Topic: Ubisofts new horrible DRM

[gpw11]

Oh, good call. I forgot about the XBCD drivers, although I assumed assume he couldn't get wireless support in because it was too much work (for whatever reason).  Still, funny how this is the only commercial product where this has been a problem (apparently the first one as well....although I don't remember that).

[W7RE]

With the first Xbox I spliced a USB cable onto a controller extention cord and used 3rd party drivers. It worked great.

[Xessive]

I used my Logitech Cordless RumblePad 2 for all my gamepad-friendly games. While most games supported the pad (really well in some cases i.e. Prototype and Prince of Persia) I still installed the X360 Controller Emu driver just because I like buttons, especially for button sequences.

When a timed button sequence is screaming "Press Button 8" I'm scrambling all over the pad to find 8! But when it says something like Right Trigger or A or B it's easy. Actually what made the Xbox controller really easy for me is that it's basically the Dreamcast controller and I know where all the buttons are even if the controller I'm using isn't labeled.

I'd also like to note that it works with the PS3 controller too, which would also need custom drivers to get it to work on PC anyway.

[Pugnate]

Apparently it still isn't working right. Some of the content won't work with the hack.

Also, this DRM would be far more effective if Ubisoft made it a habit of updating their content ala Stardock, Bioware, Blizzard.

That way they could keep a step ahead of the latest hacks with every update, while gaining some good will.

[scottws]

Also, this DRM would be far more effective if Ubisoft made it a habit of updating their content ala Stardock, Bioware, Blizzard.

That way they could keep a step ahead of the latest hacks with every update, while gaining some good will.

This just goes for PC publishing in general.  Think how many buggy games get dumped on the PC market and then abandoned.  Halo and Gears of War immediately spring to mind.  Those don't even scratch the surface.

If you think about all the companies that give most people warm fuzzy feelings, they have a track record of really supporting their products.  The three that you mention are definitely some of those, but I would throw Valve in as well.

On the flip side you have publishers that just dump crap or foist intrusive schemes and people hate them.  EA and Ubisoft deserve a lion's share of the attention here, but Take Two is starting to go this direction as well.  I would say that Valve is coming in on this list as well for Steam, but their work on the games end helps mitigate most of the outright disdain.

[Pugnate]

This just goes for PC publishing in general.  Think how many buggy games get dumped on the PC market and then abandoned.  Halo and Gears of War immediately spring to mind.  Those don't even scratch the surface.

If you think about all the companies that give most people warm fuzzy feelings, they have a track record of really supporting their products.  The three that you mention are definitely some of those, but I would throw Valve in as well.

On the flip side you have publishers that just dump crap or foist intrusive schemes and people hate them.  EA and Ubisoft deserve a lion's share of the attention here, but Take Two is starting to go this direction as well.  I would say that Valve is coming in on this list as well for Steam, but their work on the games end helps mitigate most of the outright disdain.

Yea, good point... Valve is definitely the king when it comes to this stuff. EA, have slowly started to regain some respect, and seem to be making an actual effort at turning things around, though haven't quite gotten around to the content stuff.

Just thinking of companies like Bioware, which are supporting their products well after release, I realize they aren't really playing by the same rules because they are part of the EA Partners program, and not owned by EA outright.

Just to further the point of keeping one step ahead of the pirates, if companies release updates that are solely designed to counter the latest hacks, (unless gamers are using services that download these automatically [ike STEAM]), people will just be apprehensive and not download them at all. But if companies release free content, they can include code that renders the latest pirate favorite cd keys, cracks and the like, useless.

I like what Bioware has done with their community stuff, where they've made a facebook like website for their latest games, which among other things, shows off player achievements.

I know it seems kinda silly, but hey, it draws people.

I think Idol a few years ago was mentioning that developers should take this route.

edit:

The point of all this was to say that I can't imagine Ubisoft doing the content thing in a billion years. The reason is that they are complete assholes when it comes to supporting their products. I've bitched about them before (you can find the thread). Basically, they release products and then forget about them. Some of their games take six months to patch.

[idolminds]

Its funny that Gears was just dumped on PC, and I think that was entirely Microsofts doing. Epic has a history of supporting their PC games. The Unreal Tournament bonus packs come to mind. They did a bunch of them for UT and UT2k4, and even UT3 got that big Titan pack after the game was essentially dead. Cant say they didn't try. But Gears was left to rot, which is a real shame. I'm sure MS was pushing Gears 2 dev at that point.

[scottws]

Oh yeah I'm just talking about publishers.  I bet many devs want to go back and support their products, especially if they are broken embarrassments, but the publishers shoot them down.

[gpw11]

Its funny that Gears was just dumped on PC, and I think that was entirely Microsofts doing. Epic has a history of supporting their PC games. The Unreal Tournament bonus packs come to mind. They did a bunch of them for UT and UT2k4, and even UT3 got that big Titan pack after the game was essentially dead. Cant say they didn't try. But Gears was left to rot, which is a real shame. I'm sure MS was pushing Gears 2 dev at that point.

Yeah, I think a lot of it was Microsoft, but it also seems that Epic themselves have been moving away from the PC of their own accord. Epic is self-owned and a very large sized development company.  If they wanted to fix up Gears of War or release any of their other IPs (Shadow Lands or whatever) on PC there is nothing stopping them at all.   They've blatantly stated that high-end games on the PC like Gears 2 just aren't profitable.  Likewise, once Gears is out there, it probably isn't worth the resources needed to fix it when there'd be more of a return just putting them on Gears 2/3.   

UT I think is a bit of a different beast since so much of their revenue model relies on the game. It's their flagship game, but also they can afford to put more into it because the popularity of the core game probably directly coincides with the licencing fees they can charge for the engine.

Oh yeah I'm just talking about publishers.  I bet many devs want to go back and support their products, especially if they are broken embarrassments, but the publishers shoot them down.

I think publishers get a bad wrap for a lot of things, this being one of the ones that's probably more legitimately true.  What I don't know, however, is how exactly this works.  I'm sure a developer is free to go back and work on a game with their own resources all they want.  It wouldn't make any sense to prohibit a developer from doing so unless they sold off entirely too much of their independence. I think the only situation in which a publisher would prohibit it is when they have to bankroll it in one way or another.

[idolminds]

Thing is Gears and Shadow Complex were also published by Microsoft Game Studios. And take a look at Bulletstorm, the new Epic/People Can Fly game. Its getting a PC release. The difference? EA publishing.

Remember when Epic and Microsoft got into a bit of a scuffle because Epic wanted to release free DLC and MS wouldn't allow it? Probably the same reason they cant go off and make the stuff with their own resources. Microsoft has a huge stake in the Gears IP so I'm sure they get a say in all that stuff.

[gpw11]

Well, the DLC thing isn't Microsoft Game Studios, it's whatever department is in charge of Xbox Live (assuming we're thinking about the same thing). There's pretty much always been a policy of no free DLC unless it can be included in a patch of a certain size. The UT3 Titan pack didn't hit the 360 while the PC and PS2 got it. It had nothing to do with the publisher in that case, it's because of the capital costs of delivering content through a closed system like that (I assume).  Valve has been vocal about the same thing. They claim that they've wanted to update the 360 version of TF2 at the same time as the PC version, but they're forced to charge for it because of either the size or the content involved in the update. They've pointed out that it's a platform (Xbox Live) thing and they can't get around it so they're waiting for all of the class updates to be complete so they can pack it all into one DLC package.

I've read interviews where both Cliff Blelsxicdysdmfdsiou and the other Epic guy with a less polak name pretty bluntly stated that they're moving away from the PC or that it's "secondary" to console development.  Unless they're lying to cover up the real reason, I think we can take that at pretty much face value. Who knows what the situation is with Bulletstorm, it could just be that EA specifically wanted a PC port and commissioned it or People Can Fly had retained the right to that decision when Epic bought them, or just that developing that particular game on PC makes more economic sense than developing a triple A title. All I really know is that Epic has said that they're moving away from PC development and they've also said that they wholly own the Gears IP and can do what they want with it.  Those two combined lead me to believe that it's not just Microsoft Game Studios.

As for the patching thing, a company the size of Epic with the resources that Epic should absolutely be able to retain that right in any publishing deal.  If they haven't it's because they just don't want to and basically "sold it" or they need a new law firm to handle their contracts. I can certainly see it with very small companies that want to mitigate as many risks as they can so they shift a lot of those rights and responsibilities to the publisher or in cases where a game is developed by a company the publisher actually owns, but beyond that, there really shouldn't be anything stopping the developer apart from poor paperwork or a lack of desire. 

[MysterD]

Yeah, I think a lot of it was Microsoft, but it also seems that Epic themselves have been moving away from the PC of their own accord. Epic is self-owned and a very large sized development company.  If they wanted to fix up Gears of War or release any of their other IPs (Shadow Lands or whatever) on PC there is nothing stopping them at all.   

They've blatantly stated that high-end games on the PC like Gears 2 just aren't profitable.  Likewise, once Gears is out there, it probably isn't worth the resources needed to fix it when there'd be more of a return just putting them on Gears 2/3.   

If Valve can figure out the PC market w/ Steam and ALL of their games, so can Epic.
If Epic really has control of the Gears IP, they could just fully adopt Steam if they want to release games on the PC, for Christ sakes...
Many others have seem to gone this route - love it, hate it, or somewhere on the fence...
I mean, Steam is really where UT3 PC picked-up on its sales, right?
It sure wasn't UT3's original retail release, upon release...

[gpw11]

If Valve can figure out the PC market w/ Steam and ALL of their games, so can Epic.
If Epic really has control of the Gears IP, they could just fully adopt Steam if they want to release games on the PC, for Christ sakes...

Well, they CLAIM to fully have control of the Gears IP....but who knows what that means really.  But Valve probably operates on a different business model than Epic.  For Valve, their core is the PC, for Epic it's consoles.  That's partially by choice (probably), and partially just because Epic stands to make more money off of consoles than Valve does.

Valve looked at the PS2 and said "fuck no" after Orange Box because they realized the opportunity cost of development for them wasn't worth it.  Epic could be doing the same thing to some extent.

But really, it's all complete conjecture. The only people that really know what the deal is are a couple of people in Epic and a couple of people in Microsoft Game Studios.  Idol could very well be completely correct in his assessment and Epic just wants to keep the illusion of increased independence for whatever reason.  When they say "We own the IP and can do anything we want with it" they could mean "....storywise" because they signed a very restrictive publishing contract for a shitload of money. Or they could mean literally anything.  Who the fuck knows.


How is Steam as an anti-piracy measure for most games?  I know it's great for the Source Engine games, but you'd think if it was just as good for others people would use it more instead of things like Securerom.

[idolminds]

Steam games are pirated just as much as any other copy protection form. Its not like a magic formula or anything.

[MysterD]

How is Steam as an anti-piracy measure for most games?  I know it's great for the Source Engine games, but you'd think if it was just as good for others people would use it more instead of things like Securerom.

Well, Steam is more of a service now than a anti-piracy measure.

Steam really isn't TOO much of an anti-piracy measure anymore, honestly. It does a good job of preventing Before Day 0 Piracy and Day 0 Piracy, but once the game's out through Steam - give it time, it'll be cracked. Also, I should note - Some Steam-sold games come w/ Steamworks DRM + Securom Internet Activation DRM (GTA4, Liberty City Episodes; first two Borderlands DLC's).

More and more 3rd-party PC games recently seem to be requiring Steam, whether you buy the game in the retail store or through Steam to download - Metro 2033; Just Cause 2; Dawn of War 2 + expansion; Modern Warfare 2; Saints Row 2, just to name a few here.

This all here has to do w/ Steam as a service. Keep in mind - when a lot of patching is done ONLY through Steam, it's the only place you can go to get the game all patched-up. You won't find patches easily and readily available for Steam-games on Fileplanet, GamersHell, a game's official site, or anywhere else. God knows what files are going to get updated, as Steam just does this to your game automatically. When games get the (rare) treatment of like TF2 and get updated VERY often (over 100 times, if I recall, so far), what cracker/hacker is going to keep cracking away? Gamers want the newest version of the game - and if the Torrents don't have the newest version and Steam does have the newest version, where do you think they'll go to get the game?

Also, I think people love that Steam has more deals than you can shack a stick at. They might buy a real cheap game, just to see if they like how Steam operates. If they do, they probably will buy future games from them and possibly even pre-load upcoming new releases there - especially if it's a big title.

EDIT:
Eurogamer article looking at some copy protection schemes, DRM, and piracy since the old days - 1976 up to the present.

[idolminds]

Newest update: warez group Skidrow released an actual crack. No server emulator, just a replacement executable with the crap removed.

[MysterD]

Newest update: warez group Skidrow released an actual crack. No server emulator, just a replacement executable with the crap removed.

So, does it save saved games to the HDD?

[idolminds]

The game does already. Uploading them was optional.

[MysterD]

CNET (of all places) has picked up on the Ubisoft DRM being cracked.

[Pugnate]

Awww

[Cobra951]

That article even links the Skidrow readme on this.

Great news.  In your face, Ubi.