The gawd-almighty merged DRM in Silent Hunter V thread

[IanC]

To the OP,
DRM/OSP is bad because even though we bought the game, we still need Ubi's permission everytime we want to play it. There's just something fundamentally wrong with that.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by BarjackU977

No. The fight against piracy is pushing DRM schemes too far. I refuse to depend on online profiles for SP games. It's not only about Internet connection issues, but also about dependency on something remote to play a purchased SP game locally.

Simple and to the point, I like it. Sums the whole issue up quite nicely. Honestly, who wants a single-player game which forces you to use a net connection? It's just damned silly, however you try to justify it.

[Seafireliv]

Originally Posted by Heretic

How is having an unreliable internet connection any different from not meeting the minimum system requirements? If you buy a game that plainly says you need a Wazoo 3000 video card or better to play when you only have the Whizbang 50, do you rant and rave and demand the company reduce the system requirements?

Other DRM issues aside, if the system requirements say you need a constant internet connection and you don't have that, you don't meet the system requirements.

Sometimes I really wonder where these people get their logic from.

A PC system requirement to run a game is what`s necessarry to run the game. You often get a Minimum and optimum spec to help most everyone play the game.

It is NOT necessary to be online 24\7. UBI have just FORCED it on us. If UBI were fair they would have a Minimum spec of `No Online` mode.

[Sailor Steve]

WELCOME ABOARD, Darkreaver1980!

Your original post is quite good, and TDK1044's reply is also valid. There is absolutely no reason why anyone shouldn't enjoy the game their way.

And that is the complaint of most of the rest of us. We can't enjoy the game our way. OneLifeCrisis makes light of the 'principles' concept, but principles are important. If I want to buy a game and play it, I object to being told when I can play it (any potential problems), where I can play it (laptop on the road), or how I can play it (disconnected if that suits me).

I won't be told how I have to play by anyone.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Heretic

How is having an unreliable internet connection any different from not meeting the minimum system requirements? If you buy a game that plainly says you need a Wazoo 3000 video card or better to play when you only have the Whizbang 50, do you rant and rave and demand the company reduce the system requirements?

Other DRM issues aside, if the system requirements say you need a constant internet connection and you don't have that, you don't meet the system requirements.

It's not the lack of a net connection, it's the fact that one should not be required in the first place. Hell, it wouldn't be as bad if it did one check on launch, then left you alone. If your net goes down while the game is running, it's no big deal unless you exit the game, but the way they have gone about it, even the slightest hiccup will pause the game and ruin your day. Great stuff Ubi!

[Brag]

Hi Steve!
Or a someone calls you Stewe
It is good that you keep our tradition of welcoming new-commers. We have had such an influx of new blood that the tradition has faltered lately. My apologies to our new comrades.

[Jerik]

Originally Posted by razark

I can think of several ways to block SH5, and not other games. Block ID numbers in range X through Y. Or simply block product ID Z.

The server also needs to know who is running it. Notice the need for an Ubisoft account. If you tick off someone at Ubi, and your account accidentally gets deleted, what then?

I'm not saying these things cannot happen. I'm saying the likelihood is low. Can you provide an example of when a game company did this?

People can do lots of bad things. People can murder and steal. That said, it is not as if everyone does it.

Why do you treat Ubisoft of acting immoral when they haven't actually deactivated games/deleted accounts? Amusingly, you are doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing. Just as you don't want to be treated like a pirate for being an honest paying customer, maybe you should not treat them like they are dishonest without proof.

Originally Posted by razark

As for Steam and Half Life 1, I couldn't speak to that. That doesn't seem to have any bearing on this issue.

This is my example of a game company not doing what you are asserting that they "could" do. Half life 2 is out -- they didn't simply decide to stop activating Half Life 1 as a result. The same goes for Counterstrike 1.6, Team Fortress Classic, Half Life Deathmatch, or Left 4 Dead. Each of those games has a sequel, and each can be still be purchased and authenticated.

EDIT:
I'd also like to clarify something. I am actually quite miffed about the DRM issue (and DRM in general). I think it's abuse stems from publisher misunderstanding of the industry and it's userbase. I'm playing Devil's Advocate because it's fun; and because understanding their point of view is as critical to the issue as understanding our own. Some people here have some really good arguments against DRM; some have less logically-designed arguments. Hopefully by challenging both of those arguments we can come to a greater understanding of the situation, and make this clear to Ubisoft in an eloquent, logical fashion. Emotion will not win the day for us in this battle, or looking through the periscope.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by Heretic

How is having an unreliable internet connection any different from not meeting the minimum system requirements? If you buy a game that plainly says you need a Wazoo 3000 video card or better to play when you only have the Whizbang 50, do you rant and rave and demand the company reduce the system requirements?

Other DRM issues aside, if the system requirements say you need a constant internet connection and you don't have that, you don't meet the system requirements.

Well, let's say that you WANT to play the game, so you check the requirements. Ah! A Wazoo 3000, no problem, I'll get one of those. So you ring up the hardware supplier and they say 'Oh no, we don't supply Wazoo 3000 cards to where you live, as there's not enough demand and the trucks would get all dirty travelling over there as you live a long way from the city.' So you REALLY insist that you absolutely must have a Wazoo 3000 card and they say 'Oh OK then, we'll deliver a Wazoo 3000 card to you, but it will cost $25,000 just because you live quite a way from the city and the truck will get all muddy and cleaning the spokes is quite fiddly.'

At this point you're quite concerned, so you ask 'What exactly is a Wazoo 3000 card and what does it do for the game?' . 'Oh,' they say, 'it lets you save your game. The game uses it like a hard disk basically.'. 'But I have a hard disk already'. 'Yeah but you need a Wazoo 3000 as well, to do the same thing.'

That's the basic difference - You need a graphics card, to do the graphics. If your graphics card was faulty or intermittant, you'd get one that did work all the time. The basic problem here is some people cannot get a 100% reliable internet connection, yet still want to play the game. They can't though. Not being able to afford the hardware minimum requirements is a completely different issue to not being able to get the minimum requirements for reason that are outside of your control. Well, OK, not entirely outside of your control. You could always sell your house and move... but just to play SH5? That would be strange.

I can see that a lot of the people arguing for oppressive DRM are saying 'I'm alright', so I guess some people are lacking in empathy.

I myself have a connection that, as far as I know, is usually up. I don't think playing SH5 will be a problem for me. It does not stop me however saying that the DRM system in use is very unfair to those that want to play, but won't be able to and I don't see it as being in Ubi's interests to limit the people that can legitimately play.

I guess we'll truly see if this style of DRM has completely failed, if the number of pirated versions of Ubisoft's titles to legitimate versionsincreases. Yes, it will be pirated.

[Skullcowboy]

Originally Posted by Jerik

There is, of course, a counter-argument to this. The point of view from EA is that they are trying to protect their investment. What gives you the right to demand that they shouldn't protect their product in a way they deem fit?

Nope. Not saying that at all. They have the right to protect their product in any way they want. But I have the right to not buy that product if I find their 'protections' to be a hindrance to my legitimate use of that product. I'll also let them know why. Please don't accuse me of just wanting to pirate it when I do so.

Originally Posted by Jerik

The anti DRM argument, in a way, is similar to asking a bank to leave the vault open for your convenience, because "you are not a thief". Frankly, they know this -- the DRM isn't here to offend you, or treat you like anything. Nor is the bank vault there because they want to treat you like a thief. The reality is, however, that thieves do exist, and they wish to protect their interests, and investments.

Not really similar. Money is a tangible good. If it is stolen, that money is gone for the original owner. A copy of the original of a piece of software does not stop the original owner from selling that original.

But what if, after getting the money from the teller and going to spend it somewhere else, you had to wait for someone from the bank to come to where you were to verify that that was your money and it was real?

Originally Posted by Jerik

Part of this, perhaps, is not understanding the scope of piracy in the gaming industry.

<snipped for space, refer to original and there is some good links and info there for those who want to read it>

Originally Posted by Jerik

I'm not a big fan of DRM either. I buy all my music from Amazon or Beatport, because those sites sell with no DRM. I use Good Old Games because they offer great support with no DRM as well (<3 IL-2). But, you need to realize that even 200k lost sales due to piracy at $60 a unit is still a whopping twelve million dollar loss.

The talk about loss of revenue only really works if you believe, as the industry would have you believe, that each pirated download=1 lost sale.
It just doesn't work that way. There is no way to prove that everyone who pirated a copy would have bought it if they couldn't get it any other way. It also fails to take into account the number of people who use downloads as demo's and if they like it they actually buy the game. This happens more than you think.

Originally Posted by Jerik

If the PC industry can't control piracy, it will die. The cost of developing for PC, along with a comparably low playerbase makes development a rather lousy business venture. It is possible that this move, requiring online verification, will curb piracy by a reasonable amount. PC piracy is easy compared to consoles, and this shows in the data above -- MW2 was potentially pirated on XB360 1/4 as much as PC, despite the fact that consoles are a more popular means to play those games. They need to make PC piracy hard enough to strongly discourage it among the general population, and to make PC game development a reasonable venture.

Again, that's what the industry likes to trumpet and I don't buy it. Piracy is not what is killing PC games. Making crappy, unfinished and unsupported games is hurting the industry far worse. Stardock is a great example. Minimal (and sometimes no) DRM. And they SELL a LOT of copies. Because they make good games AND they cater to customers, not pirates.
Yet EA's Spore, despite heavy DRM, was one of the most pirated games in history. The only people inconvenienced were the legitimate customers (and there were problems, check EA's forums).
It still sold over a million copies on the PC alone. I didn't like it but hey...

I have no problem with a onetime online activation. I don't mind disk checks or serial numbers. Or even codewheels or some of the other silly things that have been tried. Because with these things, as long as I keep all the original stuff (and trust me, I do. Just ask my wife...) I can use that product at my leisure for as long as I take care of it. But persistent internet connection for single player games? Remote storage of my saves? Limited number of installs? Rootkits and spyware? Trusting a company (that makes no bones about not trusting me) to keep servers online or patch it when they don't so that I can play that game 5 years from now? 10 years from now? You mentioned IL2, I still play that. Could you today if UBI thought up it's new form of control way back then?

[Skullcowboy]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

WELCOME ABOARD, Darkreaver1980!

Your original post is quite good, and TDK1044's reply is also valid. There is absolutely no reason why anyone shouldn't enjoy the game their way.

And that is the complaint of most of the rest of us. We can't enjoy the game our way. OneLifeCrisis makes light of the 'principles' concept, but principles are important. If I want to buy a game and play it, I object to being told when I can play it (any potential problems), where I can play it (laptop on the road), or how I can play it (disconnected if that suits me).

I won't be told how I have to play by anyone.

+1

[HundertzehnGustav]

You mentioned IL2, I still play that. Could you today if UBI thought up it's new form of control way back then?

A day begins with a Good stall-n-spin in a P-39. better than coffee.
IL-2 1946 4.09m with DRM... YUCK!
would be a major fail...

[ERPP8]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

Let's say that someone purchases Silent Hunter 5, and because of his personal availability, he can only actually play the game between the hours of 6PM and 8PM on Saturdays and Sundays.

Because those days are the busiest in terms of server access, every time he tries to log on and play the game during that window, he is denied access.

He has therefore spent $49 on a game that he can't play. He can't get his money back on the game, because nobody offers a refund for computer software/video games, and he can't change his availability in order to try and access the servers at a different time.

In the pre DRM era he would have had no problem, but now he has a $49 coaster and no access to a game he wants to play.

Does he have a legal claim against Ubisoft? I wonder what kind of disclaimer will be written in the mice type on the box?

How would the server only be available on Saturdays and Sundays?

[Jerik]

Originally Posted by Skullcowboy

Not really similar. Money is a tangible good. If it is stolen, that money is gone for the original owner. A copy of the original of a piece of software does not stop the original owner from selling that original.

A copy, however, may stop someone from buying it. I agree that is is not an exact correlate, but we can't ignore the fact that piracy could stop a sale.

Originally Posted by Skullcowboy

But what if, after getting the money from the teller and going to spend it somewhere else, you had to wait for someone from the bank to come to where you were to verify that that was your money and it was real?

You must not be an American, because we have the IRS to do that for us

Originally Posted by Skullcowboy

The talk about loss of revenue only really works if you believe, as the industry would have you believe, that each pirated download=1 lost sale.
It just doesn't work that way. There is no way to prove that everyone who pirated a copy would have bought it if they couldn't get it any other way. It also fails to take into account the number of people who use downloads as demo's and if they like it they actually buy the game. This happens more than you think.

This is something I agree on -- however, if you refer to my post, I make calculations using fractions of those numbers. I agree that it is irrational to look at 4 million downloads and assume that equals 4 million lost sales. That said, it is similarly possible that some of those do represent lost sales. I used 1/8th and 1/4th to recognize that in my estimates, so I am asserting that less than half, even, are lost sales. We don't have fair numbers, though, so I suppose it's moot?

Originally Posted by Skullcowboy

Again, that's what the industry likes to trumpet and I don't buy it. Piracy is not what is killing PC games. Making crappy, unfinished and unsupported games is hurting the industry far worse. Stardock is a great example. Minimal (and sometimes no) DRM. And they SELL a LOT of copies. Because they make good games AND they cater to customers, not pirates.
Yet EA's Spore, despite heavy DRM, was one of the most pirated games in history. The only people inconvenienced were the legitimate customers (and there were problems, check EA's forums).
It still sold over a million copies on the PC alone. I didn't like it but hey...

I agree with both of these points. I do not own any Stardock games, but my friend does, and loves them for their stance on DRM. Spore was a massive disappointment for me, with multiple reasons. I suspect my problem, though, is that even if it's not an issue (though we're lacking definitive evidence), it is still a deterrent for publishers. Consider the music industry -- evidence has shown that DRM decreases purchases and P2P increases them, and yet the RIAA continues to piss and moan.

I don't think piracy is the only factor, but I also don't think it's a nonfactor. It fits into the equation, and until we can get that under control, I fear big publishers are just going to be too damn scared to make any moves in the PC world; such that the industry will stagnate.

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by Skullcowboy

The talk about loss of revenue only really works if you believe, as the industry would have you believe, that each pirated download=1 lost sale.

Also, revenue lost is misleading as it is not the amount of money the developer would have lost in profit, which is a much smaller amount, as revenue is before costs are deducted and doesn't take into account the large slices that each company down the chain takes. If a game is pirated, then Software Company X will say it cost them $40 in lost revenue, as that's the box price, but that doesn't mean to say they are $40 out of pocket.

It's equally as misleading to say that the pirates have 'saved' the distributor millions of dollars in distribution costs, as they didn't have to ship the physical products, or burden their download servers.

Avatar just became the biggest grossing film of all time, yet the internet is killing the film industry. Just goes to show that if you give the public what they want, they will buy it and lots of it. Games companies are always trying to shave costs and release buggy or incomplete products, sometimes making them unplayable out of the box. Maybe piracy is the symptom, not the disease?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Jerik

I'm not saying these things cannot happen. I'm saying the likelihood is low. Can you provide an example of when a game company did this?

No, I was just responding to you. You said:

Originally Posted by Jerik

There is no logical reason for them to just "turn off" the servers and give everyone the finger.

I gave a logical reason. I never said it was likely, or they were going to, or anything like that. Just that it was a logical reason. Your response was that it wasn't possible, because it doesn't work that way. My response was there are several ways to do it.

Originally Posted by Jerik

Why do you treat Ubisoft of acting immoral when they haven't actually deactivated games/deleted accounts? Amusingly, you are doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing. Just as you don't want to be treated like a pirate for being an honest paying customer, maybe you should not treat them like they are dishonest without proof.

I have not accused them of doing anything of the sort. I simply said, truthfully, that they could. And if they did, we'd have no recourse. I don't like them having that power over my time and computer. I play when, where, and how I want.

Originally Posted by Jerik

This is my example of a game company not doing what you are asserting that they "could" do. Half life 2 is out -- they didn't simply decide to stop activating Half Life 1 as a result. The same goes for Counterstrike 1.6, Team Fortress Classic, Half Life Deathmatch, or Left 4 Dead. Each of those games has a sequel, and each can be still be purchased and authenticated.

Someone will be the first. Just because no one has done it, doesn't mean no one will. I'm not saying Ubisoft will be the first. I just don't like them having the power to do so. If we let them do this, what is the next guy going to do? How far into our lives and our computers do we let them? We have to draw a line somewhere. I take my stand here.

Originally Posted by Jerik

EDIT:
I'd also like to clarify something. I am actually quite miffed about the DRM issue (and DRM in general). I think it's abuse stems from publisher misunderstanding of the industry and it's userbase. I'm playing Devil's Advocate because it's fun; and because understanding their point of view is as critical to the issue as understanding our own. Some people here have some really good arguments against DRM; some have less logically-designed arguments. Hopefully by challenging both of those arguments we can come to a greater understanding of the situation, and make this clear to Ubisoft in an eloquent, logical fashion. Emotion will not win the day for us in this battle, or looking through the periscope.

Eh. Turning this into a logical discussion is a worthy effort, but you're still going to have people on both extremes.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

WELCOME ABOARD, Darkreaver1980!

88 posts into the thread, multiple pages, and still a welcome to the OP. , sir!