Played through it earlier today. I'll comment after others have had a chance to try it out.

Overall I liked it. Was very... well, different. Overall an improvement I think though. The gameplay, while a little bit more arcade-y also feels a little more realistic/reasonable. AI reacts more naturally, and the leaning towards lethal force fits the franchise better now. Definitely going to pick it up when it comes out.

I don't give a damn how good it is, Ubisoft's not getting one cent from me until they admit they screwed up with their asinine PC DRM and patch a different system into all afflicted games.

Suck my balls Ubisoft. I'll keep 'em sweaty.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:I don't give a damn how good it is, Ubisoft's not getting one cent from me until they admit they screwed up with their asinine PC DRM and patch a different system into all afflicted games.

Suck my balls Ubisoft. I'll keep 'em sweaty.

Gotta ask. Does this DRM even affect you? Or are you, like most people who are complaining about it, doing so simply for the sake of fighting DRM? I don't mean to accuse you of anything, but seriously, this will have a small effect overall (I certainly understand that there are people who have no internet connections and/or play from remote locations, but this is likely a rather small percentage of people and at that, it is likely a small percentage of the time. It just seems to me that people are making a huge stink over nothing. It is a minor inconvenience at best. And unless the servers go down again, its affects going to be limited to a very small group of people.

As for the demo, the AI was a bit like before, but internet chatter indicates this is an earlier build so we may see improvements there. But I have a lot of praise for the gameplay. It gives you a lot of options. You can pretty much play almost like previous versions, but with the added benefit that if you kill a guy by hand, you get to use a 3 shot (up to) combo kill which you mark your targets and then execute the kills which occur in rapid succession. Very effective in taking down several guys in a room quickly. And if done right, you can avoid them alerting others nearby. You can also preselect your targets before killing someone by hand and then immediately execute the three marks right after. Marked targets can also include certain elements of the environment. Say, shoot something on the ceiling to take out 2 guys standing below it, leaving you with 2 shots to use on 2 other guys. I played the demo about 5 times and approached each differently with different combinations of kills.

The control scheme also provides quicker access to the secondary weapons (grenades, flashbangs, etc.). It keeps the pace of the game going as one doesn't have to scroll through some weapon selection menu to switch to a gun right after throwing a flashbang into a room. It is gonna take me some time to get used to the controls though. Its quite different (XBOX). Both of the features I described allows one to play more aggressively if they choose. While the demo was short, it looks like there is also pleanty of room for stealth too.

C-Kwik wrote:
Gotta ask. Does this DRM even affect you? Or are you, like most people who are complaining about it, doing so simply for the sake of fighting DRM? I don't mean to accuse you of anything, but seriously, this will have a small effect overall (I certainly understand that there are people who have no internet connections and/or play from remote locations, but this is likely a rather small percentage of people and at that, it is likely a small percentage of the time. It just seems to me that people are making a huge stink over nothing. It is a minor inconvenience at best. And unless the servers go down again, its affects going to be limited to a very small group of people.

Yes, it affects me. Because, like most people, my ISP is not as reliable as it should be. I lose my 'net connection for a few seconds to a few minutes at a time more frequently than I'd like (probably a couple times a week that I actually notice). It's already an issue for my roommate who plays WoW a lot (a lot) but at least WoW is actually an online game. I can't do "kicked out of the game" in a singleplayer game when my unreliable connection goes down at random times.Until internet connections are perfect and Ubisoft's servers are perfect and everyone has an internet connection on every PC they own everywhere they go this will affect every single person who buys the game. EVERYONE. Ubisoft's servers have proven that they are not perfect and my ISP has proven it is not perfect. So Ubi's DRM is going to let me down at some point, it is guaranteed.The "size" of the effects does not matter. Any effect is too much. Justifying it by saying it's tolerable is ridiculous. Wrong is wrong, and tolerating it just helps further the wrongdoing.

And most people completely another of this DRM format's huge issues:What happens in 10 or 20 years when I want to play this game? Where'd Ubisoft's servers go? Whoops.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Yes, it affects me. Because, like most people, my ISP is not as reliable as it should be. I lose my 'net connection for a few seconds to a few minutes at a time more frequently than I'd like (probably a couple times a week that I actually notice). It's already an issue for my roommate who plays WoW a lot (a lot) but at least WoW is actually an online game. I can't do "kicked out of the game" in a singleplayer game when my unreliable connection goes down at random times.

Most people? Somehow I doubt most people have a significant amount of issues with their connection. Frankly, I would think that the people who designed the system and the games would be forward thinking enough to allow for small periods of connection faults without game interruption. Its unlikely that most people would have such large issues that would boot them from a game. And if they did, they should be on the horn with their ISP to resolve it. I know I have and everytime it has been for me, it was resolved.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Until internet connections are perfect and Ubisoft's servers are perfect and everyone has an internet connection on every PC they own everywhere they go this will affect every single person who buys the game. EVERYONE. Ubisoft's servers have proven that they are not perfect and my ISP has proven it is not perfect. So Ubi's DRM is going to let me down at some point, it is guaranteed.

Anectodotally, I haven't been able to find any complaints about getting booted out of a game randomly during play. Not sure if its because the server issue drowns it out or if its non-existant, but you would think that it would be a more credible argument than the servers being subjected to a DDOS attack. The attacks were likely a deliberate response to the DRM and one would have to wonder if people could make such a stink if someone didn't make the attack.

If the size of the effects are irrelevant, then are you saying all DRM should be completely removed? My crystal ball tells me a large amount of people would obtain copies of the game rather than buying it. I think we can agree that DRM should be reasonable. Problem is there is no real discussion or reporting of whether or not the game actually works well or not with this DRM. Its all speculative or having to do with the DDOS attack.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:And most people completely another of this DRM format's huge issues:What happens in 10 or 20 years when I want to play this game? Where'd Ubisoft's servers go? Whoops.

Ubisoft already commented on that in two ways. First there is no intention of taking the servers down. Second, they can patch it. The latter appears to be a point used to indicate that the games can be cracked and was. Ubisoft denies it was already cracked but what I pieced together was that it may have been cracked to eliminate the need to connect to the servers, but may be missing parts of the game that the servers fill in while playing. Frankly though, I think most people, 10-20 years from now will be more concerned with it even running on their computer correctly with whatever the current OS is and the compatibility with them. Perhaps some hardware conflicts as well. Didn't you just complain about that?

All that said, I'm not saying the DRM is 100% transparent in its applications. Some people will be affected purely from having to be tethered to the internet to play. Others may run into occassional hiccups. But there is a balance that they need to achieve to try and maximize their profits. What I see online is that people are trying to boycott this game simply for having this DRM. There are zero ties to how it actually performs. And very little info about how well (or how poorly) it performs outside of DDOS attacks and the obvious situation where a person who has no internet. It would be an entirely different thing if people kept an open mind, bought the game anyways and then ran into problems. It just sounds like a cart before the horse type of problem.

Ubisoft and the constant apologist attitude they perpetuate makes me laugh.

Apparently it's not their fault that their servers were attacked and brought down. Apparently it's not their fault that thousands of people who paid for a product couldn't use it as a result. Any idiot should be able to understand that when you operate on the internet like that, you are responsible 100% for your own security. If you fail to maintain that security, you have failed in your commitments to your customers. There is no grey area to it at all.

This isn't an issue of "most people" or "some people" or "a few people." EVERY SINGLE PERSON who owned the games that used this system were unable to play them during this time. Besides that, why the hell can't I play ACII on my laptop while I'm on a bus, or somewhere else without an internet connection? Why should I be forced to play this game only when connected to the internet? There is no logical reason for it.

The only people DRM as it is currently instituted punishes are the legitimate gamers. As a result, I have gone out of my way to avoid it and whenever the opportunity avails itself, use cracked copies of games. These are games I own. I paid for the right to use these games, and I shall use them where I want, when I want, regardless of what the makers want me to do with them.

DRM in some form is understandable. These companies have a right to manage their intellectual property, but the manner in which they have implemented it is beyond absurd.

How would I prefer they do it? I don't know. Honestly, it's not my job. I'm not being paid 5-6 figures a year to come up with a system that protects their IPs while remaining accessible.

ACII is an exclusively single player game. There is ZERO social or multiplayer interaction. Of all the games they could have chosen for such a requirement as this DRM, they picked the one that made the least sense. I am amused.

ISPs are not infallible, that's obvious, and there will be downtime. Yes the ISP is responsible for that downtime but holy s***, I have internet downtime and some single-player games and modes that I could use to pass that time. OH WAIT, I can't because Nazisoft has taken away my ability to play those games while my connection is serviced.

The performance factor is irrelevant. If you are in a situation where you would expect to be able to play a game, but you can't because of some bulls*** measure to keep people who have probably already stolen the game from doing something they will figure out how to do anyway, do you really two rat turds how it performs? I doubt it.

Alfador wrote:Apparently it's not their fault that their servers were attacked and brought down. Apparently it's not their fault that thousands of people who paid for a product couldn't use it as a result. Any idiot should be able to understand that when you operate on the internet like that, you are responsible 100% for your own security. If you fail to maintain that security, you have failed in your commitments to your customers. There is no grey area to it at all.

I wonder if WoW players would be more upset at Blizzard or hackers if hackers attacked Blizzard's servers rendering the game unplayable for any period of time.

Alfador wrote:This isn't an issue of "most people" or "some people" or "a few people." EVERY SINGLE PERSON who owned the games that used this system were unable to play them during this time. Besides that, why the hell can't I play ACII on my laptop while I'm on a bus, or somewhere else without an internet connection? Why should I be forced to play this game only when connected to the internet? There is no logical reason for it.

Not so sure about that. I haven't seen any credible sources to say what the extent of the attack was Ubi is claiming only 5% of players were affected. I've seen some comments in various articles about the attacks that indicate some people never noticed a problem. The people most likely to comment at all are the ones that were having problems and were seeking out solutions online. The irony is that they were able to use the internet at the time...

As I've stated before, being unable to play at any location is a credible downside. But not a crippling one. While there are PC gamers that play mobile, most people do not. At least not enough that this would be a make or break deal. The number of people who would be affected in this way is probably small. And smaller still would be how often this would be an issue. I'd speculate hardcore mobile gamers will have mobile internet access.

The logic from Ubisoft's perspective is that people are pirating their software and they are adamant about stopping it as best they can. Time will tell how effective this will be, but methods of detecting pirating through internet access has worked quite well for some games and even XBOX Live.

Potentially, it may be actively adjusted as people think up new hacks.

Alfador wrote:The only people DRM as it is currently instituted punishes are the legitimate gamers. As a result, I have gone out of my way to avoid it and whenever the opportunity avails itself, use cracked copies of games. These are games I own. I paid for the right to use these games, and I shall use them where I want, when I want, regardless of what the makers want me to do with them.

Thats a huge fallacy. So far, other than from a deliberate attack, I haven't found any complaints about the performance of this DRM on gameplay. If a typical end user isn't affected this way, then there is no "punishment" per se.

I must ask, what is so inconvenient about other forms of DRM that have put you in a position to seek out cracked versions of games that you already own? While its been a while since I bought a PC game, I've never felt inconvenienced enough by any game to seek out a cracked version.

Alfador wrote:DRM in some form is understandable. These companies have a right to manage their intellectual property, but the manner in which they have implemented it is beyond absurd.

Well the other option seems to be having DRM that is not as effective as they would like...

Alfador wrote:How would I prefer they do it? I don't know. Honestly, it's not my job. I'm not being paid 5-6 figures a year to come up with a system that protects their IPs while remaining accessible.

There are people who are paid a lot of money to come up with this kind of stuff. There are also people paid a lot of money to determine what affect pirating has on their bottom line. It would be naive to think that these people who are getting paid all this money are not going to think about how this relates to their bottom line. If their projection was that they would make less money, do you think they would do this?

Also consider that if there were other ways that they could have implemented DRM without being intrusive and be effective, would they have ignored that completely? And these are the people getting paid good money to figure this crap out.

Alfador wrote:ACII is an exclusively single player game. There is ZERO social or multiplayer interaction. Of all the games they could have chosen for such a requirement as this DRM, they picked the one that made the least sense. I am amused.

This wasn't about whether or not the game is multiplayer or not. Their plan is to do this across the board in order to reduce the pirating of their software.

Alfador wrote:ISPs are not infallible, that's obvious, and there will be downtime. Yes the ISP is responsible for that downtime but holy s***, I have internet downtime and some single-player games and modes that I could use to pass that time. OH WAIT, I can't because Nazisoft has taken away my ability to play those games while my connection is serviced.

Sorry, but I don't have any regular downtime that has been long enough to even launch a new game. Major amounts of downtime can occur, sure. But that has been very rare for me. I think the last time my internet went down was about 2 years ago. I needed a new cable modem. Prior to that, my connection had been problem free for about 5 years. That's hardly enough to complain about.

Alfador wrote:The performance factor is irrelevant. If you are in a situation where you would expect to be able to play a game, but you can't because of some bulls*** measure to keep people who have probably already stolen the game from doing something they will figure out how to do anyway, do you really two rat turds how it performs? I doubt it.

Its absolutely relevant. Because you are considering the worst case scenario rather than the most typical and reasonable scenario. Surely, I'd be frustrated if I can't play a game for whatever reason. The big question is how often will that actually occur. And if its a rare occurrance, then noone will make a big stink. Making an argument based solely on a rare occurance is hugely flawed. As is your attempt at invalidating any argument otherwise...

C-Kwik wrote:I wonder if WoW players would be more upset at Blizzard or hackers if hackers attacked Blizzard's servers rendering the game unplayable for any period of time.

Without question, Blizzard. Most WoW players are whiny little b****es. They blame Blizzard for EVERYTHING, complain about EVERYTHING, and just whinewhinewhinewhinewhinewhinewhine. They're never happy, yet they pay a fee every month. Morons. The difference is that constant uninterrupted online connectivity is NECESSARY for an MMO. It is not remotely necessary for DRM.

Quote »Not so sure about that. I haven't seen any credible sources to say what the extent of the attack was Ubi is claiming only 5% of players were affected. I've seen some comments in various articles about the attacks that indicate some people never noticed a problem. The people most likely to comment at all are the ones that were having problems and were seeking out solutions online. The irony is that they were able to use the internet at the time...[/quote]Yeah, the number of affected people was quite small. Still, that small number of people were unable to use an offline (aside from DRM) product they paid for, which is not acceptable.Apparently, UBI is offering one of two entire free games to those who suffered from the outage. Which is nice recompense, but the whole point here is that no one should ever NEED recompense. Ditch the crap DRM and you won't have to make up for any of its failings.And while a free game is, again, great recompense, a free Ubisoft game to make for a Ubisoft issue is hilariously ironic. The new game uses the same idiot DRM that caused the problem in the first place. When your Aveo turns out to be a turd, you don't go back to Chevy and demand another Aveo, you go to the Honda dealership and buy a Fit.

Quote »Thats a huge fallacy.[/quote]No. It isn't. DRM affects legitimate users far more than illegitimate ones. Illegal users will get around DRM and no longer be affected by it. Legitimate users will not. It's just like creating new laws to enforce existing laws that are frequently ignored. If people are ignoring the first law, what makes you think they won't ignore the reinforcing law? Criminals will always circumvent. The simple solution is to use DIFFERENT solutions to combat piracy. There are plenty. Companies have even uploaded "bugged" versions of their games to pirate sites that collect personal information on the pirates or stop working after a period with a message urging the user to PAY for the game.

Quote »I must ask, what is so inconvenient about other forms of DRM that have put you in a position to seek out cracked versions of games that you already own? While its been a while since I bought a PC game, I've never felt inconvenienced enough by any game to seek out a cracked version.[/quote]Once AGAIN. Because I've said this. BEFORE.It is not about convenience. It is about this attitude that treats every customer like a potential criminal. It is NOT acceptable. Ever. Not justifiable. Not tolerable. Not excusable. Not allowable.And I've been irritated by DRM plenty of times. Ever lost a CD key to a game you OWN? Sure, it's my fault I lost the damn key, but that's one of the many inconveniences to even the most basic DRM. And in the early Post-HL2 days, Steam was a mess, and regularly pissed me off to the point I wished I'd just pirated the damn game, DESPITE my incredible respect for Valve and my desire to pay them for the game and see them prosper.

Quote »Well the other option seems to be having DRM that is not as effective as they would like...[/quote]Yes. And this won't be either because it's NO DIFFERENT IN PURPOSE. It's another wall to be smashed down. It's a mere deterrent, and accepted as such. If they want to be more effective, stop trying to rearrange the same rubix cube and build a DIFFERENT mousetrap. DRM does not work unless you define "work" as only being successful for a short time before being circumvented. Which is a crappy way to do things anyway.

Quote »There are people who are paid a lot of money to come up with this kind of stuff. There are also people paid a lot of money to determine what affect pirating has on their bottom line. It would be naive to think that these people who are getting paid all this money are not going to think about how this relates to their bottom line. If their projection was that they would make less money, do you think they would do this?[/quote]You make the naiive mistake of assuming those highly-paid people actually know WTF they're talking about. They might be software people, and they might even be DRM people, but they obviously don't understand the videogame marketplace. It's just like the Feds putting a damn telecommunications business exec in charge of GM. The guy might be great at running a business but he doesn't know jack s*** about the auto industry. If Ubisoft's new DRM was such a brilliant idea from an industry perspective, don't you think someone else would have done it already? Don't you think there's a REASON that the major online distribution companies (Steam, Impulse, D2D, etc.) don't and have never used this, despite being HIGHLY online based? Don't you think there's a REASON Steam offers offline mode?Even WoW doesn't require you to check in with servers to validate your install as legal. You can play on private servers without ever touching Blizzard's servers. In fact, you don't even need a CD key except for initial account creation...install validation is completely absent. And that's an online-only game.

Quote »Also consider that if there were other ways that they could have implemented DRM without being intrusive and be effective, would they have ignored that completely? And these are the people getting paid good money to figure this crap out.[/quote]As I said, they probably DID ignore the other options completely, because they probably aren't as smart as their salaries make them appear to be.

Quote »This wasn't about whether or not the game is multiplayer or not. Their plan is to do this across the board in order to reduce the pirating of their software.[/quote]That's exactly the problem! And it lends credence to my above comments. The DRM "geniuses" at Ubisoft have know idea WTF they're doing. They're just trying crap. It's the modern way: we have a problem without a good solution, so let's just throw terrible ideas at it and see if any work! That's not how consumer-based business should be run. Fine, experiment internally, but you can't run these kinds of market experiments on your paying customers.

Quote »Anectodotally, I haven't been able to find any complaints about getting booted out of a game randomly during play. Not sure if its because the server issue drowns it out or if its non-existant, but you would think that it would be a more credible argument than the servers being subjected to a DDOS attack. The attacks were likely a deliberate response to the DRM and one would have to wonder if people could make such a stink if someone didn't make the attack.[/quote]You're just not looking very hard. AT ALL. Considering some of these complaints have been front-page gaming news.But, as a particularly wonderful example of my case, I'll use the example of one of EA's own employees lamenting the always-online DRM for C&C4. C&C4 uses exactly the same type of system as Ubisoft's games. It requires a constant connection, even for singleplayer, and will kick out out of games if the connection is lost. Direct quotes from Jeff Green's (EA.com EIC) Twitter:"Booted twice--and progress lost--on my single-player C&C4 game because my DSL connection blinked. DRM fail. We need new solutions."And later:"Welp. I've tried to be open-minded. But my 'net connection is finicky--and the constant disruption of my C&C4 SP game makes this unplayable."While this isn't Ubi's system specifically, it shares identical functionality for the end-user and works by very similar means, which means this is an excellent example of the potential failings of Ubi's system.

Quote »If the size of the effects are irrelevant, then are you saying all DRM should be completely removed? My crystal ball tells me a large amount of people would obtain copies of the game rather than buying it.[/quote]Hey, wanna know a secret? Lean close. Closer. Alright.LARGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE ALREADY OBTAIN COPIES RATHER THAN BUYING!!!!!!!!!!!DESPITE DRM!I know? Unbelievable, isn't it?! Don't tell anyone. Especially not Ubisoft, Securom or Starforce.Anyway, sarcasm aside, YES, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT ALL DRM SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. It does not succeed to a point that validates its costs to the legal consumer. You will argue with me on this point, I know, despite the excellent case I make, because you're the kind of person who is content to be trodden upon as long as it doesn't hurt TOO much. I am not that sort of person. And neither are a lot of other people.

Quote »Frankly though, I think most people, 10-20 years from now will be more concerned with it even running on their computer correctly with whatever the current OS is and the compatibility with them. Perhaps some hardware conflicts as well. Didn't you just complain about that?[/quote]Hardware issues are unavoidable and not INTENTIONAL for Hell's sake. And one can always obtain an old machine to play games. Legally. Entirely unrelated. You can't just obtain a magic anti-DRM machine and if you could it'd be considered illegal anyway.

Quote »Ubisoft already commented on that in two ways. First there is no intention of taking the servers down. Second, they can patch it.[/quote]And you actually believe them? Did you know that, ironically, on the day Ubi's new DRM launched, they killed the multiplayer servers to two different games that were LESS THAN A YEAR OLD?! Sure, the DRM can be patched out in the future. But how easy will that patch be to access down the road? Is Ubi willing to host it forever? With publishers offloading more and more of their user-downloads to garbage must-register sites like File Planet, I doubt it. It certainly doesn't serve them. Most publishers don't even host PATCHES themselves anymore, leaving consumers to register for crummy hosting sites and either pay for membership or wait in lines. Doesn't give me home for Ubi's DRM servers' futures.

I'm glad you're an optimistic idealist, Chano, because it leads to some fun discussions. But you should really join us here in the real world some time.

Blizzard already has s*** servers that are falling apart. I'm not on one. If I was, I'd be pissed. Their scheduled downtime I didn't have so much of an issue with. If they had unscheduled downtime or got attacked and it brought down their servers, you're damn right I'd fault them for not securing themselves properly to withstand attack. However, an MMO is by definition an online game. You accept the fact that it relies on your internet connection and that you can't play without it. The words multiplayer and online are right there in the name. I used to make that point on the wow forums until I was banned from it.

5% is about 5% too much. Problems like this shouldn't happen, honestly. There is no excuse for a 5% failure rate on product like that, especially when the failure is only happening because a SINGLE PLAYER game is asking to be online. For Christ's sake, people steal copies of Microsoft office and Adobe Photoshop too. Why don't they make it so you have to be online to use them?

As for DRM affecting legit users more, of course it does. The whole point is, you crack the game, you are no longer forced to do any of the things the DRM requires. You are no longer limited on how many machines you can use it on, you no longer have to pass tests such as having the CD in the tray, you no longer have to authenticate your game online to play it. (FFS, with Crysis and that little mini sequel they had for it, I had to enter a CD key once a freaking day when I played if the DVD wasn't in the drive. Better believe I used the crack for that the instant I could).

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Without question, Blizzard. Most WoW players are whiny little b****es. They blame Blizzard for EVERYTHING, complain about EVERYTHING, and just whinewhinewhinewhinewhinewhinewhine. They're never happy, yet they pay a fee every month. Morons. The difference is that constant uninterrupted online connectivity is NECESSARY for an MMO. It is not remotely necessary for DRM.

Is that an informed opinion these people have? Surely if a game stopped working due to server issues, the first thought would be to complain about the servers. And that's certainly reasonable. But if the users knew that people were deliberately attacking the servers to make it hard for people to play a game, where do you think they would place blame?

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Yeah, the number of affected people was quite small. Still, that small number of people were unable to use an offline (aside from DRM) product they paid for, which is not acceptable.Apparently, UBI is offering one of two entire free games to those who suffered from the outage. Which is nice recompense, but the whole point here is that no one should ever NEED recompense. Ditch the crap DRM and you won't have to make up for any of its failings.

Well if you're gonna take such an idealistic stance, one might say that you should consider that if noone pirated games, then the DRM would not be necessary. Any game, system, or DRM is bound to run into technical issues. Especially early on in its life. The reality is that there are certain vulnerabilities which I think Ubisoft will be trying to address for the long term but to ditch it entirely because they exist is not necessrily the answer. Especially if they see that it affects the profitability.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:And while a free game is, again, great recompense, a free Ubisoft game to make for a Ubisoft issue is hilariously ironic. The new game uses the same idiot DRM that caused the problem in the first place. When your Aveo turns out to be a turd, you don't go back to Chevy and demand another Aveo, you go to the Honda dealership and buy a Fit.

Are you gonna ask GM to buy you a Fit when your Aveo goes bad? They can't reasonably be expected to offer gamers a free game from another company. So they offer what they have. Hardly an arguing point.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:No. It isn't. DRM affects legitimate users far more than illegitimate ones. Illegal users will get around DRM and no longer be affected by it. Legitimate users will not. It's just like creating new laws to enforce existing laws that are frequently ignored. If people are ignoring the first law, what makes you think they won't ignore the reinforcing law? Criminals will always circumvent. The simple solution is to use DIFFERENT solutions to combat piracy. There are plenty. Companies have even uploaded "bugged" versions of their games to pirate sites that collect personal information on the pirates or stop working after a period with a message urging the user to PAY for the game.

Reasonably, no company expects that their games are full-proof from pirating. Interviews with Ubi execs revealed that they were not unrealistic. But the largest impact from pirating occurs early in a game's life when demand is high. That is, if a game becomes pirated early on, then more people are likely to get a free copy then pay for it.

As for this DRM, we don't yet know how effective it is. It has the potential to be quite effective. Full-proof? Nope. But still more difficult than passive DRM. And if it does indeed work, even for a significant length of time, then will not affect the legitimate users more than pirates.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Once AGAIN. Because I've said this. BEFORE.It is not about convenience. It is about this attitude that treats every customer like a potential criminal. It is NOT acceptable. Ever. Not justifiable. Not tolerable. Not excusable. Not allowable.And I've been irritated by DRM plenty of times. Ever lost a CD key to a game you OWN? Sure, it's my fault I lost the damn key, but that's one of the many inconveniences to even the most basic DRM. And in the early Post-HL2 days, Steam was a mess, and regularly pissed me off to the point I wished I'd just pirated the damn game, DESPITE my incredible respect for Valve and my desire to pay them for the game and see them prosper.

Its not like they are doing this because they suspect everyone. If they could limit their sales to people who weren't potential pirates, then they would. But as it stands, there is no way to do that. Understand that in order for a game company to continue to bring out more titles and offer up the best technology, they have to protect their revenue stream. To do otherwise is not to the benefit of gamers. Less money means less resources, less staff, longer delays before launching a title. So you might either end up with a crappy game or you wait forever. Or perhaps prices go up.

As for losing CD-keys, this pretty much alleviates that. Not necessarily a one for one trade off, but there are benefits to the system.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Yes. And this won't be either because it's NO DIFFERENT IN PURPOSE. It's another wall to be smashed down. It's a mere deterrent, and accepted as such. If they want to be more effective, stop trying to rearrange the same rubix cube and build a DIFFERENT mousetrap. DRM does not work unless you define "work" as only being successful for a short time before being circumvented. Which is a crappy way to do things anyway.

But it is different in implementation as I stated above. Building a different mousetrap is not the point. Trying to build a better one is. Is it better? I don't know yet. My point here is that people are complaining without giving it a chance. All they see and hear is DRM DRM DRM.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:You make the naiive mistake of assuming those highly-paid people actually know WTF they're talking about. They might be software people, and they might even be DRM people, but they obviously don't understand the videogame marketplace. It's just like the Feds putting a damn telecommunications business exec in charge of GM. The guy might be great at running a business but he doesn't know jack s*** about the auto industry. If Ubisoft's new DRM was such a brilliant idea from an industry perspective, don't you think someone else would have done it already? Don't you think there's a REASON that the major online distribution companies (Steam, Impulse, D2D, etc.) don't and have never used this, despite being HIGHLY online based? Don't you think there's a REASON Steam offers offline mode?

Sure, they might not have any clue what they are talking about. But what makes you or any other gamer more knowledgable? Do you have revenue statistics on hand? Do you have some educated estimate of how much money is being lost to pirating? Regardless of if the decision is good or bad, without the relevant data, your (anyone's) opinion is useless. You come at this from a standpoint of a gamer. And that's not unreasonable to dislike what is occurring. But the decision makers at any company have to do things in the best interest of the company. Could they be wrong? Absolutely. But I'd put a lot more credibility on those who have the relevant data to back up a decision than not. Gut feelings and personal opinions do not get far in any corporate board room...

MinisterofDOOM wrote:As I said, they probably DID ignore the other options completely, because they probably aren't as smart as their salaries make them appear to be.

That's a HUGE assumption on your part.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:That's exactly the problem! And it lends credence to my above comments. The DRM "geniuses" at Ubisoft have know idea WTF they're doing. They're just trying crap. It's the modern way: we have a problem without a good solution, so let's just throw terrible ideas at it and see if any work! That's not how consumer-based business should be run. Fine, experiment internally, but you can't run these kinds of market experiments on your paying customers.

Well there comes a time at which you can't run anything internally anymore. If it gets passed their internal testing as a complete product, and they decide to implement, they have to release with some expectation that there will be bugs to be worked out. What program these days aren't patched or updated anymore? And to be frank, I really doubt that any company would run such an expensive test on the public. There is a lot of cost and research that went into this. Let alone the infrastructure required to implement this...I highly doubt it was done at the whim of the people at Ubisoft. Hell, I'm sure there was much debate internally over this. And chances are the people with the best data won that debate...

MinisterofDOOM wrote:You're just not looking very hard. AT ALL. Considering some of these complaints have been front-page gaming news.But, as a particularly wonderful example of my case, I'll use the example of one of EA's own employees lamenting the always-online DRM for C&C4. C&C4 uses exactly the same type of system as Ubisoft's games. It requires a constant connection, even for singleplayer, and will kick out out of games if the connection is lost. Direct quotes from Jeff Green's (EA.com EIC) Twitter:"Booted twice--and progress lost--on my single-player C&C4 game because my DSL connection blinked. DRM fail. We need new solutions."And later:"Welp. I've tried to be open-minded. But my 'net connection is finicky--and the constant disruption of my C&C4 SP game makes this unplayable."While this isn't Ubi's system specifically, it shares identical functionality for the end-user and works by very similar means, which means this is an excellent example of the potential failings of Ubi's system.

I was looking for specific examples of problems with Ubi's system. While the basic idea is similar, unless you know the technical differences, you can't make such a broad comparison. I could easily see the implementation of a time-out system where the game continues to play unless a certain period of time passes (I don't know if this is the case or not, but it would be a solution for small hiccups). And with one of their implementations, the game actually starts back off right where one left off rather than losing progress from the last save point.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Hey, wanna know a secret? Lean close. Closer. Alright.LARGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE ALREADY OBTAIN COPIES RATHER THAN BUYING!!!!!!!!!!!DESPITE DRM!I know? Unbelievable, isn't it?! Don't tell anyone. Especially not Ubisoft, Securom or Starforce.Anyway, sarcasm aside, YES, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT ALL DRM SHOULD BE ABOLISHED. It does not succeed to a point that validates its costs to the legal consumer. You will argue with me on this point, I know, despite the excellent case I make, because you're the kind of person who is content to be trodden upon as long as it doesn't hurt TOO much. I am not that sort of person. And neither are a lot of other people.

And therein lies the problem. Game companies want to limit as much as possible (generally to the extent that they maximize profits), how many pirated copies of their games become used. Lets put it this way. People steal. Does that mean they should stop checking purchases at the door at places like Fry's or Costco? Maybe they should remove the RFID sensors at the doors. Hell, ditch the cameras too.

As for DRM, you are generalizing all DRM. Perhaps this is more effective. While I can't speak to the legitimacy of whther or not this DRM has been cracked or not, Ubi hinted at some of the game content being available only from Ubi's servers. Its reasonably possible that the game has been hacked to be playable without the connection but it will not be a fuill game until someone figures out what data is needed and how to get it. If this takes any significant length of time, it will have a large impact on pirating. Or more importantly a positive impact on revenue.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Hardware issues are unavoidable and not INTENTIONAL for Hell's sake. And one can always obtain an old machine to play games. Legally. Entirely unrelated. You can't just obtain a magic anti-DRM machine and if you could it'd be considered illegal anyway.

My point was that its likely not going to be a big issue since most people will be just trying to get the game running on their computer. Most people do not keep such old hardware lying around. Its a legitimate argument, sure. Its just not going to have that much of an impact.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:And you actually believe them? Did you know that, ironically, on the day Ubi's new DRM launched, they killed the multiplayer servers to two different games that were LESS THAN A YEAR OLD?! Sure, the DRM can be patched out in the future. But how easy will that patch be to access down the road? Is Ubi willing to host it forever? With publishers offloading more and more of their user-downloads to garbage must-register sites like File Planet, I doubt it. It certainly doesn't serve them. Most publishers don't even host PATCHES themselves anymore, leaving consumers to register for crummy hosting sites and either pay for membership or wait in lines. Doesn't give me home for Ubi's DRM servers' futures.

We will wait to see how that turns out. I'm not going to speculate. For all we know Ubi could go under before we ever get to that point. There is always going to be uncertainties that we cannot do anything about. Frankly, I just don't think most people will care 20 years down the road.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:I'm glad you're an optimistic idealist, Chano, because it leads to some fun discussions. But you should really join us here in the real world some time.

I'm hardly being ideal or optimistic. But I guess I would seem like an optimistic idealist to a pessimist such as yourself. Kidding aside, I just don't think the impact is as big as people make out. Your arguments as well as most others who are complaining about this DRM are all about the what-ifs. And to that end, the most insignificant ones seem to be the biggest points of argument. It would be another thing altogether if there were big widespread problems going on. But as I said, aside from the DDoS issues, I haven't found any big ones that can't be fixed on an ongoing basis.

Alfador wrote:Blizzard already has s*** servers that are falling apart. I'm not on one. If I was, I'd be pissed. Their scheduled downtime I didn't have so much of an issue with. If they had unscheduled downtime or got attacked and it brought down their servers, you're damn right I'd fault them for not securing themselves properly to withstand attack. However, an MMO is by definition an online game. You accept the fact that it relies on your internet connection and that you can't play without it. The words multiplayer and online are right there in the name. I used to make that point on the wow forums until I was banned from it.

And what's the reason for poor server performance? Is it not enough servers? Poor bandwidth? Attacks on the server? The first two would be reason to complain. The latter, perhaps to some extent, but I certainly would be pointing fingers at the people causing the problems.

I understand the distinction for an online only game. My point here is how many people are actually going to be playing a single player game such as this one or ACII where no internet is available? Not saying there won't be any who would, but I'd say that would be a rare occassion. And even more rare would be those who had absolutely no access to internet from the PC they play games on. Its certainly not perfect or ideal. But in the big picture scenario, its not a bad call (from a business perspective) to have if this turns out to be effective DRM.

Alfador wrote:5% is about 5% too much. Problems like this shouldn't happen, honestly. There is no excuse for a 5% failure rate on product like that, especially when the failure is only happening because a SINGLE PLAYER game is asking to be online. For Christ's sake, people steal copies of Microsoft office and Adobe Photoshop too. Why don't they make it so you have to be online to use them?

Understand that it was 5% for a limited time.

Doesn't mean that they aren't implementing DRM. Windows products requires online or phone activation as well. And I believe it gets tied into the OS so a key can't be simply reused. There may be hacked versions as well, but the number has declined since XP by about half (To Vista, uncertain about Win7 but having similar DRM, one might expect it to be just as good). How significant is this? MS claims 5% of its earnings growth can be attributed to piracy reduction. 5% of anything on the scales MS is used to is likely huge.

Adobe tends to sell most to businesses. Considering the cost of their products few individuals not using the program for business would not purchase it at all if they could not get a hacked version. I'm not sure there would be as much interest on their part. Smaller businesses might opt for pirated copies, but its unlikley larger businesses would want to subject themselves to the legal risks associated with it. As such, I don't think Adobe's interest in anti-piracy is as big as gaming companies or even MS might be. Even then Adobe has some form of DRM.

Alfador wrote:As for DRM affecting legit users more, of course it does. The whole point is, you crack the game, you are no longer forced to do any of the things the DRM requires. You are no longer limited on how many machines you can use it on, you no longer have to pass tests such as having the CD in the tray, you no longer have to authenticate your game online to play it. (FFS, with Crysis and that little mini sequel they had for it, I had to enter a CD key once a freaking day when I played if the DVD wasn't in the drive. Better believe I used the crack for that the instant I could).

First off, the DRM has to be completely hacked for this to be true. There is no confirmation of a full hack so far. As for using a cracked version just to get around a requirement to have a DVD in the tray is absurd for most. Not saying it isn't inconvenient, but not unreasonable. You are more of the exception than the rule in this case...

So i take it no ones played the demo yet? lol

C-Kwik wrote:Is that an informed opinion these people have? Surely if a game stopped working due to server issues, the first thought would be to complain about the servers. And that's certainly reasonable. But if the users knew that people were deliberately attacking the servers to make it hard for people to play a game, where do you think they would place blame?

Oh, THAT comment wasn't really related to the DRM argument. Just me ranting about how whiny WoW players are. Even when it is NOT Blizzard's fault, or when the downtime makes sense, they complain. I mean...many other MMOs have NIGHTLY downtime for maintenance. WoW manages a few hours a WEEK at most. That's pretty damn okay in my book. I don't expect 99% up-time from WoW...I think Blizz does a great job of managing problems in a timely manner and keeping the impacts of maintenance as low as possible. But then maybe I'm on one of the better servers. However, if Blizzard made me stay logged in all the time to play Diablo III singleplayer, I would not be pleased. I believe Blizz has already clarified that at least SC2 will allow offline play (singleplayer only, obviously) once you've connected to B.net for the initial authorization (one single time, not before each session).

Quote »Well if you're gonna take such an idealistic stance, one might say that you should consider that if noone pirated games, then the DRM would not be necessary. Any game, system, or DRM is bound to run into technical issues.[/quote]I definitely don't disagree here. It's just a question of necessity. Is it REALLY necessary to impose these technical issues on customers? I do not believe so.

Quote »Are you gonna ask GM to buy you a Fit when your Aveo goes bad? They can't reasonably be expected to offer gamers a free game from another company. So they offer what they have. Hardly an arguing point.[/quote]GM won't buy you a Fit, but depending on how much of a POS your Aveo turns out to be you might have legal precedent to force them to buy it back. Refunds for poor quality. Ubisoft might not be able to buy me a game from another pub, but they can give my my $50 so I can go buy it myself. And I'm not necessarily suggesting that the small downtime those users suffered is worth a full refund. But if you forced GM to buy your Aveo back due to lemon law criteria, would you accept another Aveo in place of cash?

Quote »Reasonably, no company expects that their games are full-proof from pirating. Interviews with Ubi execs revealed that they were not unrealistic. But the largest impact from pirating occurs early in a game's life when demand is high. That is, if a game becomes pirated early on, then more people are likely to get a free copy then pay for it.[/quote]Yeah, I can understand being extra-careful about piracy at first. But you'll notice a lot of games actually remove strict DRM measures after the initial sales boom dies down. BF:BC2 recently patched Securom out of the Steam version. Other games have done similar things. EA has removed DRM post-release. I wish Ubisoft would consider that.And while I won't argue with the fact that Ubisoft is not unrealistic about their expectations for this DRM's "success," I do believe they have been unrealistic about it's reception with customers. Their ignore-and-deflect attitude toward ultra-direct questioning on the subject proves that they are either so out of touch that they really are genuinely unaware of how much it is hated or they think that pretending it's not a problem will make the problem go away. Neither of those is doing anyone any good...Ubisoft or consumers. If they'd at least be up-front and honest about it and offer some of the points you offer to explain how things are supposed to work, might work, etc, I'd probably be less infuriated. But when asked what they have to say about the uproar about the system, their only response is "Well, we have some really cool features in store for our customers!" which has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. AT LEAST be open with your customers. Transparency is huge when it comes to customer relations.

Quote »As for this DRM, we don't yet know how effective it is. It has the potential to be quite effective. Full-proof? Nope. But still more difficult than passive DRM. And if it does indeed work, even for a significant length of time, then will not affect the legitimate users more than pirates.[/quote]Right, but unless it is 100% perfect, it's not worth always-on. And even then, there's a limit to the intrusion from DRM that's allowable. Doing business in any industry comes with risks attached, and piracy is a known risk for the games industry. While I'm not defending piracy or saying it's okay...I don't think that honest, paying consumers should be held accountable for that risk. To give some perspective from an area in which I have direct understanding, alarm companies have HUGE amounts of liability. One big mistake could sink many smaller alarm companies. But not all of them pass that accountability on to their customers. Some do, putting strict regulations on things and reducing the effective protection the alarm provides. But others don't, and some even profit off of allowing a lot of user-say in how things are handled which, while having the potential to backfire, also adds more appeal to that individual service. I'd never go with some of the big alarm chains despite their nationwide backing and "advanced call centers" because I know how their response procedure works and feel that it undermines the effectiveness of an alarm system.

Quote »Its not like they are doing this because they suspect everyone.[/quote]I do not agree.

Quote »As for losing CD-keys, this pretty much alleviates that. Not necessarily a one for one trade off, but there are benefits to the system.[/quote]I'll take CD keys over always online any day. At least it's MY fault when I lose my key. Plus, some companies have found great ways to make CD keys BENEFICIAL to the consumer. Blizzard allows you to enter CD keys for their games and gain access to disc-free downloadable versions of those games. Effing brilliant. Now not only will you never lose your key, but you also don't need a disc, AND it provides incentive to actually PAY for the game and get a legitimate CD key. That's my kind of anti-piracy measure: one that gives BACK to the paying customer.

Quote »But it is different in implementation as I stated above. Building a different mousetrap is not the point. Trying to build a better one is. Is it better? I don't know yet.[/quote]I can dig a different kind of well to the same dirty water but it won't clean the water unless I add a filter. Implementation means nothing. That's my point. Changing implementation is not the way to go. The IDEA of DRM is broken. It is the wrong approach. Any further re-implementation is a waste of time, effort, and money.

Quote »My point here is that people are complaining without giving it a chance. All they see and hear is DRM DRM DRM.[/quote]That may be true for some...not for me. While I'm not happy with any DRM, this one deserves special attention for a couple of reasons: one, I want to see it die. And two, I don't want to see it set a precedent for increasingly intrusive DRM. And that latter point is a big part of why so many are becoming so outspoken against this particular DRM implementation. It has the potential to set a very bad precedent. Like Picard snarls in First Contact, "The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther." I do not want to be participating in a thread in a year or two discussing a new DRM format that requires everyone to use the included-with-game USB biometric scanner to sign into their Ubisoft account any time they boot up the game. I will accept no further intrusion. I will not accept THIS intrusion.

Quote »Sure, they might not have any clue what they are talking about. But what makes you or any other gamer more knowledgable? Do you have revenue statistics on hand? Do you have some educated estimate of how much money is being lost to pirating?[/quote]Actually, yes. I do. I've read lots of studies and articles on the costs and effectiveness of piracy and DRM (some of them by actual games publishers, with input from both sides of the DRM argument). Somebody (I'll try to find it, but I THINK it was Brad Wardell of Stardock--not to be confused with Starforce) actually presented lots of really enlightening numbers and gave a publisher's-perspective of the "costs" of piracy and the value (or lack of value) DRM presents for countering those costs.But the real thing that makes me more knowledgeable is that I am an active PARTICIPANT in the games industry. DRM engineers are not. Ubisoft execs are not. Publishing desk jockeys are not. Just like Ed Whitacre and his Desk Jockey diploma. I understand the automotive market on a much more intimate scale than he does. Because I'm an active part of it. I AM the game's industry. I AM the auto industry. Ubisoft and DRM engineers are only indirectly related to the games industry.

Quote »That's a HUGE assumption on your part.[/quote]It is, which is why I said probably. But this is no bigger an assumption than your suggestion that they actually know what they're talking about. Which was all I was trying to say. You can't know they're geniuses anymore than I know they're idiots. So just assuming everything will be okay because they must know what they're doing is a pretty big leap.

Quote »Hell, I'm sure there was much debate internally over this. And chances are the people with the best data won that debate...[/quote]Certainly, but that comes back to my above point: what does that "best" data support? Did they completely ignore consumer reception in those debates? I can't say. But I can say that they ARE ignoring consumer reception now that it's implemented, with the ignore-and-deflect treatment they're throwing at all criticism. So the big question for me is not "why did they chose to use this system?" but rather "why did they not choose NOT to use this system?" And despite the double-negatives, those are not the same thing. I am genuinely curious, even aside from my outrage, as to how those meetings went.

Quote »I was looking for specific examples of problems with Ubi's system. While the basic idea is similar, unless you know the technical differences, you can't make such a broad comparison.[/quote]Right, but this comes back to the whole "precedent" thing. If this Ubisoft system is "accepted" in the end, we WILL see a lot more variations of it. So that's a very valid point from the big-picture perspective.

Quote »And therein lies the problem. Game companies want to limit as much as possible (generally to the extent that they maximize profits), how many pirated copies of their games become used. Lets put it this way. People steal. Does that mean they should stop checking purchases at the door at places like Fry's or Costco? Maybe they should remove the RFID sensors at the doors. Hell, ditch the cameras too.[/quote]Interesting that you bring up receipt checking, since there was a thread on that subject a few years ago and I was there making the same basic arguments I'm making here. So yeah, I think they should do away with receipt checking. It's just another case of "suspect everyone."I can kind of understand it at Costco/Sam's Club due to the way checkout is handled, but I'd prefer to see it go away there, too.Here's the old thread, BTW. You'll find that my posts there echo my sentiments from this thread exactly.zerothread?id=212125

Quote »As for DRM, you are generalizing all DRM.[/quote]Only because you asked me to! You asked specifically about ALL DRM. So I replied specifically about ALL DRM.

Quote »But I guess I would seem like an optimistic idealist to a pessimist such as yourself. [/quote]I prefer to think of myself as an cynical realist, thank you.

Quote »Doesn't mean that they aren't implementing DRM. Windows products requires online or phone activation as well. And I believe it gets tied into the OS so a key can't be simply reused.[/quote]Yeah, but Windows doesn't require you to always be online or it'll boot you back to BIOS.But yes, I've done reinstalls with a single Windows key/license and even moved that license to another computer. It's kind of a pain, but if you call up MS customer support and explain that you're NOT simply installing multiple copies of the OS simultaneously, they'll "free" the key so it can be used again. So they at least give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming you're a criminal, which is certainly worth some bonus points. I don't particularly care for Microsoft's use of Genuine Windows validation, though (used when installing certain optional/modular MS/Windows components, such as Microsoft Security Essentials) especially since I've had issues with it on genuinely legal windows installs back in the XP days. It's leaving too much to potential software faults. I haven't had any false-negatives in Vista or 7 yet, though.

Just for some interesting reading, google "Brad Wardell on DRM." You'll see a publisher (and digital distribution operator) talking about the downsides of DRM. Wardell is also responsible for compiling the "Gamer's Bill of Rights" which you should read as well.

i really liked the demo. seemed a lot more stealthy. big difference from the first one.

Sorry for the way late response. Way busy with school and then had to try and squeeze in some time to actually play this game after it came out.

Oh, THAT comment wasn't really related to the DRM argument. Just me ranting about how whiny WoW players are. Even when it is NOT Blizzard's fault, or when the downtime makes sense, they complain. I mean...many other MMOs have NIGHTLY downtime for maintenance. WoW manages a few hours a WEEK at most. That's pretty damn okay in my book. I don't expect 99% up-time from WoW...I think Blizz does a great job of managing problems in a timely manner and keeping the impacts of maintenance as low as possible. But then maybe I'm on one of the better servers. However, if Blizzard made me stay logged in all the time to play Diablo III singleplayer, I would not be pleased. I believe Blizz has already clarified that at least SC2 will allow offline play (singleplayer only, obviously) once you've connected to B.net for the initial authorization (one single time, not before each session).

I think Blizzard doesn't have a big need to require an active online connection for single player. MP on SC2 was the driving force behind the game and it would be enough by itself to do an adequate job of preventing piracy if it actively checks for multiple log-ins with the same key at the same time like they did with the original. A single player only game has to require an online connection to be able to confirm a legit copy is being used. There is a technical difference in how each can make this work.

I definitely don't disagree here. It's just a question of necessity. Is it REALLY necessary to impose these technical issues on customers? I do not believe so.

Technically necessary? Of course not. When it comes down to it though, its about what they think it will do for their bottom line. That's a big driving force for any business.

GM won't buy you a Fit, but depending on how much of a POS your Aveo turns out to be you might have legal precedent to force them to buy it back. Refunds for poor quality. Ubisoft might not be able to buy me a game from another pub, but they can give my my $50 so I can go buy it myself. And I'm not necessarily suggesting that the small downtime those users suffered is worth a full refund. But if you forced GM to buy your Aveo back due to lemon law criteria, would you accept another Aveo in place of cash?

But the game isn't defective (works as company intended). If someone wants to reject a product because it doesn't perform in a way that works with their intended use, then that's fine. However, its not like they are trying to hide anything about this.

Yeah, I can understand being extra-careful about piracy at first. But you'll notice a lot of games actually remove strict DRM measures after the initial sales boom dies down. BF:BC2 recently patched Securom out of the Steam version. Other games have done similar things. EA has removed DRM post-release. I wish Ubisoft would consider that.And while I won't argue with the fact that Ubisoft is not unrealistic about their expectations for this DRM's "success," I do believe they have been unrealistic about it's reception with customers. Their ignore-and-deflect attitude toward ultra-direct questioning on the subject proves that they are either so out of touch that they really are genuinely unaware of how much it is hated or they think that pretending it's not a problem will make the problem go away. Neither of those is doing anyone any good...Ubisoft or consumers. If they'd at least be up-front and honest about it and offer some of the points you offer to explain how things are supposed to work, might work, etc, I'd probably be less infuriated. But when asked what they have to say about the uproar about the system, their only response is "Well, we have some really cool features in store for our customers!" which has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. AT LEAST be open with your customers. Transparency is huge when it comes to customer relations.

As I argued before, I think they have a pretty good idea about how gamers will be affected. But the reality is most gamers are connected to the internet with reasonably good connections. Most gamers will be playing while connected, even if they weren't required to. While it most certainly will affect people who play offline, I don't think it will affect their entire experience with said game. Even people who play offline will likely end up in a location with internet at a primary location.

As for transparency, they came out and were up front about the new DRM. And while you may want to know more, no company can be expected to provide full-disclosure. The statement about the possibilty of patching the game caused enough of a stir by itself as claims of already having cracked the DRM arose.

Right, but unless it is 100% perfect, it's not worth always-on. And even then, there's a limit to the intrusion from DRM that's allowable. Doing business in any industry comes with risks attached, and piracy is a known risk for the games industry. While I'm not defending piracy or saying it's okay...I don't think that honest, paying consumers should be held accountable for that risk. To give some perspective from an area in which I have direct understanding, alarm companies have HUGE amounts of liability. One big mistake could sink many smaller alarm companies. But not all of them pass that accountability on to their customers. Some do, putting strict regulations on things and reducing the effective protection the alarm provides. But others don't, and some even profit off of allowing a lot of user-say in how things are handled which, while having the potential to backfire, also adds more appeal to that individual service. I'd never go with some of the big alarm chains despite their nationwide backing and "advanced call centers" because I know how their response procedure works and feel that it undermines the effectiveness of an alarm system.

No engineer or designer can aim for 100% perfect in practice. Not without taking a lot of money and time. Being a known risk doesn't mean they simply put up with it. By that train of thought, I should stop wearing a seatbelt simply because accidents are a known risk when I drive.

I do not agree.

I assume your thought here is that they suspect everyone is a pirate. That's just not a realistic or reaonable assumption anyone would make. It would be reasonable to think that every person can potentially be a pirate. There is a distinct difference. There is no attempt to single anyone out. Which is why the DRM is applied broadly to everyone rather than selectively.

I'll take CD keys over always online any day. At least it's MY fault when I lose my key. Plus, some companies have found great ways to make CD keys BENEFICIAL to the consumer. Blizzard allows you to enter CD keys for their games and gain access to disc-free downloadable versions of those games. Effing brilliant. Now not only will you never lose your key, but you also don't need a disc, AND it provides incentive to actually PAY for the game and get a legitimate CD key. That's my kind of anti-piracy measure: one that gives BACK to the paying customer.

How does that in that of itself stop piracy? Its a nice benefit for sure, but if someone can do the same for free, what motivation is there for it really?

I can dig a different kind of well to the same dirty water but it won't clean the water unless I add a filter. Implementation means nothing. That's my point. Changing implementation is not the way to go. The IDEA of DRM is broken. It is the wrong approach. Any further re-implementation is a waste of time, effort, and money.

Actually, to be technical, different implementations can filter water differently and more effectively. That's what design and implementation is all about. Hell, I hang a tarp over a well and let the condensation drip into a container. Viola! Distilled water. The questions that come up are effectiveness and cost for the most part. Same is true in any product design.

That may be true for some...not for me. While I'm not happy with any DRM, this one deserves special attention for a couple of reasons: one, I want to see it die. And two, I don't want to see it set a precedent for increasingly intrusive DRM. And that latter point is a big part of why so many are becoming so outspoken against this particular DRM implementation. It has the potential to set a very bad precedent. Like Picard snarls in First Contact, "The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther." I do not want to be participating in a thread in a year or two discussing a new DRM format that requires everyone to use the included-with-game USB biometric scanner to sign into their Ubisoft account any time they boot up the game. I will accept no further intrusion. I will not accept THIS intrusion.

I'm not sure the first is a reason. Its just your goal. And while I can appreciate taking a stand on an issue, I find it odd that you would not appreciete the stand the industry is trying to take against pirates. This is a two-way street. Consider that we pay more money than we need to in insurance premiums, our groceries, anything we buy because of "victimless crimes". Do we blame the insurance companies and stores for allowing it?

Actually, yes. I do. I've read lots of studies and articles on the costs and effectiveness of piracy and DRM (some of them by actual games publishers, with input from both sides of the DRM argument). Somebody (I'll try to find it, but I THINK it was Brad Wardell of Stardock--not to be confused with Starforce) actually presented lots of really enlightening numbers and gave a publisher's-perspective of the "costs" of piracy and the value (or lack of value) DRM presents for countering those costs.But the real thing that makes me more knowledgeable is that I am an active PARTICIPANT in the games industry. DRM engineers are not. Ubisoft execs are not. Publishing desk jockeys are not. Just like Ed Whitacre and his Desk Jockey diploma. I understand the automotive market on a much more intimate scale than he does. Because I'm an active part of it. I AM the game's industry. I AM the auto industry. Ubisoft and DRM engineers are only indirectly related to the games industry.

Please provide said info. I searched and can't find any articles with specific numbers. Only opinions.

As for being a participant, how does that make you more knowledgable? Without having reasonably put together statistics, you would be basing it purely off your opinion. I'm sure you've likely seen or participated in discussions with others, but the general reality is that the people opposed to something generally speak loudest. They do not necessarily make up the majority though. Its unlikely that going by the percentage of people who complain about something on a forum would represent an accurate cross-section of the consumers of that product.

DRM engineers don't have to know anything about it. They are engineers. They are presented with a problem, some constraints, and tasked with finding solutions.

It is, which is why I said probably. But this is no bigger an assumption than your suggestion that they actually know what they're talking about. Which was all I was trying to say. You can't know they're geniuses anymore than I know they're idiots. So just assuming everything will be okay because they must know what they're doing is a pretty big leap.

I think its a reasonable assumption to make that that people in higher up positions have some clue as to what they are doing. Of course this isn't universally true, but much more credible that assuming the opposite.

Certainly, but that comes back to my above point: what does that "best" data support? Did they completely ignore consumer reception in those debates? I can't say. But I can say that they ARE ignoring consumer reception now that it's implemented, with the ignore-and-deflect treatment they're throwing at all criticism. So the big question for me is not "why did they chose to use this system?" but rather "why did they not choose NOT to use this system?" And despite the double-negatives, those are not the same thing. I am genuinely curious, even aside from my outrage, as to how those meetings went.

I'm sure it was discussed in great detail. How does ANY company ignore consumer reception of a product when that is what ultimately determines their revenue stream. It would be quite naive to thinkk otherwise.

Right, but this comes back to the whole "precedent" thing. If this Ubisoft system is "accepted" in the end, we WILL see a lot more variations of it. So that's a very valid point from the big-picture perspective.

Sure, but if it becomes widely adopted, it might speak to its effectiveness as well.

Interesting that you bring up receipt checking, since there was a thread on that subject a few years ago and I was there making the same basic arguments I'm making here. So yeah, I think they should do away with receipt checking. It's just another case of "suspect everyone."I can kind of understand it at Costco/Sam's Club due to the way checkout is handled, but I'd prefer to see it go away there, too.Here's the old thread, BTW. You'll find that my posts there echo my sentiments from this thread exactly.zerothread?id=212125

Without trying to stray too far off-topic, its not a matter of suspecting everyone. But everyone is potentially a thief. I doubt the people at the door even know how to spot a thief. The reasoning behind it is likely more psychological than anything else. But think of it this way. Without them, its likely shoplifting would increase.

Only because you asked me to! You asked specifically about ALL DRM. So I replied specifically about ALL DRM.

Right, but I asked if all DRM should be abolished. Your reasoning is what you generalized. I'd probably not make such a criticism if you actually broke down reasons for not implenting each type of DRM.

I prefer to think of myself as an cynical realist, thank you.

LOL. Oxymoron.

Yeah, but Windows doesn't require you to always be online or it'll boot you back to BIOS.But yes, I've done reinstalls with a single Windows key/license and even moved that license to another computer. It's kind of a pain, but if you call up MS customer support and explain that you're NOT simply installing multiple copies of the OS simultaneously, they'll "free" the key so it can be used again. So they at least give you the benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming you're a criminal, which is certainly worth some bonus points. I don't particularly care for Microsoft's use of Genuine Windows validation, though (used when installing certain optional/modular MS/Windows components, such as Microsoft Security Essentials) especially since I've had issues with it on genuinely legal windows installs back in the XP days. It's leaving too much to potential software faults. I haven't had any false-negatives in Vista or 7 yet, though.

Sure, but like with different products of any kind there are different challenges. Many gamers would go ballistic if game companies tied a copy of a game to a single computer. Windows is designed specifically to do that as that is its intended use. Which generally makes it less intrusive. But my point was simply that Windows does use DRM and spoke of numbers to justify its existence.

Just for some interesting reading, google "Brad Wardell on DRM." You'll see a publisher (and digital distribution operator) talking about the downsides of DRM. Wardell is also responsible for compiling the "Gamer's Bill of Rights" which you should read as well.

Tried. He isn't saying anything that I would consider a revalation. I'll refrain from any comments about his having a pulse on DRM and its effects until I see some numbers. And I'm not sure what the gamer's bill of rights has anything to do with whether or not this DRM would be effective or not. Nor would anything in it be legally enforcable. Or to put it another way, if devs came up with a developer's bill of rights, what requirement would you have to adhere to it?

Big post done, I'll comment on the game itself. It has a few quirks like any other game. Namely, how so many actions use the A button and a lot of various options are available so its easy to accidentally initiate the wrong command when trying to do things in a hurry. I don't know how many times I jumped out of closed windows when I was actually trying to open it so I could jump out without alerting the enemy. Breaking glass tends to be loud.

Despite that, the stealth portions of the game can be a lot of fun. A lot of challenging puzzles in terms of how to take down a room full of enemies. There are also a lot of tools at your disposal as well. Remote mines are quite helpful. But even then, there can be clever ways to take down a room of 6 quickly with nothing but a pistol. Premark 4 targets (max after upgrading a particular gun). Manually perform a headshot on one of the unmarked targets while standing right behind the other unknown. Perform a hand-to-hand kill on him then quickly perform the execute command. I'm on my third time through the single player. Can't wait to tryout the co-op when I have time.

As far as Splinter Cell itself goes...I've never played a single game in the series. That said, the ads for the new game have made an impression on me. Not a good or bad one per se, but an impression nonetheless. And that impression is that the game's casting department sucks. Sam's voice DOES NOT FIT HIS APPEARANCE AT ALL. I kept looking for the gruff-looking wrinkly grey-haired dude who was talking. I looked for a while before finally realizing it was Sam himself. The voice fits him so poorly, every line he says is jarring. He just doesn't look like he should sound like that. Michael Ironside rocks, and does a great job...I just don't think he fits the character as far as sound goes. I never really noticed it with media from the previous games, but maybe Sam talked less in those ads...

As far as the DRM crap:

Hey...that tree looks kind of famili...
Have we been going in CIRCLES all this time?!

I think Blizzard doesn't have a big need to require an active online connection for single player. MP on SC2 was the driving force behind the game and it would be enough by itself to do an adequate job of preventing piracy if it actively checks for multiple log-ins with the same key at the same time like they did with the original. A single player only game has to require an online connection to be able to confirm a legit copy is being used. There is a technical difference in how each can make this work.

Actually, I'd say Blizzard has a great reason to require online activation with WoW. It combats private servers, which likely steal a larger chunk of change from them than just pirating the game would. If you're not playing on an official server, Bliz isn't getting their $15/month. Seems like they have the need, if they wanted to act on it. I'm glad they don't, but if we're approaching this from the Ubisoft point of view, those $15/month are well worth more than once CD key check.

But the game isn't defective (works as company intended). If someone wants to reject a product because it doesn't perform in a way that works with their intended use, then that's fine. However, its not like they are trying to hide anything about this.

If you can't play the game, that would be defined as "defective." Especially if it's due to an (admitted!) failure on Ubisoft's part. Since this thread was last active, there have been more cases of Ubifail. Australian players were locked out of playing Settlers 7 because of Ubinet authentication problems. That's DEFECTIVE. Not working as intended.

As I argued before, I think they have a pretty good idea about how gamers will be affected.

I know they do! THAT'S WHY IT'S SO INFURIATING.

As for transparency, they came out and were up front about the new DRM. And while you may want to know more, no company can be expected to provide full-disclosure. The statement about the possibilty of patching the game caused enough of a stir by itself as claims of already having cracked the DRM arose.

Transparency ALONE is not enough. They have been intentionally misleading from the start, talking about the DRM scheme like it's a feature designed to add value for the legit user, when it's really nothing of the sort. They even talked about features like "unlimited installs" as though it's this DRM scheme that enables that "feature." I don't care what the reasoning for it was, the fact that they refuse to even acknowledge that people are unhappy with it is disconcerting.

No engineer or designer can aim for 100% perfect in practice.

Thus, DRM as it is currently employed should be abandoned.

I assume your thought here is that they suspect everyone is a pirate.

Not necessarily everyone, but "anyone." You know, like the whole Clubbed to Death/Lady in the Red Dress scene from the Matrix. Anyone could be, so why give anyone the chance to be, right? That's just not fair to those who would never be pirates.

How does that in that of itself stop piracy? Its a nice benefit for sure, but if someone can do the same for free, what motivation is there for it really?

I wasn't implying that it helps stop piracy. I was merely giving an example of DRM that actually presents genuine benefits to the end user.
But, judging by EA's current strategy of value-adds for initial purchasers, I'd say you could probably find data to support the idea that something like anytime free downloads is worth something to gamers. I don't know that for sure, but I know a LOT of big publishers are looking at doing little things for initial purchasers that are along these lines because they seem to believe it'll combat profit loss from secondhand game sales. Once that code (or cd key) is used, it's used. No one else can claim those rewards. So to get those benefits, people have to buy legitimately and new. It encourages legal new-retail purchases with valid keys.

Consider that we pay more money than we need to in insurance premiums, our groceries, anything we buy because of "victimless crimes". Do we blame the insurance companies and stores for allowing it?

I don't have to log into Walmart.com before I can remove the cap from my orange juice. I don't have to log into StateFarm.com each time I want to make use of my auto insurance. I won't log into Ubisoft.DRM just to play my games.

As for being a participant, how does that make you more knowledgable?

Are you kidding? How does it NOT make me more knowledgeable. All i have to do is look at a game's magazine ads and I can tell you whether it's any good, whether it'll sell, whether it's going to get tons of media coverage, and whether it's going to be overhyped. I predict automotive and gaming industry events all the time. I don't need studies and numbers. I don't have to weigh my can of coke to know if I can lift it. I see how things work and learn how to use information. I predicted the Toyota debacle. I predicted the new Camaro amidst scores of people telling me it'd never happen...LONG before websites and magazines got a hold of the hot topic and anything even unofficial came out of GM. I new Haze was going to be garbage from its magazine ads. I knew Advent Rising was going to be a bomb despite its aggressive marketing campaign. I predicted Fallout New Vegas would be set in Vegas long before the game was even a whisper (and, obviously, before the dead-giveaway name was known). I KNOW these industries. Granted, I'm not always right (where's my desel Maxima?) but I certainly have a damn good grasp on the hows, whats, and whys of the games industry. I understand what works and what doesn't, what sells and what doesn't, and why. I am an active participant and it has always been my hobby to observe the flow of these markets.

DRM engineers don't have to know anything about it.

Bullpucky. They absolutely have to know about it. You can't treat DRM like an separate device. It's part of the game, treat it like part of the game. Tire manufacturers have to understand the car industry or they'll never make the tires people need. That's why Michelin is selling their moronic fuel-saver tires despite the fact that no one's wallet is so light that they'd ever actually notice the savings. Because Michelin knows car owners are whiny bishez. DRM developers need to understand their customers (game developers) and their end users (gamers) or they fail by default.

I think its a reasonable assumption to make that that people in higher up positions have some clue as to what they are doing. Of course this isn't universally true, but much more credible that assuming the opposite.

Really? You think Carlos Ghosn knows anything about cars? He doesn't. But he does know how to rescue companies. He doesn't even know how to KEEP them rescued, which is why he's always on the move to some new about-to-die company and why Nissan isn't doing as well now as they were back in 2006. You think Bobby Kotick knows anything about games? He doesn't. Go watch his DICE keynote for evidence. Do you think that John Riccitiello (had to look up the spelling on that one) knows anything about games? Really? Nope. All he knows is how to buy up companies that are getting good press and then fire everyone and sell the products as his own. See: Westwood Studios for evidence. Or any of dozens of other companies.
Nope, I'd definitely say that evidence suggests higher-ups have absolutely no idea how their industries work, they just know how business works. They apply a universal model without considering the uniqueness. And you can observe that the exceptions to this rule, those who DO attempt to embrace their markets' unique aspects (Valve, the Corvette team) tend to do better than the bigger, more generically run companies. If you don't understand what you're selling, who you're selling to, and why they're buying it, you can only be so successful. It doesn't matter how good a businessman you are, if you approach games development (or publishing!) as just another corporation, you're going to find the ceiling in a hurry.

I'm sure it was discussed in great detail. How does ANY company ignore consumer reception of a product when that is what ultimately determines their revenue stream. It would be quite naive to thinkk otherwise

By being oblivious. As I have stated. Oblivious or misguided.

Sure, but if it becomes widely adopted, it might speak to its effectiveness as well.

Not really. On multiple levels. First, again, the whole misguided thing. Second, popularity doesn't always indicate superiority. The idiotic rhetoric of "Can [x massive number of] people be wrong?" is idiotic rhetoric. YES. THEY SURE AS HELL CAN. And often are. And third, I'll again reiterate one of my major points: its effectiveness isn't 100%, so its effectiveness does not justify its existence.

Without trying to stray too far off-topic, its not a matter of suspecting everyone. But everyone is potentially a thief.

That's the same thing! If you're not one of us, you're one of them.

LOL. Oxymoron.

No, it isn't. Look up the definition of cynic. Cynics, originally, were people who lived their lives based on an analysis of what was beneficial and what was unnecessary. Cynicism does NOT mean doubting or suspecting everything. The popular misinterpretation is irritating. Skeptics doubt everything. Cynics have no use for preconception as it doesn't serve them. They do not look for good in bad, or bad in good. They simply question and evaluate. In fact, the original description of cynicism was one who goes about life indifferently. Cynicism and realism are supportive outlooks. One can of course be one without the other. But the outlook of beneficial vs unnecessary compliments an outlook of realism very nicely.

Sure, but like with different products of any kind there are different challenges. Many gamers would go ballistic if game companies tied a copy of a game to a single computer.

What about 5? Because that's what SecuROM does. And it's not well-liked at all.

Tried. He isn't saying anything that I would consider a revalation. I'll refrain from any comments about his having a pulse on DRM and its effects until I see some numbers. And I'm not sure what the gamer's bill of rights has anything to do with whether or not this DRM would be effective or not. Nor would anything in it be legally enforcable. Or to put it another way, if devs came up with a developer's bill of rights, what requirement would you have to adhere to it?

I don't point you to him so you can find revelation. Go get a Bible for that. I point you to him to disprove your whole "bottom line" argument. He, a developer of both games and other software, believes that not using DRM helps his bottom line. He is a games developer and publisher. And he does not use DRM because he believes it would be harmful to his bottom line. Your argument is invalid. His hair isn't a bird, though.

Combats private servers...
Beat me to it.
I dabbled in that for a little while.

As far as DRM...haven't you guys discussed this all before?
I agree that there should be SOME anti-piracy protection, but this is really not the way to do it. Until the internet is as rock-steady as our power utilities, this system will always have problems and thus present an inferior product. I'll admit that I haven't had an interruption in service in a year...but that doesn't mean everyone else enjoy the same luck. And it doesn't excuse the fact that Ubisoft's servers will crap out from time to time and require maintenance. Waiting for maintenance for a single player game? That's retarded.

A better system would be to require you to connect to an authentication server every so often. That would alleviate the need for a constant connection. The designers would have to come up with a suitable interval of course. Maybe every couple of days it would check...I don't know.

My Comcast service goes out A LOT lately. Actually, it was becoming infuriating a couple weeks ago when my roommate and I were playing a lot of Death Run (a Garry's Mod mod). Every morning...EVERY MORNING...we'd lose our connection for ~30 seconds at least once. It'd come right back, but it'd go out just long enough to cause an autodisconnect from the server.
It probably goes out once a day that I actually notice. For anywhere from 30 seconds to 15 minutes. It's annoying enough when it interrupts multiplayer games, but at least when I can't play Shattered Horizon or DeathRun I can still play some singleplayer games...except for Ubisoft games, that is.

I am not sure if any one is interested, but I would move most of these posts to the DRM thread MoD created a while back.