Well well. WHY DOES UBISOFT STILL HAVE DRM IN THEIR GAMES? Clearly it's not impeding anyone from enjoying the game except legitimate customers. Pirates will always get around it so just forget about it Ubisoft (and all other companies). The only way to really hurt pirates is to make games with large online components. Pirates can always still play the single-player parts of games, but if you make an alluring enough online component it will encourage people to buy the game instead of pirating it. Encouragement not to pirate is vastly superior to trying to stop piracy with DRM.



You can't prevent people from using cracked software, you can only encourage them not to.





EDIT: Oh, and for the person praising Steam offline mode, it's complete garbage. Half the time it doesn't let you play your games. I actually pirate all my steam games now so that if Valve decides they don't want to let me play offline I can just use a cracked copy -.- Seriously Valve... fix Steam. A quick google search will reveal that this has been a problem extending back many years. In fact, the only reason I'm willing to buy games on Steam (like Endless Space =D) is because I know I can just play a pirated version if Steam decides it doesn't want to work. The ability to Pirate is the only reason I buy games on Steam as funny as that may sound. The day the biggest torrent site falls (I won't name it here but most of you probably already know what it is) is the day I stop buying games on Steam or any other digital distribution platform for that matter. What does this mean? I'll be buying WAY fewer games because let's be honest, when you can buy digital you're much more likely to spend your money then when you have to go to the store and pick up a physical copy giving you ample time to reconsider any impulse purchases.

I'm not afraid to talk about it, I'm afraid of the devs closing the thread due to fits of rage in the posts.

Fair enough. Lets put that fire out if it starts rather than hosing the place down just in case.

EA is going full astern in response to piracy by trying to force Free-to-Play on every franchise they physically can, for better or worse. I think their argument was something like "If only 20% of people are paying for the games anyway, we may as well make it free-to-play where only 20% of people will pay anyway." I'm still not sure if it's good or bad.

What are their F2P titles? F2P can be a wonderful thing if done correctly (see Valve and Riot Games for good object lessons) but a horrible, horrible disaster if done purely from the standpoint of hoovering up cash.

Mansen wrote:
Discussing the above-mentioned topics is not "bad, mean or wrong".

He made his statements in a hateful manner. I said in the first post that this shouldn't degenerate into any kind of hate speeches.

Mansen wrote:
*snicker* Right... 2070... lovely game.

Hey, I was interested in it. Not Game of the Year or anything but I wanted to dabble in it for a bit.

defekt wrote:
Quite. Fear of discussing the hard facts of the problem and revealing the rhetoric to be the hyperbole that it is, is one of the (smaller) reasons why DRM continues to target the wrong people.

I'm not afraid to talk about it, I'm afraid of the devs closing the thread due to fits of rage in the posts.

defekt wrote:
It takes a pretty progressive business to realise that DRM is ultimately self-defeating and anyone who has worked in a big company will know that they are a bit like ocean-going supertankers; they are the slowest of all to change course. It also doesn't help matters when you have a muppet as Captain.

EA is going full astern in response to piracy by trying to force Free-to-Play on every franchise they physically can, for better or worse. I think their argument was something like "If only 20% of people are paying for the games anyway, we may as well make it free-to-play where only 20% of people will pay anyway." I'm still not sure if it's good or bad.

Mansen wrote:
Discussing the above-mentioned topics is not "bad, mean or wrong".

Quite. Fear of discussing the hard facts of the problem and revealing the rhetoric to be the hyperbole that it is, is one of the (smaller) reasons why DRM continues to target the wrong people.



It takes a pretty progressive business to realise that DRM is ultimately self-defeating and anyone who has worked in a big company will know that they are a bit like ocean-going supertankers; they are the slowest of all to change course. It also doesn't help matters when you have a muppet as Captain.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
1. Stop with all the Ubisoft hate. I said in the first post that this thread is already on thin ice and we don't need anyone raging against Ubisoft.



2. Stop with all the Steam hate. Steam was a valuable service for the developers and they don't need anyone raging against Steam.



3. Stop with all the hate. The mods don't want to see that, I bet.



4. Piracy is a thin topic on these forums, don't go around talking about how you pirate games. It's prohibited.



I don't want to sound like a jerk or anything, but I also don't want you to get banned because you couldn't speak in a respectful manner.

Discussing the above-mentioned topics is not "bad, mean or wrong".

Fenrakk101 wrote:
I think you're underestimating... Ubisoft has a large amount of interesting games (Anno 2070...)

*snicker* Right... 2070... lovely game.

I would wager that Ubi-Soft loses more money to their DRM policies than to piracy directly. Both in terms of lost sales from conscientious buyers (or previously burned buyers) and in terms of development/licencing costs of DRM. I'm personally one of those lost customers.



I don't know the state of the industry today, but I know that back in the day anti-piracy was pretty big money. SafeDisk and SecuRom and the like raked in a hefty chunk of change from publishers/developers. Clearly they felt the exchange was worth it, despite how ineffectual it was (and continues to be) against the target demographic (pirates). Of course, in the beginning it was less about piracy, and more about requiring groups/friends to buy their own copy rather than simply lending the disk(s) for installation purposes. I am, however, of the mind that most DRM at best gives pirates an intriguing puzzle, and at worst shamelessly punishes the honest customer.



That all said, I don't think I've ever seen an accurate statistic, or (with very few exceptions) anything accurately said at all in any way, by any company in regards to piracy. Including the big "Pirate Groups" that get in the media. If the pirate groups in the media can't really get it right, it's a bit absurd to expect big business to understand the issue any better.

krythorian wrote:
I think it's bullshit... Asspulled statistics, because face it they wouldn't be able to run if they did sell that small amount

I think you're underestimating... Ubisoft has a large amount of interesting games (Anno 2070, From Dust, and even Assassin's Creed) and those all hold profitable sales, so it's possible that there's an incredibly unbelievably large amount of people playing pirated copies. Which, while unlikely, is still possible.

I think it's bullshit... Asspulled statistics, because face it they wouldn't be able to run if they did sell that small amount

1. Stop with all the Ubisoft hate. I said in the first post that this thread is already on thin ice and we don't need anyone raging against Ubisoft.



2. Stop with all the Steam hate. Steam was a valuable service for the developers and they don't need anyone raging against Steam.



3. Stop with all the hate. The mods don't want to see that, I bet.



4. Piracy is a thin topic on these forums, don't go around talking about how you pirate games. It's prohibited.



I don't want to sound like a jerk or anything, but I also don't want you to get banned because you couldn't speak in a respectful manner.

defekt wrote:
What are their F2P titles? F2P can be a wonderful thing if done correctly (see Valve and Riot Games for good object lessons) but a horrible, horrible disaster if done purely from the standpoint of hoovering up cash.

It's not started yet, but a lot of their development teams are changing focus to it. I know for a fact that Command and Conquer Generals 2 has already been announced as free-to-play, and I'm not sure if it was a rumor or fact (I read it a while ago) but I believe Plants vs. Zombies 2 is also going to have a free-to-play model.

I do agree that free-to-play models can be very fun if done correctly (I hold Rusty Hearts as a great example of a free-to-play model) but EA doesn't have a good track record with doing things right. I'm a C&C obsessed person, and have been since the age of 4, so I'll probably play the new C&C game to death when it comes out no matter what, so they better make sure I enjoy that experience. And if they actually do it right I might even pay for a few things.

That is very interesting!

Rudest wrote:
I highly doubt it's 95%. Nearly every PC Gamer I know purchases their own games. Remember music industry and it's piracy controversy? What alleviated the issue more than lawsuits were measures that apple and other companies went to sell music online. They made it accessible. They made it cheap. Furthermore, p2p file sharing is a cess pool of viral infections, that are bypassed all together. Now we hear about it a lot less.



The answer isn't hurting or punishing anyone. It just won't work. Humans are ingenuitive and pirates will always find a way.



The key here, is convenience and quality assurance. If it's easier, safer, more reliable, worth their money---people will pay.

If it's a bad product, security features are annoying, and it's not worth their money, then they are more likely to deal with the hassle of pirating a game.



The more heavily the positives of purchasing outweigh the hassles of piracy, and therefor becomes more convenient and appealing, the better sales numbers will look.

This reminds me of when I read the article about Steam going into Russia. I recall that it said Russia was a huge area for piracy, but when Steam came in they offered a better service than the pirates, and so they actually turned a profit in that country. Of course, maybe I just read a bogus article.

And you have to remember that everything you just said, is stuff Ubisoft isn't very fond of doing. EA is probably a better example, with their stance on Origin and all, but Ubisoft isn't making their services more convenient - especially considering their inclusions of DRM and other hassles.

I highly doubt it's 95%. Nearly every PC Gamer I know purchases their own games. Remember music industry and it's piracy controversy? What alleviated the issue more than lawsuits were measures that apple and other companies went to sell music online. They made it accessible. They made it cheap. Furthermore, p2p file sharing is a cess pool of viral infections, that are bypassed all together. Now we hear about it a lot less.



The answer isn't hurting or punishing anyone. It just won't work. Humans are ingenuitive and pirates will always find a way.



The key here, is convenience and quality assurance. If it's easier, safer, more reliable, worth their money---people will pay.

If it's a bad product, security features are annoying, and it's not worth their money, then they are more likely to deal with the hassle of pirating a game.



The more heavily the positives of purchasing outweigh the hassles of piracy, and therefor becomes more convenient and appealing, the better sales numbers will look.

WSpearing1 wrote:
Because the downloaded music invariably then ends up being sent to more pirates, and that then goes to more pirates. Some one stealing a CD might give it to a friend, not 1000 friends.

Arguably, you could also rip the music from a CD before the store re-acquires it and they'd be none the wiser. Plus, why is the consumer here the one who pays the half-million fine? Shouldn't it be the person who posted the illegal music in the first place?

WSpearing1 wrote:
As for DRM, any game that requires me to be online the whole time simply isn't getting a second look! (Except an actual online game...) If a company is going to restrict me in that way, I won't buy the game at all. It's their choice to put these measures in, fair play it's their decision, but I'll make my own decision to ignore them :-)

I hate when developers mention how "we're moving to an age where more and more people have access to decent internet connections and so always-online isn't a huge problem." They conveniently forget the incredible amount of people who use laptops. Laptops that are often using wi-fi connections, or laptops that are being used on long plane trips. These are people who have powerful computers, and they can download games and play them later, but they cannot be expected to have consistent connection 24/7 in order to play your game.

WSpearing1 wrote:
With regards to pirates, I don't think DRM etc has any real bearing on the numbers of people downloading a game, the majority are simply cheap and want something for free. The only time it's remotely okay is when its an old game, I'm talking old enough not to be found anywhere!

Piracy has become a lot more complicated than that. Nowadays people don't pirate something because they're cheap, but often for more personal reasons (not wanting to support a developer) or even, as the case may be, more practical reasons (pirated copies of Diablo 3 won't require always-online, even though the paid version does).

Chibiabos wrote:
Why does copying and downloading, which does not remove anything physical and does not deprive any business of selling the music, amount to more than 1,000 time a worse crime than actually robbing a business?

Because the downloaded music invariably then ends up being sent to more pirates, and that then goes to more pirates. Some one stealing a CD might give it to a friend, not 1000 friends.



As for DRM, any game that requires me to be online the whole time simply isn't getting a second look! (Except an actual online game...) If a company is going to restrict me in that way, I won't buy the game at all. It's their choice to put these measures in, fair play it's their decision, but I'll make my own decision to ignore them :-)



With regards to pirates, I don't think DRM etc has any real bearing on the numbers of people downloading a game, the majority are simply cheap and want something for free. The only time it's remotely okay is when its an old game, I'm talking old enough not to be found anywhere!

Brad Wardell of Stardock noted some time ago -- I think around a decade ago -- that gamers (the paying customer kind) might refrain from purchasing a game if they felt or feared its DRM would be too intrusive. He also noted DRM doesn't stop piracy. Duh!



Ubisoft is notorious for having the most nefarious DRM with Assassin's Creed II. It was so bad, in fact, that for the first time ever, I saw it mentioned in game review sites like game spot.



Is management at Ubisoft stupid? Can they not put two and two together? They spend a lot of money developing and entangling DRM into their games that infuriates their paying customers but doesn't deter piracy. Why keep paying money and losing customers on something that doesn't work? I can't think of any reason besides stupidity on the part of their management -- and the management of all the big game studios that think attacking paying customers with obtrusiveness when pirates have no problem digging into the binary code and disabling the obtrusions.



They might as well not have DRM. Don't pay to develop it, don't mangle it into their games, don't nerf the experience of paying customers trying to put a barrier up to pirates that pirates have no problem bypassing anyway.



And on another note ... while I agree, piracy is a crime, prosecution and fines are way, way, way out of hand. There was a recent case of a man whose fine for downloading 31 songs was on the order of $675,000.



$675,000 is a lot of money ... but think on it, really think on it compared to the crime of, say, shoplifting physical music CDs. If this man had gone to a music store and shoplifted 5 music CDs with 31 songs total on them, what would his fine be? $500 maybe? There is direct deprivation of revenue for a business there -- with physical CDs, the store can't sell what they don't have. They were robbed and deprived. Why does copying and downloading, which does not remove anything physical and does not deprive any business of selling the music, amount to more than 1,000 time a worse crime than actually robbing a business?

CCA wrote:
The only way to play games *offline* is to tell Steam to go "offline", so it downloads some settings I guess, so that your games are still playable offline. However, for this transition to work, you still need to be online first to be able to activate the offline-mode, which doesn't exactly help someone if their line goes suddenly, for instance.

This is not how it works. I can turn my net connection off mid-game and they will play away fine. If you have used steam in offline mode once before, it will work in future whether the net is on or not. I just tested this to make sure. Turned off net connection, started steam, it offers to start in offline mode.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
Not to undercut you, but this doesn't apply to games where publishers have their DRM built into the game. For example, I bought C&C 4 on Steam (don't worry, it was only 5 bucks; I just needed to finish the story!) and I still have to sign into EA servers if I want to play. But yeah, Steam's DRM-free system is one of the main reasons they don't suffer nearly as much piracy, and why their service is so popular; DRM is something that Steam will actually not allow. For example, if you buy From Dust from Ubisoft you have a limited number of installs, but Steam lives by their DRM-free policies, much to gamers' content...

My understanding was that Steam itself was the DRM? If you aren't online, Steam won't launch, and will prevent any Steam-installed games from playing. The only way to play games *offline* is to tell Steam to go "offline", so it downloads some settings I guess, so that your games are still playable offline. However, for this transition to work, you still need to be online first to be able to activate the offline-mode, which doesn't exactly help someone if their line goes suddenly, for instance. Then of course there is potentially the publisher's DRM to deal with. For instance, if I ever played Anno 2070 offline, half of the game would be stripped out.

If Paradox can release completely free DRM games and make a good profit doing niche games, maybe the large publishers should follow suit - stop making boring ripoffs of the same old tired genres that encourage kids to buy them and then get bored of them after a few hours of repetitive frenetic gameplay. Start investing in some good original developers that produce the kind of solid original games that honest gamers will want to buy and play for a long time. That is the way to reduce piracy. Involve the community properly in the games design. Stop trying to rip people off with DRM. Stop making rubbish and start investing in quality.

I think that's enough with the piracy talk.