Latest Ubisoft DRM measure - all SP saves stored on a cloud server

Al_B on 23/2/2010 at 22:03

I suppose I'm being a little cynical that the percentage of people that buy and return the game will be significant. There's also the likelyhood that quite a few people will intend to do this will not successfully return the game either through apathy or through objections from the retailer.

In my opinion, it's better just not to buy the game at all. If there's a measurable difference between the game sales that Ubisoft get and those with more reasonable protection systems get (for similar style games) then that is a better metric.

Ostriig on 24/2/2010 at 00:41

I agree with you on the first part, I also doubt that this scheme will come to success. It's been my impression as well that, so far, we gamers, as a subculture, lack the cohesion and focus to take a real stand and set in motion a noteworthy protest. Even when it comes to more dire situations, like the censorship in Australia, where, unless I'm missing something, I've still yet to hear of a massive public protest by games enthusiasts. Apathy and complacency seem the norm for us, along with harmless bitching on forums, and I'm not necessarily dissociating myself from any of that.

But I strongly disagree with you on the second bit - if people simply don't buy it, there is no way for the publisher to quantify the negative effects of the DRM system. They do not know to what extent the difference between expected and actual sales is due to objections to DRM or due to simple poor work on the part of their financial department, which they could suppose might have overestimated the potential of the PC market. However, with this scheme, it is very easy for them to scope exactly what percent of their potential sales was lost due to the assfuck DRM method. It would go a bit like this, with a Ubisoft underling addressing his boss:

"Sir, we've received word from Tesco that copies of Assassins Creed 2 were returned to the retailer over the past week, and the DRM was specified as the reason for returning. This appears to be part of an organised gamer protest against our latest form of DRM."
"How many of the returns were due to the DRM, Bob?"
"All of them, sir. All twelve."

lost_soul on 24/2/2010 at 03:59

I consider any form of DRM a crime against society. Now, before the corporate shills rip me apart, hear me out:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Everyone knows that content is supposed to pass into the public domain after a period of time. How do you suppose this will happen with the "protection" systems that are being put in place today? Your encrypted blob that you paid $50 for will NEVER enter the public domain, because:

A. The activation servers will be shut down.

B. The developers will keep the source code locked up for all eternity and destroy it before they give it to the public.

C. As members of society, we are all being scammed. It is like loaning someone your car and having them keep telling you that they will give it back next week, and then next month, and then next year, and then the car disappears.

This was supposed to be an agreement that benefits the author AND society...

june gloom on 24/2/2010 at 04:23

I love how anyone who disagrees with you (or at the very least your use of adolescent "fight the man!!!" rhetoric) is automatically labeled a corporate shill.

Seriously man I somewhat agree with you at least on some of the points you make here but could you try to be less of a stereotype?

Chade on 24/2/2010 at 04:36

Quote Posted by a man surviving against all odds in the land of digital oppression

The developers will keep the source code locked up for all eternity and destroy it before they give it to the public.

They can never take my soooouuurce! :mad:

You are confusing two separate issues: the ability to illegally access source code, and the right to legally access source code.

lost_soul on 24/2/2010 at 04:43

Quote Posted by Chade

They can never take my soooouuurce! :mad:

You are confusing two separate issues: the ability to illegally access source code, and the right to legally access source code.

Well, here we have an interesting dilemma. We don't need the source code to run the program, so they don't need to provide it to us at the point of sale. However, I'm willing to bet that the source code is copyrighted, so it should (in theory) eventually pass into the public domain. However, they probably never intend to distribute it, so that will never happen. Do you think they should be required to provide source code after a given period of time? I don't really have an answer to this, it is just food for thought.

Phatose on 24/2/2010 at 04:55

As of today, all works are automatically copyrighted. They have no more duty to release the source code then you have to release your diary.

Unless you seriously believe you have a duty to release those love note you wrote your girlfriend into the public domain in 120 years, that's just a flat out nonsensical line of thought.

Much more fundamentally, do you have any precedent whatsoever to show that entering into the public domain requires any action on the part of the one time copyright holder? Public domain means the public can use it as they see fit, it does not mean the original copyright older is beholden to the public to provide any service whatsoever.

Jason Moyer on 24/2/2010 at 04:59

Quote Posted by lost_soul

Everyone knows that content is supposed to pass into the public domain after a period of time.

70 years after the death of the author. Although I suspect that with Mickey Mouse scheduled to go public domain in 2020-ish the law will be changed again.

Of course, source code is private property, and not distributed under copyright law, so it's not really relevant in any way.

lost_soul on 24/2/2010 at 05:26

Quote Posted by Phatose

Public domain means the public can use it as they see fit, it does not mean the original copyright older is beholden to the public to provide any service whatsoever.

Seeing as how it is illegal to create tools to bypass the DRM malware, how will the public use the content at all when it is public domain? I don't think this particular rule ever expires. Thus, DRM is a plot to screw society. The content creators are plugging the one last loophole.

Renzatic on 24/2/2010 at 05:37

Hyperbole helps no one, man.

See, DRM by its definition, is simply a ham-fisted attempt to stop piracy and help make these development houses (and publishers obviously) some well deserved cash. The end result might end up with a bunch of people being screwed, but the intent is just to protect their investment. Simple as that.

Though admittedly, despite the hysterics, I do happen to agree with you. The way things are, I'm doubtful I'll be able to play some of the heavier DRMed games come next year, let alone 10-20 years from now. If publishers completely abandoned these games once they're no longer profitable, we'll end up with a huge chunk of videogame history scattered to the vapors.