Assassin’s Creed ll and the "new" DRM scheme

[RST101]

Well after playing for an hour and a half(in between bouts of work of course) and came across no issues with being booted of the server and everything went quite well.

I will save you the reviews as I'm sure you have read/seen them all before.

 

[AstaLaVista]

Well I have actually bit the bullet and bought the game for £26.99 and am just downloading.
I promised myself I wouldn't do this but I can be impetuous at times and this was one of those times.

And this is exactly why Ubisoft (and others) expect to get away with it, people can't or won't sacrifice a few days or weeks to hit them where it hurts... their pockets.

I am not chastising you or anything but, this is just what's going to happen with kids that have Mom or Dad buy all sorts of games for them and UBI knows it and that's all they care about... counting that money and walking with it straight to the Bank.

What about when Ubisoft no longer exist or they decide the game is too old and turn off the servers. Youl no longer be able to play.

It is stated that when and if that happens... they will patch and take the DRM off. This is a big IF though as Ubi's not good on making promises or support their games.

Here's something a member on the UBI forum posted about the ongoing DRM thread.

Gaming has hit an all time low thanks to UBI Soft. If you didn't like draconian DRM schemes, you're going to hate UBI Soft's new policy: you must be connected to their servers 100% of the time to play Assasin's Creed 2. If you don't have internet, or if your internet is out, or if you are on vacation, stationed in Iraq, or want to play at the airport, you are out of luck. No game for you. That in itself is very troubling and reason enough to NOT BUY THIS GAME. However, there are additional reasons that are even more troubling:

1) Setting the prescient for future games

If gamers buy Assasin's Creed despite this huge limitation on game play, it will open the door to many more games like this in the future. That would be awful for the consumer.

2) Turning 'owning' into leasing"

Tying games to some sort of server for activation is bad enough, but making them DEPENDENT on a server is horrible for the consumer. It takes away our rights (to play the game we paid for on our terms) and creates a system whereby you are simply LEASING a game. If at some point UBI Soft decides to take down their servers, you lose your game. They can take away your rights to play the game at any point in the future if they decided to. They have you by the cajones! If you give into this model, expect to never own any digital medium again; the makers of games, producers of music, and distributors of movies would love to see our current model of OWNING a physical copy of your game \ album \ movie replaced with a system where you only own the 'right' to access \ play that medium. It's their wet-dream to turn the current system of ownership on its head so they can re-sell you things endlessly as well as take them away from you at their discretion. As a consumer, it's important that we speak out against this by supporting DRM free games (Mass Effect II, Dragon Age, Fallout III, etc...) and DRM free music (buy it from Amazon!) and REFUSE to buy this junk with built in limitations and restrictions that SERVE NO PURPOSE.

3) Making games dependent on 'phoning home' means you're at the total mercy of UBI Soft (or whomever runs their servers)

If their servers are down, you lose access to your game. If their servers are overtaxed, you may experience problems connecting to your game. Think that isn't likely? Think again. Currently (03/09/2010) the servers have been down for the last 12 hours or so, creating chaos for all those who expected to be able to fire up Assassin's Creed. It doesn't even matter if UBI Soft is malevolent or not; if your service provider has a bad week you may be out of luck. If there is a storm in your area, you could end up out of luck for weeks (this happened to me when a tree knocked out my cable internet for 9 says straight--I thought I was going to die). You're screwed if your internet, their servers, or anything along the line between the two goes down.

4) DRM is pointless (and this online restriction is one of it's worst forms!)

Want to pirate games? It's tragically easy these days. Even more tragic is that DRM, supposedly designed to prevent piracy, is a total failure at actually accomplishing that. Want proof? Google "Spore + DRM + Piracy" and see what you come up with. I'll give you a hint: Spore was pirated BEFORE it was officially released. Many games are unto torrent sites well before their release date. The worst part of this is that the pirated versions are in almost all cases SUPERIOR to the DRM infested versions: they don't contain the invasive, crippling, and destructive DRM that past games have been ruined by (Bioshock, Mass Effect I, Spore, etc...). I am NOT ADVOCATING PIRACY. I think you should buy the games you want to play. I am advocating NOT BUYING games that violate your basic consumer rights (right to resell your game, right to play your game WHENEVER you want to without restrictions). If a game limits those rights, I say skip it entirely. Because UBI SOFT are morons doesn't give anyone the right to steal. As your Mom (or at least mine) used to say: two wrongs don't make a right!

I am not opposed to simple DRM schemes (disk check, or even Steam which has established very good rapport gamers by being both consistent, fair, and show a long track record of stability). I am totally opposed to anything that PREVENTS ME FROM PLAYING THE GAME that I paid money for. I don't want to see this standardized (and I don't think it will be) and so it's time to take action NOW and refuse to buy this garbage.

The bottom line is DRM is not and has never been about preventing piracy. It's about CONTROL. Control over you and how you are able to play the very game you paid your money for. It's about wrenching ownership away from the consumer and replacing it with something much lesser: rental \ leasing. Don't let them do that to you.

Final Thoughts:

UBI SOFT and those like them have got to be taught a lesson. The only way to get heard by these huge companies is by hitting them where it hurts: their pocketbook. Refuse to buy this game or games like it that infringe on your rights. Tell your friends not to buy it. Write reviews that inform people about the risks of doing so. That's how you get things to change. To the inevitable trolls who will tell me that DRM should just be 'given in to,' I'd like to point out that currently game makers are MOVING AWAY from DRM schemes. The reason is because of the backlash against pointless restrictions by those like myself who are unwilling to sit around and watch PC gaming be ruined by greedy scumbags. It's because of grassroots action (Spore for example) that the tide has turned and that DRM is now much less common than it was a year ago. Top shelf games are being released DRM free. You know what? I've bought all of them and recommend you do the same. Let's all give our money to the makers of games that RESPECT us--after all, WE ARE THE CUSTOMERS. Enough said.

And here's the link to the whole thread... 62 pages worth
Ubisoft Online Services - DRM discussion - Topic Powered by Social Strata

 

[sygnus21]

I'll side with UBI for a minute...

Sorry, but I'm going to take Ubi's side for a minute....

Ubi soft like any other company has a right to protect their products. Period. It's no different than any other company, other then we're talking about digital files/media. Piracy IS a big problem and DOES COST companies millions of dollars. True, not every pirated copy is a sale, but collectively it does add up. i.e. if a game is pirated a thousand times in one day, you can be pretty sure that at least half those could have been potential sales had piracy not been available. Say pirated game costs $49.99 times 500 = $24,995. That’s twenty five thousand dollars lost in one day!

That's a lot of lost revenue, which in turn can cost jobs! While Ubi's solution may seem intrusive and extreme, they're trying to protect an investment, and they have a right to do so.

Have some anti-piracy measures caused problems…yes! We need look no further then the issue with UBI Soft now, but that’s the cost of doing business in the piracy world we live in now.

And no, I don’t like DRM either, and tend to view it as an inconvenient mess, but that hasn’t stopped me from buying games. Why???

Because I personally never had an issue with a DRM protected product other than having to load the "original" disc to play the game. And contrary to popular myth, neither has most of the general public. Yeah, there’s always exceptions to the rule, but let’s honestly not try to turn it into the majority.

Personally I think the loudest Anti-Piracy group are the pirates themselves as they have a vested interest in seeing anti-piracy measures go away.

However pirates do not have any more rights to steal software for whatever reason anymore than I would if I walked in a brick and mortar store and stole it off the shelf. It’s still thievery! The fact that it's digital media doesn't justify this thievery.

The problem is many of us look at piracy from an individual point of view and see it as a harmless victimless crime of low cost, but rarely look at it from a corporate point of who's losing millions of dollars to piracy.

I can guarantee that if most of us was dealing in digital media and found ourselves being pirated and losing money we'd change our tunes quick.

And lastly, to be clear here, we’re not talking about people who buy a legitimate copy of a game or media file and make copies for their own use. That is entirely a different debate, and not one for here.

My two cents.

 

[RST101]

Oh please no not again

 

[Lordbob75]

I will jump in here, because I think people are upset for stupid reasons.

1) You must be connected to activate/play:
I honestly don't understand why this is necessary. What does it do? What effect does it have? How can it stop a game if it is pirated (except to drop its connection)?
I can understand the sentiments here, though I have never really had a problem with this.

2) The "principle" of it
This one is controversial, but falls under the category of: "I bought it, I have nothing illegal or to hide, therefore it is NOT A BIG DEAL".
The only real issue that anyone should have with this is that their pirated copy will stop working.
While I agree that a lot of people don't like the feeling that they are being watched, etc, this is just not a big deal unless you are a pirate.

3) It's inconvenient
No it's not, stop complaining.
With the rigs people build, this is NOT a problem.

4) DRM doesn't work/is pointless
It DOES work, and its not pointless. If no one pirated, then it would be.
But they do. (Would you like it if someone routinely stole your hard work?)

Please note that I am not taking their side. I think that this is way extreme and stupid, though it would not stop me from buying the game if I really wanted it.
On the other hand, I think they people that are really against this are taking it way too far. Just don't buy the game.

Flame on.

~Lordbob

 

[arkhi]

3) It's inconvenient
No it's not, stop complaining.
With the rigs people build, this is NOT a problem.

This falls under the special theory of relativity.

P.S. Why do you sign your e-mails? It says right there on top who its from.

 

[Lordbob75]

3) It's inconvenient
No it's not, stop complaining.
With the rigs people build, this is NOT a problem.

This falls under the special theory of relativity.

P.S. Why do you sign your e-mails? It says right there on top who its from.

I am not sure if that was supporting my comment, or not...
But the only time it makes sense to sign an email is if it comes in as agooglyduckman@***.*** or something, where it is not obvious.

~Lordbob

 

[arkhi]

Well, actually what I'm basically saying is that the matter of "inconvenience" truly depends on the actual user. Quoting gamespot's video review, "Want to play at your grandmom's house? Did a storm knock out your internet? Sorry, you're out of luck"

And the quote, I just find it funny to use it here since you sign your posts and, we're in an AC thread, after all (remember the email from that old guy to that AC girl?).

 

[Lordbob75]

Well, actually what I'm basically saying is that the matter of "inconvenience" truly depends on the actual user. Quoting gamespot's video review, "Want to play at your grandmom's house? Did a storm knock out your internet? Sorry, you're out of luck"

And the quote, I just find it funny to use it here since you sign your posts and, we're in an AC thread, after all (remember the email from that old guy to that AC girl?).

Ah, true enough.

You are right about the user name thing. I sign it out of habit, and that some users may not be in the habit of actually looking up to see the user posting.
It really only makes sense if you sign it with a real name, such as Ted or Nigel.

But I do it anyways.

~Lordbob

EDIT: It also gives a final end feeling to my post. If that makes any sense

 

[arkhi]

EDIT: It also gives a final end feeling to my post. If that makes any sense

Yup, it does UBI's DRM is the one that doesn't

 

[cloud8521]

3) It's inconvenient
No it's not, stop complaining.
With the rigs people build, this is NOT a problem.

no it is inconvenient, if your isp (only isp in town too) is prone to dropping your connection, or if the auth server goes down like it did hours after launch of AC2. but the first itself is enough to call it inconvenient. no matter how great your rig is it wont stop the INTERNET from going out.

 

[arkhi]

I've been observing a site in particular just to see how the Pirate vs DRM thing is doing with this game, so far DRM- win.

I did find this funny though:

For those of you colsole gamers that have been stating "buy the game" I respond with these 2 statements.

1: This is The Pirate ***... emphasis on PIRATE
.......

 

[Lordbob75]

3) It's inconvenient
No it's not, stop complaining.
With the rigs people build, this is NOT a problem.

no it is inconvenient, if your isp (only isp in town too) is prone to dropping your connection, or if the auth server goes down like it did hours after launch of AC2. but the first itself is enough to call it inconvenient. no matter how great your rig is it wont stop the INTERNET from going out.

I meant DRM in general, not this specifically.

People complain that DRM is inconvenient because it uses valuable process on their machine to check to make sure they are legal, blah blah.
The point is that the DRM itself is NOT inconvenient (except for pirates).

As I said, I don't like this one all that much either.
(Though I would also not tolerate an unstable connection like you described)

~Lordbob

 

[cloud8521]

3) It's inconvenient
No it's not, stop complaining.
With the rigs people build, this is NOT a problem.

no it is inconvenient, if your isp (only isp in town too) is prone to dropping your connection, or if the auth server goes down like it did hours after launch of AC2. but the first itself is enough to call it inconvenient. no matter how great your rig is it wont stop the INTERNET from going out.

I meant DRM in general, not this specifically.

People complain that DRM is inconvenient because it uses valuable process on their machine to check to make sure they are legal, blah blah.
The point is that the DRM itself is NOT inconvenient (except for pirates).

As I said, I don't like this one all that much either.
(Though I would also not tolerate an unstable connection like you described)

~Lordbob

true but sometimes it does cause other problems. such as with virtual disk's which usually are only used by pirates anyway, but some people use them legitimately... i have yet to find one myself but i still have virtual cd's anyway XD i dont know why makes me feel cool to have alot of fake cd drives i dont use

 

[smsff7]

Say pirated game costs $49.99 times 500 = $24,995. That’s twenty five thousand dollars lost in one day!

That is assuming these people would have bought it in the first place.....Such arguments and BS since downloading a game dose not meant I person would spend the cash and got it legit if the option to pirate was unavailable.

 

[cloud8521]

Say pirated game costs $49.99 times 500 = $24,995. That’s twenty five thousand dollars lost in one day!

That is assuming these people would have bought it in the first place.....Such arguments and BS since downloading a game dose not meant I person would spend the cash and got it legit if the option to pirate was unavailable.

so your saying that they should get it for free anyway while everyone else pays? i grantee that if they could not get it free at least 3/10 people pirating the game would buy it, and thats least. thats still allot of money.

 

[smsff7]

Say pirated game costs $49.99 times 500 = $24,995. That’s twenty five thousand dollars lost in one day!

That is assuming these people would have bought it in the first place.....Such arguments and BS since downloading a game dose not meant I person would spend the cash and got it legit if the option to pirate was unavailable.

so your saying that they should get it for free anyway while everyone else pays? i grantee that if they could not get it free at least 3/10 people pirating the game would buy it, and thats least. thats still allot of money.

no I am just saying you can't measure how much a company loses because of piracy if the person was not going to buy it in the first place.

PS: where did you get that number from anyways?

 

[RST101]

Say pirated game costs $49.99 times 500 = $24,995. That’s twenty five thousand dollars lost in one day!

That is assuming these people would have bought it in the first place.....Such arguments and BS since downloading a game dose not meant I person would spend the cash and got it legit if the option to pirate was unavailable.

so your saying that they should get it for free anyway while everyone else pays? i grantee that if they could not get it free at least 3/10 people pirating the game would buy it, and thats least. thats still allot of money.

So you can guarantee that 3/10 would buy it? Where did you get those numbers from?

I'm just curious and bewildered

 

[AstaLaVista]

As I see it...

1.- It cost these Companies Millions of dollars to come up with DRM to deter piracy, for it to be broken & hacked even prior to the game being out for sale. Perhaps they could see this as a Savings if they were to invest this monies into something more productive? Am I the only one who fails to see the benefit of it? As a profit/lost/deter method is concern?

2.- Given the fact that it DOES NOT help against piracy, the only other fact I logically see is the one where, I, after spending 60 bucks for a game, have to be told by the company who sold it to me, when, how and how much I can play this said game.

3.- Also, the other fact is that, even if I buy it, install it, register it and decide that the game is not for me (it happens to millions of kids outhere who buy on impulse), I can no longer take it to a Gamestop and trade it in for another game..

4.- I only play Single Player Campaigns and are very selective of the games I play. I will not let a Company dictate what I can do with my game, regarding what they think they are doing against piracy, let alone waste time trying to connect, checking my side of the internet problem thinking is me when the problem usually lies with them (given UBI's record of down servers )... this is one of the other reasons why I don't play MP, I just can't deal with network problems, I have no patients for it.

5.- To me this DRM is as intrusive as the Govt. trying to ban the sale of Legal Guns by claiming that it will be the only way to deter crime when 90% (if not 100%) of the crimes committed are done with Black market guns... why aren't they trying harder to work on banning that?

I am not entitled to a free game, no sir, you want to play you got to pay but, it does not mean I will conform to their draconian ways and see it as something that it is so, will soon be the standard way of doing business or the norm.

Now, they are not entitled to force me to have my internet connected at all times to play a Single Player game, less so when the game they want to lock pirates out is already hacked and the pirates don't have to jump to any of the hoops the paying customer must jump.

My reason for hating UBI so much had more to do for what I thought they had done to my favorite Franchises... Far Cry, Ghost Recon & Rainbow six, but now, I have to add these latest intrusiveness to it.

And that right there is what I think about that...

 

[smsff7]

you have some great points there AstsLaVista.

I understand companies need a way to try to protect there games, but they need to find one that dose not hurt the legit costumers in the process. I myself like Steam for that.

It lets people play there games offline
updates can be set to auto so no need to check
The game can be re-downloaded anytime
it can be installed on any number of computers (as long as you log into your steam account from that PC)