Ubisoft DRM confirmed to boot you from your singleplayer game when the net drops out

[Purkake]

Well, it's not the industry's job to punish the pirates in the first place. The problem lies with whoever is supposed to police copyright infringement.

[Monte Carlo]

^ That's incorrect. If I leave my laptop, iphone and wallet on the backseat of my (unlocked) car door I can hardly complain that the police weren't doing their job properly when someone steals them.

 

On the other hand, if I block the road both ends with rubble so nobody can walk down the street and booby-trap my car with dynamite in case anybody tries to break into it then I'm in the wrong.

 

Copyright infringement is multi-jurisdictional. In some countries the legal infrastructure is good, in some it is poor. In certain parts of the world the authorities might have bigger problems to worry about than Ubisoft losing some money. That is an issue for Ubisoft --- and there are things they can do about it.

 

Cheers

MC

[Purkake]

They can protect their products, but they can't actually "punish" anyone, which you seemed to be suggesting before.

[Zoraptor]

But at least 90 percent illustrious, with Chart-Track stating the game has already outsold Bethesda's Oblivion by 57%, pulling in sales of 55% on Xbox 360, 28% on PS3, and 17% on PC.

 

A little better than what I remembered, but still losing 5 to 1 against the consoles.

 

Ignorant statement. It's not losing 5 to 1 against any single console. That's what people talking about 'the consoles' fail to grasp: the PC is a platform. The Xbox is a platform. The console is NOT a platform. The breakdown of sales is roughly 6:3:2. For this game sales on the PC lag those on other platforms, but they are still high (more than high enough to justify porting - and on that note, it'd cost more to port it from Xbox to PS3 than Xbox to PC, assuming they didn't actually code it for PC first, which they often do).

It's also stats from the UK, which has the highest console penetration of any (major) country and does not include any PC digital sales of which the UK has one of the highest rates- thus not the most representative figures to use as they are pretty much the maximums for the two consoles and the minimum for PC.

[Purkake]

Getting PC sales data is devilishly hard, I'm working with what I've got here.

[Tigranes]

The difference is that the music industry was collectively going to fall off a cliff if they didn't adapt and even then Apple had to twist their arm.

 

The gaming industry is doing just fine, it's the PC that's the problem. Since it only brings in a fraction of the profits, they aren't really analyzing the problem from all angles, but just slapping a giant patch on it. When the going gets too tough they can easily pull out and cut their losses.

 

You're pretty on target here I think, Purkake. The problem is not yet overwhelmingly obviously serious enough for all the suits to get up and take notice and say "we gotta deal with this and DRM isn't working". There's no real conclusive evidence out in the public OR in the industry in general. Until it happens...

[LostStraw]

After backlash from the community over some of their DRM schemes they released Prince of Persia DRM free as a test .. guess the data they got from that steered them in this direction. I would say that points to the suits believing that DRM does indeed work, not that they're ignoring the problem.

 

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56328

[Tigranes]

That's a fair enough move. Would be good for them to release the findings publicly.

[Syraxis]

That's a fair enough move. Would be good for them to release the findings publicly.

 

I'm already predicting this test will end up being considered a failure from ubi's pov.

[Magister Lajciak]

Well, Ubisoft has now certainly lost me as a customer, as this is by far the most draconian DRM (DDRM) scheme I have heard of for games. Ultimately, their decision will only impact me slightly, since I only buy their games infrequently anyway. Indeed, the last one I remember buying from them off the top of my head was Tribes of the East and there aren't any games I know about in their pipeline that would interest me. They do hold the rights to Might and Magic games, though, which I would be interested in, particularly if they made Heroes of Might and Magic VI, but I guess I will just have to forego those games if they choose to make them. Oh well...

 

It seems that this is becoming a repeating pattern, just the company changes. The EA has tried this in 2008 and 2009, but the huge public backlash has prompted the company to eventually back off from the policy. Kudos to EA for that, since their decision to return to disk checks as their DRM of choice (plus DLC as their supplemental DRM) has enabled me to buy Dragon Age, an excellent game, which I would have certainly boycotted if it had online activation.

 

I must say that I am getting a bit tired of having to research each game to see what type of DRM it has before I can buy it though, as the information is not available in game reviews. Sometimes I am tempted to just find a different hobby altogether and give up on gaming, but for the moment I am still a PC gamer (I have no intention of switching to consoles - it is either PC or a different hobby for me).

[Magister Lajciak]

So I can buy a game, and if weather or anything causes my phone line/internet to go down.. I'm not going to be able to play the game.

 

If my router acts up.. I'm not going to be able to play the game.

 

If my wifi messes up.. I'm not going to be able to play the game.

 

My, this sounds like ubisoft games will be a good investment for single-player game time...

Even better, if Ubisoft ever decides on a whim to flip the switch to off on their website, you'll never be able to play said game again.

 

Raithe's reasons were all reasonably likely, while yours is highly unlikely. I don't believe Ubisoft is run by Doctor evil and he's just waiting to flip a switch for destruction.

 

Neither is the EA run by Doctor Evil (though BioWare is run by two doctors ), yet: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/17...nquest-servers/

 

Here are the 'Service Updates' (games reliant on servers EA is shutting down) from EA: http://www.ea.com/2/service-updates

 

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in online authentication and indeed any other DRM that relies on any kind of connection to the publisher/developer after the game is purchased. Indeed, this great potential for losing the game I have purchased (and I consider it HIGHLY likely, as evidenced by this, by EA's shutdowns of NWN DLC, by shutdowns of music DRM servers by giant companies like Walmart and Microsoft,...) is one of the reasons why any game, no matter how good, that requires any connection to the publisher/developer after purchase is on the automatic no-buy list for me. For games, where only the multiplayer relies on being online (games that have deliberately excluded LAN to make you rely on the online systems of the publisher/developer), those make it to my no-buy list if it is the multiplayer part of the game I am after, but not if the single-player part of the game is the reason why I want it.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Magister Lajciak

[RPGmasterBoo]

After backlash from the community over some of their DRM schemes they released Prince of Persia DRM free as a test .. guess the data they got from that steered them in this direction. I would say that points to the suits believing that DRM does indeed work, not that they're ignoring the problem.

 

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56328

 

That's a trick on their part. No one says DRM forces people into piracy, we just say its annoying and useless and problematic for the poor sod who bought the original - while the pirates enjoy their "better" releases.

 

If its goal is to stop piracy - It. doesnt. work.

 

That should be enough for any sane individual.

[Hurlshort]

Neither is the EA run by Doctor Evil (though BioWare is run by two doctors ), yet: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/17...nquest-servers/

 

Here are the 'Service Updates' (games reliant on servers EA is shutting down) from EA: http://www.ea.com/2/service-updates

 

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in online authentication and indeed any other DRM that relies on any kind of connection to the publisher/developer after the game is purchased. Indeed, this great potential for losing the game I have purchased (and I consider it HIGHLY likely, as evidenced by this, by EA's shutdowns of NWN DLC, by shutdowns of music DRM servers by giant companies like Walmart and Microsoft,...) is one of the reasons why any game, no matter how good, that requires any connection to the publisher/developer after purchase is on the automatic no-buy list for me. For games, where only the multiplayer relies on being online (games that have deliberately excluded LAN to make you rely on the online systems of the publisher/developer), those make it to my no-buy list if it is the multiplayer part of the game I am after, but not if the single-player part of the game is the reason why I want it.

 

EA is only shutting down the multiplayer servers, you can still continue to play the game as a single player title. That seems like a pretty obvious risk when you buy a game for online features. MMO's shut down as well.

 

Also, the music DRM site for Walmart gave people ample time to take the music they had bought and put them on CD's. The entire reason they did that was because they shifted to non-DRM music, which would seem to be preferable to someone against DRM.

 

I completely endorse your boycott. I think this is a stupid decision by Ubisoft and it will backfire terribly. But the whole scare tactics where these companies are purposefully trying to screw us is a bit overboard.

[LostStraw]

After backlash from the community over some of their DRM schemes they released Prince of Persia DRM free as a test .. guess the data they got from that steered them in this direction. I would say that points to the suits believing that DRM does indeed work, not that they're ignoring the problem.

 

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/56328

 

That's a trick on their part. No one says DRM forces people into piracy, we just say its annoying and useless and problematic for the poor sod who bought the original - while the pirates enjoy their "better" releases.

 

If its goal is to stop piracy - It. doesnt. work.

 

That should be enough for any sane individual.

Actually some people do say DRM is the reason they pirate...

 

The goal is to reduce piracy and have better sales, although I'm sure they'd enjoy being able to stop it. They have their sales information/studies and I have to believe that the industry is doing this because they want more money and this is what they think will get them there. Anyone saying DRM doesn't work without any real data to back it up doesn't help the argument against the publishers case that DRM does have some measurable effect of increasing profits.

[Nepenthe]

Actually some people do say DRM is the reason they pirate...

 

And I could say that the reason I don't wake up to a different super model every day is because I find them boring.

[I want teh kotor 3]

This DRM is bull.

[Magister Lajciak]

Neither is the EA run by Doctor Evil (though BioWare is run by two doctors ), yet: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/17...nquest-servers/

 

Here are the 'Service Updates' (games reliant on servers EA is shutting down) from EA: http://www.ea.com/2/service-updates

 

It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in online authentication and indeed any other DRM that relies on any kind of connection to the publisher/developer after the game is purchased. Indeed, this great potential for losing the game I have purchased (and I consider it HIGHLY likely, as evidenced by this, by EA's shutdowns of NWN DLC, by shutdowns of music DRM servers by giant companies like Walmart and Microsoft,...) is one of the reasons why any game, no matter how good, that requires any connection to the publisher/developer after purchase is on the automatic no-buy list for me. For games, where only the multiplayer relies on being online (games that have deliberately excluded LAN to make you rely on the online systems of the publisher/developer), those make it to my no-buy list if it is the multiplayer part of the game I am after, but not if the single-player part of the game is the reason why I want it.

 

EA is only shutting down the multiplayer servers, you can still continue to play the game as a single player title. That seems like a pretty obvious risk when you buy a game for online features. MMO's shut down as well.

 

MMOs do shut down as well - one of the main reasons why I don't play them.

 

I agree with you that it is an obvious risk that when you buy a game reliant on online authentication to install or play. That is precisely why I don't buy all such games and seek to warn others about the risk. The above should be a good illustration for why I don't trust the 'we will keep the servers up' arguments. This is one of the things I have been concerned about since the debut of the online authentication (or worse... always online) DRM, but even I didn't expect them to shut down servers so quickly after games' release.

 

You are right that it is the multiplayer parts of games that have been impacted thus far. This points to the dangerous trend of using online-only multiplayer as a form of DRM and deliberately excluding LAN for that purpose that is becoming so popular these days. That's why if a game featuring both multiplayer and singleplayer modes is reliant on the internet for multiplayer (or some other feature) but not for single player, I evaluate the game as if it were single player game only (or as if it lacked the online feature) when I am deciding whether to buy it or not.

 

The entire reason they did that was because they shifted to non-DRM music, which would seem to be preferable to someone against DRM.

 

Sure, their new system is far preferable to their old one and I support their move to DRM-free music. That doesn't change the fact that they did cut support for their previous customers who bought DRMed music (though they did give them time). My point is don't let this happen to you with games! The companies will find lots of reasons to cut their DDRM servers. Perhaps they will switch to a different type of DRM that doesn't need them or they will decide that using them for older games with insufficient (for them) player bases is uneconomical, or they might release new versions of a game and will want to incentivize migration to it, or they might simply go bankrupt. The reasons are manifold.

 

Just to clarify, however, I am not opposed to DRM. I am merely opposed to DRM that requires some sort of external contact with the publisher/developer/third party after I have already purchased the game - hence, my opposition to online activation and other online-reliant forms of DRM. I have no problem with disk checks. Even my SecuROM signature that apparently indicates dislike of SecuROM is only true for those versions of SecuROM DDRM that have become online-reliant - I have no problems with other versions of SecuROM or even with new versions of SecuROM when its online activation features are disabled (e.g. I believe NWN 2 uses SecuROM 7, but thankfully it does not utilize the online activation part of the DRM).

 

But the whole scare tactics where these companies are purposefully trying to screw us is a bit overboard.

 

Well, Ubisoft is purposefully trying to screw us (unless you think they are implementing this system by accident and not on purpose ), but not out of malice towards us. It is more like disregard for what we think driven by their fear of second hand sales and day 1 piracy. Hence, their screwing us is a byproduct of their policy, but their policy is deliberate. The key is to make them realize that it will not pay financially if they disregard our preferences on this issue. This is done by not purchasing the games that implement these systems, spreading awareness of what's happening and letting Ubisoft know about our opinions/purchasing decisions/reasons.

 

I completely endorse your boycott. I think this is a stupid decision by Ubisoft and it will backfire terribly.

 

Well, thanks! I appreciate the support. I am not going to campaign as hard against this as against EA decisions in 2008/2009 (and EA has thankfully learned after the backlash and now implements sensible DRM... disk checks), simply because I don't care sufficiently about Ubisoft titles (except for the games I mentioned that they hold rights to), but all who are opposed to Ubisoft's move certainly have my passive support, boycott participation (when it becomes relevant and Ubisoft produces titles I care about) and perhaps even active support occassionally.

[Purkake]

Actually now that I think about, the music industry is pretty much doing what the PC gaming industry should be doing. They dropped the DRM, ignore the pirates and focus on paying customers.

 

Are they only doing it because they were backed into a corner while the gaming industry still has a way out in the form of consoles?

 

 

Pretty funny to bring up the music industry as a shining example of DD, when RIAA is still suing people left and right

 

Edited February 21, 2010 by Purkake

[Zoraptor]

The difference is that the music industry was collectively going to fall off a cliff if they didn't adapt and even then Apple had to twist their arm.

 

The gaming industry is doing just fine, it's the PC that's the problem. Since it only brings in a fraction of the profits, they aren't really analyzing the problem from all angles, but just slapping a giant patch on it. When the going gets too tough they can easily pull out and cut their losses.

 

You're pretty on target here I think, Purkake. The problem is not yet overwhelmingly obviously serious enough for all the suits to get up and take notice and say "we gotta deal with this and DRM isn't working". There's no real conclusive evidence out in the public OR in the industry in general. Until it happens...

"The gaming industry is doing just fine" is incorrect, and that's pretty much inarguable. The only publisher that's financially secure at this point is Activision, most of the others are either close to bankrupt (Atari, 2k, Sega US, Eidos prior to it getting acquired), have been close to bankrupt and are still losing money regularly (Ubisoft) or have been losing money for years previous even if they are in no immediate danger (EA). Even Activision has managed to have money losing quarters despite having the $1 billion a year of near pure profit WoW provides. The hardware manufacturers aren't in great shape, Nintendo excluded. MS has worked hard to bury the gigantic hole caused by half its 360's getting RRODs (that on hardware which sells at a loss, let alone is replaced at a loss) and shunted most of its development costs for the 360 onto the written off budget of the original xbox- it's unlikely they will see any overall profit from the 360 despite continuing to push out its retirement date. And that's not even considering Sony and the PS3 which has not got anywhere near the economies of scale- especially wrt to Cell- needed to get close to breaking even. Until recently their games division was being propped up by the PS2. Some independent developers are doing fine, of course, but there's no shortage of "[dev house] shuts down" headlines to balance that out.

 

In short, gaming industry is not doing just fine unless your definition of just fine is anything which isn't actively imploding.

[Purkake]

Doing fine as in continuing to sell both hardware and software. Whatever financial problems they have because of mismanagement/bad economy/whatever isn't related to DRM and affects the PC and console markets equally and thus isn't related to what we were talking about.

[Mamoulian War]

Doing fine as in continuing to sell both hardware and software. Whatever financial problems they have because of mismanagement/bad economy/whatever isn't related to DRM and affects the PC and console markets equally and thus isn't related to what we were talking about.

 

Amen!

[Malcador]

Eh I wouldn't mind this industry suffering a crash, or at least some of the larger beasts falling.

[Magister Lajciak]

Here is an article from the point of view of the retailers: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/21751.cfm

 

They have their own interests and I just thought it might be interesting to also hear their perspective, since usually we only hear those of the publishers/developers and of gamers like us.

 

Note: The article is not directly related to the Ubisoft DRM system, just to the online-based DRM systems in general.

[Purkake]

Eh I wouldn't mind this industry suffering a crash, or at least some of the larger beasts falling.

Woo unemployment!

 

@Magister Lajciak: You can also thank the retailers for the wonderful invention of pre-order bonuses. Having a greedy middleman doesn't help anyone.

[Magister Lajciak]

It appears business analysts agree with us that the online-based DRM schemes are designed primarily to fight second-hand sales (as opposed to fighting piracy): http://www.cnbc.com/id/35526147/site/14081...C&par=yahoo

 

Nothing we didn't really know already, just that it's directly echoed by by the business people.

 

Anyway, I am not pleased at what Ubisoft is doing, but am considering short-selling their stock or buying put options on them. Thus far I have not engaged in short-selling, but I am figuring that I might as well make some money out of their self-induced misery. That said, what makes me hesitant is that their stock is near historic lows already ($9.42 as of close today, down from over $70 in 2008)... so their stupidity might already be priced into the stock.