Check this out:
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1630600&cid=31975686
"I work at Ubisoft as a programmer, which is why I'm posting as an AC. What the next step will be in the DRM, the ramp-up, is gameplay code that is run from the server. So in order to crack that one the pirates will have to fully emulate the server side code. Not the whole of the gameplay code mind you, just a small, but necessary and essential, portion. This should be in effect for the coming summer releases.For the record I think Ubisoft are being asshat idiots in continuing to ramp up this obscenity of a slap in the face to paying consumers. And I'm not alone, you should see the in-house mailing list flamewars about this (which also means that other employees are freaking greedy douchebags, it's not just the suits.)"
He can believe it, because I am one of those people. I actually have excellent Internet, but due to a storm lost my fiber connection for 4 days. That just reinforced my decision not to buy any game based on such a scheme. I don't mind the one time and limited activation policy, but I do mind the always on policy.
Monk, you're hilarious. These rationalizations are truly entertaining.
A digital form of locking one's home door would be more akin to cloud-computing where the entire product remains/resides on the company's server and you simply use/view the product remotely.
You open a physical lock by means of a physical key. The lock is a rudimentary bar to access requiring proof of eligibility in the form of that key. There is no active component, it is entirely passive.
A CD key is a digital key code for an algorithmic lock. The code is required to access the product. Again, no active component.
You're not even treating the purchaser like a renter, pretending that the copyright, the only part the company retains ownership of, is somehow the product, as so many senile copyright holders have convinced themselves. Even a renter has their own keys and control over their domicile once they've paid for it.
I do believe what Ubisoft are doing is quite bad. They are punishing everone by doing this, not just the people who pirate there game. Really what is the point in creating an online DRM? Don't they know that the pirates will crack it anyway. It doesn't matter weather its on-line, off-line or has an 40ft troll guarding the game, the pirates will crack it anyway, and once again, the people who buy this game honestly from them will be punished.
I know that a lot of sins of a solar game members who live in Australia always get disconnected from the game quite regularly because of there infrastructure (internet). The Monk, if you type it in google, and research it, you will see yourself that many countries around the world, including the UK and Australia has some MAJOR gaps arranging from people having no internet, or having a very low speed (below 2MB).
I know the point your getting at Monk, but pirates will crack a game, and it doesn't matter what DRM you will use, but punishing the people who are innocent in this isn't the way forward. and please Monk, show some solidarity to the people who have bad, slow or unreliable internet connections, you might think that every developed nation has a good internet infrastructure, but there are major gaps, believe me, some parts of the Uk have no internet.
I think just basic DRM should be used, you going to expect pirates to crack it anyway, there is no point losing customers, just to make a point to the minority of pirates.
A proper analogy is that you buy a house with cash, owning it outright. The house comes with doors/windows that automatically are locked, and each time you wish to enter you have to call the realtor to be allowed in. If the realtor isn't available (sleeping, etc.) you can't enter the house you own and paid for.
Further, those who didn't buy their homes but merely are squatters can enter 'their' homes with no problem.
Given the choice between selling 1M digital download games for $20 or 100k games for $60... The problem is they want to sell 1M games for $60, and are trying to force that situation using DRM, ignoring the natural free market force of 'price vs. units sold'.
Music tracks are a good example -- Apple wanted to sell them for 99 cents (about what a track costs from back in the vinyl album days), and the studios wanted to sell them for 2-3x more -- and they no longer have no expenses for brick&mortar stores, physical product, etc. -- meaning greatly increased profits over the old vinyl days. Same with vinyl to CDs -- cds are cheaper to produce but they discovered people were used to spending ~$15 for a vinyl so they kept CD prices the same and ate the increased profits.
Now they're trying to do the same with digital downloads -- keep the same price point but eat the savings instead of passing some of that savings along. That's just greedy. Instead, if they would sell a track for say 10 cents, they'd sell many many times more product for equal or slightly increased profit -- and everyone would be happy. But they're stuck in the old model, and want to force it upon us with crappy DRM so as to greatly increase their profits. That's understandable, as is customer's reluctance to be taken advantage of like that.
What studies? When? Who conducted these studies? Where did they do them? By definition pirates are often more affluent than homeless people, since they have a computer and an internet connection. That would mean any study would show that pirates are "bigger" spenders than the general public, becuase the general public includes people who can't even afford a computer to pirate onto.
I'm done with Ubisoft etc, but this claim I find singularly dubious.
Asked, Answered and then answered again. If you check the subsequent posts on PAGE 2 you'll notice what I took issue with was him saying "MOSTLY" which he has since recanted.
Reading ALL posts in a thread before replying is usally a good idea.....hehe Believe me I've been burned more than once in a thread by not reading subsequent posts.
You're hilarious. Every time someone disagrees with you, you think they didn't read your post. You sound like a broken record, a company shill unable to break from script. You don't even address people who bother to read your post and give you a breakdown as to why your logic is flawed. That house analogy is very close wo what people are saying, but the crickets are sounding because you are too busy doing what you do, challenge everyone's ability to read rather than actually discuss anything.
@ pyschoak
I think you're the hilarious one, since you keep refusing to see the point of my analogy. It's not to make a direct comparison (since in most cases direct comparisons due to circumstantial differences aren't even possible) it's to point out that we all take measures to protect our shit, and in many cases not any differently than the software companies of today do.
For example, my home is protected by biometric finger-print scanners. Should the power ever fail, I would effectively be locked out of my own (bought and paid for) home. It is a risk I take for the benefit of using said biometric technology. Sometimes risk just has to be weighed and taken. Obviously my wife and I have decided that the risk of being locked-out someday is worth the benefit of the technology.
Same with software, you weigh the risk of the "locking-mechanism" with the software and if you don't want to/can't for whatever reason accept said risk then you don't. This doesn't (as has been pointed out by myself and other rational posters in this thread) give one the right to simply "pirate" said software because one is displeased with the "locking-mechanism".
the Monk
@ Nesrie,
I see you replied to my reply to your post? Oh wait......no you didn't.
Is this the part where the world is supposed to bow down and let you and your wife rule the world? After all, you and your wife made a decision, and that should be enough for everyone else... right?
double post
Now you're just trying to be difficult.
What exactly should I point out then? On page 2 you said:
This. After I posted exactly that I believe accountability by ALL is necessary.
??
How is that reading my posts? Obviously you aren't reading them then.....
Not to mention that I have in fact responded to every post that I see where someone has either adressed me specifically or seems to be referring to something I might have posted earlier. Point something out then that I haven't responded to and I will.....
@ Nick-Danger,
Your analogy is flawed.
Again, as I was pointing out to psychoak I wasn't making a direct comparison (ie. I wasn't comparing the locking mechanisms of houses and game software). I was simply pointing to everyone's desire to protect their things in whatever manner possible and that doing so is no different than the desire companies have in protecting their interests. The initial comparison of locking-mechanisms betweeen houses and software was actually brought up by psychoak on Page 2 (reply #31).
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-27679-Vancouver-Video-Game-Industry-Examiner~y2010m5d5-Pirates-are-the-video-game-industrys-largest-customers
I've seen a number of others, but don't have links handy.
The part of yours I quoted is from post #14 in this thread. You brought up that house analogy on your own, and you were first to do so. Psychoak did post before you but only said "Thing of the past... Shit happens. A system that is continually increasing in complexity will only continue gaining new ways to fuck up."
And you were "...comparing the locking mechanisms of houses and game software..." -- here it is, again from post #14:
I've got a game from UbiSoft, too - HOMMV, which is probably the reason why I became a GalCiv2-player. A year back I bought these two games together and (being not a gamer at all) these are the only two games I do possess (on PC).
Back then I even found HOMMV more attractive (GalCiv2 DL seemed to be too difficult to start gaming with...) but I was actually "forced" to play GalCiv2 because HOMMV rejected its own CD. Really strange, I had to insert the CD even after the installation (?), then the drive would spin and an popup would inform me to "insert the original disc" (??), which it is. So tried again, again and again. Same message always. Tedious... Although not always. Sometimes it would work instantly. Sometimes after 20 tries. Sometimes after 100 tries NOT, including several re-boots.... Really unprofessional. I cut the crap then and tried to get used to GalCiv2.
In the end, Stardock's consumer-friendly strategy worked, and today I own quite a number of various retail versions from GalCiv2 (UE, DL, EU) to get more characters and also, because I like to collect things I do love. Even GalCiv1 more of nostalgia etc... and it is actually installed on both my old & new PC. So whenever a BigGame is in play (where turn-processing times can take long, esp. some AHK-scripts may use several hours) I simply start the second rig and submit ZYW's, neither the MV nor my drive does protest. Cute & easy.
That said, I haven't even dared to play HOMMV for one time on my new rig (where I could enable the vid-options fully) because I heard that such protections will also shatter a drive occasionaly. Is that true?
Nick-Danger,
Is something being lost in translation here? I wasn't comparing locking-mechanisms. I was suggesting that a company's desire to use DRM is no different than anyone's desire to lock their home, car, bike etc. My initial point was towards the desire/need to action. The action being that of "locking"....not the mechanic used. It wasn't until psychoak began the "mechanism comparison" that the analogy morphed into something else.
At any rate.....whether things are being lost in translation or intentionally being misinterpreted by some in this thread I think I've said my piece here. I've read each post in their entirety and have responded where my points specifically were addressed.
-- monk out
You started the houselock/drm analogy, but made the analogy unrepresentative of the real drm situation, instead twisting it to try to make it fit your argument.
I corrected your analogy, showing that not only doesn't it support your argument but instead supports the opposite, and you replied with an untrue claim ("...I was pointing out to psychoak I wasn't making a direct comparison (ie. I wasn't comparing the locking mechanisms of houses and game software...). Your quote wasn't in reply to Psychoak -- you initiated the analogy. And you were making that direct comparison, as your own words clearly indicate.
When that was pointed out you now claim some unspecified 'translation loss' and that you weren't "...comparing locking-mechanisms..." -- that's grasping at straws and is disingenuous at best.
You made a bad analogy. Next time acknowledge the obvious. Remember, Nixon's big mistake wasn't the Watergate break-in, but the cover-up.
I didn't "twist" anything. In post #14 (which is the post you pointed at) ALL I did was liken the ACT of using DRM to the ACT of locking up one's home. Period. Why do you think I suggested people having a problem with the DRM should leave their shit unlocked then? Because I was drawing comparison between the ACT of a company using DRM (any DRM) to the ACT of an individual locking up their shit.
In subsequent posts the analogy was morphed. Primarily as a result of psychoak's response suggesting that CD-Keys were like the lock's on one's house. I never said that.....he did.
In post #63 I didn't say that "all along" I was trying to point something out to psychoak, I said " AS I was pointing out to psychoak....." (post #63.....which is REFERRING to post #58). I guess I should have quoted myself entirely from post #58 in order to avoid any ambiguity.
Suggesting that the USE of DRM is like locking one's home/car/bike.........is NOT suggesting that the LOCK on your home/bike/car is the same as the DRM being used. That is not a coverup......that is simple logic.
It's also the fallacious argument 'Strawman' -- as I didn't claim you said "...the LOCK on your home/bike/car is the same as the DRM being used" -- what I did is point out how your analogy is flawed, and corrected it to properly apply to the thread's topic, showing it disproves your argument.
Your Srawman is a further example of your twisting.
I'd have let this all go but you've been so rude and obnoxious that karma demands its due. From your initial behavior here I expected you to be incapable of acknowledging your mistake, and you have since proven me right.
I'll show you how it's done. Watch and learn...
Nick out.
I am just waiting to see who mentions Democrats and Republicans first.......
I am against the always connected thing... let me explain why...
I have 2 computer... a huge workstation located at home and always connected to the internet... no problem for these one... and a laptop who is with me on the way... problem is that i don't have wifi access everywhere... when signal drop, it can be for a long time and/or a long distance...
For my laptop, i usually have a legit version of the software along with a illegal crack... these DRM thing force me to use pirate thing for be able to run software that i have pay !!!
I have spend the first 10 year of my adult life around the world... some seem forget that the techology level around the world is not the same that these in Europe or US... in a lot of country, internet connection are slow, unreliable, sometime non existant...
The one time activation is a good system... if it is not enough, maybe link the activation to hardware unique ID code... always connected to the internet is only a solution if it was possible to be always connected in the full work... included for mobile computer like laptop...
Will you buy a car running with some new clean energy when there is only two station in your whole country where you can fill the tank with there new energy ?
About your "No one is being forced into buying anyone's software", it is not the real problem... i wish buy and buy software, but i wish to be able to use it too... and it is why pirate have success... due to companies who ignore the need of their customer...
You will certainly think that i am a bad man... my first version of "sins of a solar empire" was a pirated torrent one !!! Reason was very simple... i have read about it in local computer magazine but the game was not due to Europe before several months... once released here, i have buy it ( two time )... later, i have buy more that 20 times Entrenchment ( mainly for our mod team and our playtester )!!! Point is that i am a good customer, buying my software but using pirate thing when i have no choice... i hate to be unable to put something in my shopping cart because it is "US only" or being unable to use a software because i am temporaly without internet...
Now, about the Ubisoft case... they are shooting in their own foot... true pirate don't care of protection, soon of later they crack it... usual customer Joe become pissed off from all these new security thing... it become more easy to download a pirate torrent that try to make work a game with DRM... in fact, Ubisoft is feeding the true pirate with a new load of fan and supporter !!!
I just wish Ubi would get out of the PC games market. Right now all they are doing is trying to destroy it. Most average, non-hardcore gamer types that buy the games won't even realize what they are getting into till it bites them in the ass. Then they'll think "I never had to deal with this shit on my (insert console)" and look skeptically at PC games from now on.
I don't think anyone is saying that all forms of DRM aren't acceptable, just over the top garbage that punishes the customers. As long as the hackers are just as talented, and in a lot of cases more talented than the programmers making the games you'll have pirates. Hell some are probably working for the companies. Seems pointless to spend all the time and money developing a system that doesn't work just to piss off your customers.
Heh funny, but I was thinking about this as well...
Anyone who thinks the next generation of consoles won't require a permanent online connection for certain AAA title games to run is in denial. Publishers have been waiting for this day for years; the day where they can completely control the customer's access to their game. Kids who grew up with the Xbox are already conditioned to pay a fee to access online at all (on top of normal ISP fees). Now they're being conditioned that it's normal to pay $10-15 for 1-2 hour long DLC packs. It's only a short jump to requiring online access to play at all. How long from there until games start to 'expire' after a year or so? EA already does this with their sports titles by cutting off last years multiplayer servers every time a new version comes out. This is reality, it's not just me spouting tinfoil hat material.
I completely agree that Ubisoft needs to leave the PC game industry. A message needs to be sent to the big publishers that PC gamers are not interested in such a restrictive DRM system, and never will be. If this results in less AAA big-budget PC games, so be it. Smaller developers will be more than happy to step in once the big publishers move entirely to consoles.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
