Ubisoft's new online DRM system . . .

[VirusType2]

You need internet to get the games from Steam at all.

It is implied that, by downloading the game, you have a situation where you can go into offline mode while online. It's perfectly sensible, however if you have an unexpected disconnect, that is the problem.

I bought Half-Life2 in a retail box.

The problem I had, was that I had internet, but then moved to a home with no internet, and could not play it any more.

Steam is obviously much better, if not just for the fact that you can play it offline if you have internet. You don't have to be constantly connected just to play.

To restate - with Ubisoft's DRM, your game is paused and you cannot continue if your internet connection is interrupted. That's completely unnecessary for a single player game, and I will be boycotting anything from Ubisoft that incorporates this DRM.

 

[Acepilotf14]

What will they be doing with Steam copies of their games? I hope not implement it on there too. That'd be terrible.

 

[Laivasse]

You can connect to the internet once, set it offline and then shut down your PC and restart Steam twenty times and offline mode will still work. Trust me on this, I use offline mode quite a bit. I don't know if there is a time limit before you have to go online again, but if there is it's pretty damn long.

This. Most of the people complaining about offline mode not working appear not to have tested it properly before relocating to an unconnected environment (although I'm not saying it's not glitchy to get it working in the first place). After installing HL2 from retail I used offline mode for over 6 months without a problem.

 

[VirusType2]

You have to let them know "Hey I've got no internet anymore so I want to play offline", after the fact that you don't have internet. It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't make any sense to have to let them know you want to play offline. I can't think of a reason, anyway.

I bought the game, I checked in with the server upon installation and registration of the serial key, I even joined Steam, creating a user name and password. I should be able to play single player, with or without internet. That's just how I see it.

I shouldn't have to tell them I want to play single player offline. Who would have thought?

Does anyone see a reason to be online to play an offline game? This is the work of the devil. I won't jump through hoops.

 

[Naph]

It could be a whole lot worse.

Aww, man! And Ubi made such great PC ports.

Say that to my ****ing face, and I will gut you.

 

[ríomhaire]

You have to let them know "Hey I've got no internet anymore so I want to play offline", after the fact that you don't have internet. It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't make any sense to have to let them know you want to play offline. I can't think of a reason, anyway.

You fail at offline mode. You do not have to turn on offline mode while connected to get it to work. Just shut down Steam, unplug your network cable and start it again and it'll ask if you want to use offline mode. It only doesn't work if you shut Steam down while it's in the middle of something, like downloading an update or if it crashes.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

unplug your network cable

Why the **** should I have to?

 

[VirusType2]

You fail at offline mode. You do not have to turn on offline mode while connected to get it to work. Just shut down Steam, unplug your network cable and start it again and it'll ask if you want to use offline mode. It only doesn't work if you shut Steam down while it's in the middle of something, like downloading an update or if it crashes.

The game had already been installed and was listed at 100%. Later down the road, I had no internet access and tried to play the game. It asked if I wanted to use offline mode, but it wouldn't work, and I can't remember the reason. It happened to me on several occasions over the years.

It had sometimes worked for me in offline mode, but once it doesn't work, it won't work again until you connect to the internet.

Relating to the topic, I'm not at all interested in single player games that don't work without an internet connection. They'd have to be $1.

 

[Wizard]

You don't have to physically remove the cord, if you don't want: you can always just disconnect yourself from the network via Windows control panel. I don't see *why* you would want to play in off-line mode if you clearly have an internet connection.

Any argument claiming that Steam doesn't have a "right" to connect to the internet when the program is open and a connection is established is laughable. It's in the ToS/ToA: you do not have to buy Steam games or use Steam, no one is forcing it on you.

 

[ríomhaire]

Why the **** should I have to?

You don't! I was just saying that if your internet suddenly goes you can still use offline mode. You can also set it to offline while connected to the internet!

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Yeah, kinda defeats the purpose for what any sane person considers offline mode. That should be 'disconnected but still able to play' mode.

 

[jondy]

Steam is different because it gives something back to the consumer. It started out more-or-less as a shitty DRM for HL2 that everyone hated, but Valve tried to do something with it and look at it today. The problem with most other companies is they never stop to consider how the consumer benefits from these measures, which is why they're horrible.

Yeah, definitely this. Gabe went out of his way in interviews to explain - the only way to make DRM palatable is to provide a better service than pirated software. Regrettably Ubisoft hasn't been listening

 

[VirusType2]

You don't have to physically remove the cord, if you don't want: you can always just disconnect yourself from the network via Windows control panel. I don't see *why* you would want to play in off-line mode if you clearly have an internet connection.

I didn't have internet access to disconnect from. I thought I said that 3 times.

Any argument claiming that Steam doesn't have a "right" to connect to the internet when the program is open and a connection is established is laughable. It's in the ToS/ToA: you do not have to buy Steam games or use Steam, no one is forcing it on you.

I never said they didn't have the right.

I said I don't see a reason I can't play the single player campaign without internet access. If it's about validating a legitimate copy of the game - well, I passed through all of the checkpoints - I installed the game, entered the valid key, created a Steam profile, downloaded all the updates.

What more can I do to prove I paid for it? So, no, it's not about that at all. What is it about? They want to be sure they can stream advertisements for more games? I don't know. I don't care why. They might have a good reason for it, but it's not a good reason to me.

It's in the ToS/ToA: you do not have to buy Steam games or use Steam, no one is forcing it on you.

If you guys like Steam, that's fine. I won't mess with it.

I bought Half-Life 2 in 2004, having never heard of Steam. "Internet Connection Required" right on the box. I knew what I was getting into. I wanted to play HL2, so I put up with it, and now I'm done.

I actually paid more for HL2 than any other game for my PC. It makes me feel ripped off. There's been a dozen times I felt like playing HL2, but I don't like dealing with Steam, so I never bother re-installing it. I end up playing my other games instead.

 

[smwScott]

Just to play devils advocate a bit here, the main thing I find appealing about Steam is that you can download your games from any computer, anytime. This Ubisoft thing allows that too, as well as cloud game saves. That's kinda nice to have.

The only real downside is that it needs an always-on internet connection, which the majority of people won't have a problem maintaining. Keep in mind that while Steam allows an offline mode (and certainly allows you to save the game if you lose connection mid-session), it really isn't effective at combating piracy.

If the system is deeply integrated into the game - as in there's no built-in way to save games other than uploading them to the server, then this may actually be somewhat effective at reducing piracy. Other games I've played with online checks only did so at boot-up, making them easily defeatable with a crack.

Side note: I'm still not in favor of this, as overall it's fairly invasive and has the potential to hamper the experience. However, if measures like this worked and resulted in lower prices due to reduced piracy, then I'd be in favor. Unfortunately they want to stamp out piracy and still keep prices the same, hence on a system like the PS3 where piracy is absolutely not an issue in any way they still charge $60 a pop.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Say that to my ****ing face, and I will gut you.

Wut.

That said though, Far Cry 2 was a notable exception to the "Ubi ports suck" rule, but I'm pretty sure that was developed primarily for PC so doesn't count.

 

[Paulaner]

If the system is deeply integrated into the game - as in there's no built-in way to save games other than uploading them to the server, then this may actually be somewhat effective at reducing piracy. Other games I've played with online checks only did so at boot-up, making them easily defeatable with a crack.

Agreed. I understand that an always-on internet connection may be a problem for some people, but from a theoretical point of view, tying the whole gaming experience to the internet might be an effective way to stop piracy. Offline modes in single-player games, like Steam's, can easily be cracked. The system proposed by Ubi is more robust and integrated. It might work and, from my personal point of view (I am always connected), is better than any other DRM.

 

[VirusType2]

I won't sacrifice my game experience for their sake. No favors. This is a ****ing business.

Single player game that only works while connected to their server? Not interested.

What exactly are you paying for if you don't own it, if you can't do what you want, play it when you want? Might as well rent it, amirite?

 

[Krynn72]

from my personal point of view (I am always connected), is better than any other DRM.

Thats like saying that rock solid shits are better than liquid shits. Its still shit, and its just a different kind of bad shit.

I don't get why developers and publishers still see the situation so skewed. They see things like "Oh no, 300,000 people are pirating our gaems! Thats 300,000 people who would have bought it if they didn't have piracy!"

No it isn't. I think the best way to combat piracy is to

A: Acknowledge that people who would never have bought the game in the first place will download it. Period. Nothing you can do will make them buy the game, ever.

B: Recognize that introducing invasive, problematic, or any DRM that causes a hassle to legitimate customers will INCREASE piracy of you game.

C: Doing simple copy protection to prevent lower forms of piracy (like handing your dvd to a friend) is sufficient.

D: Build a positive rapport with the consumer base, and make them want to purchase your game. People don't mind stealing from strangers, but once they get to know you, and you're not an ass, they will want to support you instead.

At least thats how I see it.

 

[VirusType2]

Thats like saying that rock solid shits are better than liquid shits. Its still shit, and its just a different kind of bad shit.

I don't get why developers and publishers still see the situation so skewed. They see things like "Oh no, 300,000 people are pirating our gaems! Thats 300,000 people who would have bought it if they didn't have piracy!"

No it isn't. I think the best way to combat piracy is to

A: Acknowledge that people who would never have bought the game in the first place will download it. Period. Nothing you can do will make them buy the game, ever.

B: Recognize that introducing invasive, problematic, or any DRM that causes a hassle to legitimate customers will INCREASE piracy of you game.

C: Doing simple copy protection to prevent lower forms of piracy (like handing your dvd to a friend) is sufficient.

D: Build a positive rapport with the consumer base, and make them want to purchase your game. People don't mind stealing from strangers, but once they get to know you, and you're not an ass, they will want to support you instead.

At least thats how I see it.

I couldn't have said it better myself. This is it, plain and simple.

 

[smwScott]

Thats like saying that rock solid shits are better than liquid shits. Its still shit, and its just a different kind of bad shit.

I don't get why developers and publishers still see the situation so skewed. They see things like "Oh no, 300,000 people are pirating our gaems! Thats 300,000 people who would have bought it if they didn't have piracy!"

No it isn't. I think the best way to combat piracy is to

A: Acknowledge that people who would never have bought the game in the first place will download it. Period. Nothing you can do will make them buy the game, ever.

B: Recognize that introducing invasive, problematic, or any DRM that causes a hassle to legitimate customers will INCREASE piracy of you game.

C: Doing simple copy protection to prevent lower forms of piracy (like handing your dvd to a friend) is sufficient.

D: Build a positive rapport with the consumer base, and make them want to purchase your game. People don't mind stealing from strangers, but once they get to know you, and you're not an ass, they will want to support you instead.

At least thats how I see it.

Those are all good points, but I feel that the main thing is price.

I don't think that's entirely fair to say that all those people who pirated the game would've never bought it. I do think it's fair to say that they would never buy it at that price. Games are too ****ing expensive, there's no way around it. Only a select few (maybe 1-2 a year) are worth it.

If games were priced at a more reasonable point, say $20-40 depending on type, I would spend much more in this industry than I currently do. I could list numerous games that I would've bought if they were available at that price point, whereas now I haven't bought one in months. Compared with the value you can get with other forms of entertainment, video games are a joke at $60 a piece.

 

[Paulaner]

A: Acknowledge that people who would never have bought the game in the first place will download it. Period. Nothing you can do will make them buy the game, ever.

B: Recognize that introducing invasive, problematic, or any DRM that causes a hassle to legitimate customers will INCREASE piracy of you game.

C: Doing simple copy protection to prevent lower forms of piracy (like handing your dvd to a friend) is sufficient.

D: Build a positive rapport with the consumer base, and make them want to purchase your game. People don't mind stealing from strangers, but once they get to know you, and you're not an ass, they will want to support you instead.

All good points. It's impossible not to agree with you. Talking about the new Ubisoft system, I never judge before trying.

 

[Krynn72]

Those are all good points, but I feel that the main thing is price.

I don't think that's entirely fair to say that all those people who pirated the game would've never bought it. I do think it's fair to say that they would never buy it at that price.

Good point. But when games cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make, its kinda hard to only charge 40-60 dollars. Especially on the PC, where sales are nowhere near what they are on consoles.

My main point was that a piracy attempt being thwarted does not result in a purchase. A test was done a while back, that determined for every 1,000 piracy attempts blocked, 1 sale was made. So even if you block 100,000 copies of your game going out, you only get 100 sales. Rough data, and from one small source, but it seems to be pretty accurate.

 

[chimpmunk]

So what you go to internet place, login, goto offline mode, set computer to hibernate every time until you have access again? Gah this thread only serves to remind me of how I wish they'd just make it a real offline mode. What happens in the aftermath of the apocalypse when I want to play some goddamn steam games and I can't because the servers no longer exist?

Is this guy for real?

Whenever I would lose my connection to the internet, all I had to do was launch Steam, it would try to connect for a while and then offer to retry or use the offline mode.
Guess which one I'd pick to keep playing my steam games, gosh, without an internet connection?

C'mon, guess.

 

[Naph]

Whenever I went into offline mode, it would never allow me play single player games, only modifications. On the absolute rare occasion I could by pass "This game needs online mode to be launched" error.

 

[Kyorisu]

I didn't have internet access to disconnect from. I thought I said that 3 times.

And I've said it in the past. AOL. You must have had a phone line, dial up is cheap and would have solved all your problems. Yes having a reliance on the internet is bad but there is a huge difference between needing an internet connection and constantly needing an internet connection.

Just to play devils advocate a bit here, the main thing I find appealing about Steam is that you can download your games from any computer, anytime. This Ubisoft thing allows that too, as well as cloud game saves. That's kinda nice to have.

Yes and no. I can count the number of times I've had to download a steam game on one hand. Once.

If the system is deeply integrated into the game - as in there's no built-in way to save games other than uploading them to the server, then this may actually be somewhat effective at reducing piracy. Other games I've played with online checks only did so at boot-up, making them easily defeatable with a crack.

And so you've stopped people pirating your game...great now if only they'd buy it, oh wait they won't.

However, if measures like this worked and resulted in lower prices due to reduced piracy, then I'd be in favor. Unfortunately they want to stamp out piracy and still keep prices the same, hence on a system like the PS3 where piracy is absolutely not an issue in any way they still charge $60 a pop.

Since when does the number of pirates in anyway affect how successful the game is? Look at MW2 that got pirated like mad and yet made tonnes of money. Go figure you actually have to make a good (oh god I called COD good) game to sell it. If anything as in the case with MW2 they'll RAISE THE PRICE. Intrusive and I consider anything made by Ubisoft as intrusive DRM will not result in less piracy and certainly will not result in cheaper prices. They have to cover the cost of building, maintaining, running and supporting the DRM platform after all.

 

[ríomhaire]

Whenever I went into offline mode, it would never allow me play single player games, only modifications. On the absolute rare occasion I could by pass "This game needs online mode to be launched" error.

I've gotten that but it's rare. Just go online, launch the game, then close it and go offline again. Even that can be done on dial-up.

"BUT WHAT IF YOU DON'T HAVE INTERNET?"
Then you're ****ed.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Is this guy for real?

You don't have to pretend I'm in some other unreachable place

Whenever I would lose my connection to the internet, all I had to do was launch Steam, it would try to connect for a while and then offer to retry or use the offline mode.
Guess which one I'd pick to keep playing my steam games, gosh, without an internet connection?

C'mon, guess.

Guess what? I know you can do that. And that's not my ****ing point. You can't do that when you have no internet for a substantial amount of time. I have no intention of going without internet (and it's probably hard to do in this day and age); but I know that it surely would piss me off if something like that did happen and I didn't have access to games I've paid for. It's a matter of principle.

 

[Kyorisu]

Well you paid for access to the games and a requirement of said access is an internet connection. Complaining about online requirements like we are here is fine but complaining about online requirements after already having bought into is a bit annoying. The only time offline mode has failed for me is when I've killed steam rather than letting it terminate gracefully.

 

[smwScott]

Since when does the number of pirates in anyway affect how successful the game is? Look at MW2 that got pirated like mad and yet made tonnes of money. Go figure you actually have to make a good (oh god I called COD good) game to sell it. If anything as in the case with MW2 they'll RAISE THE PRICE. Intrusive and I consider anything made by Ubisoft as intrusive DRM will not result in less piracy and certainly will not result in cheaper prices. They have to cover the cost of building, maintaining, running and supporting the DRM platform after all.

Yup.

The tone of your response seemed like it was geared towards a debate, but I said the same thing in case there was some confusion there.

 

[V-Man339]

Thats like saying that rock solid shits are better than liquid shits. Its still shit, and its just a different kind of bad shit.

I don't get why developers and publishers still see the situation so skewed. They see things like "Oh no, 300,000 people are pirating our gaems! Thats 300,000 people who would have bought it if they didn't have piracy!"

No it isn't. I think the best way to combat piracy is to

A: Acknowledge that people who would never have bought the game in the first place will download it. Period. Nothing you can do will make them buy the game, ever.

B: Recognize that introducing invasive, problematic, or any DRM that causes a hassle to legitimate customers will INCREASE piracy of you game.

C: Doing simple copy protection to prevent lower forms of piracy (like handing your dvd to a friend) is sufficient.

D: Build a positive rapport with the consumer base, and make them want to purchase your game. People don't mind stealing from strangers, but once they get to know you, and you're not an ass, they will want to support you instead.

At least that's how I see it.

Why is it so hard for corporations that specialize in this business to understand this sentiment?

 

[Paulaner]

And so you've stopped people pirating your game...great now if only they'd buy it, oh wait they won't.

Don't be so sure. If I want a game, and I can't pirate it, I could decide to buy it. I did so for an expensive professional software.

 

[Bakurei]

Cloud saves ftw, I wish the xbox had the same system. Had my ME1 saves on my old xbox and lost 'em when I bought a new one :E

Could care less about the DRM, because I buy my games and DRM has never been a problem.

 

[stemot]

Could care less about the DRM, because I buy my games and DRM has never been a problem.

That's usually what the pirates say. I bought Dark Athena when it came out for PC, which was protected with tages on-line authentication. The actual company told customers when pressed for a revoke tool that it would not be supplying one. II used my 3 activations when over the course of a month I had 2 unexpected upgrades, which Tages decided means I should have to use another activation.
I now have to use a version deemed illegal because the version I paid money for cannot be played. I know which one should be deemed illegal.

DRM only ever hurts legit consumers. You really think Ubi's new system won't be cracked a couple days after release? Ubi are kidding themselves and wasting money that could be put into developing something people will actually pay money for instead of the crap they insist on putting out.

 

[Bakurei]

Well I usually keep my games on a seperate partition so I rarely reinstall games, even after upgrades.

Limiting how many times you can install a game is indeed a bad DRM. When I buy games I usually install them on three different computers, one for my laptop, for my work laptop and then on my desktop. But even then, I got the game on three different HDD's so all of them would have to die for me to lose the game.

 

[VirusType2]

I hate how several times a day my DVD ROM decides to take a look at my game disc in the DVD drive. It's loud and annoying.

But if I take the disc out, then it can get scratched up and I have to put it back in to play it later.

Maybe this is a fault with the OS, where it could detect the disc in the drive as READ ONLY when the computer boots up - it should know if I've opened the door and thus changed disc, and therefore no need to check it and spin the disc up again and check when I go to save a document within the explorer browser.

I bought this game in 2006. So I mean, we are talking about 3-10 times a day it checks the disc. So think about how worn out my DVD drive has become over 4 years (4,380 - 14,600 disc checks over 4 years) , just from making sure I didn't steal your ****ing game, asshole.

Can't you remember, or only require the disc in the drive like once in a while - like a random unexpected check? A random surprise check is quite effective.

Why not release a patch that no longer requires the disc in the drive. Doom 3 released an official patch that no longer needs the disc in the drive.

Never mind that there's been a cracked .exe available since the game launched in 2006. But, I don't want some cracked shit, dawg.

I hate DRM.

 

[B_MAN]

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/62412

 

[PriNcE oF SpAcE]

well...there goes AC2 off my wish list...

what retard thought this shit up?

 

[Destructo-Bot]

I WAS going to buy AC2. Not anymore. Two examples of DRM being the CAUSE of lost sales.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

You know what, me too. I wanted to pay money for it, but they insist that I do not.

 

[Paulaner]

OK, this is too much to bear. Bye bye Ubi.