![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Ubi DRM: Their side of the story
- Thread starter polonyc2
- Start date
- Status
Assassin's Creed was released on the consoles November 2007. It wasn't released on PC until April 2008... 5 months later (leaked version around Feb 2008). Most of the people who really wanted the game bought it for a console first and wouldn't purchase it again for PC even for the PC's extra content.
The 700k piracy figure is provided by Ubi which also ignored Steam/D2D sales (see NPD below) when reporting the 40k sales figure. I'm not saying people didn't steal the game, I'm saying you can't trust these numbers since 1. they come from the source and 2. we can see that they aren't complete (missing digital sales).
As for PC sales, in April 2008 AC topped the PC sales charts which tells me these "non-existent" sales number are actually quite normal...
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/38232/Ass-Creed-Cracks-The-Top-PC-Sales-Spot
You also have to remember that the numbers come from NPD who only record retail sales figures and ignore digital sales from Steam, D2D and others.
Also, unrelated to your post, I'd like to point out that Sins of a Solar Empire (#3 on that list) was number two in retail sales when it was released two months earlier. Stardock even say that the majority of the sales were digital (NPD ignores digital sales). Oh, and the game was DRM free.
http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/304331
BlitzPuppet
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 560
You my friend have my respect. Some people on these forums (coughwonderwhocough) just don't understand that way of thinking......
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
You blissfully miss the fact that consoles have a higher userbase for these sorts of AAA titles than PCs do and so naturally sell more copies of games. Even if we grant you that 700,000 is accurate and we assume all those people would have bought the game had piracy not been an option, that's only 740,000 copies in the first month compared to 2,500,000 Xbox360 sales. Even when you account for piracy the difference is still massive.
You also ignore the well understood sales differences between PC games and console games, most of us know that console games sell very well in their early life and then drop off quite fast, PC games tend to sell more steadily over their lifetime, usualy due to the fact that the game devalues over time and at cheaper price points is attractive to more users, also a lot of people have to wait to upgrade their PC in order to play.
I don't know if you're selectively ignoreing these points or if you simply dont understand, but while your view on this remains as basic as it is, looking at these numbers black and white, then you're not making a very strong case.
Just gonna throw this out there...
As others have mentioned, the numbers you posted are retail only. AC was a top seller on steam for a little while, expecially when they had the sales on it.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
You have to figure in general psychology and human nature. You give a poor kid the choice to pick one candy bar from 5 choice, the kid will take one and eat the whole thing (might even lick the wrapper clean too). On the other hand, A rich spoiled kid would have unlimited access to thousands of different candy bars to eat. If you gave him the choice of 1 out of 5 options, he might not even care. If you're lucky he might eat it, but more often than not, he'll probably just sample it and say, "it sucks" then go peruse his vast supply of other candy bars. Infact, he might not even bother opening the package. The kid has too much and he won't enjoy what you gave him.
A kid who is in the habit of piracy can be the same. For many people it can become a habit to just download. The kid is too busy downloading or sampling from an unlimited supply of software/games that he probably won't even bother playing most games to completion. Take that same kid and have mommy and daddy track his internet behavior (i.e. no piracy ever since he's not smart enough for workaround) and give him a very limited supply of purchased games. Do you think he'd enjoy those games a lot more? Is he more likely to beat the game multiple times? I would think so. This time the kid is either going to save his pennies for a new game, or ask mom to buy it. Whereas if he had full reign to pirate, he would be finishing games far less.
I'm not going to say you're that kid. I'm fine if you're going to say you would never play those games to completion anyways. But for most people it's different. Poor people from third world countries greatly appreciate stuff we in America would consider to be crap. Any pirate who doesn't restrict himself is over-saturated with too much.
Last edited by a moderator:
How many copies did Assassin's Creed for 360 sell during the same month that the PC version was released? I'm entirely sure you don't know, but I ask because it's pretty integral to the argument you're trying to make. Did AC on 360 sell 300,000 copies that month? Or did it sell 30,000? Makes a big difference, don't you think?
Nah, I'm sure you don't.
To clarify one more time; Asassin's Creed is not the only IP Ubisoft is responsible for publishing, and is therefore not the only IP which will receive this new DRM treatment. Yes, AC is where a lot of the discussion is revolving around, but that's because apparently AC is representative of game sales performance on PC...according to someone.
PanzerBoxb
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2004
- Messages
- 2,109
Very true, Spewn. As a long time player of the Silent Hunter series I was disheartened to hear it would also fall under this ridiculous scheme. Therefore, I will not be purchasing it until such time as the DRM is completely removed or replaced by something considerably less restrictive. Count me in the pool of users who take their laptop on trips.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
The arguments I'm seeing posted here are being written by people who are in complete denial of how rampant piracy has gotten. (For every one person here who seems to understand this, there appear to be about seventeen who don't. Interesting.)
I get it that Assassin's Creed was released on the 360 before the PC, and that because so many people would have bought the game for that platform first it would have naturally diminished the sales for the PC version. I mean, duh.
But use your head here.
Why can you not see that if this were the case for every game, then developers and publishers would never release PC versions of games months and months after the release of their console counterparts? The people who run these companies aren't nearly as stupid as some of you people here seem to think - for the publishers it's purely a numbers game. And trust me on this, I know publishers, and publishers know their numbers.
Assassin's Creed, according to Ubisoft, sold 40,000 copies during its first month on the PC (and took a bloodbath). According to Ubisoft, 2.5 million copies were sold during the first month for the 360. According to you guys Ubisoft should have expected this, since, as you guys have stated many times now, the PC version was released long after the 360 version.
So here's the question of the month for all you bright intelligent sparks out there:
If Ubisoft had known that they were going to take a bloodbath on this game for the PC - in other words, if it had been common knowledge, as so many of you here seem to think, that releasing a PC version months after releasing a console version would be an entirely stupid thing to do - then why did Ubisoft even bother developing a PC version to begin with?
Here's your answer:
Because the truth of the matter is that normally a PC game will sell roughly one-third the number of copies of the console version REGARDLESS OF WHEN IT WAS RELEASED, and that piracy has gotten so out of control that even Ubisoft's number crunches were caught by surprise. (Those number crunchers, by the way, have families to support, just like some of you guys do, and when they get the numbers wrong like this, it puts their jobs into jeopardy... they're not stupid these guys... when they get it wrong like this there's usually an extenuating circumstance.)
Hence the number 700,000, which I've mentioned... oh, about one hundred times now. 700,000 is roughly one-third of 2.5 million - and yes, that's the number Ubisoft was aiming for. Not 40,000, okay. Companies don't make money from producing big budget titles that go on to sell only 40,000 copies in the first month. Ubisoft never would have produced this game for the PC if they had been expecting that to happen - as so many of you have clearly stated that they should have.
But nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's just assume that the people at Ubisoft really don't know a thing about business, and that really they should be coming to this forum and listening to you guys.
According to you guys, it's not a very smart thing to release a PC version of a game months after the release of the console version, since, obviously, the game won't sell very many copies. Yeah, well I guess we're going to have to add Rockstar Games to the Stupid-Developers-Who-Don't-Listen-To-The-Members-Of-The-Hardforum list, because as we all plainly know, GTA 4 was released on the PC months after being released for the 360.
According to you guys, everyone should have already played GTA 4, since it had already been released on the 360. Right!
Wrong.
Your logic has failed you once again. For whatever reasons (and we can leave this for another debate) GTA 4 didn't take the same bloodbath that Assassin's Creed did. The point here is a simple one: if a PC game is going to be released months after the release of its console counterpart, then, yes, of course the sales for the PC version will be diminished, but not to the point where the company won't be able to turn a profit.
Ubisoft got burned by the pirates. Burned by them. Some of you people are so in denial about this that it makes me want to pass out.
I get it that Assassin's Creed was released on the 360 before the PC, and that because so many people would have bought the game for that platform first it would have naturally diminished the sales for the PC version. I mean, duh.
But use your head here.
Why can you not see that if this were the case for every game, then developers and publishers would never release PC versions of games months and months after the release of their console counterparts? The people who run these companies aren't nearly as stupid as some of you people here seem to think - for the publishers it's purely a numbers game. And trust me on this, I know publishers, and publishers know their numbers.
Assassin's Creed, according to Ubisoft, sold 40,000 copies during its first month on the PC (and took a bloodbath). According to Ubisoft, 2.5 million copies were sold during the first month for the 360. According to you guys Ubisoft should have expected this, since, as you guys have stated many times now, the PC version was released long after the 360 version.
So here's the question of the month for all you bright intelligent sparks out there:
If Ubisoft had known that they were going to take a bloodbath on this game for the PC - in other words, if it had been common knowledge, as so many of you here seem to think, that releasing a PC version months after releasing a console version would be an entirely stupid thing to do - then why did Ubisoft even bother developing a PC version to begin with?
Here's your answer:
Because the truth of the matter is that normally a PC game will sell roughly one-third the number of copies of the console version REGARDLESS OF WHEN IT WAS RELEASED, and that piracy has gotten so out of control that even Ubisoft's number crunches were caught by surprise. (Those number crunchers, by the way, have families to support, just like some of you guys do, and when they get the numbers wrong like this, it puts their jobs into jeopardy... they're not stupid these guys... when they get it wrong like this there's usually an extenuating circumstance.)
Hence the number 700,000, which I've mentioned... oh, about one hundred times now. 700,000 is roughly one-third of 2.5 million - and yes, that's the number Ubisoft was aiming for. Not 40,000, okay. Companies don't make money from producing big budget titles that go on to sell only 40,000 copies in the first month. Ubisoft never would have produced this game for the PC if they had been expecting that to happen - as so many of you have clearly stated that they should have.
But nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's just assume that the people at Ubisoft really don't know a thing about business, and that really they should be coming to this forum and listening to you guys.
According to you guys, it's not a very smart thing to release a PC version of a game months after the release of the console version, since, obviously, the game won't sell very many copies. Yeah, well I guess we're going to have to add Rockstar Games to the Stupid-Developers-Who-Don't-Listen-To-The-Members-Of-The-Hardforum list, because as we all plainly know, GTA 4 was released on the PC months after being released for the 360.
According to you guys, everyone should have already played GTA 4, since it had already been released on the 360. Right!
Wrong.
Your logic has failed you once again. For whatever reasons (and we can leave this for another debate) GTA 4 didn't take the same bloodbath that Assassin's Creed did. The point here is a simple one: if a PC game is going to be released months after the release of its console counterpart, then, yes, of course the sales for the PC version will be diminished, but not to the point where the company won't be able to turn a profit.
Ubisoft got burned by the pirates. Burned by them. Some of you people are so in denial about this that it makes me want to pass out.
Because it's relatively easy. Transitioning from the X360 to Windows and vice versa doesn't demand a substantial investment. In the first month, Ubisoft brought in ~$2,000,000 in gross sales on AC PC. I might estimate that the total cost associated with the porting process was less than half that. I would assume that at least twice as much was spent on specifically marketing the PC release as it actually cost to develop, and their marketing efforts were apparently pretty unsuccessful.
As for Ubi only moving 40,000 units in 30 days, that's not surprising. Today, relatively few PC games are commercial successes. An unremarkable game paired with an equally unremarkable marketing campaign results in unremarkable sales, regardless of the so-called "piracy rate". The notion that piracy is chiefly responsible for the simple cause-and-effect relationship of unremarkable games selling unremarkably is fanciful at best and deluded at worst.
Except you're *not* leaving it for another debate. You figure the debate is settled, and the reason Ubisoft got burned is because of the pirates. You're not prepared to place ANY blame on Ubisoft. Why didn't GTA4 fail to sell? Did it have some super uncrackable DRM? Why is that, in your mind, the obvious solution to the problem of piracy?
GTA4 must have done something right, but instead of doing things right Ubisoft just wants to try to lock pirates out, and you SUPPORT them! Why don't you support what the developers who make titles that sell *despite* high piracy rates are doing? Why don't you condemn Ubisoft for not simply standing on their own merit as so many others can and do?
Why don't you want to play good games, not just play games before the pirates do?
No comments?
Maybe it's that GTA4 was a better game? 5 months is a long time for word of mouth (especially bad word of mouth) to get out on a game.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Here's what the forum member named Climber wrote earlier in this thread, and was praised for:
"All this just goes to say what we've all been saying all along and I think proves the point perfectly. Make a great game, make it price comparable (especially to the replay value of said game), release on time, without bugs, and even with moderate DRM schemes gamers will gladly make a day or week 1 purchase."
Really?
So you're telling me that Rockstar didn't get raped because the PC version of GTA 4, unlike the PC version of Assassin's Creed, met these conditions?
Holy crap.
Which planet have you been living on for the past two years? Most gamers around here would tell you that the PC version of GTA 4 was the perfect example of how NOT to port a console game. I know what you're going to say next, that the game itself was better... yeah, and I've already dealt with that argument earlier in this thread.
But it doesn't matter anyway, because it has nothing to do with what I was arguing against. People were advancing the idea that Assassin's Creed's numbers were so low in the first month because the game had been released earlier to console. I think I've pretty much shown that to be a ridiculous argument.
Not exactly, but we are telling you that GTA4 was good enough to sell and AC wasn't. PC gamers and Console gamers clearly want different things from their games. Is it so hard to understand that one product could sell well in both markets, and another could sell well only in one? There are plenty of PC games that wouldn't(and don't) sell well if/when ported to console. Why shouldn't the same be true of some console games?
Solely due to it being released? No. Does it have something to do with it? Hell yes. But there is also the issue that the game got a pretty poor reception. DMC4 got pirated pretty badly as well, but Capcom didn't try to place the blame on poor sales because of it. In fact they only made a single mention of DMC4's piracy and that was that. They never really talked about it after that. Still, lets assume that Ubi's numbers are 100% correct and the ratio of unique buys to unique pirates is 17:1. AC came out in 2008. Its had nearly two years of sales. Its been through two Steam holiday sales, been on sale on Steam and D2D a number of times and is STILL sold in retail stores and online. It has had one hell of a long shelf life to increase beyond its first month sales.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Okay, so you're basically agreeing with me.
You write: "... GTA 4 must have done something right..."
Clearly you guys were advancing the argument that the PC version of Assassin's Creed didn't sell well in its first month BECAUSE IT WAS RELEASED MONTHS AFTER THE 360 VERSION and most people had already played it.
That was the argument I was responding to. That, and only that. You were responding to that post, correct?
Now you're altering the argument and saying, well, actually, if a game does it right, then yes it can sell copies. So which one is it then? You're arguing both sides of the coin here? You're telling me that Assassin's Creed for the PC was a disaster because it was released to late to the market. Then you turn around and say, yeah, but actually it doesn't matter if a game is released late to market, as long as they 'get it right'.
You're all over the map on this one.
(And by the way, I have my doubts that very many people are going to agree with you about Rockstar 'getting it right'. It has nothing to do with this specific part of the debate, obviously, but yeah, I don't foresee too many people around here jumping in to 'agree' with you about this.)
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
You guys are still talking to a wall, someone living out a one sided fantasy.
I'll point this out, GTA 4 sold well because it's the kind of game that PC gamers would play as a PC game over a game like AC which is more console friendly and more console centric, ignoring the fact that both were made for consoles and then later came out on PC. GTA 4 is a game that PC gamers would buy, whereas, AC was a game that PC gamers bought for their consoles and had no interest in playing on PC. I personally have GTA 4 on my PS3 and have no interest in buying it for PC, but I can see the appeal of it as a PC game given how hard it is on people's rigs.
Also, the type of game comes into consideration, AC is repetitive and the storyline was also repetitive as well, and since AC had such a long lag time between it's console to PC iteration, it stands to reason that most PC gamers would have had a chance to try it for console and in doing so, probably made up their mind whether it was worth a purchase or not once it came to PC.
GTA 4, I'm guessing PC gamers bought it and liked it on console enough to buy it for their PC's when the PC version came out, or for the Steam sales. Also, they can use GTA 4 as a benchmark for their rigs, and it's also nice having a game that stresses your PC. Also, since enthuaist level PC gamers as a whole tend to be more adult and mature (*cough* there's exceptions *cough) it's the kind of game a PC gamer would enjoy more.
Is that really the final word, not really I guess, but I put as much stock in any of WabeWalker's posts as i would anyone who works for Infinity Ward with their PR department talking about IWnet.
Really, it's time to end this thread here, it's gone on long enough in the same pointless circles. He's convinced he's right, even if he isn't, and you guys are wasting your time trying to convince him, you can't convince a wall guys, so quit trying.
Let him live in his little fantasy world.
I'll point this out, GTA 4 sold well because it's the kind of game that PC gamers would play as a PC game over a game like AC which is more console friendly and more console centric, ignoring the fact that both were made for consoles and then later came out on PC. GTA 4 is a game that PC gamers would buy, whereas, AC was a game that PC gamers bought for their consoles and had no interest in playing on PC. I personally have GTA 4 on my PS3 and have no interest in buying it for PC, but I can see the appeal of it as a PC game given how hard it is on people's rigs.
Also, the type of game comes into consideration, AC is repetitive and the storyline was also repetitive as well, and since AC had such a long lag time between it's console to PC iteration, it stands to reason that most PC gamers would have had a chance to try it for console and in doing so, probably made up their mind whether it was worth a purchase or not once it came to PC.
GTA 4, I'm guessing PC gamers bought it and liked it on console enough to buy it for their PC's when the PC version came out, or for the Steam sales. Also, they can use GTA 4 as a benchmark for their rigs, and it's also nice having a game that stresses your PC. Also, since enthuaist level PC gamers as a whole tend to be more adult and mature (*cough* there's exceptions *cough) it's the kind of game a PC gamer would enjoy more.
Is that really the final word, not really I guess, but I put as much stock in any of WabeWalker's posts as i would anyone who works for Infinity Ward with their PR department talking about IWnet.
Really, it's time to end this thread here, it's gone on long enough in the same pointless circles. He's convinced he's right, even if he isn't, and you guys are wasting your time trying to convince him, you can't convince a wall guys, so quit trying.
Let him live in his little fantasy world.
People "around here" don't have to. How many more copies did it sell? That's how many more people agree with me, whether they want to admit it or not. MW2 did it VERY right, if you want to look at it that way.
As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure why you think poor sales can't be a combination of a sub-standard game *and* a late release date. Why should only one thing affect whether or not a game sells? I never said that Assassin's Creeds poor sales were soley due to being released so long after the initial console release.
As for me being all over the place...I'm not sure what to tell you about that. Perhaps the sea of people who disagree with you is blending into one homogeneous smear?
That was me, post 232. That's my argument. There are a number of reasons why AC didn't sell as well as Ubisoft would have hoped on PC, and it is the combination of all these things that led to its ultimate failure.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Derangel, you've blamed me for repeating myself.
You're repeating yourself as well. You keep on telling me that Assassin's Creed has continued to sell copies long after the first month.
That's not what's at issue here. What's at issue here were the EXPECTED SALES FOR THE FIRST MONTH - clearly, no gaming company is going to produce a game with a budget of this size if it's EXPECTING 40,000 sales during the first month.
Your argument seems to be that this number of 40,000 has been fudged by Ubisoft because they're not including the numbers from subsequent months. That doesn't matter. That has nothing to do with it. Presumably, had Assassin's Creed not been raped by the pirates, then it would also have continued to sell copies in the subsequent months, meaning that the new numbers would also be higher.
Your argument really only makes sense if all those people people who pirated the game suddenly decided to buy the game after the first month - and clearly that's an implausible argument.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
that's your standard response when someone offers anything resembling logic or coherent thought, both which you seem incapable of
The problem is you're making the assumption that everyone who pirated it is a lost customer. That simply isn't true. No gaming company thinks that. If they did they're total morons. Here is a fun fact for you: 70% of games released to retail fail. They fail for a variety of reasons, but they fail. AC is simply part of that statistic. Ubisfot overestimated their sales based on the console numbers. It happens. Instead of looking into all of the reasons why and trying to improve on it they blamed it solely on piracy and decided not to learn from their mistakes.
This conversation has gotten so entertaining, its Wabe vs the World, but somehow Wabe can't see what the rest of the world is trying to say. 
You assume Ubisoft is intelligent. You assume they are intelligent enough to do the correct thing by releasing a PC version so far after the console version for a game which is only "average", even though almost every other company realises its best to release all versions close to each other. You assume they are intelligent enough to implement DRM that will work. The rest of us dont, and see the flaws in Ubi's logic.
We were stating the late release of the PC version was one reason for AC's bad performance, not "the" reason. Obviously is you make a game that's awesome, people will still buy it 6 months later. I doubt Force Unleashed got brilliant sales on PC in its release month, same as Halo and Halo 2 when they came out on PC (I dont know the numbers, I could be wrong). Over time all of those games (including AC) would have gotten a lot more sales than they got in their release month, but the "hype spike" immediately after release isn't going to be large.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this post at all, its all so futile.
You assume Ubisoft is intelligent. You assume they are intelligent enough to do the correct thing by releasing a PC version so far after the console version for a game which is only "average", even though almost every other company realises its best to release all versions close to each other. You assume they are intelligent enough to implement DRM that will work. The rest of us dont, and see the flaws in Ubi's logic.
We were stating the late release of the PC version was one reason for AC's bad performance, not "the" reason. Obviously is you make a game that's awesome, people will still buy it 6 months later. I doubt Force Unleashed got brilliant sales on PC in its release month, same as Halo and Halo 2 when they came out on PC (I dont know the numbers, I could be wrong). Over time all of those games (including AC) would have gotten a lot more sales than they got in their release month, but the "hype spike" immediately after release isn't going to be large.
I'm not sure why I'm bothering with this post at all, its all so futile.
I never said piracy wasn't a problem, I said you couldn't trust the numbers. The numbers show that the PC sales were normal. Like I said before though, they only show retail numbers. If they would include digital sources I'm sure the number would get a big boost. I'm not even sure how you would go about getting any kind of accurate number for piracy but you can't count each one as a lost sale. If there was a way to count lost sales that would actually be useful. A guess about how much money was lost and how many people they think stole from them is rather useless.
Your right, they do know their numbers (The stupidity however is debatable) and that's why they release to console first. It costs less to produce a game for a console because of it's closed nature vs the PC. They spend less money making the game and charge more money for it. Since turn around is so quick releasing the console versions first is the fastest way to get a return on their investment. This cost issue is also why were seeing more crap ports with crappy textures and FOV nightmares. They don't ignore the PC because of piracy, it's purely a time/money issue.
Ubi did get burned but was it bad enough to go through all of this? I don't condone piracy but putting up such an obvious "Don't walk on the grass" sign is only going to cause people to walk on the grass. Did they learn nothing from the whole EA/Spore debacle? Think of the money Ubi spent developing this software and how much running a server(s) is going to cost them. For what? Now Ubi is just burning themselves.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
The other thing that's kind of funny about this thread is how obviously upset this has made some people. - is it the DRM itself that people are upset about, or the game?
'Rise Of Flight' has this exact same DRM, and I didn't see too many threads about it when I bought the game from D2D two months ago. I mean, there were no great warnings from the masses saying, don't buy this game, you'll even get kicked out of the single player game mid session if you're not connected to the net (something that hasn't actually ever happened, by the way). I mean, there was no discussion about it period. And if there had been I doubt it would've reached these levels.
It's just interesting that so many people are saying that Ubisoft sucks, and that Assassin's Creed sucks... it can't suck that much, or else people wouldn't care this much.
'Rise Of Flight' has this exact same DRM, and I didn't see too many threads about it when I bought the game from D2D two months ago. I mean, there were no great warnings from the masses saying, don't buy this game, you'll even get kicked out of the single player game mid session if you're not connected to the net (something that hasn't actually ever happened, by the way). I mean, there was no discussion about it period. And if there had been I doubt it would've reached these levels.
It's just interesting that so many people are saying that Ubisoft sucks, and that Assassin's Creed sucks... it can't suck that much, or else people wouldn't care this much.
Majesty 2 uses it as well I believe, but its more to do with Ubisoft saying they want to use it on all of their titles and charge $60 on top of it. Doesn't help that AC1 got a bad reception so its going to make people more annoyed. Personally I enjoyed the first game and was looking forward to this one. I don't own Majesty 2 or Rise of Flight even though both games are titles I would likely enjoy. I probably won't pick up CNC4 either.
DRM Hurts game sales.
I am a huge flight sim fan. And as we all know those are a dying breed. Saw a game called "Wings of Prey". Looked good, found out it has a 3 activation limit, and you need to contact them to enable more. Looked around online and seems the response from the company is poor at best and maybe people haven't heard back from them.
Needless to say, I passed on the game and seeing forum responses, so have many others.
When you sell entertainment you want to make it as EASY as possible for your customers to enjoy your product, there is soo much choice in entertainment to make your loyal customers jump through hoops. Instead of paying $50 for that DRM ridden pos I just reinstalled USAF and have been having fun with that.
I am a huge flight sim fan. And as we all know those are a dying breed. Saw a game called "Wings of Prey". Looked good, found out it has a 3 activation limit, and you need to contact them to enable more. Looked around online and seems the response from the company is poor at best and maybe people haven't heard back from them.
Needless to say, I passed on the game and seeing forum responses, so have many others.
When you sell entertainment you want to make it as EASY as possible for your customers to enjoy your product, there is soo much choice in entertainment to make your loyal customers jump through hoops. Instead of paying $50 for that DRM ridden pos I just reinstalled USAF and have been having fun with that.
swatbat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,052
For me it is the DRM. I don't mind DRM as long as it is reasonable. If they had an offline mode this wouldn't be that bad. Microsofts activation is a good example. If I have to make a phone call when I reinstall something I'm not that worried. I like how their activation resets after 120 or 180 days(can't remember which). Wouldn't mind the online account as long as it has an offline mode.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
Just to clarify one point: Majesty 2 doesn't have this type of DRM.
I have Majesty 2, and for what it is, it's a charming game - one that I wish more gamers would have bought (especially at $5). Once you figure the game out, it's not nearly as much fun, but figuring the game out was a tremendous amount of fun (which is why, with this game, you have to avoid reading about it online - don't ever consult a walkthrough of any sort if you're going to play this game).
Also, for those of you who are going to buy Assassin's Creed 2 (all 3 of you, judging by this thread) - it looks like it really was bumped up a week. Steam, along with EB Games, and D2D, is now listing the game as March 9'th, as opposed to March 16'th.
So two weeks to go.
Personally I can't wait for this one. I've played some of it on the 360, and apart from the graphics, which just sucked in comparison with the original game on the PC, the game appears to be a great open world sand-box type of game. And I also happen to love the country in which it's taking place. This one's going to be filled with great atmosphere. And of course I'll be playing it before the pirates get their hands on it... that'll be fun...
I have Majesty 2, and for what it is, it's a charming game - one that I wish more gamers would have bought (especially at $5). Once you figure the game out, it's not nearly as much fun, but figuring the game out was a tremendous amount of fun (which is why, with this game, you have to avoid reading about it online - don't ever consult a walkthrough of any sort if you're going to play this game).
Also, for those of you who are going to buy Assassin's Creed 2 (all 3 of you, judging by this thread) - it looks like it really was bumped up a week. Steam, along with EB Games, and D2D, is now listing the game as March 9'th, as opposed to March 16'th.
So two weeks to go.
Personally I can't wait for this one. I've played some of it on the 360, and apart from the graphics, which just sucked in comparison with the original game on the PC, the game appears to be a great open world sand-box type of game. And I also happen to love the country in which it's taking place. This one's going to be filled with great atmosphere. And of course I'll be playing it before the pirates get their hands on it... that'll be fun...
CrimandEvil
Dick with a heart of gold
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,670
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I guess we'll see about that. Clearly you live in some kind of fantasy land.
Either way, I'm not buying the game, I no longer have any interest in playing it either. Maybe, in a year (probably more like 3 months) it'll show up as one of those $5 deals on Steam and then I'll think about buying it. Chances are that by then Ubisoft would have learned their lesson and removed their bullshit DRM.
Thanks for the info on Majesty 2. I'll keep an eye out for it to go on sale. As for the rest, we'll see. As I said earlier, if Ubisoft can prove that this works I'll consider it. Not for $60 mind you, but we'll see.
WabeWalker
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,508
At work, during lunch, in an offhanded sort of way, I asked our resident computer expert about this issue.
At my work we have an intranet, of course, but to gain access when away from work employees can do so through the internet - which makes me wonder why it's even called an intranet to begin with? But anyhow - to gain access we have to type in a code that's on a fob, which you physically hold in your hand and carry with you. The numeric code on the fob updates via satellite every minute.
Is this system completely safe from being hacked into? No, it isn't, because of course no system is entirely safe if connected to the internet, but I asked John what the odds were that it could be cracked. "It would be far more likely that one of you idiots would get drunk and lose the fob," he said. "No, but seriously... not very likely."
I asked him about this DRM that was being created by Ubisoft. He said that if it's something new, then it's something new, but without knowing anything about it you just have to wait and see what happens. I then asked him what the odds were that the pirates would be able to hack into this fairly easily, and he said, it's impossible to say unless you know what Ubisoft has done.
I asked him if it was at all possible that Ubisoft could make it so that their game would be difficult to crack (along the lines of what we have in place with our own intranet at work) and he said that it would be very possible depending on what types of measures Ubisoft would be willing to implement.
He also said that the more people you have gaining access to the information, the more difficult it becomes to prevent others from gaining that same access - yeah, that makes sense.
So I guess we'll have to wait and see on this. Me, I'm rooting for Ubisoft on this one, I really am. I hope that this shuts the pirates out for at least the first month.
EDIT: ... or longer.
Last edited:
FallenMystic
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 894
Funny thing is I was interested in this one; own, (as in purchased for the knee jerk reactionaries out there,) the first one for the PC and though it had some rough spots and fairly repetitive game play the premise was interesting and the story was enough for me to look forward to the next installment.
With this DRM scheme though, (and make no mistake about it this is a scheme,) I'll not be purchasing this for the PC; I'll likely look for it on the PS3/360 used that way Ubi will not see a dime of my money.
Sadly I was also looking forward to the latest splinter cell, not going to happen now, (don't do shooters on consoles and won't be treated like I'm a criminal.)
This scheme reminds me of those commercials where the kid wants to ride the bike and the guy says 'sure' but when they try to ride 'outside the red box' they are stopped because 'those are the rules'... Sure it's within their rights to do this, (it's their IP,) but it's also within my rights to tell them to F-off, which is what buying it used on a given console does in this case.
With this DRM scheme though, (and make no mistake about it this is a scheme,) I'll not be purchasing this for the PC; I'll likely look for it on the PS3/360 used that way Ubi will not see a dime of my money.
Sadly I was also looking forward to the latest splinter cell, not going to happen now, (don't do shooters on consoles and won't be treated like I'm a criminal.)
This scheme reminds me of those commercials where the kid wants to ride the bike and the guy says 'sure' but when they try to ride 'outside the red box' they are stopped because 'those are the rules'... Sure it's within their rights to do this, (it's their IP,) but it's also within my rights to tell them to F-off, which is what buying it used on a given console does in this case.
Bankie
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,473
I was really looking forward to AC2 but this DRM plus the $60 price has killed any desire I had to play it.
Actually I'll not be buying it or ANY Ubisoft game on PC or the consoles because of this DRM anyway. They have completely lost me as a potential customer.
Actually I'll not be buying it or ANY Ubisoft game on PC or the consoles because of this DRM anyway. They have completely lost me as a potential customer.
Those key fobs are usually not by sattelite (unless you're just talking about a time-sync with a central server). They're a psuedo random number generator, to know the next number you'd have to know:
The algorithm used to generate the next number.
whatever the initialization vector for that particulr fob is.
and how many numbers it's generated.
If the pseudo random algorithm is good (that is each bit in each key is highly random, and not predictable from previous keys), it's nearly impossible to reliably guess the next value in the sequence.
Now if you sat a competent hacker down at the authorization server and have him/her the admin/root password, it would be rather simple to break. Just insert yourself somewhere in the process so that you don't need to know the next key, you just alter the system to accept whatever you've entered.
This is the basic problem of why DRM is so easily broken time after time. The user doesn't have to crack cryptographically strong authentication, they just have to avoid doing the authentication all together.
I'm sure Ubi (or whoever actually wrote it) is going to great lengths to randomize where in memory the code to do the authentication is loaded, how those packets look on the network, where they're sent from and to. But in the end, it's all just bytes on the user's PC, and as soon as somebody learns where they can alter a few bytes in exe to say 'return true' instead of 'return the authentication result', it's all broken.
Personally, I hope Ubi fails on this.. not that it's broken, but that it really hurts sales. This system, as it is being presented so far is a major disservice to paying customers.
Just as I was typing this, my cable modem reset...
Yeah, I hope Ubi fails too. I WAS looking forward to AC2 on PC. The first one was fun, I bought the first one (not at release but a couple of months later) and WAS intending to buy AC2.
However I will NOT be buying it with this DRM. Both as a matter of principle and or practicality. It is not practical for me to be connected all the time.
Even if I could I'm against this DRM on principle and would not buy it. This DRM DOES HURT the customer. maybe it wont hurt you personally, but there are enough people who dont have access to high enough quality internet for it to be hurting some customers. So on principle I wouldn't buy it.
I too hope this DRM fails, in order to not set an example for other publishers to follow. However, one has to wonder - what will hurt them more: A handful of people boycotting the game due to its DRM and avoiding piracy, or releasing the game without DRM and having millions of copies pirated and downloaded?
Bankie
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 2,473
Piracy is going to happen whether or not there's DRM. I'd guess that it's going to be worse because of this DRM.
- Status