The new tool against piracy: permanent internet connection
So a few publishers have taken a new approach to making sure you can't play their games with an illegal copy. Ubisoft did this for example with the PC version of AC2 and with the upcoming Settlers 7.
And while I'm reading about the Settlers 7 I see people throwing massive fits and cursing at Ubisoft because of this new DRM that requires you to have a permanent internet connection while playing or the game won't start. And while this goes on I'm wondering why people are throwing such a huge fit over this. EA uses a DRM that installs on your computer and acts like a virus. It can't be uninstalled unless you use force somehow. I can understand people complain about this, especially since there was no mention of it during the installation. 2K uses a DRM that limits the amount of times you can install a game. Bioshock 1 and 2 came with a system that would allow you to install a game 5 times (later it was 15 I think) after which the game will simply refuse to install. Obviously people complained, as this obviously gave a limited life to the serial number you legally bought. Now Ubisoft comes with a simple yet effective DRM method. To play the game you have to be connected to the internet. This seems like a pretty reasonable deal to me. In this day and age I don't know anyone who is still on dial-up internet and if you are able to complain about the DRM on an internet forum you obviously have internet, so where lies the problem? Obviously DRM is always a catch 22. After all, if you spend money to get a legal copy you are confronted with the DRM to make sure you have a legal version. But if you pirate that same game you get it for free and it doesn't have the DRM, so the question arises what the DRM is good for in the first place. Is needing an internet connection to play the game a reason for you not to buy it/play it? And if so, why? |
Well, the servers went down the other week making AC2 unplayable for a while.
I'm on a laptop so I could play most games wherever, but if I need an internet connection thats a big restriction on that. It also gives a limited life to the game you legally bought, until Ubisoft stops support or goes out of buisness, it's not likely to happen soon but will happen eventually and I like to play old games all the time :D. Not gettin AC2 anyway, slightly to do with the DRM, but more that if I felt like playin AC I'd just play Hitman |
:
Eh, i'm sure that some guy in his mothers base- hacker will do something that gets rid of this fuckery eventually. |
I would never ever buy a game that put such limitations on my use. I don't pay for a game to play it only when they allow me.
When I buy a game, I want that to be mine. I want to be able to play it whenever the hell I feel like it, and not feel like I'm borrowing it(even though I spent money on it). I mean, what if I put it on my laptop and want to play somewhere, where I don't have connection? What if it needs to work on ports that are closed(Speaking of users with restricted access to the Internet). There is sooo so many things wrong with this anti-piracy shit. I mean, really... It's the honest users who buy the games that are gonna suffer. Not the pirates. Im sure they somehow could find ways to get around it... like always. Pirates win, honest buyers lose. Fucking game companies should grow up. I really don't feel bad about pirates anymore now. In fact you'd fucking need them to be able to restore your rights even as an honest buyers. Note: I don't actually know how good pirates are at lifting limitations, but I'm sure there are people out there with the knowledge... maybe. |
The entire problem exists because of pirating, so don't say the game companies are lame for trying to protect their own investments. I don't blame the developers for coming up with stuff like this, but it's just so damn hard to come up with a security system that prevents people from illegal use while at the same time keeping it user friendly.
|
Ill say they are lame as much as I want. For one, games are overpriced... Two... Times are evolving, so should payment methods.
Three... Trying to protect one's investments should never be taken out on honest buyers. what they are doing is extreme. Essentially they make you buy something that's not even yours once you bought it. So I bet a lot of potential customers will choose not to buy it specifically because of those problems. I know I wont. I want reassurance that I can play my games whenever I want to, without having to go through hoops to make it mine. I normally buy the games I play anyway. I don't see why I should be punished for this. |
I think in this instance it's fair to say the game company has made a mistake.
Like T-nex said, the DRM is going to have little or no effect on piracy (I think it's been cracked already?) and is only going to aggravate players who bought it legally. Ubisoft could have predicted (and probably did) that this would happen, and they should have used other protection methods that, while equally ineffective, don't wreck the game for those who buy it. |
Soooo... Do you geniuses have recommendations?
|
Sure, loads, does it matter? Unless, do you work at ubisoft?
|
This is stupid if you have a shoddy internet connection. Simple as that. It's a good idea in concept, but in execution it's quite thoroughly retarded.
|
:
|
:
Payment methods have little to do with this problem. No matter how you obtain the PC version of a game, it will still have to be installed which means you get to mess around with the files as much as you like (to crack them for instance). Even console games are copied despite the huge number of security features on the disc and the console. Anyway, I'm with OANST on this one. It's easy to complain about the problem but what about bringing up a solution? If you have a better idea about how you can protect your investment without hurting the people who buy it, let yourself be heard. T-nex, last I heard you wanted to be a game designer yourself. Surely this is right up your alley? |
Let's just agree to disagree. Either way I don't care. If it really gets that bad, I'll just look for ways to crack my games... which I bought... Which should essentially be mine but aren't.
This is in theory only though, as far as I know, the games I own have no limitations. Thank god. My future plans have nothing to do with this btw. |
:
A. Give in and admit that I'm right. B. Get fed up and stop talking to me. C. Die. |
:
|
:
|
:
Either way I don't care if Havoc or Oanst think it's a good idea. When everything comes to everything, neither of our opinions matter. What matters is where the money is. And everyone knows money is tasty. |
I laugh at the concept of intelectual property.
|
You are a pirate.
|
I fucking have that song stuck in my head cos of you guys :(
|
You are a parrot.
|
My mind is....
|
From what I know, Ubisoft's Prince of Persia (2008) didn't have any DRM at all, yet the sales were still good. Bit strange that Ubisoft went from that into this DRM craze 'n' hacked servers phenomenon.
On an actual note, I've been thinking about buying AC2. Internet connection is not a problem, but the news about the Ubisoft servers being down are keeping me from deciding for the purchase. Then again, people also say that they experienced no problems with AC2, except the occasional server downtime, and that there are certain times of the day when such problems do not occur. So I'll say that what's really keeping me from buying it is that I've recently bought GMod, and I'm reserved from buying 2 games in the same month. Commence stone throwing now. |
What about making a super-duper-uber-mega-awesome-hackproof gaming console with the specific purpose of being super-duper-uber-mega-awesome-unhackable :D :D LD LD Deopgkpgoegh
|
The problem is that everything is hackable. Every console since the PS1 has been hacked and making copies of PC games is even easier since you don't even need to mod your own PC to do it. All you need is a copy of the disk.
That's why more and more developers are moving to console games, they are hackable but a lot harder so in the end they just lose less money over it. At this point in time, with current technology, I think having to be logged in to play a game is the only solid way of protecting a game. EA uses this DRM with C&C 4, you have to be logged in to your EA account even if you want to play the single player missions. Also, how often is it going to happen you want to play a game where no internet is available? 9 out of 10 times you'll just play the game at your home computer. I don't see people throwing fits because their Xbox game is tied to their Xbox which they can't take with them everywhere they go. IMO the idea of having to log in is good, but the execution is lacking a bit in Ubisofts case. If you're going to make your game dependent on such a thing, you better be 120% sure that the server will be available 24/7. And of course the game should be patched to disable that feature when Ubisoft decides to take the servers offline. |
:
my super-duper-uber-mega-awesome-hackproof gaming console is unhackable! |
My only problem with this DRM is the fact that the servers will shut down eventually, i'd give it about 5 years. Hopefully the final patch will disable the DRM. It wouldn't stop me from buying it though, if the last patch doesn't disable the DRM then i'm sure there'll be a crack floating around the internet that does.
|
:
For every advance in DRM, there are two steps forwards in piracy, this DRM is just driving people to piracy where they can play the game without the inconvenience of having to have access to the internet. Games are fairly overpriced, considering the RRP is usually £50 Also; usually when they shut game servers down they do patch out the DRM to answer the question above. The best DRM is usually to just make the game badass in multiplayer and then have key authentication when you play multiplayer. I mean, who plays games just for the single player now anyway? Havoc |
Yes, yes I do.
|
:
|