Skid Row Cracks UBIsofts DRM/ DRM discussion

LINK

Software is interesting in how its handled.

When you go to the store and purchase a piece of software you are not buying the software itself. You are only buying the right to use the software within the rules set forth by the manufacturer. Same thing with music.

Its easy to not even realize that is how it works. Were so used to purchasing items and owning that item.. Cars, food, etc.

So, software and games were developed and in the beginning there were no copying safeguards... and it was good.

Then developers realized that we gamers and computer users, in general, were a bunch of mooching greedy copiers.. So, they started coming up with ways to make copying difficult. And, as a result we computer people got smarter and figured out ways to get around them.. Eventually we got To DRM. Where the software firms really REALLYYYY showed us who is who.

They told us that we can only install their product so many times, on so many machines, and only if we tell them, and in some instances only if they get to watch us while were using their product.

If i were a programmer i would want to get paid for my efforts. That is the entire point of chosing it as a career. So i understand wanting to impliment methods to ensure that products are getting purchased and not stolen.

But, Man alive did UBI screw this one up!!!

Not only did they come up with one of the most restrictive methods of software protection but they didn't build in any safeguards for playability. and thus.. they brought on the attention and wrath of the cracker community.

Since releasing this specific method of DRM they've had their servers hacked and now their DRM itself cracked.

I think that most of us would agree that if/when we posses and use a game with out purchasing it, most of the time, its because the software is overpriced for the amount of use that would go into it. Some companies have gotten the idea and are thriving by giving a good solution for this issue. Steam, Direct 2 Drive, and several others are providing, more often than not, Deeply discounted games. Easily downloadable, and mostly DRM free.

If software manufacturers started following more of thier method of pricing scaling maybe they would get the results they are looking for..



What do you think?

If games were cheaper I would buy more of them. And the stupid restrictions really tick me off.. like on spore, you can only have it installed on five computers. But untill prices drop quite a bit... Arrrrrr matey!

We've talked about the whole Ubisoft fiasco before, and its an excellent example of why DRM only hurts consumers. If its designed by humans, it can be cracked by humans. Its as simple as that. I understand developers/publishers fighting piracy; in an industry that is shaky, especially recently (reference the Activision vs Infinity Ward case), reward for what is extremely hard work and many man hours is little.

But just as any good gamer will tell you, sometimes you just have to admit defeat. When the DRM severs went down, locking out only the users who legitamitely bought a game, I guarantee more people considered piracy than ever before. The problem is only multiplied when you consider the absence of LAN functions on retail versions, some of which are available in cracked versions.

It almost seems as though the gaming industry has gone into a new stage, more coroporate stage. Instead of offering demos, trials, and friendly game types to reward those who purchase a game, they're simply restricting the consumer which more often than not punishes them. And the pirate is unaffected, perhaps with a little more work to crack a game, but a large part of that crowd enjoys the challenge of successfully cracking a title, which only provides them with larger bragging rights once its done, and it will be done.

Piracy is not going away. In my opinion, it makes more sense to give a person incentives to acutally buy a game than it does to try to stop piracy by hurting everyone.

Lersar wrote:

We've talked about the whole Ubisoft fiasco before, and its an excellent example of why DRM only hurts consumers.

I apologize i honestly didnt search to see if this had come up before. I was just posting in response to the new article i saw on this version of DRM defeat.

In my opinion, it makes more sense to give a person incentives to acutally buy a game than it does to try to stop piracy by hurting everyone.

So, What pricing model do you think would work well and be fair to both the consumer and the producers? Maybe a MMO style blanket pricing? Where you pay per month to be able to play maybe a given tier of games? $10/month to play year old games $14/ to play this months games and older?

I know that Paco has very specific numbers on how he calculates whether a game is worthy of purchasing.. ( throw em up man they're very thorough)

technobear wrote:

So, What pricing model do you think would work well and be fair to both the consumer and the producers? Maybe a MMO style blanket pricing? Where you pay per month to be able to play maybe a given tier of games? $10/month to play year old games $14/ to play this months games and older?

Pricing is difficult because its very subjective. Working in the industry, you come across all sorts of people with varying opinions on whats worth it and whats not. Regardless of what you pay, you are still buying acess to it and are entitled to a certain degree of function. Just because you buy L4D2 when its on sale for $20 doesn't mean you should miss out on anything that those who paid full retail price enjoy.

When I think of perks, I think of things like invitation keys to allow friends to try it out, especially at a LAN setting, allowing for a variation of game types, including LAN, and little things like not requiring constant internet access to play or even something as simple as no CD. A lot of them admitedly have to do with LAN parties, which I am a little bias towards
But whether its two people in a room or a hundred, its still a good method of multiplayer.

To me, I'm willing to pay MSRP for a game, if I'm going to get the full experience out of it. If I'm going to play it for a weekend and never touch it again, then $60 is absolutely excessive. But I also strongly feel that the 'full experience' includes being able to play it whenever I want, with or without internet and with or without authentication servers.

Of course, the story is a little different for games that are strictly online, and the whole server availablilty there is dipping into another topic entirely.

Maybe publishers who insist on DRM should consider lowering prices for those titles. The Steam client can be a little picky at times, and sometimes I don't have access to all the titles I 'own' through them. But I rarely pay full price for them, so I'm not usually raging about it.

I remember reading about how Galactic Civilizations 2 was selling really high, while the game doesn't require registration, doesn't require the disc, doesn't have any DRM at all. It showed that, by letting the gamer do more with the game, other people will appreciate the work and actually buy it.

I personally think that doing a donation system would work well. If anyone can get the game and play it for free, if they enjoyed it, or want access to more of the game (time or later levels), people will be willing to spend money. The up-front commitment is what causes so many gamers issue. Reviews are hard to use and can be misleading in some cases for games, and everyone has different tastes, so it's hard to tell if you will like a game before you try it. If you couldn't test drive a car before you bought it, far fewer cars would be sold, and more people would "pirate" cars! It's logic. I have bought several games from demos, and that is the best way to see what you think of the game.

Pirates will always exist, as some people are bums, or just like hacking. And pirates are not really affected by DRM, so it just hurts the legitimate customers. Many games have removed DRM in later patches, after seeing that it just does no good. Just in the way that hearing a song on radio/movie/tv will catch your interest in the band, experiencing a game before having to put your money down would increase sales. Truthfully, I have played some free games and been willing to donate $60 or more to the developers, because of the quality and the experience. I know I am not alone.

Steam has some good aspects with demos, deals, and friend trials (but CS:S is the only game I've seen that really lets you share a 3-day trial). Steam is it's own form of DRM, just not as nasty. You can't pass games around too easily, and you cannot sell them. If Steam took up more free games, and let you donate at will, that sector of the industry would thrive, and big companies would probably take notice.


Oh, and I didn't like Spore, so I'd be willing to get rid of my copy. Only been installed once I think. And I think they have extended it to 10 installs.

Ya, steam is their own flavor of DRM. But to be honest i dont mind it so much. They make sure that my Login is logged in once.. but i can install that game as much as i want on as many machines as i want. "most" of the games ive seen advertised arent drm from steam.

I think that if games went freeware then theyd just suffer from it. There would simply be less structure.. IMHO *shrug*

There are some pretty good free games out there. But I can understand that big epics like MW2 and GOW3 wouldn't be the same that way. It's just an ideal world thought.

I did notice that GTA4 has some pretty hefty DRM stuff, even on Steam. That's kinda making me hesitate on buying it, because I don't like DRM stuff being installed like that. Anyone remember StarForce? Lol The Evil Soviet Plan To Stop American DVD Drives From Working.

I jsut got GTA4.. you have to install LIVE and then Rockstar Social. But on the first patch it uninstalls the Rockstar Social thing and leaves you with an internal login and the live crap..

GTAs before GTA4 were pirated HEAVILY. Ironically when i was looting at my heaviest these were the games i was legit on lol

I do not like LIVE, and I'm not particularly fond of when a company wants to make its own version of Steam or anything. No one buys exclusively from Rockstar/EA/Activision/Blizzard, so the idea of making a system that tracks just games from those companies seems foolish. More games need to integrate into Steam. And GTA games were good, and worth the money. I don't want to make a LIVE account though.

i suggest you dont buy GTA4 or Dirt 2 then.. they both use LIVE...

Really to be honest if yo already have a msn messenger account youre 90% of the way to using live for games anyway.

I get more annoyed wiht EAs bastard system.

I do have MSN, but I really don't want it. I've been wanting to move my contacts over and get rid of my MSN and email, because I don't like checking even one email, let alone all that I have. It's something I can deal with, but I don't like to, and I don't like supporting Microsoft's LIVE world of email, games, and all that stuff.

I have dealt with the EA thing, which I thought was stupid but not bad. Metal Gear Solid 4 required a computer registration before you could play online, which I thought was the worst case of company account requirement. PS3 has PSN, 360 has XBL, PC should have Steam as the main thing. I'm not pleased by the sounds of things in BFBC2 in that respect, but the game looks so cool.

LOL youre a gamer that doesnt like email? thats a first for me..

I bet youre a console convert arent you?

technobear wrote:

LOL youre a gamer that doesnt like email? thats a first for me..

I bet youre a console convert arent you?

I don't know how you knew. I really don't understand how anyone likes email, but maybe I handle it differently. I log in manually everywhere. I have slow internet most times, so it takes a long time to get through them all. At least I don't get spam anymore. But I don't like emailing and registering for much.

getting off of dialup will make a huge difference for you.

technobear wrote:

LOL youre a gamer that doesnt like email? thats a first for me..

I bet youre a console convert arent you?

I'm stickin up for Leon on this

I've been a PC gamer since I was 13...I've only owned one console and that was a used PS for $15 lol and I do not like e-mail lol I never use it. Don't need to when you have FB and MSN and Steam and whatever other kinda messenger type thing haha Like I said before...I have ADD so I like instant messages
The only reason to use e-mail is for online games and sending files from one computer to another via internet

btw...I turn 20 here at the end of April so that makes 7 years of PC gaming

I love my e-mail. And I love snail mail lol.

starkiller1 wrote:

I turn 20 here at the end of April so that makes 7 years of PC gaming

I started PC gaming in about '96!! i believe thats 14 years!

god im old..

Nacelle!?!??! care to chime in? hehhehehehehe