Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Anti-Piracy system for GR:FS


Recommended Posts

If they put as much effort into Anti pirating efforts,

in making a game, then Games might be worth buying legit .

Ive bought every R6 legit except for Lockdown

and some of the older titles twice .

I've bought Gr1 , one of the exp packs and GRAW1 legit

Didn't worry about GRAW2 it seemed to far away from GR 1 ORG to worth supporting.

Things that effect people pirating games on PC and console's

(Yes Cracked games are on PS2 , WII , Xbox1 , Xbox2/360 )

* Game isnt available legit in their country when its already been out for weeks/months in another country

(Good example I have been to 12 stores looking for Delta Force Xtreme 2 no one has it or can stock it in Australia)

* Game is twice or third the price compared to USA/Europe retail.

(Happens A LOT in Australia)

* Game on Digital download is the same or more then local/overseas retail

(Used to happen on STEAM A LOT till so many people complained it got to a level that steam FINALY listened)

* Game has annoying protection that acts like spyware/malware.

* Game if its in a series is to far away from the first/first few in the series , so far dumbed down

that they should of make a new series for Casual gamers and left the series the way it was for "hardcore" gamers.

* Game has no Stand Alone Dedicated Server program thus no online servers , then why play online.

* Game in the consumer view should be cheaper

* Games lack decent LAN COOP support without needing internet (eg playing at a mates place without internet , playing at a public lan partie with 40-200 others and NO internet , playing at a gaming net cafe together without needing a online account or all using the internet when they are beside each other)

* Games in general upon retail are VERY BUGGY since 2001 , why pay money for a game , thus showing your supporting for a game that is clearly having NO DECENT beta bug testing in place , doesn't work with half the consumers systems or the protection method infact prevents legit buyers in playing the game.

It seems like there's a lot of effort going into the anti-piracy for little or no gain, the pirates will always find a way over around or through any protection imaginable.

I agree pirates will prevail, but it's only right publishers should attempt to protect their products, it's when that protection hurts the legitimate buyer (ie rootkits/limited reinstalls etc) I have a serious issue.

When does the consumer have the right to install software without DRM , the game work out of the box , and have a proper quality tested product .

We don't buy cars with 80% of the engine incomplete and not road tested before they go retail.

Ohhh wait games are about making companies money now and not the end users enjoying and having fun or the programmers having respect for the consumer and pride in the quality of their game they worked on

Edited by charliebrownau
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ubisoft's CEO Yves Guillemot has been talking about Ubisoft's plans for taking on the pirates in advance of their next big releases...

All together, on home consoles, the piracy is low. But on the PC, the piracy increases quite a lot, and we are working on tools that will allow us to actually decrease tremendously the piracy on PC, starting next year in fact and probably one game at the end of this year.

Anti piracy measures have a dismal history of actually causing legitimate paying customers more hassle and grief than the pirates who carry on regardless.

Without a doubt Ghost Recon 4 will be subject to these new initiatives, but hopefully it will not be the first! Let another game suffer the "early adopter" issues! :thumbsup:

The problem here is not a technical one that can be fixed with a software update - the problem is one of perspective and common sense, or better, lack thereof. UbiSoft's decision to go the DRM route does not bode well for their ability to learn from their mistakes, and it is another hint that running after the quick buck might be more important to them than customer satisfaction.

It has been proven again and again that any DRM will only inconvenience honest customers, while people using pirated software do not have to suffer from the - sometimes draconian - copy protection or 'activation' schemes. And history has shown us that all DRM will eventually be broken, because there are hoards of very talented kids out there doing that kind of thing for fun or as a sport. The 'tougher' a DRM scheme, the more fun to crack it, and the higher the respect you gain in the 'scene'.

Just think about it for a second - there is not a single software title out there that has not successfully been hacked and redistributed DRM-free. Not one! And yet they still go on and on about 'lost sales' and 'rampant piracy' that needs to be stopped. You can't - it's that simple. And you don't need to, either - because most people willing to pay for a computer game still do just that - they buy it. That's why nowadays more money is spent on developing computer games than the entire budget of all Hollywood film productions combined.

But if I spent 50+ $ on a game just to find it impossible to 'activate' or I can't even install it on two different computers, while someone else just downloaded a pirated version off the net and has none of the copy protection and activation hassles - I start to wonder if it hadn't been better to go the 'pirate' route in the first place.

Look at the iTunes store - 99 cents for any song - DRM-free. iTunes now sells more songs than all the record stores in the world combined - and that although virtually every song at the iTunes store can be found somewhere else on the net for free in 'pirated' form. So why do people still pay their hard-earned money for the songs at the iTunes store when there is a free alternative?

Two reasons: First of all, many people actually prefer the legal way of doing things - that's why most of us don't rob the local bank with a shotgun in our hands. And the - equally important - second reason is convenience. It is a lot more convenient to buy a song (with proper title, info, cover art etc.) at iTunes with just a quick search and click than to hunt for it through the interwebs and often end up with some mislabeled file or bad sound quality. That hassle is just not worth those 99 cents. But if buying means jumping through DRM hoops just to get the product I legally purchased to work properly - than no, thanks.

So if Ghost Recon 4 arrives with iron-clad DRM that inconveniences me more than I am willing to tolerate (and I am not willing to tolerate much, anymore) then I will go that 'other' route - and I am not ashamed to say it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

here we have a company that made an internal video production making fun of the GR fans that were asking for a realease date for AW…

here we have a corporate entity that is famous for false advertisement, talking about features that are not included. Made up cinematic not actual ingame footage trying to lure potential customers, purposely blurring the line between PC and console versions.

IF, the locking mechanism is proportional to the number of, letsay, unhappy folks, then yeah lock it good. But if the locking mechanism is equal to the content… don’t bother.

As been said previously, that company needs to shape up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One would hope that Ubi makes the game availible on Impulse, with the Goo DRM. That way, you only have to register online once (which you might conveniently do when you download it) and then that's it: No disc in drive, no further online verification. Ubi has already done this with Far Cry 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...That way, you only have to register online once (which you might conveniently do when you download it) and then that's it: No disc in drive, no further online verification...

You really think that online "activation" is a convenient option? What happens when you want to format and re-install or install a new HD? You will have to activate again - if they let you - because now you might have to ask politely if you pretty please with sugar on top may activate the software you "purchased" once more. The same goes for a new computer or - in some cases - even if you just upgrade some hardware like e.g. RAM or graphics card.

Online activation is the absolute worst case scenario for me. It never works properly - let alone conveniently - and it is the prime example how to "fight piracy" on the backs of honest customers, who once again have to jump through hoops to get their software working. It's like these stupid one-million-digits "CD keys" to enter. Only honest customers have to go through the ordeal to enter them - pirates either patch the games to auto-insert the key during install or remove them altogether.

If publishers absolutely "must" implement a copy protection then just use a reasonably good one to prevent direct copying of the CD/DVD and be done with it - that way the honest customer does not even notice it is there (unless he/she insist on his/her right to make a backup copy - but that's another story). Forget about "activation" and "CD keys" and all that other bulls*^& that is nothing more than a hassle for the honest people.

But truth be told - no matter what kind of DRM or copy protection is implemented, it will not make one iota of a difference for the "pirates", because believe me - it will be circumvented anyhow, and the game will certainly be made available without DRM/copy protection through "alternate" channels on the web.

So why not just skip the whole make-believe process of DRM, save the money and resources necessary to implement this charade and use it for more relevant things - like e.g. fixing bugs and proper customer support? Because - after all - quality may still be the best way to actually make people buy your product.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I have with online activation is that it assumes the entire customer base is part of the digital revolution and is online. Granted most people are online, and broadband is spreading like wildfire, but it's still of an assumption to make. The game does not need to be installed on a connected PC to run (unless it's a MMO), so why should it be a requirement just to validate?

Not that it affects me, just pointing it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it's far from perfect. But as evils go, this is one of the lesser. And just for clarification: Yes you do have to activate the game every time you install it (at least that's the way I understand it), but you can install it on as many computers as you like, as often as you like.

And yes, if the business goes bust and there's no activation server then you've got a problem. The good news is that GOO is "universal", so that activation will work with any other provider: I.e. if you buy, say, a Ubisoft game through Impulse and Impulse oes bust, you can still activate the game via Ubisoft. It's a lot like Steam, without having to jump through hoops to play offline.

Sure, the ideal is to be entirely free of DRM, but I'm pretty sure pigs will fly before that happens. And this is way, way better than limited install tokens, continuous online verification or requiring the disc to be in the drive. Maybe if publishers can be convinced that they can indeed sell games without holding their legitimate paying customers in a constant choke hold, the next step may be to drop this DRM tomfoolery altogether.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

From the news page, my emphasis...

Ubisoft boss Yves Guillemot answered some questions from MCV this week, including the touchy subject of Piracy. No details were revealed on what exactly Ubisoft have planned for their next batch of triple A titles, and a rather unfortunate quote will give plenty of mileage for the cynical.

"Ubisoft wants to make sure that for normal customers it’s harder to pirate games and that it’s even more difficult than ever before for the hardcore user that pirates lots of content"

Leave your comments on that in our Ghost Recon 4 forums.

Oh dear, now normal customers are the one's pirating games? An unfortunate turn of phrase and obviously not what he meant. :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the news page, my emphasis...

Ubisoft boss Yves Guillemot answered some questions from MCV this week, including the touchy subject of Piracy. No details were revealed on what exactly Ubisoft have planned for their next batch of triple A titles, and a rather unfortunate quote will give plenty of mileage for the cynical.

"Ubisoft wants to make sure that for normal customers it's harder to pirate games and that it's even more difficult than ever before for the hardcore user that pirates lots of content"

Leave your comments on that in our Ghost Recon 4 forums.

Oh dear, now normal costumers are the one's pirating games? An unfortunate turn of phrase and obviously not what he meant. :huh:

Does he have any clue of he is talking about????

Let me get this straight, Ubisoft is after their costumers and not the pirates this time around?

Edited by Rocky
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh - my - god. :wall:

A funny extra twist can be found in the very next paragraph of the interview:

Ubisoft also singled out DS piracy as having an effect on your sales - how can the industry address that?

We are working on it with things like accessories bundled with the games, or other items that aid the experience and aren't just on the cart. But you have to do that right. Again, it's about making the experience better.

So, let me get this straight - to address piracy on Nintendo DS he plans to bundle attractive accessories with the games to improve the user experience for the customer and thereby entice sales. Wow - what a great and novel idea! Better products equal better sales! Whowouldathunk?

But on PC he prefers to worsen the user experience with cumbersome DRM for consumers - from the 'normal customers' to the 'hardcore users that pirate lots of content'.............? Why.............? To avert sales?!?

Here's another classic bon mot a la Yves Guillemot from the interview:

We have separate teams that develop the single-player and multi-player components of our games; that works really well for us.

Yep, everyone can see that works just fiiiiiiine! :blink:

You know, in light of the recent financial crisis it became quite obvious to anyone following its circumstances with a keen eye that it was largely caused by the bottomless stupidity of a handful of people who - through some mysterious ways - reached the highest echelons of the economic decision-making process. I am somewhat inclined to say that here is another example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to give Mr. Guillemot the benefit of doubt and assume that something got lost in translation, because otherwise it doesn't make sense at all.

It would be nice to hear more from Ubisoft on the results of releasing Prince of Persia without any copy protection. Do they think it had an effect on the piracy vs. legit sales ratio? And what about releasing games via Impulse, with the GOO DRM but without SecuROM?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to give Mr. Guillemot the benefit of doubt and assume that something got lost in translation, because otherwise it doesn't make sense at all.

Yeh, and that is the phrase I was going to use but I already used it once this week so my quota was up. Still it made a good story.

It would be nice to hear more from Ubisoft on the results of releasing Prince of Persia without any copy protection.

I can't recall where, but I am sure I read it was pirated to the same extent as any other Ubi title and sales were nothing to write home about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would give him the benefit of a doubt on the 'normal customers' / pirates thing, but to announce to do the right thing for DS while taking the lemmings route on PC strikes me as a rather 'unmistakable mistake' that can not be blamed on bad translation.

And I think the 'Prince of Persia DRM-free' story has a different background than they would want us to believe. After Ubisoft's DRM disaster with Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 - which basically wouldn't allow legal customers to play the game at all - the only solution they appeared to be capable of delivering at the time was to steal a [Thing that should not be spoken of here] from a warez scene release group and then 're-label' it as their own 'update patch' for the game.

After this complete and utter DRM shipwreck they needed to do something for positive PR, and there was also some speculation that they dropped PoP's DRM simply for technical reasons, with some sources citing Ubisoft's repeated incompetence to make its own technology work. Whatever reason they had to release PoP without DRM (maybe just to prove it's 'unfeasible'?), apparently they now feel compelled to jump on the DRM bandwagon once again.

I've read a very enlightening statement by Ron Carmel, co-founder of 2D Boy (makers of World of Goo - which btw is DRM-free and multi-platform for Mac/Linux/PC) in a Tom's Hardware article some time ago. Here's an excerpt:

Carmel actually argues that DRM isn't for stopping piracy, but another facet of game sales that publishers are trying to stomp out - the used games market. "Publishers aren't stupid. They know that DRM doesn't work against piracy," he explains. "What they're trying to do is stop people from going to GameStop to buy $50 games for $35, none of which goes into the publishers' pockets. If DRM permits only a few installs, that minimizes the number of times a game can be resold."
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would give him the benefit of a doubt on the 'normal customers' / pirates thing, but to announce to do the right thing for DS while taking the lemmings route on PC strikes me as a rather 'unmistakable mistake' that can not be blamed on bad translation.

And I think the 'Prince of Persia DRM-free' story has a different background than they would want us to believe. After Ubisoft's DRM disaster with Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 - which basically wouldn't allow legal customers to play the game at all - the only solution they appeared to be capable of delivering at the time was to steal a [Thing that should not be spoken of here] from a warez scene release group and then 're-label' it as their own 'update patch' for the game.

After this complete and utter DRM shipwreck they needed to do something for positive PR, and there was also some speculation that they dropped PoP's DRM simply for technical reasons, with some sources citing Ubisoft's repeated incompetence to make its own technology work. Whatever reason they had to release PoP without DRM (maybe just to prove it's 'unfeasible'?), apparently they now feel compelled to jump on the DRM bandwagon once again.

I've read a very enlightening statement by Ron Carmel, co-founder of 2D Boy (makers of World of Goo - which btw is DRM-free and multi-platform for Mac/Linux/PC) in a Tom's Hardware article some time ago. Here's an excerpt:

Carmel actually argues that DRM isn't for stopping piracy, but another facet of game sales that publishers are trying to stomp out - the used games market. "Publishers aren't stupid. They know that DRM doesn't work against piracy," he explains. "What they're trying to do is stop people from going to GameStop to buy $50 games for $35, none of which goes into the publishers' pockets. If DRM permits only a few installs, that minimizes the number of times a game can be resold."

So essentially when your done with a game, it will be useless as the store won't buy it back or discount you on the next.

Isn't that more of a console thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that quote from carmel makes no sense. Game stores haven't taken used PC games in years. Trade-ins are a console thing and trust me, that is still alive and kicking.

They do here in Scotland, they'll take practically any format from what Ive seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I would give him the benefit of a doubt on the 'normal customers' / pirates thing, but to announce to do the right thing for DS while taking the lemmings route on PC strikes me as a rather 'unmistakable mistake' that can not be blamed on bad translation.

And I think the 'Prince of Persia DRM-free' story has a different background than they would want us to believe. After Ubisoft's DRM disaster with Rainbow 6: Vegas 2 - which basically wouldn't allow legal customers to play the game at all - the only solution they appeared to be capable of delivering at the time was to steal a [Thing that should not be spoken of here] from a warez scene release group and then 're-label' it as their own 'update patch' for the game.

After this complete and utter DRM shipwreck they needed to do something for positive PR, and there was also some speculation that they dropped PoP's DRM simply for technical reasons, with some sources citing Ubisoft's repeated incompetence to make its own technology work. Whatever reason they had to release PoP without DRM (maybe just to prove it's 'unfeasible'?), apparently they now feel compelled to jump on the DRM bandwagon once again.

Well, if the purpose of releasing PoP without DRM was to improve Ubisofts image, then it was the worst PR campaign in living memory: Ubisoft did not make an official statement, it sorta slipped out by a community manager on the Ubi forums, and Ubisoft declined to comment on the story when gaming media caught onto it.

What kinda saddens me though is that Guillemot seem to suffer from the same notion as most others in the gaming industry: While their last endeavour with DRM didn't work, they somehow think that this new one as been sprinkled with fairy dust and will magically prevent piracy without affecting their legitimate customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue I was trying to point out here is Monsieur Guillemot's rather contradictory policy. While he explains how the addition of attractive extra content and accessories to the retail box of DS titles works great to entice people to purchase rather than pirate the games, he apparently doesn't see a reason to do the same for PC titles.

On that front he prefers to fight piracy not by making the purchase more worthwhile in the first place, but rather by forcing legitimate customers to fumble around with some new and undoubtably cumbersome-as-ever DRM scheme, which - as we all know - won't make any difference whatsoever in preventing piracy.

So unless his brain is completely void of logical thought, Guillemot must have other reasons for repeatedly going through the motions of DRM failure again and again. Whether Ron Carmel's argument makes a valid point or not - one thing is clear: Publishers know that DRM doesn't work against piracy. So the question remains - why do they still use it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So unless his brain is completely void of logical thought, Guillemot must have other reasons for repeatedly going through the motions of DRM failure again and again. Whether Ron Carmel's argument makes a valid point or not - one thing is clear: Publishers know that DRM doesn't work against piracy. So the question remains - why do they still use it?

Guillemot has shares in the company who licenses DRM?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hmmm. What to say and how to say it ?

Do you have ANY idea on how many man hours are used to create a game like Ghost Recon.

Let´s say that 100 people work for 2 years on this game.

Where I come from that would be 37(working hours for 1 week) x 4 (for one month) x 24 (for 2 years) x 100 (number of people working on the game) = 355.200 working hours.

Without knowing it, my guess is the programmers, sound and video artists make like 15-25 € pr. hour they work.

That makes development of this game 355.200 x 20 (average) = 7.104.000€

If you spend that much money on developing ANYTHING, I am sure you would just let hornets people buy your creation, and GIVE A ###### ABOUT THE REST WHO STEAL IT BY COPYING IT !!!

How do you buy a car?

1. I steal one to test if it works ?!?!?.

2. I test run it for ½ a year.

3. If I like it I buy one ( YES, RIGHT!!! I HAVE ONE THAT WORKS, WHY SPEND MONEY ON ANOTHER!!!)

4. If I don´t like it I trash it and steal another one….

STOP STEALING :pirate: and consentrade on things the delelopment team can use in the game here instead..

Maby it will show up in the game :ph34r::rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iceberg,

You're right, but you're also missing the point: Everyone (well, nearly everyone I presume) here at GR.net oppose piracy and support paying for the games you play. And presumably nobody oppose developers and publishers protecting their investment from piracy.

The problem is that piracy prevention (i.e. copy protection schemes and DRM) have proven utterly incapable of stopping, or even reducing, piracy. They have, however, proven quite capable of making the game experience miserable for plently of legitimate, paying customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...