The hits just keep on coming. Ubisoft releases a FAQ about DRM..takes a shot at valve

Ignorant much? I used to live in the UK and network lost occur all the time (not due to storm but the infrastructure). I paid a lot for my connection back in the days since I got a part time job while studying in Uni and I don't need to pay for rent.

It is not a rarely occur scenario as you think, maybe it is rare in the US but definitely not rare in other country.

Even if my connection works 99.9% of the time nowadays, how come the customer who paid for the game CAN'T PLAY A SINGLE PLAYER GAME OFFLINE WHILE IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE PIRATE. Who want to get penalize for something they paid for? Steam is fine as it is for tackling reselling and pirate cannot be stop by steam, nor the new ubisoft DRM.

 

What is wrong with people.

How is having to play it the game with the Internet always on and being used benefiting you?

It's TAKING AWAY your options.

The idea of having things save online and everything is fine, BUT HAVE AN OPTION. That's all people want, they don't want to be MADE into doing something.

Bioshock 2, sure, you can make a Live account and have your stuff online, OR, you can make a local account, and it's all good.

It's not stopping Pirates at all, it doesn't stop piracy, if anything it forces them towards it more.

 

exactly, being forced into one option only surley sucks cock

 

So with a 30 GB internet data cap, how long can you play nonstop.. let's say AC 2?
edit:"
This online services platform is designed to require only the minimum broadband speed. The game runs with less than 50 kbit/s. As an example, if you play Assassin’s Creed II for an hour, the game will have only transferred 0,1 Mb of data."

google to the rescue: 0,1 (Mb per hour) = 73,0484398 Mb per month

 

72MB of data, for a full month isn't that much.

It's not a problem with having a connection or the data used.

The problem is:

1.) No real benefit to the user.
2.) Doesn't stop Piracy
3.) It's taking away your options, not giving you more.

 

My point was that he was using a hypothetical freak storm, which you said yourself is not the cause of your internet going down, to complain about this new DRM. Finchwizard reasons for not wanting the DRM were way better than hlhbk's ****ing storm. That was my point.

Giving you more options is not in publishers concerns. Why would they want to give more when copies of their games are being stolen? Their only concern is the safety of their product.

All I am saying is that it is completely understandable that publishers are trying to protect their product. I don't agree with be forced to be connected to the internet while playing my games, but as long as there is piracy there will be publishers and game developers trying prevent it no matter how many loyal and honest customer they have. And sure it most likely won't prevent piracy but why the hell would they sit back and let piracy continue to run its course? I am sure if you were in their position you would be doing the exact same thing. I know I'd be.

 

Benjamin Franklin said it best:
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

In this case, PC Gamers who accept extra intrusive security just to keep pirates from stopping developers will be neither secure OR stop pirates.

 

I don;t think anyone is actively stating that developers shouldn't take action to prevent piracy but it is a proven fact that for every new and intrusive method of anti piracy that the developers come up with the pirates find a way to get round it almost within days, if not hours of the game hitting the shelves.

It is shockingly obvious that DRM does not solve the route cause, to resolve piracy you have to make the advantage of buying the game legally outweigh the benefit of pirating it and as it stands intrusive DRM that punishes the legit player is no incentive at all.

It may be ignorance but I still believe that many people would purchase the games legally, given the choice. The folk who download illegal copies would in 95% of cases never have purchased the game to start with, their interest is passing and the access to the pirated version just means they decided to give a game a go that they would otherwise have ignored.

The issue now though is that intrusive DRM is forcing the folk who would have legally purchased the game to consider getting the pirated version simply because it is the exact same as the legit copy minus the intrusive DRM crap and that's the rub. The image is that it's pirated, it will contain hacks, trojans, be half incomplete, need a ton of cracks and other sh*te to work and when it all does work you won't be able to play half the game. The thing is that is no longer the case and the real worry for developers should be that a decent 'honest' copy of the game with non of the above rubbish means the guy downloading the game gets a superior version of the game. A game they don't have to jump through hoops to play.

The question arises though when all the legit paying customers have given up on buying your product and have instead decided that it is easier for them to download the pirated version without the intrusive DRM, how do you make your cash then?

 

Don't be so sure.

I don't have the technique to crack this so called 'DRM' but the only thing you need is to set up a private server that emulate ubisoft server, by spoofing the data and reverse engineering. It's a matter of time until they get cracked which means, IT DOES NOT STOP PIRACY AT ALL.

So my answer is I would not do the same at all. Using intrusive DRM that does not help 1 bit and pissing off the legit customer, noway in my right mind would do something that stupid. Steam is fine and it is the less intrusive DRM so far. All you need is to register and buy the game from them and that's it. Why can't they learn from their and their competitor mistake?

 

Setting up a private server that emulates the Ubisoft one isn't ideal unless your just doing it to spite them.

An ideal crack will more than likely just stop the game looking for one.

 

The problem is that it load the save from the server, so you need to stop the game looking for one and rewrite the code to load a save from local server or you make the game beleive it is connected by emulating. Of course the 'private server' is just an emulation, it doesn't need to be the full version. Just some emulator that emulate the data comm between server and client. And the save file format will need a reverse engineering on the game so they know what in the save file.

Anyway, its all just theory crafting.

 

Ubisoft have said that save's are stored locally and online, and we don't know which one it loads it from initially, unless i missed something.

I know it wont be easy, but im sure the guys at the two R groups will be planning on something, as if it can be played, it can be cracked.

Though if this game is never cracked, but fails terribly with very low sales, the results of that could go either way.
But if it doesn't get cracked and sells amazingly well, then we are all doomed lol.

 

Anything can be cracked, It's just a matter of time and if anyone willing to spend the time to crack it.

 

What is unbelievable is that after I've proven I'm right you two still won't accept the truth: DRM has nothing to do with piracy.

You go on about pirated games but then don't post actual sales of any of those games you've mentioned.

I'm from a place a little to the south and West of where Hilbert's from.

 

This is why I recommend people buy the game and either install a downloaded copy, or crack it. This is what I do with all of my games, though my advantage is that companies have little power over the government here.

What I find disturbing is that downloading a copy of a game you own is also piracy, because you're not making use of the disc you've bought, meaning it's not going to wear out. The lengths they go to to make money is aweful.

These companies have all seen the success of BLizzard and want a BNet type network. Once they have all of this in place they will, probably, start charging a fee and then you, as has been mentioned, are paying to play a game you have the right to play. Who in their right mind is going to pay a monthly fee to live in a house they have fully paid off?

 

What you on about?
You have only proven that you can link to something that has nothing to do with PC video game piracy.

And you provided no proof at all that publishers don't use DRM for piracy purposes, while i don't personally think its the main reason, to state that piracy has nothing to do with it, is nothing but arrogant opinionated nonsense.

 

Funny, because: I find your lack of salt quite disturbing
Liranan is quite alright and you cannot deny the obvious.
We are the people who are living right here and right now and therefore; we can change things.

 

I think someone already stated that the saves can be stored both locally as well as online. Considering that a lot of game saves can easily run in to 2 maybe 3 Mb then that would immediately call b*ll**** on Ubisoft stating that a game using this system will only transfer 0.1Mb per hour (or was it per day?) as you would need to transfer up to at least 6Mb every time you played, once when you load it and once when you save it.

If you strongly disagree with their stance I wouldn't recommend this. They only care about the cash they couldn't give a stuff if you pay for the game and then chose to by pass the online DRM checks end of the day they still have your cash in their pocket. Legally the only way to hit them is to simply not buy their products, problem for the companies though is the DRM doesn't work so the game will, like every other game, appear on torrents sites so those that strongly disagree with their DRM can still play their games without paying for them and that's the point I am trying to get out.

People that pirate games will pirate them, they won't have bought the game to start with so the new DRM doesn;t solve the issue there.

The people who know nothing will buy the game because they want the game and will not think twice about what the DRM is forcing them to do

The middle ground is the folk like me, that do know about the DRM and don't believe that we should be jumping through hoops like these to play a game we legally purchased. We would normally buy the games we want but are now in a position where the DRM we have to put up with is too intrusive and makes the concept of getting the pirated none DRM version a more attractive prospect.