DRM Case Study: Assassin's Creed 2 - Why you should not buy this game for the PC...

If they go with this, even those who want to buy it will pirate it. Who the hell wants to play when all their progress is not saved when Comcast screws up or the modem decides it's time to do nothing? It's the exact opposite, this will more than likely encourage pirating than discourage. That's how dumb this is. Same with Microsoft Live b/s, who wants to play with that crap?

 

I want to hear Ubisoft's reasoning behind this DRM. It affords them no extra protection than if they just performed an authentication every time the program was launched, rather than requiring it at all times when the program is being run, so I'm definitely interested in the thinking behind this, other than that they just wanted some bad publicity.

 

Simple.... Brain malfunction of Ubi top board, which cause them forget about common sense

 

This game is looking like an epic fail... This has got to be the worst DRM ever! Looks like there gonna be a lot of hitler rants on this game lol... Luckily i don't like this game and i'm not buying it!

 

It's chicken or the egg all over again.

They say piracy has forced them into these measures, yet these measures encourage piracy. Which of course will encourage them to even more drastic measures. Which will then precipitate even more audacious piracy.

Which will lead to open source?

 

Well IMO pc gamers brought this upon themselves, ubisoft clearly learned from cod mw2's illegal download problems.
Even if what you say is true, I will probably still buy the game because i'm a big fan of AC.

 

Yet they still make millions in spite of "rampant" piracy. Hmm...

Record companies cried the same blues. But research showed that as prices dropped, so did piracy.

The problem appears to be more shareholder litigious bullying than piracy's chipping away of "profits."

Oh, and greed.

 

+1

DRM of this nature is quite silly really...
The only one who puts up with it are the people who buy it and don't know any better.

It won't stop those who are cracking it, and it will stop legit users from buying it.

 

*ding ding* you got it mate. Sadly the RIAA doesn't want to acknowledge that statistic and is still pining for overpriced one hit wonder album sales and suing single moms & college kids to try and make up the difference, lol.

 

As prices go down, the number of sales increase. Well, duh. I'm pretty sure any third grader can tell you that.

But the problem is that the consumer does not have the right to set prices. They do not have the right to say that a product must be under a certain dollar amount or they will treat themselves to it for free.

 

You are absolutely right about that. No-one has the right to steal. However the market does dictate prices. That's basic consumer education. If your product is priced too high, people won't buy it. The fact that people will buy it at a lower price point means there is a need or want (market) for it and the market has set a value on your product. The producer needs to find a way to work with that price or else take whatever sales they get and shut up. Not try and extort their customers and cry to the government(s) about lost sales.

 

The market has indeed set a price for video games - approximately $50. Companies get millions of sales at this price point, it would be silly for them to introduce games at a lower price.

But this does not excuse piracy. However, I'm with you that the punishment (thousands of dollars per song) is too high. I'm a fan of treble damages when it comes to these crimes. Have the perpetrator pay thrice the retail value. That would be a good legal precedent.

 

Well I wasn't talking about game prices as that's a different animal than music. And clearly game revenue has surpassed music and hollywood so I think prices are gonna stay. But there are a TON of amazing game discounts if you think about it. $50-$60 games going for just a fraction of that price point during Steam sales, pre-orders and other blowouts.

When do you hear about crazy music sales or pre-order deals?... ... ... ... Ya me too. :|

 

Its Ubisoft's loss. Watch there be a lot more cracked copies around than legal copies sold.

 

How can publishers not see this? Are they that removed from reality?

 

I'm guessing they probably thought that the bad press they would receive from a "check on every use" activation process would be just as bad as what they would get from a "check at all times" process so they just thought to heck with it.

 

Well not really. Perhaps a child prodigy might figure that out. Many adults are actually clueless about this basic economic principle. But I can't blame them really since it doesn't always pan out in such a predictable manner. Sometimes lowering price gives the appearance of lowering perceived or intrinsic value. Sales fall off as a result. Sometimes increasing prices, increases sales having the effect of increasing the aforementioned values. And then you have certain products where the increasing or decreasing of price has no effect on sales.

Enough about economics though. To the heart of the point:

Of course they do and they indeed do in many instances. Whether they mean to or not.

Well, no, they don't. But consumers don't do that. Thieves do. Thieves simply weigh the pros and cons of a particular theft they are contemplating. If paying a certain price carries far less risk than stealing it, they'll pay for it. Otherwise, stealing it is the "optimal choice." Some figure paying for a Rapidshare Premium account and high speed broadband is a better choice than paying $50 for a game that may or may not be worth $50 with the likelihood of getting caught being nil. These folks will generally always think like that though. That's their constitution.

So the real question is, since people who pay are generally always going to pay, because that is their constitution and moral code, why are they being inconvenienced and sometimes harmed with measures meant for a class of person who likely will never pay?

Do the producers of many of these games suppose that their product isn't worth the price they charge and are afraid that many consumers will suppose the same and seek remediation through casual piracy? If so, then why not opt for more added value for the consumer to make it "worth their while" to pay instead of punishing them for the sins of those who won't pay regardless? Especially since not one single measure to date has stopped the hackers and crackers from releasing full working copies of games to dole out to their eagerly awaiting download happy bandits. And they (producers/distributors) know this as an open secret. In fact, they're only making the hackers and crackers more proficient at their dastardly craft while not gaining any more profit margin to justify their anti-piracy measures.

All that to ask, what's the point of DRM and other such anti-piracy measures? To have something to tell shareholders as a means of indemnification when shareholders look to sue for a poor or below expectation quarter?

 

I really see no point to this. It will be cracked, it won't stop the scene groups at all, it probably won't even slow them down. There will be fully functional cracked releases out by the time the game is out a week, if not sooner.

So what does it accomplish? The pirates get a better gaming experience and the people who bought it paid $50 to lose their game progress and be forced into being online. Yet again doesn't make sense.

 

No. Absolutely not. Consumers do not have the right to set prices. They may have a large amount of influence, but as a society, as a civilization, we've decided that it is the right of the producers to set their own prices. Those are rules are agreed on, and those are the rules we play by.

The big problem is that DRM may be one of those problems that has to be balanced between two extremes. Just like the balance between privacy and security, DRM is the balance between convenience for the consumer and security for the corporation.

However, in this respect, I do not believe DRM to be the solution. It does not address the problem at its root. The problem with piracy is that it is too simple and this is the part that is addressed by DRM, but the bigger issue is that it is almost free of consequence. If somehow that facet can be addressed, DRM can be curbed.

 

producers can set prices for their products, but simple decision theory dictates that price from the producers perspective, based on consumer demand.

ie- if they set the price too low, profits go down

if they set the price too high, they lose customers, and invite other producers to come in and undercut them.

---

and none of that has anything to do with the DRM of AC2.

 

I don't want to argue this point to death but the point I was trying to drive at is that since a producer can't set a price in a vacuum, they have less of a "right" to set a price than a consumer does. So it's moot to insist that producers have an right to set a price because they set it in a manner than the market(consumers) are willing to pay. Which puts the power in the consumer's corner, not the producer. Especially when it comes to substitute goods. That's what the price elasticity of demand is all about. The consumer is exercising his/her right to pay or not pay a price which can be interpreted as the consumer's right to "set" the price. It's a very rare good in rare times whose price is inelastic - meaning the producer can set any price without consequence to demand. In those rare instances, you can say, though obtusely, that the producer has the right to set the price.

Though unlike security vs privacy, DRM is not shown to be even modestly effective. It's almost entirely theoretical. (Well so is security in many ways.)

But...

Perhaps. But since they(producers/distributors) have been doing fine for a long time with the co-existence of piracy which has always been more or less easy all things considered (consider back in the day when fair use was actually honored), what is the point to DRM other than greed? I say greed because it is known that we will always have thieves among us and those who pay. Are they trying to convert more thieves into paying consumers as if they are an "untapped" market?

That approach hasn't worked yet. And never will. Nature of the beast.

I think a better approach would be to educate on the "harm" of piracy and that it's illegal. Sometimes casual pirates think if everyone is doing it, it's ok. They need to be taught it's unethical and made to care about it. DRM makes many of them feel justified. Teens and young adults tend to be idealistic. They need to appeal to that idealism.

The consequences, such as exorbitant levys against violators, hasn't really worked. What it has done is made many more incensed and hardened which in turn made them more cognizant of their approach and how to avoid being caught.

In any event, we more or less agree that DRM is not the right approach so I'll leave it at that.

 

I'm curious too...

I didn't purchase the game for the 360 because on first-grader-not-allowed-to-play-it titles released for multiple platforms, I always go PC so I can take it with me on my laptop...and I rarely fire up the internet on the road...

But, beyond the complete affront to the PC consumer, why would you choose to maintain a server (or servers if more than two PC users buy the game) solely for the purpose of DRM?

I can understand having a server that periodically does authentication checks and then goes about performing other useful company functions, but a server dedicated to DRM? Wow! Piracy concerns must be serious business at Ubisoft...or, as mentioned, they only plan on two or three people buying it so a small percentage of the company's server budget can be allocated to this novel DRM concept...

And *scratching head*, I don't think anybody suggested this form of DRM on ForeverMelody's thread...I guess we didn't think outside the box enough like the thinktank at Ubisoft...

 

Wasn't Starcraft 2 supposed to have the same exact system?

 

No, only for the online play from what I understand.

Also, this is a notebook forum, I'd assume at least SOME of you have notebooks, and game while NOT at your house. This DRM ELIMINATES mobile gaming, unless you had the world's best, most stable WAN card and an unlimited source of income.

There's things like the M11X, which clearly promote portable PC gaming, then this from Ubisoft...

 

my sources tell me that alienware and ubisoft aren't working together.

 

DIdn't cod mw2 earn them a million dollars in 2 months?

 

http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1070151p1.html

there is no way im buying another ubisoft game

 

does this mean i can play the game in two different computers and not worry about moving around the save files?

 

yes.
it alsmo means
that if you dont have internet connectivity atm you can play the game
that if you the internet connection while playing you cant continue the game

like most of you i play on my laptop. sometimes im connected and sometimes im not.and no game i legally purchased should put a restriction as to when i can play it.

so to hell with ubisoft. we cant support a compant with such stifling restrictions or this may become industry standards in the future.

 

Wow well...No point buying it now. Im not wasting money on a game that requires a internet connection continuously..even more so when its a ONE PLAYER game..

 

@ 2.0

+1 rep for your comments about the economy (regarding elasticity and the power of the consumer, which the consumer is not really aware off).

I have a remark though.

You say that the nature of the beast means that if it will be impossible for the 'thief' to get a free illegal version of the game, that he will not buy it because he/she only wants free products. I think this is not true, both the 'thief' and the 'honoust consumer' want the same product, the only difference is, the 'thief' has no moral, but lets be rational here, why would one pay if he can get the exact same thing for free?
Its not like you are kiling someone, or stealing from a poor old lady. I completely understand the psychology of a thief: the game industry makes tons of money (have you ever seen the parking space of the creators of gears of war? Lamborginies everywhere...), and only if everybody would steal they would go bankrupt, which won't happen.

I see the thief as a rational person, he gets what he wants for free and the most importent thing: without consequence.
I see myself as an irational person, why? Because I buy every game while I could get it for free, and if I don't have money...I just wait untill the price drops, even if it takes a year or two. Sure this might seem to you as having moral, but as I said before...I don't think this has anything to do with being moral or having honour.

Its the same thing with other consumer products: would you stop buying branded shoes/clothes if you knew they were made by child labour?
Would you stop eating belgian chocolate if you knew that 99% of it was produced by child slavery?
Ofcourse not, because every product we buy, is made by a poor guy who doesn't get any benefit, and...there are few alternative options.
Regarding gaming: there is an alternative option: namely paying for it. But the fact remains the same: why would we care about stealing from rich gaming producers, if we don't even care about exploiting poor people?

The only reason why I buy games is the fact that I consider them worth it and would like the industry to develop further. Games last you a long time, and I prefer having a nice box and cd which I can fysicly touch.
If you do not care about those things, and are a rational selfish human being (face it: humans are selfish, even altruisme is basicly genetical selfishnes to preserve your species), I see no ilogical explenation why one shouldn't steel.
The only solution I see here is to punish. This will only have effect on the thiefs, and the honoust consumers could enjoy their games once more, witouth all the limitations like DRM or the absence of dedicated servers.

When they prohibited illegal downloading in Sweden the internet activity dropped by 50%. But without a government that cares about prusuing online theft, I see few postivie improvements in the future...

Edit: I thought i'd clarify here that I'm not making propaganda for illegal activities but just wanted to point out my empathy for the position of the thief and the hypocracy for the position of the consumer who thinks he is always doing the right thing, while in fact he/she is also part of the Western World which exploites the rest of our planet.

They may have earned 2 million, but as long as they won't have dedicated servers they won't get a cent from me. I wouldn't even play the game if someone would give the game for free.

 

Pure laissez faire capitalism. Sad really. Ubi can shove it.

 

Who knows, maybe Ubi might learn Logic and understand no one likes a DRM like this, and remove it.

 

http://global.bsa.org/globalpiracy2008/index.html

The study done by these folks say 41% of software GLOBALLY was pirated, accounting for 53 BILLION dollars in losses. Granted this is all software, not just PC games, however you can extract whatever percentage you like for games and I'm sure it is fairly significant and comparative in ratio.

Not surprisingly, the higher theft ratios are in poorer regions of the world...65-70% in some cases, where the average game cost is proportionally a much bigger chunk of earned income. North America is at 21% and European Union is at 33%.

I'm not quite sure this makes the case for the consumer setting the price, however I'm no statistician or economist. I'm sure the number of sales in the lower percentage theft regions is much, much higher, so maybe it does. Regardless, I would imagine the gaming industry is pretty frickin' perturbed at the amount of money lost out on each year...heck, with each game they produce, due to piracy.

Imagine if auto makers lost that % of cars due to theft from their sales lots, or if grocery stores lost that % of sales from looting their store shelves, all done because there is no consequence for these actions. I'm not going to try and imagine the safeguards that would be put in place to prevent these actions, but I am sure they would do something fairly intrusive, or rather, severely constrict access to the product in a way that would infirnge on the consumers' (read: non-thieves) perceived freedoms to shop. Maybe not the best analogies, but the idea is there.

I would also wonder how much hypocrisy is rampant in these forums when it comes to the subject of illegally obtaining music for Ipods, MP3 players, cell-phones, etc. I'm sure there are quite a number that have done this and don't give it another thought. What's the difference? But there is a substantial legal movement that puts "innocent" kids and moms in jail for doing just that. There are workarounds, but Apple seems to do alright in making their music downloads proprietary, for the most part. People b1tch about it, but they still buy the goods. And there is still piracy.

Maybe if the software (game) industry went as hardline as the entertainment industry, with the significant government legal intervention involved, there would be less piracy...and less of a need for DRM.

Developers have to make a choice, and they have the right. You think they don't weigh the consequences? Just like anyone else, they might make the wrong choice, and it might cost them sales. Maybe they are not driving Ferraris and Lambourginis as some one said, only Mercedes or Porsches.

Consumers have the right to complain and boycott, and feel like they are getting back at the "man", but I bet if anyone or any group of consumers came up with a solution that makes sense, the game industry would be on it like white on rice.

I've rambled too much and it's time for work...I think people are justified in their feelings to a point, I just think some of the rants have been kind of comical, so I thought I would play devils advocate.

 

The difference is that they are assuming that every piece of software that was pirated was going to be purchased if it coudn't be pirated. That is entirely not true for most likely 99% of the time. Software can be reproduced virtually for free by anyone. If someone couldn't pirate it chances are they just would not buy it. So there's no way they can calculate the loss. It's most likely a small fraction of that total estimate.

On the other hand, with your example, automobiles, which are material goods, money spent, that is an actual calculable loss.

I'm not saying it's ok to pirate, but it also can't be constituted as a monetary loss.

 

Precisely.

Of the 21% in North America, what percent is casual piracy and what is hardcore? The hardcore pirates are impossible to stop and very highly likely make up the grand majority of the 21%.

The better analogy would be gun laws. They have become increasingly cumbersome for law abiding citizens and have had virtually ZERO impact on criminal acquisition of firearms. Yet every time a gun incident occurs, you have law makers clamoring for even more laws which will have even less impact on criminal acquisition than the laws already on the books.

Same with piracy. Stepped up punishment will have little if any impact. Perhaps on the casual piracy level. But not the hardcore. Hardcore piracy is a culture. Ever wonder how zero-day or pre-release releases happen?

Theft, like customer returns, is a part of doing business. It's accounted for.

I submit, the only reason why there are increasing Draconian anti-piracy measures being employed is because they are after the 1%-3% more sales from converted casual pirates because it looks good on the quarterly reports. Shareholders dig that sort of thing. Most customers will basically put up with whatever the producers do - especially when it's done incrementally.

Sad state of affairs. Until a revolution occurs.

 

Even with casual piracy, a lot of it is probably from teens or young adults that don't have the expendable income either. They play it because they were able to get ahold of it somehow, otherwise they don't have $50 or $60 burning a hole in their pocket to buy it.

 

Another fine point.

 

After so many years, decades even, one would expect the reasoning about DRM X piracy would have evolved. It looks people still have the same mindset as when we had code disks, if not worse.

I´d expect a transnational corp like Ubisoft would have execs with a clearer mind than McDonald´s counter employees (no offense intended to them). But, nooo...

I´d really love the day when all game publishers looked at Steam, smacked their foreheads and shouted: Eureka!!!

 

Note please, that people seem to forget they are putting in a DRM that is HARMFUL for their usage of the product if they ever lose connectivity.

Since we are using the car analogy, say the dealer sold you a car that wouldn't allow you to turn the key if you lost connectivity to their server.
Note that people stealing the car could just hotwire it, so it didn't really protect against crime, it just doesn't work for legit owners when it loses connectivity.

Yes, this is THAT stupid.

I understand why they are trying to protect their software... but as with ANY security, you must make the user live with it. This DRM is not just going to fail to punish the criminals, its going to hurt the user.
Most users WILL notice it not working when they lose connectivity.

They need to know that we will not put up with their crap.

Simply put, don't buy it for any system until they remove the moronic DRM.

 

if you buy it for the console, you don't have to put up with the DRM, afaik.

 

not sure if this was already added to the conversation, but...

FAIL! Mega-fail.

If they didn't want to make PC games anymore, they should have just stopped supporting the platform. No self-respecting gamer would subject themselves to this.

 

Until they hack the console versions in order to play them on PCs minus the DRM.

The XBox is just old PC hardware...

 

I just hope this DRM is dead by the time the new brothers in arms game comes.... also from the IGN article earlier , this looks like a even lousier version of steam...

 

...that's based on PowerPC architecture.

 

Your point would be?

 

Not only that, many gamers who initially pirated the game if they like it purchase again when the price is closer to what they feel the game is worth. Like buying L4D when it is on sale at $19 cause seriously, it's not worth $50. So the statistics and figures on pirating should not even be considered IMO.

 

Honestly, I was going to give you points 1 and 2, and hope that you could connect them, but if you need a little help:

So...you want the hackers to rewrite the executable in x86?

 

How about we try this the other way...

Why is it other less similar consoles can be played on a PC?

Grats on your new knowledge.

 

Because we've built emulators?

Anyways, to the point, which I'm sure you've already guessed (or at least I hope you've guessed) by now - you can't "hack" a console game for a computer. That's akin to the magic "enhance" button those CSI guys use. It's just not how technology works.