Support NeoGAF

[arstal]

Ubisoft has said before this happens they'll release a patch for the game. Of course, really far down the line these patches might not be easy to find. I needed a patch for Dungeon Keeper 2 last year, which had long since vanished from EA's sites. Eventually, I found the patch bundled with a torrent of the full game. So in this case at least it was because of pirates I was able to play a game I still had the original CD for.

Do you really think a dying company would spend the resources to do this?

As for the licensing thing- Stardock defends the license thing 100%, and has even revoked 2 licenses for abusing tech support (they did refund the purchase price)

 

[AstroLad]

That might be slightly off target of the current point, because he was reselling the information content. That use is arguably outside the scope of any immunity that real property rights might sustain in the face of a contract asserting their removal.

sure, just responding to the question about shrinkwrap licensing tho. there's way worse than that too

edit: it's funny b/c i caught snippets of this discussion and thought hey i haven't seen TIE in a while!

 

[Zizbuka]

I wonder what the cost of piracy is compared to the costs a company has to pay a console manufacturer?

PC's an open platform, and with digital download there's even no mass production costs. Ubi should have put AC2 on Steam, which has it's own accepted DRM of sorts. Or sell it directly from their web site. PC offers lots of advantages the consoles don't.

 

[Fox the Sly]

I wonder what the cost of piracy is compared to the costs a company has to pay a console manufacturer?

PC's an open platform, and with digital download there's even no mass production costs. Ubi should have put AC2 on Steam, which has it's own accepted DRM of sorts. Or sell it directly from their web site. PC offers lots of advantages the consoles don't.

But it is on Steam.

 

[dLMN8R]

Steam certainly has its benefits as a service which provides values to customers, but it's completely useless as pure DRM protection. It does protect zero-day piracy so no pirates can play pre-release, but after that, it's free game.

Whether or not Ubisoft is justified in working towards a truly un-crackable copy protection, Steam is most definitely not the answer to that specific request.

 

[CabbageRed]

I hadn't realized that Gamespot mentioned the DRM in their review. I was expecting the smaller sites to report on the issue (as they have), but the possibility of the larger sites mentioning it in a review didn't even occur to me. Was Spore the last time DRM caught a game this much negative publicity? No matter, it's nice to see that the "against" crowd has a nice strong voice this round.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with this type of DRM if it were removed after a month. If Ubi is simply trying to stop the same day pirating of their games then fine, keep this DRM for a month and then remove it via a patch. Problem solved. Unfortunately they will not do this and therefore any claim that this is to combat same day piracy is simply incorrect.

 

[coopolon]

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with this type of DRM if it were removed after a month. If Ubi is simply trying to stop the same day pirating of their games then fine, keep this DRM for a month and then remove it via a patch. Problem solved. Unfortunately they will not do this and therefore any claim that this is to combat same day piracy is simply incorrect.

That is a very interesting idea. Hell, I'd be okay with them keeping it in for the first 6 months, or even the first year. As long as there was a hard and fast date where it would be patched out. It's not the immediate future I am concerned with with when contemplating this DRM implementation, it's the long term.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Honestly, I wouldn't have a problem with this type of DRM if it were removed after a month. If Ubi is simply trying to stop the same day pirating of their games then fine, keep this DRM for a month and then remove it via a patch. Problem solved. Unfortunately they will not do this and therefore any claim that this is to combat same day piracy is simply incorrect.

But you set that precedent and then everyone will just wait a month.

If you've already waited five, then one more isn't a big deal.

 

[CabbageRed]

That is a very interesting idea. Hell, I'd be okay with them keeping it in for the first 6 months, or even the first year. As long as there was a hard and fast date where it would be patched out. It's not the immediate future I am concerned with with when contemplating this DRM implementation, it's the long term.

I'm in the same camp as well, at least in theory. At the moment, a promise to patch out the DRM in a year or so might not make the game run any better than it currently is(n't), but even if the hackers did persist, they would come across the 'bad guys' rather than the plucky and heroic swashbucklers that they are now. Ultimately, a less vulnerable and time limited DRM would be welcomed by me.

It's not unprecidented either, since Egosoft did the same with X3:TC. They got to include 3 activation limits while still getting my sale, and I got to play the game at launch without having to worry about what would become of my purchase 2 years down the road.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

But you set that precedent and then everyone will just wait a month.

If you've already waited five, then one more isn't a big deal.

No. The folks who purchased the game today will still have purchased the game today whether Ubi stated the DRM will be removed in a month or not. Many people couldn't care less as the fact it continues to be a top 5 on Steam shows. For folks like me, Ubi would get my purchase whereas without such a promise to remove the DRM they will never get my purchase.

 

[CabbageRed]

For folks like me, Ubi would get my purchase whereas without such a promise to remove the DRM they will never get my purchase.

Plus they are more likely to avoid a PR nightmare. I agree that a month is too short, but your approach is a valuable compromise that I wish publishers would adopt, especially if it means that I ultimately end up with a growing DRM-free library!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Plus they are more likely to avoid a PR nightmare. I agree that a month is too short, but your approach is a valuable compromise that I wish publishers would adopt, especially if it means that I ultimately end up with a growing DRM-free library!

A month, two months, whatever. Many companies do this including Egosoft as mentioned and you know what? It works. Some folks will be pissed off and not purchase it right away but they will in the end. For others who are hesitant, knowing there is a date that the DRM will be removed gives some peace of mind. I truly believe Ubi will realize their decision was incorrect and adapt.

 

[poppabk]

A month, two months, whatever. Many companies do this including Egosoft as mentioned and you know what? It works. Some folks will be pissed off and not purchase it right away but they will in the end. For others who are hesitant, knowing there is a date that the DRM will be removed gives some peace of mind. I truly believe Ubi will realize their decision was incorrect and adapt.

Anyone else maybe, but Ubisoft's record is terrible. Blazing Angels doesn't work on Vista or Win7 purely because the DRM isn't compatible, but the DRM still remains in the steam version a couple of years later, long after the DRM was cracked, or anyone would bother pirating it.

 

[tahrikmili]

If Ubi set a hard date for DRM removal losses to pirates would still be losses to pirates, just (say) six months late.

A pirate who knows they'll get the game free in six months won't just rush out and buy it today. A pirate who knows he'll never get the game free may buy it today, or in six months.

 

[dimb]

If Ubi set a hard date for DRM removal losses to pirates would still be losses to pirates, just (say) six months late.

A pirate who knows they'll get the game free in six months won't just rush out and buy it today. A pirate who knows he'll never get the game free may buy it today, or in six months.

Or they will just buy it never.

Because they had no intention of buying that game to begin with.

 

[iamblades]

Steam certainly has its benefits as a service which provides values to customers, but it's completely useless as pure DRM protection. It does protect zero-day piracy so no pirates can play pre-release, but after that, it's free game.

Whether or not Ubisoft is justified in working towards a truly un-crackable copy protection, Steam is most definitely not the answer to that specific request.

It's not whether they are justified, its that it is completely impossible.

Sure, you can make things more and more difficult, but that just generally screws over the paying customer more and more.

Ultimately you have to give the consumer the key to access the content, and no matter how you obfuscate it and layer keys on top of keys, the keys have to be out in the open for at least some period of time for the legit consumer to be able to access the content. You can lock the key inside hardware under epoxy, and given the time and resources, the hackers will get to it.

The balance is how much effort you spend on the copy protection and the limitations you put on the paying customer vs. the effort the pirates need to crack the protection. Ubisoft clearly erred on the wrong side of the balance by trying to make things more difficult for the pirates at the expense of their customers. Steam DRM makes things easier for the user while providing some base level of protection to stop the casual copying and the 0 day stuff.

Ubisoft's approach to DRM is basically the equivalent of a retail store cavity searching every person leaving, while steam DRM is the old guy at the door at walmart checking receipts. Sure it may not be as effective, but it's a hell of a lot more acceptable to the consumer.

 

[senahorse]

Ubisoft's approach to DRM is basically the equivalent of a retail store cavity searching every person leaving, while steam DRM is the old guy at the door at walmart checking receipts. Sure it may not be as effective, but it's a hell of a lot more acceptable to the consumer.

That sums it up perfectly :lol

 

[tahrikmili]

Or they will just buy it never.

Because they had no intention of buying that game to begin with.

Not what I see around me at all.

 

[Salazar]

Ubisoft should sell this DRM. Take a group photo of the DRM team with Jade grinning front and centre.

 

[wolfmat]

There's an old guy at Walmart checking receipts? What in the fuck is going on over there?

I'm kinda glad now that there's an ocean between us.

 

[poppabk]

Ubisoft's approach to DRM is basically the equivalent of a retail store cavity searching every person leaving, while steam DRM is the old guy at the door at walmart checking receipts. Sure it may not be as effective, but it's a hell of a lot more acceptable to the consumer.

Steams approach is like the greeter when you enter the store. For regular people its just a nice addition to have someone greet you as you enter, for thieves it is a reminder that the store is watching you.

 

[bee]

still not cracked after 9 days eh, cool. good game, especially in 3D vision

 

[D4Danger]

saw this on reddit -> http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/bu69y/assassins_creed_2_drm_cracked_message_from/

While we worked on this release, we noticed that several news
webpages, forums, blogs etc. posted information, including a
screenshot of a Ubisoft server attack message, which showed
our group name.

First of all, that picture is a fake, nor would any member of
Skid Row cause such riot, as we're only here to compete with
our game release competitors, nothing else.

Neither do we encourage anyone to take such actions, no matter
how much we agree, that DRM's like this one, are only hurting
those that do want to buy the game or have bought it.

Another point is those news medias, we mentioned before, post
anything these days, no matter if it's a joke or not. Beware
what you're posting, just because you want to prank someone.

This release is an accomplishment of weeks of investigating,
experimenting, testing and lots of hard work.

We know that there is a server emulator out in the open, which
makes the game playable, but when you look at our cracked
content, you will know that it can't be compared to that.

Our work does not construct any program deviation or any kind
of host file paradox solutions. Install game and copy the
cracked content, it's that simple.

Since we don't want to see cheap imitations, we protected our
work with a solid shield. Not because we want to deceive the
majority, like certain people out there, but because we have
in the past been an open book of knowledge for our competitors.

Real cracking is done by The Leading Force!

 

[onken]

Kinda want to get SC:C but this ridiculous overkill drm is really putting me off. Annoying that even if you buy it through Steam you STILL have the Ubi drm on top.

 

[Slayer-33]

A ton of banned people in the first 6 pages thread :lol, the hammer came down hard.

 

[epmode]

Kinda want to get SC:C but this ridiculous overkill drm is really putting me off. Annoying that even if you buy it through Steam you STILL have the Ubi drm on top.

It's annoying for actual customers, yeah, but it makes perfect sense to the publisher.

As long as every copy being sold has the DRM, there's no way for a pirate to just hack a less-crippled Steam version. After all, Steam's DRM is only effective when it comes to preventing zero-day piracy.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't bought a single one of these Ubisoft disasters and I don't plan on it. ...unless we're talking about Trackmania 2...

SPEAKING OF WHICH, I read an Edge interview with Nadeo where they mention that Trackmania United/Nations still hasn't been successfully pirated. There's no way to use a pirated copy with the official Nadeo servers. Maybe Ubi will pay attention?

 

[Basileus777]

saw this on reddit -> http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/bu69y/assassins_creed_2_drm_cracked_message_from/

So it's finally cracked? Well it lasted a month and there was already some server emulator that's been working for a few weeks. Hope it was worth it Ubisoft.

 

[AgentOtaku]

If it means I can legimately buy AC2 and Conviction without this shit looming over my head, then damn right!

 

[Vagabundo]

This is hardly a crack, so it looks like the new DRM is pretty good.

Here something interesting from slashdot:

I work at Ubisoft as a programmer, which is why I'm posting as an AC. What the next step will be in the DRM, the ramp-up, is gameplay code that is run from the server. So in order to crack that one the pirates will have to fully emulate the server side code. Not the whole of the gameplay code mind you, just a small, but necessary and essential, portion. This should be in effect for the coming summer releases.
For the record I think Ubisoft are being asshat idiots in continuing to ramp up this obscenity of a slap in the face to paying consumers. And I'm not alone, you should see the in-house mailing list flamewars about this (which also means that other employees are freaking greedy douchebags, it's not just the suits.)

Oh, I'll be leaving soon, but for other reasons. Mostly because they work you into the ground sweat shop style, they are hellbent on NOT making innovative fun games (it's always about how it looks, not how it plays), and because the place is full of greedy capitalist douchebags.

 

[DieH@rd]

So, they are going with same route as Blizzard? SC2 beta processes AI code for CPU players on the servers, not locally. I expect same will happen with AI code in singleplayer campaign.

But on the other hand...
PC version of SC:C is out, and Russians are waiting for the UbiServers to go live.

Here we go again :-/

 

[Saty]

They did hack it. This just says Ubi are countering by putting gameplay code on the server.
Dunno if that programmer post is real, but it seems it's turning to be an endless tug of war. And the first to give in will be the customer.

When is Ubisoft going to share AC2 sales with the public?

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

This is hardly a crack, so it looks like the new DRM is pretty good.

Here something interesting from slashdot:

Had a quick look myself, pretty interesting stuff -

For the record:

The actual hard work was done by a community of people who bought the game. They ran a proxy that logged all the "values" sent from the Ubisoft servers to the game. Each time the game progresses to another mission (or similar), it requires a different set of "values" to determine what game data to load (or a very similar method). The people who logged these values then submitted them to a community database, which collected them and sorted out any fake ones uploaded by Ubisoft employees or griefers.

This community also made a server emulator, which served the "values" to the game upon request. The server emulator, written in python, was a pretty simple HTTP server; the game connected to it by editing the system's "hosts" file and hardcoding DNS responses for ".ubisoft.com" to localhost (where the server emulator runs).

Thus, the game is only crackable once enough people have bought the game and logged all possible values for all possible missions states. It's not a total loss for Ubisoft in a sense -- it prevents "Pre" releases, wherein a release group distributes the game before the actual release date. It also ensures that a certain number of people must buy the game and contribute "values" to the community database; all in all this ends up lengthening the time from game release to full-working pirate release.

SkidRow's new crack is simply an IPC (inter-process communication) method of delivering the "values" to the game, bypassing the network connection to the game. Therefore SkidRow's version doesn't use a server emulator running on localhost, but rather patches the executables of the game and has the "values" hardcoded into the cracked DLLs.

The real issue here is that SkidRow took the "values" database from the community who initially logged them, and pretty much claimed it as their own work. The original cracking community inserted some fake "values" as trackers in order to determine when anyone stole their work and released it.

 

[neorej]

Whether it will be cracked or not, I will simply not buy into this crap. I'm seeing a lot of retailers are also sick & tired of this bullshit. Just out of curiosity, I went across 7 stores in my vicinity, none of them had Settlers 7 on the shelves. I asked all of them why. Five retailers said that their main office had decided against this bullshit, one retailer just didn't order any units because of the DRM and one had sold every unit he had in stock. The ones that didn't carry Settlers 7, said they decided so because of the enormous amount of customers that returned Assassin's Creed 2.

Of course, this doesn't speak for the entire retailer-industry, but it's definatly a sign on the wall.

 

[AgentOtaku]

facinating stuff!

 

[itxaka]

So, they are going with same route as Blizzard? SC2 beta processes AI code for CPU players on the servers, not locally. I expect same will happen with AI code in singleplayer campaign.

But on the other hand...
PC version of SC:C is out, and Russians are waiting for the UbiServers to go live.

Here we go again :-/

wow. That is amazing and intelligent at the same time. Still, it sucks for people not playing online (The AI becomes dumb with no connection?) and I hope they don't go that route with all games. But I guess that stil you can play the game with no connections, just on ultra easy mode with no AI?

 

[luka]

Whether it will be cracked or not, I will simply not buy into this crap. I'm seeing a lot of retailers are also sick & tired of this bullshit. Just out of curiosity, I went across 7 stores in my vicinity, none of them had Settlers 7 on the shelves. I asked all of them why. Five retailers said that their main office had decided against this bullshit, one retailer just didn't order any units because of the DRM and one had sold every unit he had in stock. The ones that didn't carry Settlers 7, said they decided so because of the enormous amount of customers that returned Assassin's Creed 2.

Of course, this doesn't speak for the entire retailer-industry, but it's definatly a sign on the wall.

A lot of the retailers around here simply no longer accept returns on opened PC games at all. Basically if any DRM in the game, listed or not, doesn't work for you for any reason you're fucked.

 

[Fafalada]

Ultimately you have to give the consumer the key to access the content, and no matter how you obfuscate it and layer keys on top of keys, the keys have to be out in the open for at least some period of time for the legit consumer to be able to access the content.

Except when content is hosted online and the consumer only ever gets enough to display a slice of current state that continues to decrease(so the time taken to reassemble the content and thus 'hack' continues to increase). The ultimate evolution of it is Onlive, but really, systems that do this have been in use for a decade, and they tend to be considerably more profitable then selling discs.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Ubisoft's approach to DRM is basically the equivalent of a retail store cavity searching every person leaving, while steam DRM is the old guy at the door at walmart checking receipts. Sure it may not be as effective, but it's a hell of a lot more acceptable to the consumer.

andd there's always someone who comes along saying "cavity searches are fine, Ubisoft is just looking out for their shareholders. and you've got nothing to hide, right?"

 

[RJT]

The ones that didn't carry Settlers 7, said they decided so because of the enormous amount of customers that returned Assassin's Creed 2.

Great! This is what I hoped would happen. The only way to change Ubi's policy is to have retailers/distributors pissed at them. I wonder how many people bought the game on Steam and then complained because they didn't notice the DRM info...

 

[Vagabundo]

Except when content is hosted online and the consumer only ever gets enough to display a slice of current state that continues to decrease(so the time taken to reassemble the content and thus 'hack' continues to increase). The ultimate evolution of it is Onlive, but really, systems that do this have been in use for a decade, and they tend to be considerably more profitable then selling discs.

And this DRM scheme cannot really be cracked, but just downloaded very very slowly.

It is cleverly evil.

My guess is that the Pirates will make a co-ordinated attack on the servers to generate customer backlash - I know ubi's servers were targeted by I'd imagine a number of these nefarious groups could created a shifting DOS attack. It only has to be partially effective.

I can see ubi pulling out of the PC market all together and blaming pirates. Doom and Glooom.

 

[FieryBalrog]

And the pirates will continue digging all of our graves. After all, you think when the companies leave the

Spoiler

heroic, swashbuckling and handsomely roguish

pirates are gonna step up and actually you know, make games?

Nah, that's too much actual work. Better to FIGHT THE MAN and yell INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE. (other people's information, of course).

 

[neorej]

And the pirates will continue digging all of our graves. After all, you think when the companies leave the

Spoiler

heroic, swashbuckling and handsomely roguish

pirates are gonna step up and actually you know, make games?

Nah, that's too much actual work. Better to FIGHT THE MAN and yell INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE. (other people's information, of course).

Of course, it's the pirates' fault. It's not like Ubisoft is fucking their paying customers in the asses. Online DRM to prevent piracy? Don't make me laugh, no sensible study in the world has proven a strong enough link between dwindling sales and piracy to be even able to say that piracy is the scourge that will kill PC sales. In fact, several sensible and independant studies have concluded a "near 0"-effect of piracy on sales, while other studies suggest that piracy have a positive effect on sales in some cases.

 

[epmode]

Here something interesting from slashdot:

colbertcalledit.gif

 

[charlequin]

And the pirates will continue digging all of our graves.

Yeah. Ubisoft really has your best interests at heart here, but those dastardly pirates forced them to screw you over!

 

[Ranger X]

Of course, it's the pirates' fault. It's not like Ubisoft is fucking their paying customers in the asses. Online DRM to prevent piracy? Don't make me laugh, no sensible study in the world has proven a strong enough link between dwindling sales and piracy to be even able to say that piracy is the scourge that will kill PC sales. In fact, several sensible and independant studies have concluded a "near 0"-effect of piracy on sales, while other studies suggest that piracy have a positive effect on sales in some cases.

But still I wonder how much of a study this would take. Are we really stupid to the point we need some scientist wasting ressources for years in order to prove what is obviously before your eyes?
It really is that simple: You're not pirating a game in order to not play it. As soon as you play it, you should have paid. As simple as that. Game is pirated by 2 million people? This is 2 million people that should have paid. It is the same as everything else really. People produce entertainment for you as their day job, those people get paid. This is why this content isn't free whatsoever. You want to benefit from their (as in "not yours") product? - you pay them.
Wich study do you need for this simple logic to make sense to you?

 

[Hugbot]

But still I wonder how much of a study this would take. Are we really stupid to the point we need some scientist wasting ressources for years in order to prove what is obviously before your eyes?
It really is that simple: You're not pirating a game in order to not play it. As soon as you play it, you should have paid. As simple as that. Game is pirated by 2 million people? This is 2 million people that should have paid. It is the same as everything else really. People produce entertainment for you as their day job, those people get paid. This is why this content isn't free whatsoever. You want to benefit from their (as in "not yours") product? - you pay them.
Wich study do you need for this simple logic to make sense to you?

He's not saying the pirates shouldn't pay for their games. He's saying they won't.

 

[Lostconfused]

But still I wonder how much of a study this would take. Are we really stupid to the point we need some scientist wasting ressources for years in order to prove what is obviously before your eyes?

Wich study do you need for this simple logic to make sense to you?

Apparently we do because you seem to ignore the point of the post you quoted.

Edit: Also people do download games to not play them but simply because they download everything they can.

 

[DieH@rd]

wow. That is amazing and intelligent at the same time. Still, it sucks for people not playing online (The AI becomes dumb with no connection?) and I hope they don't go that route with all games. But I guess that stil you can play the game with no connections, just on ultra easy mode with no AI?

Blizzard has mentioned few times that they will allow OFFLINE mode for SC2, but of course they screamed that those players will not have achievements and all that online bonuses & stuff.

 

[poppabk]

Of course, it's the pirates' fault. It's not like Ubisoft is fucking their paying customers in the asses. Online DRM to prevent piracy? Don't make me laugh, no sensible study in the world has proven a strong enough link between dwindling sales and piracy to be even able to say that piracy is the scourge that will kill PC sales. In fact, several sensible and independant studies have concluded a "near 0"-effect of piracy on sales, while other studies suggest that piracy have a positive effect on sales in some cases.

You have links to these studies? I know there was a study that showed that people who pirate more, purchase more as well, but that isn't the same thing. I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that piracy had an effect one way or the other, as you don't have a reliable control.