• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Always-on internet DRM: will you be boycotting Ubisoft?

Always-on internet DRM: will you be boycotting Ubisoft?


  • Total voters
    101
yes. people willing give away their freedoms everyday through increased debt, inflation of currency and direct taxation yet fight DRM as if it will put them in chains. They have it backwards.

I don't. But I have much less control over that than I do what games I purchase. All I can do about the govt is vote and voice my opinion. If it doesn't work, I'm still stuck with it. With the game, I don't buy it, and am therefore not stuck with it. Horribly stupid comparison, taken completely out of context of personal abilities.
 
I don't. But I have much less control over that than I do what games I purchase. All I can do about the govt is vote and voice my opinion. If it doesn't work, I'm still stuck with it. With the game, I don't buy it, and am therefore not stuck with it. Horribly stupid comparison, taken completely out of context of personal abilities.

it's not horribly stupid. not buying a game doesn't mean you are not not stuck with it. it means you are stuck NOT with it.
 
it's not horribly stupid. not buying a game doesn't mean you are not not stuck with it. it means you are stuck NOT with it.

And, and by extension, not stuck with the problems associated with it. I'm stuck with govt problems one way or the other, short of moving away. But moving away costs money, not buying a game does not.

So yeah, completely off base, and does not take into account what we are actually able to accomplish in our govt as an individual vs the fact I have control over whether or not I buy something.

It was a nice attempt to demonize those that don't want this stuff in their games tho.
 
There will be a crack available for it that disables the always online DRM, i'm sure.
-1 for people who own a real copy, +1 for the pirates
 
Well it always was this way, even for StarForce or Tages which were one of the toughest protections. They were cracked with some delay but they got cracked anyway.
What's the point of annoying legit buyers with all this nonsense if nothing ever changes? Except that we who buy the games have to deal with this crap that's just limiting us on every corner where pirates don't care at all. They can installt he thing on an offline system, copy the crack and play. You can't even do that these days with legit version as you have to activate all of them. How stupid is that. That's why GOG is #1. Too bad they only sell old games. But still, they are DRM free. Pirates will still share it, but at the same time those of us who actually bought it aren't annyed by anything at all. So nothing changed for pirates (they always get the game regardless of protection used), yet buyers aren't annoyed by anything as well. A win-win for buyers. Big fat companies like EA and Ubisoft should follow this as an example.
 
And, and by extension, not stuck with the problems associated with it. I'm stuck with govt problems one way or the other, short of moving away. But moving away costs money, not buying a game does not.

So yeah, completely off base, and does not take into account what we are actually able to accomplish in our govt as an individual vs the fact I have control over whether or not I buy something.

It was a nice attempt to demonize those that don't want this stuff in their games tho.

i'm not demonizing anyone. just pointing out the obvious. people care more about DRM then they do about losing their freedoms. if they spend this much time educating themselves about corrupt government as they do about how for profit businesses try and protect their property then we would be in much better shape as a society. video games are entertainment and as such are a distraction. it's best we put our priorities in order. congratulations, you didn't buy a video game. you are lucky you have video games left to play.
 
DRM never stops pirates, but it does serve to reduce the amount of piracy. Until that changes companies will continue to use DRM. The reason behind the reduced piracy is a whole other issue, it could be that it leads to increased sales or it could be that people would have been more likely to pirate the DRM free version. I haven't seen much evidence that DRM leads to increased sales, although i am not saying that isn't the case.

If you dislike one kind of DRM, or if it screws up your player experience, then the best way to show the company would be to pirate the game, surely?
Then they might go "Huh? this old system of DRM we only had a 40% piracy rate, but ever since we changed now 80% of folks are pirating"

Companies won't link lack of sales to the DRM functions on a game - they are more likely to blame the designers. However, companies directly compare the different kinds of DRM to piracy levels. If the DRM they are using leads to increased piracy, you can bet your ass that they will drop it.

My .2c anyway.

i'm not demonizing anyone. just pointing out the obvious. people care more about DRM then they do about losing their freedoms. if they spend this much time educating themselves about corrupt government as they do about how for profit businesses try and protect their property then we would be in much better shape as a society. video games are entertainment and as such are a distraction. it's best we put our priorities in order. congratulations, you didn't buy a video game. you are lucky you have video games left to play.

you are talking about a whole different topic. How do you know that the same people who cry out against DRM aren't the same people who cry out about having their freedoms taken away? Start a political thread about taking away peoples freedoms and ask for opinions and then you can comment about peoples political convictions.
 
DRM never stops pirates, but it does serve to reduce the amount of piracy.

It may have caused a reduction, but it is essentially significant. I already hinted it before, piracy during the Windows 98 and Playstation era is just as easy as piracy today, so why would there be a significant reduction on piracy?
 
DRM never stops pirates, but it does serve to reduce the amount of piracy. Until that changes companies will continue to use DRM. The reason behind the reduced piracy is a whole other issue, it could be that it leads to increased sales or it could be that people would have been more likely to pirate the DRM free version. I haven't seen much evidence that DRM leads to increased sales, although i am not saying that isn't the case.

If you dislike one kind of DRM, or if it screws up your player experience, then the best way to show the company would be to pirate the game, surely?
Then they might go "Huh? this old system of DRM we only had a 40% piracy rate, but ever since we changed now 80% of folks are pirating"

Companies won't link lack of sales to the DRM functions on a game - they are more likely to blame the designers. However, companies directly compare the different kinds of DRM to piracy levels. If the DRM they are using leads to increased piracy, you can bet your ass that they will drop it.

My .2c anyway.



you are talking about a whole different topic. How do you know that the same people who cry out against DRM aren't the same people who cry out about having their freedoms taken away?

i'm not saying their not.

Start a political thread about taking away peoples freedoms and ask for opinions and then you can comment about peoples political convictions.

obviously a tech forum will discuss relevant tech policies that businesses have. however, i am going on years of tech forum and industry experience. if i could see HALF the energy in political education that i see everyday about DRM then we would be in much better shape. it is simply an opinion of mine i feel like sharing. it isn't targeting anyone or any one group. i must have hit a nerve though.
 
i'm not saying their not.

If you look around other (non tech) forums, i'm sure you would see more ferocious arguments on the that scene and arguably more people who care about that than they do tech. If you live in the states, i can understand your general frustration with the local populous having being brainwashed by (the powers that be via) various media outlets (living in the US always seems like a parody of the movie "We Live" to me). Notevery one in the US are like that, but a lot that are, leave. The rest just end up :banghead: and in the end give up trying to educate the ignorant.

Living where i do, i have a unique perspective on the way things are going and what is happening with the power system in the US (and to a lesser extent the rest of the West). It won't be long until the situation over there is similar to over here.

But as you said, it is a tech forum to discuss tech policies and so i don't think it's the appropriate place to be discussing peoples (lack of) political beliefs or even making a comparison between the two which is where it hit a nerve.

It may have caused a reduction, but it is essentially significant. I already hinted it before, piracy during the Windows 98 and Playstation era is just as easy as piracy today, so why would there be a significant reduction on piracy?

So you are saying that more sophisticated DRM doesn't lead to a significant decrease in piracy, but DRM in general does? If that's the case, i agree completely. My thoughts are that if the DRM implemented were to actually cause an increase in piracy rate, then they would roll back to the older DRM system. I will probably download and install them even though i have no interest in playing them.
 
Last edited:
Buy the game and apply the cracks.. legal and no drm.. the end

Of the 60 that said yes, I give it 5 that actually will boycott, and the other 55 will grow up and deal with it.

That's ridiculous Shib. :shadedshu Wile E has explained it excellently in his reply to you:

How is accepting an unreasonable DRM scheme considered growing up? And we are dealing with it, by not buying the games that implement this. Refusing to buy a product that does not meet your criteria is not in any way being immature. It, like I mentioned earlier, is simply speaking with your wallet. A very mature approach to take vs the actual immature options such as piracy or slander. Buying it anyway and cracking it does not tell them we don't want to pay the dev costs for these DRM schemes. The schemes will just get worse and worse if we allow them.

And I can assure you, I have not bought a single title that requires this, and never will. My internet, while fast, goes out too often. And when it does, I rely on gaming to pass the time. This DRM prevents me from doing that. It would be stupid for me to buy it.

And my previous post to yours, really explains it well, too:

Yup, it needs to hit their sales - period. They won't listen to anything else. Only their games with this stupid DRM should be boycotted, as I clarified earlier. Other companies will see what's happening to Ubisoft and it will discourage them from trying the same crappy tactics.

Voting with your wallet is the grown up thing to do. Taking it in the ass from Ubisoft is just being a pussy.



@Easy: whether DRM is discussed more than politics or not is irrelevant and discussing politics is against forum rules anyway.

What Ubisoft are doing is well out of order and they need to be stopped. Therefore, discussions like this are very pertinent and hopefully they'll spread around the internet and significant numbers of people will boycott games with this DRM.

I can only think that you've conflated the two because you voted No in the poll.
 
Buy the game and apply the cracks.. legal and no drm.. the end

Of the 60 that said yes, I give it 5 that actually will boycott, and the other 55 will grow up and deal with it.

I genuinely refuse to buy any activision games nor pirate them.
 
I'm certainly not purchasing any games with such ridiculous and draconian restrictions. I don't expect my android apps to refuse to open when no data connection is available to acquire in-app adds. Nor do I expect to have to continually fulfill endless conditions to use a software product I've paid good money for.

This company has one of, if not the best portfolio of games there is, yet it's just made it impossible for many people to continue purchasing them. It's such a shame; I was really looking forward to some of these titles too.
 
people care more about DRM then they do about losing their freedoms.

Wow. I really didn't expect that from you Easy. Maybe some people do care more, but it's not a good idea to put us all in a box like that. Maybe if you were in Tottenham last night you'd think different :laugh: (riots)

This is just turning into a silly stalemate. Unsubbed.
 
Wow. I really didn't expect that from you Easy. Maybe some people do care more, but it's not a good idea to put us all in a box like that. Maybe if you were in Tottenham last night you'd think different :laugh: (riots)

This is just turning into a silly stalemate. Unsubbed.

i was using the word 'people' generally. i dont care what you do with DRM games. i just find it interesting how much of a firestorm is causes considering all the other things happening around us.
 
I genuinely refuse to buy any activision games nor pirate them.

I don't buy them as they are all freakin way too expensive. On average, every Activision game is like 10 EUR more than any other in my case.
 
like krej, looks at ubisoft titles, riven the sequel to myst....nothing else.

so i voted yes but I guess you couldn't call it a boycott. I just don't seem to like the titles ubisoft makes so this just adds to that.

and I will boycott anything that annoys me. I have precious little time for gaming and I won't squander it dealing with drm, or anything else that cuts into gaming time (like poor support, poor beta testing, and etc.)
 
Always on DRM removed...

Well, it looks like this ridiculous DRM has been hitting Ubisoft's bottom line after all. Look at this:

Ubisoft Removes 'Always On' DRM From New Driver Game; Replaces It With Something Slightly Less Annoying

from the if-you-really-want-to-stick-it-to-the-pirates,-just-stop-making-games dept

As I'm sure many of you tuned into the gamosystem (Now officially a word! Use it for your next startup!) are aware, Ubisoft has a long tradition of irritating the hell out of the very people it wishes to have purchase its games. A short while ago, Ubisoft announced the latest Driver sequel would require players to be handcuffed to a solid internet connection in order to fully utilize its "Always On" DRM.

Of course, an uproar took place and Ubisoft is now attempting to calm its potential customers, as Rock Paper Shotgun reports, by walking back its "always on" DRM, as evidenced by this official statement:

We've heard your feedback regarding the permanent internet connection requirement for Driver and have made the decision to no longer include it. So this means that Driver PC gamers will only need to sign in at game launch but can subsequently choose to play the game offline.

"And this improves things how?" RPS' John Walker asks:

[W]hat Driver's DRM has been reduced to is almost pointlessly different. Before if your internet connection went down while you played, the game would stop, and it wasn't possible to play anywhere without an internet connection at all. Now, er, if your internet connection is down you still can't play, and you still can't play anywhere without an internet connection.

While this concession makes it slightly less annoying to play Ubisoft's game, the fact remains that this minor compromise doesn't alter the general "treat everyone like thieves" principle behind it. If you really want to prevent piracy, rather than please your customers, why not just take your protective measures to the logical conclusion?

Always On is by far and away the most egregiously stupid and unfair DRM to have ever been included with a game... It's something Ubisoft have boasted, without providing any proof whatsoever, has reduced piracy. While the claim without proof is meaningless, it also ignores the rather larger issue that so would locking the only copy of the game in a concrete block buried beneath the sea reduce piracy. It would also make it even more inconvenient for a paying customer.

Ubisoft may be slowly learning that the public isn't going to put up with Always On, but it seems deaf to the facts that its DRM does nothing to slow down piracy and everything to annoy its customers. Walker closes with this plea, which could be directed at any purveyor of DRM-laced goods:

But Ubisoft - if you're genuinely listening to the reaction against your DRM, then please actually hear what's being said. With DRM that requires an internet connection to launch, every time, you are once again mindlessly and needlessly punishing your legitimate customers in a way that will not affect those with pirated copies. You will, once again, be selling a product with a serious and significant defect, that those who download it for free will not be encountering. There's no logic or rationale that makes that okay. By requiring an internet connection for launch, on every launch, you punish anyone whose internet isn't working, who wants to play away from home (on a train, on a plane, on a holiday in Cornwall, at their grandparents' house, in their barracks...), or who cannot afford a broadband internet connection. It is cruel. It is stupid. It doesn't work on any level. If you are listening, really listening, then stop this. Stop treating customers like criminals, and start showing respect to those who pay you significant amounts of money for your products.

Once again, if your product can't outperform the pirated version, your battle against piracy will always be uphill.
So, will their current titles also have their DRM modified to remove the always on requirement?


Techdirt


Note that Techdirt has no copyright restrictions on reposting/copying their articles wholesale like this. They don't actually use copyright in fact, if you check out their website and they encourage their work to be spread far and wide by everyone.
 
Once again, if your product can't outperform the pirated version, your battle against piracy will always be uphill.

Yup. I think the first one I saw that actually made a difference, was the Arkham Asylum, that had intentional glitches in the code. I'm not sure I approve of writing code that could potentially backfire, and affect legitimate users, but it's hella better than that crap Ubi's putting out.
 
Yup. I think the first one I saw that actually made a difference, was the Arkham Asylum, that had intentional glitches in the code. I'm not sure I approve of writing code that could potentially backfire, and affect legitimate users, but it's hella better than that crap Ubi's putting out.

Thing is, with intentionally glitched code used for "anti-piracy", every time something doesn't quite work - and software tends to have a lot of glitches anyway - you're gonna wonder if it's this kicking in and feel pissed off at being treated like a criminal.

No, I don't approve of it either.
 
Well, it looks like this ridiculous DRM has been hitting Ubisoft's bottom line after all. Look at this:


So, will their current titles also have their DRM modified to remove the always on requirement?


Techdirt


Note that Techdirt has no copyright restrictions on reposting/copying their articles wholesale like this. They don't actually use copyright in fact, if you check out their website and they encourage their work to be spread far and wide by everyone.

If they do Ill buy that new spliter cell game.
 
If they do Ill buy that new spliter cell game.

Yeah, nothing like a bit of positive reinforcement to encourage them to do the right thing. :)
 
this sounds more like steam now - sign in, and drop outs wont fuck your offline game.

cant always sign into steam (or a lot of steam games) in offline mode either, before anyone asks.
 
Back
Top