Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Ubisoft Testing PC Prince of Persia Without DRM

Posted by Soulskill on Sat Dec 13, 2008 02:20 AM
from the good-on-ya dept.
Ars Technica reports that the upcoming PC version of Ubisoft's Prince of Persia will not feature any sort of copy protection. (Not including Steam downloads, of course.) After the backlash in recent months over the DRM in games like Spore and GTA IV, Ubisoft is giving gamers the chance to demonstrate that DRM actually increases piracy. One of Ubisoft's community reps had this to say about their decision: "You`re right when you say that when people want to pirate the game they will but DRM is there to make it as difficult as possible for pirates to make copies of our games. A lot of people complain that DRM is what forces people to pirate games but as PoP PC has no DRM we`ll see how truthful people actually are. Not very, I imagine. Console piracy is something else entirely and I`m sure we`ll see more steps in future to try to combat that."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Will DRM Exterminate Spore? 881 comments
AC Dude writes "Will an anti-DRM flash mob that's determined to give EA's latest sim game Spore a rock bottom rating on Amazon.com sink the game, or will Spore evolve and shed the DRM? Is this the beginning of the end for DRM-laden games? 'Over the past few years we've focused a lot on the music industry and how it has attempted to use DRM to control distribution. While DRM in this market segment has been unpopular, anti-DRM campaigns have largely fallen flat when it comes to attracting widespread public attention because of the fragmented nature of music. Games are a much easier target given the monolithic nature of their release — campaigners only need to spread the word on a handful of specific online outlets to reach a wide audience. A quick read through the Amazon reviews of Spore seems to suggest that the negative comments are already putting people off from buying the game.'"
[+] PC Grand Theft Auto IV Features SecuROM DRM 531 comments
arcticstoat writes "Game developer Rockstar has revealed that the forthcoming PC version of Grand Theft Auto IV will feature the controversial SecuROM 7 DRM system. Unlike some of EA's recent titles, such as Spore and Mass Effect, GTA IV won't limit the number of times that you can install the game, although SecuROM will be impossible to remove without leaving 'some traces' on your PC. Anyone hoping to avoid SecuROM by downloading the game form Steam will also be disappointed, as Rockstar says that all versions of the game will feature SecuROM, including digital versions online. On the plus side, Rockstar says that it's 'working with SecuROM to post information on our support pages regarding how to remove these inactive traces of the program for users who wish to do so.' Has Rockstar gotten a better balance between draconian DRM and fair copy protection here?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Virus free keygens (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2008, @02:27AM (#26100579)

    I look forward to not having to download virus/trojan packed keygens.

  • Seed plz! (Score:4, Funny)

    by tonto1992 (922918) on Saturday December 13 2008, @02:35AM (#26100621)
    ps, need crack
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2008, @02:37AM (#26100631)

    That would also show that DRM is moot as it has no effect on piracy. The fact is you will never lower piracy levels through DRM, as long as you can lock it up, there is someone who can unlock it. Copyright infringement is part of the cost of doing business in the gaming world.

    Fact is people don't like to be treated like criminals, and if they well they might as well act like one to hold up their end of the bargain.

    • by stephanruby (542433) on Saturday December 13 2008, @04:15AM (#26101091)

      That would also show that DRM is moot as it has no effect on piracy.

      No, this won't show anything either way, or if it does show something, it will be opened to interpretation. This is not a study. This is not a test. There is no control group. The game may do well, or not well. This will depend largely on how good the game actually is. Also, a criterion of success cited by one side may be cited as a criterion of failure by the other. So for instance, if the absence of DRM increases the word-of-mouth referrals and sales, that might be counted as a success by one side, but if that same spurt in word-of-mouth referrals increases the number of downloads from p2p -- that same company may see this as a failure (since it would be seeing all those downloads as a sign that imaginary dollars are walking out of the door).

      So with no predefined criteria of success, and no control group of any kind, both sides are bound to repeat the same old arguments over again. It's just that all that rationalizing, framing/reframing, and arguing will be done with freshly acquired data, instead of historical data, and people from either side will probably just stick to their preconceived notions either way.

      • by vux984 (928602) on Saturday December 13 2008, @04:03AM (#26101039)

        Alternatively, if they can skew the numbers to say that Prince of Persia was pirated on a larger scale than any of their other games, it will be the poster boy for DRM-pushers.

        On the other hand, since they aren't paying for the DRM, which I suspect is licensed per copy, not a one time purchase, there is actually a range, where its being pirated more, they sell less, and they actually make more money. It would be beyond funny if the actual results fell into this range.

        That said, I figure the reality is that this game will be pirated exactly as much as any other. No more, no less.

            • by somersault (912633) on Saturday December 13 2008, @10:49AM (#26102603) Homepage Journal

              You seem to have misunderstood him on both counts.

              First, he's asking how you can tell how many people downloaded the game illegaly.

              Secondly, he's not saying that piracy can only be done at sea, he's saying it can only be done with physical goods. I kind of agree, I think they should stick to calling it "copyright infringement" since that is what it is. It involves the same idea as piracy in that you end up with something that doesn't belong to you, but it isn't exactly the same thing as stealing, despite being a similar concept. Calling it copyright infringement doesn't make it less illegal, it just is the correct term. Saying copyright infringement is piracy to me is like saying assault is murder.

  • Of Ubisoft and DRM (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2008, @02:45AM (#26100659)

    Ubisoft's actually bowed to customer pressure on DRM before. Consider Silent Hunter III and IV.

    III shipped, if I recall, with StarForce---and Ubisoft eventually patched it out, and new bargain copies are completely DRM free.

    IV, in response to the outcry over StarForce, shipped with SecuROM---which, of course, was patched out, and newly pressed CD's come without.

    Basically, their habit seems to be to ship with DRM to try to preserve initial sales, and then bow to customer demand to keep bargain sales reasonable and keep old fans happy.

    So, I suppose, the moral of the story is: don't buy Ubisoft games when they come out. Wait a year, until the game's down to fifteen bucks and they're stripped of DRM.

    You cost Ubisoft most of the profit they might have earned from you had they released it DRM free, and then get the game DRM free at a dramatically reduced price.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Basically, their habit seems to be to ship with DRM to try to preserve initial sales, and then bow to customer demand to keep bargain sales reasonable and keep old fans happy.

      It makes sense when you think about it (and a few publishers admitted to that). The initial sales are the ones that matter. The big numbers, the fanboys raving, the little kids who need it NOW NOW NOW NOW... If you can stop piracy until the day -after- the game hit the stores, you catch all of the impulse buyers and OCDs, which is a s

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        If you can stop piracy until the day -after- the game hit the stores, you catch all of the impulse buyers and OCDs, which is a seizable market.

        Yeah, but what they don't seem to understand is that this doesn't work. Take Spore for example - DRM'ed up the ass, and what happened? Pirated BEFORE launch day (as usual). In fact, even the Mac version was pirated, and we normally get screwed as far as games go.

        What they need to understand is that DRM doesn't stop piracy, but intrusive DRM does make customers avoid the product, or causes problems with people's computers and results in the game being returned. Pirates don't care because they crack the DRM w

  • by mlts (1038732) * on Saturday December 13 2008, @02:49AM (#26100683)

    I've refused to buy games with intrusive DRM. Now that someone is actually assuming customers are not criminals, its worth supporting the effort. Even if the boxed game just gets chucked in the back of my car and forgotten about.

    Its not much of a carrot, but if it got around that people actually went out of their way to buy games without DRM, software publishers may just loosen their stance.

    • by LtGordon (1421725) on Saturday December 13 2008, @02:59AM (#26100745)

      Now that someone is actually assuming customers are not criminals, its worth supporting the effort.

      Hardly. The point is to release a game without DRM and then massage the numbers so they can turn around and say that the lack of DRM drove piracy up significantly. The point will be moot, because how do you gauge losses due to piracy? The same way Microsoft does: (Every single theoretical download) * (Retail price) = (OMGthehorror$$$)

      • by trytoguess (875793) on Saturday December 13 2008, @08:31AM (#26101915)
        Ubisoft spends considerable amount of money on DRM. If it can be shown that it's a waste of resources why on earth would they continue to support it? Hell, even if the numbers are ambiguous, it'll make them less likely to use DRM. Course it's possible this test will show an increase in piracy, but I don't think they'll jump to any conclusions considering that there's a considerable amount of money and time to be saved.
    • by graymocker (753063) on Saturday December 13 2008, @03:23AM (#26100859)
      GoGamer.com currently has the game for $30, a great price for a recent release. Early reviews for the port seem very positive. I'll be buying this one. As far as voting with my dollar is concerned, I consider this a three-fer: (1) It has no DRM, (2) It has jettisoned the nu-metal "hardcore" posturing of the last two games that affirmed all the worst adolescent gamer stereotypes for the charming storybook quality of Sands of Time, and (3) It's $30, and I think the demand price curve for computer games is such that publishers should be pushing out more titles at lower price points. Oh, and (0) it's supposed to be great fun, as well, naturally.
  • by MoFoQ (584566) on Saturday December 13 2008, @02:59AM (#26100741)

    DRM is only one of many factors.
    Another is the game itself....the music, the graphics, the gameplay, and stability.

    In that same way...if Microsoft were to release a DRM-free operating system but it was sluggish (even more than Vista) or blue-screened often (more than Windows 9x)...I doubt people will buy it or use it even if it was free.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday December 13 2008, @03:22AM (#26100853)

    Could it be that UbiSoft was a bit pissed at their former supplyer of DRM, because they themselves couldn't get rid of it from Rainbow Six when it caused too much trouble without stealing a crack from Reloaded? And when you couldn't find a new supplyer of DRM in time for the next release, hey, let's make a PR stunt out of it!

    When God gives you lemons... well, I'd find a better God, but some just squeeze really hard.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 13 2008, @02:47AM (#26100671)

      I'm going to be buying the PS3 version, since I believe it to be a console game at heart. But after seeing this act of good faith, I seriously want a copy for PC.

      Actions speak louder than words, and even if this asshat thinks we are all out to get him, the action is still beautiful. If you want this game for PC, please buy it.

      I know already though, that what will happen is that the game will probably see (according to their stats), around an 80% piracy rate. I'm sure a good chunk of people in that stat will be people who are legitimately pirating the game. But I'm sure that there will also be the usual crew of people who download the game to demo it. Demos often don't give you the full sense of a game, and you need the full version to get a feel for whether you really want the game or not. Prince of Persia won't be everyone's cup of tea. And since there's no console demo (or PC demo, so far as I know), then even people who want the game for a console might be inclined to download it.

      Nevertheless, I think it's pretty much flat out guaranteed that it will be pirated less than Spore. =)

      • by moranar (632206) on Saturday December 13 2008, @08:26AM (#26101895) Homepage Journal

        legitimately pirating the game.

        The word of the day is 'Oxymoron'.

        Demos often don't give you the full sense of a game, and you need the full version to get a feel for whether you really want the game or not.

        You seriously believe what you just wrote? It looks like a flimsy rationalization for pirating. These days, it's often simpler to download a torrent than going to a website, registering, signing in, downloading the demo, installing crapware (not always), etc. That would have been a 'better' rationalization, I think.

    • by iYk6 (1425255) on Saturday December 13 2008, @03:29AM (#26100877)

      These people already has their answer. DRM prevents piracy. Sure, we all know that it isn't true, but judging by what their rep says, they are only seeking to prove that there is something good about DRM, and this "trial" is only to prove that they are right, not to actually gather information. No matter what the results are, they will claim that they have confirmation of what they already believe.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I actually find it strange. I thought someone trying to make money from selling software would be more interested in _sales_ (and profit). Instead of trying to prove whether DRM increases or decreases "piracy".

        Here's a hint to Ubisoft wannabes:

        If you make a really crap game, piracy will go down, but sales would go down too.
        If you make a good game, both piracy and sales will go up.

        If you make an online game (one where most of the fun bits are online, not just the DRM bits), you can reduce piracy to near zero
        • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday December 13 2008, @06:26AM (#26101503)

          If you make a really crap game, piracy will go down, but sales would go down too.
          If you make a good game, both piracy and sales will go up.

          I don't know what the warez scene is like these days, but a couple decades ago folks would copy software for the sake of having the software. It didn't matter if the tittle was a useful / good or bad / useless. If it was another piece to add to the collection, the warez packrats would squirrel it away. It was kind of an illicit data version of Pokemon; gotta collect them all. I wouldn't imagine it's much different today.

          That would mean that a bad game would get copied indifferently to the quality of the game. In fact, bad games may even appear to be copied more as the percentage of illicit to legitimate copies skews to the warez packrats.

      • by IamTheRealMike (537420) on Saturday December 13 2008, @06:10AM (#26101455) Homepage

        Wow, the denial on this thread is amazing. The test hasn't even started yet, and people are already writing it off on the grounds that it can't be a "real" test, or that they're doing it wrong, or whatever.

        I think it's safe to assume it won't make much difference, because modern PC DRM doesn't seem very strong, but to make blanket statements about DRM is pretty absurd - it clearly does work in other implementations, like the consoles.

        Let's wait and see what the numbers say. I know most Slashdotters made up their mind a long time ago, but at least Ubisoft is open to other ideas.

        • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday December 13 2008, @06:39AM (#26101549)

          I know most Slashdotters made up their mind a long time ago, but at least Ubisoft is open to other ideas.

          The reason "Slashdotters made up their mind" is due to the tone coming from Ubisoft.

          "A lot of people complain that DRM is what forces people to pirate games but as PoP PC has no DRM we'll see how truthful people actually are. Not very, I imagine."

          It sounds like Ubisoft already has their minds made up. That's what "Slashdot" is picking up on.

          Yeah - it'll be interesting to see what happens with this. It makes for a very interesting experiment and discussion. But I'll have to practice my "surprise face" just in case Ubisoft announces that their experiment has proven the need for DRM.

        • by Lumpy (12016) on Saturday December 13 2008, @10:13AM (#26102383) Homepage

          Being someone who has spent a LOT of time in meetings like they had about this..

          it's not about what they say. It's about not paying for the royalties and licensing for a DRM solution. I'm betting that putting no DRM in it brings the cost of the game development down to 3/4 the price.

          That means higher profits per unit sold.

          it's ALL about money. dont be fooled by any of their PR talk.

    • by philspear (1142299) on Saturday December 13 2008, @04:21AM (#26101113)

      Treating people like criminals will make them lose respect for you and that's a really bad way to make a sale. And yes, that includes snippy little remarks about "how honest" they are. I, personally, will never buy another game from this company so long as this dipshit is at the helm.

      I think it would be really easy to become very jaded about DRM and piracy when you're the one being pirated from. I DON'T think it's fair to heap abuse on someone from that background who is making a compromise.

      The guy is making a game, and is likely annoyed at least with people who pirate it. Some are people who bought the game, but download the cracked version because of the DRM, probably. It's of course impossible to test whether that's most people or whether most pirated copies are downloaded by people who never paid a dime for it. This is one of the only ways I can see to actually test the idea that DRM encourages piracy.

      Don't buy the games if you don't want to, but acting offended because the guy isn't giving away his product with a smile is, well, absurd.