Ubisoft Using 'Always On' DRM for Driver: San Francisco PC

July 28, 2011 -

Ubisoft announced that it has decided to use an "always on" digital rights management (DRM) scheme for the Windows PC version of its upcoming action racing game, Driver: San Francisco. The publishers has gone back and forth on its DRM schemes - mostly because PC gamers hate the "always on" DRM scheme because it requires them to always be connected to a server in order to play a game.

"I can confirm that the PC version of Driver San Francisco will require an online connection to play in both single player and multiplayer modes," said Ubisoft public relations representative Dominic DiSanti told Giant Bomb.

Some past Ubisoft games that used the much hated scheme included Assassin's Creed II and Splinter Cell: Conviction. Inevitably the company got rid of the DRM with subsequent patches. The company also used a similar method for Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, which required a login.

Meanwhile, the console versions of Driver: San Francisco will require users to activate Uplay in order to access the multiplayer. This is Ubisoft's method for an "online pass," which adds (we would guess) an additional cost if you buy the game used because you'll have to purchase a code to play multiplayer.

"When we first introduced the connection requirement last year, we stated that our decision to implement it into our PC titles would be considered on a case by case basis and this remains true," said DiSanti. "We will assess each future PC title and strive to offer the best gameplay experience possible while also ensuring that we are protecting the amazing work and effort of our talented creative teams."

Source: Giant Bomb

Posted in

Comments

Re: Ubisoft Using 'Always On' DRM for Driver: San Francisco PC

Sure, it pissed off customers and failed to actually stop piracy before, but hey, third time's the charm, right?

Re: Ubisoft Using 'Always On' DRM for Driver: San Francisco PC

"[...] our decision to implement it into our PC titles would be considered on a case by case basis [...]"

And our decision to purchase your PC titles will be considered similarly. I honestly just don't trust this stuff. It's only a short step for that DRM to become monitoring, or something worse. I'm sure it uses almost no bandwidth right now, but with bandwidth caps common in Canada and spreading in US, it's something that could become a minor issue.

And of course, this is on top of all the other problems with DRM. Ultimately all of that is moot; as a customer, I have no interest in being treated like a criminal.

Re: Ubisoft Using 'Always On' DRM for Driver: San Francisco PC

I've said this before. If you can think of a way to prevent piracy altogether, at the same time giving zero inconvenience to legitimate buyers, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

I've always been of the mind that if it wasn't for piracy, there wouldn't be any DRM measures like that in the first place.

Re: Ubisoft Using 'Always On' DRM for Driver: San Francisco PC

The best you can do is make the purchased product a far more attractive option than the pirated one. For example, if you have to go "always online", then have a good reason for it other than "IP Protection". For example, have dynamic content generated by the server which may change each week or other bonuses that paid customers get alongside their product. Having a single player game with multiplayer-like requirements of being online all the time is silly (and not feasible for some people). Adding unwanted DRM does the complete opposite of what customers desire and may turn legit buyers towards using cracks if their game does not work as intended.

 

On the other hand, it "delays" piracy past the street date (and possibly a few weeks more) all of which would be the peak time for sales. This is pretty much what Ubisoft liked (AC2 and that new Prince of Persia game weren't fully cracked until about a month later). However, after a crack is released, the DRM has run its course and really should be stripped or at least toned down.

Re: Ubisoft Using 'Always On' DRM for Driver: San Francisco PC

You know, I could probably get behind some of the more byzantine DRM practices out there (like the 'always on' verification) if there was a promise that, should the DRM be hacked, retail versions will be patched to reduce the intrusion of the DRM to a level equivalent to that of the cracked versions of the game.

I doubt any company would agree to that, but it would be an excellent good-will gesture, reflecting on the idea that DRM isn't meant to inconvenience legitimate customers.

Re: Ubisoft Using 'Always On' DRM for Driver: San Francisco PC

That's all well and good, and on the surface it makes sense. If rats are eating your food, set rat traps; it has a 'if A, then B' kind of logic to it.

But the reality is, piracy cannot be prevented, because data is not a physical object. All of the platforms which have avoided piracy for any length of time have always been for physical reasons, and they've always been overcome eventually -- just sometimes after the product life was up.

Yes, it's a problem, and I *do* feel for Ubisoft. But I am also a game developer, and I'm aware of this problem in the business. The practical reality is, you can't stop it outright, so don't. Put an obstacle in the way (like CD keys or Steam Authentication, or Disc Verification, or whatever), so that users can't just copy everything out of the box -- and the bulk of them won't.

You can also explore OTHER working models that sidestep the problem, like account-linked gaming (such as WoW) or micro-transactions, or ad-supported gaming, or sponsered productions. Yes, these can all be done badly too, but you have to pick your evil.

What you're missing here is that DRM like what Ubisoft is using here is the Big Brother approach. Some people commit crimes, so we're just watch EVERYBODY to make sure no one does anything wrong. It makes sense on the surface, but it's a gross violation of privacy, and makes things worse for your legitimate customers.

Ultimately, it will not stop pirates from getting your game; I'd be surprised if the DRM wasn't cracked within 24 hours of the game's launch. And then you're pissing on your customers, while the Pirates walk away with your game, no strings attached -- then what was the point?

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician