Ubisoft Servers Torpedoed Once Again

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.

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

148 comments

  1. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    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.

  2. 0
    Gardog says:

    "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.

  3. 0
    Gardog says:

    "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.

     

  4. 0
    doewnskitty says:

    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.

  5. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    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.

  6. 0
    Ratros says:

    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!"

  7. 0
    johnmarkley says:

    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!

  8. 0
    Ratros says:

    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!"

  9. 0
    Ratros says:

    *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!"

  10. 0
    Craig R. says:

    "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.

     

  11. 0
    questionmark1987 says:

    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.

  12. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    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-

  13. 0
    bpm195 says:

     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."

  14. 0
    Spartan says:

    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

  15. 0
    Spartan says:

    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

  16. 0
    Ashkihyena says:

    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.

  17. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    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/

  18. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    "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.


  19. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    "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-

  20. 0
    Gardog says:

    "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.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  21. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    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/

  22. 0
    Conster says:

    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.

     

  23. 0
    Thad says:

    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.

  24. 0
    Cavalier says:

    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.

  25. 0
    thefremen says:

    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.

  26. 0
    Thad says:

    "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?

  27. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    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-

  28. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    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-

  29. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "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.

  30. 0
    DorthLous says:

    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)

  31. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    "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

  32. 0
    Gardog says:

    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.

  33. 0
    Thad says:

    "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.

  34. 0
    Thad says:

    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?

  35. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    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.

  36. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    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-

  37. 0
    Zerodash says:

    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?

  38. 0
    Sajomir says:

    English IS my first language and I was confused for half the post thread. I suppose I can understand that the outage is Ubisoft’s fault with the line of reasoning that their DRM design possesses the weakness that a hacker *could* block legit customers from playing. It’s a design flaw, I get it.

    I also hold to the fact that for this outage the hackers are 100% at fault. I also believe that the hackers shouldn’t be fucking with lawful paying customers.

  39. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    It’s not a direct quote, no. However, it refers directly to something you already said. If you disagree with him, I can perfectly understand that. I cannot, however, understand why you’d act like Jack Thompson and AG Atkinson and LIE about your own statements:

    "The fact is that Ubisoft released a product that is GARUNTEED to break if the servers go down. This situation is ABSOLUTELY Ubisoft’s fault, 100%."

  40. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    So since planes can crash naturally into buildings, 9/11 is Boeing’s fault? After all, planes crash. The terrorists may be the reason those planes crashed into the WTC and Pentagon, but that point is irrelevant in the long run, because planes WILL crash into buildings again, and the same exact bullshit will happen, because it’s BOEING’S SYSTEM that is causing the problem.

  41. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."

    "Cyberterrorism can also be defined much more generally, for example, as “The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.”"

    I’m gonna settle for Cyber-Terrorism as the right term. It’s terrorism but cyber, so cyber-terrorism.

  42. 0
    anver says:

    I do apologise, English isn’t my first language, I was imprecise. Should have said "in a larger context" rather than "less narrowly" I guess. What I meant was that in this instance the blame lies with whoever is DDoS’ing but also with Ubi, since they created a situation where your sp game depends on Ubi’s servers in the first place. I never said downtimes were always 100% Ubi’s fault, but the fact that you can’t play your game when their server’s are down undoubtedly is.

    I don’t think I ever called the attackers heroic nor did I comment on the quality of your analogies. I certainly don’t condone the DDoS attacks, whether they work towards a change in Ubi’s DRM policy or not. Anyway. You should ‘fight’ (a bit too strong a word for the act of not buying a game, no?) for a change in DRM because it is (apparently) completely ineffective, inconveniences only those with legit copies and (if it stays) sets a precedent I don’t even want to think about.

    But if you’d rather complain about the DDoSers instead of the DRM, your call.

  43. 0
    Sajomir says:

    @Valdearg:

    If a guy (Ubisoft) is an asshole to me ("hacker of justice") and I duct tape him to a chair and ditch him alone in a room (disable his systems temporarily without hurting anything/anyone physically), whose fault is it?

    It doesn’t matter if he was an ass to me, I’M still gonna be the one charged with unlawful imprisonment. It doesn’t matter what the reasons are, people should be held responsible for their unlawful actions. I can’t possibly see how ruining the game for people who never offended you in any way is justified.

    Taking your anger out on innocent people to send a message to someone… what does that sound like… Had it been with actual violence, you’d call it terrorism.

    (just to be clear, I don’t like draconian DRM, and while Ubisoft’s method here doesn’t bother me, I can see why it would bother someone else. I just don’t think that downing Ubisoft’s server is anything close to the right way to solve the problem)

  44. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Stop being a moron, and stop misquoting me.

    ""downtimes will happen, and only the fact that downtimes mean you can’t play matters, so it’s always 100% Ubisoft’s fault when downtimes happen, even if a third party deliberately caused said downtimes". 

    That isn’t a direct quote that I’ve used, and I’ve certainly not seen that quote used by anyone else.

    My argument has not ONCE been that Ubi is responsible for their server downtimes, but rather Ubi’s abusive DRM is responsible for the situation where you aren’t able to enjoy your game because of the server outages. Yeah, the hackers caused the downtimes, but they sure as hell aren’t responsible for the fact that you can’t play your game while Ubi’s servers are down. That blame lies SQUARELY on Ubisoft’s shoulders.

  45. 0
    Conster says:

    I bought the game because I don’t have a PS3 or 360, my internet connection is reliable enough that I’ll still be able to play most of the time, and I really wanted to play the game. I expected server issues, but not DDOS attacks.

    "Less narrowly"? I’m not the one blaming only one party in this matter. I’m simply trying to get through to people who say "downtimes will happen, and only the fact that downtimes mean you can’t play matters, so it’s always 100% Ubisoft’s fault when downtimes happen, even if a third party deliberately caused said downtimes".

    Get Ubi to remove the DRM? So in the end it comes down to this: because of these attacks, I’m being forced to choose between pirating or actively trying to get Ubisoft to change the DRM? How is this any different from what DRM does? You decide not to play the game? Fine by me. People decide to pirate, or buy then pirate, the game? Not really my business. But the reason people hate DRM is that it makes it harder for paying customers to play than if they were to pirate the game, and if these attacks continue, that is exactly what the attackers are doing too, yet somehow they’re heroes for it. I fail to see how intimidating, through criminal acts, either Ubisoft into changing the DRM, or paying customers into a choice between pirating and trying to convince Ubisoft to change the DRM, is heroic. The reason any analogy I apply to this appears ridiculous is because the situation itself is ridiculous. And I am not going to fight for a change in a DRM simply because hackers will bully me if I don’t.

  46. 0
    Spartan says:

    That is true. The paying customers are victims of Ubi and its lame ass DRM system and draconian polices designed to determine when and how you use the product you like to think you purchased. This is so because the situation is that Ubi’s system is designed to take away many of your basic customer rights as possible.

    —————————————————————————

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

  47. 0
    anver says:

    "Like I’ve said before, the DRM sucks, but that doesn’t mean I should be punished by hackers for being willing to put up with it."

    Out of curiosity, why were you willing to put up with it? Did you believe there would be no problems? Personally, I tried AC2 for a while and it seemed like a great game, but I will not buy a sp game that depends on such a large number of outside variables and I will most certainly not support the precedence it sets.

    "The attacks revealed the system sucks. I get it. That doesn’t absolve the attackers of denying 5% of the playerbase access to the game."

    No it doesn’t, but in my view the DDoS attacks interfering with players is just the first major manifestation of people unable to play due to the DRM. Of course you’d be angry at the attackers, but I still think it makes more sense to see things a bit less narrowly and to be angry at Ubi for making it possible for hackers to interfere with your single-player gaming at all.

    And of course you won’t be happy about it, but if you’re going to do anything about it, you can either try to stop the attackers DDoS’ing (and make sure neither your internet nor Ubi’s servers will ever fail) or to get Ubi to remove the DRM. (Or remove the DRM yourself and thus break the law while sending the signal that you’re happy to accept measures like these, which seems like the worst of both worlds.) I choose the latter by simply not buying the game, and if in the future DRM like this is the norm, I guess I’ll be playing Jagged Alliance until the disk disintegrates, without worrying about my internet connection.

  48. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Speaking as a Software Engineer, "It’s your own fault for making such a crappy system, not in any shape or form that of the guys who decided to break the system" is actually a VERY valid argument.

    You are taught from the very beginning to design your software to be absolutely unbreakable, and to assume that the end user will be out to try to break it or sabotage your product. The fact is that Ubisoft released a product that is GARUNTEED to break if the servers go down. This situation is ABSOLUTELY Ubisoft’s fault, 100%. The hackers may be the reasons the servers went down now, but that point is irrellevant in the long run, because the servers WILL go down again, and the same exact bullshit will happen, because it’s UBISOFT’S SYSTEM that is causing the problem.

  49. 0
    Conster says:

    "Of course" not? That’s not what Valdearg has been saying: he seems pretty adamant that it’s "of course", not "of course not".

    Like I’ve said before, the DRM sucks, but that doesn’t mean I should be punished by hackers for being willing to put up with it.

    The attacks revealed the system sucks. I get it. That doesn’t absolve the attackers of denying 5% of the playerbase access to the game.

    More attacks may lead to the crappy DRM being withdrawn (which would mean Ubisoft either says "fuck all y’all" to its paying customers, or release the DRM-canceling patch). I get it. That doesn’t mean I have to thank the attackers for what they’re doing, or be happy about being a "casualty of war" or a "necessary sacrifice".

  50. 0
    anver says:

    "If I can normally play the game X% of the time, and hackers deliberately reduce X, then the hackers are NOT WITHOUT BLAME."

    Of course not, but if X is below 100% that’s still Ubi’s fault, whether X is reduced by a game-crashing bug or because you don’t have stable internet access. Difference being, you can complain to Ubi about bugs, what would you do in the latter scenario? Move somewhere with stable internet access? Buy an Xbox?

  51. 0
    anver says:

    The blame for the current bout of problems lies with Ubi and the hackers. How much lies where, I don’t know nor do I care, because ultimately, this model of DRM will with 100% certainty make their product impossible to use under certain circumstances. Whether that’s due to hackers, blackouts, tornadoes or a meteor crashing into Ubi’s server rooms, there will be times when you can’t play this game. Might be because you’re having internet troubles or (as in this case) because Ubi’s servers are having them.

    The hackers are simply highlighting this right now.

  52. 0
    Conster says:

    I realize just fine that you don’t give a crap, because unlike you, I actually bother to read what the other person is saying.

    As for your ignorant comment that it doesn’t bother me: Ubisoft’s DRM DOES bother me.

    What ALSO bothers me is that you’re saying that it doesn’t bother me, despite repeated remarks by me that it does, in fact, bother me.

    What ALSO bothers me is that you say the fact they made this system means it doesn’t matter if people DDOS the SHIT out of it, it’s still 100% Ubisoft’s fault, and not that of the people who decide to DDOS it, which amounts to saying "it’s Ubisoft’s fault hackers don’t like their stupid system and therefore want to prevent you from being able to play their game legally, and not at all the hackers’ fault". Blame isn’t mutually exclusive, and Ubisoft’s stupid DRM doesn’t mean nothing else is important at all. If I can normally play the game X% of the time, and hackers deliberately reduce X, then the hackers are NOT WITHOUT BLAME.

    In the instances where the combination of Ubisoft’s crappy DRM and a bunch of attackers DDOSing Ubisoft’s server leads to me being unable to play the game, the attackers are PART OF THE FUCKING PROBLEM. But hey, if you can’t even see me saying I don’t like the DRM, I guess you can’t see that either.

    I don’t like the DRM. I don’t like that people consider me being unable to legally play the game I paid for, a necessary sacrifice, either. I ESPECIALLY don’t like that people say I had it coming for not pirating. Those who cause paying customers to suffer in order to have their way, are no better than Ubisoft.

  53. 0
    Conster says:

    But they did, so WHO caused the servers to go down IS relevant. "It’s your own fault for making such a crappy system, not in any shape or form that of the guys who decided to break the system" is a stupid argument. Get the point already.

     

     

  54. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Lol.. You are so far off point again, it’s comical.

    I don’t care about the vulnerabilities. It’s the fact that Ubi made a game that literally stops working as soon as it can’t communicate with a server that WILL go down eventually. If Ubi hadn’t made a game that does that, whether or not it’s authentication servers go down due to hackers is irrelevant.

  55. 0
    Valdearg says:

    What YOU don’t seem to realize is that I don’t give two craps about whether or not Ubi made their system DDOS resistant. What bothers ME, and what should bother you, is that Ubi made a game that prevents you from playing when their servers are down. It doesn’t matter how or why they are down, what matters is that Ubi made a game that literally prevents you from enjoying the product you paid for when their servers are down.

  56. 0
    Conster says:

    My question is this: do we disagree over how much of the blame lies with Ubisoft, and how much with the attackers, or do we disagree over whether any of the blame lies with the hackers at all? If you think Ubisoft is more to blame than the attackers, that’s fine with me – it’s claiming all the blame lies with Ubisoft that I think ridiculous, especially on a matter where a third party deliberately tries to sabotage the system. Saying Ubisoft should have made the system sabotage-resistant is one thing. Saying Ubisoft should be held solely responsible for people sabotaging the system is another.

  57. 0
    anver says:

    "They are much more to blame than Ubisoft for this, who simply forgot to make their system DDOS-resistant…"

    See, this is where I disagree with you. I’m not going to hail the hackers as liberators, but if Ubi wants to implement Draconian DRM, it is their job to make sure that it doesn’t interfere with people trying to play the game, whether that interference is caused by hackers, network failures, the weather or armageddon. If they cannot ensure uninterrupted playing (and realistically, they can’t 24/7) they shouldn’t have implemented it. The hacker’s actions simply highlight Ubi’s inability to guarantee smooth playing right after launch.

  58. 0
    Conster says:

    So this is your argument: because there will be cases when the servers will be down when it’s Ubisoft’s fault, it’s always Ubisoft’s fault? You’re NOT merely saying "the system is vulnerable, and this illustrates it", you’re saying "the system is vulnerable, so the attacks are Ubisoft’s fault". And my analogy in this case was far from idiotic. Ubisoft may have introduced the weakness, but it’s the attackers who decided to use it. No matter how often Ubisoft may crash the car in the future, you cannot reasonably claim it’s solely Ubisoft’s fault someone else crashed the car.

  59. 0
    Conster says:

    And that is exactly where I disagree with you. You say "Ubisoft is responsible for the risky situation with its servers, so it’s responsible for the consequences of the attacks". The idea that even a small part of the blame may lie with the hackers seems foreign to you. However, the fact is this: Ubisoft may have messed up, but the hackers attacked the servers, knowing the system was flawed, and knowing people who paid for the game would not be able to play as a consequence of their actions. How can I not blame them? They are much more to blame than Ubisoft for this, who simply forgot to make their system DDOS-resistant, but you are only blaming Ubisoft, so why shouldn’t I only blame the hackers? If the servers go down because of the weather, or some other random event, Ubisoft is only partially to blame. If Ubisoft takes down the servers, Ubisoft is entirely to blame. If someone else takes down the servers, Ubisoft is, again, only partially to blame. If A doesn’t make S resistant against X, and B does X on purpose, B is more to blame than A. Taking only the result into regard, and not the causes, seems weird to me.

    EDIT: Of course, extrapolating from your previous comments, you will ignore all my points and claim it’s all Ubisoft’s fault because there will be cases when it’s Ubisoft’s fault, and call my generalization, meant solely to try and get the point I’m trying to make through to you, idiotic. If you could just admit that the hackers are even partially to blame, we wouldn’t be having this argument.

  60. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I’m not hostile against you in the slightest. At least not for buying Ubi’s game. I just don’t feel sorry for you, because you knowingly bought a product with flawed DRM, and regardless of when or how, it’s an absolute certainty that Ubi’s server would have gone down at some point, and you’d be suffering just the same.

    Blaming the Hackers is no better than blaming the weather or some other random event for the downtime. The fact is that the downtime will prevent you from playing the game regardless. This is Ubi’s fault.

  61. 0
    Conster says:

    While "criminal" may have been an overreaction on my part, the fact remains that people have claimed that the customers deserved the downtime, and people have been excited about the attacks. I think the DRM is stupid, but I decided to buy the game anyway. According to what other people have said here, that means I should be thanking the people who attacked the servers, and it means I deserved suffering from these attacks. People have also placed the responsibility for the attacks solely with Ubisoft, and stated that the attacks are no different from Ubisoft itself bringing down the servers for maintenance, effectively claiming the attackers are not responsible for the attacks. Busy as you have been with denouncing or ridiculing me for my anger, you seem ignorant of the fact that the atmosphere here has not only been hostile against Ubisoft, but also against those who paid for their games.

  62. 0
    Thad says:

    That’s…an interesting distortion.

    I haven’t seen any commenter in this thread say anything like "Paying customers are criminals."  There is, literally, only one party in this entire mess who is treating paying customers like criminals.  It’s not the commenters, and, whether you agree with their actions or not, it’s not the people attacking Ubisoft’s site.  Ubisoft is absolutely the only party here who is behaving as if people who purchased its game are (at least potential) criminals.

  63. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Your response does nothing to argue against the point that Server outages are a reality of life. They happen, and they happen regularly. I’ve NEVER played a game that relied on a server that had exactly 0 server outages from release to the time I stopped playing it. Ubi’s DRM prevents you from playing during those outages. THAT is the big problem here, not the cause of the outage.

    Also, it would help you to actually argue using legitimate arguments, not these idiotic hypotheical analogies, since you have yet to actually accurately represent the situation via analogy. Then again, the more you use them, the crazier they seem to get, and that might end up being entertaining at some point in the near future..

     

  64. 0
    Conster says:

    I know I wouldn’t have this problem if Ubisoft designed their DRM differently. I know the system has flaws. I know I don’t like the system. I also know, however, that the REAL reason I can’t access their servers is a bunch of criminals, who are being treated like they’re heroes, and apparently, you insist on claiming that fact is of no consequence. Currently, Ubisoft itself has (purposely or accidentally) limited my access to the game (due to server downtime, or inside crashes, or whatever) zero times, while these thugs have done so twice.

    The difference is in who pulled the trigger. That MATTERS. If person A buys a car, it definitely matters whether person A runs a red light with it, or person B decides to sit behind the wheel and run a red light, and blindly blaming A for B’s actions and saying B isn’t to blame is just stupid.

  65. 0
    Thad says:

    I find it telling that apparently nobody can defend Ubisoft without comparing a DDoS attack to mass murder.  And yet it’s the anti-Ubi crowd who you describe as unhinged and incapable of understanding the situation.

  66. 0
    Thad says:

    "No. Ubisoft said "you constant access to our servers to play". The attackers said "…and you’re not going to get it!"."

    I’m not sure how that falls under "no".  Your phrasing points out exactly where Ubi fucked up: part two is rendered irrelevant without part one.

    "And for the record, I use analogies because it’s the only way to get through the "UBISOFT MUST DIE AND SO MUST THE PEOPLE WHO STILL BUY THEIR GAMES!" nutjobs, since obviously "hurting paying customers is bad if you’re not Ubisoft too" doesn’t work."

    And a fine job you’re doing of it, too.  Now all those nutjobs have been well-educated in how a DDoS attack is exactly like some sort of cartoonish mass murder.  You sure showed them.

    "A better analogy would be a shop which requires you to go through metal detectors to go in, while some people simply sneak in through a side entrance, and some jackass rigging the metal detectors to always go off."

    That one’s actually not bad.  I can live with that.

    Can you at least acknowledge that it’s fucking asinine to put a metal detector in when everybody knows the lock on the side entrance is broken?

    "Your counter-analogy, however is way off the mark, since a mall lacking emergency exits is gross negligence, rather than an annoying and ineffective security measure being sabotaged so that it endangers people."

    You’re right, my comparison between a DDoS attack and people asphyxiating horribly in some sort of bizarre death trap was absolutely absurd.  I don’t know what I was thinking.

  67. 0
    Valdearg says:

    What’s the difference if you can’t access their servers due to hackers, Ubisoft, or some other random act? A reality of life is that SERVERS WILL GO DOWN. The reason is immaterial, and no matter the reason, my point that if Ubi designed their DRM differently, you’d have access to the game still stands.

  68. 0
    Conster says:

    "Would you be singing the same tune if Ubi had to bring the authentication servers down for an 8 hour maintenence session, or your internet access was down for 8 hours? Who would you blame, then?"

    BUT THEY DIDN’T. I will blame Ubisoft if Ubisoft is to blame. I will not blame Ubisoft for some assholes taking advantage of a flaw in Ubisoft’s system to make it unavailable.

  69. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "DRM makes playing more difficult for paying customers, but these attacks make playing impossible for paying customers. The cure is worse than the disease here."

    No, the treatment is a temporary annoyance, until Ubisoft cleans up it’s act and stops screwing the customers. Again, your problem wouldn’t exist at all if Ubi hadn’t designed it’s DRM the way it did. Hackers could have attacked the servers all day and you would have been able to play. Would you be singing the same tune if Ubi had to bring the authentication servers down for an 8 hour maintenence session, or your internet access was down for 8 hours? Who would you blame, then?

    The fact is that Ubi is responsible for this mess, and if it hadn’t designed the DRM the way that they did, you’d have had access to your precious game from the start.

  70. 0
    Conster says:

    "The blame for your issues lies not with the attackers, but with the company who made your game."

    BULLSHIT.

    The blame for my issues lies with the attackers. THEY are the ones who are causing people to not be able to play. You don’t expose faulty airport security by smuggling a real bomb onto a plane, do you?

     

    "Frankly, you should be thanking the attackers for attempting to get Ubi to change their policies."

    By hurting my ability to play the game? Hell no. If people go around hurting others because they want to force a change in policy that they believe will be better in the long run (or in your case, apparently, because of something they think will happen eventually), only a sociopath would expect the victims, even if they would like the change in policy, to say "gee, thanks for hurting me". DRM makes playing more difficult for paying customers, but these attacks make playing impossible for paying customers. The cure is worse than the disease here.

  71. 0
    Conster says:

    "Um, that would be Ubisoft."

    No. Ubisoft said "you constant access to our servers to play". The attackers said "…and you’re not going to get it!". So it’s the attackers who are to blame here. Saying "it’s your own damn fault for being so damn punchable" is bully logic. And for the record, I use analogies because it’s the only way to get through the "UBISOFT MUST DIE AND SO MUST THE PEOPLE WHO STILL BUY THEIR GAMES!" nutjobs, since obviously "hurting paying customers is bad if you’re not Ubisoft too" doesn’t work.

     

    "If the mall doesn’t have emergency exits and a bunch of people are killed because they can’t get out, the mall is liable because it didn’t prepare for an emergency situation."

    I wasn’t aiming for a perfect analogy, simply pointing out that if someone sabotages a security mechanism to make it backfire, the saboteur is to blame, not the people who made the security mechanism. A better analogy would be a shop which requires you to go through metal detectors to go in, while some people simply sneak in through a side entrance, and some jackass rigging the metal detectors to always go off. Your counter-analogy, however is way off the mark, since a mall lacking emergency exits is gross negligence, rather than an annoying and ineffective security measure being sabotaged so that it endangers people.

  72. 0
    Valdearg says:

    "So I guess me not having a PS3 or 360, and being willing to pay for this game and put up with the DRM because I really want to play it and I know my internet connection is reliable enough, means it’s okay for people to prevent me from playing a game I paid for?"

    Unfortunately, what you want isn’t really my probem. As far as this attack goes, if Ubi’s DRM wasn’t there, the inconvienience suffered by those who purchased the game would be negligible. The blame for your issues lies not with the attackers, but with the company who made your game. The attackers only exposed the very issue that most people have had with Ubisoft’s DRM, that if Ubi’s servers go down for whatever reason, hackers, network issues, or so called acts of God, you won’t be able to play your game.

    Frankly, you should be thanking the attackers for attempting to get Ubi to change their policies. It will hopefully make all of our gaming experiences better, in the long run. Just think of what would have happened if nothing had happened for a couple years, Ubi released several new games with identical DRM, and then something happened that stopped support for them all. Nipping the problem in the bud is easily the best choice, here.

  73. 0
    Thad says:

    "The only people I want to sue is the shits who decide that I’m not allowed to play a game I paid for"

    Um, that would be Ubisoft.  They’re the ones who built a function-crippling system into their game and then didn’t have the network infrastructure to support it.

    "You don’t sue malls because some psycho decides to turn the sprinkler system into a death trap, do you? You sue the psycho."

    All right.  Argument by analogy is for people who can’t win a debate on the facts in front of them, but I’ll bite.

    If the mall doesn’t have emergency exits and a bunch of people are killed because they can’t get out, the mall is liable because it didn’t prepare for an emergency situation.

  74. 0
    Ratros says:

    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!"

  75. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    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-

  76. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Assuming this attack was real, and not say, a case of arrogant negligence in the part of Ubisoft assuming their system was up to snuff when it wasn’t, it’s still plenty justified and you’re a fucking idiot for thinking otherwise.

    ————————————————–

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

  77. 0
    gellymatos says:

    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.

  78. 0
    doewnskitty says:

    You might want to peruse a few history books to find examples of people who brought about positive change and the betterment of society and the treatment of others by breaking the law.

    Hmmm, the Colonists’ Tea Party at Boston?  Oh, they were breaking English law.

    Ghandi?  Yep, broke the law.

    Rosa Parks?  Oh dear, she did, too.

    Judas Priest?  Oh, just threw that in for the giggle of it.

    Those are just a few of the more easily recalled examples that are oft-cited in regards to unjust laws being enforced.

    It would behoove you to understand that just because something is said to be the rule, to be the law, to be "the right thing," does not automatically make it so, and any time such is said of any concept being exercised, it should be so with careful scrutiny and consideration of what does truly amount to "right" versus "wrong" without having to indulge nor descend into moral relativism.

    The simple fact is that Ubisoft’s implementation of their form of DRM amounts to a punishment of the legitimate customer in the name of "fighting piracy" and the fact that it is so grievously flawed is being highlighted by their claimed DDoS attacks upon them.  It amounts to you paying for a game that you do not even own, as per the current wording and enforcement of DRM, but is a glorified rental that you can and will only play at the behest of Ubisoft and the reliability of their service and technology.

  79. 0
    Spartan says:

    One man’s terrorist is another freedom fighter! Of course if one supports fascism then I can see the terrorist perspective.

    —————————————————————————

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

  80. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    But the only way to make Ubisoft (the Matrix) suffer is through these methods, which has some casulties. You are not prevented from playing the game, you can easily pirate it or get a crack to get around the online activation, you’re just choosing to stick with Ubisoft’s method and are, in effect, walking into the line of fire (Neo’s punches/bullets).

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

  81. 0
    Conster says:

    If by backtrack you mean "point out something which should have been obvious, and also pointed out that I already pointed it out", then yes. Glad we understand each other.

    And hey, you’re the one saying that if Ubisoft doesn’t get rid of the DRM, they’ll alienate paying customers because other people are hindering their gameplay. If anything, I decided to speak in a language you’re more familiar with.

  82. 0
    Conster says:

    Okay, I can do calm.

    "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.)"

    So because I decided to buy the game knowing about the DRM, you say I deserve to suffer. Do you see how that upsets me?

  83. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Oh, I see.. Now that I actually explained it, you feel the need to backtrack, and play the "I knew all along, and you played right into my trap!" card..

    CLEARLY, you have totally outsmarted me, and, as referenced by the rest of your insane ramblings, you MUST be the mentally superior individual. I bow to your mindblowing intellect!

    (/Sarcasm, just so you don’t get confused by THAT one, too.)

  84. 0
    Conster says:

    I’ll repeat myself: I got the point just fine. I simply decided to play along with your petty little game, after which you assumed I was too dense to understand it, and decided to insult my intelligence, and after I revealed that I did in fact understand it, you continued insulting my intelligence, rather than taking the effort to understand what I was saying, thereby proving which one of us is really the stupid one. Since you probably won’t be able to understand what I just said, I’ll summarize it:

    You’re the idiot. I knew all along. I simply decided to respond seriously (which isn’t the same as taking it seriously), rather than "lol" at your pathetic little game.

  85. 0
    Conster says:

    Read the comments of the people supporting these attacks. Compared to them, I’m perfectly sane. But thanks for illustrating my point that people are accusing Ubisoft of something, yet supporting actions which are just as bad.

    And I don’t actually think people who disagree with me are terrorists (in fact, I’ve never said anything like that, I just made an INCREDIBLY sarcastic statement comparing supporting these attacks with supporting terrorism, because I’m pissed off by claims that I should be thanking people for limiting my ability to play because they’re trying to prevent something which might happen and don’t believe Ubi’s claims that it won’t, and claims that I deserve to be punished for buying the game, or claims that because I bought the game instead of pirating it, I shouldn’t be allowed to play it, but pirates should). But apparently only people who agree with you are allowed to use sarcasm. So far, I still haven’t sunk to the level the people supporting the attacks have sunk to. If you criticize me, you should criticize them too. But hey, they’re on your side, so who cares how crazy their statements are, right?

    EDIT: for the record, I made a perfectly simple and clear response to Cavalier’s comment. These attacks aren’t a case against Ubisoft’s DRM. The DRM itself is. Hey, guess what? I hate this DRM too. But that doesn’t mean I support damaging my gameplay to make a point.

  86. 0
    Valdearg says:

    WOW.. I actually need to spell it out for you, don’t I.. The whole point was TO USE flawed hyperbole, since you seem so very willing to do it too. It was supposed so over the top that nobody could take it seriously, to illustrate how stupid you look when you do it.
     

    And yet.. your dense ass still took it seriously.

  87. 0
    Conster says:

    I like how you say you want to "play insane hyperbole", but feel the need to insult me for deciding to play along with your pathetic little game. I got your point perfectly, I simply pointed out your hyperbole was flawed compared to mine.

  88. 0
    Thad says:

    Of course you’re allowed to use hyperbole.  It just makes you look like an insane jackass.

    And after that post, you can add "hyperventilating" to the description.

    Bellowing a bunch of histrionic nonsense is no way to defend your viewpoint, despite what cable TV pundits may lead you to believe.  Your argument has merit, so maybe you should try defending it logically and cogently instead of shrieking about how everyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist.

  89. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Lol.. Somebody didn’t get their stabby time this morning.. What’s the matter, is Ubisoft’s DRM preventing you from playing a game you purchased?

    Sounds to me like you aren’t willing to place blame where it should be, on Ubisoft. Could we be dealing with a possible fanboy? That’s up for the judges to decide.

  90. 0
    Conster says:

    What.

    People are allowed to cry "fascism!" when a government is (wrongly) worried about video games and their effects on people, they’re allowed to cheer for criminals DDOSing Ubisoft, they’re allowed to make the stretch that people who buy the game are actively supporting Ubisoft’s DRM, and that therefore they deserve not being able to play because of these attacks, but as someone who actually suffers from all this, I’m not allowed to use hyperbole? And are you blind? What I SAID is that it’s terrorism because they wish to instill fear that people will stop buying Ubisoft’s games instead of pirating them, because attackers will make it so they can only play the games if they pirate them (which is a step further than DRM, which "only" makes it more difficulty to play the games). This isn’t people saying "change your DRM, or we will no longer buy your games", this is people saying "change your DRM, or we will make it so that no one will ever buy your games, because we’ll just make sure they can’t play if they do."

    So you know what? Fuck all of you and your holier-than-thou attitudes. I paid for the game, and I have the full right to be pissed off at people who try to prevent me from playing it, even for a short period, to further their agenda – and unlike what others are saying, in this case, that’s NOT Ubisoft.

  91. 0
    Craig R. says:

    "When people comment saying I should not be allowed to play Assassin’s Creed II because I paid for it"

    You should then complain to the company that cannot provide the support for their own draconian DRM to allow you to play the game.

    That would be Ubisoft.

    DoS attacks are merely proving how draconian the DRM is. And as somebody else pointed out, better now than later after Ubi is stupid enough to release even more games with this DRM.

    Put bluntly, if you do something this stupid as Ubisoft has done, you pretty much deserve what’s coming.

  92. 0
    Valdearg says:

    LMAO.. I love how seriously you responded to that.. The point of that particular comment flew right over that dull little head of yours, and I am thoroughly entertained by that fact. Clearly, you aren’t the brightest bulb in the room.

  93. 0
    Conster says:

    No, because the Matrix is slavery, not fascism, and Neo and Trinity don’t argue that everyone in the Matrix is passively supporting the regime and therefore deserves to die anyway. Your analogy only applies if you’re claiming that if you can’t free slaves unless you kill some of them, you’ll just have to kill some of those slaves.

  94. 0
    Valdearg says:

    Ooh! I want to play insane hyperbole, too!!

    Let’s compare Ubisoft to the Matrix. Arguably a facist society, since the people in the Matrix (you) are being used only for their resources (Money), and don’t really have a say in how they actually want to play, unless you are approached my Morpheus and make the choice to not play by the Matrix’s rules. (Pirates). Now, in the process of trying to stop the evil machines’ (Ubisoft) inhuman harvesting process (DRM) and targeted extermination of the non-complying humans (Pirates), Neo and Trinity end up causing some collateral damage and killing a few innocent people along the way (You, and players like you). Remember, even though some people died horrible deaths (Not being able to play the game),  the actions of Neo and Trinity managed to improve both the virtual world (Ubisoft’s games) and their inhabitant’s lives (Ubisoft’s Customers), as well as the Real world, with the non complying humans (Pirates), allowing all parties to live in harmony with one another.

    Therefore, you are really only a necessary casualty in the greater process of trying to stop abusive DRM before it spreads too far.

    Did I win?

  95. 0
    Conster says:

    When people comment saying I should not be allowed to play Assassin’s Creed II because I paid for it, I can throw around as much "absurd hyperbole" as I damn well please, and I will still be more grownup than they are. And for the record: by the reasoning I use, twisted around by other people, I’m someone living in a fascist country who gets shot by rebels for not rebelling, because they claim I’m supporting it. By my own reasoning, I’m someone whose car gets set on fire by people who are angry at the police for instating a curfew, or something equally absurd.

  96. 0
    DorthLous says:

    Hmm, ever heard of degree of intensity?

    Let me give an example. I absolutly support and would myself strike a woman who is about to kill people. However, I am also against violence to solve any sort of minor disagreement. The same way, if me killing someone would be the only way to prevent someone from killing or raping others, I’d do it. However, if it’s after the fact and that person is now incapable of commiting that same action again, it would be pointless.

    Now we are comparing preventing people from enjoying entertainment they paid for for a couple of hours to make a point (not unlike a manifestation that blocks a street). That is nowhere close killing said persons and then saying that any and all demands unmet would bring even harsher violences.

    See the degree of difference here? Please tell me you do and while you might not agree with the action, you will stop refering to it as "terrorism", because, frankly, if someone is terrified because he can’t play his new game, well…

  97. 0
    Conster says:

    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.

  98. 0
    Zero Beat says:

    Right.  They’re either idiots because they didn’t have their servers ready for two big-name titles, or they’re idiots for making their paying customers have to wait to play a game while Ubi’s servers are being attacked.

     

    "That’s not ironic. That’s justice."

  99. 0
    gellymatos says:

    That’s the thing about morality. It’s relative. I see as what the hackers as doing as wrong. While I wouldn’t call them "scum of the earth", but as you may have already guessed, I don’t care for them, at least when their intention is to cause damage. You say I see moral issues as cut and dry. What do you mean? Everyone has an opinion on what is right and wrong. I just can’t see a justification. You do. I have my reasoning. You have yours. Now, we could have a discussion on the subject.

  100. 0
    Valdearg says:

    I think this is a point where our prospective moralities diverge, much like many, many other issues. I don’t see what the hackers are doing as immoral, and I certainly don’t think they are the scum of the earth. Morally grey, perhaps, but like I alluded to in a different comment, I thrive in the morally gray. I don’t see a lot of issues as cut and dried moral or immoral, like it seems that you do. There is always a gray area, and this issue is about as morally gray as it gets.

    Is inconvieniencing Ubi’s paying customers to prove a point morally right? Probably not. However, as far as I’m concerned, the greater point they are trying to make is probably worth the temporary inconvienience that those customers are suffering.

  101. 0
    gellymatos says:

    @Darksaber:

    "it’s still plenty justified and you’re a fucking idiot for thinking otherwise."

    Wow, Calling me a "fucking idiot. That proves a point. Oh, wait, it doesn’t. In fact, there isn’t even an argument. I don’t agree with you, therefore, I’m evidently a "fucking idiot". Nice to know you aren’t even capable of making anything that could resemble a point.

    @Vald:

    "Gelly’s getting on his high and mighty moral horse again."

    Vald’s insulting people who don’t believe in the same things he does again. All the while lacking in any originality. I am not trying to be somehow morally superior. I have made no assertion to the fact. I had an opinion on the hackers action. And, somehow, you find that this is some way to look morally superior?

    To continue, I don’t see how, when one immoral act is commited, that you can justify another immoral act to deal with it. It makes no sense. You know what, lets try that out. Everyone, if you see something you don’t like or think is wrong, no matter how controversial the issue, commit what is normally immoral to combat it. Don’t worry, according to Valdearg and Darksaber, it’s justified. Don’t like a law? Attack the senators that could approve of it. Are you Pro-Life? Shoot up a hospital. Squimish? Just cut their power or inconvience them through illegal actions. Pro-Choice? Commit vandalism to destroy the effectiveness of your opposition.

  102. 0
    Valdearg says:

    +1.

    Gelly’s getting on his high and mighty moral horse again. Frankly, what Ubi is doing to their customers is worse than any attack anyone can orchestrate on their servers. I hope the attackers keep it up until Ubi cracks.

    Frankly, the only way to get the company to stop it’s abusive business practices is to expose the flaws in their strategy. These attackers are doing the general consumer base a valuable favor, despite the inconvienence suffered by Ubi’s paying customers.

  103. 0
    Balance says:

    You’re assuming that they really are being attacked, and not just trying to shift blame. "It wasn’t our lousy software, it was the One-Armed Hacker!" As far as I’m concerned, they forfeited any trust I was willing to extend by implementing their noxious scheme in the first place. Combine that with new software, new network, and a requirement for extremely high uptime, and it would not surprise me if their system was breaking without any help from attackers.

    Of course, your possible solutions are still correct even if they’re lying about the cause–they need to spend money to improve their system, or to remove the DRM. The former is still no guarantee that it won’t fail again, and won’t do anything to improve relations with people they’ve pissed off. The latter will ensure that the games will work and might win them some small sliver of forgiveness, provided they grovel sufficiently while doing it. Given that the DRM isn’t accomplishing anything except make pirated versions more attractive, it should be an easy decision.

    Unfortunately, I expect their easy choice to also be the wrong one.

  104. 0
    axiomatic says:

    Ubi,

    You have two options, hire better network admins to thwart the DoS attack, or remove the DRM. Both cost you money while your paying customers suffer your poor decisions surrounding DRM.

    Yes the mean old hackers are making you look bad, but you made your bed, now lay in it. No whining either, you created the situation in the first place, cope with it and accept the responsibility you took on when you implemented this ham fisted DRM.

  105. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    Yes, but the statement is definitely up there with saying "some" soldiers died in World War 1.

    ————————————————–

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

  106. 0
    Thad says:

    Probably.  But even if they’re telling the truth and it really IS only 5%, that’s still quite a lot of people.  How much have AC2 and SH5 sold?

    Of course, I think that even ONE customer being locked out due to DRM would be too many.

  107. 0
    Thad says:

    Yeah, I don’t know if I can condone OR condemn the DDoS attack — again, assuming that’s what’s actually happened and Ubi’s not just inventing a scapegoat for its own lack of preparation.  I’m not really an ends-justify-the-means kind of guy, and what we’re looking at is vigilante justice that harms end users who haven’t done anything wrong.

    On the other hand, as attacks go, it’s a relatively benign one — they’re not stealing anybody’s identities or infecting anyone’s computers, they’re simply demonstrating the fundamental design flaws in Ubisoft’s DRM and its inability to cope with a high-traffic situation.

    It’s black-hat stuff, and even if the attackers have good intentions, it’s still pretty ethically gray.

  108. 0
    Valdearg says:

    True, but at the same time, I can’t necessarily feel anger at the hackers for disrupting the uninformed consumer’s play experience. The point needs to be driven into Ubi: "Stop with your idiotic DRM and find a better solution to the piracy problem." If that means ruining millions of people’s game time by way of incapacitating Ubi’s servers, and in the process giving Ubisoft a bad rep amongst consumers, so be it.

    Either way, the consumer should only be mad at Ubi, and only Ubi. The hackers are just exposing the weakness in the DRM scheme that Ubi ultimately chose, and the customers are paying for Ubi’s mistake. I hope that Ubi looses a LOT of money because of their bad DRM choices, whether that be loss of customers, lawsuits for selling a faulty product, or, not necessarily MY first choice, piracy.

  109. 0
    SeanB says:

    Let me try another way

    100% of pirates get the play the game flawlessly

    95% of paying customers get to play it at all.

    Who’s the DRM hurting?

  110. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    100% of people paid for the goods.

    95%, even if true, just isn’t good enough.

     

    How this kind of DRM, which makes the software reliant on a single, public factor in order to function, can be considered a security strength is beyond me, as this sort of behaviour proves the inherent weakness that it introduces into the system.

  111. 0
    Conster says:

    So I guess me not having a PS3 or 360, and being willing to pay for this game and put up with the DRM because I really want to play it and I know my internet connection is reliable enough, means it’s okay for people to prevent me from playing a game I paid for?

    The only people I want to sue is the shits who decide that I’m not allowed to play a game I paid for, and the people cheering them on like they’re revolutionaries standing up to the nazis. Ubisoft isn’t responsible for criminals abusing a safety measure to deny people service. You don’t sue malls because some psycho decides to turn the sprinkler system into a death trap, do you? You sue the psycho.

  112. 0
    Thad says:

    I’m not really down with blaming the victims.  If users didn’t know about Ubi’s DRM, it’s not their fault; the information isn’t printed on the box, and it’s unreasonable to expect every gamer to do research before buying a game.  (I do, but I also haven’t purchased music from any RIAA-affiliated label since about 2002.  I am not what you would call a typical consumer.)

  113. 0
    Valdearg says:

    As much as I hate to say it, I’m loving this. It sucks for the customers stupid enough to buy a game with Ubi’s crappy DRM, but hey, it’s their fault for either being uninformed or not caring enough to worry about it. Ultimately, this is Ubi’s fault.

    Yes, the hackers are actually causing the server outages, but i’d imagine it’s only to expose the horrible DRM for what it is, and Ubi is the one who decided to go with it in the first place. If the attackers keep up the pressure, Ubi will be forced with a few choices: Either patch their DRM away, or alienate the customers who purchased their software. Not to mention the possibility that customers might be able to sue Ubi for a "Defective Product." I would LOVE to see a Class Action lawsuit filed against Ubi as the result of these attacks.

    I, for one, applaud the attackers for the work they are doing to expose Ubi’s punative DRM and corporate greed, and hope that Ubi learns a very hard lesson from this experience.

  114. 0
    Thad says:

    Actually, I think the fact that Spore was massively pirated and STILL sold extremely well went a long way toward EA relaxing its DRM in the time that’s followed.  Sims 3 had lighter DRM, and Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 only use a disc check, where the original ME had limited activations and some very silly SecuROM hooks.  (I should probably add that the disc check in the new games is still SecuROM, but it’s a pretty benign form of it.  I should also add that if you install any DLC, it comes with a Windows service that spies on you.  I’m not a fan of that, at all, but it’s still better than the ME1/Spore stuff.)

  115. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Personally, I side with these attackers more than the Spore-piraters, because this is making (at least some) headlines, and directly affects the consumers. Said consumers are going to be pissseeddd at Ubisoft for forcing them to have an internet connection when Ubisoft’s servers won’t even allow them to play, causing said consumers to no longer buy Ubisoft games while this bullshit is in effect. Pirating Spore won’t do anything except encourage stupid companies to put in more DRM (which makes no sense at all, but hey, that’s Big Business for ya).

    At least, that’s my take on it.

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

  116. 0
    DarkSaber says:

    I get the distinct impression that the "5%" number is probably similar to how Sony said "only some" people were affected by the PS3 bug the other week. I.E. A lie.

    ————————————————–

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

  117. 0
    Magic says:

    Rightly or wrongly, these small groups of hackers are causing big trouble for Ubisoft (which is at least going to cause some percentage of players to resist buying their games) and sending a clear message to them.

    Is it really only 5% of players affected? I wouldn’t imagine this to be newsworthy if so and to be honest I don’t trust Ubi to be honest over every detail.

    Meanwhile, I can’t imagine everyone supporting those hackers, it just doesn’t seem as agreeable as, say, when huge amounts of people pirated Spore when it came out as a backlash over its dire DRM.

  118. 0
    Thad says:

    That’s a good point which I didn’t notice anyone discussing on yesterday’s thread.  As far as I know, all we have to go on that this was a DDoS attack is Ubi’s word — do we have verification from an independent source?

    They’re also claiming that the cracked versions don’t work, with some vague arm-waving "there is content missing from them", but I haven’t seen that verified by an impartial source either.

  119. 0
    sqlrob says:

    We already know who’s behind this: Ubi.

    It’s sheer negligence not expecting the servers to be attacked, or be down because of demand.

     

  120. 0
    SimonBob says:

    Once Ubisoft’s lawyers have finished their gorging, gamers get to share in whatever they can uncover by holding the pirates up by the ankles and shaking them.  (What’s twelve dollars and ninety-five cents divided by five percent of AC2 players?)


    Fangamer

  121. 0
    Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    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.

    Gamepolitics forgot to mention that after saying this, Ubisoft´s nose enlarged by 12-inch.

     

    ———————————————————— My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

  122. 0
    SimonBob says:

    I don’t think it was for the sake of "good press" so much as they didn’t want any budding attackers to know the impact they were having.  Don’t give hope to terrorists and all that.


    Fangamer

  123. 0
    DanJ says:

    "They also initially tried blaming their server woes on “exceptional demand,” before coming clean and admitting that they were the target of hackers."

    Alternately:

    "They also initially truthfully blamed their server woes on "exceptional demand," before realizing that it’s not good PR to admit you can’t handle the volume of your user base, and deciding to blame pirates instead."

    Which is true? No way to know, of course, but neither is good press… and this is all preceding the release of the game in the US (it comes out today). If Ubisoft can’t keep their servers (1) secure against attack and (2) online without unacceptable delays in the face of primetime usage, this DRM experiment is going to fail in a HUGE way.

  124. 0
    DorkmasterFlek says:

    Bwahahahahahaha.  Man, I feel sorry for the people that actually bought these games and can’t play them, but I also kind of hope that this continues.  It exposes the sheer awfulness of this ridiculous DRM scheme.

Leave a Reply