OK? What I don't get here is that (at least from what I've heard) the system is a cloud based, client system that requires constant connection to the internet. How is this practically, albeit a slightly more severe, copycat of Steam? Yes Steam games should be able to work in off-line mode but I certainly don't expect them to. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work (at least for me) if the connection is already off before entering Steam. Besides as a PC gamer, are you REALLY going to be playing video games and not have an internet connection. Worst case scenario, you can't play Assassin's Creed 2 when your Internet goes down. Personally I would deal with the "no internet" problem first. Then I can talk about playing a game or two.
I am fully behind asking Ubisoft to implement an offline mode. This point of contention is valid. However the last thing I need to hear is populist assholes acting like they are a man of the people (ala PA strawman) and pirating the game. Again there is no reason one should expect companies not to impliment some sort of DRM. People like to keep reiterating that piracy is inevitable. Everyone knows that. It's those people on the margins, the amateurs, the people who know only how to use a crack or a torrent client to get a game illegally. Generally speaking Steam and client-based DRM is the best way I've seen for companies to curb piracy. Certainly my pirate friend of mine has been thwarted by Steam and Steam alone. Interesting that he felt justified in pirating Borderlands because no DRM was implemented...
If they make a pretty good Steam copy-cat, I'm all for it. DRM is the only real drawback for a PC gamer and it sure as hell beats SecuROM. Clients and "the cloud" are the future and in a time of change, people freak and bitch. I just don't see how this is a big deal though.
EDIT: OKAY TITLE IS MISLEADING, I KNOW THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
It doesn't really matter to me as it'll be cracked/pirated anyway. My computer's drivers are pretty finicky (i've gone through an ethernet card already) so I have some pretty transient internet most of the time.
Plus, where I live we're liable to snowstorms that'll wipe out internet connections throughout the province for days at a time. I'm not actually going to pirate AC2 since I already have it for 360, but Convictions looks decent enough. If I don't rent it I'll probably pirate it.
You can't play the games off-line? That's harsh. I would not be interested in buying games from Ubisoft if I couldn't play them off-line.
and that comic is basically saying if you make the DRM to harsh, people will pirate it just to avoid it, which just continues the cycle. All they're doing is punishing those who buy it, while those who pirate it will get to enjoy their DRM free cracked version with no strings attached. More piracy just leads to even worse DRM crap in games though.
My main issue with this is that I have a 'laptop'. Its one of those crazy computers that can be moved around and taken places where there may be no internet connection. Now if I'm on a train/plane or away from home I'm probably not going to be able to play the game I paid for....not cool.
With Steam it doesn't kick you out of the game and lose your progress if the internet goes down or the connection falters. If the steam servers fuck up and you are mid-game it won't screw you over. That's kinda a big difference.
If you want to have your game verify the authenticity by requiring you to be online once a month, or once a week to play the game, that's cool with me. Requiring constant connectivity is a problem, not necessarily because it is a difficulty for me (though 6 months ago it would have been), but just the very idea that I've purchased your product and can't use it at my leisure (on the road, in the hotel room with no internet, on the laptop during the blackout, or during the period I'm waiting for my replacement router to come in or my ISP to come back online - there are plenty of scenarios where perfectly upright customers don't have internet access, but might wish to enjoy their purchase).
Almost every PC game I've purchsed for the last several years has been from Steam. I like Steam. They have good sales and I don't have to go announce to the world that I play video games in my spare time by standing in line at a store. They allow me to play in offline mode. I switched to a new machine recently and was able to get all my (recent) games loaded and installed without any disk swapping, and mostly while I slept. It won't be any different for Assassin's Creed 2. I'll buy it on Steam or I won't buy it.
Edit: I also meant to say that it will inevitably be cracked anyway. likely before it's even released. And it will be available at the same sites as those easy to crack games are so..... maybe it's not worth it. Maybe it is. I really don't know.
I said all this because offline mode for Steam never worked for me. I don't see myself ever using it because I would always want to be connected to the internet anyway That and I have a desktop. (Not going to poo on laptop gamers but c'mon, I'm not going to assume you game on a laptop).
When did I say Ubisoft's constant online connection was a good thing? I totally agree that a constant internet connection is a variable that varies too much in terms of laptop vs desktop, power problems etc. What I'm opposed to (and the message of the comic) is that pirating the games in question has no positive value. There is NEVER a "cause" to pirate and the snobbery associated with DRM was pissing me off before the Ubisoft thing.
Penny Arcade and Jeff pretty much said this also: Either deal with it or don't buy it. Given the sheer amount of problems piracy can cause, I can admire the brass balls on Ubisoft. Does this make for a user-friendly time? Without an offline mode no, but is the majority of players going to be affected? I definitely don't think so. This also brings up the issue of entitlement among people in the gaming community, but that's another one for another time.
" I said all this because offline mode for Steam never worked for me. I don't see myself ever using it because I would always want to be connected to the internet anyway That and I have a desktop. (Not going to poo on laptop gamers but c'mon, I'm not going to assume you game on a laptop). "
Sorry dude, but just because it hasn't worked for you, don't assume it doesn't work and therefore Ubisoft's shitty Cloud driven only DRM is the same as Steamworks.
Jah be sad at this blog of bullshit wrapped in misconceptions.
ubi's u have to be online all the time. steam u can work on offline mode. i kind of think that it is bullshit with DRM. it just ends up getting hacked anyway. i just have to say that maybe companies should go with steam more.
" I said all this because offline mode for Steam never worked for me. I don't see myself ever using it because I would always want to be connected to the internet anyway That and I have a desktop. (Not going to poo on laptop gamers but c'mon, I'm not going to assume you game on a laptop). "
Sorry dude, but just because it hasn't worked for you, don't assume it doesn't work and therefore Ubisoft's shitty Cloud driven only DRM is the same as Steamworks.
Jah be sad at this blog of bullshit wrapped in misconceptions. "
Really being online all the time is that much of a sacrifice? What gets me is that you get the unlimited downloads and cloud saves that honestly comprise the best DRM. If the constant online thing is the only difference between this and Steam's style of DRM, I don't see why there's a real big reason to complain, especially when it's only one publisher's (who's not a big PC publisher anyway). It's a big middle finger to pirates and I can totally get behind that.
It's kind of a "necessary first one" situation that gives other publishers the idea that they should do it too, but much better. I'm excited because it's also the first non-Steam client DRM to make headlines. I would happy if in the future, client DRM like Steam and Ubisoft's thing were the only ones. Is it bullshit that it's online only? Yes of course but I'm willing to tolerate that to see what happens next.
I"ll report on the results at the end of the year when I buy Assassin's Creed 2 and they'll have sorted out at least the launch issues.
I never understood people's problem with DRM, period. I've never had any problems with it and the most inconvenience that it ever causes is having to spend 3 seconds opening Steam, which in turn also keeps my games in one handy app.
It's not a matter of sacrifice it's a matter of the fact that an entirely SP experience will not work without being online. That's essentially renting the game rather than owning it except that you're paying full price, even the console versions don't require you to be online all the time for the game to work and saves are local to your console storage device. That's a new low in DRM and that's why people are justifiably upset at Ubisoft's approach. What you may or may not see as a reason to complain pales in comparison to the reality that this is the most draconian implementation of DRM we've ever encountered. At least Steam does have an offline mode and you can even use the games once you've signed in even if you lose your internet access.
I just can't see how anyone can logically or sanely defend this awful approach to DRM where the customer is being treated as a thief.
"I"ll report on the results at the end of the year when I buy Assassin's Creed 2 and they'll have sorted out at least the launch issues. "
So you're assuming the new system will have inevitable launch problems? Is that not a perfect argument against this type of DRM?
Did you even read the Penny Arcade article that goes along with that strip? The DRM will most likely be cracked, probably within a week of release. So, pirates end up playing the game for free, and having no trouble from DRM. Those who paid for the game have to put up with any of the issues that may arise. (It's not about an exaggerated sense of entitlement, save that argument for where it's appropriate.)
You also mentioned that Ubisoft aren't a big PC publisher. One look at the Wiki entry for their 2010 game lineup shows that, of these games, they are releasing 7 of them on the PC platform, 5 on 360 and 4 on PS3.
What if pirates found a way around that? Then only the normal paying customers will suffer for it. Then what is the point? It would probally encourage even more piracy if there was a work around.
I don't have a problem with this at all btw, if it actually deters piracy for a change. If it doesn't ubisoft will regret their decision.
Steam does have a friends list and it's also a store, even though it's a drm, it's a drm that's friendly and useful, this drm is not useful and can be problematic. There are alot of things that can go wrong, if ubisoft's servers doesn't work, or your internet isn't working, or you moved and have no internet for a while, or you can't afford the internet because your poor. At least most steam single player games can go offine. There was times when my isp didn't work because they were repairing stuff, where steam's offline was very useful.
"I"ll report on the results at the end of the year when I buy Assassin's Creed 2 and they'll have sorted out at least the launch issues. "
So you're assuming the new system will have inevitable launch problems? Is that not a perfect argument against this type of DRM?
Did you even read the Penny Arcade article that goes along with that strip? The DRM will most likely be cracked, probably within a week of release. So, pirates end up playing the game for free, and having no trouble from DRM. Those who paid for the game have to put up with any of the issues that may arise. (It's not about an exaggerated sense of entitlement, save that argument for where it's appropriate.) You also mentioned that Ubisoft aren't a big PC publisher. One look at the Wiki entry for their 2010 game lineup shows that, of these games, they are releasing 7 of them on the PC platform, 5 on 360 and 4 on PS3. "
I did read the Penny Arcade article actually and I agree with Jerry. It's technology, of course that's going to be a problem. For many, Steam took a full year to be worth using. Launch problems have nothing to do with this at all. And this is totally about exaggerated sense of entitlement. People assume that they are entitled to a certain something when paying for a game. DRM is the company's right and from there end. What that ends up being is a question of the consumer's choice and when they demand of the company what the is as if they are entitled to it, that's when I cry foul. You aren't entitled to anything as a consumer except truthful advertising. If there is no effort made to hide the nature of the actual product, there is nothing to complain about. However I would be right there in the front if this service isn't made aware to those people who buy it. Maybe this publicity will, maybe it won't.
Ubisoft is a large non-platform specific publisher and as such has no reasonable stake in being considered primarily a PC game company.
@SeriouslyNow said:
" @Tuffgong: It's not a matter of sacrifice it's a matter of the fact that an entirely SP experience will not work without being online. That's essentially renting the game rather than owning it except that you're paying full price, even the console versions don't require you to be online all the time for the game to work and saves are local to your console storage device. That's a new low in DRM and that's why people are justifiably upset at Ubisoft's approach. What you may or may not see as a reason to complain pales in comparison to the reality that this is the most draconian implementation of DRM we've ever encountered. At least Steam does have an offline mode and you can even use the games once you've signed in even if you lose your internet access. I just can't see how anyone can logically or sanely defend this awful approach to DRM where the customer is being treated as a thief. "
People have brought up the issue of ownership before with Steam. Do I really own the game if it's purely digital, tied to Valve's servers, pretty much require their service to access the game, and can't detach the game from the service legally? Same thing but slightly worse. The lowest DRM has been is installing malicious, trojan-derived software in your computer, possibly causing problems, without your permission and/or knowledge. DRM has been far worse than simply a constant online connection. Someone left a comment somewhere that a save-game is made when a connection is lost, but you can't play the game itself when the connection is cut. Again I'm curious to see how it actually works and what happens. I'm defending this in terms of the statement and experiment Ubisoft is making. I will say again, the constant online connection is a bad thing. It's like people cherry pick my posts or something.
@yani said:
" Thing is Bioware went the other way and pretty much ditched DRM (cd check is not DRM) and they're doing pretty good because they make amazing games. "
CD check is DRM. Anything meant to check whether or not the product is legitimate is considered Digital Rights Management. CD Keys, those booklets and codes from the old-school days, client services, CD checks, online authentication, account registration etc are all DRM.
" Thing is Bioware went the other way and pretty much ditched DRM (cd check is not DRM) and they're doing pretty good because they make amazing games. "
CD check is DRM. Anything meant to check whether or not the product is legitimate is considered Digital Rights Management. CD Keys, those booklets and codes from the old-school days, client services, CD checks, online authentication, account registration etc are all DRM. "
I think what he was getting it as how ridiculously easy it is to get past CD-check.
Your ownership vs rental argument fails because I can use my Steam products if I lose my internet but with this Ubisoft approach I cannot - this means that with AC2 PC I will be effectively renting the game even if I buy it off a store shelf. Why anyone would want to detach a product from the service is a matter of an entirely different debate and seems more like a red herring than anything relevant to this one. The reason I am debating this with you is because you've tried to align Ubisoft's approach with Steam's when they are very different in the way they treat the customer. I'm not cherry picking because your title and first post are indicative of the view that you see them as the same thing. Blame your ambiguous language all you want but the 'feigned outrage' comment speaks volumes.
CD Check is NOT DRM. DRM is the digital signing of code or content to the platform which will be executing said code or content. CD Checks do a sector binary comparison with what's expected, there is no digital signing (hash generation) in that process.
"I did read the Penny Arcade article actually and I agree with Jerry. It's technology, of course that's going to be a problem. For many, Steam took a full year to be worth using. Launch problems have nothing to do with this at all."
You quite clearly stated "launch issues". Maybe I misinterpreted that as "launch problems"? Or perhaps you forgot what you typed.
@Tuffgong said:
"People assume that they are entitled to a certain something when paying for a game. DRM is the company's right and from there end. What that ends up being is a question of the consumer's choice and when they demand of the company what the is as if they are entitled to it, that's when I cry foul. You aren't entitled to anything as a consumer except truthful advertising."
Yes, your use of the "entitlement" argument is misplaced here. I agree that you make a choice whether or not to part with your cash based on your knowledge of a product, as advertised. But you're predicting launch issues with this DRM (as above), and for some reason, I don't think they'll be advertising that on the back of the box. At most they'll have a fairly vague notice informing me I need an always-on internet connection to play. As I understand then from the little information provided, I'm entitled to a game that should run without any problems as long as I have an internet connection, right? Sounds harmless enough, but strict DRM like this is notorious for causing problems for legitimate users, that's where the problem lies. Take another Ubisoft title I purchased a few years ago - Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones. There's a tiny little line of text on the back of the box that says "Notice: This game contains technology intended to prevent copying that may conflict with some DVD-RW and virtual drives." You can't get more vague than that, and sure enough, it conflicted with my DVD drive, and I could not play the game I legitimately purchased. Ironically, I had to download a crack to get the game to run.
@Tuffgong said:
" Ubisoft is a large non-platform specific publisher and as such has no reasonable stake in being considered primarily a PC game company."
Again, you must have forgotten what you typed previously. All you said was that they're "not a big PC publisher". Whatever, this is the least of the errors you've made.
Steam has an offline mode and games that don't use proprietary DRM with install limits can be installed as many times as you want on as many systems as you want.
I'm almost with you on the idea that you're pretty much always connected to the internet anyway, but I also know that there have been times where I've been having personal network issues, the internet has been down, or the DRM related servers have been down, and I haven't been able to play a game I meant to play as a result. It might not happen often, but when it happens to you, it's frustrating as all hell. It's like someone came into your house and stole the game from you. $50-$60 is not a small amount of money to have the product simply not work when you want it to, especially when there will *always* be a pirate copy of the game floating around out there for any adolescent kid with no grasp of money to steal.
What's just about as bad as all of that is a game like Dragon Age, where I've got all this DLC they've released and I've paid for, but if my internet connection is down, if my account won't login, or if whatever authentication servers are down (which happened a few days ago), all of that content is just not accessible to you. It strips it out of the game, and any save file with said content attached to it will not load.
The thing is, I understand why all of this is necessary. Assholes beg publishers to strip out DRM, saying they won't buy their games unless they do. So they actually decide to throw you a bone and take out the DRM. The next game they publish sells like crap and is the most pirated game in history. I guess it must be deterring some group of morons out there lacking the intelligence to do a simple Google search for the game. Invariably, some of the top Google hits will be links to torrents of the game.
What's just about as bad as all of that is a game like Dragon Age, where I've got all this DLC they've released and I've paid for, but if my internet connection is down, if my account won't login, or if whatever authentication servers are down (which happened a few days ago), all of that content is just not accessible to you. It strips it out of the game, and any save file with said content attached to it will not load.
That's easily fixable and completely legal to fix. Just go in and edit a .txt file. Simple!
@SeriouslyNow: The issue of ownership regarding Steam was something other people have made in the past and so since you mentioned whether or not you own the game with Ubisoft's service, I would say yes if you consider that you "own" your game through Steam. Point blank you need Steam to play Steam purchased or required games and as such you require an outside party or service to be able to use them. It's the difference between Amazon MP3 and iTunes. With Amazon MP3, those mp3's are mine and are not tied to the service where they are with iTunes. You still "own" the songs but effectively you can't separate them.
I edited the first post because I can't edit thread titles so I corrected that mistake. Secondly I kept getting the response that I agreed with Ubisoft. I don't entirely but I got the impression that people were just quickly reacting to my post and not actually reading the whole thing. Fair enough given that it is a message board on the internet.
DRM is a general term used to describe technology or methods by content owners to limit unintended uses of the content. Anything along the lines of checking to make sure the purchase of the product was legit is DRM.
@Binman88:
The launch of any technology, especially in the game world, can't be assumed to go perfectly and that is not something anyone is obligated to say. It's common sense. Knowing that I'll buy the game later this year, I'll be in the position where I'll see the system where any launch issues/problems (whatever) would have been dealt with if are to be any.
Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. That's the risk you have as the consumer with a product. I'm surprised they at least said that on the back of the box. Personally I have no sympathy for consumers when they have reasonable ability to know the nature of a product. Otherwise that is fraud and due process can and should be taken. However I don't feel sorry for people bitching about DRM, none.
This goes to the both of you, I never called anyone out or made any statement about people being wrong. I was simply arguing against the ideas presented. I would like to continue this discussion without people calling each other out on errors and logical fallacies because that just comes off as pretentious and it will be a never ending cycle of calling people out on it.
Yes with DRM comes some consumers who will no be compatible with it and the more strict, the less compatible. If you are aware of the problem, then you can choose "buy or not buy". That's it. Piracy isn't justified, and no one can bitch to publishers or developers that they were supposed to do this or that. I hope that people make the case to Ubisoft that they implement an offline mode and they probably will to some degree. But man I have a hard time joining them if they stink of entitlement, which is what is happening here as it has been with practically every DRM issue. If they stick to their guns, we all just have to deal with it and I'm enjoying it simply by how much it's pissed people off.
" Steam has an offline mode and games that don't use proprietary DRM with install limits can be installed as many times as you want on as many systems as you want. I'm almost with you on the idea that you're pretty much always connected to the internet anyway, but I also know that there have been times where I've been having personal network issues, the internet has been down, or the DRM related servers have been down, and I haven't been able to play a game I meant to play as a result. It might not happen often, but when it happens to you, it's frustrating as all hell. It's like someone came into your house and stole the game from you. $50-$60 is not a small amount of money to have the product simply not work when you want it to, especially when there will *always* be a pirate copy of the game floating around out there for any adolescent kid with no grasp of money to steal. What's just about as bad as all of that is a game like Dragon Age, where I've got all this DLC they've released and I've paid for, but if my internet connection is down, if my account won't login, or if whatever authentication servers are down (which happened a few days ago), all of that content is just not accessible to you. It strips it out of the game, and any save file with said content attached to it will not load. The thing is, I understand why all of this is necessary. Assholes beg publishers to strip out DRM, saying they won't buy their games unless they do. So they actually decide to throw you a bone and take out the DRM. The next game they publish sells like crap and is the most pirated game in history. I guess it must be deterring some group of morons out there lacking the intelligence to do a simple Google search for the game. Invariably, some of the top Google hits will be links to torrents of the game. "
I endorse all of this. Again I really wish I could fix the title because I'm not actually asking what is the difference because I know, it was more of a rhetorical question.
I totally agree that offline modes for anything pretty much don't work and it sucks. Yes that doesn't make an excuse to pirate or act entitled to a game's content. I'm not standing here defending Ubisoft, but more so attacking those against it. By default that makes me on the side of Ubisoft but I don't like the idea either. However, much like the PA article, we shouldn't lose sight as to why companies do this and it's just so ballsy that I love it in a way.
Sorry for the double post but I had to reply to this because someone here isn't ripping my posts to pieces lol.
I don't and won't support DRM of any kind. If a game cannot be sold or given to someone else when I am done with it, then I won't buy it unless it is cleared REALLY cheap. Otherwise, if I really want a game and it has DRM, then I have no issues getting a copy from any number of my smart friends (or utilise my own knowledge) and completely bypass DRM and any profit they may have made from me. I feel no guilt about that whatsoever and it is a simple, but not preferred option. When I load a game, all it needs is a legitimate CD key to verify its authenticity (offline) and that is it. If they want my business then they should just focus on anti-piracy measures that do not adversely impact on the end user.
" I don't and won't support DRM of any kind. If a game cannot be sold or given to someone else when I am done with it, then I won't buy it unless it is cleared REALLY cheap. Otherwise, if I really want a game and it has DRM, then I have no issues getting a copy from any number of my smart friends (or utilise my own knowledge) and completely bypass DRM and any profit they may have made from me. I feel no guilt about that whatsoever and it is a simple, but not preferred option. When I load a game, all it needs is a legitimate CD key to verify its authenticity (offline) and that is it. If they want my business then they should just focus on anti-piracy measures that do not adversely impact on the end user. "
Perfect. This is exactly the kind of reaction I want out of people against DRM. Exercising their right as a consumer to knowledge and choosing how to use their dollar. I just happen to not be bothered by DRM but this is the correct angry reaction. I salute you sir.
@HaltIamReptar
said:
" @Tuffgong said:
I totally agree that offline modes for anything pretty much don't work and it sucks
What? Since when? "
Well the situations that involve offline modes for something. Generally stuff that requires internet connection (not constant connection) still have issues when the connection is cut from my experience. It seems like the poster I quoted has had a recent experience with this very issue. What's the problem? Or maybe I should just shut up, let this thread die, and see this exact same populist outrage the next time a DRM controversy shows up.
" Thing is Bioware went the other way and pretty much ditched DRM (cd check is not DRM) and they're doing pretty good because they make amazing games. "
Still getting pirated just as heavy as before. Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 were both pirated like crazy. As crazy as Spore or Modern Warfare 2? No, but then again, both of them didn't have that same high-profile level of insanity to them. They are (as weird as this phrase is to actually use) a niche part of the mainstream.
Frankly, there's nothing you can do about this stuff. There seriously isn't. Piracy will always continue to happen. You can put all the fines and jail time and a million other things out there as punishment. You can hurt all of the honest people who are paying for their copies and it'll still happen. You can do whatever...and your game is STILL going to get pirated.
So give up on the anti-piracy measures. Lower your damn budgets and NPD projections, and for fuck's sake, put out quality products as often as possible. Granted, a developer can't ALWAYS tell if they have a quality product, but there are plenty that go out every single day that the developers are WELL aware of being poor quality.
It's a losing battle all the way around, no matter what.
@Tuffgong: Steam offline mode works perfectly for me. That's the only offline mode that I have to deal with day to day, so I wasn't sure where you were getting your information.
" My main issue with this is that I have a 'laptop'. Its one of those crazy computers that can be moved around and taken places where there may be no internet connection. Now if I'm on a train/plane or away from home I'm probably not going to be able to play the game I paid for....not cool. "
Again I really wish I could fix the title because I'm not actually asking what is the difference because I know, it was more of a rhetorical question.
But those are some pretty key differences that you totally glossed over in saying that it is a copycat of Steam, which definitely didn't seem like a rhetorical statment.
I agree that too many people write Steam a free ticket, because no one seems to complain that Steam uses quite a bit of DRM (sometimes two different forms; their own, and the stuff they're forced to put in by the publishers). The only defense I can think of is that Steam's DRM is completely unobtrusive, especially for games that allow an offline mode, whereas other DRM methods sometimes install not easily deleted files on your computer, require constant internet connection, impose arbitrary limits on #s of installs (and before anyone says "who needs more than 3?", let me answer. I do. I own multiple computers and I also do a lot of hard drive/OS moving around, and even for those games with an uninstall tool that is supposed to free up one use for you, I don't always remember to/have the option to do so, especially when the issue is that my hard drive *falied*). Among other things...
Besides all of this, I don't happen to believe that everyone who pirates a game never goes on to buy it. I have, in my miserable past, downloaded games lacking decent demos in order to find out if it would even run properly before buying; though I am definitely not saying that most people are as nice about it as I was. I also think a lot of people who pirate a game never had the intent or means to purchase in the first place (think: a little kid without a job and with parents too poor/smart enough to know not to buy little Timmy that M rated game he's been begging for).
Again I really wish I could fix the title because I'm not actually asking what is the difference because I know, it was more of a rhetorical question.
But those are some pretty key differences that you totally glossed over in saying that it is a copycat of Steam, which definitely didn't seem like a rhetorical statment. I agree that too many people write Steam a free ticket, because no one seems to complain that Steam uses quite a bit of DRM (sometimes two different forms; their own, and the stuff they're forced to put in by the publishers). The only defense I can think of is that Steam's DRM is completely unobtrusive, especially for games that allow an offline mode, whereas other DRM methods sometimes install not easily deleted files on your computer, require constant internet connection, impose arbitrary limits on #s of installs (and before anyone says "who needs more than 3?", let me answer. I do. I own multiple computers and I also do a lot of hard drive/OS moving around, and even for those games with an uninstall tool that is supposed to free up one use for you, I don't always remember to/have the option to do so, especially when the issue is that my hard drive *falied*). Among other things... "
Mea culpa. The mistakes I made were excluding a word here and there that I assumed would come across but didn't. My bad. Ubisoft is copying Steam but not being a complete copycat of it. That and I'm not actually asking what the differnece is again because I knew what they were going into it.
@jakob187
said:
" @yani said:
" Thing is Bioware went the other way and pretty much ditched DRM (cd check is not DRM) and they're doing pretty good because they make amazing games. "
Still getting pirated just as heavy as before. Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 were both pirated like crazy. As crazy as Spore or Modern Warfare 2? No, but then again, both of them didn't have that same high-profile level of insanity to them. They are (as weird as this phrase is to actually use) a niche part of the mainstream. Frankly, there's nothing you can do about this stuff. There seriously isn't. Piracy will always continue to happen. You can put all the fines and jail time and a million other things out there as punishment. You can hurt all of the honest people who are paying for their copies and it'll still happen. You can do whatever...and your game is STILL going to get pirated. So give up on the anti-piracy measures. Lower your damn budgets and NPD projections, and for fuck's sake, put out quality products as often as possible. Granted, a developer can't ALWAYS tell if they have a quality product, but there are plenty that go out every single day that the developers are WELL aware of being poor quality. It's a losing battle all the way around, no matter what. "
Well that's the big question. The problem is we don't know the actual data, the information that would really tell us how effective DRM programs are vs. piracy. We as consumers would know the least of this data regardless, but that is why it's such a back and forth issue. Could it be that piracy has been curbed, or is the answer something different? No one knows what to do so people try out different things and see what happens. I personally thing this is exactly what is happening with Ubisoft.
" I don't and won't support DRM of any kind. If a game cannot be sold or given to someone else when I am done with it, then I won't buy it unless it is cleared REALLY cheap. Otherwise, if I really want a game and it has DRM, then I have no issues getting a copy from any number of my smart friends (or utilise my own knowledge) and completely bypass DRM and any profit they may have made from me. I feel no guilt about that whatsoever and it is a simple, but not preferred option. When I load a game, all it needs is a legitimate CD key to verify its authenticity (offline) and that is it. If they want my business then they should just focus on anti-piracy measures that do not adversely impact on the end user. "
Perfect. This is exactly the kind of reaction I want out of people against DRM. Exercising their right as a consumer to knowledge and choosing how to use their dollar. I just happen to not be bothered by DRM but this is the correct angry reaction. I salute you sir."
If they want me to buy their game and connect online (not by force or coercion), then they should offer stuff that is otherwise unavailable as an incentive to get a new, legitimate copy (I think some do this occasionally). That isn't about taking stuff out to just get it back, but something that is truly worth the effort. Reward the end user, not punish and lock out the pirates.
I still argue that what other consumer item do you buy that you don't actually own, but just pay a rent or lease fee effectively, to use? Cars? Furniture? Movies? Music? Books? Television? None? We should not reward such behaviour. It is just a game for god's sake.
@Tuffgong: I think the funniest thing is that if Ubisoft completely copied Steam's DRM in every way, people would still bitch about it. Like I said, Steam seems to get a free pass simply for being Steam. Even the unobtrusive DRM gets ripped apart by gamers if it's something deployed by the publishers and people know about it. Irritating, to be sure.
" @Tuffgong: Steam offline mode works perfectly for me. That's the only offline mode that I have to deal with day to day, so I wasn't sure where you were getting your information. "
This was pretty much what I was going to state. Offline mode works fine for me.
" @SeriouslyNow: The issue of ownership regarding Steam was something other people have made in the past and so since you mentioned whether or not you own the game with Ubisoft's service, I would say yes if you consider that you "own" your game through Steam. Point blank you need Steam to play Steam purchased or required games and as such you require an outside party or service to be able to use them. It's the difference between Amazon MP3 and iTunes. With Amazon MP3, those mp3's are mine and are not tied to the service where they are with iTunes. You still "own" the songs but effectively you can't separate them.
I edited the first post because I can't edit thread titles so I corrected that mistake. Secondly I kept getting the response that I agreed with Ubisoft. I don't entirely but I got the impression that people were just quickly reacting to my post and not actually reading the whole thing. Fair enough given that it is a message board on the internet.
DRM is a general term used to describe technology or methods by content owners to limit unintended uses of the content. Anything along the lines of checking to make sure the purchase of the product was legit is DRM. "
NO. Digital Rights Management is not Media Checking, I don't care whatever source can show (including Wikipedia) that deems as it such because it's wrong. The term DRM has been incorrectly assigned to only one bad sector DVD Check technology, namely ARccOS and all other examples refer to it correctly as using encryption to some degree whether it be the content or the licenses to access said content. A media check is not DRM because there is no legal context for said approach. DRM licensing encryption technologies exist because they tie DRM licensed content to end user devices and systems and thus the end user by proxy, making said end user one of the responsible parties in the transaction of said content. All consumer grade encryption technologies generate a hash (key) by utilising specific information from the host and destination systems thus the end user is contractually bound in the process. Media Checks with UELA contracts are inadmissible in court cases because EULA are extremely hard to defend in light of how variant contract and sales law is all over the world (let alone from province to province and state to state). So vendors have had to either accept that a media check implementation will only deter the lazy and uneducated or to move on to digital licensing techniques which contractually bind end users and generate historical evidence of a contractual nature in the process.
Ownership is an issue which has certainly been discussed by the masses and in court with regards to Steam sold and licensed product but the convenience and fairness of Steam's offline mode, single-check-at-logon, single-check-at-point-of-execution and being able to save game progress and settings locally and also in 'the cloud' (should they wish to) means that end users do get a halfway decent experience of actually owning the games they purchase via Steam. Ubisoft's draconian approach where the user is required to be online at all times and that savegames are stored remotely completely negates any sense of ownership at all and more likely creates a sensation of Ubisoft being "Big Brother" peering over their shoulders at all times. Moreover Ubi's approach shows no care or consideration for the end user at all and makes it abundantly clear that the end user is only being allowed minimal access to the game which they have payed full price for. PC gamers like to be able to modifiy ini files and set up custom settings so that they can fine tune games in ways which console gamers cannot. Ubisoft's approach does not allow for this and doesn't properly cater to the PC gaming market. Steam does.
" @SeriouslyNow: The issue of ownership regarding Steam was something other people have made in the past and so since you mentioned whether or not you own the game with Ubisoft's service, I would say yes if you consider that you "own" your game through Steam. Point blank you need Steam to play Steam purchased or required games and as such you require an outside party or service to be able to use them. It's the difference between Amazon MP3 and iTunes. With Amazon MP3, those mp3's are mine and are not tied to the service where they are with iTunes. You still "own" the songs but effectively you can't separate them.
I edited the first post because I can't edit thread titles so I corrected that mistake. Secondly I kept getting the response that I agreed with Ubisoft. I don't entirely but I got the impression that people were just quickly reacting to my post and not actually reading the whole thing. Fair enough given that it is a message board on the internet.
DRM is a general term used to describe technology or methods by content owners to limit unintended uses of the content. Anything along the lines of checking to make sure the purchase of the product was legit is DRM. "
NO. Digital Rights Management is not Media Checking, I don't care whatever source can show (including Wikipedia) that deems as it such because it's wrong. The term DRM has been incorrectly assigned to only one bad sector DVD Check technology, namely ARccOS and all other examples refer to it correctly as using encryption to some degree whether it be the content or the licenses to access said content. A media check is not DRM because there is no legal context for said approach. DRM licensing encryption technologies exist because they tie DRM licensed content to end user devices and systems and thus the end user by proxy, making said end user one of the responsible parties in the transaction of said content. All consumer grade encryption technologies generate a hash (key) by utilising specific information from the host and destination systems thus the end user is contractually bound in the process. Media Checks with UELA contracts are inadmissible in court cases because EULA are extremely hard to defend in light of how variant contract and sales law is all over the world (let alone from province to province and state to state). So vendors have had to either accept that a media check implementation will only deter the lazy and uneducated or to move on to digital licensing techniques which contractually bind end users and generate historical evidence of a contractual nature in the process.
Ownership is an issue which has certainly been discussed by the masses and in court with regards to Steam sold and licensed product but the convenience and fairness of Steam's offline mode, single-check-at-logon, single-check-at-point-of-execution and being able to save game progress and settings locally and also in 'the cloud' (should they wish to) means that end users do get a halfway decent experience of actually owning the games they purchase via Steam. Ubisoft's draconian approach where the user is required to be online at all times and that savegames are stored remotely completely negates any sense of ownership at all and more likely creates a sensation of Ubisoft being "Big Brother" peering over their shoulders at all times. Moreover Ubi's approach shows no care or consideration for the end user at all and makes it abundantly clear that the end user is only being allowed minimal access to the game which they have payed full price for. PC gamers like to be able to modifiy ini files and set up custom settings so that they can fine tune games in ways which console gamers cannot. Ubisoft's approach does not allow for this and doesn't properly cater to the PC gaming market. Steam does. "
Why are we arguing DRM's technically definition? Much like the idiots saying the new decade starts in 2011, it doesn't matter to the larger issue what DRM technically means. What matters is it's general use to the larger context. You are more than likely correct, I have no way of kknowing. However when discussing DRM, I highly doubt anyone is referring to the above. The technical definition I see could be just an excuse to only say "see only these things, which are worse, are DRM" to make the alternative more appealing. I will consider the general definition of DRM in this debate, technical definition be damned (not to discredit your effort which I admire).
If Ubisoft were to impliment the constant online connection as it has been stated, then yes in this case user ownership is relatively less than those games purchased from Steam. Again the flaws that come out of the online only connection I fully recognize and I'm not a fan of either. However there is no reason to expect Ubisoft to give any people any sort of any bone because they feel entitled to it. If they want 5 different concurrent DRM systems at the same time, let 'em. It's on the consumer to make sure they aren't shafted. This was a way for me call out those attacking the DRM for the wrong reasons. Not buying the product or submitting complaints to Ubisoft about improving the system is the right way. Bitching and leaving out an empty hand expecting it to be filled isn't and this has been a long festering problem I had with the gaming community and I've had enough.
The issue of AC2 PC's awful DRM implementation isn't about a heightened sense of entitlement, it's just about denying purchasers of product the correct feeling of entitlement that is part and parcel of purchasing a product. All of the other cadre of protests such as voting with your wallet and letters to the editor, letters of complaint are rather flaccid when Ubi have already made it clear that they couldn't give a damn about their PC customers. The sense of entitlement that they have as a business who treats their paying customers like fools and thieves is far more obnoxious than any troll's vomitus on piratebay. At least to me and I don't condone or support piracy.
The issue of AC2 PC's awful DRM implementation isn't about a heightened sense of entitlement, it's just about denying purchasers of product the correct feeling of entitlement that is part and parcel of purchasing a product. All of the other cadre of protests such as voting with your wallet and letters to the editor, letters of complaint are rather flaccid when Ubi have already made it clear that they couldn't give a damn about their PC customers. The sense of entitlement that they have as a business who treats their paying customers like fools and thieves is far more obnoxious than any troll's vomitus on piratebay. At least to me and I don't condone or support piracy. "
Then don't purchase AC2, and move on. That is literally all you can do (legally of course). The anti-DRM crowd deserves no sympathy from me from what I've seen and it's a shame because no we have two thick-headed sides butting heads. The slightly different and ballsy approach Ubisoft is taking makes me excited to see the results.
"@Binman88: The launch of any technology, especially in the game world, can't be assumed to go perfectly and that is not something anyone is obligated to say. It's common sense. Knowing that I'll buy the game later this year, I'll be in the position where I'll see the system where any launch issues/problems (whatever) would have been dealt with if are to be any."
The launch of a new technology? It's a new game for god's sake. Consumers shouldn't have to expect a new unpredictable technology every time they buy a game. Regardless of the quality of the game engine, and granted their computer meets the requirements, any PC game should at least fucking start. It's not supposed to be a damn lottery; people aren't parting with their hard earned cash for a chance to play the game.
@Tuffgong said:
"Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. That's the risk you have as the consumer with a product. I'm surprised they at least said that on the back of the box. Personally I have no sympathy for consumers when they have reasonable ability to know the nature of a product. Otherwise that is fraud and due process can and should be taken. However I don't feel sorry for people bitching about DRM, none. This goes to the both of you, I never called anyone out or made any statement about people being wrong. I was simply arguing against the ideas presented. I would like to continue this discussion without people calling each other out on errors and logical fallacies because that just comes off as pretentious and it will be a never ending cycle of calling people out on it. Yes with DRM comes some consumers who will no be compatible with it and the more strict, the less compatible. If you are aware of the problem, then you can choose "buy or not buy". That's it. Piracy isn't justified, and no one can bitch to publishers or developers that they were supposed to do this or that. I hope that people make the case to Ubisoft that they implement an offline mode and they probably will to some degree. But man I have a hard time joining them if they stink of entitlement, which is what is happening here as it has been with practically every DRM issue. If they stick to their guns, we all just have to deal with it and I'm enjoying it simply by how much it's pissed people off. "
I just find your stance on this pretty incredible. Going back to my example of the Two Thrones that I purchased (I actually bought the game online, where no warning is given), how was I supposed to know until I put the disc in the drive, whether or not it's going to run on my computer? I could have researched it online, but the chances of finding someone who had the same problem and same DVD drive as mine would have been slim at best. And what about the people who bought it on day one, before anyone would have had a chance to test the game and post their experience with the DRM online? What about the people who didn't even have internet access to do any research, and bought the game in store? By your logic, developers may as well throw viruses and trojans into their games as well, or fuck it, just ship you an empty disc. Buyer beware and all that. In the end, without using a crack, I would have been left with an unplayable game that I could not return, and less money in my wallet. And somehow, that's all supposed to be my fault, because every time I buy a game, I'm meant to be taking a leap of faith, just hoping to god the product works as intended?
That's just not how it works, as much as you'd seemingly like to think so. I buy a couple of games each month for the PC, and all of them install and run fine out of the box. Why should I expect any different from any other game I purchase? If I get a game one day that doesn't behave as it's meant to (a la Two Thrones) - that is unexpected and not normal. It should never be an issue for a consumer to worry about. You should absolutely feel a certain level of entitlement when you purchase any product. You'd be out of your mind to think you're cash entitles you to nothing.
Just to clarify: I have no problem at all with DRM, when it doesn't affect my ability to play the game I paid for, or do anything other than what it's supposed to, and I personally don't mind being connected to the internet to play AC2. And yes, I agree, piracy isn't justified - I don't think I've advocated piracy at any point in this thread - but as I and others have said before, this won't stop piracy and only ends up bothering legitimate buyers of the game.
The issue of AC2 PC's awful DRM implementation isn't about a heightened sense of entitlement, it's just about denying purchasers of product the correct feeling of entitlement that is part and parcel of purchasing a product. All of the other cadre of protests such as voting with your wallet and letters to the editor, letters of complaint are rather flaccid when Ubi have already made it clear that they couldn't give a damn about their PC customers. The sense of entitlement that they have as a business who treats their paying customers like fools and thieves is far more obnoxious than any troll's vomitus on piratebay. At least to me and I don't condone or support piracy. "
Then don't purchase AC2, and move on. That is literally all you can do (legally of course). The anti-DRM crowd deserves no sympathy from me from what I've seen and it's a shame because no we have two thick-headed sides butting heads. The slightly different and ballsy approach Ubisoft is taking makes me excited to see the results. "
Releasing Steam to take over from WON was a ballsy approach. Releasing Half Life 2 with preloading (and thus preordering) and online authentication was a ballsy approach.
Ubisoft's DRM for AC2 isn't ballsy it's just shit.
OK? What I don't get here is that (at least from what I've heard) the system is a cloud based, client system that requires constant connection to the internet. How is this practically, albeit a slightly more severe, copycat of Steam? Yes Steam games should be able to work in off-line mode but I certainly don't expect them to. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work (at least for me) if the connection is already off before entering Steam. Besides as a PC gamer, are you REALLY going to be playing video games and not have an internet connection. Worst case scenario, you can't play Assassin's Creed 2 when your Internet goes down. Personally I would deal with the "no internet" problem first. Then I can talk about playing a game or two.
I am fully behind asking Ubisoft to implement an offline mode. This point of contention is valid. However the last thing I need to hear is populist assholes acting like they are a man of the people (ala PA strawman) and pirating the game. Again there is no reason one should expect companies not to impliment some sort of DRM. People like to keep reiterating that piracy is inevitable. Everyone knows that. It's those people on the margins, the amateurs, the people who know only how to use a crack or a torrent client to get a game illegally. Generally speaking Steam and client-based DRM is the best way I've seen for companies to curb piracy. Certainly my pirate friend of mine has been thwarted by Steam and Steam alone. Interesting that he felt justified in pirating Borderlands because no DRM was implemented...
If they make a pretty good Steam copy-cat, I'm all for it. DRM is the only real drawback for a PC gamer and it sure as hell beats SecuROM. Clients and "the cloud" are the future and in a time of change, people freak and bitch. I just don't see how this is a big deal though.
EDIT: OKAY TITLE IS MISLEADING, I KNOW THEY ARE NOT THE SAME
"
Are you implying that steam games can't be pirated? because they can be also adding this shitty DRM to games will only make more people pirate.
My internet connection often drops out so I see this form of DRM being a problem. I don't understand why Ubisoft does not do a deal with Valve for Steam only activation. I think I will cancel my preorder for the game and get a 60 day STO card instead. I can see the funny side in canceling a preorder for a game that has to be connected to play for an MMO. lol
Is the DRM actually require you to be connected at ALL times or does it just check in between 5 minutes intervals or something? If it was the former, it may be a problem for some people.
53 Comments