Checking the comments of pirate bay’s most popular torrents it merely seems that the people having issues didn’t follow the exact instructions provided (which from the sounds of it aren’t anything special or complicated, just slightly different from the standard procedure). Most interested parties seem to have gotten it to work by now (yes, beyond the first two missions or wherever the crash occured) and those reporting issues and making youtube videos of the crashes are being silly. There are also various versions available, some working, some not working, so those who don't research end up with a bad version.
Of course I'm not gonna download it myself to verify it or anything, so it may also be true that it doesn't fully work, but as others said, if they do this streaming files thing then it will only require one person with a legit copy to intercept the files downloaded and then distribute them alongside the cracked releases. The bulk of the work seems to have been done at the very least, and exceptionally fast at that, especially for a game that isn't very popular or mainstream like Silent Hunter V, which means less interest from pirate groups as well (though including Ubi's new DRM did make them more interested I suppose). Make no mistake, these will most likely be fully functional within next week, if not already, and these statements by Ubisoft are merely damage control.
In any case, piracy or no piracy, the actual sales numbers will not have significant differences. Publishers need to understand that not having the option of piracy won't suddenly make their games worth the money to those unwilling to pay, they will still only purchase the few games they find valuable enough. They need to compete less against pirates and more against those few succesful PC publishers who make amazing games and in turn sell a fuckton of copies (Valve, Blizzard, smaller companies like Stardock within their non mainstream niche, etc). Their games show the PC market is still big enough for major profit and growth, even if piracy is still an option. Publishers whose games don't sell well merely fail to compete with those whose games clearly do, not pirates.
The money lost to piracy is a completely unknown percentage as the download numbers are irrelevant (funny they trust pirate scum to provide accurate stats). By adding draconian DRM like this they're merely trading one unknown percentage of lost sales for another unknown percentage of put off would-be-customers.
Ubisoft Entertainment
Company »
Ubisoft Entertainment (pronounced yoo-bee-soft) is a French videogame developer and publisher, with its headquarters in Montreuil-Sous-Bois, France.
Pirates Fail To Crack Ubisoft's New DRM
I have a solution!
Stop all game development on your lousy pirate riddled PCs and 360s and focus on the ONE TRUE console. The almighty, unhackable PS3!
*runs and hides*
But in all seriousness, the PS3 can support a mouse and keyboard so devs could add separate online modes for those wishing to use m&k to attract them to a safer platform without losing the control benefits. While the pirates would switch to working out how to hack the PS3 it would take time and the cost of Burning BR discs would be cost prohibitve to most (unless they worked out a way to run an .iso from the HDD). It would make the PS3 the RTS king as well...
Edit: I really hope Ubi made it very clear on the box that it requires a constant internet connection. I remember getting Bioshock home only to realise that I had to find an internet connection (ours wasn't set up yet) to activate the game.
That would make sense if the as of yet uncrackable PS3's software sales indicated that a larger ratio of titles were purchased. And yet, the attach rates on PS3 are lower than on 360, and the sales of multiplatform titles are most often lesser (well, it will be the other way around for games like FFXIII whose fanbase is bound to be closer to Sony) showing that piracy isn't a defining factor over install base. Shame we don't have PC attach rates, I bet they'd be even larger.
If you want RTS, get a PC. Even if they support mouse + kb on the consoles their game design will likely have been altered to accomodate gamepad controls anyway. It's not the only genre prelevant on PC anyway, and it's not always about the controls but about where the existing fanbase is. Something like Galactic Civilizations or Sins of a Solar Empire would likely not find much of an audience on any current console, only the most high profile mainstream stuff.
I support the pirates. Go pirates.
Ubisoft can kiss my arse. I don't pirate games and I don't want to. But if I really want one of their games and if this is how they behave, they can shove their game and DRM and I will go to the Nor For Profit sector to play it. All I am prepared to do is activate the code you put in the game to prove it is legitimate, nothing else. Your loss Ubisoft.
"Just because you make it unhackable, doesn't mean we ain't gonna hack it"
It's only a matter of time
a small victory with unlimited time any DRM can be broken its only a matter of time
If Ubisoft will at any point remove the DRM from AC2 (as they said they might) I will readily buy the game. I don't have any cash flow problems and actually take enjoyment from paying for quality products.
For now I'll just play BFBC2 and if I get bored of that, before Ubisoft removes the DRM I'll just get the cracked version or whatever.
I do not support piracy, but sometimes the game companies take it simply too far.
@Ragdrazi: This DRM *is* a way of adapting to it. Digital distribution is obviously the future, but it's not quite there yet. This DRM is basically a stalling tactic, a way of keeping piracy at bay long enough to maintain some semblance of a PC gaming market. By making piracy inconvenient (even just for a few days or weeks) means higher sales for them.
@SeriouslyNow: Boycott if you want. I still think it's silly. As for doing research: I suggest you're the one who needs to look up the facts. As for the rental experience, I still disagree. 99% of lost internet connections are temporary. Now, does the game require a constant connection, or does it just check periodically? Periodically. If you lose your connection temporarily, does the game kick you out? I've not seen any evidence that this is true. I don't think the game immediately stops if your connection goes down. The fact is, you do own the game. You play it whenever you want. The game does not punish you for temporary internet glitches. Which is why I think this is all a lot of whining. A rental experience is defined by limited time constraints on a game and the lack of a physical copy to own. Those do not exist in this case. Game ownership has always had constraints. Games in the early days required you keep the manual. If you lost the manual, you couldn't play the game. We've had disc checks, etc. There have always been limitations, based on reasonable expectations from the devs that we not copy their games. Yes, some DRM goes way over the line. But the AC2 DRM, in my mind, isn't one of them. You complain about "experience of ownership," but you've got a game in your hand and can play it whenever you want. You know going into it that you need an internet connection. Complaining about this is like someone complaining about not being able to play World of Warcraft because they don't want to pay a fee. If you don't like the constraints they are putting on the game, don't buy it. But I figure most people like you won't buy it anyway. You'll pirate it, thus proving my point.
I know DRM is irritating. I'd love a solution where it doesn't exist. But laying this on Ubisoft is dumb. They'd prefer not to have to do it as well, if they could be sure no one would pirate. But even unprotected games get pirated. It's telling that so few people complaining about this DRM seem interested in finding a solution to the problem. I think most of them actually *enjoy* the status quo.
" @SSully: I don't quite agree that the only people the DRM is hurting are people paying for the game. That's certainly not true. Pirates have had to work pretty hard to beat new copy protection schemes. It takes a lot of time and effort. They may not want to admit it, but it's true. As for consumers (and in particular, those picking up Assassin's Creed II) I'm completely unconvinced that the requirement to be online is all that much of an inconvenience. We're almost always online these days. It's not that big a deal. And it's not like we don't know going into it that the game requires us to be online. Most of the DRM complaints are just whining. There have been a few examples of DRM that caused problems, of course, but not that many. As for removing DRM, Ubisoft has past experience with this. It released the 2008 Prince of Persia game sans DRM and ... the game was pirated rampantly. So obviously removing DRM didn't solve anything. Funny that now some are suddenly okay with disc checks. For YEARS this was the primary complaint, and excuse for downloading NoCD cracks. The short story is that people will always have excuses for cracking and pirating. And it's perfectly rational for devs to put DRM on their games. But most of the anger seems pointed at the developers, rather than the pirates and those pirating. In fact, I'd say almost ALL of the anger is pointed that way. The problem with DRM has to do with pirates and those who pirate. In other words, the problem is with GAMERS, not the developers. On the PC, vast numbers of gamers are basically addicted to piracy. It makes perfect sense. The games are basically provided free. The result, though, is a collapsing PC game market and increasingly complex DRM. The solution is for the gaming community to punish pirates themselves and make piracy unacceptable. But, let's be honest here: that will never happen. It's time to be honest, gamers: you don't pirate to circumvent clumsy or irritating DRM. You pirate because you don't want to pay for the game. Period. "You've fucking nailed it.
I disagree that there is no benefit at all to DRM. It's much like with music on iTunes. It's certainly possible to pirate them, but mild DRM handles about 80% of the pirating traffic. With no DRM, sharing music becomes innocuous. As the price comes down, sharing drops to a reasonable amount. That is the calculus here with Ubi's new DRM. They're trying to find a way to limit or delay pirating to the point where it is acceptable. They aren't stupid. They know they can't completely prevent it. What they're trying to do (perhaps badly, but we'll see) is find a break-even point for them, where DRM is innocuous enough that most people won't care, but which delays pirates enough or causes problems enough that a significant portion of those pirating the game won't bother.
In short, it's not an all-or-nothing game to them. You might not like that, but they've made this calculation. None of us like DRM, but the alternative is that these developers skip the PC as a platform altogether. Many devs already do that, moving to consoles where pirating is inconvenient enough that the average person won't bother, and they can get on with the business of making games rather than worrying about piracy.
I don't know if I should bother arguing this seeing as you pretty much admit it bothers the consumer, which is the point I was making. You're basically saying Ubisoft is doing this "for the greater good", that DRM is the lesser of the two evils and somehow necessary for game companies to keep making games for the PC platform, but I'm not talking about the effect of piracy on the market as a whole. Again I'll reiterate, the consumer doesn't care about the war on piracy when they buy a game. They care about getting the hassle-free experience they should be used to getting from buying any form of digital media, be it movies, albums or indeed games. What about the people using a standard wireless network in their homes, or even those who don't have the greatest ISP in the world? If the connection drops for a second, the game freezes and requires you to reconnect before you can continue playing. I'd find that annoying to happen once, let alone a few times in one session." @Ragdrazi: Yes, DRM hits the consumer. That's not the question. The question is whether DRM impacts the consumer more than blatant piracy does."
Let us also not forget that this is coming from a company with a terrible history of ill-treating their customers with DRM. The Starforce DRM they included in their games in the past has literally broken people's DVD drives, and software incompatibility issues caused legitimate users to be unable to launch their games (I can speak from experience on that one - I ironically had to download a crack to play my purchased copy of Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones).
Finally, this is going to have very little impact on piracy figures. Thousands of people already have a copy of the game sitting on their hard drive, just waiting for a fully-functioning crack to be released. A handful of them might get fed up waiting and buy the game, but it won't be a significant enough number to call this DRM a success in any way.
It doesn't affect piracy much because it seems this type of DRM has already been cracked. Also, it doesn't have to affect the customer either. If I'm going to buy the game, and the constant connection really becomes a problem, I'm still going to pay Ubisoft for the game but I'm going to remove the connection problem with the crack." @Ragdrazi: Yes, DRM hits the consumer. That's not the question. The question is whether DRM impacts the consumer more than blatant piracy does.
" I don't know if I should bother arguing this seeing as you pretty much admit it bothers the consumer, which is the point I was making. You're basically saying Ubisoft is doing this "for the greater good", that DRM is the lesser of the two evils and somehow necessary for game companies to keep making games for the PC platform, but I'm not talking about the effect of piracy on the market as a whole. Again I'll reiterate, the consumer doesn't care about the war on piracy when they buy a game. They care about getting the hassle-free experience they should be used to getting from buying any form of digital media, be it movies, albums or indeed games. What about the people using a standard wireless network in their homes, or even those who don't have the greatest ISP in the world? If the connection drops for a second, the game freezes and requires you to reconnect before you can continue playing. I'd find that annoying to happen once, let alone a few times in one session. "How is any of that different then normally playing a game online? That is essentially what this DRM is doing... making AC2 an online game. The average PC gamer should be used to bugs, crashing, losing the internet, etc. I am most certainly not used to a hassle-free experience on the PC (or for gaming in general for that matter). Shit can happen during your game. It's not like single-player games checkpoint every 10 minutes nowadays. Most of these complaints are overblown.
" I have a solution! Stop all game development on your lousy pirate riddled PCs and 360s and focus on the ONE TRUE console. The almighty, unhackable PS3! *runs and hides*Actually kind sir, Geohot have discovered a weakness in the memory structure of the PS3 a few weeks ago. It's only a matter of time before it is hacked and playable like the xbox360.
As I've also said, your description of the AC2 DRM doesn't match what I've heard in reality: the game doesn't just stop if your connection drops out once. And again, it's clear that the game says that an internet connection is required. If this is too much for you, don't buy the game.
As for pirates not being game purchasers, this claim has always seemed ludicrous to me. I've played PC games for twenty-five years. I know people who pirate constantly. If the crack doesn't work as advertised, causes minor glitches, or simply doesn't come out on or near release day, I've seen them go out and buy the game. Piracy does hurt game sales. Claiming otherwise seems silly to me.
Some people here seem to think this is an all-or-nothing thing. The fact is, Ubisoft knows its own numbers. It has a much better idea of how piracy hurts their bottom line than we do. The fact that they're doing this at all shows there's evidence that DRM is at least some kind of stopgap against piracy. As I said, they're not trying to make piracy go away, they're simply making it more difficult for casual pirates to snag the game. There will always be some who will pirate no matter what, but most people are not so patient. It's loss *mitigation*. They know the game will be pirated. It's just a matter of limiting losses. Not all games get cracked before release, and I'm sure Ubi was hoping for that here. Maybe they've succeeded to some degree, but probably not.
But for all you who are cheering about this, just remember that in two years when Ubi refuses to release AC3 on the PC at all.
You're right, it's no different in that sense, but Assassin's Creed is a single player game, not a multiplayer one, so your point's kinda invalid. The internet is a necessity to how multiplayer works, it has never been, and shouldn't be required to play a singleplayer game."How is any of that different then normally playing a game online? That is essentially what this DRM is doing... making AC2 an online game."
@carlthenimrod said:
What you're saying is pretty ridiculous. You think that because the average PC gamer is used to hassle like bugs and crashes (major problems are a rarity in my case, and I've been playing on the PC for years), they should therefore accept the problems that arise from this DRM? That makes no sense. Bugs and crashes are errors, they're not meant to happen. Of course I'm going to be a little annoyed if my single player game keeps pausing when I lose my internet connection, knowing that it's happening because the developers programmed it to do that."The average PC gamer should be used to bugs, crashing, losing the internet, etc. I am most certainly not used to a hassle-free experience on the PC (or for gaming in general for that matter). Shit can happen during your game. It's not like single-player games checkpoint every 10 minutes nowadays. Most of these complaints are overblown. "
@haggis said:
It's the developer's job to combat piracy, not the consumer's; the consumer shouldn't really be involved at all, and they most certainly shouldn't be treated like they are the ones at fault. In the best scenario, the consumer shouldn't even be aware that there are any counter-piracy measures involved in the product they are using, it should only get in the way when someone actually tries to pirate the game. I don't know how they would do DRM the right way, and as the consumer I have no intention of figuring it out for them, because I'm not being paid to do so."Ubisoft isn't doing it for the "greater good." They're doing it because they make money on the PC platform and want to continue doing so. You say that the average consumer doesn't care about piracy when they buy the game, and that's true. But that just proves the point I tried to make earlier, ie., that gamers SHOULD care about piracy, and that the reason it thrives is because gamers haven't made piracy unacceptable within gamer culture. We should care. We should be willing to put up with at least some inconvenience if it means developers can be assured not to suffer significant loss from piracy."
@haggis said:
Yes, it does. I'd like to know where you heard otherwise? You lose your connection and the game stops and bumps you back to a menu screen. Once you regain your connection you can continue from where you stopped playing (it was originally from the last checkpoint, but Ubisoft have since patched it to resume where you left off). This has been described on numerous websites and confirmed by Ubisoft themselves in interviews."As I've also said, your description of the AC2 DRM doesn't match what I've heard in reality: the game doesn't just stop if your connection drops out once."
@haggis said:
Have you seen the game box? I haven't, so I can't really comment on how clear it will advertise the requirements of an always-on internet connection, but if it's anything like their Starforce warnings on previous games, it will be very small indeed. There will be plenty of customers who don't realise this when they buy the game, and only find out when they get home and install it (the majority of retailers will not refund an opened PC game). I also just checked amazon's listing for the game, and can't find any mention of the requirement in the description (maybe it's staring me in the face and I can't see it). That seems to be the case for all the online retailers I checked."And again, it's clear that the game says that an internet connection is required. If this is too much for you, don't buy the game "
Also, just to point out, it's not too much for me. I loved the first game and I'm aware of the requirements and willing to put up with the DRM because I have a very stable connection and I'm always online. My copy will be arriving next week in the mail.
My main point is, people who buy the game should not be inconvenienced in any way by anti-piracy software. They shouldn't even be aware of it's existence. The person who bought the game has done nothing wrong, and shouldn't be treated as though they are at fault, as is the case here. What if movie publishers took this attitude and started forcing you to connect your DVD drive to the internet every time you wanted to watch a movie, pausing it every time you lost your connection? Would you not feel a little pissed off, wondering why the product you purchased is treating you like a pirate? Meanwhile, the actual pirates who haven't paid for the product are enjoying it hassle-free elsewhere. It doesn't make sense that people seem ok with this, or think the publishers/ developers are doing the right thing, regardless of what's right for their sales figures.
It may not be a necessity to the game itself, but most PC gamers play games that do require it as a necessity. So what is the big deal if this game requires it as well?You're right, it's no different in that sense, but Assassin's Creed is a single player game, not a multiplayer one, so your point's kinda invalid. The internet is a necessity to how multiplayer works, it has never been, and shouldn't be required to play a singleplayer game.
Yea, pretty much. Like I said before, shit can and will happen. You can't boycott a game on the possibility that something might go wrong. If that were the case, PC gamers would boycott every game that ever came out in history of the planet in the ever.What you're saying is pretty ridiculous. You think that because the average PC gamer is used to hassle like bugs and crashes (major problems are a rarity in my case, and I've been playing on the PC for years), they should therefore accept the problems that arise from this DRM? That makes no sense. Bugs and crashes are errors, they're not meant to happen. Of course I'm going to be a little annoyed if my single player game keeps pausing when I lose my internet connection, knowing that it's happening because the developers programmed it to do that.
"It may not be a necessity to the game itself, but most PC gamers play games that do require it as a necessity. So what is the big deal if this game requires it as well?"Because connection interruptions shouldn't affect a single player experience? The fact that it's not a necessity to how the core game functions is exactly why it shouldn't be required. Single player games shouldn't have to rely on Ubisoft's servers in order for you to play them. The game has barely been out a few days, and already there have been problems.
@carlthenimrod said:
"Yea, pretty much. Like I said before, shit can and will happen. You can't boycott a game on the possibility that something might go wrong. If that were the case, PC gamers would boycott every game that ever came out in history of the planet in the ever. "You don't seem to understand the difference between problems caused accidentally by bugs and problems caused intentionally by DRM. You shouldn't be happy with the latter. I never suggested boycotting the game though. I've already bought the game and I'm waiting for it to arrive in the mail. I'm merely stating my opinion on the matter.
By the way, you seem to have a fixation on PC games being bug ridden, which they're not. I have well over 100 PC games in my collection, all of which I can run without any problems (except, ironically, Ubisoft's PoP: The Two Thrones, due to DRM as I mentioned before). The most recent bugs I can remember in a game actually occurred while playing Heavy Rain on my PS3, causing me to restart certain parts of the game where my character refused to walk, or the camera didn't follow my character when he eventually did. Bugs are certainly not limited to the PC platform by any means.
"@SeriouslyNow: Boycott if you want. I still think it's silly. As for doing research: I suggest you're the one who needs to look up the facts. As for the rental experience, I still disagree. 99% of lost internet connections are temporary. Now, does the game require a constant connection, or does it just check periodically? Periodically. If you lose your connection temporarily, does the game kick you out? I've not seen any evidence that this is true. I don't think the game immediately stops if your connection goes down. The fact is, you do own the game. You play it whenever you want. The game does not punish you for temporary internet glitches. Which is why I think this is all a lot of whining. A rental experience is defined by limited time constraints on a game and the lack of a physical copy to own. Those do not exist in this case. Game ownership has always had constraints. Games in the early days required you keep the manual. If you lost the manual, you couldn't play the game. We've had disc checks, etc. There have always been limitations, based on reasonable expectations from the devs that we not copy their games. Yes, some DRM goes way over the line. But the AC2 DRM, in my mind, isn't one of them. You complain about "experience of ownership," but you've got a game in your hand and can play it whenever you want. You know going into it that you need an internet connection. Complaining about this is like someone complaining about not being able to play World of Warcraft because they don't want to pay a fee. If you don't like the constraints they are putting on the game, don't buy it. But I figure most people like you won't buy it anyway. You'll pirate it, thus proving my point. I know DRM is irritating. I'd love a solution where it doesn't exist. But laying this on Ubisoft is dumb. They'd prefer not to have to do it as well, if they could be sure no one would pirate. But even unprotected games get pirated. It's telling that so few people complaining about this DRM seem interested in finding a solution to the problem. I think most of them actually *enjoy* the status quo. "Firstly, unlike the US gaming press who often tow the line (without even knowing it to my repeated dismay, it seems research is something that falls by the wayside all too often) because they get free review copies I actually got my copy of Prince of Persia 2008 as a present from some Russian relatives and it contains Starforce copy protection which the Daemon Tools Database shows quite clearly. StarForce copy protection was the standard used by many of Ubisoft's released games and they even had so much of a customer backlash that they first issued a cracked exe as a patch for Rainbow Six Vegas 2 (the game was practically unplayable with StarForce and wouldn't even install for many people, then prevented their systems from working as they had prior to installing the game) and then eventually, after much cajoling from their users, dropped it altogether in favour of SecuRom. So yeah, as I initially do your research, that doesn't mean find the first piece of information that lets you win an argument, it means avail yourself of ALL of the facts before you talk about something with some level of expertise
Now that's out of the way.
There's a difference between a game whose focus is online play and one whose focus is offline play. Online games generally involve you connecting your game (client) to other players or services to enable the game's functionality and for those games I agree this kind of DRM makes sense because it falls in line with the standard demands of an online game. This game is not an online game. It is a single player, offline experience and as such its DRM does not fall in line with the basic expectations of that come with a single player experience. What if the customer wants to play this game on a laptop whilst in transit and has no wireless connectivity available? The answer is the game will not work. For a simple analogy, which I've used before on these forums, I describe the differences between multiplayer online games and single player offline games as the difference between seeing a movie at a theatre and reading a book on your own. This DRM fails that litmus test because it makes AC2's experience as if you're reading a book which will only open and be readable in the foyer or lobby of a theatre - that makes it an extremely inconvenient reading experience does it not?
As to you trying to attack my character to prove your point I take umbridge. I have made it extremely clear that I will not be buying this game due my boycotting of Ubisoft's horrendous DRM approach of late. I will NOT be pirating the game, I will also not be recommending the game to any of my friends and I can tell you with no uncertainty that people in the games industry who are closer than either you are I to the developmental side of it are also boycotting Ubisoft's products until they remedy this situation and choose another, fairer approach. People are definitely interested in finding a solution to this problem but that solution does not come from accepting an experience where the publisher treats the customer like a watched criminal by electing to use an extremely unfriendly and inconvenient approach which gives them the experience of renting a product for which they paid full price.
As to what you think people enjoy, it's of no consequence and certainly not relevant to this discussion. Stick to the facts. Do some proper research. Don't waste people's time with vapid theories which are based in circular logic. That's three things that I think you could do to improve your ability to hold a proper and sensible discussion.
AC2 very clearly provides online functionality, including online game saving. You may not like this feature, but it's part of the game. You say the game is not an online game, and to a point you're right. It's not online like WoW, for instance. But part of the game is designed to function in line with Ubi's service. Again, I'm not convinced this is a good idea, but it's pretty clearly labeled on the game. Again, as I said, DRM has always placed limitations on us. This is a *different* limitation. You can't play the game on a laptop while in transit without an internet connection. How often is that? Is it a major limitation? For most gamers ... no. If it's a big deal to you, DON'T BUY THE GAME. Ubi is very clearly willing to lose the gaming-on-a-laptop-whilst-traveling sector of the gaming community, which you have to admit is rather miniscule. They've been up-front about this. It's not as if the game doesn't say right on the box that it needs a connection. It does say that. If you're unwilling to put up with it, you're not forced to. But you are if you want to play their game. Just as we've been forced to put out discs in the drive to play the game. If we lose the disc ... we can't play the game. Which is probably more common than the scenario you described.
Your analogy to seeing a movie and reading a book doesn't quite work for me. Since AC2 very clearly says it requires a connection, then it's obviously a "movie," in your analogy, not a "book." Just because you *want* AC2 to be a book doesn't mean that's what it is. Of course, nearly all games these days have online components as well as single-player components. The idea that a game is one or the other is ... silly. It's also a bit silly to punish Ubi for trying something new and blurring the lines a bit when trying to come up with a DRM solution that works for most people. Do you really want them to go back to DRM that cripples your computer? Or only one that occasionally prevents you from playing the game for a few minutes?
As for attacking your character, I have no idea what you're talking about. You mean about the pirating? It was a generic "you" not specific. Calm down and get over yourself. And take some logic classes, there's nothing remotely circular in what I'm saying. And honestly, I don't care what your supposed "people close to the industry" are doing. I'm sure most people in the industry aren't boycotting Ubi. Boycott if you want, I don't much care. I just think it's silly to do so.
The publisher is not treating us like criminals. They're taking steps to protect their legitimate legal rights to the game. Do they overstep? Sure. Do they fuck up? Of course they do. Ubi just majorly fucked up yesterday when their servers went down. Like I said, I'm not sure this is the best route for them to take, but it's not the major inconvenience that everyone is painting it as. It's a perfectly reasonable limitation, so long as Ubi keeps up its end of the bargain.
As for your comment about "what people enjoy" I'm a bit at a loss. I have no idea what you're referring to. I think it's obvious Ubi would prefer not to waste time on DRM. And that point is perfectly relevant. Do you think that Ubi *wants* to face this mess every time they release a new game?
" People defending this make me fucking sick. "This. As hard as I can 'This' something.
"@Ragdrazi: This DRM *is* a way of adapting to it. Digital distribution is obviously the future, but it's not quite there yet. This DRM is basically a stalling tactic, a way of keeping piracy at bay long enough to maintain some semblance of a PC gaming market. By making piracy inconvenient (even just for a few days or weeks) means higher sales for them. "The idea that DRM keeps piracy at bay or even makes it inconvenient is absurd. That much is clear, and I don't know how many more examples you would need shown to you before you begin to see that. So the idea that DRM is a way of adapting is adapting to it is also absurd.
But more then that, the idea that piracy actually hurts sales of any product is not established. Economic studies do not agree that it has any effect at all, and many even find a positive effect on sales. This unexamined idea you have that this is absolutely detrimental is most certainly not true.
" @Pinworm45 said:I also defend libraries very hard. That's not a pithy statement. There is nothing substantively different between the two systems, and if people were trying to establish the library system these days you would be made as sick by it as you're made by this." People defending this make me fucking sick. "This. As hard as I can 'This' something. "
The idea that lost sales is somehow not established is absolutely crazy. In any given month, over ten million games are pirated off of torrent sites, newsgroups and other locations online. You can't tell me that none of those are lost sales. PC game sales (especially on a per-title basis) have long been in decline, even as sales on consoles increase. So either the PC as a gaming platform is in decline (which hardware sales seem to indicate is *not* the case) or people are playing fewer games on their gaming PCs, which may be true but seems unlikely. Again, Ubi and other devs wouldn't be going this route without numbers. They obviously don't like to talk about it. Either way, pirates are still violating the law. I've never seen a legitimate survey of the gaming market that claimed piracy has a positive effect on sales. I've seen some people claim that it *might* (usually called the "free demo" or "shareware" effect) but never seen numbers that indicate it anything more than wishful thinking.
Yes, we've all seen botched jobs in piracy. But DRM has a proven track record of either not being difficult for pirates to circumvent or not being necessary for pirates to circumvent. And that is unfortunately the end of story for your argument. So let's set the spin aside shall we?" @Ragdrazi: I think people here are more able to understand the technical issues at stake than the average gamer. So for us, no, it's not that inconvenient. But most DRM isn't designed for those users. If the DRM makes it inconvenient or difficult just for half of potential pirates, it probably makes sense to devs to use it. Again, it's not an all-or-nothing prospect, which many Ubi critics here seem to not understand. The numbers are debatable, but the idea that it is "absurd" that this DRM prevents piracy seems itself absurd. Of course it makes piracy more difficult. Not for the ones who crack the games, but for those who utilize the cracks. I've seen enough forum comments from people with cracked games having problems that it's obvious that cracked games aren't glitch free. Then there are game updates, which often mean cracks need updating ... etc., I've seen the process often enough to know how it works. These are all inconveniences on those using cracked games, all created by DRM. A friend of mine who played a cracked Mass Effect a few years ago had endless stability problems. He ended up going out and buying the game. The idea that lost sales is somehow not established is absolutely crazy. In any given month, over ten million games are pirated off of torrent sites, newsgroups and other locations online. You can't tell me that none of those are lost sales. PC game sales (especially on a per-title basis) have long been in decline, even as sales on consoles increase. So either the PC as a gaming platform is in decline (which hardware sales seem to indicate is *not* the case) or people are playing fewer games on their gaming PCs, which may be true but seems unlikely. Again, Ubi and other devs wouldn't be going this route without numbers. They obviously don't like to talk about it. Either way, pirates are still violating the law. I've never seen a legitimate survey of the gaming market that claimed piracy has a positive effect on sales. I've seen some people claim that it *might* (usually called the "free demo" or "shareware" effect) but never seen numbers that indicate it anything more than wishful thinking. "
You know what, if you want me to go off and find you the studies which show piracy increases sales I can. These are well grounded scientific studies, though they do tend to focus on piracy in general as opposed to the software market specifically. If you haven't seen these studies, it's because you haven't been looking. The effects of piracy are utterly debatable, and are being debated right now by economists. A consensus has yet to be reached, and I personally think we should keep the conversation to what has been proven. Or would you not agree?
I looked pretty hard at the studies on pirating. I wrote some white papers for a few non-profit groups who wanted summaries, back about two years ago. I even talked to a few of the researchers who looked through some proprietary data from a few devs (not, unfortunately, Ubisoft). The numbers were ... stark. But let it suffice to say that what I saw there could be interpreted two ways, again, as I said: a decline in PC gaming on the whole, or a reduction in the number of games purchased. None of the data I saw indicated an increase in sales from piracy. But I'd be interested in seeing what you find. I'm sure I've already seen what's out there.
Sure, the effects of piracy are debatable, but not in the way you think. The question is more one of to what degree piracy harms sales, not whether or not it does harm sales. As to a consensus, there isn't one on the first question, but on the second question there is. Piracy does not help sales. Some think the amount of harm is negligible, others think it's harmful. None think it is helpful. But we're talking social science, here, not physics.
I also find it amusing that you claim "no consensus has been reached" and yet want the default position to be that piracy is not harmful. You seem very interested in ending this debate, but you've not offered any reason to do so. So far, I'm very unconvinced.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment