The last straw

[TDK1044]

For me, the online DRM issue with Silent Hunter V was the last straw.

For years, I, like many here, have strongly supported the Silent Hunter franchise because Ubisoft was the only Publisher making a sub sim and you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.

Even though Dan has always put on his PR hat and stated that we (Devs) and Ubisoft are the same thing, I have always disagreed with him regarding that premise. Ubisoft is a publisher based in France, and it has production development studios in various countries, including Romania.

The fact of the matter is that the Romanian Devs are a great group of people who have a very strong work ethic, and who have gone above and beyond for this franchise time after time. Huge thanks for that, Dan.

Ubisoft the Publisher on the other hand is a publisher that was forced to admit publically in 2009 that they were guilty of pushing unfinished games onto the market. They promised to do better.

Let's call it like it is; Ubisoft continued to make the Silent Hunter series for one reason only....because it made money for them. It was certainly not a top earner by any means, but it was profitable.

When Silent Hunter III was released, it had great potential to become a really good sub sim, but is was one hell of a buggy mess when they released it. It needed significant patching in the initial nine months after release to get it to where it should have been on its release date. Then we heard that a Pacific based version of the series was in development. Great we thought. Ubisoft must have learned some lessons from Silent Hunter III. Sure they did. They learned that you can throw unfinished games onto the market and get away with it. And so, along came Silent Hunter IV....a game that has less than 12 months development time. So, for $100 and a shot at the wide screen TV, can anyone guess what happened with Silent Hunter IV? You are correct. It too was a buggy mess and it too required nine months of significant patching.

Once Silent Hunter IV was patched to 1.5, we were told that Silent Hunter V was in development. This would be a brand new game with brand new code, and it would take us back to the Atlantic for the U Boat war. My initial reaction on hearing the news was "please don't let it be released until 2011". If it's released in March of 2010 it will surely be another train wreck requiring significant patching after release.

Over the last couple of days, I've seen German Reviewers of Silent Hunter V complaining that their review copy of the game is full of bugs and glitches, and stating that the game crashes a lot. And these people are supposed to be promoting sales of the game.

Folks, I have supported this franchise since 2005. I've supported the Devs and tolerated an arrogant publisher throwing unfinished games onto the market. But enough is enough. There comes a time when you have to tell the school yard bully that you won't give him your lunch money any more.

The thought of having to spend another nine months patching this game, and having to log onto Ubisoft servers in order to play the game means that this is where I get off. If they ever offer a patch that enables me to play the game without having to rely on a totally unreliable company then I'll buy it, because by that time it will be patched to 1.4 anyway.

This post is not intended to inspire any ranting, but it's high time that Ubisoft was called out. I really hope that the game is successful despite everything I've stated in this post. I just won't be wasting my money on it if I have to use Ubisoft servers in order to play it.

[danlisa]

+1 :up:

Short Version:

Dev's have passion and a genuine interest in creating a workable and realistic title.

Ubi come along and fu*k it all up.

[tonyj]

just wondering where it says they were complaining about the number of bugs in the preview copy? certainly when we release a demo copy of our stuff it always contains bugs and small changes to be made. its a fact of development life...

I guess what i'm trying to say is should we really worry about it?

[danlisa]

.....its a fact of development life...

Why is it?

What happened to the radical idea that someone creates something that works 100% out the box? These days nobody cares much for quality assurance and just assumes that the end user will be tolerant enough to see through all the failings and patiently wait for it to be fixed.

But on the flip side, why should developers care? They get their sales and it doesn't matter after the user parts with his/her money.....does it?

Wrong attitude.

[Reece]

+1 :up:

Short Version:

Dev's have passion and a genuine interest in creating a workable and realistic title.

Ubi come along and fu*k it all up.What you have to realize is that the Developers are in fact UBISOFT Romania!!

[tonyj]

i think you misread what i said. for a demo (in other words not 100% dev complete) there will be known bugs and issues that will be fixed before release. that is part of development life.

[danlisa]

Haha, no I didn't.:DL

A Demo is a reduced or limited section of the final release code.

An Alpha or Beta is the buggy bit they release early for review.

Although I do see where you are coming from.

[danlisa]

What you have to realize is that the Developers are in fact UBISOFT Romania!!

So it's messed up from source then?:)

[tonyj]

hold on, lets define some terms here. :DL demo in my line of work is a preview/beta. I referred to it as a demo - very confusing on my part. a true demo, which we get on a cover disk should work, as you say.

we release beta's with known issues and bugs because all the business care about is the useablility, they know that problems will be fixed.

for a preview to a magazine i would say that this is the same. its not an official demo, as we would think of it, on the front of a magazine/available for download, but a version that gives them the gist of what the apps all about.

i guess my long winded point is that the preview copy is a beta, and i would imagine chock full of problems but the core game still works.

[TDK1044]

just wondering where it says they were complaining about the number of bugs in the preview copy? certainly when we release a demo copy of our stuff it always contains bugs and small changes to be made. its a fact of development life...

I guess what i'm trying to say is should we really worry about it?


Here's part of the quote....


'we still have to fight with crashes, control issues, graphic glitches and AI errors in this demo version'.

[tonyj]

cheers, i thought that was the quote, just wasn't sure. by the sounds of this the preview version was a beta and so will have these problems, it doesn't mean that the final version will. its bug squashing and tweaking at this stage, to address things like these.

[Reece]

So it's messed up from source then?:)Yes well most developers are an independent company who sells the rights to a publisher, however SH5 is developed "in-house", the devs work for UBI!:-?

[TDK1044]

In a nutshell, I think Ubisoft has been arrogant in its attitude and unprofessional in terms of delivering an acceptable end product.

I never expected perfection. Any game will need a patch or two to fix and tweak a few things. But I don't believe this publisher ever cared about its end users.

[TDK1044]

cheers, i thought that was the quote, just wasn't sure. by the sounds of this the preview version was a beta and so will have these problems, it doesn't mean that the final version will. its bug squashing and tweaking at this stage, to address things like these.

But that's the point, Tony. Because of insufficient development time, these bugs and glitches are not addressed until Ubisoft assigns a patch team after release.

[Hartmann]

Ubi.. people want submarine games , but not at all costs :nope:

there is a "crush Deep " limit and shV is near to the fatal line or beyond in my case .:down:

[tonyj]

TDK, i agree with you there. it would be a shame if they are still coding at this stage. fingers crossed, eh? Dan and co certainly sound like they care about this game, and that counts for alot. its not easy for them either.

[Reece]

Ubi.. people want submarine games , but not at all costs :nope: UBI wants the money, that's all, they couldn't care less about the game or the people!:-? they need some lessons in good PR!!:stare:
Dan and co certainly sound like they care about this game, and that counts for alot. its not easy for them either.Dan works for UBI, so I wouldn't bank on it!:-?

[TDK1044]

TDK, i agree with you there. it would be a shame if they are still coding at this stage. fingers crossed, eh? Dan and co certainly sound like they care about this game, and that counts for alot. its not easy for them either.

I agree totally. Dan and company have put more hours into these games than most people would imagine. I dread to think what we would have had as a game if they'd had a different work ethic and worked by the book.

[tonyj]

Alot of hours i'd imagine.

I think we need some faith here and just have to hang on till march. i think they must get the message now that sh4 was a poor release and that they need to do better. After all Dan comes here and would have relayed that message surely. I would certainly like to think so.

I don't know about you but i'm going to watch das boot on the 3rd of march to get into the spirit of it.

[TDK1044]

I'll watch Das Boot again to get into the spirit of the game the moment I discover that I can play SHV with no online DRM.......I may have a very long wait....possibly into the next life. :DL

[tonyj]

actually there's a good point. why is everyone so upset about DRM? i can understand if you have a poor connection or no connection at all obviously.

if i remember rightly didn't GTA 4 have the same mechanism with windows live.

[TDK1044]

actually there's a good point. why is everyone so upset about DRM? i can understand if you have a poor connection or no connection at all obviously.

if i remember rightly didn't GTA 4 have the same mechanism with windows live.

I've tried using Ubisoft's servers to attempt a multi player experience of a Silent Hunter game. In the end I just gave up. What will happen with SHV will be that people will be happily playing the game and about to attack a convoy, and then the server connection will be severed. Although the game will be saved, when they try and log back in, they will be unable to do so and the moment will be gone. Money on it. :DL

[Jotte]

+1 to OP
Enough is enough.

[tonyj]

thanks chaps for explaining it. makes sense now and i can understand the venting.

[JSLTIGER]

+1 to OP. :up:

[Uber Gruber]

+1:woot:

[trenken]

I get the sense that 90% of the people that dont like DRM, have never played a game that uses it.

I played Guild Wars for 3 years and I never once lost any game progress, DRM is there to protect your valuable saves from system failure. If your PC dies, all your SH5 progress is protected.

This was overdue for them to switch to this, which most major PC games now use. To rely on your PC to protect those save files is foolish.

[piri_reis]

To rely on your PC to protect those save files is foolish.

:rotfl2:
Then I rely on other people for my own data?
I got many many important files on my PC other than savegames. So I do backups periodically. It's upto me to take care of my own information.. Not about to give this privilege to an external Untrusted party.
Plus the DRM is a lot more than just the save games being kept online, Read it again.

[trenken]

:rotfl2:
Then I rely on other people for my own data?
I got many many important files on my PC other than savegames. So I do backups periodically. It's upto me to take care of my own information.. Not about to give this privilege to an external Untrusted party.
Plus the DRM is a lot more than just the save games being kept online, Read it again.

Im aware of what it is, Ive been using it for over 3 years with guild wars, and its really great.

Ive got guild wars installed on my home and work machines, I can play on my home pc at night, then log in to GW on my work PC if im bored the next day and continue where I left off.

And I dont have to ever worry about losing anything, nothing getting corrupted, etc... Im all for it.

[TDK1044]

Im aware of what it is, Ive been using it for over 3 years with guild wars, and its really great.

Ive got guild wars installed on my home and work machines, I can play on my home pc at night, then log in to GW on my work PC if im bored the next day and continue where I left off.

And I dont have to ever worry about losing anything, nothing getting corrupted, etc... Im all for it.

I respect your point of view, trenken. Have you ever used Ubisoft's servers though? I think you'll find it's a different experience.....and a very frustrating one.

This isn't about giving the end user a better gaming experience...it's about control.

[trenken]

I respect your point of view, trenken. Have you ever used Ubisoft's servers though? I think you'll find it's a different experience.....and a very frustrating one.

This isn't about giving the end user a better gaming experience...it's about control.

Ive played many Ubi games online. At least 6 I can think of offhand. Never had any issues, same experience I get with any other game.

The control is about having control over the game, which is good for us. How you dont see that is odd to me. DRM allows them to control the game so that they can stream updates to us, track our stats for us, protect our game saves, even improve the look of the game over time, implement new game modes, etc..

All of this is done with guild wars and ever other game ive ever played that uses DRM. Seems like people here are afraid of change.

Come march when you guys start playing this, there's going to be a lot of people on this site eating crow when they realize that it works just fine, and even has some very nice advantages. Wait and see.

[TDK1044]

Time will tell. :)

[JScones]

hold on, lets define some terms here. :DL demo in my line of work is a preview/beta. I referred to it as a demo - very confusing on my part. a true demo, which we get on a cover disk should work, as you say.

we release beta's with known issues and bugs because all the business care about is the useablility, they know that problems will be fixed.

for a preview to a magazine i would say that this is the same. its not an official demo, as we would think of it, on the front of a magazine/available for download, but a version that gives them the gist of what the apps all about.

i guess my long winded point is that the preview copy is a beta, and i would imagine chock full of problems but the core game still works.
Still, I'm sure the devs didn't intentionally provide a buggy game for preview...doing so would be suicide. I mean, the aim of providing a scaled down preview copy is to showcase elements of the game that the devs know actually work. You never showcase to potential buyers software that you know is buggy, no matter how alpha it is (at alpha stage it's just incomplete functionality, ie buttons that do nothing, but still not random crashes). I've developed software under contract for over 20 years, with buyers including international Governments and large financial institutions. I would shudder to think how my contracts would have went had I demonstrated software that randomly crashed. Intentionally incomplete, yes, intentionally buggy, certainly not.

In other words, I'm thinking that it's perhaps safe to assume that they have no idea exactly how buggy their game is. With less than five weeks to go until it starts gathering dust on the shelves, that's not a good thought, as it means the iterative process of testing and correction has not been completed.

[TarJak]

"It will get tested in production" is not a theory I like to subscribe to when developing software.

[tonyj]

of course, ideally you want to make it as bug free as possible but judging by what the quote said, its a fact that you will get exceptions and you have to deal with them.

i'm sure that their test phase is before the release :03:

let keep it in context here - remember its one quote stating that the game isn't finished yet and there will still be things to fix.

[McBeck]

UBI wants the money, that's all, they couldn't care less about the game or the people!:-? they need some lessons in good PR!!:stare:
Dan works for UBI, so I wouldn't bank on it!:-?
I would bank on - having met Dan at the Subsim meet 2009, where SH5 was demostrated. Dan and his team is very dedicated to make the best subsim.
If they were to have it their way I think we would have the best subsim ever.

Also, since the development is not concluded, any version thats out there for preview is not the finished product.

[Reece]

I would bank on - having met Dan at the Subsim meet 2009, where SH5 was demostrated. Dan and his team is very dedicated to make the best subsim.
If they were to have it their way I think we would have the best subsim ever.

Also, since the development is not concluded, any version thats out there for preview is not the finished product.Even the interview with Neal they avoided the protection issue, you can't tell me Dan didn't know about the inclusion of DRM! what is most annoying is that UBI still remains silent, they should have made a statement long ago, and btw, Dan works for UBI.:yep:

[McBeck]

Even the interview with Neal they avoided the protection issue, you can't tell me Dan didn't know about the inclusion of DRM! what is most annoying is that UBI still remains silent, they should have made a statement long ago, and btw, Dan works for UBI.:yep:
Of course he avoided the issue...Dev teams are always under control of the marketing department. There things they can and cant say publicly. They are probably under some kind of NDA :)
My personal opinion, after meeting them, is that although this dev team works for Ubi, their passion is these games.

[tonyj]

McBeck's right, they wouldn't have been able to say a thing about it.

[Reece]

Of course he avoided the issue...Dev teams are always under control of the marketing department. There things they can and cant say publicly. They are probably under some kind of NDA :)
My personal opinion, after meeting them, is that although this dev team works for Ubi, their passion is these games.Well I give Dan the benefit of the doubt, I still think he knew, but maybe he is embarrassed about this whole thing.:hmmm: UBI still should have cleared this up long ago, they have left us totally in the dark on many issues, really they have shot themselves in the foot, so to speak!!:yep:

[McBeck]

Well I give Dan the benefit of the doubt, I still think he knew, but maybe he is embarrassed about this whole thing.:hmmm: UBI still should have cleared this up long ago, they have left us totally in the dark on many issues, really they have shot themselves in the foot, so to speak!!:yep:Even if he did know - he wouldnt have been able to comment on it.
I doubt its up to the developers to decide on what copy protection to use. Its a central corporate decision.

Dont worry - Dan and the rest of the devs are the good guys :D

[Reece]

Oh I'm still not totally convinced::hmmm:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160899

[JSLTIGER]

I get the sense that 90% of the people that dont like DRM, have never played a game that uses it.

I played Guild Wars for 3 years and I never once lost any game progress, DRM is there to protect your valuable saves from system failure. If your PC dies, all your SH5 progress is protected.

This was overdue for them to switch to this, which most major PC games now use. To rely on your PC to protect those save files is foolish.

There is a fundamental difference between traditional DRM and the system that Ubisoft is proposing, which I have seen that people have already tried to explain to you. Constant connections are worrisome, and I'm one of the people who does not particularly like the concept.

DRM is not what you are extolling the virtues of and portraying it to be...it is not DRM that is responsible for simultaneous saves on your PC and on a server. That is an entirely different concept called "cloud computing." Cloud computing offloads some of the more traditional functions of computers (i.e. save game files) and transmits the data to a central server for storage and accessing. Someday, they hope to have other functions (like video rendering) work in this manner as well. DRM, on the other hand, stands for Digital Rights Management, and it primarily is supposed to act as a measure to stop pirates from running software without having purchased a license for the product. The problem is that it doesn't work. The schemes get hacked, cracked, and the pirates use the software anyway.

I think that it is unfair and a bit ignorant to say that 90% of people who don't like DRM have never played a game that has it, especially on this forum. Anyone who owns SHIII likely had to deal with Starforce when it came out, and believe me, that was no picnic. Anyone who has played games like Bioshock, Spore, or any Valve game on Steam has dealt with DRM at some point...

DRM can either be implemented pretty well (as it is on Steam) so that some people never even realize that they've had an interaction with it, or it can be implemented poorly and it becomes a nightmare. Steam's implementation is a good one, where even people with specialized needs can use their games offline. What Ubisoft is proposing is a poor implementation for the precise reason that people who have special needs will not be able to use the software that they purchased in all situations. I don't think people are upset that Ubisoft wants some kind of DRM...I think that people are upset about the WAY in which Ubisoft is implementing it.

As for savegames on your PC, just because you have had a bad experience with it doesn't mean it's a bad thing. HDD failures are relatively infrequent, and people can make it through the entire lifespan of their computer without a failure. I've had local savegames since my grandfather's 1983 IBM PC-XT. The system has worked since then, and it still works. Things are even better and more reliable now that RAID setups exist where you can create an exact mirror image of your HDD.

[BulSoldier]

My old computer (from witch i am writing now) is 8 years old and it still works without any problems (yes it strugles but thats another matter).The only failiure i had have is of the power block(or whatever it is called) twice in those 8 years, funny the new one cost (15euros) and the ppl said it is more expensive than the pc :D

Anyway the point is that i dont want my saves or files to be maged from some server half the way around the earth.And the req to have constant connection is redicious.I myself have some problems lately with internet and cant get connected from time to time (due to wheather conditions) so when that happens i play some old games.But if they req constant connection with server it will be bloody annoying not to be able to play them.
Not to mention that I had my fair bit of bad luck with my lan cards that kept burning out.
So what UBI is telling me is - No if you ISP fails you or you have some other issues with your internet connection you cant play the game you bought from us.

[McBeck]

Oh I'm still not totally convinced::hmmm:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160899
Whats stated in that thread does not change anything. We still dont know how DRM will influence modding and copy protection is NOT decided by the Dev team.

[sk065]

Whats stated in that thread does not change anything. We still dont know how DRM will influence modding and copy protection is NOT decided by the Dev team.

It doesnt really matter if DRM doesnt effect modding in the technical sence. Most of the experienced and respected modders of this community have already stated they will not participate in modding SH5. Mostly because of implementation of DRM. So modding of this game is effectively dead anyway.

[TDK1044]

It doesnt really matter if DRM doesnt effect modding in the technical sence. Most of the experienced and respected modders of this community have already stated they will not participate in modding SH5. Mostly because of implementation of DRM. So modding of this game is effectively dead anyway.

Exactly. It's difficult to see how Ubisoft could have handled this worse than they have. They might as well have just made it a console game and be done with it. :)

[McBeck]

It doesnt really matter if DRM doesnt effect modding in the technical sence. Most of the experienced and respected modders of this community have already stated they will not participate in modding SH5. Mostly because of implementation of DRM. So modding of this game is effectively dead anyway.
That may be the indirect consequence, but then SH5 will not be modded for a different reason. Not because DRM does not allow it. but because the modders dont want to buy SH5 if it has DRM. Granted - I can respect that choice :sunny:

[TDK1044]

Well, good luck playing a stock version of Silent Hunter 5. :DL

[danurve]

I get the sense that 90% of the people that dont like DRM, have never played a game that uses it.

I played Guild Wars for 3 years and I never once lost any game progress, DRM is there to protect your valuable saves from system failure. If your PC dies, all your SH5 progress is protected.

This was overdue for them to switch to this, which most major PC games now use. To rely on your PC to protect those save files is foolish.

Up yours.

This isn't an xbox console game. People like you love to let others control their environment, that is whats foolish.

[Letum]

Up yours.

:nope: Not the way to go about it.
Keep your respect for forum members; however poor their ideas.

[JScones]

It doesnt really matter if DRM doesnt effect modding in the technical sence. Most of the experienced and respected modders of this community have already stated they will not participate in modding SH5. Mostly because of implementation of DRM. So modding of this game is effectively dead anyway.
I think the majority of mods come from Subsim members (even though overall we are a smallish subset of buyers). And polls here indicate that some people do still intend buying SH5. So it is possible that new modders will phoenix to fill the very large shoes left by the experienced modders. It will be a much slower process for them, considering they need to learn concepts from scratch that experienced modders have already learnt, but I'd hate to state that modding is dead just because the "big guys" have said they'll stay away.

But yeah, I wouldn't be holding my breath expecting a GWX3 equivalent supermod in the next three years, regardless of the extra modding tools included or whether DRM directly affects modding or not.

Exactly. It's difficult to see how Ubisoft could have handled this worse than they have. They might as well have just made it a console game and be done with it. :)
You know I'm actually kinda wishing that they had made a console port.

[Frederf]

Clever cloud-computing tricks might work well with a very polished game but SH, as a sim, must by definition not be polished and sealed. Doesn't SHCommander manipulate save game files directly to achieve its goals? How is that supposed to work when the only "authenticateable" program that can access the saves is the game exe? Sims with auto-patching, remote saves, etc are just annoying. Modding and addons are complex enough when all the data is right there on your PC in a static state.

I get this feeling that the reasons for DRM among major publishers have little to do with "preventing piracy" and much more to do with involuntary marketing surveys and preventing second hand sales.

[Hartmann]

Well, good luck playing a stock version of Silent Hunter 5. :DL


well ,is like play Stock SH3 now. no GWX...no mods...no joy :zzz:

Up yours.

This isn't an xbox console game. People like you love to let others control their environment, that is whats foolish.

no a console game...yet , i´m sure that the next version could be for a closed platform , focused to arcade games.

[Q3ark]

Company of heroes has some form of online authentication, you must be online and log in to relic servers to play the game. That game has been hevily modded (without problems) since it's release back in sept 2006. If you can't connect to their servers for any reason, you are prompted for your cd key so you can play offline without the disk in the drive. I bought this game on release day and have had exactly zero problems with the system.

I think some people are creating problems where none exist. Ubi aren't stupid, they know how many of their customers create and enjoy mods. To cut these people out would simply be bad business.

[Rip]

Company of heroes has some form of online authentication, you must be online and log in to relic servers to play the game. That game has been hevily modded (without problems) since it's release back in sept 2006. If you can't connect to their servers for any reason, you are prompted for your cd key so you can play offline without the disk in the drive. I bought this game on release day and have had exactly zero problems with the system.

I think some people are creating problems where none exist. Ubi aren't stupid, they know how many of their customers create and enjoy mods. To cut these people out would simply be bad business.

Except they have already stated that you must STAY connected to play. Loose your connection then no play till you get it back. living in a Hurricane area where I have lost my connection sometimes for more than a week makes this a HUGE issue for me.

[Q3ark]

Except they have already stated that you must STAY connected to play. Loose your connection then no play till you get it back. living in a Hurricane area where I have lost my connection sometimes for more than a week makes this a HUGE issue for me.

I never even considered that, we have finally got decent broadband in the UK (3 years for me woo!), and only once in that time i have not been able to conect. Guess i don't realise how lucky we are

[Onkel Neal]

:nope: Not the way to go about it.
Keep your respect for forum members; however poor their ideas.

Yes, agreed. If we cannot discuss this on civil terms, we may as well all get xboxes and go full throttle l33t. :ping:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Yes, agreed. If we cannot discuss this on civil terms, we may as well all get xboxes and go full throttle l33t. :ping:

I could always try to mod a U-Boat into Forza Motorsport 3 :yeah:

[FIREWALL]

@TDK1044 :up: You posted what most are thinking.:yep: