Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Ubi PC Titles To Require Online Authentication


Recommended Posts

people stealing the games actually have a better 'product experience'.

I doubt that very much, they, the criminals, might think they have by their ill gotten games, but actualy they don't. What they and the like do have though, is a rather pathetic profile, they are just low life scum bags, idiots with stupid attitudes, but they might eventualy grow up and become better people with better minds?.

But if they have access to all of the features of the product and don't have to jump through any hoops outside of procuring the product and the crack, I'd say that that's a better product experience. Not a better life, but if we're just comparing their time playing a game vs. a paying customer's time with the same game, clearly a better product experience.

Some may have issues and that might be due to user error or location?. No hoop jumping for me personaly :D, i have zero negative game breaking issues playing conviction , sure, a performance update from the devs or graphics card driver teams, but it's not essential stuff, personaly for me, not one problem on the 360 or pc version, i can play the game as and when i choose to, i have even gone out of my way to try and crash the PC game or make it lock up on purpose, i can't do that lol. I'm happy and content that i have a legal copy/s of scc, i work hard, i'm honest, i don't have to look over my shoulder so to speak if you get my drift?. A legal copy is a better product than a stolen illegal copy of any said video game/software.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 271
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A legal copy is a better product than a stolen illegal copy of any said video game/software.

For that to be a valid statement you need to qualify 'better product'; if you mean morally better to own then to steal I agree; if you mean better as far as function and quality, that quite simply is just not the case for far to many paying Ubisoft Customers.

I don't know how anyone could disagree with the complaint that paying a small fortune for an 'AAA' Clancy title only to find that the DRM makes the game unstable or completely unplayable -- defective; your good fortune with a particular product's DRM doesn't invalidate someone else's bad fortune...

Any objective sense a 'better' with respect to quality begs the question that if the hacked version of the same product the Thief pays nothing for works without issue, and the paying Customer can't get it working even with Ubisoft support (on an NVIDA reference system) -- how is that not better?

Even if we ignore the issue of DRM trashing game stability and playability for some; how is it 'better' if the paying Customer always has to be connected to the internet, suffer the consequences not being able to play his game when traveling, during any sort of outages, or as a consequence of Ubisoft's 'oversights' (away for the weekend); but the Thief that has the 'Warez Edition' of the same game suffers none of this inconvenience, can play anytime, anywhere and has paid nothing for that convenience?

If there weren't so many precedents, if other Publishers weren't more successful then Ubisoft without this restrictive DRM, if this DRM scheme really deterred piracy, and it let Gamers enjoy what they paid for under less restrictive circumstances all would be well and fine -- but from what we've seen so far, clearly none of these are the case...

I acknowledge that Ubisoft has every right to roll any flavor of DRM on their games as pleases them, including a license stipulation that Players must be tattooed with an Ubisoft serial number, make weekly DRM security payments of 50€ a week, and agree to only game in front of a live video camera feed and be recorded...

But I and any other Consumers in the free world also have every right to voice disdain in any venue where that's allowed regarding what Ubisoft is doing, and ultimately not buy their products if they continue their campaign of indifference regarding the matter.

:o

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a paying Customer that has paid full-boat for every Clancy title at release (some purchased for more then one platform) what galls me is the general decline in Clancy 'franchise' game quality since Rogue Spear.

[...]

If this ugly new DRM rolls on the new Clancy game(s) as described it is going to be the last straw for a lot of fed-up Fans; one for sure anyway...

I and many others on this forum can relate. I found a simple solution ... I am no longer buying any Ubi games (on any platform) until they get rid of DRM that requires you to be online for single player.

Same here. :yes: Can't see UBI having a change of heart about not being connected to the net so you can play SP content. :wall: They seem more intent on fighting the pirates instead of spending more money on game content and keeping loyal paying customers happy. :nono:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really looking forward to this game but WILL NOT buy it if it has DRM in any way shape or form. Its an insult to genuine players like myself that like to play this sort of game. I hope you members of Ubisoft are reading these posts that the members here are relaying indirectly to yourselves regarding this unneccessary anti piracy cure you seem to think will work !!!

Every member of GR.net should boycott this forthcoming game if Ubisoft do actually install DRM onto it.

What do you think ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/05/06/sega-details-alpha-protocol-drm

# Uniloc: SoftAnchor requires an internet connection to activate, though you don't need to always be connected to play the game, and the web site offers a work-around if you don't have an internet connection on the PC you install it on.

# The PC version of Alpha Protocol uses an internet based licensing system, where, after installation, the user is required to enter a product registration code (license key) in order to begin playing the game.

# You do not have to have the disc in your drive to play the game.

# The game does not user SteamWorks, and the Steam version of the game will use Uniloc DRM.

# The game can be installed on up to 5 different computers at any one time using the license key the game comes with.

# There is a limit to the number of computers you can use Alpha Protocol on at any one time, but Sega says that the company is not restricting the number of computers you can install the game on over the life of the product.

# Sega will provide a version of the game without DRM using a future patch that it expects to make available 18-24 months after the game's release.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you think ?
It won't work.

First, we are statistically a non-factor -market-wise, and second, alot here will be passing on this forthcoming game...OSP or not.

____

A voodoo doll would have a better chance in affecting change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone. I'm a long-time lurker here. And this will be my first post. English is not my first language, and my idea is about the same as many old guys here. If I make any mistake. I apologize from all my another-Ghost-Recon-fan heart.

In my country not a lot of people cares much about IP (You guess it) so piracy is quite rampant, yeah partly we're to blame. But I doubt this kind of authentication will scare those piraters off, as most of them are not going to buy the game anyway. They will wait until the game is cracked, and then play it. Even the then-notorious StarForce was eventually cracked. Splinter Cell conviction was cracked in a few days. The question is if those who play pirated games are not going to pay anyway, why scare your own customers?

Here pirated games are sold openly in some stores and most people know the places. Also, many houses do not have a reliable internet connection. I'm sure that Ubisoft will only lose more potential customers here. Nag them too much, they will go buy the pirated edition and walk away, without remorse. Don't simply tell us to go fix ourselves, because sometimes people do not really have a choice, and not because we can't afford that.

What I'm afraid most is this might be a milestone for the next-gen anti-piracy measure and also how to squeeze even more money from the customers. If Ubisoft gets more sales, EA and other big companies will surely follow suit. Then what? subscription-based games? I understand that you buy a right to play a game, not the game itself. But, this is surely ugly for the players. I don't want to pay every time I play SP.

Moreover, when I look back at the game shelf, I might want to install some decades-old games and enjoy such as Age of Empires and KKND. Games which are great, and last longer than the companies themselves. If one day Ubisoft goes bankrupt and pull the plug, then server-dependent games will turn into a wall decoration. A way to force people into newer games.

I don't expect Ubisoft to hear my voice, but you guys, in this excellent community, are not alone. There are people like you in the far side of the world.

From a Ghost Recon fan in Asia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A legal copy is a better product than a stolen illegal copy of any said video game/software.

For that to be a valid statement you need to qualify 'better product'; if you mean morally better to own then to steal I agree; if you mean better as far as function and quality, that quite simply is just not the case for far to many paying Ubisoft Customers.

I don't know how anyone could disagree with the complaint that paying a small fortune for an 'AAA' Clancy title only to find that the DRM makes the game unstable or completely unplayable -- defective; your good fortune with a particular product's DRM doesn't invalidate someone else's bad fortune...

Any objective sense a 'better' with respect to quality begs the question that if the hacked version of the same product the Thief pays nothing for works without issue, and the paying Customer can't get it working even with Ubisoft support (on an NVIDA reference system) -- how is that not better?

Even if we ignore the issue of DRM trashing game stability and playability for some; how is it 'better' if the paying Customer always has to be connected to the internet, suffer the consequences not being able to play his game when traveling, during any sort of outages, or as a consequence of Ubisoft's 'oversights' (away for the weekend); but the Thief that has the 'Warez Edition' of the same game suffers none of this inconvenience, can play anytime, anywhere and has paid nothing for that convenience?

If there weren't so many precedents, if other Publishers weren't more successful then Ubisoft without this restrictive DRM, if this DRM scheme really deterred piracy, and it let Gamers enjoy what they paid for under less restrictive circumstances all would be well and fine -- but from what we've seen so far, clearly none of these are the case...

I acknowledge that Ubisoft has every right to roll any flavor of DRM on their games as pleases them, including a license stipulation that Players must be tattooed with an Ubisoft serial number, make weekly DRM security payments of 50€ a week, and agree to only game in front of a live video camera feed and be recorded...

But I and any other Consumers in the free world also have every right to voice disdain in any venue where that's allowed regarding what Ubisoft is doing, and ultimately not buy their products if they continue their campaign of indifference regarding the matter.

:o

I understand 100% about the drm and others grievances with it, i was against it in the first place, especially just to be able to play the single player/solo mode. Ubisoft are one of my favourite gaming companys, they make/develop some of my favourite games, i'm just trying to go along/help a company try to protect their product from unauthorized use, what can i say other than what i'm saying?. Anyway, i guess with or without Ubisofts drm there will be thousands of those (rich and poor) who will, without legal permission gain access to unauthorized use of a said software. By the sounds of things (no solid evidence though, only what we read) that Ubisofts protection is weak, what i would like to see is them and others police the situation better, yes, to continue to make it harder for those that take advantage. Scumbags like skidrow need to be taken down and punished for their crimes.

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

I understand 100% about the drm and others grievances with it, i was against it in the first place, especially just to be able to play the single player/solo mode. Ubisoft are one of my favourite gaming companys, they make/develop some of my favourite games

UBI hasn't in my knowledge made a good game yet aside from prince of persia and Assassin's Creed. All their franchises or games that were good were made by outside companies who were published by Ubisoft, they now cater to making shovelware.

Ghost Recon - Red Storm Entertainment

Rainbow Six - Red Storm Entertainment

both those series when produced in house at UBI have suffered. Raven Shield was about as close as Rainbow Six got to the old Red Storm Entertainment days... and was made by Ubisoft Montreal... after that it was disaster after disaster from Lockdown to Vegas's crap... Ghost Recon was probably saved from a similar fate aside from Ghost Recon 2 being scrapped when UBI contracted out GRIN but still they stuck their fingers into GRIN's business too much and didn't allow enough freedom to deviate from the cruddy script that was GRAW.

Edited by bangurdead
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone. I'm a long-time lurker here. And this will be my first post. English is not my first language, and my idea is about the same as many old guys here. If I make any mistake. I apologize from all my another-Ghost-Recon-fan heart.

Hi Praetorians, glad to see you posting and it's very interesting to hear your perspective as a GR fan living in Asia. I've travelled there and outside of the major cities I don't think you can even find a place to buy legit non-pirated version of games.

I think that you are right that most major publishers don't actually count on making any significant money in Asia, apart from very lucrative subscription-based models like WoW etc.

BTW, your English is excellent!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a well-written article about "finding balance in DRM" and I agree with most of its points and the summary below

http://www.atomicgamer.com/articles/1047/1/2002/finding-a-balance-in-drm

Where's the Middle Ground?

Most people seem to be happy with the DRM that Steam uses, even though it's often actually more restrictive than some of the DRM schemes we've seen people decry and attempt to boycott. Still, Steam is very popular with most hardcore PC gamers, so using their system is almost always fine. And if that doesn't serve as good enough protection, then a basic activation system with limited installs is probably fine as long as the developer also pledges to remove the DRM at some future date.

What's not fine is the online-only system set up by Ubisoft. That's a huge inconvenience for paying customers, many of whom may be playing single-player titles specifically because their internet connection is spotty or unreliable. Not every PC gamer lives in a major city with a dedicated broadband connection through a major provider.

Giving people the choice of disc checks and DRM is nice, too, allowing gamers to leave the disc in the drive on one PC and use DRM on a secondary machine like a laptop. Overall, publishers have a lot of choices here, many of which protect a game pretty well and won't get them boycotted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!

Glad to see Blizzard "gets it" with DRM.

http://www.videogamer.com/news/blizzard_drm_a_losing_battle.html

Ubisoft's new DRM system forces PCs to be connected to the internet in order for games to work - even single-player games.

Earlier this year gamers reacted angrily to the strict DRM used by Ubisoft in the PC version of Assassin's Creed 2 and Silent Hunter 5. Attacks on verification servers made it impossible for some gamers to play their new purchases.

StarCraft II developer Blizzard is taking a different approach.

StarCraft II, due out on July 27, requires a one-off activation and a registered Battle.net account. Once completed, players will be able to get started with the game's single-player campaign in offline mode.

Blizzard hopes the new and improved Battle.net service, which connects players from across Blizzard's stable of games, will be attractive enough to convince would-be pirates to buy the game.

"If we've done our job right and implemented Battle.net in a great way people will want to be connected while they're playing the single player campaign so they can stay connected to their friends on Battle.net and earn the achievements on Battle.net," Frank Pearce, Blizzard co-founder and executive producer on StarCraft II told VideoGamer.com.

"The best approach from our perspective is to make sure that you've got a full-featured platform that people want to play on, where their friends are, where the community is," he added.

"That's a battle that we have a chance in. If you start talking about DRM and different technologies to try to manage it, it's really a losing battle for us, because the community is always so much larger, and the number of people out there that want to try to counteract that technology, whether it's because they want to pirate the game or just because it's a curiosity for them, is much larger than our development teams.

"We need our development teams focused on content and cool features, not anti-piracy technology."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds great until you read the fanbase feedback.

They used piracy to justify this move that has angered the fanbase...

Last year it emerged that StarCraft II will lack LAN support, a move that angered some veteran fans of the series.
Link to post
Share on other sites

At last, someone does like Ubi's DRM system!

It's better to do something than nothing at all, says VP

Ubisoft's controversial DRM system is "a good strategy" - but only because there is not better alternative, says Namco Bandai Partners VP, Olivier Comte.

Speaking to CVG in Barcelona this month, the Namco man argued that until something better is invented, the Ubisoft system - which requires a constant internet connection - is what the industry has to run with.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=248555

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

The only people in business that support DRM are also benefiting financially or infrastructure wise, all in bed together you might say.

Anyone in there right mind knows its not good, so those "spokes persons" you see have invested interests to say so. Why else would someone be all for it when its so blatantly clear its not a good thing at all and most know it.

All these people are $ orientated so simply follow where that can be made, Id say more in the console market, so undermine the PC market with this, and cause boycotting/hassle/complaints/loss of earning and you have your self a nice get out clause to shift to console only. Then again, if people buy into it and give in and they make money with DRM you than have a perfect way for database's / advertisers/data-mining to work its magic (making other companies more money for the data/sharing of such data) while people are wired online just to play games in any mode or run it anyway (which has been linked to their purchase information / serial / DRM ping / IP and so on).

Then again if you switch to console only, this becomes even easier online .. so its a win-win :0 either way I cannot possibly think of any other benefits in reality because apart from that its not good and people know it, and people still hack and its only really "anti" PC platform.

The other thread states that it works (DRM) because its a delay mechanism to reap the money back before hacking commences, so if its not about anything I stated above it would certainly mean they view PC market as a short term money grab only and nothing more, not an investment long term so its still "anti PC platform" in that sense.

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

I've probably said this before, but I'm on the fence about this one. Having to connect to the internet doesn't really bother me, because I've been playing EverQuest II for years. I'm used to having to log in to the internet to play, even if I'm playing alone. That said, I can see how this is irksome for a lot of people. Hopefully, the reality of the situation won't be as bad as it's seeming to a lot of people right now. I say this not to support Ubisoft; but because I hope that by diminishing piracy, more great games will come back to the PC.

The situation probably wouldn't be received as badly as it is right now, if it were a company other than Ubi, in my honest opinion. They've shown themselves to be a senseless troglodyte of a company repeatedly, so that even if they do have a good idea (and I'm not saying that this form of DRMis good) a lot of people won't receive it as such, simply because it's coming from Ubi.

Edited by Parabellum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news on Ubi starting to patch out the DRM on any of the games (like Settlers 7 and Assassins Creed 2)?

I have not heard anything about this myself yet, but, if they patch it out of one game they will have to do this for all their games that use the drm. I have only read a ubisoft spokesperson mention ...if they decide to do away with the drm at any stage then they would patch a game so you can play offline. But that could be 6 months to 6 years or possibly longer?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me, I recently purchased Mount & Blade Warband (awesome oldschool indie PC game; can't recommend it enough). I bought the boxed version, and it turns out you need to log into Steam to activate the game*. I really, really don't like having to log on to anything online to play a single player game so I as less than thrilled. However, it turns out that once you've activated the game via Steam, you can get around this by simply starting the game via the .exe in the game folder. I.e. create a shortcut of said .exe. Works like a charm.

Now, I'm no expert and I have no idea if this activation-via-Steam is an effective copy protection system. But if it is, it seems like the perfect compromise: Yes, you do have to go online to activate the game. But after that you can play single player to your hearts desire, without ever going online again.

*= It said so on the back of the box, I just didn't pay attention.

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...