Another reason to boycott Ubisoft DRM

Apparently some of their games will be unplayable for an undisclosed period of time during a server switch. Another win for draconian DRM!!

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6349732.html

"Ubisoft apologized for the downtime, saying, "This move ultimately will help us improve the maintenance of our infrastructure and deliver better uptime and greatly improved services for our customers."" What crap.

One recent game of interest for people here at the watch is Might & Magic: Heroes VI—PC which will be unplayable.

..AHAHAHAHAHAH...if a street is closed for maintenance. I might believe it.
But migration of server and the goddamn system just breaks down without creating alternate ways for product to function?

Liked the conclusion :

It may well be that piracy is not what ails them, and the secret to selling PC games is to make quality PC versions of multi-platform titles. But you don’t hear that from Ubisoft. What you hear is that they have the right to protect the products that they worked so hard to produce.

And they do have that right. But PC gamers work hard for their money, too, and they deserve full-featured games that let them have the best experiences possible on their chosen platform. They deserve a publisher that cares more about its customers than its resentments.

Click to expand...

One day during the last two or three weeks I came to the comclusion that Ubi Soft's "always on" DRM is basically the same as Steam (online mode) or like OnLive.
So, I wondered, why are people bickering so much against Ubi Soft's DRM when Steam and OnLive are basically the same and they are okay with both ?

You can play steamed games off line. You can't with these ubisofted games. Big difference.

OK, I know some have problems with off line steam mode. I don't and I suppose most steam users don't either.

pibbur

There is one very interesting comment in there :

Joe Gamer says:
06:29pm October 11 2011

DRM IS NOT ABOUT PIRACY! Sheesh


http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2007/01/8616.ars


It's about control and planned obsolescence, transitioning from a retail model(you own the product) to a licensing model(you rent the product) is hugely beneficial to the publishers. Piracy is just the scapegoat used to justify their actions.

Click to expand...

I'm currently reading this linked article. I believe that the author is right.

In a nutshell: DRM's sole purpose is to maximize revenues by minimizing your rights and selling them back to you.

Click to expand...

And this is the Grand Scheme behind things like ACTA : To export a Licensing Model (you don't "own" the product, but instead you have merely "licensed" it !) into other countries, so, that the jurisdiction of licensing from the U.S. gets exported and installed as a form of "jurisdictal imperialism".

It would be most effectively increasing the revenues for Hollywood if the U.S. copyright philosophy/thought-models/laws were actually installed ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Because then, in the WHOLE WORLD the U.S. law philosophy would be in effect, that IP can be owned and sold - and of course licensed. And that customers can never "own" any work ( = a product like a CD, or a DVD or software) based on an IP.

and arguments that DRM "keeps honest people honest" are frankly insulting. If they're already honest, they don't need DRM.

Click to expand...

It's not piracy that's the concern, it's their ability to control how you use the content you purchase.

As it turns out, five devices authorized for playback is too many, and the studios apparently believe that this is "just as bad" as piracy.

It's not piracy that's the concern, it's their ability to control how you use the content you purchase.

As it turns out, five devices authorized for playback is too many, and the studios apparently believe that this is "just as bad" as piracy.

Click to expand...

They make decent games, but until they actually treat their customers with more respect, I'd rather not buy anything from them.

Don't get me wrong, I have fond memories of Ubi games like Ghost Recon and the early Splinter Cell games. I can't think of a more recent game that I liked a lot, but I don't think they're a terrible publisher.

But this DRM stuff is crap. It seems like they're extremely certain about the piracy estimates Ubi's spouted--I doubt them--but surely somebody there sees that DRM's not improving their sales. I guess we'll have to see what the next few Ubi games off the line look like.

Oh, Far Cry 2, that was them, right? I had fun with FC2.

Ubi's DRM made me not buy HOMM6 and I am probably not the only one so how is this for their sales?

Oh wait, it's piracy again!

I would love to get on my soapbox and give my opinion but every time I do it brings nothing but scorn and leaves a bad taste on this site. Ah what the hell here I go.

I hate every online drm game model and the dlc trend and if digital only with cloud is the future I'm done. I have had it with publishers and developers lately.

Please don't whitewash the current trends and say you support this garbage just because you want them to make more games. There I kept it civil this time.

I do to a large degree agree with you Couchpotato. While an always online DRM could in theory be integrated with a good service (steam is not quite there, but it is more than just a lousy DRM that causes issues), for the most part it it is nothing but a headache that we should try to do something about (by not supporting companies that use overly intrusive DRMs). Personally I feel stronger about limited activation though, that is something that can make me never buy a game, no matter how good it might seem and how low the price is.

And as for DLC, I'm not disagreeing with you there either. Anyone remember how people used to mock Bethesda for their horse armour? And now that seem to be the norm for any game that can theoretically support such silly DLC. But what I find more worrying is first day DLC, where they have actually diverted important resources that should have gone into bug fixing into some silly first day extra (that sometimes does not properly work because it was not bug tested properly, oh the irony). DLC can absolutely add something to the game, and one should not simply say "all DLC is bad" (I quite liked the extra scenarios for Pride of Nations), but it needs to be handled well.
And one thing that I do find quite worrying about DLC is that it is becoming another form of "buy power" method, much like in many free to play MMOs, with extra weapons, armour & equipment that can give you an edge selling for 2½€ (or more).

Fnord not all dlc is bad I can agree on that. It's just the way its handled before and sometimes after the launch of popular games. Most of the big titles that come out on day 1 make the users beta testers. That is no excuse for lazy Q&A. Yet the majority though not all make excuses and say its fine.

pibbur2012 said:

You can't with these ubisofted games. Big difference.

Click to expand...

Wrong, you can play but you don't have access to all the features (useless...).

OK, didn't know that. I based my comment in this thread on the OP: Apparently some of their games will be unplayable for an undisclosed period of time during a server switch. Another win for draconian DRM!!

pibbur

Skittles said:

Don't get me wrong, I have fond memories of Ubi games like Ghost Recon and the early Splinter Cell games. I can't think of a more recent game that I liked a lot, but I don't think they're a terrible publisher.

Click to expand...

I can't even remember the last time Ubisoft developed a game that I actually liked. I played some of the original Assassin's Creed and thought it was ok, but Far Cry 2 was terrible imo.

Even as a publisher, their game selection has been sub-par in recent years, with HoMM V & VI being the only games that have interested me in the slightest.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

And this is the Grand Scheme behind things like ACTA : To export a Licensing Model (you don't "own" the product, but instead you have merely "licensed" it !) into other countries, so, that the jurisdiction of licensing from the U.S. gets exported and installed as a form of "jurisdictal imperialism".

Click to expand...

This is how Microsoft got rich of businesses. Licensing that is, their virtual goldmine. Sweet mulah, all getting squandered away by uncle Bill.

pibbur2012 said:

OK, didn't know that. I based my comment in this thread on the OP: Apparently some of their games will be unplayable for an undisclosed period of time during a server switch. Another win for draconian DRM!!

pibbur

Click to expand...

It does appear that titles were completely unplayable according to these articles.
http://www.gamefront.com/ubisoft-se...no-2070-assassins-creed-driver-san-francisco/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-08-ubisoft-apologises-after-online-server-switch-snafu