Assassin's Creed 2 Review and test of DRM

thats is true that the freeloader is the predominant one but like i said it wont matter because you are never going to convert them into paying customers anyway, even if you eradicate piracy.
these are not lost sales.
companies seem to think that if there are 1 million pirate users of their software, with drm they can convert this to 1million paying customers. i laugh at that.
even if the frustrated customer is the overwhelming minority, its what they should concentrate on because these ARE customers.
and drm such as that in AC2 penalizes these customers even more.
i for one was really looking forward to this game and silent hunter V and i was willing to pay full price for them., but once i heard about the drm i dont even want to play it anymore- whether legit or pirated.
someone mentioned its already cracked- so the pirated copy will allow you to play offline. imagine that, you got more freedom with a pirated game !
legal copies should give more value, and not take away.
so im taking my money elsewhere...

 

This is better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbq_1Wy70rE&feature=related

 

Software companies always make vague claims regarding piracy. They frequently use the word "pirates." Who? North Americans? But North America makes up an insignificant amount. This is what people are failing to realize. It's not us, it's them. Who's them? Countries with a much lower HDI than the US. As I've said before, if companies are going to treat China or Africa like the US, then they better rethink again. They take these figures and attribute it back at countries with higher HDI like everyone is to blame. Go figure.

Translating piracy to lost sales is indeed laughable. It's in they're imagination, using that to justify their so called "lost sales." If everyone morally decided not to pirate because it's wrong, will this make any difference? No. The only difference is that these people will just have nothing in the end. The company gains what? Nothing!

The only way to truly lower piracy is either for the country to increase its Human Development Index or adapt to suit these people's needs. The companies aren't doing the latter.

 

i couldnt agree with you more, but i think it will take nothing short of 'world peace' to achieve this

i just feel that companies now should just concentrate on the frustrated customer and the freeloader who just wont shell 60usd for a game.
at the present state of games im thinking a pricing of 20-30usd for top games and 5-10usd for indy games hits that sweet spot.
or companies can stick to present prices but they have to deliver much better content and value to the legit products.
or better yet they should just do both.

 

One could use your argument to justify an alcoholic stealing beer, or a gambler robbing a bank or forging checks to fund the habit, as well. Do we accept these actions to fulfill psychological necessities? Is turnstile hopping on the subway acceptable because it's a "social necessity" to take the underground to get somewhere? Should we turn a blind eye to speeding because so many people are going to do it anyway? Somehow I think our highways would be a lot less safe if we did. Even in Germany the roads are subject to regulations and there are speed limits in many areas.

I'd actually like to see piracy carry heavy legal penalties, particularly for those who host the files or enable transfers. So, for example, TPB's founders would actually be receiving prison time instead of hopping around from court to court and continually resetting-up their website. Obviously it would require a lot of countries to get on board for this to start having a prominent effect, and it's not an overnight solution. But stiff legal penalties would make people be more likely to think twice about piracy, in a manner that not much else would.

On the other hand, I don't like excessive Internet regulation. Sniffing every packet is going too far. $22,000 fees per song pirated is a tad ridiculous (is pirating one song really 44 times worse than littering on the highway?). Subversive activity on the Internet should be possible. We don't want an Internet that looks like Australia's. But there needs to be some way to place fear in the pirates.

Maybe going after the hosts will be enough - put them in prison for a long time if they're caught, and launch cyber attacks on their servers, and it may be possible to make it a bit more difficult to find pirated files.

Maybe some cooperation from ISPs is necessary - not wholescale sniffing, but watching for packets directed to TPB and a few other sites and nabbing enough people that commoners realize they might actually be caught. That wouldn't shut down hardcore pirates, but it's the mainstream that you really need to stop, anyways. And if you don't sue for $20K/song, there won't be the degree of ridicule there currently is.

Even some cooperation from search engines would help. Google censors its results in China; they'd probably be willing to censor torrents and other common pirate sources in the U.S. And Bing doesn't even pretend to be against censoring in China.

Internet restrictions can very easily be used for evil, as powers such as China demonstrate. But, like violence, they can also occasionally be used for good. And I think specific regulations in this situation would be a change for the better.

 

im agreeing with apollo here that pirating software to satisfy an addiction is just plain wrong. i wouldnt call it being morally bankrupt since i would never impose my moral standards on someone else. and it just sound too preachy. it however points to potentially serious social issues namely addiction and stealing.
would this pirate however be willing to deal with his addiction if he were given the opportunity to purchase cheaper games in the 20-30usd range?

 

Here's a good example demonstrating a Software Companies illogical claims.

Scenario 1

5 in 20 are people with good income (high HDI). 15 have little income (low HDI). The reality is, there are more low HDI countries than high HDI countries in terms of population. Keep this in mind.

Of the 5 people with good income, only 2 will buy the product at regular price ($50). With the price cut ($25), 5 out of 5 will buy. Good Sales. The companies attribute this success to other parts of the population and do the same.

Of the 15 people with low income, they all pirate. They have an abysmal standard of living due to low HDI. Thus they all have that "freeloading" mentality. The companies try to sell it to them at a lower price ($25, same as above). However, they still can't afford it because of the low HDI or the "freeloading" mentality. They still pirate.

Results
Sales irate ratio is 5:15. Companies will look at this and say "oh look, pirating is rampant! Let's punish everyone!"

Scenario 2

18 in 20 are people with good income (high HDI). 2 have little income (low HDI). The false reality is that there are more high HDI countries than low HDI countries in terms of population. Keep this in mind.

Of the 18 people with good income, only 10 will buy the product at regular price ($50). With the price cut ($25), 18 out of 18 will buy. Good Sales. The companies attribute this success to other parts of the population and do the same.

Of the 2 people with low income, they all pirate. They have an abysmal standard of living due to low HDI. Thus they all have that "freeloading" mentality. The companies try to sell it to them at a lower price ($25, same as above). However, they still can't afford it because of the low HDI or the "freeloading" mentality. They still pirate.

Result
Sales irate ratio is 18:2. Companies will look at this and say "oh look, we're making good sales! Let's congratulate everyone!"


Does anyone see what's wrong with this? Where they're getting their claims from (scenario 1 in this case)? $20-$30USD won't solve anything. It will help some people, but that's small as demonstrated in scenario 1 with the price cut. This was even explained in Koroush's article "PC Game Piracy Examined" that lowering costs doesn't stop piracy significantly. The Human Development Index is more than just pricing. ($20-$30USD is still too much in China).

They need to wake up to reality and accept the fact that there are more low income people than decent to high income people in the world. If they're business only directs mostly at consumers with high spending power while ignoring poor countries, then that is the problem. The thing is, their games can only reach a certain crowd, yet they're basing their statistics by including everyone in the world who pirate? They're comparing apples and oranges here. In order to compare apples and apples you have to consider HDI within a specific region, not the entire world. This is where Ubisoft fails to understand.

As a result, we're being punished for something that isn't even our fault nor is it the fault of countries with low HDI. Sadly Ubisoft doesn't get it because they're too western-centric.

 

i see your logic all though ill beg to disagree a bit.
in those low hdi countries, like my own (to a certain extent), you have a lot of low income families who are basically fighting for survival, leaving on less than 3 dollars a day. you say its usually from this income class that pirates stem from. well in order to run that pirated copy of modern warfare 2 you will need a fairly modern computer which is way beyond the financial capacity of these people. also you will need a hispeed internet connection which these people may not even have in their locales.
although i dont have actual statistics, if you look through tpb posts they are fairly westernized. of course we dont know if these people are from western countries but it seems that most of them speak english or some european dialect. this to me points to some form of education. and if you take this together with the tools you need to run or pirate a game ie high end computer, broadband, lotsa spare time - this to me points to middle class or higher living standards.
so if you have a hi end computter, a fast internet connection, some gaming time, a computer room etc - do you seriously believe this person cannot afford to pay for a game??
it is more likely that he would rather not pay for it because:
1. he enjoys freebies
2. had bad experiences with games before
3. find they provide poor value for money

but to draw the conclusion that people cant pay for a 50dollar game when they have a 2500dollar computer to run it is erroneous indeed.

thats why i always go back to the value for money thing. is it worth 60usd? i think the number of pirates have already answered that question.
but of course there will always be that group who would just want to have freebies. sure they can afford, but they just dont want to buy.
would they buy at 20-30usd? probably a lot still wont, but then again maybe a lot would...

 

Who said anything about addiction? Apollo is taking the term "need" as it is used in this context and wrongly associating it with addiction. See here:

I'm talking about the notion that one would call gaming a luxury while for most it is quite a different thing. They think of it as a need. A luxury is something you can live just fine without.

If they outlawed the manufacture of Ferraris, would you be affected in the least? I seriously doubt it.

But what if they banned games?

See? Not a luxury item.

So the use of an addict analogy is not the same as they have a physiological issue at work. Where as people who enjoy games, have a psychological attachment to gaming that makes them think they need to have a game. Exploring this need is where part of the solution to piracy would be found.

Also note, that there is a difference between "justification," which implies a moral exception, and an explanation. By exploring why people pirate, one would be seeking an explanation. To think that I'm somehow morally justifying piracy wouldn't make sense since I'm clearly stating that it is ethical violation.

The solution or abatement of piracy does not lie in penalty or impediment all things considered. It lies in understanding and addressing why people do it.

Most here know how to pirate. Why don't they do it?

 

yes i reread you post and you did not mean need in an addictive sort of manner. my bad.
you actually meant in need in the sense of destressing from everyday life.
this seems a valid point as it shows that games play an important role for some.
by the very definition of a need, it is something that a person cannot live without.

i think the question is then, how much is this need worth?
is it worth 60usd? by the number of pirates the simple answer to that seems to be a no.
what if they were cheaper like 20usd? would that fullfill the need in a legitimiate sort of way? would the gamer feel he is getting his moneys worth?

another important question is if he pays for the game will he be getting added value?
will it work better, will he get exclusive content, will it be safer?

again it goes back to value for your money spent. its basically a competition for a paid product vs a free product, morality aside. that paid product better give me more value in whatever way or at least make the pricing more acceptable to me. or better yet, both.

 

There was a case for the music industry.

Found a couple who pirated music. About 500 songs or something. Decided to sue. During the case they discovered the couple OWNED all 500 songs on CD. But it was far easier for them to just download the songs already in mp3 format and on the computer.

Internet piracy can't be straight forward. The couple above were obviously not alone, a lot of people do this. Not many people want to convert their own music, tag it, that takes time. I don't see the direct correlation between piracy equaling sales loss nor do I see the harm in doing the above. It's the same games. People don't want to deal with DRM, wanted no-CD versions, even though they owned the game etc.

Also for the HDI, how is it someone can afford a good enough PC to run the game but can't buy the game? Or is the computer stolen also? Are these people using high speed internet to pirate or are they stealing hard copies?

 

so true.
although a majority are in it for the freebies, there are those with other reasons for doing it. thats why i would never be too hasty in generalizing piracy as morally bankrupt, as some people are prone to do

 

Sorry, but I take exception to these comments.

First, "DRM and piracy are NOT correlated" well then why have DRM at all then if they're not correlated? That statement makes no sense. They have DRM, in their minds, to "prevent or reduce" piracy.

Secondly, where's the proof to back up these statements? There is none, so you can't make blanket statements like this. Publishers and developers are making the same assumptions but are clearly wrong because piracy hasn't been hindered or haltered as far as I can tell, based on the number of games cracked and how quickly on any easily accessible torrent site.

 

What does it mean? It means that a game with DRM is pirated just as much as a game without DRM. It means that a game with a demo is pirated just as much as a game without a demo. It means that bad games are pirated just as much as blockbuster hits.

Where is the data to back this up? In the article linked by the OP and by myself.

 

One fact left out.

DRM of this kind is not effective... it doesn't stop the people they are trying to keep from pirating it.

It DOES stop legit owners from playing under less-than-optimal conditions and those that crack it have a superior copy.

The gaming industry will NEVER win in this endeavor. Its all 50-100 of their employees (or whatever) against millions of smarter cracking teams.

The correct method is to release the base game and offer enhancements available only to those with legit keys/accounts.

This is how Bioware, Blizzard, and other successful companies have correctly battled piracy. The users can indeed crack the main game without an issue but without a legit key cannot access the online enhancements or at best have everything else but cannot have their achievements tracked properly.

Note the above companies make games so good that even borderline people WANT to keep them making games as well.

 

I actually want to directly address the Assassin's Creed 2 DRM. Apparently it's been cracked already, so all I can say is that Ubisoft is doing it wrong.

When you have a form a DRM that requires a connection to a server at all times, you have a form of DRM that is basically impossible to crack if you structure it correctly. What you're basically doing is turning your single player game into an MMO. There are quite a few tactics to completely stop piracy with this method, and one of them is to stream vital data to the user for gameplay.

You cannot crack data that does not exist, for instance, in WoW, you cannot make a crack that allows you to send and receive data from Blizzard's servers. This is because the data that is being streamed to you is non-algorithmic. Thus, if you stream a similar type of data in a single player game, you've created a DRM that, while extremely prohibitive, cannot be cracked.

 

You are incorrect... as long as data exists, it can be intercepted and interpreted.

Even WoW was compromised... but other MMOs have faced pretty stiff cheating. (speed hacks, duplicating items/money, free accounts, account compromising, etc.)

Note you do still need an account... but if necessary the accounts are stolen or bypassed. (using trial accounts which magically work like complete accounts)

The thing with MMOs is that the game will never work as intended without support somewhere. Interaction with other users over time is the point of such games and removing this is easy enough if the progression curve is longer than the few weeks most scripts kiddies have for an attention span.

MMOs win with TIME and live-game master support on their side.
Any game that doesn't have that edge will never have functional DRM of any kind that isn't compromised.

 

Ok, if that's the case, I agree with you there. That is my issue with DRM's. Since games are pirated whether DRM is there or not, the DRM is just a waste of time, money, and an inconvenience to the customer.

 

I can confirm that there is a crack for both AC2 and Silent Hunter 5 out and working

I cannot blame anyone for getting pirated copies of these titles and ubisoft deserve what they get for this extreme DRM

 

as mentioned in another thread, these hackers have cracked os'es from a company with 1000 times the resources of ubisoft. whatever made them think these same hackers couldnt crack a videogame?
the biggest problem with this drm (that doesnt work) is that it penalizes the mobile gamer the most- us.

 

I really hope this thread will remind people they should take a look at this game.

I know many people who never wanted to even finish the first one. Yes, it was kinda bad and very repetitive, but give this one a chance. It truly is an amazing game.

 

with that kind of drm i doubt if there is anyone in this thread willing to purchase this game.

 

who said anything about purchasing the game?

 

well if you read thru the htread youll see that i dont support piracy per se but i dont condone it either.
i do however like supporting games and companies i like.
and i was willing to support this game because of all the good reviews from the console version. but that was before this drm fiasco.
i believe a couple of posters feel the same way...

 

I've been looking forward to AC2 for a long time, but I won't be purchasing it for the PC as long as it has this type of DRM on it. I probably won't be buying it of the 360 either. Shame, I've heard it's a good game. Maybe one day they'll release a patch "fixing" the DRM to something more reasonable (unlikely) or Steam will have a crazy sale to the price point where I can put up with the DRM (equally unlikely for a long time).

I understand the reason why people pirate, but that still does not justify it. I don't care what the DRM is, it still doesn't entitle somebody to pirate the game. If you don't like the product, don't buy it. That hurts the company too. very low sales will hopefully get them to change their minds about excessive DRM.

 

From what I read on some warez forum, apparently the crack is not perfect. Game's data is not 100% stored on the PC, so lil bit of data is downloaded from Ubisoft's server everytime you receive a mission.

 

what about people who already purchased the game, but play a pirate copy to avoid drm? i own crysis, didn't see securom listed on the side when i bought it. i ended up downloading a copy to avoid it.

 

swell. now i have to stream junk data to play. should ubi pay for my wasted bandwidth?

 

seems like they only took people who have 24/7 internet connection into account

these methods of protection are not a feasible option ... at least not for most countries outside US
i will only buy this game if the technology of this world is already way too advanced that internet is broadcasted even to the jungles where i can just stick a mini portable antenna on any of my device to access the internet

 

And I'm sure very soon (like tomorrow, lol) someone will figure out what data is uploaded to your PC, and include it in a crack. Shouldn't be too hard to figure out if you just monitor incoming data.

 

im thinking of ... a fake server where it acts like ubisoft server to store savegame data....

 

I'll probably buy this game out of respect for ubisofts product, but will get some sort of crack to play offline if that is possible.
This way, ubisoft will get their deserved money, and i'll be able to play where- and whenever I want.

If I were head of ubi i'd bring out a hacked version of AC2 myself, with a nice virus in it, to punish the lawbreakers Erase their hard drive and smoke their gpu, that'll teach them ^^

 

and ubi would be fined a huge amount for creating and spreading malicious software. oh wait, they are doing that already.

 

Wouldn't it be better for them (and other companies) to pay the fine, and destroy the illegal download market? Or atleast scare away a huge amount of the illegal downloaders. It would save them money in the long run for sure.

Maybe I beleive in punishing a bit too much, but do you see another option? The only ones being punished atm are the legal consumers.

edit: Machiavelli didn't become famous for no reason

 

firstly, you're asking one publisher to burn for the sake of others, you now realize how ridiculus this is.

secondly, they would have done so if it were profitable.

every copyright protection in existence had been cracked, yet publishers still impose strict drm. it follows that drm exist not to prevent piracy, but for some other reason. perhaps to delay piracy, idk.

 

Delay piracy... by a day?

 

The point was that this type of DRM, used correctly, can be uncrackable. Not that it's convenient for the end-user.

Depends on the type of data being sent. Theoretically, it can be psuedorandom, and can actually change throughout the lifespan of the game.

 

what about mmos with private servers, would that be a 'crack'?

 

Yes, but MMOs stream "excess" data to the user, such as position of other players and whatnot. All of the other data resides on the user's computer.

If you start streaming essential data, then that would have to be mimicked by the private server, so it becomes not just cracking one copy, but cracking all copies, and maybe having to do so repeatedly given how the DRM is set up.

However, that's just a very roundabout way of saying that if I require you to maintain contact with me at all times when you're using my software, I have much more control over you.

 

I was planning on buying this title 100% until they came out with this lame online 24/7 DRM rubbish. Even buying it and then patching it will give out the wrong message so my only option is not to purchase period.

 

This was my way of thinking until I realised that buying the game would suggest that I was in support of this ludicrous DRM.

 

Well I was talking about people who don't buy the product and still pirate it. What you're talking about is an entirely different situation, and one that (I think) is much less common than just pirating without buying.

 

i really dont mind having drm in a game, as long as it is unrestrictive.
but something like this that seeks to penalize the legitimate user is ridiculous and foolish indeed.
ubisoft doesn't get the fact that you cannot sacrifice your customer for security or for whatever reason for that matter. it goes against the very tenets of marketing. even miscrosoft understands that.

 

Not anywhere in these 100 posts have I defended this DRM. I've made a few points:

1. Piracy is never justified.
2. This type of DRM can be uncrackable.
3. Piracy is a very large issue in computing, and solving it will take a great deal of time and effort.

Why would you assume that just because I'm not ferociously attacking Ubisoft like everyone else and urging people to pirate this game that I support DRM?

I understand marketing. I understand that if you price something too high, you will lose customers. But I also understand a few things that people seem blind to. I understand that the marketer has the SOLE ability to set prices. I understand that the customer does not have a right to demand a price from a corporation for non-essential goods. I understand that a customer does not have the right to take product without paying for it if they believe that the price set is unfair.

 

i see, you were making a statement and not affirming it. i will edit my post. my mistake

with regards to marketing i think the phrase :" caveat venditor" (let the seller beware) sums up a lot of things.
sure a seller has the right to set prices, sure he can feed us lousy products, sure he doesnt have to listen to us.
but the buyer will respond - he will not buy your product, he will spread the word about your bad habits, he will try to find a way to get your product by other means if he can, etc.
as you can see, what is happening right now is due to the consumers reaction to the market.
i am not justifying piracy but the seller and its practices are part of the cause and thats what these companies fail to see.

 

Whatever happened to the good old days of CD-keys and that was that? Sigh.

 

well with companies that get it, its stll there.
bioware for example still uses the cd key method.

 

You are quite wrong on this, even WoW have private servers that bypasses the protection, however, they are not popular because they don't have the same environment and community compared to the original one.

Your so-called DRM is in fact used in some softwares I've came across, but sadly, they are all easily cracked by simulating a server on your own pc, and redirecting the connection to home, don't underestimate the intelligence of a cracker. Even if you don't have the data in the game and require to be streamed, one thing is you are eliminating all your player base without an internet connection, secondly, there's always packet sniffing to figure out how your server works just like how MMORPG servers are emulated.

So in the end, it comes down to, have a basic single player version, everyone can play, pirate even, however, another online value-added component. Personally, I would definitely get games like starcraft 2 even if it's cracked, simply because battle net is so much fun.

About the piracy is never justified part, well... nothing is absolute, I don't even think that the intellectual property laws are right in the first place. Laws are what is set to hopefully benefit the majority, it's different from moral, everyone has their own set of moral standards, stop putting your moral standard on others.

From a developer point of view, yes, it sucks to have your stuff pirated, but sucks even more if no one even bother to pirate your stuff. You generate publicity from piracy, you gain play time from people who won't even try your product without piracy, that's why most game developers don't mind piracy.

 

Don't tell me I'm wrong on something until you actually read what I post.

I already clarified that for WOW, almost all of the vital data for the game is stored client side. The server only communicates things like position of other players and whatnot, something that can be emulated by setting up a private server.

However, imagine a game where I hold back a VITAL piece of information from the client.

For example: I hold back the AI script in a game of chess. Whenever it's the computer's turn, instead of running the AI client-side, the AI is run server-side, and the resultant move is passed to the client.

Now, even if you intercept that move, the data is useless to a hacker since it's not really the move itself that's important, but the AI that ran to get to that move. Thus, you have an unhackable situation. I don't underestimate the intelligence of a hacker, but even the smartest minds in the world cannot hack data that does not exist.

Now, instead of holding back something as data intensive as AI, hold back something smaller that requires less processing power server-side, while still being VITAL to the game. And what do you get? Uncrackable DRM. PATENT PENDING.

 

Holding back only a smaller simple process would make it easily simulated. Holding back a large and complicated process would increase your cost on maintaining all those servers, and for each player even more cost would be incurred. It's simply a matter of profit vs cost that makes it non-practical.

Creating an uncrackable DRM is easy, just make a hardware key with your own processor on there so that the processes will never go through the internal processor so that crackers can't even access the data, but how practical in terms of cost is another matter altogether. BTW, many industry softwares that cost over hundreds of thousands do use a hardware key to prevent piracy. However, implementing something like this on a 50 dollars game is far from practical.