Ubisoft DRM Servers Attacked Rendering Games Unplayable

Ubisoft’s new DRM scheme, which requires a constant Internet connection to authenticate game sessions, had a bit of a hick up this weekend.

Ubi posted to its Twitter feed this morning apologizing to “anyone who couldn’t play ACII [Assassin’s Creed II] or SH5 [Silent Hunter 5] yesterday.” While the company originally blamed the outage on “exceptional demand,” Ubi stated on its Twitter feed that their servers were “attacked, which limited service from 2:30pm to 9pm Paris time.”

Ubisoft added that “95% of players were not affected, but a small group of players attempting to open a game session did receive denial of service errors.”

Joystiq also points us towards a thread on the Ubisoft forums in which the affected “5%” voice their displeasure.

GP: On a related note, I grabbed Battlefield: Bad Company 2 for the PC this weekend and during the install was prompted to choose my favored method of DRM—disc-based or online authentication (I chose disc-based). In a perfect world there would be no need for DRM, but if it is required, this method of offering the user a choice at least goes a little way towards lessening the impact (and might make DRM-based gaming functionable on an Army base or a cruise ship). Bad Company 2 uses Sony’s SecuROM technology.

As another aside, while the DRM tech worked fine, Bad Company 2 had its own online problems for a little bit yesterday, though their issues appeared to be Punkbuster-related.

|Thanks PHX Corp and DarkSaber!|

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Alex says:

    "which IMO there should be"

    Agreed 100%.

    I’m personally of the opinion that people actually need to READ the long document with the big words that they agree to when they install the game, but things like Ubisoft’s DRM and SecuROM are pretty major and products containing them should have a clear warning label. Kind of like home security systems: A sticker on the front saying "This game protected by SecuROM!"

    I’m not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I’m not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don’t know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

  2. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    First, you came up with a garbage analogy comparing a transit strike to this. That analogy was a bad one. Why? Most transit strikes are done for better pay. They have nothing to do with maintaining or increasing customer service. They are selfish, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say all transit strikes are immoral (though the recent Ottawa transit strike is an example of one such strike… but I won’t get into that now).

    Then you come up with this analogy, because you assume the people attacking the Ubi servers are attacking the customers, when, in fact, they are not. They are attacking the system, and the customers are unfortunately affected, BUT IT IS FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. Hence my analogy: a pilot sees a problem with the system, announces it, and when the company refuses to do anything about it, the pilot takes things into his own hands, protecting the people from possible harm.

    Now, no one is going to be harmed by not being able to play AC2 and SH5, but eventually, that plane might crash due to negligence, bankruptcy, or whatever other random event that might occur and disable the service THEY PAID FOR. Basically, most of these people are legitimate customers who didn’t know what they were getting themselves into, and it is the pilots ("hackers") responsibility to make them aware. (Well… bad example. Not exactly the responsibility of "hackers" to make people aware of anything, but Ubisoft didn’t inform anyone who purchased the game so they really brought it on themselves)

    Notice how Ubisoft didn’t want to say the servers were being attacked at first? They didn’t want people to know that they are vulnerable.

  3. 0
    Conster says:

    Actually, this is not like that at all: missing your flight and dying in a plane crash are nothing alike. The attack on the servers is much more like that pilot deliberately crashing the airplane to prove it wasn’t safe for the passengers.

  4. 0
    Spartan says:

    Honestly, I hope whomever is doing the attacks keeps it up. This DRM is MADNESS!

    Ubi do the PC gamer world a favor for once and for all and leave the platform.


    "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" – Herodotus

  5. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    Would the gaming consoles not fit your description pretty well? Because even they are not very effective at stopping piracy.

    But remember: any game you buy in their online stores is a game you can’t sell to someone else. Used game sales abolished, piracy unaffected. Interesting.

  6. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    Except that this was likely done to highlight a vulnerability in the DRM scheme that will hurt customers in the future, much like a pilot who would be unwilling to fly a plane because he doesn’t feel it would be safe for the passengers.

  7. 0
    Conster says:

    No, I said it’s a dick move for public transit workers (especially bus drivers or train drivers) to go on a total strike, which means no public transit at all, especially if you live in a country where a lot of people rely on public transit to get to their work, you haven’t announced it properly, and the let-everyone-ride-for-free way of protesting is normally used when trying to get better wages. Which is why I called it the "being-a-total-dick" scale, not the "unethical behaviour" scale. Unethical would be the police or fire brigades going on total strike, leaving the city to burn.

    I do think attacking the Ubisoft servers is unethical, by the way, but when dealing with people who are so busy being angry at Ubisoft that they think anyone who still decides to buy a Ubisoft game deserves to be punished for it, you have to speak in a language they understand, and "unethical" obviously isn’t part of their vocabulary. Though I suppose the most appropiate way to communicate with them would be to say "don’t be such a Ubisoft" rather than "don’t be such a dick".

  8. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Unless it clearly says on the box that you can’t play the game unless you’re connected to the internet, then you would be legally entitled to a refund from Ubisoft, or to pirate it online to get a playable version.

    -Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

  9. 0
    DorthLous says:

    It already did the moment Hollywood took it and used it instead of cracking, phreaking and such instead of hastily-assembling-code-to-serve-one-purpose-that-wouldn’t-meet-any-sort-of-standard-but-that-can-be-out-by-5’o-clock. After all, who needs various terms to describe various actions when you can use only one? Smurf, I say, smurf!

  10. 0
    Thad says:

    1. A DDoS attack is not hacking.  For God’s sake, it’s like the word has lost all meaning.

    2. Did you seriously just say that it’s unethical for public transit workers to strike?

  11. 0
    Thad says:

    But DRM ISN’T preventing people from pirating media.  Even people who aren’t very savvy.

    Even a barely-competent computer user can find Blu-Ray movies for illegal download on the Internet.  But thanks to the magic of DRM, he can’t play real, legitimately-purchased Blu-Ray discs on his Mac.

  12. 0
    Monte says:

    ah yes very true… particularly about the lack of warning. i would be 10 times more pissed off if i found out i needed to always be online AFTER i bought the game. Granted though, it might still be possible to return the game depending on the store policy… which would exclude steam…

  13. 0
    Conster says:

    Trying to take down a DRM scheme by hindering paying customers’ ability to play through hacking, to me, scores slightly higher than public transit drivers going on a total strike because they want better wages, and truck drivers blocking entire highways because they want better wages, on the being-a-total-dick scale. Do you see the similarity, by the way? People who disagree with a company, and decide that everyone else has to suffer too. You know what they call people who make others suffer in order to influence a third party? Terrorists. And yes, I may be using hyperbole, but it’s not nearly as over-the-top as what these assholes are doing. "DRM hurts customers, so it’s okay for others to hurt customers too" is not a good argument.

    And that’s assuming it’s not a bunch of teens who thought this would be funny, in which case I support putting them in jail until Assassin’s Creed V comes out.

  14. 0
    Thad says:

    I’m guessing that most people who bought the game didn’t KNOW about the DRM scheme.  It’s been well-publicized in the gaming press, but the average gamer probably doesn’t follow the gaming press.  And it’s not like there’s a warning label on the box — which IMO there should be.

  15. 0
    Thad says:

    Tough call.  I don’t support targeted attacks against people you disagree with, but in this case it’s almost a whistleblower situation — people calling attention to what Ubisoft is doing wrong.

  16. 0
    Monte says:

    As someone who normally has very unreliable internet to the point that Ubisoft’s DRM makes it pretty impossible for me to enjoy their games, i find myself having trouble sympathizing for those that bought the game as they have showed that they do not mind or atleast are willing to bare with this draconian DRM which bad for players like myself… only thing that will make ubisoft stop using this kind of DRM in the future is low sales

  17. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Both hardware and software DRM should be used as a idiot proofing measure, basically you keep the dumbest and most uniformed people from from hacking the system and for all practicability sake thats all you can do because once you try and invent laws and rules to say you can not do it legally you make millions of consumers criminals. Not to mention you create schemes that make it so you are paying for a hassle.


    Stop trying to bully the consumer and get back to producing crap people will buy…..


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  18. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    No. Because if this wouldn’t have happened, Ubisoft would still be claiming that their system is totally fine. They still are, but if more attacks/fuck-ups happen, then they’ll HAVE to reverse their strategy. If 10% percent (or hopefully, 50%+) of paying customers are unable to play the game, then Ubisoft will have to change their policy. I support these attacks completely.

    -Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

  19. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Assuming that someone will have a connection to your game server 100% of the time is as stupid as assuming someone would never need or want to install a game more than five times on a computer. Both scenarios are unrealistic.

  20. 0
    Conster says:

    Let’s work from an assumption here.

    People who dislike Ubisoft’s DRM decided to attack its servers, thereby hurting paying customers.

    Before we start raving about this proving the massive vulnerability of this DRM scheme and surely meaning the end of Ubisoft’s reign of tyranny, I say we hunt down the fuckers who attacked the servers.

  21. 0

    Eh, if they were to go out of business their reason wouldn’t be to blame themselves for their stupidity it would be those damned pirates! Because if the music and industry has taught us anything, never take the blame for something you can pass on to something else.

  22. 0
    Sajomir says:

    Thank you. Nothing is stopping you from selling the game at all. You can even sell the code if you want to, except a used code obviously has no value, so good luck with that.

    Besides, I don’t understand how such a nontrasferrable clause in an EULA is illegal. By clicking that you agree, you are voluntarily waiving those rights to a resellable product. It is YOUR CHOICE and no once has forced you to click that button.

  23. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You can still resell the game.  Game sans bonuses = game I got if I didn’t take those bonuses.  Or are you trying to imply that first sale laws protect free stuff, too?

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  24. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    But First-Sale Doctrine is the law, and the law states that you must be able to resell your legally purchased media. It wouldn’t be the first time EULAs have been considered illegal, but so far every case has resulted in a settlement. No one has been able to ban the damn things yet.

    And wtf does a sports cup have to do with a game? Games are a form of media, like movies, novels, magazines, music, etc. They are not perishables, and they are not disposable.

  25. 0
    Sajomir says:

    You can’t resell used food. You’re not gonna find buyers for half a bottle of shampoo, or for a used sports cup. Yet all these are bought all the time without complaint about it. And yes, the issue with reselling and these codes is that you will not find buyers who pay the price you want.

    No one wants to buy a used sports cup. No one wants to buy a used game w/out code. The makers of the cup/game aren’t doing anything illegal designing a product that when used as intended makes it less desireable for secondhand buyers.

    Not everything has to be resellable in order to have value (especially that cup – saved me more than once). I think you’re assuming you’re entitled to something that you don’t really need.

    Besides, I’ll just fall back on the EULA – you never paid to own a copy of the game that you can resell. You paid for a nontranferrable(?) lisence to use the game personally.

  26. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    I see a problem.

    You can resell things, WITHOUT PENALTY, such as:

    -Videos (DVDs, VHS, etc)
    -Board games
    -Cards (sports cards or card games like Magic: The Gathering)

    Naturally, this list goes on and on. Hopefully you get the point. What makes games and other software such a special commodity that they deserve to be treated differently? Not even other forms of digital media get the same protection games do (though E-Readers like the Kindle and iPad are changing this).

    Restricting someone’s ability to sell something they legally purchased is against the law. It could thus be argued that services such as Steam, Direct 2 Drive, and Impulse are highly illegal. Ubisoft’s DRM is also illegal and the Cerberus Network would, at best, be considered grazing the line. At worst, it is also illegal.

  27. 0
    Sajomir says:

    That’s simple – just tell the guy you’re selling it to the situation at hand. Maybe give him a discount that’s the amount of the DLC code. And before you go "zomg my money," think about it. Chances are you’re still gonna get WAY more money than trading it into Gamestop, and even if you don’t give the guy that extra discount, I doubt he was gonna give you full price anyway. Even if he has to pay $40 for a $50 game instead of getting it for $35, he’s getting a good deal.

    He’s getting a cheap game, you’re getting more than selling it back to a retailer, the company makes a few extra bucks that they can put into making more great games. I don’t see a problem.

  28. 0
    Thad says:

    In other words, you can resell it if you want, it’s just that the person you sell it to gets an incomplete game and will have to pay extra to get the same content which, for you, was included in the purchase price.

    How many people do you suppose are going to be interested in buying the game used when they know they’re not getting the same game they would if they bought it new?

  29. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    I don’t see how. You can still sell the game if you see fit, just whoever gets it won’t have access to the extra content without payign for it.

  30. 0
    Thad says:

    Actually, the Cerberus Network is a perfect example of one of the world’s most profitable game publishers doing an end-run around first sale doctrine.  It’s anticompetitive and anti-consumer rights.

    But it’s nowhere near as bad as what Ubi’s done here.

  31. 0
    Alex says:

    "You can’t load a Steam game without an internet connection, and you can’t resell it."

    Steam has an offline mode and can still run games in offline mode, and ignoring the legal argument and focusing on the reality of the scenario, how many people honestly go around selling their PC games to their friends? Give, maybe, but not sell. And in what other scenario is secondhand sale of PC games likely? I doubt even pawn shops bother taking used PC games.

    "Less bad is not good," sure, but at the same time the gaming community is (or SHOULD be) against overly restrictive DRM, not all DRM. CD keys are DRM, but I don’t see a massive community outcry against those. We can argue the definition of "overly restrictive" but I admit that’s going to mean something different for everyone. However, as I just said, with regards to "requires an Internet connection" Steam isn’t nearly as restrictive as you think it is.

    I’m not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I’m not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don’t know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

  32. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Steam DOES make things worse. You can’t load a Steam game without an internet connection, and you can’t resell it. That is by any definition worse than having no DRM. People go on about Steam as if it’s beneficial. ‘Less bad’ is not ‘good’.


  33. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    "is not generally friendly to first-sale doctrine"

    I’d like you to clarify this: is there a way to resell your steam games? If so, please tell me how!

    Steam, Impulse, D2D, Ubisoft’s DRM, SecuRom’s install limits, BF2’s cd-key accounts, and just about every other form of DRM has been largely ineffective in combating piracy. They have, however, curbed used game sales.

    So, people of GamePolitics, tell me: do you honestly still think DRM is about combatting piracy? I think it never had anything to do with piracy.

  34. 0
    Thad says:

    "Certainly" is rather a strong word.

    Steam still requires authentication, is not generally friendly to first-sale doctrine, and has at times allowed publishers to include other forms of DRM without making that explicitly clear to the end user.

  35. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Steam is likely the only good example as, while it hasn’t made things better, it certainly hasn’t made them worse, unlike Ubisoft’s attempt.

  36. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I’m not too aware of the intricacies of Canadian fair use law, but I doubt that circumventing DRM for personal use would be considered fair use.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  37. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    It does violate the EULA. However, in Canada, circumventing protection for the purpose of fair use is perfectly legal. And since that is federal law, I do believe it trumps the EULA (which has never successfully been held up in a court battle here, or even in the US, because they violate basic consumer rights).

  38. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    No, this story justifies pirating the game and then sending the game makers $40 directly, by-passing Ubisoft. That is the correct course of action.

    -Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

  39. 0
    Thad says:

    I don’t see anybody in this thread making the argument that it DOES justify piracy.  The point is that this DRM scheme does nothing, literally nothing, to prevent piracy, and the only people it prevents from playing the game are those who have legally purchased it.

    Treating your customers like criminals is quite simply no way to run a business.

    I also think that this proves there is a substantial "fair use" argument for cracks in cases like these.  Anyone who legally purchased the game and then patched it using an illegal crack did nothing more than enable himself to use the product he had purchased.  That’s not piracy by any reasonable definition, but it DOES violate the EULA.

  40. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You can say that all you want, but can’t prove it, so long as piracy is prevalent in the industry.  The only way you could do it is to somehow get people to stop pirating games for an extended period of time, I’d say a decade, at the shortest.  If DRM would stay prevalent, I might believe you.  However, there’s no way that can happen, so I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  41. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    Well, if you really examine it, you’ll see that DRM has been largely ineffective at stopping piracy, BUT, many forms of DRM have put an end to used game sales.

    Honestly, I think this has nothing to do with stopping piracy, and everything to do with killing the second hand market.

  42. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You’re missing my point entirely.

    If it weren’t for piracy, DRM wouldn’t be seen as necessary at all.  Therefore, if it weren’t for piracy, Ubisoft wouldn’t have needed to come up with ANY DRM, much less the shitty one they did implement.  Therefore, if it weren’t for piracy, there wouldn’t have been a server  for your "freedom-loving hackers" to make it fail at all.  Therefore, people would have been able to play their games.

    See where I’m coming from now?  If it weren’t for pirates doing what they do, this wouldn’t have been an issue, as DRM wouldn’t have been implemented in such a fashion in the first place.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  43. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    And if pirates didn’t pirate, DRM wouldn’t be seen as a necessity.  That’s all I’m saying.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  44. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Lol.. I’m not a pirate. I’m speaking as a 3rd party observer who watched Ubisoft shoot themselves in their own foot with this DRM. I’ve got no interest in the games that were affected by this, pirated or not.

  45. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    Oh dear god, he does it again: "Pirates are evil people".

    Perhaps this was done by a group of freedom-loving hackers who wanted to prove this was a bad idea by showing everyone just how easily it can fail? Trust me, this would not be the first time something like that was done.

    This system is full of holes and vulnerability, and Ubisoft has not prepared for that. For example: what happens Ubi decided to pull an EA and shut down the servers? How do you then play the game? People are now realizing the folly of purchasing AC2 and SH5 while protected with this bogus system because whoever did this brought those weaknesses to light. If this hadn’t happened, many people would never have realized the position they have put themselves in.

  46. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Yeah. epic spell-check fail. Software sees that clusterf**k as just fine. An example of why getting someone with a pulse and a knowledge of English to actually read your document is essential.

    It’s spelled ‘hiccup’ or ‘hiccough’ by the way. ‘Hick up’ is when a person from Tennessee or West Virginia gets on a plane.

  47. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    I had that same situation. I even called them trying to get a code. Over 45 minutes later, getting circle jerked by an indian call centre that has no idea what the hell they’re doing, I request a manager. Of course, the manager asks all the same questions (again) and then asks why I can’t use the internet to get the code. My mobo drivers hadn’t been installed so internet was out of the question. After fiddling aroung for another 15 minutes, I finally said "It has been an hour, I still don’t have my code, my computer is still sitting there useless, and you and your call centre have been absolutely no help to me. This would have been so much easier if I had just pirated the software. Honestly, why did I even bother paying for this shit?"

    I finally got some support, after spending an hour on the phone. Learned my lesson. I just run pirated OS now. Sometimes I buy a copy and just keep the key handy. Other times I don’t and really don’t give a shit. What can I say? After that show of support, you can’t reasonably expect me to go through that again.

  48. 0
    Thad says:

    Some years back, my grandmother had some computer trouble.  I narrowed it down to hardware, and did what you do when you’re troubleshooting an unknown hardware problem — I disconnected everything and then reconnected one piece at a time.

    Problem was, I wound up booting Windows with half the hardware disconnected, and XP decided I had installed it on a second computer.  Even after I reconnected all the hardware.  And I couldn’t get it to connect to the network to re-validate.  Most offensively, when it couldn’t connect to the MS server to validate, it suggested I check my network settings — which of course I COULDN’T, because it had locked itself down.

    If she’d just pirated it, of course, none of that would have happened.

    Long story short, her next computer was a Mac.  So was my other grandmother’s.  And my mom’s.  And mine.

    Yeah, I’m not one of those customers who just shrugs and forgets about it when he’s mistreated.

  49. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Schadenfreude is certainly the word, here. I certainly feel bad for the players, but I don’t necessarily let that get in the way of my amusement, watching Ubi deal with this.

  50. 0
    Thad says:

    Well, in that sense, it’s not really irony, is it?  That it did exactly what people said it would?

    The irony is that it did the opposite of what it’s supposed to.

    Anyway, my comment about "bitter" is that, while I can certainly see some schadenfreude in Ubisoft getting a black eye from this, the people who have really suffered here are the people who paid for the game.  Ubisoft deserves to suffer for its mistake, but the gamers don’t.  (Unless they knew about the DRM scheme and bought the game anyway — but it’s not like that information is published on the box, and not all gamers read the gaming press.)

  51. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Delicious in that this is exactly what people were trying to warn Ubisoft of when they were complaining about their terrible DRM. Frankly, anything that bites a company in the ass after they play "Know-it-all" and flip their customers the bird is delicious. I hope Ubi learns from this mistake. Either that, or I hope they go out of business due to abusive DRM.

  52. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You do realize that people attacking the DRM servers are only inhibiting the PLAYERS, right?

    Oh, wait, pirates don’t care about other people.  This is proof.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  53. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Honestly, I’d imagine if enough people kept the attacks up, and managed to keep Ubisoft’s servers offline for a significant period of time, they’d probably think twice about implementing such abusive DRM. Either that or go out of business, since none of their games would be playable.

    OT: I also picked up BC2 this weekend. The brief time where I was actually able to connect to the servers, I was able to enjoy some good fun. Hopefully EA gets their act together and gets some stability in their servers. If they do, I think I’ll be playing BC2 for a while.

  54. 0
    axiomatic says:

    "i know it’s a necessary evil"

    But its not necessary. Can you cite one case where DRM makes things better for the paying customer? I try to follow the DRM stuff pretty closely and as far as I am aware there has been no case yet where DRM benefited the paying customer in any facet. No, not even Steam. Yes there are other things the Steam client does to make dealing with the restrictive DRM more tolerable, (read as: tradeoff) but definately not "better" for the customer. I also have found no case study so far where a game developer made more sales because of their DRM. I can cite plenty where LESS DRM garnished a company better sales, but no cases where DRM enhanced any profits. Most of my friends that work at game development companies generally call DRM an waste of money. When I was still in the game industry it was most definately a waste of money in every developers opinion.

  55. 0
    Thad says:

    The line of reasoning that it is possible to have 100% effective DRM that doesn’t inconvenience legit users is precisely what leads companies to pursue DRM strategies like this one, and it quite simply needs to die.

    Uncrackable DRM is, quite simply, impossible.  If you can monitor what’s being written to your computer’s memory, you can figure out how to get around any encryption scheme, and even black-box machines eventually get cracked.

    Publishers want to fight piracy?  Then they should offer their products for reasonable prices and make it convenient for users to get them.

    The RIAA’s example is instructive — lawsuits don’t help the problem, providing a reasonably-priced, convenient legal alternative does.

  56. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "i do hope that one day companies can implement 100% effective drm that doesn’t force it’s downfalls on the honest consumer. unfortunately for ubisoft, this is not that day."

    Unfortunately, given how easily hackers are winning the war on DRM, I don’t think it’s actually possible. I mean, no matter how strict or draconian the DRM is, it seems like it’s been hacked out in a matter of days, sometimes even BEFORE a game is released to the general public.

    I think a better approach to the game would be to give their players incentives to purchase the game, like limited edition items or special perks that enhance the gameplay experience for players who can verify that their game is legit. Find a way to make the pirated version of the game less appealing to the player. Right now, Ubisoft is going the other direction, making it so the paying customer gets screwed by server outages, but the pirate has no issues, and their game is functioning at a better level.

  57. 0
    Cerabret100 says:

    I don’t blame Ubisoft for trying it’s hardest to combat piracy. lets face it, it’s theft regardless of the numbers and i’m pretty sure any business with even complete idiots knows theft is something that should be stopped.

    I do however think they made a very unwise choice with this drm.

    I’m not against drm, as someone who sees the worst in everyone, i know it’s a necessary evil, and i do hope that one day companies can implement 100% effective drm that doesn’t force it’s downfalls on the honest consumer. unfortunately for ubisoft, this is not that day.

  58. 0
    Thomas McKenna says:

     However, such an argument – by no means – validates or gives credence to an entirely illegal action.  Pirating is not the right course of action, and it only serves to worsen the problem for everyone else, for as long as there is a substantial pirating problem, companies will try to combat it with whatever draconian methods they think of.

  59. 0
    nightwng2000 says:

    "..“attacked, which limited service from 2:30pm to 9pm Paris time.”"

    "Ubisoft added that “95% of players were not affected, but a small group of players attempting to open a game session did receive denial of service errors.”"

    That would be the previous night 8:30pm – 3:00 am US Eastern.

    Still, a mere 7 hours night/early morning.

    Imagine their servers going down, for WHATEVER reason, for the entire weekend.  Or longer.  That insignificant percentage, which is apparently how they preceive it, will go up drastically.  Will that still prove unimportant to them?


    NW2K Software


    Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl

  60. 0
    SeanB says:

     Microsoft actually did try that. The original "Genuine copy" code used to call home several times per day. Of course they weren’t dumb enough to shut down the software when it couldn’t call home.

    They were pretty close though.

  61. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    So, let’s hear again how DRM adds to the safety and security of our software…

    Good job this kind of idiocy has only crept into the game market so far, can you imagine if hundreds of composers had been denied access to Sonar for 7 hours, or millions of Microsoft Office copies had ceased to work for several hours, but hey, it’s only games, doesn’t matter if you screw over the paying customers’ experience with sheer greed…

  62. 0
    Thad says:

    Even assuming "95%" is correct, it’s totally unacceptable for 5% of your customers to be unable to use your product because you don’t have the infrastructure to spy on them like you intended.

    While, of course, the pirates continue to play their cracked copies.

  63. 0
    Monte says:

     95% ofcourse being a pure BS number meant to make this incident seem less than it is… kinda like how they have been trying to tell us that only a small number of people would not have good internet and thus not be able to play their games. 

  64. 0
    Magic says:

    GP – I completely agree, I’m glad BC2 gave me a choice. Imagine if there was only the second option – 10 installations allowed in total!

    That said, I couldn’t get onto any servers due to the Punkbuster fiasco (Apparently there was an update and since the EA master server wasn’t updated, people couldn’t connect to any goddamn servers), but hopefully that’s fixed and I can get levelling up my engineer tonight…

Leave a Reply