Ubi PC Titles To Require Online Authentication

[firefly2442]

Sounds like they need to take a lesson from Stardock:

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/08/29/sta...bill-rights-pax

[NYR_32]

That's a dumb idea. So when they decide to kill the server that authenticates a specific game you have a coaster. Nice.

[Rocky]

That's a dumb idea. So when they decide to kill the server that authenticates a specific game you have a coaster. Nice.

They say, that when it comes to that, the game will be patched.

[Sgt. Atoa]

That's a dumb idea. So when they decide to kill the server that authenticates a specific game you have a coaster. Nice.

They say, that when it comes to that, the game will be patched.

Come on Rocky you should know better

[CR6]

That's a dumb idea. So when they decide to kill the server that authenticates a specific game you have a coaster. Nice.

They say, that when it comes to that, the game will be patched.

I wonder if that means when Ubi's online support for a game is over, said game will be patched so that the game needs no authentication at all and potentially become "free" for everyone??

I think that Ubi is halfway trying to follow the WoW model - Blizzard's system actually works in reducing piracy for WoW because you have to be online to play (the main difference is you need to pay to keep playing). This system has worked so well that Blizzard is planning to do this with Starcraft 2 and it's causing a bit of an uproar as gamers will essentially be unable to play Starcraft 2 MP directly over a LAN because they will have to play through Battle.net. I'm not sure Blizzard is requiring you to be online to play the SP campaign though ...

I wonder if people would be more willing to accept online authentication to play single player if you had to keep paying to continue playing. I think people are too used to the idea that if you buy a hard copy of the CD, you own the game and shouldn't have to continuously authenticate the game. Even Windows doesn't ask you to do that (unless you are patching the OS)

I like the Stardock Gamer's Bill of Rights, but the article is from 2008 so it seems the ideas are yet to gain traction amongst the large corporate game publishers

•Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund.

•Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.

•Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.

•Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.

•Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer.

•Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.

•Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.

•Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.

•Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.

•Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

With regards to the last point, I don't mind having the CD in my system at all times since I usually have 2 optical drives in each of my gaming systems just for this reason. What bugs me is if the game installs some hidden drivers (like the Starforce debacle) to authenticate the disc.

[Serellan]

Console piracy doesn't really impact the market of home console owners in a meaningful way. Most of the people who go out and buy xbox360s don't know how to modify them. The people who do aren't the people microsoft is trying to sell the console to, or the people ubisoft is trying to sell games to. Piracy eats up a huge % of the market share that companies are banking on buying their PC games, whereas it has a nearly meaningless impact on the people that companies are expecting to buy their console games.

This is true in most major markets, but not in others. Devs write of whole regions for certain consoles and handhelds because of the pervasiveness of piracy. Same regions already written off for PC piracy as well, but some places, like the Phillipenes, are almost impossible to sell any software.

[Gunsmith]

Have Ubi put any thought into how this will affect consumers in remote or rural areas where internet speeds and connections are less than perfect, or even consistent.

There are people out in the sticks who dont even have broadband.

this will potentially harm the games sales, if they know its not going to work then, they (the consumers) wont buy it.

[Low Profile]

Have Ubi put any thought into how this will affect consumers in remote or rural areas where internet speeds and connections are less than perfect, or even consistent.

There are people out in the sticks who dont even have broadband.

this will potentially harm the games sales, if they know its not going to work then, they (the consumers) wont buy it.

I live in a rural area myself. Share my driveway (dirt road) with an amish farm. Am right on the fringe of most cell carriers coverage area for mobile broadband. Have no other options available to me. That being said, the mobile broadband card works great, but disconnects on its own way too often. This is not going to make for a pleasant gaming experience if I am required to maintain an active Internet connection. Edited January 29, 2010 by Low Profile

[CR6]

Hey LP, great to see you around these parts again!

I didn't read Ubi's FAQ too closely, but I'm wondering if the authentication will just take place when booting up the game? Or is it like every 15 minutes after you start playing and you get booted out of your gaming session if your internet goes down?

With MP, authentication won't be an issue since I assume we would be forced to play through Ubi.com. However, with SP - if the authentication just happens at startup then it won't be too intrusive.

[Rocky]

Hey LP, great to see you around these parts again!

Ditto! Great to see you again LP. Top bloke.

I didn't read Ubi's FAQ too closely, but I'm wondering if the authentication will just take place when booting up the game?

It says you need a connection for the duration of the entire game session.

[Low Profile]

Hey gents... wuz up! Great to be back. Still amazed that I was able to remember what my forum password was. It's been that long. Guess I best update the email address in my profile while I'm at it as well! So I hope all is well. It's great to see so many familiar forum members still actively participating. I miss the days of the "Original" Ghost Recon and am hoping that just a little bit of that magic can be reintroduced with this latest title.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Low Profile

[Rocky]

I still think about your maps and how detailed you got into them, even fixing up the errors in the stock dev team maps! You were unsurpassed!

[Tinker]

That's a dumb idea. So when they decide to kill the server that authenticates a specific game you have a coaster. Nice.

They say, that when it comes to that, the game will be patched.

This is questionable. Patched for SP. Or patched full. If full, does this indicate dedicated servers / join by IP, will be available?

[Sart]

I bought Dead Space and could not play it because I didn't have an internet connection for about a month after moving. Which was great because that very morning I woke up and told myself I felt $60 too heavy.

[Rocky]

Yeh it does seem to me that Ubi are making an awful big assumption about the percentage of the potential consumer base that it internet connected.

Can't you just imagine all the "I can't get this to run" returns at Game?

[Rocky]

That's a dumb idea. So when they decide to kill the server that authenticates a specific game you have a coaster. Nice.

They say, that when it comes to that, the game will be patched.

Come on Rocky you should know better

I'm just letting you know what Ubi are saying, not endorsing (or even believing) it!

If you google around and read a few discussion forums on this new idea from Ubi, the feedback is overwhelmingly negative, and littered with "I'll never buy another Ubi game again" type comments. And this is a tiny percentage of the REAL feedback, the scale of which will only become apparent when the game is launched and all the thousands of gamers who don't read online forums find out what the heck they just bought in to.

[[NH]4x]

I've been reading the feedback about this in various forums (UBI SHV is up to 10 pages),and as Rocky has stated ,most of it is NEGATIVE. It seems the main emphasis is people not wanting to HAVE to connect to play SP mode of games,which is a valid concern and one that I agree with. I've only seen WK mention UBI's track record of server stability..... Their forums are riff with complaints of "server down" threads.

I've stated my position in this thread,I won't buy/play any UBI game that requires a connection, already.

I just wanted to secound WKs concern ,comments about UBI servers..............not something I'd depend on,nor put up with one sec.

Backs out of thread wondering," why so many have a problem with having to have disc in drive to play a game".........I'd rather endure that ,than any of the alteratives,ie..what's being discussed here.

[NoQuarter]

This is questionable. Patched for SP. Or patched full. If full, does this indicate dedicated servers / join by IP, will be available?

Given the proprietary direction Ubi is taking with this Online Services Platform and the UPlay program, DS would probably be considered a redundant function and if it isn't already embedded in the program I would not count on it.

And then there is the big question of just how or if mods would be supported by Big Brother.

They say, that when it comes to that, the game will be patched.

To be kind -as well as point out the obvious- Ubisofts' track record on follow up/through is questionable.

Does anyone else remember that statement out of Ubi after the release of :AW2 v1.05 where they claimed that they were assigning a 30 day window in which to gauge consumer reaction to the latest iteration before deciding on how much more support they would provide for the game...and then quietly just packed up shop and dropped it without a word to those hanging on?

[Sup]

This is true in most major markets, but not in others. Devs write of whole regions for certain consoles and handhelds because of the pervasiveness of piracy. Same regions already written off for PC piracy as well, but some places, like the Phillipenes, are almost impossible to sell any software.

Thanks for the insight, i hadn't really considered that.

[WhiteKnight77]

I can't say for sure, but Ubi supposedly patched the DRM out of FarCry2 but as I do not play it, I can't say for sure. I will say that SHIII via Steam is DRM free outside of Steam itself and both iL2 1946 and SHIV Gold Edition are DRM free so Ubi may patch out DRM at some point, but not for all titles.

Ubi is a mixed bag of signals if you look at them. They fail at Business 101 in that they do not keep the customers they already have. They do things that boggle the mind with keeping a tight lid on promoting their product until late in the development cycle and using DRM schemes that punish the paying customer while not hindering pirates whatsoever.

Now they will do unexpected things like giving source code to modders to fix games that they do not want to mess with anymore (SHII and DC come to mind) and recently they apparently gave the OK for modders to use Oleg Maddox's source code for the iL2 series to patch it and add more maps and such (with Oleg even supplying some planes or something too) and there is even a second unofficial patch in the works.

They also apparently will use a pirates NoCD crack as a way to "fix" something even though they do all they can to slow it down. Ubi is a mass of total confusion if you are trying to follow their game plan and are trying to make sense of their business practices. The question is, what business practices?

[WhiteKnight77]

Check out the article on The Enquirer about Ubisoft touts games DRM

GAMES PUBLISHER Ubisoft announced yesterday a new digital restrictions management (DRM) weapon in its attempt to counter increased games 'piracy'.

I think the word I emboldened sums it up quite well.

Statically, if 90% of the online response is negative, sampling a larger group will give you the same results. I think that the amount of negative comments about this new service is close to 98%.

[Tinker]

We think most people are going to be fine with it...

Same old deal...

[Sgt. Atoa]

The sad part is that lot's of those people saying the usual "I ain't going to get the game" are going to buy the game anyway, recent example is COD MW2..IW forums where on chaos when they dropped the bomb about dedicated servers but alot of those gamers got the game anyway and then came back to the forums regreting their purchase

because of the lag that IWNET provides

[101459]

I may be mistaken, but Ubi certainly gives the appearance of a company where one hand isn't talking to the other, that has coasted on some very lucky IP aquisitions; their website and forums are always a mess of broken links and poorly integrated changes, their product marketing for the recent Clancy games has been very misleading, their PR initiatives bizarre, they hemorrhage good money after bad, and ignore successes.

Ghost Recon sold an astounding number of copies; and while those may have been 'slow burn' sales over a long period of time that may not compare to blockbuster fast sell-through titles, these were sales that came at little/no marketing cost compared to the current approach; making Ghost Recon a success story that any company that would want a safe source of steady income would not or could not ignore -- but Ubisoft has, repeatedly.

While Ghost Recon (PC) was heavily pirated, it still sold enormously well because people loved it so much they wanted to 'own' the game, have the box, have the manual, and have the self-respect that comes with ownership of something well made that they value...

To a considerable extent large Publisher/Developers invite piracy by appealing to the lowest denominator: by rewarding Pirates, punishing paying Customers, making shoddy questionable 'product' that are over-marketed and under developed, and in the case of Ubisoft virtually ignoring the legacy and meaning of the concept they use/abuse so much i.e. 'Franchise'...

No one, even clumsy or unconscionable companies deserve to have their hard work stolen, but, there are more ethically sound and proven means to beating piracy then making ridiculous 'product' out of games, making it so 'secure' it's un-playable for those paying for it.

Boo Ubisoft

Edited January 31, 2010 by 101459

[Parabellum]

At first read, this sounds a little bit like the way that MMO's store user account and save-game information. EverQuest II, for example, allows you to install the client on as many computers as you want. You simply sign in with your information when you want to play. All savegame information is saved on their servers. Whether or not this is a good thing for PC gaming in general remains to be seen, but just about anything is better than StarForce.