For what it's worth, unless Assassins Creed II's DRM protection has been cracked it hasn't failed yet. It's only a failure when pirated copies are working and legitimate ones aren't.
When the DRM servers go down, only pirates will play video games.
Do companies seriously think these DRM measures are going to make people less likely to pirate their games? If anything, it makes people more likely to pirate since they are reducing the gap between ease of piracy vs. ease of purchase. By making a legally purchased game more difficult to play using stupid DRM methods like this, game companies make piracy a more attractive option. Way to go Ubisoft.
For what it's worth, unless Assassins Creed II's DRM protection has been cracked it hasn't failed yet. It's only a failure when pirated copies are working and legitimate ones aren't.
This is exactly what happened kryyst. The DRM has already been broken, pirated copies continued to work with the DRM servers down because they don't actually phone home.
Sorta. But ultimately if the game can't be pirated because of the DRM and the DRM pisses off people the only thing it will do is kill sales. Which will further erode consumer confidence in any other products that use the same DRM copy protection.
Regardless of all of that this kind of DRM situation is not a good thing. Though it's not surprising to see it. After all MMO's are effectively the same level of security they only work when their servers are online. Just wait a little longer until games are delivered as a service and none of your games will work when there is a break in the connection.
Wasn't aware they cracked the DRM (haven't kept track since most of my gaming is exclusively on 360). So yeah, I retract my statement the security measure has failed. Go Pirates!
Yes most of them do but I have been in a situation where stuff screws up and it trys to reconnect and messes everything up and you cannot get it back into offline mode, that is ultimately what I am referring to.
Ah, I've never experienced that specific sequence of events before. I digress though, I'm not exactly a fan of having to ping a server to play a game that I've purchased. I still use Steam though because they at least offer a service in return, namely, the ability to reinstall as many times as you want anywhere you want and always have a copy of your game without having to keep track of media. I'll accept some DRM, if I get something in exchange, what I can't stand is overzealous DRM that offers no benefit to the consumer in return.
I don't really think it's fair to call it a failure if the cause of players not being able to use the game was an attack from outside the organization. That's like saying you failed to see me in person today - it wasn't your fault, I was actively avoiding you.
This kind of DRM isn't good for anybody, but I don't know if dicking with tons of peoples' games is the right way to drive your point home. If I was one of those game owners, I'd be livid that somebody else that wasn't EA/Ubi fucked with my game time.
Of course, I'd probably be a bit livid that the DRM servers weren't better protected from an attack, and then I'd eventually come to the point of boiling rage over having to check in at a server anyway.
It's a failure to create a single point of failure which can cause all your actual customers to not be able to use the product they paid to use. The fact that it was an attack that took it offline is irrelevant. It could just have easily been a fiber cut or various other outages. The real failure here is that Ubisoft is essentially punishing people who buy the game by tethering them to this system which could fail for any number of reasons at any time.
I like to periodically go back and play my older games, sometimes 5-10 years after they were released, so if the game is reliant upon a server to authenticate to in order to play, what happens when the company folds? Or they decide the servers need to be used for a newer game?
So, I have to illegally modify my legally purchased game, therefore breaking all kinds of laws, just to play it?
Wow, sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.
But it's not because according to the EULA, you are only leasing a license to use the software until they say otherwise. They can legaly retract your license at any time.
Yeah, it sucks when steam sometimes inexplicably prevents you from playing a game. The much hated "game is not available" message is pretty frustrating sometimes (i.e. last wednesday when steam wouldn't let me play TF2).
I like a lot of what steam does and it has come a long way. It's tremendously more useful than the giant ball and chain that Ubisoft has added to AC2. But if given the option to buy from steam or say gog.com, I pick the latter. It's DRM free approach along with great support is so far the best situation to me.
DRM seems to be spiraling downward into a pit of despair. I intend to continue that by not supporting horribly invasive and useless DRM with my hard earned cash.
I can't speak for AC2, but jumping through the clusterfuck of DRM for my copy of GTAIV that I bought on Steam took literally 1 hour and I never played. That's just one example, but yeah. Non-Valve games purchased through Steam are still often burdened with additional DRM.
Bioshock also had SecuRom DRM in it when it was released on Steam. A lot of big games leave it in there.
And EA and Ubi have said that in the event of the need to take the server down or if the company goes under, they'll release a patch for the game that allows offline play - which just gave the crackers fresh hope, as it means it was easily patchable. Lo and behold, it was cracked in a day.
I had major issues with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. clear sky when it first came out. Got a throw in copy with some hardware I purchased and the DRM presented some installation problems that were eventually rectified, but it left a negative impression on me just the same.
I wish more PC developers would just implement Steam into their disk products.
GTA IV was the absolute worst example of DRM on a game that I have ever come across. Like Mas0n, the game took me an hour to install, and it resulted in more time troubleshooting and dealing than I did playing the effing game. What an absolute mess.
Comments
Do companies seriously think these DRM measures are going to make people less likely to pirate their games? If anything, it makes people more likely to pirate since they are reducing the gap between ease of piracy vs. ease of purchase. By making a legally purchased game more difficult to play using stupid DRM methods like this, game companies make piracy a more attractive option. Way to go Ubisoft.
This is exactly what happened kryyst. The DRM has already been broken, pirated copies continued to work with the DRM servers down because they don't actually phone home.
Regardless of all of that this kind of DRM situation is not a good thing. Though it's not surprising to see it. After all MMO's are effectively the same level of security they only work when their servers are online. Just wait a little longer until games are delivered as a service and none of your games will work when there is a break in the connection.
This kind of DRM isn't good for anybody, but I don't know if dicking with tons of peoples' games is the right way to drive your point home. If I was one of those game owners, I'd be livid that somebody else that wasn't EA/Ubi fucked with my game time.
Of course, I'd probably be a bit livid that the DRM servers weren't better protected from an attack, and then I'd eventually come to the point of boiling rage over having to check in at a server anyway.
So yeah, we've come full circle.
I like to periodically go back and play my older games, sometimes 5-10 years after they were released, so if the game is reliant upon a server to authenticate to in order to play, what happens when the company folds? Or they decide the servers need to be used for a newer game?
Wow, sounds like a class action lawsuit waiting to happen.
But it's not because according to the EULA, you are only leasing a license to use the software until they say otherwise. They can legaly retract your license at any time.
I like a lot of what steam does and it has come a long way. It's tremendously more useful than the giant ball and chain that Ubisoft has added to AC2. But if given the option to buy from steam or say gog.com, I pick the latter. It's DRM free approach along with great support is so far the best situation to me.
DRM seems to be spiraling downward into a pit of despair. I intend to continue that by not supporting horribly invasive and useless DRM with my hard earned cash.
And EA and Ubi have said that in the event of the need to take the server down or if the company goes under, they'll release a patch for the game that allows offline play - which just gave the crackers fresh hope, as it means it was easily patchable. Lo and behold, it was cracked in a day.
I wish more PC developers would just implement Steam into their disk products.