Ubisoft DRM u-turn

[pauldarkside]

So, R.U.S.E. will no longer require Ubisoft's DRM, opting for Steamworks instead. I hope they'll release a demo as I avoided the betas - lost interest once Ubisoft started punishing legit customers.

Not sure what their plans are for the other upcoming titles or whether they plan to patch out the requirement on older games as I'd still like to play Assassin's Creed 2 at some point.

[pollaxe]

An outbreak of common sense!

[oolon]

It does not sound to me like an Ubisoft U-Turn, it sounds like a switch of publisher away from Ubisoft, personally I don;t think switching to requiring a steam account is an "improvement". I don;t have one and I don't want one.

[pauldarkside]

It does not sound to me like an Ubisoft U-Turn, it sounds like a switch of publisher away from Ubisoft, personally I don;t think switching to requiring a steam account is an "improvement". I don;t have one and I don't want one.

Uplay doesn't have an offline mode, Steam does.

The fact that the game no longer requires a permanent internet connection, even when playing solo, is a major improvement as far as I'm concerned.

[Saracen]

It does not sound to me like an Ubisoft U-Turn, it sounds like a switch of publisher away from Ubisoft, personally I don;t think switching to requiring a steam account is an "improvement". I don;t have one and I don't want one.

It may be an improvement in some ways, as Paul said, but personally (and it is a personal evaluation) I'm no fonder of Steam than you are ... and don't have or want an account either.

In fact, I go further than that. If playing a game requires Steam, I won't buy it. Why? Because when I buy a game I expect to be able to play it for as long as I have suitable equipment, and the inclination to do so. You sign away that right if you go via Steam. They reserve the right to cancel a subscription or remove access to a one-time licence purchase, and clearly state they may, but are not obligate to, provide a download of a standalone version.

I am not, under any circumstances, buying a game when some US corporation can suddenly decide I can't play it any longer. Hell will freeze over first.

I know Steam has it's advantages, and I know a lot of people like it. Fair enough. But I don't. So for me, I completely agree with you, it's no improvement at all. The UbiSoft DRM was unacceptable to me, ad so is Steam. Hence, no improvement. The lack of a requirement for a permanent net connection makers no difference at all as far as I'm concerned, because I rule both out. It's a bit like arguing over whether the performance from Porsche or Ferrari makes the better buying decision, when it's academic because you couldn't possibly afford either.

[mikerr]

Steam. They reserve the right to cancel a subscription or remove access to a one-time licence purchase, and clearly state they may, but are not obligate to, provide a download of a standalone version.

I am not, under any circumstances, buying a game when some US corporation can suddenly decide I can't play it any longer.

Software as a rented service is a nice idea from the developer point of view,
but from a consumer POV only good if prices were really low...

I see parallels with the current eBook market on kindles - they too reserve the right to revoke your access to your purchases after the event.

[dangel]

I am not, under any circumstances, buying a game when some US corporation can suddenly decide I can't lay it any longer. Hell will freeze over first.

So, going for the realistic POV there Saracen?

Made me chortle nonetheless. Interesting how people can be quite so polarized about Steam!

[Saracen]

So, going for the realistic POV there Saracen?

Made me chortle nonetheless. Interesting how people can be quite so polarized about Steam!

Not sure what you mean?

With me, it's not so much about Steam as about the principle. I have a collection of computer games going back, oh, to the late '70s .... and the hardware to run them. I'd guess that many avid modern gamers buy a game, play it 'til boredom sets in, then move on to the next release. I, on the other hand, periodically go back and play games again. And again. I was playing Quake II (yes, II) with a friend a couple of weeks ago, and I recently ran through Monkey Island (1) and thoroughly enjoyed it.

So, when I fork out the £30-£40 they want or most games, I expect to, like a book, be able to use it for as long as I want.

If, as some companies have done, they expect to be able to control when and if I can, in an absolutely legitimate way, use the game I paid for, then they lose me as a customer. Some companies have done this directly by providing their own authentication servers, and I won't buy those games either.

Furthermore, most of my gaming takes place on a small network of dedicated machines, among a small group of friends. I am not interested in gaming in the wider community, with total strangers, on the net. I've done it in the past, and I'm not not bothered about it. So .... I keep my gaming network isolated from the net. That way, I always have some machines I know are available for use, and are completely safe from the threat of viruses, etc, other than anything I personally am careless enough to introduce (and I'm not careless). I also use those machines for some business purposes where I'm not prepared to accept the risks of a net connection.

So .... am I prepared to change the whole way I work and game in order to be able to access either Steam, or dedicated authentication servers, or to simply have a permanent net connection because UbiSoft (or whomever) says I have to to satisfy their DRM? Nope. Not now, not ever.

So yes, it's a realistic POV, because it's how it is, and it ain't changing. That doesn't mean I think there's a lot of people that feel as I do, and certainly not enough that UbiSoft (or whomever) will give a damn about the lost business, though lost it is.

Given how rampant software piracy is, I don't expect the stance of publishers to change much any time soon. And I sympathise with why they take the stance they do. But, as a legit buyer, and as the owner of a whopping great collection of boxed games (by which I mean certainly well over a hundred) I find it a great shame, because it's more or less put a close to my PC gaming days, at least as far as almost anything new is concerned.

So yes, I'm polarised about it, all right, and I'm not happy about it either. It means effectively giving up something I've loved doing for several decades. But unless the stance on DRM changes, and I'm not holding my breath, then given up I have. That's how strongly I feel about it - if it comes to accepting the implications of modern DRM stances, or giving up gaming, it'll be the latter.

[dangel]

Not sure what you mean?

Really that it's unrealistic that the rug will get pulled on Steam games - at least within the timeframe of their usefulness to 99.9% of gamers (myself included). As for everything else - frankly it's all a bit paranoid and not something that correlates with my own view so I can't see much point in discussing it as it's obvious that you've chosen your path so to speak (plus you'll simply type me into the ground lol). What I will say it's that Steam works as a model because it's about the right balance - Ubisoft's model was way off base and hence the derision.

[oolon]

Really that it's unrealistic that the rug will get pulled on Steam games

I think it is entirely possible, if steam went into bankruptcy it might just close down or the new buying might decide they no longer wished to allow re-download of games (as that does not make them money just cost). When I can buy a DVD based game (without activation), I know I can keep playing it for as long as I like.

Don't forget Microsoft had a music service, it decided to close it down and did not compensate customers for removing access to the music they had "bought". I think its naive to believe steam will be offering the games in 20 years time, the client will not work on period hardware required to play the game, even if the game is still available.

[GheeTsar]

For me the benefits of the Steam platform outweigh the risks of not being able to play a game in the future or through Steam outage for online multiplayer games. That said I do flit from one game to the next and rarely revisit old games unless they're classic (eg: CS:S).

[jim]

As I've said before, for me personally, Steam to me is a benefit. I would happily pay more for a Steam game than a non-steam equivalent.

In fact, I don't think I would buy a disc-based game these days if I couldn't activate it via Steam. I don't want to store the discs, I don't want to put them into the drive to use them, and I don't want to spend half my life locating and downloading the appropriate patches, only to find I've installed them in the wrong order and the entire game now doesn't work.

As for the thread, it's not a massive surprise. The DRM has been hacked now, so there's little point in Ubisoft making their users suffer with it. Next time they have a big release, like Assassin's Creed 3, the next evolution of their DRM will be attached.

[dangel]

I think it is entirely possible, if steam went into bankruptcy it might just close down or the new buying might decide they no longer wished to allow re-download of games (as that does not make them money just cost). When I can buy a DVD based game (without activation), I know I can keep playing it for as long as I like.

"Really that it's unrealistic that the rug will get pulled on Steam games - at least within the timeframe of their usefulness to 99.9% of gamers (myself included). "

It's the last part that's important Certainly it's not something that keeps me up at night

[Zoso]

Might not be a total u-turn; from gamesindustry.biz:

"We will continue to use the Ubisoft protection system for most PC games", said a spokesperson.

Still, good news about RUSE, 'cos I've decided to avoid stuff with Ubi's Online Services Platform, and the game's been pretty fun in beta/preview weekends (short thread over in Wargames)

On the Steam vs Ubi's OSP front, Steam certainly isn't perfect for everyone, and there is the possibility of losing access to your account/games, but for me the benefits of the community features, automatic background patching and occasional bargains in Steam sales (I haven't bought a full price PC game for ages now) more than outweigh the potential drawbacks, whereas Ubi's DRM had absolutely nothing to sweeten the pill. I believe Good Old Games offer totally DRM-free versions of slightly older titles, might be worth a look if you don't want Steam.

[Saracen]

Really that it's unrealistic that the rug will get pulled on Steam games - at least within the timeframe of their usefulness to 99.9% of gamers (myself included). As for everything else - frankly it's all a bit paranoid and not something that correlates with my own view so I can't see much point in discussing it as it's obvious that you've chosen your path so to speak (plus you'll simply type me into the ground lol). What I will say it's that Steam works as a model because it's about the right balance - Ubisoft's model was way off base and hence the derision.

I can understand that it doesn't correlate with your view. That's why my first sentence said

but personally (and it is a personal evaluation) I'm no fonder of Steam than you (re: oolon) are

and

I know Steam has it's advantages, and I know a lot of people like it. Fair enough. But I don't. So for me, I completely agree with you, it's no improvement at all.

Nor is it paranoid. Some time ago, I did a test by connecting an unprotected PC to the net, and it took under 2 minutes for it to be infected (Blaster worm, IIRC), with NO actual action on my part. That particular weakness has long since been patched, and I do run a hardware firewall and individual protection on all connected PCs. But that "individual protection" is one reason for keeping the PCs that aren't net-facing as separate - I don't incur the resource loss involved.

As for whether there's any point in discussing it - well, that's up to you. I merely expressed a personal view and you challenged me on it. Did you expect I wouldn't have reasons, or be prepared to defend my stance?

Finally, is it unrealistic that the rug will get pulled, within a modest time frame? First, I decide not to buy because of the time frame that matters to me, and I don't much care what matters to anyone else. When it's their money, they can decide what matters to them, but when it's my money being spent, I decide. And I said both that it's personal, and that I didn't expect most people to agree or publishers to change tack.

But there are a variety of ways the rug can get pulled. They can pull the rug on you personally for a variety of reasons, or as oolon pointed out, there's always the risk of bankruptcy, especially in times like these. Is it likely? Dunno, and I've no basis for believing it likely or unlikely. But, if you've bought 20 or 30 games at £30 or £40 each and something does happen, you could easily kiss goodbye to the cost of the lot.

If you're happy to risk that, for the benefits you see Steam as providing, then that's fine. It's your money to risk. But I'm not.

[dangel]

I can understand that it doesn't correlate with your view. That's why my first sentence said and
Nor is it paranoid.

..but I think it is, so there we are.

As for whether there's any point in discussing it - well, that's up to you. I merely expressed a personal view and you challenged me on it. Did you expect I wouldn't have reasons, or be prepared to defend my stance?

Defend? Interesting word choice - no, not really - as I said, our views don't correlate and that's a given. Again, I was rather referring to the idea that Steam will..

Finally, is it unrealistic that the rug will get pulled, within a modest time frame? First, I decide not to buy because of the time frame that matters to me, and I don't much care what matters to anyone else. When it's their money, they can decide what matters to them, but when it's my money being spent, I decide. And I said both that it's personal, and that I didn't expect most people to agree or publishers to change tack.

But there are a variety of ways the rug can get pulled. They can pull the rug on you personally for a variety of reasons, or as oolon pointed out, there's always the risk of bankruptcy, especially in times like these. Is it likely? Dunno, and I've no basis for believing it likely or unlikely. But, if you've bought 20 or 30 games at £30 or £40 each and something does happen, you could easily kiss goodbye to the cost of the lot.[/QUOTE]

All well and good but really you're skirting the issue perhaps because you can't make a decision as to whether it's likely or not that Steam will suddenly implode next tuesday. Frankly, I can - and again we differ - because given the evidence I think it highly unlikely Steam is going anywhere soon and, as I said, not within a timeframe that most of us care about (myself included). OTOH you're saying because it's a possibility you're unable to commit to such a model (which kinda implies you think it's probable? ) which, again, all well and fine but not a view I share. There's a theme here.

If you're happy to risk that, for the benefits you see Steam as providing, then that's fine. It's your money to risk. But I'm not.

Well yes, Steam has a lot of upsides - in stark contast to Ubi's scheme in fact (and that's the root of this thread) and in the scheme of things what I spend on games doesn't really figure as a headline issue in my financials and I don't think of it as a particular risk. So I am

As I said, not much point in discussing it is there? I'm not being facetious - it's just it was rather obvious earlier on, and just as so now.