Ubisoft Says It's Not Giving Up on "Always-On" DRM

[AK3515]

I see it now.
All their games released with Always-On are pirated to hell and back.
But smaller, casual Ubi games without annoying and ridiculous DRM sell like hotcakes.

Ubi: We are giving up on hardcore PC games, nobody buys them derp derp.

 

[ASnogarD]

I am also not giving up... on NOT buying Ubisofts games.

Its a pity as I nearly grabbed Settlers 7 , till I saw it was a Ubisoft game ... and Anno1404 ( I think ).

It is ironic indeed, this is actively encouraging piracy just to avoid the draconic DRM, and if you can pirate the bloody game AND avoid the DRM, why buy it ?

Myself, I just go without personally.
I am a novice hobbyist game dev myself so I understand the desire to void piracy but to upset your customers, your own fans and still fail to make a impact on piracy ... and WORSE be too stubborn to realise your just messing around your own fan base long after realising the failure...

... too stupid for words.

 

[ecade]

I think BlindChance is right on the money. In fact, the only thing I find surprising is that Ubisoft took so long to patch AC2 and SC:C to remove the "always on" element. By keeping the initial sales window free of pirated versions for 6-weeks, the DRM had already done its job, and as samsonguy920 rightly points out maintaining server-based DRM systems costs money on an ongoing basis. Plus, don't forget that one of the lost benefits of the "always on" system was that it enabled other "cloud" services like remote saves, and maintaining those servers represents an ongoing cost.

Which raises an interesting question... does anyone know if the patch that disabled the "always on" element of the DRM also disabled the remote save feature? If samsonguy920 is right, and this was partly motivated by cutting costs (which makes sense), then one would expect that the remote save feature would also have been disabled at the same time.

BlindChance said: "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." That would be because 60-80% of the revenue for a conventional AAA game is earned during the first 30 days after release. Any chance a developer/publisher is going to obtain a positive return on their investment in the game depends entirely on how the game performs during that initial window. Frankly, most sales that happen after that period are icing on the cake... a nice trickle of a revenue stream, but not the primary source of revenue. This is why zero-day piracy is such a huge problem, and it's why developers and publisher are willing to inconvienience their customer base is it preserves this narrow window for even a few weeks.

Of course, with the development of new revenue streams (aftermarket DLC, microtransactions, virtual goods, etc.) this model is slowly but surely changing... but for AAA games, the conventional, packaged goods, sell as much as we can within the first 30 days will remain the dominant model for the next few years at least.

 

[Delusibeta]

I think BlindChance is right on the money. In fact, the only thing I find surprising is that Ubisoft took so long to patch AC2 and SC:C to remove the "always on" element. By keeping the initial sales window free of pirated versions for 6-weeks, the DRM had already done its job,

The problem with that argument is that, from my understanding, Splinter Cell Conviction got cracked in around two days. Ergo, the DRM is ineffective. And, despite Azdron claiming "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!", I really doubt piracy is going to kill any major industries outright.

 

[Atmos Duality]

They sunk a considerable amount of capital into making that "Worst Case Scenario DRM"; it actually makes some business sense to not scrap it entirely, even if it's about as popular as Gonorrhea.

Apart from fucking over future sales, I wonder what they will do with it?

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

It sucks, but gamers (PC gamers, mostly) fucking steal. It's a $60 product, and I know that some of the people commenting on this must have pirated Ubisoft's products. It's bad, but you've forced it to happen.

Either come up with a better solution, or quit being part of the problem. I seriously don't have any better ideas on how to prevent theft from Ubisoft, so I'll play their stuff on 360.

The existence of shoplifters doesn't justify full-on cavity searches for every customer who walks into and out of a store, so why the hell should the existence of software pirates justify the anal violation of legitimate paying customers that is DRM? It doesn't stop pirates - this system was 'effective enough' to temporarily delay them from putting out a full working superior copy of the game on day one, but the horrendous backlash it caused would seem to negate any potential benefit the publisher might reap from slightly annoying would-be pirates for a spell.

The important thing to consider though is that pirates never have to deal with DRM, only the people who actually pay for legitimate copies of their software do - that's like a store that insists on cavity searches for everyone who isn't a shoplifter, while the thieves are free to simply stroll on through the doors. And I don't care how you present it, there is never going to be a justification for punishing only the people who actually give you money, done in the name of "combating piracy!", that holds up to scrutiny.

They should just come right out and admit the point of DRM like this is to control our use of their products in such a way that they can decide when we can't play them anymore and have to go buy new games instead. It's a motivation that's every bit as reprehensible, but at least it would be refreshingly honest to see a publisher explain that such a motivation is the reasoning behind why they keep using expensive and ineffectual software that only annoys honest people.

 

[Aggieknight]

On the day that EA announces that they are killing a ton of old games' online servers, this is beyond silly.

EA decides to stop supporting Battle for Middle Earth 2, you can't play against people online. That sucks, but OK.

Ubisoft decides to stop support AC2, you can't play the game period. Ouch. So much for your game "license".

I'm in the "Not buying an Ubisoft product again" crowd. In fact, I was accidentally given an Ubisoft game for Xmas, and returned it. I don't pirate; I've just got too many options for my gaming time to deal with such awful corporate practices.

There've lost at least 3 sales from me last year (not counting the gift).

EDIT - get this...it's a new year! Duh.

 

[Vzzdak]

I just went to the Ubisoft web site and skimmed the 115 PC titles they have. Except for a handful, most of the stock is "meh." So in a nutshell, I bought a lot of games in 2010, but only one had been a Ubisoft title. If this is a reasonably common scenario, then I would hope that Ubisoft is not confusing disinterest with piracy.

 

[BlindChance]

... Partially true. But I'll make the argument that Ubisoft LOST more customers than it could possibly gain with that temporary increase in sales.

Sure, and that's a good argument. (You need evidence though, as well, and that's hard to come by on either side of the fence.) My point is that all other DRM is a slam dunk argument: We can prove it did nothing to deter theft, and can argue pretty successfully that it cost sales. This time, we can continue to argue the latter, but it's difficult to argue it did nothing to deter theft. That means we're now into cost vs. benefit analysis, and that's more than any other DRM scheme has ever managed. That's why I don't scoff at Ubisoft. They succeeded in making a DRM so unbelievably horrible that it actually worked, somewhat.

Don't forget that with every game Ubisoft releases with this scheme, it will take less and less time for the crackers to crack it, to the point where the time devoted to cracking the scheme is trivial.

I don't know. Ubisoft have learned more about it, too, and they'll be improving it. Shamus Young called it "impossible to beat" [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7467-Experienced-Points-Impossible-to-beat-DRM], and points out some very clever tricks Ubisoft could add to the system. (He's also an overall detractor of the system, mind, but he acknowledges it works.) Again, I'm not denying it's bad overall, but it's defensible, something no other DRM system can claim.

I can only assume you're not being serious there. Sales of the PC version of AC2 tanked, and the direct cause was the DRM. I'm another proud member of the "Never buying Ubisoft games again, ever" club.

Show me the numbers, and I'll believe this argument. If AC2 sold less than AC1 on PC, I'll be willing to consider the idea that their DRM hurt their sales.

 

[nipsen]

I don't know. Ubisoft have learned more about it, too, and they'll be improving it. Shamus Young called it "impossible to beat" [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7467-Experienced-Points-Impossible-to-beat-DRM], and points out some very clever tricks Ubisoft could add to the system. (He's also an overall detractor of the system, mind, but he acknowledges it works.) Again, I'm not denying it's bad overall, but it's defensible, something no other DRM system can claim.

.. I think his point was that in order to get it to work, it would have to involve basically streaming the entire game off a server, as well as have programmed into it so complex routines that the work on the actual game would take a back seat.

There's also the problem that - as long as they're not on a 100% protected platform, the data in the game has to have been complete at one point, and that data can be duplicated. Such as coding a video, and expecting it to be impossible to copy, even though you can, at some point, see it uncoded with your eyes.

If that isn't an option, then the external system can be duplicated, with the logic and the resources being spoofed. Even if it's dependent on individual keys - there's nothing stopping you from duplicating a single session, and then duplicating the responses from that play.

The point is that the only way to make a system like this work, is making it so complex and intricate that it will take too much work to crack, for anyone who isn't working full time on it.

The lemma to that would be: "at this point, the drm is more expensive than the actual game".

And that's not an exaggeration - it just means that the degree of complexity a system like that would have to have - would involve it being part of the program-logic, and be part of it in such a complex and manually created way that it isn't viable to try to circumvent it.

I don't doubt for a moment that publishers would want that to happen, though, or that they would easily spend money on it. I'm just doubting whether anyone on any kind of project would appreciate being stuck with having to design drm-tricks in between every quest-item.

 

[BlindChance]

.. I think his point was that in order to get it to work, it would have to involve basically streaming the entire game off a server, as well as have programmed into it so complex routines that the work on the actual game would take a back seat.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't his point. His argument rests in flags. Flag off: Enemy is not present. Flag on: Enemy is present for assassination. And so on. Every game can have thousands of those flags, easily, and they're very small pieces of data. All the graphics, the sound, everything else can be on the disc. That's the big stuff. The stuff that's streaming are the tiny data points that govern the game's logic.

I quote Shamus: "Your local copy of the game is missing key bits of game logic. Out of the box, the game doesn't know where characters are standing, where the cutscenes are triggered, what items are in the area, or even where the player should appear. All of that is on the server, and the server doesn't send it until the moment that you need it. That information is small (easy and lightweight to transmit) and if it's wrong the game will break."

There's also the problem that - as long as they're not on a 100% protected platform, the data in the game has to have been complete at one point, and that data can be duplicated. Such as coding a video, and expecting it to be impossible to copy, even though you can, at some point, see it uncoded with your eyes.

Sure, that's roughly the point of his original column, "Impossible DRM [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/5930-The-Impossible-DRM]". It's very difficult to somehow control how a system is used when the user is in complete control of that system. That's why conventional DRM cannot work.

But this time, part of the game is on a 100% protected platform: The Ubisoft servers. That's the whole point; they've taken a major element of control away from the user.

If that isn't an option, then the external system can be duplicated, with the logic and the resources being spoofed. Even if it's dependent on individual keys - there's nothing stopping you from duplicating a single session, and then duplicating the responses from that play.

Nope. Here I quote Shamus Young again. This is a long one, so I'll use the quote tags.

But it's possible to make this process a gigantic and time-consuming pain in the ass. For example, if the triggers all behave slightly differently on different difficulty levels, then the cracker will need to play through the full game on every difficulty to get all the information they need to make a complete server.

Then the killing blow: Make the various triggers dependent on branching player behavior ... Suddenly the cracker needs to play the game all the way through on every difficulty and following all of the possible branching paths if they want all the data they need to make the game work.

Cracking is fun and exciting now because the cracker can get the game a day or two before release and have it cracked before launch. They get to "defeat" the DRM-authoring numbskulls at SecuROM and feel like heroes. The adventure becomes a lot less fun if they have to wait until the servers go live at launch, and then they have to labor for weeks or months and play the game until they're sick of it. And when they're done, they'll have a crack for an old game that nobody cares about anymore.

Anyway, back to your post.

The point is that the only way to make a system like this work, is making it so complex and intricate that it will take too much work to crack, for anyone who isn't working full time on it.

The lemma to that would be: "at this point, the drm is more expensive than the actual game".

And that's not an exaggeration - it just means that the degree of complexity a system like that would have to have - would involve it being part of the program-logic, and be part of it in such a complex and manually created way that it isn't viable to try to circumvent it.

I don't doubt for a moment that publishers would want that to happen, though, or that they would easily spend money on it. I'm just doubting whether anyone on any kind of project would appreciate being stuck with having to design drm-tricks in between every quest-item.

Right on the first point at least. That's the whole goal: Not to make it impossible to crack, but to make it ridiculously slow, boring and painful to crack. Delay is the deadliest form of denial. No security system is impossible to beat, but you can make it not worth your while to beat it.

Too complex to work? Maybe, but I'm unconvinced. If the DRM production software is built into their own development tools, then it would take very little extra effort at all: The game itself would be looking for the flags. Remember, building in flags is normal development practice, it's just normally to govern gameplay rather than prevent copying. It's possible to conceive of a system that builds the DRM entirely on its own, based on nothing more than normal game development. So the real complexity is in building that first system, and while not a programmer, I don't think that sounds undoable.

Again, I wish to add: I'm a detractor of this DRM system. It's unduly intrusive, like all DRM systems punishes the paying users instead of the pirates, and is of dubious use in lifting sales. (I said earlier that I was unconvinced that AC2's DRM hurt sales. That's true, but I'm also suspicious that it helped. My guess is that it was a wash, neither helping nor harming overly much. But it's only a guess.) But let's give credit where credit's due: It's a system so unbelievably horrible that it actually works. That's more than any other DRM system can claim. And it's why, I fear, it will be imitated by other game publishers.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I've expressed my opinion regarding DRM in general on this site before, specifically, here [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.86308-DRM-Censorship-you-brought-it-on-yourselves?page=5#1279646]. The relevant points are:

a) Neither side (the end user community nor the corporate sector) has the moral high ground. Either side will, given too much latitude, exploit their position of privilege. The high rate of piracy of DRM free games (e.g. countless indy titles) shows one side of the spectrum. The other side can be found in the movie and music industries, where licenses for DRMed titles are revoked at whim as old protection systems are retired for new, making old files and old hardware suddenly useless, and the countless bites of the apple publishers take with new releases of old titles with a bit of added content. And don't forget the debacle that was Windows Vista, which originally was going to phone home at least once a week, and was licensed to a singular non-transferable system, until you had too many upgrade points. It still features a kill switch where Microsoft can turn your system into a proprietary Microsoft Website Terminal by sending your machine its secret signal.

b) While it might be true that the user community brought it on themselves (it = inconvenient, invasive DRM) due to the high rate of piracy, the corporate end also brings it on themselves (it = high rates of piracy) by creating inconvenience to legitimate customers, who are then motivated to seek means to circumvent that inconvenience, and in doing so, learn the vectors by which pirated software and DRM circumvention elements are acquired. I learned about the torrent community, myself, once EA refused to replace a cracked CD in a sealed retail box (and was rude about it). When it becomes easier to learn how to torrent and then find the files to replace a disc than it is to convince customer service to send you a proper replacement, the system is officially broken.

Regarding Ubi-Soft's always online DRM (which violates the fourth amendment, requiring you to reveal your usage habits of the software), it doesn't matter how we, the end users, feel about it, even if some of us are willing to boycot Ubi and EA for daring to monitor us so closely. It doesn't matter that it doesn't work (and whether there was a zero-day crack or a six-week crack is inconsequential) because it looks good on paper. No matter how much we understand the cause and effect, those buying Ubisoft stocks don't! Company profilers are raving about this neat new anti-piracy protection, oblivious to whether or not it actually works because it just plain sounds good.

So, yes, the internet-leash scheme has damaged Ubi's reputation and might even push Ubisoft the way of Microprose, but the execs who are instigating it are motivated towards short-term solutions, things to inflate their golden parachutes before the bubble bursts. Interestingly, many of the games that have the leash are pretty sucky (Tiberian Twilight comes to mind) and high price tags and inconvenient or invasive DRMs have a tendency to exacerbate the chaffing that game-suckiness causes.

 

[Motiv_]

I honestly have no problem with DRM, so long as it doesn't inconvenience me. CD keys and disc checks are no problem at all, if anything, installation is more irritating than both of those combined. But requiring me to be connected to the internet at all times? Why? What's the point?

Admittedly, there are very few people out there who don't have any internet, but at the same time, there's plenty of people who have shitty internet, or pay as you go internet.

The current system for AC2 is hardly better. When my internet crashes, as it does frequently, usually what I prefer doing is booting up a game to pass the time until it reconnects. Steam allows me to do this if I have the right options checked, as do games without any DRM at all, and that's what I like.

And that's just my internet, as many have stated before, Ubisoft's servers are far from foolproof, and blame it on trolls DDOSing all you want Ubisoft, I'll still believe it was just your servers having a brain hemorrhage, which can easily happen again and probably will.

I'm not a pirate, don't inconvenience me.