Ubisoft relaxes its 'always on' internet PC game DRM

@oxfordfishsalon

Unlike many other companies.

@oxfordfishsalon


We all knew that protection is crap, and if you have a crappy game a better protection is not going to make it a best seller. Just look at HAWX 2 no important group has cracked that game. is it a best seller??? did it sell millions because it has been more than 5 months without a crack?? nope, so what does this means?? what we all knew, a good game sells a crap one.... well, nothing can change that......

@oxfordfishsalon
I don't think they have recognized their mistakes. I think this was a business decision. Eventually, the cost to maintain the servers for this service exceeds the pirated sales you are preventing. At this point in time, people are not as-concerned as they once were regarding pirating Assassin's creed 2 // splinter cell: conviction. It's nothing personal, its just that those particular titles are several months old and sales are fairly low.

I think Ubisoft was correct in their comment that they did plan to eventually patch out this draconian drm method when the cost of the service exceeded potential sales from inhibiting piracy more.

@Cleric

Dawn of discovery was released previous to this draconian measure so it never had the problem anyway. (unless there is something different about the steam version)

I am not buying any Ubisoft titles either. And it's a shame, too, because I have seen a couple I want.

Until they wholesale remove this stupid DRM, I am not buying anything Ubisoft.

You think piracy hurts your sales? Pissing off entire legions of people who refuse to buy your game hurts them just as bad.

@Drakkenfyre

Do you seriously think the amount of money they're losing from all the people complaining on message boards, decrying the company, and claiming to not buy Ubisoft games compares to the amount they'd use without intense DRM?

Didn't you hear about the L4D2 boycott?

@CorneliusPrime128

Seriously. The hardcore, internet fans of anything think they matter so much in the sales and profits of companies.

@CorneliusPrime128

Only difference is people said they would boycott it before it was even out. Now people are saying they still haven't bought AC2, settlers7 because of the DRM. This list includes me, 7 friends I know and at least (top of my head, not verifiable) 40 people on different forum posts/comments.

And of course you can say who cares about 48 people but most of those 48 are in the alpha-gamer category who advise a lot of less avid gamers on game purchases. And if you than count in people who don't comment + rest of the internet. It can be a lot more. And if a 1000 people don't buy 2 games digitally that could already cost 1 person his or her job. (even though I don't know the cut that is taken by valve)

@CorneliusPrime128

One game "boycotted" prerelease because those people felt it was unfair to release a sequel so soon, compared to entire catalogues of games boycotted because the company decides to impose ridiculously strict DRM, and says all future titles will contain it. BIG difference.

How many people are still boycotting L4D2? How many people are refusing to buy games from Ubisoft? I count three in these comments alone. There are alot more who feel the same way on this issue.

thisredengine, do I expect my boycotting of their games to change something? No. But I don't buy their games, that's what matters to me.

@context

"And if a 1000 people don't buy 2 games digitally that could already cost 1 person his or her job. (even though I don't know the cut that is taken by valve)"

I know people who at Ubisoft Montreal. That statement, in particular, is false.

@context

First off, a "person on the internet" counts as like .2 of a person when it comes to boycotting, no matter when it came out or what game it is.

But even if you and a few thousand of your friends refused to buy the game, it would still not affect Ubisoft as much as if they released it DRM-free and it got pirated a few hundred thousand times. I people say there are "better" alternatives to it, but to many I think that just means "easier to work around."

@CorneliusPrime128 I'm not boycotting ubisoft, just the games with connection requirements. And second, I could care less if my purchase choices cause Ubisoft to change their ways. My position is simply that I don't pay to get screwed. Period.

If you want to shell out and bend over, and Ubisoft can find enough people like you, then you all deserve each other and the market works.

@Styli If the consumers proved themselves worthy of trust, they would have an easier time trusting the consumers. Granted, it's generally not the people who BUY the game that are the problem -- but not everyone who "consumes" the game buys the game. In fact, I think I read that the current numbers show a piracy rate around 50% for PC games.

Ubisoft's "solution" is clumsy and creates more problems than it solves, and I certainly don't like it... but I have a very difficult time coming up with a better solution that adequately addresses the problem of piracy.

@Teletheus

"but I have a very difficult time coming up with a better solution that adequately addresses the problem of piracy"

Ugh, the thing is it doesn't affect pirates, only people who have bought the game and play it without a crack. It is not adequate by any means, it does the opposite of what its job is, it drives people to pirate or crack the game.

@iHavePants

It does affect pirates, so much, in fact that they won't be able to play the game. That some serious affecting if you ask me.

Sounds like there's a way around it, but for every guy who does the tiny bit of extra legwork needed to pirate it, there are probably 5 or 6 who realize it's not as easy as most games are to pirate and say "screw it."

I understand the annoyance of needing constant internet connection, but I supported this before and I support it even more now. Once-a-play verification doesn't seem like much to ask at all.

@Styli

Once a game verification is fine if you have a broadband connection all the time. Not everyone lives in areas with good online infrastructure. Using this method of verification excludes those who don't, which leads them to find "other ways" to play the games they want. It might require a quick trip to an Internet cafe or a friend's house and another quick trip around some torrents but there are pirates breaking these games loose.

I don't condone piracy, in fact I'm anti-piracy as it takes money from the industry that could be reinvested in better games.

All I'm saying is that companies need to give consumers some credit and this method of DRM is saying "We want you online connected to us just to be sure you're playing legally". If you treat your userbase as potential criminals, what sort of reaction do you expect.

There are other methods of DRM, such as dongles that I mentioned, that protect the product just as much but don't constrain the customer to being online. The problem is that Ubisoft see this method as the simplest solution for them to implement.

The article is misleading. Don't feel too bad.

This is Ubisoft going "Hey, you guys with crappy internet connections? If we can tell you have crappy internet connections, we're going to throw you a bone. You won't be required to be connected AT ALL TIMES, but you will still be required to be connected at startup."

The DRM isn't being removed. It's being made from 24/7 to a little spottier, but ONLY if you are "approved" by Ubisoft.