Followers of the penguin, witness with me the insolence that is Ubisoft's most recent tomfoolery. Speaking to GameSpot, Ubisoft VP of digital publishing Chris Early enlightens us with what many of us knew years ago, namely that any game will be cracked and made available online given enough time and effort. Here's the kicker! Developing games that people actually want to pay for fixes this! No way!
Sounds reasonable, right? Well, as is logical, take one step forward, two steps back. As this visionary goes on, it is eventually revealed that the focus shouldn't merely be on developing better, more compelling games, rather, that Ubisoft's games should have more online services (which pirates do not have access to) built into them.
Ahhh, what Ubisoft really means is that current DRM is failing, so new DRM needs to be brought in to fix this. Got it. To my knowledge, Ubisoft does not yet have a presence on Linux, but with Windows gamers constantly getting shafted, do Linux gamers want such a company to join the fray? Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Ubisoft VP of digital publishing Chris EarlyWhat becomes key for us is making sure we're delivering an experience to paying players that is quality. I don't want us in a position where we're punishing a paying player for what a pirate can get around. Anything is going to be able to be pirated given enough time and enough effort to get in there. So the question becomes, what do we create as services, or as benefits, and the quality of the game, that will just have people want to pay for it?
Sounds reasonable, right? Well, as is logical, take one step forward, two steps back. As this visionary goes on, it is eventually revealed that the focus shouldn't merely be on developing better, more compelling games, rather, that Ubisoft's games should have more online services (which pirates do not have access to) built into them.
Ubisoft VP of digital publishing Chris EarlyI think it's much more important for us to focus on making a great game and delivering good services. The reality is, the more service there is in a game, pirates don't get that," Early said. "So when it's a good game and there's good services around it, you're incentivized to not pirate the game to get the full experience.
Ahhh, what Ubisoft really means is that current DRM is failing, so new DRM needs to be brought in to fix this. Got it. To my knowledge, Ubisoft does not yet have a presence on Linux, but with Windows gamers constantly getting shafted, do Linux gamers want such a company to join the fray? Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Patreon
PayPal
DRM - almost always is bad, 'cause anybody who want to download game for free, could do it. It's just against honest people.
Argh, I still have a few disk with Starforce... which I never could play again.
Ever since I started earning my own money I've been paying for my games and never needed to work against the DRM applied to the games. And quite frankly, with Steam & co it's much, MUCH more comfortable today than it was back in the days when we had to insert the friggin' CD (or floppy or whatever physical media it was distributed on) into the machine to verify ownership in order to play the games.
My PC has ever since the late 90s been online for as long as it's turned on and so are yours, so that argument just doesn't hold water and hasn't done so for decades now.
So, why should I feel rage for Unbisoft trying to make life harder for those who steal their games? Why should I even care, as long as it doesn't add hassle for me (and no - they don't!)?
I for one welcome Ubisoft with open arms, cause they are behind quite a few of my favourite franchises.
The major problem with DRM is that they restrict the way you can play your games. That sounds good for anti-piracy reasons, but it often annoys more the person who purchased these games legally, than the ones who just downloaded a pirated copy.
Some example of intrusive DRMs :
Globally, the main problem with DRMs is they are not future-proof, and are really annoying for the legitimate user.
On the other hand, I am perfectly fine with "light" DRM providers like Steam, which adds a huge value to the game (achievements, community, workshop, sales, API for developers), while not making their DRM mandatory. Moreover, it is stated in the steam EULA (or it was. I do read EULAs, but not every update) that if ever the steam platform was being closed, they would do all their possible to allow the users to still use their games.
I may have omitted some DRM scemes, feel free to complete my post with those.
As for myself, if I buy a game I want to be able to install it on what machines I wish, have it be played it when I choose to have it be played, have a reasonable understanding of what the product is doing, and have some reasonable expectation that I can still play the game ten years for now. I expect nothing less when I put down money on a game or almost any other commercial product.
DRM threatens all of these things, all in an ineffective struggle to combat piracy, which, while harmful in its own ways, does actually in effect bolster those things which I considered to be desirable. Those games that require the CD you mentioned is an example of DRM, one which the pirate community helped solve even for legal game owners, such as myself, through No-CD solutions. These removed hassle and made the games more future ready. Which is something that game developers should be doing themselves.
This is not to whitewash piracy in its entirety of course; if you like a game or developer and have the means you should of course support them. But this does go a long way to explain why Ubisoft comes off as the bad guy here while the pirates themselves often come out looking like soldiers of light, and not for entirely undeserved reasons.
Ok, first thing first: The requirement of having the game CD in the CD tray is annoying, as I too stated. That's why I prefer the online requirements instead.
The rest of your arguments reside around the problem with not being online/connected.
It should here be mentioned that I am a close to 100% Steam gamer. I got some freebie games that are hosted on Uplay (like Assassins Creed that I got with a graphics card) but I don't think I've paid for anything outside Steam.
So in effect I guess what I'm really arguing for here, is that Steam really is not such a bad service. And I've read many, many users claiming "Steam == DRM, never on my computer!" I just go, "why???".
Sure, it probably is at least a theoretical hassle to not be able to play on your laptop while being offline. But in real life, how often do that happen?
I just think people are far, far too harsh on this whole issue. Like I said, I've been a gamer for decades now and have not really in practise been annoyed by anything but the old "CD in tray" requirement.
There are many layers of drm and Steam is probably the least intrusive of the lot (a lot of stuff inside steam will run without steam running for instance), but not all DRM are equal and Ubisoft have a very draconian one in many peoples eyes. Sure it works for some and they won't complain because they get to play their game. As soon as you can't play your legally purchased game because of DRM, the system is broken.
Uplay does this. Origin does this. Not seen it happen in steam but thats probably due to the fact I dont play games that have some bullshit "online" requirement, especially when its forced on us.
Its a matter of choice at the end of the day, at least we have that.
For example, if you live in Canada, Russia, China, Australia or any other big country - there are a lot of places, where is no Internet except the satellite ones (1 MB = 50 USD, yeah).
Then, if Steam suddenly goes permament offline (I don't wish it), you will lose not only achievements, but games indeed. As for I am.
What's why I prefer GOG for old games which I plaed back to school times, or HB for new indies. Steam provide a lot of useful value-added services, but there are also Steam's cons...
As for example: there are a lot of complains about Steam's refund policy... oh, one moment please, there are no refund policy on Steam at all as well there no guarantee of satisfaction or even running on your shiny new PC ;D You could buy rubbish game with misads and there are no possible way to refund... If you try to do it via chargeback - you could be banned from Steam for ages.
It definitely would be annoying to have all my games inaccessible during internet outages, but much worse to have a game I still want to play get completely disabled because the authorization server goes away. Some gamers are betting on Valve to not get into financial trouble and get bought out by EA, with their habit of making game servers go away instead of letting the gaming community take them over http://www.ea.com/1/service-updates ... but since predictions of the future are rather difficult, not everybody would not want to make that kind of bet and would much rather keep control over games they buy. Actually some gamers get sick of a game after playing it for less than a year and can't imagine wanting to ever play it again, so they probably would just as soon rent games, which is what some of these DRM schemes amount to (rental with an unknown, but fairly long, time limit).
The thing is: in the end, I can decide if I want to go for it or not. Having the choice, that's what it all is about.
Oooh I like the sound of that - I'll let that illusion reside. :)
Of course there's moments where I too am cut off from the internet at home (although, living in the center of the capital of Norway I must say it happens very rarely. I can only guess it's more common other places) but I don't think that's ever stopped me from starting a game. I just have never experienced the problems described.
But again, thanks for the replies, now I at least understand the anti comments better.
They'd count me as pirate though, because even if I bought the games, I'd get cracks (non-uplay and drm bypass for not being online)...
Then the point of DRM... There have been companies that have publicly stated that DRM is just a load of crap. Pirates are people that aren't going to buy the game ANYWAY. What they however will do is make sure their friends play it, who might enjoy it enough to buy it. The latter will of course only happen if your game is not a piece of garbage.
Additionally, there's the multiplatform issue. If I buy a game, I expect to be able to play it or in the position to legally download a copy of it on any platform I want to. So if a consumer buys the game for the PS3, he will feel entitled to download the same game for the PC. This should not be a big deal and ubisoft should have a brain and understand it. The same way that Valve has understood it and is offering steam and steamgames for all of it's platforms based on the user account rather than the system's identifier. If they used their goddamn uplay with a bit more common sense they would easily be able to detect this.
Even CAPCOM understands this issue and has shown it understands it as they have kept release Street Fighter games for the PC despite the fact so many people pirated them. And CAPCOM has come to understand this issue because it dropped PC support for one release (SSF4) and got flamed by their consumers. But in contrast to many publishers out there, CAPCOM tends to listen rather than ignore it. (Though in secret, I expect this was all because players were modding their game to turn it into a nude fighter ;) )
Then there's the cost of people playing, which has dramatically changed. Valve has already realized this, Aeriagames has its entire business model based on it; just like nexon and a few others. People pay to support their favorite game. They pay a lot. That's why hats work. Does Ubisoft pick up on this? Of course not; they are French after all.
But for me the biggest problem of all is that I just can't wait to play Assassin's Creed 3 and onwards. I'd love to play the games but so far the games has never been released for me or those like me. I have played AC1, AC2, AC2:B and AC2:R. And because I pirated them all, I've thoroughly enjoyed them! Though in accordance with pretty much everyone else here: Ubisoft has to change. They need to focus more on making sure what they release isn't garbage and focus less on people copying their games. Pirated versions are not money lost for you cannot lose what you don't have. But with that change, I sincerely hope that we can enjoy a Linux version.
Ubisoft...RPGs.... So, what? Lunar Legends/Dragon Song? Grandia 1/2? Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance? The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind? If these are the "RPGs" you speak of, I'd rather the current Ubisoft not come any where near them. Why would we need Ubisoft for Oblivion and Skyrim? Last I looked, Assassins Creed wasn't a RPG...did I miss that memo?! Beyond the aforementioned RPGs, I didn't see any I cared for. Please help me understand why I should want Ubisoft games over Bioware games on Linux.