired directly into your computer, if Ubisoft's servers go down you can't play your game.Uber Waddles said:
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2010/04/07/ubi-settlers-7-drm-still-not-fixed/1
When Settlers 7 came out it was weeks before anyone could play it. Heck, I'm pretty sure the pirates hacked the game before Ubisoft managed to fix the problem. And while Settlers 7 got the worst of it, Assassins Creed also suffered from periodic server outages, so often in fact that Ubisoft offered free games as compensation.
LoL,the worst part of their worthless DRM is.... Drum roll!
It DOES NOT stop piracy of their products!
And it messes up the game for people who bought it.
Good job Ubisoft, keep pushing that boulder up the hill.
It DOES NOT stop piracy of their products!
And it messes up the game for people who bought it.
Good job Ubisoft, keep pushing that boulder up the hill.
The sad part is that the 360 piracy community is really strong as well. And now that they have broken PS3 encryption, it's only a matter of time. And once a system has been broken, it's really hard to reinstate security for it. So hard in fact, it doesn't usually happen.Low Key said:
Right. I mean, why admit that you fucked up and get all your customers back when you can say that you aren't giving up on the thing they hated and you removed from older titles and keep pissing them off? Keep up the great work Ubisoft, you fucking idiots.Andy Chalk said:
Its inconvenient for me because i have a laptop and spend a lot of my time away from home and regularly go on long long flights which means i cant play these games to pass the time.Uber Waddles said:
The moment your DRM starts inconveniencing your legitimate userbase for more than the time it takes to type in a CD-Key, it has gone too far. I'm not averse to companies protecting their products, but surely it's counterproductive to alienate your legitimate userbase such that you make drastically fewer sales.
I know I'm not buying any Ubisoft games on the PC, and any console games are bought second-hand.
I know I'm not buying any Ubisoft games on the PC, and any console games are bought second-hand.