Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

March 9, 2010 -

Ubisoft’s DRM scheme may have angered the wrong group of people, as the software publisher’s servers were attacked again last night.

The company, who also experienced attacks on their servers over the weekend, took to their Twitter account “about 19 hours ago” (in Twitter time) to announce, “Our servers are under attack again. Some gamers are experiencing trouble signing in. We're working on it and will keep you posted.”

About five hours ago the company reported that, “Login servers were partially reestablished at 10pm CET and fully restored at 1am CET. The attack affected only those trying to login.”

Ubisoft’s DRM scheme, utilized on the current releases Assassin’s Creed II and Silent Hunter 5, requires an Internet connection to launch and play a game. Not being able to access Ubi’s login servers means that gamers would be unable to play their title.

In responding to the problems with its servers over the weekend, Ubi claimed that “95% of players were not affected.” They also initially tried blaming their server woes on “exceptional demand,” before coming clean and admitting that they were the target of hackers.

Posted in

Comments

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

i4.photobucket.com/albums/y126/Connieboy/Ubisoft.jpg

Thanks, attackers! I wasn't even playing at the time, but this is awesome!

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

*yawn* 

 

Ubisoft is to blame.  let me draw everyone who disagrees a picture.  Banks have safes, guards, armored trucks, alarms, so on so forth to help protect your money.  It doesn't mean that bank robbers aren't going to try, but most likely they will fail.  Bank robberies are rare, and even if for some chance they did succeed, the bank would close down or beef up security.  So what do you do when a bank gets robbed twice in a relatively short time because they aren't doing their job?  You move to a different bank, or find some other way to protect/save your money.
 

Damn, I once again prove I suck at drawing, but I think I got the point across with my words.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

This analogy would only make sense if bank robberies were some sort of mindless, volitionless natural phenomenon, like storms or earthquakes, rather than acts people choose to commit.  Yes, if a bank isn't protecting its deposits it's a pretty shitty bank, but that doesn't make the robber any less blameworthy.

Check out my video game humor and commentary blog, Pointless Side Quest!

Check out my video game humor and commentary blog, Pointless Side Quest! http://pointlesssidequest.blogspot.com/

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Bank Robbers = Hackers

Bank = Ubi

Being robbed twice in relatively short time = being hacked twice in a relatively short time

Going elsewhere = playing other game of the genre

 

I'm not saying that the hackers aren't to blame, I'm saying when it happens twice in such a short time, the bank/Ubi is not doing its job, meaning it is not worth my time and/or money.  I know I could make this a little clearer by putting this in a picture, but I still suck at drawing....trust me the result isn't pretty.

Anyways I was comparing the hacking, not the crappy system (which I am against, and have not purchased Assassin's Creed 2 over even though I do own a PS3 and 360), in the analogy.  Basically I was saying that Ubi needs to either shape up or you guys need to jump ship.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Mrm, not entirely sure if that comparison is perfect. I mean, when a bank is robbed, it means the bank loses money, but only those inside the bank at that point have problems. In this case, ALL the customers can get hit, and they have to be inside the bank constantly. So it's more like banks using an electronic system and this system being down part of the time.

But to be honest, dDoS attacks? I mean, if a hack caused the servers to go down or randomly disconnect people because they actually HACKED them? Okay, I can understand being disgruntled. But if 4chan mows down a newssite I'm trying to use, I wouldn't blame the site, I'd blame Anonymous.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

The analogy is fully sound and a very good one.

Perhaps it would be better if phrased thus:

Banks provide a service, namely a form of financial security in the form of holding one's money in a safe location (punny), and will compensate for the losses in the event of their failure to uphold their responsibility.

Ubisoft has elected to implement DRM that requires a connection, but in requiring it makes it their responsibility to maintain a working server connection so that their product can be enjoyed in proper fashion.  The tacit agreement is that if you buy their game legally, and have a steady, solid working connection, they will allow you to play their game (also, interesting that you are only allowed to play a product you paid for the ownership of, if certain conditions are met in spite of supposed "ownership").

It does not matter whether their servers were downed because of flood, power outage, DDoS (it's not hacking, hacking is something else entirely).  Their responsibility was to provide a stable server to be connected to, so that their games could be played by legitimate customers.  They have failed to uphold their end of the bargain.

I repeat again that it does not matter, because no matter the reason, their end of the bargain is in failure, and paying customers are not getting their money's worth in the least.

What is implicit and necessary to understand from this is that is which makes their DRM so utterly flawed.  What is more galling is that their games are not ones that necessarily require steady connections in and of themselves, such as WoW and other MMOs.

And because I know well enough from the endless returning to the "but the hackers hacking and server hackjobs, etc," and I use the word very loosely here, "point," that does not matter.

Ubisoft requires a connection that is always on just to play their game.  If your end of the connection drops, you no longer are playing, and piss on you, you silly sod.

But in so requiring as much, it becomes incumbent upon Ubisoft to maintain a working server connection so that its customers can play their games.  It does not matter what prevents that from occurring on their end, it only matters that they have failed their responsibility.  Whether the server failure is from catastrophic events or from DDoS attacks or from simply a moron unplugging the wrong thing in the wrong room does not matter one bit.

Ubisoft has failed the customer.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Here here good sir or madam.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

TL:DR In other words don't build banks in glass houses.

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/

Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

hurrrr durrrr derp derp derp

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

I love how everyone sides with the hackers when in reality if it wasn't for them 100% of the people who legitamitley paid for the game probably wouldn't be having any issues right now.

I also love to see everyone QQ over their favorite developers closing/being eaten by Microsoft/EA and wondering why...

Here's a hint, it's not because the devs want to be, it's because the consumer base has become so polarized against the actual companies that produce the goods they aren't supporting them anymore. I've watched many of my favorite companies get eaten by the big bads recently to only start putting out the same carp games I expected from the big bads to begin with. The industry is slowly devlolving (save a few bright spots) into a cycle of crud games and sequels, and the consumer base is to blame.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

I do not have a stable internet connection because of some asanine reason, thus I can't play the game I purchased.  Who's fault is it then?  Mine for buying a product that I didn't know had such options, or the maker?

 

Also Bioware, Nippon Ichi, Valve, so on so forth render your second statement null and void. 

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

It's absolutley your fault. If I go to a car dealership and buy a stick shift and can't drive it because I never learned is it the dealer's fault I made a stupid purchase?

The fact of the matter is if you spent ten seconds researching the game you're freaking out about you would have known it required the connection, if you bothered to ask the game retailor if it had any DRM 5/10 (low likleyhood due to stores like wally world) they could have told you about it.

It's not Ubisoft's fault you don't research your purchases.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Nice to see you supporting the industry even when they do wrong, wow do you get paid for the BS you shovel?


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/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"I love how everyone sides with the hackers when in reality if it wasn't for them 100% of the people who legitamitley paid for the game probably wouldn't be having any issues right now."

Then you obviously haven't read the comments from soldiers, who cannot play this game overseas. Or from people who work on cruise ships, who cannot play this game during their down time.

Because Ubisoft does not say outright on the game box that this game cannot be played without an internet connection, there will be people who will buy this game not knowing that they won't be able ot play it.

Not to mention, forms of DRM existed long before high-speed internet made piracy that much easier.

So either way it's insulting for you to make such a claim.

 

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

 I'm pretty sure when they say that "95% of players were not affected" they're neglecting to say "only 5% of users attempted to login during the outage."

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

It looks like Ubi jumped the shark with this one. Down with Ubi and down with DRM!

It is pure evil don't ever believe otherwise!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

DRM is bad, mmkay?  If they didn't have DRM, they wouldn't be facing this horrible problems, mmmkay?

Okay, enough Mr. Mackey impersonations, but seroiusly, they put a crippling DRM on their deal and don't expect it to backfire like this?  Tsk tsk.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"The people at Ubisoft have a right to be paid for the work they do, just like you."

"Strawman."

No - it's a coherent arguement against piracy that sets the stage for why they implemented DRM in the first place. Learn your fallacies.

"They have a right to take whatever measures they see fit to protect their right to be paid for their work."

"No, they don't.  They don't have the right to violate CONSUMERS' rights."

True, but you fail to show how actual consumers rights were violated. I am making an arguement against many people on this thread who insist that piracy and hacking are justified. DRM is one response to that and no one here has shown how DRM violates any laws.

"I'll grant that this is pure idiocy driven by an over-inflated sense of entitlement if you'll promise to put your Office installation disc in the drive every time you want to open Word."

Apples and Oranges. Ubisoft chose to use it, Microsoft did not. If Microsoft does decide to go that route at some point, then I can make an informed decision on whether or not to continue using the product with that limitation or speaking with my wallet and not buying it. The fact that a product a person chooses to buy inconveniences them does not justify theft.

I'm going to go with "the wide availability of torrents and instances of pirates saying they are all happily playing the game right now."

"If they'd pirated the game, then they wouldn't have much incentive to hack the site, now would they?"

"Wow, there are so many logical fallacies there I don't know where to begin."

It's my response to the unsubstantiated claim others have made that 100% of pirates are enjoying the game. In re-reading this, I did miss the point that the pirated copies (which may or may not exist) would not need to hit the website and so would not be affected. My bad. I'm also not the first on this thread to use the term "hackers" so please forgive me for not having the same depth of knowledge as you in this field.

"Oh, okay.  So if you explain to them how DDoS'ing a website is exactly the same as murdering a bunch of people in a mall with some kind of Joker venom in the sprinklers, THAT will help them to understand how the two things are totally equivalent.  Thanks for clearing that up for me."

Someone using an over the top analogy doesn't make using analogies bad, it just makes that particular analogy bad.

"The only people in the thread who are saying piracy is justified in this instance are saying it's justified because the DRM is invasive"

So if someone pirates something they can't afford it's bad, but if they pirate something that is invasive, that's OK? Like I said, if you don't like something, don't buy it. Piracy is theft and there is no justification for it. If their site was down due to DDoS'ing (correct term, yes?) then that is not Ubi's fault and they did not bring that on themselves. If their site was down because they were unprepared for the staggering demand of a submarine sim, then that was their fault and it's up to the consumer to decide whether and when they want to buy the game.

"Are they the same people who are saying the people at Ubisoft don't have a right to be paid for their work?"

They are the same people who don't seem to understand what affect their actions have on people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Piracy is a part of "doing business"(IE the process of making something and selling it) if you go out of business fighting it then your priorities are backasswards.

As a society you marginalize illicit profit by making it illegal while allowing the public to harmlessly infringe upon the limited copy rights of the owners, of course like most things these days thats backasswards as well as the public, the people the consume goods and keep business in business are treated like criminals in some asinine war on vice that never ends because of trivial and absolute mindsets.

You treat the paying consumer like a thief with overly complicated copy protections you should go out of business because you have just alienated your paying costumers, no paying costumers no profit no profit no business,  non profit piracy is a inane straw man used by some to claim they losing money when in fact they are losing nothing. IE  I could sue the world for not buying all the crap I spew out, its the same damn thing, stop focusing on non sales and focus on sales, the more you focus on non sales the more real world profit you will lose..

 


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/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"True, but you fail to show how actual consumers rights were violated."

well, I'd suppose that if a consume right is taken away, meaning the ability to play the game on their own terms, or, hell ,in times not even being able to play the game they paid for, then no rights can be violated.

Does Ubisoft have a right to protect their intellectual property? Without a doubt.

Is this the way to go about it? Hell no, as only the customers who paid for it legally get punished.

As I said before, assuming that a customer has access to the internet absolutely 100% of the time is as idiotic as assuming they'd never use up a five install limit.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"well, I'd suppose that if a consume right is taken away, meaning the ability to play the game on their own terms, or, hell ,in times not even being able to play the game they paid for, then no rights can be violated"

I am talking about actual, legally defined consumer rights, not rights that people think they should have, but that don't exist. To the best of my knowledge, there is no legal right to play games on my terms. The publisher gets to decide what the limits are and I as the consumer get to decide if I want to play on their terms or not buy their game.

 

"assuming that a customer has access to the internet absolutely 100% of the time is as idiotic"

The tens of millions of MMO, CoD, Starcraft, Battlefield, FPS of the week, etc players all scoff at your ignorance. There is nothing even remotely unusual about requring an internet connection to play a game or to play parts of a game.

If Ubi didn't note the requirement for an internet connection on the box, then that would be misleading and could be the basis for a lawsuit.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"but if they pirate something that is invasive, that's OK?"

I personally think so, because the only reason that I'm pirating the game and not buying it is because of the DRM. I think that it is completely justified to pirate the game and send the makers the money directly so that Ubisoft gets *none* of the money because they *do not* deserve it.

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

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

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"the only reason that I'm pirating the game and not buying it is because of the DRM"

You are stealing the game because you are a thief. Your delusions of being some kind of Robin Hood, sticking it to the man, etc, don't legally or morally justify your actions.

 

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Guess what--Ubi Montreal was founded by Ubisoft and is most probably a wholly-owned subsidiary so assuming you actually sent them the money, it went to Ubisoft in one way or another

www.gameslaw.net

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

So did you send the money directly to the makers? I'm assuming you did, or your argument would be void, but I might as well make sure.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

I have no interest in ACII or that submarine game, but I did once download a book online and then mail the author $20 directly as payment. (John Dies at the End, great book).

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

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

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

It comes down to, and not for the first time, that frequently, pirating the game (and many other media products, MP3s have historically been a GREAT example) results in a better experience with the product than buying it as an actual consumer.

This is where the system starts breaking down and looking crazy.  If it's a nicer experience to pirate the product, folks are -going- to do so. Good luck making money then.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

That is in essence the price of doing business, if you can not bring the experience to the public quickly,cheaply and in a manner they enjoy you are SOL. Media is having a hard time getting over itself and selling itself to he world as a whole.


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/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

If you don't count the attacks, it comes down to that. The attacks, however, are about outsiders forcibly reducing the quality of experience of actual consumers even more than it already is. The attacks aren't a case against DRM. The DRM itself is.

 

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

The people at Ubisoft have a right to be paid for the work they do, just like you. They have a right to take whatever measures they see fit to protect their right to be paid for their work. If you as the consumer don't like their DRM you have the right to complain and the right to not buy their game. It is that simple.

Every arguement that pirating or hacking is justified by DRM is pure idiocy driven by an over-inflated sense of entitlement. There is no justification for criminal behavior, period. People who couldn't play the game this week should blame the people responsible for that - the hackers (unless you can otherwise show that Ubi is using that to cover up a problem on their end, something that none of you have actually been able to do). And what proof is there that pirates are all happily playing the game right now? If they'd pirated the game, then they wouldn't have much incentive to hack the site, now would they?

As to the question of why people use analogies to make their point: it gets frustrating when you are trying to make a explain the difference between right and wrong to people who are too mentally incompetent to understand that they are not entitled steal things that they can't afford.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

IP owners have exactly that, an "over-inflated sense of entitlement" regarding products. It is time for a change! As far as activity being "criminal", the IP laws are criminal as they stand now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Except the hackers are as much a lie as the proverbial cake. Ubisoft initially told the truth, then realized how bad that would make them look, then revised their version of the truth. Just you wait, there will be a "DDOS attack" at some point every weeked after the release of one of their PC games, possibly release day as well.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Maybe, maybe not.  I'm not going to make a categorical statement one way or the other until the facts are in.

But even if it WAS an attack, Ubisoft should have been prepared for it.  Users should be able to trust that Ubi has a fat enough pipe to handle the traffic, and a large enough staff to fight off attacks.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"The people at Ubisoft have a right to be paid for the work they do, just like you."

Strawman.

"They have a right to take whatever measures they see fit to protect their right to be paid for their work."

No, they don't.  They don't have the right to violate CONSUMERS' rights.

"If you as the consumer don't like their DRM you have the right to complain and the right to not buy their game."

You also have the right to pursue legal recourse if you believe Ubisoft has misrepresented the content of the product you have purchased, or not lived up to its obligation to allow you to use it.

"Every arguement that pirating or hacking is justified by DRM is pure idiocy driven by an over-inflated sense of entitlement."

No, not every argument.

I bought a copy of Mass Effect 2.  Legally.

I installed a no-disc crack, because I want to be able to run a computer program that is installed on my hard drive without putting a disc in the optical drive.

I'll grant that this is pure idiocy driven by an over-inflated sense of entitlement if you'll promise to put your Office installation disc in the drive every time you want to open Word.

"There is no justification for criminal behavior, period."

Oh, come on now, that's just silly.  There's no situation in which breaking the law is justified, ever?  Really?  You're really making that claim?

"People who couldn't play the game this week should blame the people responsible for that - the hackers (unless you can otherwise show that Ubi is using that to cover up a problem on their end, something that none of you have actually been able to do)."

That's not how burden of proof works, Gardog.  You don't have to prove the non-existence of a thing.  There's no proof of the existence of a DDoS attack other than Ubi's word.  That raises questions.  That's all.

"And what proof is there that pirates are all happily playing the game right now?"

I'm going to go with "the wide availability of torrents and instances of pirates saying they are all happily playing the game right now."

"If they'd pirated the game, then they wouldn't have much incentive to hack the site, now would they?"

Wow, there are so many logical fallacies there I don't know where to begin.

Okay, let's start with -- what makes you think people pirating the game are the same people attacking the site?

Second -- people pirating the game obviously object to Ubisoft's DRM.  The DDoS attack -- assuming that is what it is -- is making a statement that Ubisoft's DRM is ill-conceived.  I really don't see those as mutually exclusive at all.

Third, you're misusing the term "hack" for the third time in five sentences.  There was no hack.  Even Ubisoft is not claiming their site was hacked (which would in fact introduce serious concerns about their network security, not just their infrastructure).  A DDoS attack is the use of a distributed network of systems all communicating with a site at once and using up all its bandwidth.  It's brute-force and it's trivial.  Which leads us to

Fourth, it would be entirely possible for a pirate to run a background ping process while simultaneously playing a pirated game.  If somebody wanted to do it.

"As to the question of why people use analogies to make their point: it gets frustrating when you are trying to make a explain the difference between right and wrong to people who are too mentally incompetent to understand that they are not entitled steal things that they can't afford."

Oh, okay.  So if you explain to them how DDoS'ing a website is exactly the same as murdering a bunch of people in a mall with some kind of Joker venom in the sprinklers, THAT will help them to understand how the two things are totally equivalent.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I'm just not sure who you're talking about when you refer to "people who are too mentally incompetent to understand that they are not entitled steal things that they can't afford."  Who is making that argument, exactly?  The only people in the thread who are saying piracy is justified in this instance are saying it's justified because the DRM is invasive; I haven't seen a single one say that it's justified if you can't afford the game.  Are they the same people who are saying the people at Ubisoft don't have a right to be paid for their work?

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

If it isn't CLEARLY written on the game box that the game requires a constant internet connection to play, then it is *illegal.* Since many customers are just biting the bullet after finding this out, extraordinary measures are required to expose the inherent flaws and entice consumers to realize/rebel against this bullshit.

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

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

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"Every arguement that pirating or hacking is justified by DRM is pure idiocy driven by an over-inflated sense of entitlement."

Overinflated sense of entitlement? Where? I have absolutely NO stake in this whatsoever. I think the last Ubisoft game I bought was HOMM5, like 4 years ago, and I don't pirate games unless I've already purchased it or it's no longer on the market, and I want to experience it. So, no entitlement, here, thats for sure.

And guess what? I am absolutely THRILLED that people are attacking Ubi's servers to expose the inherent weaknesses in the DRM Scheme that Ubi arrogantly decided to screw their consumers with. The attackers are quite literally hitting Ubi where it hurts, their fanbase and their wallet.

Unless Ubi starts to lose money due to their idiotic DRM, they won't change, and more consumers will suffer from it. Ubi deserves every single lost sale and (hopefully) lawsuit, because they ignored logical, legitimate arguments against the DRM method they arrogantly chose, and as it turned out, it screwed their legitimate consumers and didn't prevent piracy in any way.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

No, not "whatever" measures they see fit. For example, if they do find a hacker, they can't go and shoot him. The same way, IF the DRM is illegal, unconstitutional or a grey area, then they can't do it either (unless it's grey area stuff and they want to take a chance, which, to me, seems extremelly cavalier)

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Not performed by a government actor=not unconstitutional

www.gameslaw.net

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"They have a right to take whatever measures they see fit to protect their right to be paid for their work."

Oh I agree but seeing as DRM does absolutely nothing to accomplish that goal, it would behoove Ubisoft and other publishers to try something else.  Preferably something that:

-Actually prevents (at least some) piracy.

-Doesn't negatively impact the consumer.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

You better drop the god damn DRM if you still want paying customers Ubisoft.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Wow, those hackers sure are teaching the paying customers of Ubisoft a lesson.  Next time I see someone using a product I dislike, I am going to take it out of their hands and destroy it.  I don't like the iPhone, so the next fool I see using one is gonna have it smashed by me.

As for the hackers- do these people have jobs or lives?  Ubisoft has some shitty DRM, but is it worth the time/energy to attack their servers?  Imagine if these people put their energy into something productive!

Also, the claims Ubi is behind the DDOS attacks need to take off the tin hats- how are they helping themselves by gimping their own service?

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Orchestrating a DDoS is actually fairly trivial.  It's not hacking in any but the most braindead misuse of the term.  (Of course, according to the media, figuring out where Sarah Palin went to high school counts as hacking, too.)

"Also, the claims Ubi is behind the DDOS attacks need to take off the tin hats- how are they helping themselves by gimping their own service?"

I'm not sure what you're talking about; I haven't seen anyone in this thread make that claim.  I HAVE seen people suggest that Ubi simply didn't have the infrastructure to support demand, and then blamed it on an attack rather than admit they were unprepared for the volume of bandwidth their DRM required.  That's pure conjecture, but it's hardly tinfoil-hat stuff; it's perfectly plausible.  Is there any evidence of an attack beyond Ubisoft's say-so?

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Someone suggested Ubisoft are DDOS'ing themselves? That news to me. All I've seen are people (not unreasonably) suggesting Ubisoft is LYING about the attacks to cover up for the fact that their initial story of "We just can't handle the traffic" wasn't the most well-thought out thing to say.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

No, it'd be like finding out that the newest iPod must be connected to the internet ALL OF THE TIME just to play music, and in response, blocking wireless communications near everyone's iPods so that they can't play music on it unless they crack it online, making Apple look like complete fucking douches (which they would be at that point).

No. Product. Should. Ever. Require. Constant. Internet. Connection. Period. These attackers are just showing Ubisoft/consumers how RETARDED this policy is by exposing the inherent flaws with this system.

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

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

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

"No. Product. Should. Ever. Require. Constant. Internet. Connection. Period."

Erm, it's probably all right for MMORPG's and Web browsers to require a constant Internet connection.

Well...I read HTML documents offline, sometimes.

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

I actually think that you should be able to make your own private servers (and have before), but I understand that there are exceptions, like for games that REQUIRE the internet. But single player games and LAN games should never *require* the interweb.

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

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

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Hackers, a bunch of cowards. They don't like how something's done, the only answer they can think of is to attack and commit a crime. Nothing justifies this attack. If they were to be caught and jailed, good ridance to bad rubish I say. I dislike the DRM thing, but hacking sure as hell isn't how to solve it.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

You can say the same things about revolutionaires during the Boston Tea Party.

---

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

Attacking (not hacking necessarily) is absolutely a good way to solve this issue. If tons of consumers can't play their game that they legally bought, but pirates can play it all they want without this bullshit DRM, Ubisoft will HAVE to change their DRM policy or be seen as the immense assholes that they currently are.

I wish these attackers the best of luck, and I sincerely hope that they get ALL of Ubisoft's servers shut down for a few hours at least. Imagine every single person not being able to play Assassin's Creed II on PC with their legally bought copy. Many will have to pirate the game to play the game that they ALREADY PAID FOR, and many others will simply not buy Ubisoft PC games anymore. It's perfect.

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

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

Re: Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

So let me summarize.

Because Ubisoft has a DRM people hate, it's okay to, though criminal actions, attack their servers, thereby hurting the people who paid for their games, in order to create fear that no one will buy Ubisoft games anymore because criminals are going to make sure you can't play them if you do, and through this fear, forcing Ubisoft to change its course.

Congratulations. You officially support terrorism.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Neo_DrKefkaA big name in the Gamergate movement Kingofpol uses a offensive term about autistic people and in turn the entire GamerGate community lashes out at him. We do not need false leaders who think they can say anything https://twitter.com/Kingofpol10/20/2014 - 11:07pm
Papa MidnightMP, honestly, I'm struggling to make heads or tales of the events being outlined in that reddit thread. I've never heard of Siliconera before, either.10/20/2014 - 10:48pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.reddit.com/r/vita/comments/2jbn6u/former_siliconera_moderator_leaks_screenshots_of/ Siliconera mods accused of deleting user comments that were pro Vita.10/20/2014 - 9:23pm
quiknkoldhttp://www.diamondbackonline.com/opinion/article_3fbc52ec-57eb-11e4-ba91-0017a43b2370.html10/20/2014 - 9:16pm
Neo_DrKefkaId love to see people come 2gether whether your 4 or against gamergate to gather 2gether and support an anti bullying charity and I would love to see a pro and anti gamegate debate on a neutral platform that promotes discussion and solutions10/20/2014 - 8:33pm
Neo_DrKefkaWhen someone was seriously hurt by a violent altercation. They have a prospective that people who have not had this experience lack. Bullying is a serious issue10/20/2014 - 8:30pm
Papa MidnightStraw Man to the fullest, but it gets the point across.10/20/2014 - 8:26pm
Papa Midnighthttp://i.imgur.com/dw0YPon.png10/20/2014 - 8:25pm
quiknkoldby doing something, Charitable Donations is an example.10/20/2014 - 8:06pm
quiknkoldAndrew : I dont accept any worded apology unless I can look the person in the eye when they say it. For me, he'd either have to make a video so I could read his bodylanguage, or actually do something. actions speak louder than words.10/20/2014 - 8:04pm
quiknkoldwell if they are looking for social pollution, Twitter is a great breeding ground for it. Its a breeding ground for deviance.10/20/2014 - 8:03pm
Andrew Eisenquiknkold - He had three tweets worth of apology the following day.10/20/2014 - 8:00pm
quiknkoldyou know, people keep saying Biddle's comment was sarcasm, but the thing is, Sarcasm doesnt translate well in Tweets. I took his words as really hateful, and unless I see an honest apology, I'm not going to be happy with him.10/20/2014 - 7:38pm
Matthew WilsonI doubt it will change much.10/20/2014 - 7:21pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29689949 Google's current piracy fighting plan.10/20/2014 - 6:58pm
Andrew EisenYikes. http://boingboing.net/2014/10/20/vultures-circle-gamergate.html10/20/2014 - 6:25pm
Neo_DrKefkaDestructoid Editor in Chief stepping down after allegations surface about blacklisting will he be next? http://allmannerofnerdery.tumblr.com/post/100526443850/im-leaving-destructoid10/20/2014 - 6:05pm
james_fudgethere's some inside baseball stuff going on in this Andrew - likely some stuff we don't know10/20/2014 - 3:30pm
E. Zachary KnightGreat musical video about online trolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nS-QeM2ne810/20/2014 - 2:46pm
Andrew EisenBut again, this whole thing is just too damn vague to form an opinion on.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician