Not a DDOS attack.
 

FYI, I just read the much delayed test of another title using the Ubisoft OSP-DRM. Since it touches present issues with SHV, I thought I ought to mention it here (sorry, German, but I summarize the core).

http://www.tomshardware.de/Assassins...-240520-5.html

It is the test of Assassins Creed II by the German magazine Tom's Hardware, whose international partner sites most of you probably know. It thus far has been a credible source of information and their article is also pretty fact-based, not emotional. They gauge the game "excellent" in type of game features and novelty (though still use the older game engine, using DX9, but that did not lower the rating as an overall product), but due to DRM they conclude it has already wasted its potential to become a new classic in the first week. They end up questioning whether one should buy this product in this case.

What is more important is their statement regarding the OSP-DRM server issues of the weekend of the 6/7th of March, as well as intermittend outages thereafter. According to their information it was NOT a DDOS attack, but just a combination of badly tested and designed OSP servers and a planned server maintaince on these dates. They cite information to back this up and point to the fact that the login issues occured only to peak gaming times, also during the next week, which they tested, too. Finally they have a statement from a person maintaining the servers who stated not to have noticed any kind of attack.
They have requested and official statement from Ubisoft regarding their problem of "unplayability" at certain times, but Ubisoft did not take a position and reply. I spare you the rest of the conclusions they drew from the OSP strategy.

I really do not support piracy, for many reasons including skewing a companys' sense of whether legal customers don't buy because of bad products or pirating, but what again is the definition of "pirates"? And what kind of information policy does Ubisoft follow again?
It is so easy to blame them, isn't it? Kind of slaves, guilty by nature, you don't even need to proof it anymore?


PS. They also tested the crack and it was fully functional even after patching... So far about Ubisoft's new strategy -- if it was purely an anti-piracy measure, then I would say it was an epic fail that cost them dearly so far.

The harder you make software to crack the harder and quicker crackers will work on it. The end result is always the same.

So why do publishers invest millions into anti-piracy?

I've never believed UBI's explanation about the outage.

It's way to convenient to blame the hack scene.

LOL just yesterday I read an account on how it was an orginized attack...

I sincerley believe the DOS attack story. Dont doubt it for a moment.

Pretty brutally honest review of the DRM, and funny enough that an official "servers are sheduled for maintainance" notice could be seen... before the "DDOS Attack"...

russian 'hackers' sending ICMP to block the OSP :rotfl2:

What should matter ought to be facts. At public statement from Ubisoft would do fine, but there must be some reason they don't want to explain.

Though I don't want to criticize, I am unfortunately too much of a scientist to value believe. Everyone can believe whatever he wants, but only facts are solid values. "Believe" has done too much damage over the course of the last 40 centuries...

Law of probability is a science in itself.

Because they dont understand that games can suck.
In their twisted vision;
Games that sell bad = weak DRM and lost sales due to piracy
Games that sell well = strong DRM

Add the fact that, if there was no "threat" from piracy due to these mythical "lost sales" (A term that makes no sense, how can sales be lost if people never bought something in the first place? Am i responsible for 1 "lost" hamburger sale for McDonalds because im not buying a hamburger today? Arrest me! I'm copying their recipe at home by my stove!), the DRM corporations would make no profit.
Quite an interesting thought.

The biggest problem with the Dos attack claim is that they did not put a stop to it.

In another thread somewhere I posted about this - but the reality is that DDOS attacks happen - and a good IT team can react to it and minimize damage/downtime. Check here for one set of examples:

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/42289

Now - either UBI was under an attack - that reoccured over this last weekend (meaning 2 weekends in a row) - and their IT team is filled with schmucks who have no clue how to deal with security issues - or it was not an attack at all. I will admit I don't know any IT people on UBI staff - so the first is possible - but HIGHLY unlikely. Mainly because if they were attacked once - you know the suits were screaming to the IT group to make sure it didn't happen again. But it supposedly did. This means either the entire IT staff would have to be inept when it comes to security responses, or it was not what was being claimed.

Also - for those that have to (or choose to) know anything about the black hat scene - its all about prestige. Who did what first.... and yet not one individual or group has stepped up and claimed to be responsible for these "attacks". If it was a script kiddie with a bunch of zombies, he (or she) would have been trumpeting the success loud and long in certain circles. If it was an organized team that did this - the prestige in being able to say they have - in essence - seriously damaged (if not killed) the sales of AC2 - would not go unclaimed.

Every bit of what we see points not to orchestrated attacks, but a lack of planning and execution on the part of Ubi. If that is the case - Ubi has really screwed themselves - because if they fix it by adding more infrastructure - it costs them - and the damage is already done (because its all about PR). If they do, then they look like shmucks for not already fixing it - since they claimed it was an external event that CAN be resolved with attention and knowledge.

I think its obvious what happens if they DON'T fix it.... Ubi can plan on filing for bankruptcy fairly soon should they choose that path.

There we go again.
As long as UBI doesn't come up with proof, I don't believe in any form of attack.

When my car breaks down, it isn't immediately the fault of the producer of that car.

Maybe it was my own fault, maybe not.
As long as there is no proof, what do we know???

We know nothing. :salute:

Well, however OSP goes. the figures do not look too promising for further PC development. Hopefully they will fix at least the major bugs in SH5...

quoted from their fiscal report...

The 2010-11 fiscal year will see a greater number of franchise releases than in 2009-10, including Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell Conviction™, a new game in the Tom Clancy™’s Ghost Recon® series, Prince of Persia The Forgotten Sands™, Driver®, Raving Rabbids™ 4 and a new episode of Assassin’s Creed®, which will be the first in the series to have an online multiplayer mode. The 2010-11 line-up will be more focused on the Xbox 360® and PLAYSTATION® 3, the consoles which are expected to experience sustained sales growth in games for gamers in calendar 2010. Other new franchises and innovations will also be announced throughout the year.

If that article were true it would change my attitude over UBI completly. It's one thing to be attacked by pirates, it's a different matter alltogether if that explaination was just a cover up. I can accept failure and attempts to make good on it, but outright lying and putting the blame on groups bearing no responsebility right into the audiences face stretches the issue a tad too far.

As far as I know it was never Ubisoft itself that formulated a statement... Try to search for such a statement online, at least I couldn't find any official message over what the real issues were... That's why everyone is still looking for the true facts...

Ummm... well, here's one: http://kotaku.com/5488372/denial-of-...ed-ii-playtime