This take a whole lot more time than simply creating a crack...even a MMO can be reverse engineered but it might buy them a bit more time and improve their launch window. I am interested in seeing how this whole thing plays out, and how long it takes for crackers to break this. Maybe they will break it day 1...who know *shrug*Scan the AC2 internet traffic and save somewhere the sent data and the received data, make a local-hosted server that reroutes the sent bits to itself and send authentication data back.
It's not even remotely complex, anyone with a bit of knowledge about networking and coding should be able to make this almost flawlessly.
And the worst part is that they will probably put all the blame for low sales on pirates and act like they are knights in shining armor, and spout some random "ZOMG LOW SALES = PC GAMING IS DYING" and downgrade even further their support to the platform.
*sigh*
We had EA with install limits, then Ubi with forced internet access, I wonder what's next.
Mograine
DRM Hell: AC2 PC sales and Ubisoft PC support ** DRM Discussion Here **
This topic is locked from further discussion.
This take a whole lot more time than simply creating a crack...even a MMO can be reverse engineered but it might buy them a bit more time and improve their launch window. I am interested in seeing how this whole thing plays out, and how long it takes for crackers to break this. Maybe they will break it day 1...who know *shrug*Renevent42
Yeah, I know. Now that I think about it, the sceners may aswell take out the entire online authentication part.
If they don't make it in time, this may help a lot against day 0 and day 1 piracy but I doubt it will bring them more sales, and it's still extremely harassing to legit customers. The effects on sales are as likely to balance out as they are likely to decrease them instead. It will hurt a lot especially in the long run if they keep applying this DRM on their games.
:roll: Luckily we aren't missing much with AC2 in this period.
That explanation does not rule out the fact that just playing the game Single Player will add into my downstream and upstream usage. Interent usage should be accounted for just downloads, MMO's, and MP. Not for playing a SP game. If this is going to become common for all games, then I would expect my ISP to have Ubisoft servers as a free limit, not as a usage.
And privacy is gone, since Ubi could look at server trafic and ping your PC. I think I might use my old PC as a Ubuntu firewall that dynamically changes my IP address and use it as a dedicated proxy server.
edit: yikes I just read over what I said, and I sound paranoid. I'm not really. :shock:
Follow up article from RPS.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/19/drmogeddon-part-2/#more-25687
BS, cracking a secure network connection is never easy. And you think they are just using the internet for an authentication check? Your saves are also stored on "the cloud" and even more data may be provided by the server. Thus if you trick the game into continuing to run it will require more work to get it to read a local file and major parts of the game may not even be there.Scan the AC2 internet traffic and save somewhere the sent data and the received data, make a local-hosted server that reroutes the sent bits to itself and send authentication data back.
It's not even remotely complex, anyone with a bit of knowledge about networking and coding should be able to make this almost flawlessly.Mograine
What if Assassins Creed 2 were to flop badly, even with the heavy anti piracy measure? Would we see Ubisoft abandon PC gaming?Jd1680a
Thats what I expect.
It's possible they'll use this DRM as a pre-text to move only to consoles, but I don't believe that is the sole reason.
Ubisoft isn't stupid they know exactly how we are going to react, and so that must mean that there is a specific reason they are not letting us know. Previously they made Prince of Persia with no DRM or copy protection but now they've done the complete opposite and made this DRM extremely restrictive for what I believe is a very specific reason and my theory is that it is actually intended NOT to solely get profit, in so much as it is an EXPERIMENT:
1.) Profit does matter, but when you've delayed the game for 3+months and already have gained enough money from console sales, Ubisoft can afford to take a gamble and see how how well this new model would play out on the market using Prince of Persia (which has no protection) as a CONTROL to gauge it's success.
2.) I believe the primary reason might be to test whether an Unhackable DRM is possible, and to see how long it will take before it gets cracked if it's possible.
3.) 2nd reason is to test the fallout from the PC gaming community how they'll react, and how much that will affect profits, and that ties in to whether or not they'll make the move to console only because it's obvious that they don't give a crap about PC gaming because it doesn't pay as well as consoles.
Why is piracy such a big issue only with Ubi? We dont see other developers bi*ching about it. Take BioWare they make PC games without fear of piracy, they rely on quality. Dragonage, MassEffect2 both game were cracked before release, do u see BioWare complaning? no cuz they know that if the quality is great the gamers will respect it and buy the product. Go ahead Ubisoft discriminate PC gamers cuz of piracy. I support piracy btw (people who dont have enough money to buy food have their righ to have fun on games too) F***K Ubisoft i wont be buying their games anymore!
Wow, thanks for the heads up. I was actually going to buy this game. Well, I'm not now. Thanks Ubisoft, and EA for ruining PC gamging for the paying consumer such as myself. Meanwhile piraters will be enjoying this game in offline mode. THANK YOU!
I wonder which geniuses are behind torturing the paying community? I think this may be for their pirated games to sky rocket thus they can make an example of PC gamers, and completely due away with it without looking rude.
Wow, thanks for the heads up. I was actually going to buy this game. Well, I'm not now. Thanks Ubisoft, and EA for ruining PC gamging for the paying consumer such as myself. Meanwhile piraters will be enjoying this game in offline mode. THANK YOU!
I wonder which geniuses are behind torturing the paying community? I think this may be for their pirated games to sky rocket thus they can make an example of PC gamers, and completely due away with it without looking rude.
Koltr0nTheGreat
They'll get low sales, blame it on piracy, and have an excuse to scrap the PC version all together.
What I've been finding hilarious is Ubisoft trying to sugarcoat this drm by saying oh but hey look you don't have install limits or need to have the disc:lol: I don't care you are going from one bad method to something just as worse. (btw little off topic I don't have a problem with games where you can revoke activation limits)
This was from a few weeks ago for anyone who is late to the party.
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/52691/Ubisoft-Cloud-Copy-Protection-FAQ
EA imo recently for me have turned to an 'extent(DD service, shutting servers down)' by going with simple disc checks. Sims 3, Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, all sold really well and all purchased by me and I have bad company 2 also pre-ordered and not because it didn't have install limits or whatever, I didn't even have to think of drm beacuse it was a non-issue, the quality of the games were the only thing I had to consider.
Anyway like others here I share the same sentiment just don't get it and for me Ubisoft haven't been that good for sometime now anyway except for Anno 1404.
[QUOTE="Koltr0nTheGreat"]
Wow, thanks for the heads up. I was actually going to buy this game. Well, I'm not now. Thanks Ubisoft, and EA for ruining PC gamging for the paying consumer such as myself. Meanwhile piraters will be enjoying this game in offline mode. THANK YOU!
I wonder which geniuses are behind torturing the paying community? I think this may be for their pirated games to sky rocket thus they can make an example of PC gamers, and completely due away with it without looking rude.
shakmaster13
They'll get low sales, blame it on piracy, and have an excuse to scrap the PC version all together.
at this point, i could care less. They dont' have any good games out right now anyway. atleast EA has something and are trying (well, not hard) to satisfy a a few bit of people. Ubisoft just making more QQs than $$s.
I personally think we should give credit where credit is due to Ubisoft and this DRM. I can certainly say I have never looked forward to a game from Ubisoft as much as I have with this Assassins Creed 2. Yep the 16th March 2010 cannot come fast enough for me ............... I am naturally not buying it but I am going to laugh myself silly when this game dies sales wise and I can't wait for the forum posts.
The DRM is so bad, I would rather pay for a cracked version of the game where I can play offline instead of paying for this
If anyone wants to see DRM done right, look at what EA have been doing with their most recent titles. Bear in mind that this is a company that I (and many others) were spitting venom about a couple of years ago for their use of online authentication with SecuROM.
With Sims 3, Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect 2, Need for Speed Shift etc. you can install the game as it is and play it without ever having to connect to the internet, which will mean that your investment will be safe for long time to come. Non-pirates however (and non secondhand buyers) do not have the opportunity to enjoy the DLC, so they are immediately put at a disadvantage. It is a decent way of putting honest players at an advantage without punishing them for selling their game or trying to play it 10 years down the line.
OK, so the way EA has been handling some of the DLC has been less than honourable. Sims 3 was provided with very little content, which made the game dependent on the DLC. Dragon Age Origins contained gaps and blatant plugs for the DLC. But I found Mass Effect 2 was a prime example of how to do it right.
As far as AC2 is concerned - well, I find this such a blatant kick in the teeth that I'm not even going to buy it for the PS3. As a proud European I find Ubisoft is an utter disgrace to this continent and I am beginning to feel that I wouldn't be sorry if they left the PC for good. The PC had always been a haven for indie developers in the 80s and 90s but since the major players have taken a foothold it's been downhill ever since.
I'm not sure if the Ubisoft Online Services titles will be easily piratable - it depends on how they implement it. If they choose to integrate the cloud and authentication code in the game code itself then pirates will have a very hard time of it. I would bet, however, that the same greed and disingenuity that brought them to this decision will ultimately be their downfall - they will probably implement all cloud and online functionality in an external DLL which will be used in all Ubishaft titles to save costs, which will then be an invitation to crack by pirates.
If this is only to eliminate Day 0 and Day 1 piracy, they better remove this with a patch a week after release.
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
[QUOTE="Renevent42"] When has it happened before? And I don't think your example makes much sense...sounds imaginary. Business is nothing like a relationship...in fact it's exactly opposite of a relationship. Business is not about feelings, it's about making money. If Ubisoft felt there was money to be made with ITS PRODUCTS in the PC market they would do it, I don't see them intentionally driving their sales into the ground. Renevent42
the concept of business might be devoid of feelings, but the people makings the decisions have feelings, the people buying the product have feelings, etc.
I know my analogy was a bit dramatic, but its true. Just look at Microsoft. They essentially stopped all support for PC gaming (started with Halo 2 being VIsta only, then with dismal Gears of War sales, now Alan Wake wont come to PC because "our monitors are too small").
So, sure, in an ideal world business is not touched by feeling, but it is still affected by bullcrap and silly, stupid idea and notions by people with questionable motives.
If you make 2 billion a year profit off consoles, and 200 million off PC sales, and it costs you 100 million to make those PC sales, arent you going to take any excuse you can get to stop making PC games and divert that 100 million into some other area where you can see more profit? I know its only sound business tactics to do so, and I Dont blame any company for abandoning a non-profitable area, but just be straight up with us. And dont screw over the legit consumer
I'm sorry, what you are saying just sounds very naive. They don't care about "burning PC gamers"...it's either worth it or not to invest in a market. It seems like they are trying a last ditch effort to support the platform at the current moment. Misguided or not, they didn't invest however much money to develop/license this DRM scheme just to intentionally drive sales into the ground so they have an "excuse" so they don't hurt PC gamers' feelings. That's just utterly ridiculous...
Of course they care about burning PC gamers! A huge percentage of PC gamers are serious gamers, period, meaning they have one or more consoles as well. A lot of the hardcore gamers have all of the above. I personally prefer to play most of my games on the PC, but I also have the 360 and the PS3, simply because some games are only for those platforms, some games play better on consoles, and sometimes I just want to kick back on my recliner and play in the living room. Ticking off that group of gamers on one platform can very easily lead to lower sales on all of the platforms. If they don't care about burning the PC gamers, then they need to wake up, because there are damned few "PC only" gamers out there, so angering the PC gamers will also anger a measurable portion of their console audience as well.
Everybody relax!
If you do not like this you can complain to many organizations: Federal trade commision, better business bureau, gather as many people as you can and launch an action class lawsuit if you can afford it.
Remember starforce and how Ubisoft had to drop it?
Once again they will have invested a pile on of cash on stupid drm's instead of putting the money on the game to make it better. Plus some dude sitting in a cave in china will program an emulator to beat this stupid drm on his amiga. So one way or another Ubisoft will end up on the losing end of the stick moreso than the buyer, ....when will they learn?....uh? never i guess....
DRM's belong in the stone age...and it does not mean that your game is gonna bring cash...you game could be a winner or a total flop with or without the best protective device in the universe. It is just one more hurdle on the way to make a game a flop in their wallets and a winner for piRates who will claim victory for breaking the rules yet again..sheesh...
Aside from the extremely hostile way that publishers are treating PC (and now also PSP - see SOCOM 3) gamers, the legal concerns with reselling and continued use of games and the issues that many people have with no or spotty internet connections, there's one other development that really has been getting on my wick and is purely the fault of the publishers.
Names like razor1911, Reloaded, Fairlight and so on used to be synonymous with nothing more than pirates, common thieves - in many respects they still are. Since DRM has taken a foothold, however, there's been a Robin Hood mentality that has developed around them - defenders of the gaming community against the big bad gaming industry. We as gamers have become dependent in the long term on the products of these crackers, even though these very products are illegal. These crackers don't crack because they want to help the gaming industry, they crack because they want to pirate games, but the industry has turned them into martyrs for the gaming community by behaving even more morally reprehensibly than the people they claim to be fighting.
It has been rare that I have had to resort to cracks to get a game working - I think only a couple of old Safedisc games (Theme Park World was one) and Extreme Assault have demanded that I resort to using NoCD cracks because of issues with copy protection on modern PCs. To their credit, many CD/DVD check systems used in the 90s and 00s had been fairly well programmed (with a number of exceptions - StarForce *cough cough* SecuROM *cough*), and I don't really have a problem with putting my CD or DVD in the drive while I'm playing. Now, thanks to Steam, Ubisoft, Zuxxez and so on, I'd need an illegal crack for almost every game that I buy in the future to make sure I can keep playing it for as long as I want, which serves as a moral justification for the work of said cracker groups. BUT WHY SHOULD IT? Why have the publishers been so stupid as to permit such a raison d'etre for these pirate groups to come about? Why have they turned cracks into an essential gaming resource?
I just saw this on the Steam store about the game for prepurchase.
UBISOFT MAY CANCEL ACCESS TO ONLINE FEATURES UPON A 30-DAY PRIOR NOTICE
So this is saying you will buy this game, but Ubisoft have the right to stop servers and make your game useless? Also mentions permanent high speed internet. Why high speed? Isn't it just sending 1-2kbs of data or is there a lot more information that the game will be sending? It's funny, they have all this and are asking $59.99 US to buy.
Despite all this bad press people are still buying this game :roll: apparently it's at numbr 5 in the Top Ten best sellers on steam in the US. It isn't in the Steam top ten in Europe because oddly enough it isn't available on steam in Europe (yeah nice one Ubisoft). So to sum up we have a 6 month old console game, that is more expensive than the console version, doesn't actually look any better than the console version and has horrendous DRM which gives the publisher the right to kill your usage of the game at a moments notice and people are STILL buying it.
You just have to roll your eyes at humanity is it any wonder Ubisoft are pulling this crap. I think we should congratulate Ubisoft for actually appreciating the gaming public are indeed gormless saps that will buy anything you shove in their direction.
Despite all this bad press people are still buying this game :roll: apparently it's at numbr 5 in the Top Ten best sellers on steam in the US. It isn't in the Steam top ten in Europe because oddly enough it isn't available on steam in Europe (yeah nice one Ubisoft). So to sum up we have a 6 month old console game, that is more expensive than the console version, doesn't actually look any better than the console version and has horrendous DRM which gives the publisher the right to kill your usage of the game at a moments notice and people are STILL buying it.
You just have to roll your eyes at humanity is it any wonder Ubisoft are pulling this crap. I think we should congratulate Ubisoft for actually appreciating the gaming public are indeed gormless saps that will buy anything you shove in their direction.
charmingcharlie
I'd like to believe that this was a Steam only phenomenon, with the Steam lot believing that the persistent connection requirement not applying to them, but it's not. A lot of people have indeed pre-ordered the game. That said, I know three people who preordered - none of them realised that an internet connection was absolutely necessary. How much do you want to bet that this applies to the PC community in general?
A lot of people who buy games with DRM do so out of ignorance - not in the negative sense, rather they just don't understand the situation, the technology and the consequences. One friend of mine lends out his games quite a bit, and insists that there will be no problem with the activation in the future (doesn't understand the nature of a client/server connection) and doesn't realise that there are only so many computers that the game can be installed on before it becomes useless. He lent out his copy of Empire: Total War (Steam-infected) to a friend before he played it himself and is now confused why he can't play it on his PC. I've tried explaining the account binding principle but he doesn't seem to understand it. He, like many people, believes that you should be able to install a game and play it.
Some infected games, for better or for worse, make the DRM process fairly transparent. I finally got around to buying Mass Effect over the weekend - I found it on sale for five euros and made sure that it was possible to put the DRM 'out of action' in the future should I need to. If I hadn't known better, I wouldn't have realised that the game connects to the internet during the installation process and activates online. I also wouldn't have realised that I have to install the 1.02 patch to be able to revoke the activation upon deinstallation. If I hadn't understood the limits, I would have installed the game, played it, and sold it or put it on my shelf to gather dust and be played again a few years down the line. I've seen secondhand Steam games being sold on eBay and at car boot sales. I suspect that only a minority of these sellers are being disingenuous and rely on the innocent ignorance of many PC gamers - the majority simply isn't aware that the game is now worth absolutely zero.
I know there's going to be a lot of flames calling people like this idiots, but the fact of the matter is that not all PC gamers are technically minded - they can use Windows and install games, but they are blissfully unaware of what goes on behind the scenes. That doesn't make them idiots - it makes them casual gamers. Not everyone needs to understand the ins and outs of a game and computer to play it. Just look at the issue with Spore. A lot of parents bought this game for their kids, and a lot of them had serious issues with running the game because they wouldn't let the children have unhinged internet access on their PCs. Cue tens of thousands of complaints, mostly from people who didn't understand the concept of DRM. I think it influenced EA greatly in their approach to DRM later on.
To really understand DRM, you need to have a legal, technical and commercial understanding that goes beyond the average layman's knowledge. This is the problem with the PC community - labelling anyone disparagingly who doesn't have a deeper technical understanding of their PC as "noobs" and telling them to play their "noobish" consoles (which, by the way, are gradually moving to a similar level of technical complexity). Even then I notice that the vast majority of PC gamers with a decent technical background are seriously lacking in their knowledge of contract law (critical in understanding the ins and outs of a EULA). I drive a car - I know how to put more oil or water in, change a tyre, start the motor etc., but I honestly couldn't tell you how it all works, and I certainly couldn't change an air filter or sparkplug or repair an exhaust. Would that give a car enthusiast the right to call me a noob and tell me that I should ride a bicycle instead? No, it doesn't. Why should PCs as gaming machines be any different?
The major problems with DRM are yet to come. As online DRM in gaming is a fairly recent phenomenon, all of the activation servers are still running. I can imagine that the earlier titles to use DRM, such as Earth 2160, will begin to have their activation servers switched off within the next couple of years. Just wait for the uproar that will come when companies fail to make good on their promise that they will release patches to remove the DRM or when the activation limits are reached.
He lent out his copy of Empire: Total War (Steam-infected) to a friend before he played it himself and is now confused why he can't play it on his PC. I've tried explaining the account binding principle but he doesn't seem to understand it. He, like many people, believes that you should be able to install a game and play it
Instead of explaining to him your moral crusade non-sense, why not let him know to just call securom and re-enable his activations so he can play his game again?
The major problems with DRM are yet to come. As online DRM in gaming is a fairly recent phenomenon, all of the activation servers are still running. I can imagine that the earlier titles to use DRM, such as Earth 2160, will begin to have their activation servers switched off within the next couple of years. Just wait for the uproar that will come when companies fail to make good on their promise that they will release patches to remove the DRM or when the activation limits are reached.
Yeah, how much do you want to bet that DOESN'T happen? Each game doesn't have it's own unique activation server...it's a web service that probably runs across a few servers spread out in regions. I wouldn't worry about games going down in a couple years. Not to say these games will never go down, but nothing even close to what you suggest.
Also found this on Steam: "SUCH CONTENT MAY ONLY BE UNLOCKED ONE SINGLE TIME WITH A UNIQUE KEY" Does this mean that you can only use certain content just one time? This is just getting worse and worse, and I didn't know you needed an Ubi account as well for the game. Forget it; I was set on buying before even with the $60 price tag but this DRM just messed things up. I have three 2010 games in my Steam cart right now and AC2 isn't one of them. I can live without it.mo0ksi
Since it's tied to your account, of course it's unlocked a single time.
I don't see what's wrong with having an Ubi account, it's not another client running in the background.
I did mention that the game was infected with Steam, not SecuROM, so Sony DADC have nothing to do with this. As far as I know Valve only transfers licences if you send them a scan of your retail box and I believe $10, although he was told by Valve that it wasn't possible at all in this case and that he would have to purchase a new licence. What I didn't mention is that we had a similar problem with Crysis Warhead, only this time it was because the key had already been registered five times (i.e. it had been stolen. We contacted Sony DADC who said that we should contact EA Games. We did, and we had to jump through endless hoops and ultimately threaten legal action in a strongly worded letter before he could be provided with a new key. The whole procedure took around three weeks for ONE GAME. And he had a similar problem with Left 4 Dead 2. He bought the game, only to have his account locked together with several games because the key was 'stolen'. It also took another month to recover the account, but only after several arguments via e-mail and the actual involvement of a lawyer. In any case, he's now sworn never to buy a Steam game again. I did warn him (and others).Instead of explaining to him your moral crusade non-sense, why not let him know to just call securom and re-enable his activations so he can play his game again?
Renevent42
Yeah, how much do you want to bet that DOESN'T happen? Each game doesn't have it's own unique activation server...it's a web service that probably runs across a few servers spread out in regions. I wouldn't worry about games going down in a couple years. Not to say these games will never go down, but nothing even close to what you suggest.I am well aware of that. There are different activation servers for the various DRM providers around. Sony DADC runs several servers around the globe for SecuROM, Valve the same for Steam, Tagès once again. The exception is Zuxxez, who I believe operates only one activation server here in Germany. I'm not concerned about one of the servers going down temporarily - anyone who has experience with server administration will know that something like this is inevitable. The problem is that the SecuROM servers are 'rented', meaning that activation is only performed for the games in question while the publisher continues to pay. When the shelf life of the product has passed, it becomes a loss-making operation for the publisher, and so there is no reason for them to continue paying for activation services. The same applies to Steam. Eventually games will be removed from the range or there may be a dispute between Valve and a publisher which may cause the contract between them to be terminated and the activation and supply of that product will cease. If you've read the SSA, you'll know that they explicitly reserve the right to do just this. Of course, all this is assuming that the publisher doesn't just go out of business. It is naive to believe that Valve will never go out of business or that Steam, SecuROM or the like will become unprofitable one day. Players of Sacred 2 were lucky that Deep Silver took over the Ascaron assets, otherwise they might have found themselves in a sticky situation with SecuROM.Renevent42
I did mention that the game was infected with Steam, not SecuROM, so Sony DADC have nothing to do with this. As far as I know Valve only transfers licences if you send them a scan of your retail box and I believe $10, although he was told by Valve that it wasn't possible at all in this case and that he would have to purchase a new licence. What I didn't mention is that we had a similar problem with Crysis Warhead, only this time it was because the key had already been registered five times (i.e. it had been stolen. We contacted Sony DADC who said that we should contact EA Games. We did, and we had to jump through endless hoops and ultimately threaten legal action in a strongly worded letter before he could be provided with a new key. The whole procedure took around three weeks for ONE GAME. And he had a similar problem with Left 4 Dead 2. He bought the game, only to have his account locked together with several games because the key was 'stolen'. It also took another month to recover the account, but only after several arguments via e-mail and the actual involvement of a lawyer. In any case, he's now sworn never to buy a Steam game again. I did warn him (and others). jamyskis
I'm sorry, this story sounds made up. You can't register a steam game already registered to another account...so the whole bit about "lending out" is bullcrap. The only way would be for your friend to lend the other people his steam credentials..either way...from what you describe it seem you guys are doing things way out of the ordinary so no wonder there's issues.
I am well aware of that. There are different activation servers for the various DRM providers around. Sony DADC runs several servers around the globe for SecuROM, Valve the same for Steam, Tagès once again. The exception is Zuxxez, who I believe operates only one activation server here in Germany. I'm not concerned about one of the servers going down temporarily - anyone who has experience with server administration will know that something like this is inevitable. The problem is that the SecuROM servers are 'rented', meaning that activation is only performed for the games in question while the publisher continues to pay. When the shelf life of the product has passed, it becomes a loss-making operation for the publisher, and so there is no reason for them to continue paying for activation services. The same applies to Steam. Eventually games will be removed from the range or there may be a dispute between Valve and a publisher which may cause the contract between them to be terminated and the activation and supply of that product will cease. If you've read the SSA, you'll know that they explicitly reserve the right to do just this. Of course, all this is assuming that the publisher doesn't just go out of business. It is naive to believe that Valve will never go out of business or that Steam, SecuROM or the like will become unprofitable one day. Players of Sacred 2 were lucky that Deep Silver took over the Ascaron assets, otherwise they might have found themselves in a sticky situation with SecuROM.
jamyskis
No dude, it's a service contract between securom and the publishers/developer...not rented servers. Anyways, online activation has been around for almost a decade and to my knowledge there isn't a single solitary game that is unplayable due to the reason you are stating.
The fact you use terms like "steam infected" and use crazy stories just shows what your argument really is...an over exaggerated angry rant without a whole lot of merit. Fundamentally, there are some real concerns gamers should be a ware of, but the non-sense you are talking about is just silliness.
Go ahead and pull your hair out over this stuff, but the more rational people with normal perspectives will see it exactly for what it is...sky is falling hyperbole.
Finally...you can gnash your teeth about this stuff all you want...but it's not going away. In fact, expect it to become the mainstay. Unacceptable? Ok fine...but you better start looking for a new hobby :lol:
[QUOTE="couly"]I'm still buying it, I just have to play this game.jamyskis
Get a PS3 or XBox 360.
I don't see how any game can be worth surrendering one's own common sense.
I didn't spend all that money on a super PC just to go and buy a console! I can deal with the DRM, it doesn't bother me (at the moment, I'll come back when my internet goes down, which is rarely :))If you hate it that much, do. not. play. the. game. That is the only statement that works. To just pirate it and watch it die sales wise while still having played it is to simply prove them right and encourage further behavior like Ubisoft's. Seriously, make a sacrifice on your end if you disagree with the DRM that much. I never played a lot of games I wanted to try because of Starforce. Also, yeah.. I did mention this in the SW thread, but Ubisoft released Assassin's Creed 1 with extremely lenient DRM (Safedisc). They already tried doing disc check only, and seem to feel the need to move away from that based on something that happened with the first game.I personally think we should give credit where credit is due to Ubisoft and this DRM. I can certainly say I have never looked forward to a game from Ubisoft as much as I have with this Assassins Creed 2. Yep the 16th March 2010 cannot come fast enough for me ............... I am naturally not buying it but I am going to laugh myself silly when this game dies sales wise and I can't wait for the forum posts.
charmingcharlie
I have been thinking about this DRM and something occurred to me. What is to stop Ubisoft charging for the server use ? Let's say people accept this DRM and they continue to buy Ubisoft games you will then have an awful lot of games that will not work unless you use Ubisoft servers.
Now what if Ubisoft think "hm these servers cost money lets start charging" any one with a Ubisoft game will be left with the prospect of having to pay a subscription to carry on playing their single player game or just give up playing the games they paid for.
Oh and don't for a second think that Ubisoft hasn't thought about this, we have known for a long time that companies envy Blizzard and the success of WoW well it looks like Ubisoft just found a way to replicate that but with single player games.
Nothing. There's nothing stopping any company from charging whatever they want...however...whether or not the consumers for their products will pay for it is an entirely different story. One thing is certain, aside from the sky-is-falling crowd people aren't that concerned with DRM...it just doesn't effect them in any meaningful way. On the other hand, if Ubisoft came out tomorrow and said they will charge $50 a year subscription for their DRM servers, well that effects people's wallets so I'd imagine there would be a larger backlash.I have been thinking about this DRM and something occurred to me. What is to stop Ubisoft charging for the server use ? Let's say people accept this DRM and they continue to buy Ubisoft games you will then have an awful lot of games that will not work unless you use Ubisoft servers.
Now what if Ubisoft think "hm these servers cost money lets start charging" any one with a Ubisoft game will be left with the prospect of having to pay a subscription to carry on playing their single player game or just give up playing the games they paid for.
Oh and don't for a second think that Ubisoft hasn't thought about this, we have known for a long time that companies envy Blizzard and the success of WoW well it looks like Ubisoft just found a way to replicate that but with single player games.
charmingcharlie
If you're going to accuse me of lying, then at least get your bloody facts straight. I did tell you that he didn't understand the concept of how Steam keys are bound permanently to an account. The Steam key is still bound to the other guy's account which is why he can't register it. He thought it was a bog standard CD serial number.I'm sorry, this story sounds made up. You can't register a steam game already registered to another account...so the whole bit about "lending out" is bullcrap. The only way would be for your friend to lend the other people his steam credentials..either way...from what you describe it seem you guys are doing things way out of the ordinary so no wonder there's issues.
Renevent42
No dude, it's a service contract between securom and the publishers/developer...not rented servers. Anyways, online activation has been around for almost a decade and to my knowledge there isn't a single solitary game that is unplayable due to the reason you are stating.The fact you use terms like "steam infected" and use crazy stories just shows what your argument really is...an over exaggerated angry rant without a whole lot of merit. Fundamentally, there are some real concerns gamers should be a ware of, but the non-sense you are talking about is just silliness.
Go ahead and pull your hair out over this stuff, but the more rational people with normal perspectives will see it exactly for what it is...sky is falling hyperbole.
Finally...you can gnash your teeth about this stuff all you want...but it's not going away. In fact, expect it to become the mainstay. Unacceptable? Ok fine...but you better start looking for a new hobby :lol:
Renevent42
Please don't treat me like an idiot. I know it's a service contract - I used the word 'rented' to make it clear that the publishers do not 'own' the SecuROM servers. They do not have sole control about whether it stays up or goes down.
And I'm not sure how you got the idea that online activation has been around for a "decade". Yes, Windows XP was the first major product to use product activation, but it never really found any real use in gaming until Half-Life 2 came out in 2004 and Earth 2160 came out in 2005. Even then, it never really took off in games until 2008 when Mass Effect came out, which is when most of the major companies started really using it. I don't doubt that if PC gamers keep allowing themselves to be spoon-fed this rubbish then yes, it will become the mainstay of PC gaming, but it will be without me. I had been an active gamer from the 1980s until just over a year ago, but since this industry obsession with online activation has taken hold I've found myself buying fewer games and spending more time on my other hobbies (as you mentioned).
Don't get me wrong, I am/was a passionate gamer, but I realise when I'm being taken for a ride and know when to quit, apparently unlike some people who are completely incapable of living without PC gaming. So if you're going to call my bluff by assuming that I don't have a life beyond gaming or claiming that I'm lying, then next time do so AFTER you've got the facts right (or at least after you've read my post properly)
Since stopping them is a near impossibility I want to see pirates f**k off back underground and only distribute games they crack to their inner circles rather than any mofo with an internet connection. They are responsible for this s**t, indirectly or not. Wouldn't surprise me if they generating income from website advertising or something similiar, effectively making money of others work. Thats worse than outright theft imo.
I've never had a problem with any DRM, the starforce fiasco was exactly that, a fiasco with a law suit that was outright dropped in court (And the ones making the suit against it suddenly went silent.) Securom really isn't that bad, and 1 time online activations I can live with.
I do think this goes a little far.
The anti-piracy is going too far in this game. You know what I'm going to do about it? I'm going to pi...
...ss off and play the PS3 version. I just won't buy the PC version. GTA IV's anti-piracy is the most I can handle. And I still hate having to start up Social Club every time I just want to play the game. Say, is the Steam version any different? It's pretty cheap now. I could get San Andreas, too.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment