Assassin's Creed II - DRM requires *constant* internet connection..

[chuckskull]

<3 Penny Arcade.

[Mutley]

As Princess Leia said to Governor Tarkin, "the more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers".

These are increasingly desperate attempts by the media industry at large really, and they are targetting the wrong people. They are effectively criminalising those they should be fostering , i.e. paying consumers, and are creating a larger piracy problem. This is a big feedback loop, which only serves to be self-fulfilling.

I believe that if publishers spent more time delivering quality entertainment, priced at a suitable point that was perceived to be "value for money", they'd gain in revenue, and reduce the piracy problem. The thing they have to accept is that they cannot get rid of piracy, but they can reduce its impact. These draconian approaches demonstrate tremendous ignorance and naiveity - a "zero tolerance" towards piracy which is entirely counter productive.

Of course the argument around perceived "value for money" could rage on for ever. Valve seemed to have demonstrated with their "weekend sales" that the increased volume of sales often easily counters the reduced profit per unit sold. I think another thread on Hexus this morning highlights this ("Do you buy games you never play"). So lower the price of the game, and more people will buy it, enough to make up the difference in price reduction and more.

I'm sure however that there comes a point, where it doesn't matter how you price the game, people will pirate it anyway. working out that price point, and working to minimise the desire to pirate the games that the is what publishers should be doing. IMHO of course.

[usxhe190]

Might take a few years before the games model become the music model.

In the meantime, it sucks to be a legit PC gamer.

[Saracen]

I'm starting to think it's the DRM that's more risky frankly! I've been using 'nocd' type patches for many years with zero issues - thankfully the pirates ego's are so large (and every 'patch' gets disassembled by their competitors in case they can 1-up themselves as a result - there's hundreds of examples of this in the 'nfo' files they release) that the chances of what you're suggesting are inextricably small. Need we bring up starforce to illustrate just how harmful 'officially' sourced DRM can be? Illicit is an interesting word, is DRM somehow better regulated because it's from a self interested party that you paid money too? Perhaps we can infer it's safety by the very fact there's pirates pulling it apart to find out how it works?
Oh what a sick little circle.

I take the point about peer review, but nonetheless, I'm not taking the chance. I take system security fairly seriously, and I'm not putting patches from pirate sites on a machine that has client confidential work, or my banking details. The risk is not justified for playing a game. Not to me, anyway.

As for "illicit", I wasn't talking about DRM from licit or illicit sites, but about patches from illicit sites.

As far as DRM goes, as long as it's not harmful to my system and/or it's performance, and as long as it isn't too objectionable in it's requirements, then I have no personal objection.

For instance, a CD check on starting a game, or periodically on starting a game, is a pain but for me, not too big a pain. Something that requires online authentication is an utter non-starter as far as I'm concerned. I have games that I bought years and years ago that I periodically go back to and have another go. I'm NOT going to rely on the authentication servers, or even the company itself, still existing in several years, and if it doesn't, I lose that aspect of what I paid for when I bought the game. As far as I'm concerned, when I buy a game I buy it indefinitely, I don't rent it fora year or two until the company decides to move on, or that servers are to expensive to maintain, or there isn't enough demand. Blow that for a game.

Some companies have announced that if they remove the authentication servers, they'll release a DRM removal patch. As and when such a legit, and licit, patch is available then perhaps I'll think about a game ... if I can still buy it at that point. But I'm not paying my money over now on the vague promise of a patch (that isn't from an illicit source) at some point in the future.

But with regards to this specific DRM, I have to wonder if all this is missing the point. It looks to me like this is some kind of tactical move to set up a Steam alternative. It looks to me like Ubisoft have seen a market opportunity and want in to it .... though they appear to have adopted all the subtlety of cracking a walnut with a tactical nuke ... and I honestly hope (but am not holding my breath) that it blows up in their faces.

It will severely annoy a lot of people, and some no doubt won't buy the game as a result. But companies like this won't change their tune unless the level of rejection hits them in the profit margin, and I have my doubts whether the backlash will be big enough to do that.

[kalniel]

It will probably fail to have much effect. At which point they'll just say 'well we tried nice DRM, and we tried nasty DRM, but at the end of the day too many PC gamers just like to pirate regardless, so hello console only gaming'.

At least they're giving it a go, others just dropped PC gaming.

[Saracen]

....., others just dropped PC gaming.

Including, sadly, some gamers .... like me.

'well we tried nice DRM, and we tried nasty DRM, but at the end of the day too many PC gamers just like to pirate regardless, so hello console only gaming'.

What they need to try is adopting methods to combat piracy that don't seriously muck legit users about. Quite what those methods might be beats me, but they are increasing annoying their customer base. Keep that up for too long and they won't have one.

[kalniel]

Including, sadly, some gamers .... like me.

Yup. Piracy for short term reasons has resulted in lose-lose. There will be some knock-on for hardware as well - at the moment PC gamers are eating up vast amounts of hardware, especially graphics cards, far in advance of the spending on actual software. Once AAA games are no longer available even on the pirate scene people will switch out to consoles instead.

I've already delayed a system upgrade due to lack of AAA titles, and currently I'm even questioning whether I will actually upgrade again - my 4-5 year old rig plays current games and console ports without problem. Most of my enjoyment has been in creating content for PC games, but console systems are far more locked down so unless that changes my PC will become a work-only tool, at which point I can probably say 'hello laptop'. I already use a mobile internet device for browsing.

What they need to try is adopting methods to combat piracy that don't seriously muck legit users about. Quite what those methods might be beats me, but they are increasing annoying their customer base. Keep that up for too long and they won't have one.

There are a few schemes I can think of:
1) positive reinforcement for 1st hand sales

This is the approach EA have decided upon - you create lots of DLC alongside and after game release. You include a code in the box and for pre-orders, which can only be used once. This rewards people for buying the game first hand. You can also sell the DLC to second hand customers, clawing back a little revenue.

The downside is customers moan that you're deliberately holding back content for DLC, seemingly regardless of how much content you're still delivering in the original game. DLC might itself be pirated, but for some reason people are more accepting of connecting to servers for DLC verification than game verification.

2) TPM based schemes

Basically the console approach to DRM. The newest motherboards (H55 etc.) are finally including these chips, but it's too little, too late. TPM can be hackable as the X360 has shown, especially in systems as open as the PC.

3) Give the game away for free, support it with ads.

Only the richest publishers will be able to afford paying for development upfront and clawing back the costs so slowly, which means only the best developers will catch their eye enough to use it. Possible solution for AAA, but sucks for everyone else.

4) Keep the game server-based

Not foolproof, but works for a lot of MMORPGs. Online shooters, racing games etc. are all out or in the pipeline. Some gamers dislike being connecting to a server while playing however, especially for single player games.

[dangel]

I take the point about peer review, but nonetheless, I'm not taking the chance. I take system security fairly seriously, and I'm not putting patches from pirate sites on a machine that has client confidential work, or my banking details. The risk is not justified for playing a game. Not to me, anyway.

Everything carries risk - my point is that to me DRM and patches aren't sufficiently separated to warrant thinking one is worse that the other for me, based on experience. Or maybe i'm living life on the edge, woo! Have you ever heard of someone getting a nasty from a nocd patch? Can't say I have yet in all these years of PC gaming.

As far as DRM goes, as long as it's not harmful to my system and/or it's performance, and as long as it isn't too objectionable in it's requirements, then I have no personal objection.

But, just as with nocd patches, how do you know? Aren't you just as reliant on the hackers to verify the DRM isn't noodling your system? I've never had a nocd patch install in ring 0, nor do I have to elevate them to run the game (since I run as a non admin with UAC enabled).

But with regards to this specific DRM, I have to wonder if all this is missing the point. It looks to me like this is some kind of tactical move to set up a Steam alternative.

Interesting idea - but I don't think there's enough there to infer this yet - there's plenty of DRM mechanisms which just authenticate and do nothing else and this looks like just one more right now.

[jim]

There are a few schemes I can think of:
1) positive reinforcement for 1st hand sales

This is the approach EA have decided upon - you create lots of DLC alongside and after game release. You include a code in the box and for pre-orders, which can only be used once. This rewards people for buying the game first hand. You can also sell the DLC to second hand customers, clawing back a little revenue.

The downside is customers moan that you're deliberately holding back content for DLC, seemingly regardless of how much content you're still delivering in the original game. DLC might itself be pirated, but for some reason people are more accepting of connecting to servers for DLC verification than game verification.

Have to admit, I disagree with you there. Take Mass Effect for example - you got DLC armour for buying Dragon Age, a gun for pre-ordering, an assault rifle for buying it from this store or that store, etc etc. I don't know the specifics because it doesn't bother me - but that's roughly what happened.

As well, in a lot of games like this, it's impossible to actually have all of the DLC. For instance, the shotgun will be available for a Game pre-order, whilst the assault rifle will be available for a Gamestation pre-order. And in the case of ME2, who the heck wants to fork out for Dragon Age just to get the DLC armour anyway?!

Point is, one person buys all this junk one way or another. Then that person downloads all of the DLC. Then he hacks it, re-engineers it, and distributes. All of the DLC was available to download in one easy-to-install pack on the torrent sites pretty much as soon as ME2 was cracked. So yet again, Pirates 1 - 0 Consumers. Your average ME2 buyer probably had 2 or 3 bits of DLC, whereas your average pirate had the entire lot.

2) TPM based schemes

Basically the console approach to DRM. The newest motherboards (H55 etc.) are finally including these chips, but it's too little, too late. TPM can be hackable as the X360 has shown, especially in systems as open as the PC.

Interesting, but I can't help feeling it might struggle to gain ground on the PC. Given that it's a platform that's always been - by nature - completely open, people will probably resist any attempt to lock it down. I think I would be very very reluctant to relinquish overall control of how I use my computer.

3) Give the game away for free, support it with ads.

Only the richest publishers will be able to afford paying for development upfront and clawing back the costs so slowly, which means only the best developers will catch their eye enough to use it. Possible solution for AAA, but sucks for everyone else.

The Battlefield Heroes example I guess. The market uptake of that has been fairly telling though I think - when I was massively into BF2, I talked about it to quite a lot of people, but since it has been released I don't think I've heard it mentioned once. I still doubt that it's ever got the ability to overtake current gaming sales. BF2142 was supported with ads even thought it cost £25 to buy, so I don't think it generates that much money. Most of BF: Heroes income was meant to come from microtransactions, but personally I wouldn't get involved. Give me an option to pay £1 for a fluffy hat on my character, and I'll laugh. Give me an option to pay £1 for an amazing sniper rifle that beats all others, and I'll quit - because I'll instantly be at a disadvantage. I have to wonder how many people are prepared to buy those sorts of things in free games, although I could easily be wrong.

4) Keep the game server-based

Not foolproof, but works for a lot of MMORPGs. Online shooters, racing games etc. are all out or in the pipeline. Some gamers dislike being connecting to a server while playing however, especially for single player games.

Yeah, that's the only thing I've seen that works so far. Whilst MW2 was cracked in days, MW2 online has only been cracked very occasionally, and steam usually figures it out and blocks the method fairly quickly. On the genuine CoD games, there were cracked servers, yes - but they weren't that prevalent - it was much more fun when you had the full option of any server, and so on so forth. You'll always get that though - people were still playing the BF2 demo online years after it had come out, so clearly they just weren't prepared to pay, even for a vastly improved version of the game (i.e. patched, with loads more maps, servers not filled with idiots). Fair enough, I guess. That game had virtually no single-player, so it was a case of pay, or don't play.

So if you can lock down the servers (like MW2 did) then that locks out (more or less) the pirates. But then you've got single-player - so that would have to be removed. If MW2 had been released without the single-player, then virtually nobody would've pirated it. But a lot of people wouldn't have bought it either, so I don't know.

--------------

By the way, sorry - not trying to bash your ideas... just thinking around a few of them.

--------------

Every system is going to have its flaws I guess... the only one that I have seen work really effectively is Empire: Total War. Strange choice, perhaps - it had no particularly special anti-piracy method that I recall.

However, it was one of the most bugged games at release there's been in quite a while. There was all sorts of confusion as cracks were nuked and all sorts as the scene release just didn't work properly at all. It never really got sorted out, and a lot of people went off to buy it so that it would actually work like they had expected it to - and then they discovered that actually it was bugged to hell in the official release as well. In other words, there was nothing technically wrong with the crack - it was actually the genuine article that was faulty. In appearances though, people suspected the crack to be at fault and thought going legit would fix them.

It would be a fairly sorry state of affairs though if the publishers decided that mucking up the game was the answer to piracy

Seriously though - there's a point from this. Patching is the one main difficulty with pirated games. The releases are made ASAP by scene, so they arrive on the torrent networks as version 1.0. If there's a major fault, a cracked update v1.01 will probably be available, although possibly not. Beyond that though, v1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc, it's very much pot luck. And then it gets even more complicated - our plucky pirate gets his downloaded game from hacker A, but then it gets an important patch. Only hacker B releases that patch though, so plucky pirate has to redownload the game from hacker B just to apply to patch. And he's got to keep checking the version numbers to make sure he doesn't screw up the install - obviously the cracked updates don't go through much Q&A so they're usually version specific. Vendor updates are not always viable, because you then need a re-crack of the game - and they'll only be available from dodgy sources, if at all. So patching is incredible sticky ground, and that's partly where I think the publishers can win the game.

To take a recent example, I bought GTA IV for the PS3, played it through, thought "meh", and then sold it. However, I wanted another bash at it on the PC, as I thought I'd been a bit harsh and it was actually quite a fun game. Having said that, I had no intention of buying it at full price for the second time - that's not something I'm prepared to do. A lot of people in that position would have just downloaded it, but it's not an easy job. It needs to be sourced, downloaded, installed, patch found, installed (potentially a difficult process), new crack found, install that too, and then it might work. Or it might not. And if it ever crashes, is the crack to blame? It's not particularly attractive. For me, Steam popped up one day and said "£5 for GTA IV". That means fully installed, patched up, ready to go, no messing. Bargain! And I suspect that would go for a lot of people who pirated it as well. For £5, it's worth saving themselves the hassle.

Now I agree that selling every game for £5 isn't going to succeed, but what I'm trying to say is that here, £5 has bought a pirate automatic patching. That's not a bad deal for them. Now, say it cost them another £10 for fully-functioning online play (again, usually not possible with cracked version). Now how about another £2.50 for savegames in the cloud as well as locally. So they can go somewhere else, another PC, login and play their save. Maybe another £2.50 to install it from any location without the disk - just login to steam and it'll download, job done. In this scenario, you've got a few different added benefits that no pirate will get. And in all, it's come together as £20 of benefit. So this game, for £20, provides you with £20-worth of added perks that the pirates aren't getting. To me - that's value, and that's what can change the game.

[Saracen]

Everything carries risk - my point is that to me DRM and patches aren't sufficiently separated to warrant thinking one is worse that the other for me, based on experience. Or maybe i'm living life on the edge, woo! Have you ever heard of someone getting a nasty from a nocd patch? Can't say I have yet in all these years of PC gaming.

No, I haven't heard of anyone getting a virus from a nocd patch, but that will be at least in part because I don't pay any attention to the chatter about nocd patches. I don't know or care if it happens or not - I won;t deliberately install software from the pirate scene on a computer that has any valuable information on it.

That's not to say that I trust DRM from "legit" sources won't clobber th4e machine, either by hitting performance or causing stability issues - they're are enough examples of exactly that for that to be naive. BUt i can cope with that, and it's a modest but acceptable risk It's what backups are for. But nor amount of backups will protect mne from the losses involved in ending up with some nastyware, especially if it involved backdoors or keyloggers.

Does the pirate scene involved in nocd patches carry nastyware? Dunno. BUt does the priate scene providing pirate software carry that risk? Oh hell, yes. I've spent enough time cleaning such nasties off machines for people too stupid or naive to check what they're installing to think otherwise.

SO what you're really advocating is drawing an ethical line between the activities of those providing nocd patches and those providing pirate software. Drawing that line isn't a risk I choose to take, and certainly not for the sake of a game I've bought, and shouldn't have to take that risk on. If I was prepared to pirate the game and thke that risk, then fine. But to buy a damn game, and because of manufacturer's attempts at DRM, end up forced to take that risk just to play a legit game ... well, on principle alone, that just ain't happening. Not with me. It's a pee-take too far.

But, just as with nocd patches, how do you know? Aren't you just as reliant on the hackers to verify the DRM isn't noodling your system? I've never had a nocd patch install in ring 0, nor do I have to elevate them to run the game (since I run as a non admin with UAC enabled).

If think you're inferring that I feel that A => B means B => A.

That I don't trust patches from pirates doesn't mean I do trust DRM from game publishers. I don't trust manufacturer DRM, not these days and not without a very cautious approach. The reasons for my scepticism on that are pretty well known to all, not least a certain very large music company and rootkits, Securom and Starforce.

That's why I said I'd pretty much given up PC gaming, Every time I find a game I fancy, I wait for a while and then start looking at forum chat and internet comment. So much of the time, I end up concluding "the hell with that" that I've more or less given up even considering PC games. All I do is waste time checking it out only to end up not bothering. It's why I bought a console, despite intending to never bother .... and I don't use that that much.

[Saracen]

.....

There are a few schemes I can think of:
1) positive reinforcement for 1st hand sales

This is the approach EA have decided upon - you create lots of DLC alongside and after game release. You include a code in the box and for pre-orders, which can only be used once. This rewards people for buying the game first hand. You can also sell the DLC to second hand customers, clawing back a little revenue.

The downside is customers moan that you're deliberately holding back content for DLC, seemingly regardless of how much content you're still delivering in the original game. DLC might itself be pirated, but for some reason people are more accepting of connecting to servers for DLC verification than game verification.

2) TPM based schemes

Basically the console approach to DRM. The newest motherboards (H55 etc.) are finally including these chips, but it's too little, too late. TPM can be hackable as the X360 has shown, especially in systems as open as the PC.

3) Give the game away for free, support it with ads.

Only the richest publishers will be able to afford paying for development upfront and clawing back the costs so slowly, which means only the best developers will catch their eye enough to use it. Possible solution for AAA, but sucks for everyone else.

4) Keep the game server-based

Not foolproof, but works for a lot of MMORPGs. Online shooters, racing games etc. are all out or in the pipeline. Some gamers dislike being connecting to a server while playing however, especially for single player games.

None of which will work for me.

Starting with the easiest for me .... 3) Adverts.

Absolutely not. Not under any circumstances. I detest adverts, and a free game is nowhere near enough to tempt me. I'll quite happily pay for a game to avoid adverts .... but not if the real price is obnoxious DRM.

Then 4). I don't play online, not for years. Not interested. I'm only interested in single player games, or games I can LAN play with a small group of friends. And requiring access to a server is one type of DRM that kills a game stone dead for me.

1) DLC. Again, I'm not in the least interested. Firstly, we're back to online access and I won't buy any game where that is a requirement. If it's an option I can choose to ignore, then fine, I'll ignore it. But if it's required, then I won't buy. Secondly, if I bought the game, I want to be able to play it without having to keep going online to get more stuff. It's irritating enough to have to go online and download a ruddy great patch just about every time because they release games that are still full of bugs. But at least that's usually just a case of download once, shove it on a CD and use it whenever I reinstall.

Finally, 2) TPM. Well .... maybe, At some point. But I'm not nuying a whole new PC hardware platform to play a game, just to protect software house DRM. As and when I upgrade anyway, and if the implementation allows me to utilise what I paid for in a game without all the cobblers currently associated with DRM, then fine. If it does. We'll see.

Of course, that's a personal perspective and I don't extrapolate to all users, or even all those currently getting more and more alienated. But it does sum up where I am, and why I'm pretty much out of the PC gaming scene.

[shaithis]

All they have to do is remove the DRM.

It's simple. You can already download any game you want, cracked, patched and ready to go normally before the retail game is available on the shelves.....

So, just what is the point? I just do not get why they feel the need to annoy the people that will purchase......it's completely illogical, especially when most piracy is done online now and not the old "playground swaps" like back in the spectrum/c64 days!

And consoles aren't much of a safety net either, if they release solely on consoles, then the console piracy scene will explode even larger then it is currently........just look on USENET for XBox360 games.....yes, they are pretty much all there........and then you have the added complication: Microsoft/Sony/N will not be happy when they are selling consoles at a loss and are not getting any revenue from the software licenses!

[Rob_B]

All they have to do is remove the DRM.

It's simple. You can already download any game you want, cracked, patched and ready to go normally before the retail game is available on the shelves.....

My thoughts as well, who will be the first publisher to try this? A nice headline grabber 'this game has no DRM'

[jim]

My thoughts as well, who will be the first publisher to try this? A nice headline grabber 'this game has no DRM'

Oblivion I remember did exactly that.

[dangel]

BUt i can cope with that, and it's a modest but acceptable risk It's what backups are for.

And that's exactly my attitude to nocd patches, and my point at the end of the day is the risk you're implying doesn't pan out in reality for many (and certainly myself) to over and above that of using DRM mechanisms. In fact, the very act of installing something makes DRM more risky - as you must elevate it to install and then any process it installs is also (or can be automatically) elevated. Compare that to copying a few files (requires elevation but doesn't pass it on to anything obviously) and running it in non elevated state. So this means your nocd patch doesn't gain rootkit ability, doesn't gain firewall exception privileges, doesn't gain admin privileges etc etc. Of course if you later choose to elevate it as an end user - then good luck to you, but at least there was a visible choice involved I suppose.

I take your point, and your level of paranoia and it's your PC not mine but i'm rather more afraid of what large corporate entities get up to with their DRM based on the evidence available and simple analysis of the technical risks involved. Plus, of course, I can always disassemble things if I really want

[dangel]

Oblivion I remember did exactly that.

Sold buttloads too.