Ubisoft Unveils New PC DRM Requiring Online Connection To Play (Updated)
-
thejay247
replyWhy waste time and resources on this when they can just use steamworks. Boggles the mind.
-
This is different. They are not allowing offline play.
-
-
Steamworks is free.
Developing your own server and DRM system is not.
-
-
-
Steams DRM is weak. If it was decent you wouldn't see companies adding drm on top of it.
-
No DRM works, every game ends up on Torrents within a week before or after the game is released. So why use DRM the PC community as a whole doesn't like when you can use Steam. DRM that is good enough and doesn't bother the majority of PC gamers.
-
With steam, you don't even need torrents, just hijack an account, suck all the games down on the publishers dime, run something that I'm not listing here, and now you have a bunch of games that you never have to log onto steam again to get. Like I wrote before, there is a reason publishers are insisting on DRM on top of steam. I'm sure valve is addressing this in their many patches but I wouldn't be surprised to see offline mode go away someday on steam.
-
This could be effectively combated if valve implemented a verification system each time a user logs into steam from a new location for the first time. Login from new location? Verify the user is legit by sending an email validating the new login location.
This way, if sniffers or fishers get ahold of someone's account name and password, they still can't download games unless they know the email address and password tied to the email address.-
-
-
Let me rephrase that, PEOPLE WILL STOP BUYING STEAM GAMES as a way of complaining. Not saying I will, just trying to make you realize that you are in a circle arguement that auto escalates. The more you try to tie down the product, the more people will pirate it. Then companies try to tie it down more, back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, etc etc etc, yada yada yda. blah blah blah
The short of it is, you can do a lot of things. The only proven effective way to reclaim sales from piracy is to make paying customers jump through less hoops, which is why steam works so well. Not the greatest protection against piracy, but its transparent enough to not cause a backlash among the userbase.-
It's not really much of a hoop to jump through if there is a 1 time email verification whenever a steam user signs on to steam from a unique pc for the first time. Extreme case: you've got a laptop, two home computers, and two buddies you game with at their house. Verify once on each computer and then have complete access to your steam account from those PC's.
It's hardly an issue at all since most people only have 1 or 2 PC's to game with, and this will significantly cut down on the amount of steam hijacks - which are probably a large majority of steam piracy.
-
-
-
-
-
But you are missing the point. That extra DRM always gets cracked anyway, so while you say its less work with steam, I highly doubt the amount of work to crack the game is a huge detterant. You either want to pirate it or not.
But when you use draconian DRM on top of steam, a lot of potenial buyers just don't get it. I have not and never will buy a securom game. I don't give 2 shits, 4 shits, or even a flying fuck if they change into a decent company or not, they pulled some unforgivable shit. I know I'm not the only one either.
So the real question is, what is causing more "lost sales", people avoiding DRM or piracy? Not everyone who pirates the game would have bought the game otherwise, so thats why "lost sales" is in quotes. I imagine at least half of the piracy that goes on is simply because something is available, a notion none of the game companies want to realize, much like the RIAA doesn't want to admit that people download a lot more shit than they would actually buy. How many times have you downloaded a song and listened to it only once or twice? -
im sure valve can disable offline mode for certain games
-
-
-
PUBLISHERS ARE RETARDED.
*thats* why you see more DRM on top of steam. steam's protection could be utterly iron clad (and perhaps it is, i dont know) and youd STILL see additional layers of DRM on some games. why? ill say it again for emphasis:
PUBLISHERS ARE RETARDED.-
[deleted]
-
hmm... thats all possible... but i still think "retarded" accounts for most of it.
-
There are people around here who will try to tell you that a company has some inherent capacity for rational behavior. These people have claimed that a company will not continue behavior that loses money.
I can only conclude that these people have never actually worked for a company. A company is a collection of individuals, who are each capable of some catastrophically stupid, irrational behaviors. Combining all of these people can, in many cases, only serve to compound the stupid.
So: yes, a company (a committee, an executive, whatever) can continue a money-losing behavior, if they have been convinced that it's working. Accountants and researchers may all conclude that the behavior is cutting into profits, but that is not always taken into consideration.
-
-
-
If by weak you mean ‘least intrusive to real customers’, then yes Steam is real weak. ;)
But if you were trying to imply Steam DRM is weak at preventing piracy you are way off the mark. Any pirated game you download has the DRM cracked, therefore DRM free. So you can talk all day about DRM effectiveness but it only really has any meaning when we discuss how it affects paying customers. Because in the end DRM only affects paying customers. And Steam’s more reasonable conditions catch less flack from paying customers.
-
I agree that steam isn't intrusive to customers. However pirating games off steam (as in downloading them from steam servers and thus costing valve and publishers real money unlike torents) is trival.
-
i recall modern warfare2 wasnt even pirated until the steam date, thats one step better than most drm's
-
-
-
I always assumed that putting Securom on top of Steam was intended to deny DRM hackers a clean copy. Otherwise, the hacker would get 1 copy with Securom and 1 without. This would make it much easier to identify the DRM sections of code.
-
In other words, it's there as protection for the retail Securom version.
-
-
-
-
The real question is, why are they wasting time with the PC at all? Ubi is already one of the worst publishers with regards to after market support on the PC; they put out passable console ports with no support and bitch about poor sales continuously.
It seems reasonable that after this DRM stupidity fails they are just going to make an excuse to go to console only - which is probably what they really want to do anyways
So I say there is no need to beat around the bush about it, and certainly no need to rip off / piss off a lot of unnecessary people in the process - just ship good console games and leave the PC platform to the devs / people that actually care about supporting it.
-
