The gawd-almighty merged DRM in Silent Hunter V thread

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Nordmann

Likely on purpose. After all, they don't want previewers seeing the full extent of the restrictions this system will impose upon how, when and where you play.

Originally Posted by Nisgeis

Let's hope they review it, taking into account the disconnections and rate it acordingly. This has annoyed me slightly, especially as Neal's preview was played through a net connection loss. It seems it didn't have the fully fledged DRM system in it then.

That's possible, but it would be very unethical, imo. I asked and they tell me yes, exact same DRM. I am following up on that with another source.

I asked a high ranking Ubisoft manager (not the dev team) about the DRM, I said I wanted to relay some more information to the community, and here is our exchange.

Me: Per our phone conversation, let me share some thoughts with you. You mentioned a detailed message explaining the exact nature and characteristics of the DRM, I think that's a good idea. It should as accurate as possible. What is it, how does it work, what kind of load times can a player expect, server up-time, and how will it affect the gameplay?




Hi Neal,

Thanks again for your email and the many salient points that you bring up. There is a lot of stuff in there and I hope to cover it all!

In a nutshell, our online services system was designed for two main purposes: to help combat piracy and to allow us to offer services to our customers that had been specifically asked for by them. Obviously we're not able to give out all of the details about how it works - we're not here to give a head start to hackers - but I know that the main focus of many comments is regarding the permanent online connection requirement.

Basically the online connection allows us to periodically authenticate users - specifically to ensure that only one person is using an account at a time. And of course it allows us to save games so that the player can re-access the game from wherever they left off and on any computer where they have installed the game. The permanent online requirement is clearly stated on the front and back of every box and we are working with our online partners to ensure that it's noted on their product pages too, as well as included in all point-of-purchase marketing materials. We're making every effort to ensure that anyone who buys our products that include the online services system will understand this requirement before purchasing the game.

The system of course sends information to our servers. The only personal information that it sends it that which is required to sign up for a Ubisoft account. The actual exchange of information while playing the game is very minimal. Players will only need the minimal broadband connection and the game runs with less that 50 kbit per second. For example, if you play Assassin's Creed II for a total of 20 hours, the game will have only transferred 2 MB of data. The game play won't be affected by such small amount of data.

It's clear that the community is sceptical that this platform will be crack-proof and that is understandable. But I cannot stress strongly enough the effect that piracy has had on the PC market. If you want to scale it back to the very basic - we feel that this effort to combat piracy allows us to continue investing creative resources into PC development.

Can we guarantee that the platform is crack-proof? I guess it's impossible to make that guarantee but I can say that we would not be releasing the system if we didn't believe that it's worth its salt.

Do we know that this kind of thing is bothersome to a certain group of gamers? Absolutely. And we're not happy to be frustrating a group of people who play our games. But we do feel that the services that we can offer with the system offset some of the frustration and, more importantly, the efforts that we put into limiting piracy will ensure that Ubisoft can continue investing in developing true AAA game experiences for PC gamers..

Thanks again!

[Steeltrap]

What a load of marketing bollocks.

It might be interesting to ask "what is it about your system that is superior to Steam (which many PC gamers accept) with its off-line ability?".

Let's see them answer that. All they do is offer hot air about all these 'things' they can 'offer', completely ignoring the fact that a large number of people are not interested in any scenario that mandates online connection for a single player game. So they say it will "allow us to offer services to our customers that had been specifically asked for by them". What services, exactly, and how many are asking? They might want to get some of these customers who have asked for this to post in various places, as the majority of traffic in most sites I've visited is universally damning.

I sincerely hope they get a real slap in the face when it comes to release time.

And if the SH franchise dies as a result of their insistence on this system? There are worse things than death.....

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

So they say it will "allow us to offer services to our customers that had been specifically asked for by them". What services, exactly, and how many are asking?

Selling them the other 2 years of u-boat war for 14,99$ each. Oh, wait.

And what did i read on the FAQ of the Ubi-DRM? "What happens when the servers are to be shut down?" Answer: "We will release a patch [...]". Wasnt there something with SH3 and Starforce? Removed in patch dunnowhat? And no official patch allowing me to play without using you-know-what?

[MasterCaine]

Thanks for posting that Ubi email exchange, Neal.

What they are claiming is total bs. This move to DRM and pay-as-you-play is mainly to kill-off the lifespan, resale of and exchange of pc games. Yes, it's that simple.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MasterCaine

This move to DRM and pay-as-you-play is mainly to kill-off the lifespan, resale of and exchange of pc games. Yes, it's that simple.

I'm not astute enough to figure out things like that. I never would have thought of it myself, but now that you mention that, it makes as much sense as anything else I've heard.

[Brag]

For latest on DRM, check out The Press Blasts Ubi thread.
PC World link is on the first post

DRM works a lot worse than we had imagined

[michaelws]

Hasn't cahnged my opinion. But thank you Neal for taking the time to dialogue with them.

I still will not buy with the DRM restrictions.

[scrapser]

I do not believe for one second this new DRM was so Ubisoft could provide content and services users have been asking for. That is a line that has been used in various forms since advertising was invented ("New and Improved!" comes to mind).

The last version of DRM that was tried and is still in use by many publishers is the limited number of installs with a tally maintained on the company's server. This raised Cane with Bioshock and Crysis. But at least you could play offline.

What we are really seeing here is the publishers groping for as best a DRM as they can find. In other words...we are all Beta testers for the ultimate DRM solution which is yet to be found (and probably never will).

[Méo]

Originally Posted by MasterCaine

This move to DRM and pay-as-you-play is

Pay-as-you-play ...this is new to me, where was it confirmed?

[MasterCaine]

Originally Posted by Méo

Pay-as-you-play ...this is new to me, where was it confirmed?

As far as I know, it hasn't happened yet with Ubi, but many pc game publishers are now moving in that direction. DRM is just the first step. Online pay-as-you-play pc games are for the most part profitable.. at least for a while. Offline pc games are becoming less and less profitable. When today's pc game publishers see modders expanding the lifespan of their offline games into years, they see potential future sales lost- dollars being flushed down the toilet. Whether we like it or not, the future of gaming, movies, and music is moving online to pay-per-use.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by MasterCaine

but many pc game publishers are now moving in that direction

Can you be more precise, give links and/or games that are currently being develop for ''pay-as-you-play''?

[Ships-R-Us]

I want to thank Neal for sharing this with us. Ubisoft is clearly stating that they are only trying to stay alive in the "pc gaming market financially, and have been forced to implement DRM. In short I support the DRM requirement.

If my money was on the line with reference to a major investment, I certainly would take all reasonable and necessary steps to insure my investment, and I believe likewise all members here share this same view.

Ubisoft is taking these measures only because they were forced to.

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Ships-R-Us

I want to thank Neal for sharing this with us. Ubisoft is clearly stating that they are only trying to stay alive in the "pc gaming market, financially and have been forced to implement DRM. In short I support the DRM requirement.

If my money was on the line with reference to a major investment, I certainly would take all reasonable and necessary steps to insure my investment, and I believe likewise all members here share this same view.

Ubisoft is taking these measures only because they were forced to.

While I can see the point you are making, I offer a contrary point:

What happens to your business if you feel the only viable strategy is to implement measures your customers absolutely will not accept?

Seems to me you are acknowledging that you are unable to develop a strategy that allows you to remain viable, as a significant drop in sales due to your 'solution' means your chosen medicine is as bad, if not worse, than the disease.

[As an aside, I recommend you avoid statements such as I believe likewise all members here share this same view. People here never have the same view on anything; claiming otherwise is either naiive or arrogant.]

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Steeltrap

to implement measures your customers absolutely will not accept?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but DRM had already been used in other games before.

Did the average customer accepted it?

[Steeltrap]

Originally Posted by Méo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but DRM had already been used in other games before.

Did the average customer accepted it?

I can't speak for ALL titles that might have a DRM equivalent.

What I meant was the specifics of this system when applied to an off line, single player game.

There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that a lot of single player devotees are not inclined to accept this system when there seems little to recommend it from potential customers' perspectives. That's why I suggested the business model, applied to this particular title, seemed potentially to be problematic at best.

An alternative is using Steam for verification, with a monthly requirement for re-verification, otherwise allowing off line play between those times. I suspect most players would not have anywhere near as many objections to such a scheme vs. the current proposed OSP.

That's before we consider the issue of consumers being forced to have a different account etc. for each publisher, which again flies in the face of customer-friendly thinking.

Cheers