Ubisoft is dropping PC DRM but....

Ubisoft have stopped making the kind of games I want to play. If they want to make their games even less appealing, I won't be sad to see them leave the market when it doesn't work out for them.

The last game I bought from the was Anno1401*, which was good...the previous one was XIII for the PC which was also good.

Splinter Cell, Assasin's Creed and Prince of Persia all have the scourge of games...F^*king jumping puzzles..seriously guys..I've been with jumping puzzles/games since Mario Bros on the ol'Atari..PLEASE think of some other gimmic to get me from Point A to point B than having to do 4353443 perfectly timed jumps.

Not to mention thier PR sometimes seems..odd "Oh we made Assasin's Creed 1 with a multi-ethnic, multi-religious group of employees..so that makes our game and what's in it 100% acceptable!"...and yes, the project leader lady person (don't know her real title) said that on a TV interview.

*=keeping in mind I have the american version of that game, named Dawn of Discovery..none of that DMR crap in there for me

Something as lbgsloan said. For some titles, I think EA, Ubisoft or others are ready to lose PC gamers in regards how many more money they will get with console versions, by squeezing console player as much as possible, extracting any penny.

Look at Modern Warfare 2. PC gamers are upset, but probably more than 90% of MW2 sales comes from consoles and look how much $ they got!!

Look how most games are done from major publisher: console games ported to PC...

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear in the future, if we would like real PC games, they would be done only by software studio like Stardock. Who knows, ultimately, it may be beneficial...

Another reason to stay clear of Ubisoft games with this DRM for me. I don't like constant connection when I play my game. Who makes decision at Ubisoft? Must be a bunch of executives who play golf, don't play game and don't care about gaming.

Golf isn't all bad. But you are right, it must be a bunch of execs who haven't got a clue how to even INSTALL a PC game.

At least with EA there are some titles I am willing to buy and many of them are released with only disc checks (retail versions) so when they are done milking customers with dangling DLC, the packaged versions will be wortwhile.

The funny thing about so called DLC in EA games is that it's ot even "downloadable content". It's "online available content". Why? Well, you pay x bucks for that stuff, but it only appears in game when you're online. Play offline and it won't show up. This goes for both DA:O and ME2...

Smells like rip-off? It IS. Once the "DLC" Servers are down you paid all that extra bucks for ... *drumroll* ... NOTHING!

*exclaims in shock, then sighs* That's a pity. EA is really going down the pipe. And after bringing us some of the best games around, like the earlier (pre-BC2) Battlefield titles. At least DICE still knows what their doing.

EA is really going down the pipe. And after bringing us some of the best games around, like the earlier (pre-BC2) Battlefield titles.

Yeah back when they were Electronic ARTS instead of Evil Buttheads That Want to Monopolize Everything. **cough** NFL

EA is getting better now. They use to be absolutely horrible, using Activation Limits and SecuROM. I don't really give a crap about Ubisoft anymore though, I was going to by Prince of Persia but was turned off by the lack of DLC. Now, Ubisoft has zero games that interest me at all.

WoW has no single player, but they way overcharge. That's why I don't play it

Quoting vindKtiv,

reply 59

EA is getting better now. They use to be absolutely horrible, using Activation Limits and SecuROM. I don't really give a crap about Ubisoft anymore though, I was going to by Prince of Persia but was turned off by the lack of DLC. Now, Ubisoft has zero games that interest me at all.

That's funny. I purchased Prince of Persia because it had no DRM and no DLC and was really cheap.

EA is getting better now. They use to be absolutely horrible, using Activation Limits and SecuROM. I don't really give a crap about Ubisoft anymore though, I was going to by Prince of Persia but was turned off by the lack of DLC. Now, Ubisoft has zero games that interest me at all.

Plus, they'll be publishing Crysis 2, and there will hopefully be no SecuROM on that (or free DLC, but that's just wishful thinking). I'm still bummed about Assassin's Creed 2 though.

Quoting Star Adder,

reply 56

At least with EA there are some titles I am willing to buy and many of them are released with only disc checks (retail versions) so when they are done milking customers with dangling DLC, the packaged versions will be wortwhile.

The funny thing about so called DLC in EA games is that it's ot even "downloadable content". It's "online available content". Why? Well, you pay x bucks for that stuff, but it only appears in game when you're online. Play offline and it won't show up. This goes for both DA:O and ME2...

Smells like rip-off? It IS. Once the "DLC" Servers are down you paid all that extra bucks for ... *drumroll* ... NOTHING!

What? You download the content and install it and restart the game and is in the game no matter what.

Quoting Servius,

reply 63

What? You download the content and install it and restart the game and is in the game no matter what.

I get conflicting reports about this on various forums. If the DLC phones home to check legitmacy, and there is no server to verify, it doesnt' really matter if its already intalled, it won't work. The thing is, some people say it does phone home, others say it doesn't. Some say you can back it up and not have to download it again, others say, point above, it will still phone home thus requires a server to acknowledge it as aok.

I get conflicting reports about this on various forums. If the DLC phones home to check legitmacy, and there is no server to verify, it doesnt' really matter if its already intalled, it won't work.

With DA:O I always thought I had to be logged in (/online) with DLC for it to work. This is because I'd frequently be prevented from loading a saved game and get the message that I had to be logged in because my saved game had DLC in. However after being told that you could play offline with DLC I tested it and was able to play without an internet connection. It has put me off paid for DLC in the future though, knowing that a company might increase DRM via DLC.

Quoting aeortar,

reply 65

I get conflicting reports about this on various forums. If the DLC phones home to check legitmacy, and there is no server to verify, it doesnt' really matter if its already intalled, it won't work.

With DA:O I always thought I had to be logged in (/online) with DLC for it to work. This is because I'd frequently be prevented from loading a saved game and get the message that I had to be logged in because my saved game had DLC in. However after being told that you could play offline with DLC I tested it and was able to play without an internet connection. It has put me off paid for DLC in the future though, knowing that a company might increase DRM via DLC.

Yeah there is some sort of messy thing going on about Borderlands monkeying around with Securom for its DLC. And then there is that sort have to be online DRM thing some of them do, where it, the DRM, does have to phone home but it can be playex X times offline before it is "required" to phone home again. The industry has really made a mess of things in terms of DRM. They're all over the map with it, rarely clear or upfront as to exactly what is going on before the release, and just overall making it more and more unpleasant for customers to deal with.

My favorite part, is where they, Ubisoft, try to pretend it's for our benefit. What BS. If I am that concerned about not using discs, guess what, I have a half dozen choices of digi stores i can go too. They're taking away that choice, and then claim most people wont' care. Hey, most people (the general population) still don't understand whether or not their machines are capable of running a game and flood the forums with help, I can't run the game messages with my IGP that Best Buy told me was "great for games"... that doesn't mean that's the way it should be.

Quoting MichaelCook,

reply 2

I will never buy a Ubisoft game if this is true. Many still will but not me.

Most likely somebody will crack the game and release an unofficial version that needs no internet to play. Before the official version is released. Some true sales will then be lost to people who would buy the game but don't like the restrictions.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a Winner. I love Ubisoft games but this new security is rediculous. They just lost my money...and gained my piracy. Yarrr!!!

Not that I condone that kind of thing...

Here is a link to a comment made by a programmer about Ubi's new DRM

http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100127/2100117954#c208

I was going to just put some key points here but the whole post is too relevant. If folks don't like the length I'll edit it out and you can go to the link.

As a 15+ year game developer I honestly understand all the desires behind such an idea. It is most definately in defense of an "old model" instead of trying to adapt. And, I suspect that this Ubisoft inititive will backfire horribly.

If even 25% of the way this system is described is true, the backlash is going to be huge. It describes a rental system, not a purchase system. When Ubisoft is dead and buried I may have the desire to play retro and boot up one of their games. Oops, can't play it since the auth servers are off line..

They say they will patch things as they degrade support. Wonderfull, but what if they simply dissapear? Not as unlikely as they may suggest, it is a fickel market. I have a disk with all this DRM on it, I paid money and all the servers are down. I can't play my legally purchased game anymore.

I hate my bosses sometimes because they think things like what Ubisoft is proposing are some form of savior. I then remind them that 20 years ago I was their most hated person on BBS's when I was cracking all of their software on C64 withing days of release. Encryption is much more viable now yet even Blue Ray can be broken fairly quickly.

Ubisoft is being very stupid. They are pushing the "really wanted" envelope way too far with this suggested DRM. I "want" to actually play through GTA 4, yet I refuse to make yet another account on yet another service which will have all my data subjected to data breach, since I don't have an account, I can't save, can't play the game through, and I will never touch one of their games ever again. I hardly trust my bank, why in the hell should I trust a game developer?

I make games for a living and have done so for a long time. I'm pretty damned clever, or I'd be unemployed after all these years, yet there are easilly 10 folks out there just as clever as I am with lots of free time to undo any cleverness I code up and break any DRM I dream up. I have no illusions about this, I really really really wish I could explain it to the suits in some buisness speak that they will listen to. No argument I've come up with has ever really sunk into their thick skulls.

So:

Buisness as usual - don't adapt, screw yourself over by stupidity.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235290&site=pcg

PC gamer with some updates on how this actually works. looks awful. Worst than any DRM scheme I have encountered to date.

Quoting Nesrie,

reply 69

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235290&site=pcg

PC gamer with some updates on how this actually works. looks awful. Worst than any DRM scheme I have encountered to date.

Wouldn't it be awesome if whe your connection dropped big letters flashed up on the screen spelling out,

"OMFG YOU FKING PIRATE!!!2!11!!"

and then, when the connection comes back,

"Ok your not a pirate... For Now. BUT IM WATCHING YOU!!".

And here is the BINGO quote!

"We've all seen again and again that you can't stop the piracy scene from cracking your game and distributing it, free of DRM. But you can stop the people who love your games from downloading it, and you do that by making the retail experience better - not worse."

Ubisoft? Can I introduce you to Stardock? Sure you let them distribute your games but you really need to talk to them about the mistake you're about to make.

I'm actually kinda upset Stardock is even carrying this game. I know that's completely unreasonable, but I just don't like the message that Impulse will accept such draconian DRM.

Heres my take on it. I was in the Settlers 7 beta test. Its a cute game, I had not a single problem running it. No problems with the save game features, where it saves the games online. Not even any problems with playing really. Though there were a few times where others in the house were using the internet also and my game started slowing down. See thats another thing they don't mention in their PR. If your net starts lagging, your game starts stuttering. (really lame to have happen in a single player game)

My real problem with this is I just don't like the way it feels. It feels like an invasion of my gaming privacy. I refuse to purchase their products while this policy is in effect, and I refuse to purchase the titles that are affected by this DRM scheme.

Quoting arstal,

reply 72

I'm actually kinda upset Stardock is even carrying this game. I know that's completely unreasonable, but I just don't like the message that Impulse will accept such draconian DRM.

Well it's a storefront so I doubt they will take much of a stance against anything with Impulse. I like how it says the DRM for Creed II is a Ubi.com Account. No mention that you have to have a high speed internet connection at ALL times and there is no EULA posted either so you can actually read the fine print which might say something like they have the right to yank servers and stop the game from functioning at all at will.

I can't believe these companies are so stupid. They are basically encouraging people to get the hacked version that doesn't have this. Do they really think the hackers won't be able to crack this? Unless that is the case it's still going to get out there and get downloaded just as much (or more likely more) than any other game. How exactly is that helpful? All they are doing is hurting the customers who actually spend money on the game. All this for a console port that is 3-4 months late and costs $10.00 more than every other game except the new Call of Duty. Luckily this is a game I don't care about as the first one wasn't that good. It's just unfortunate because I know sooner or later they will release a game I do care about. Hopefully they will get things straightened out by then.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.