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."
I've heard the PC version is a fairly decent port, with the ratings approximately equal to the console versions. Does this mean that quality won't be an issue for how well the game sells?
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday December 13 2008, @01:37AM (#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.
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.
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.
Considering how it might affect their business model, wouldn't be surprised if some DRM-creators try to push the "piracy" totals up. Would be great if they got caught at it though.
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.
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.
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 Anonymous Coward
on Saturday December 13 2008, @01:45AM (#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.
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
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
I don't think that it would help really, most people pirate because they can't afford to pay that much. I know people that have 8000 song music collections, do you really think that @ 99 cents a song at most music download places they paid $8000 for their music? I doubt it.
This is not insightful, it pisses me off. What in HELL grants them entitlement to 8000 songs, whether or not they can afford it? Nothing, you say? I thought so. While I understand the gripes people have about paying good money for games that suck, I don't think piracy is justified. If companies are motivated enough, they will figure out a way to let prospective customers make educated buying decisions. But to suggest that people have entitlement to copyrighted works is utter nonsense.
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.
Now that someone is actually assuming customers are not criminals
I'll do the same, a game without DRM (that I wanted anyway, but was going to get for console) is worth it. That said... I see that quote splashed all over... "They treat their customers like if they were criminals!"...though, they pretty much are:) Thats just human nature... people would be robbing banks, killing and murdering left and right if it wasn't for the fear of getting caught.. The 6 of us that wouldn't are just flukes.
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$$$)
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.
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.
Anyone (other than the government, who have guns) wanting my money had better be prepared to offer me value in exchange.
Removing DRM will certainly remove one factor that lowers the perceived value of this Ubisoft title. Whether it will be enough or not, I don't know, I haven't really looked at this game. But buying it even if it gets chucked in the back of my car? Hell no. I demand a lot more for my dollar than a pretty box with no DRM inside.
Vote with your dollars by spending them wisely, not by throwing
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.
Microsoft is a special case. They've got a monopoly and there are so many people who think that there is no other choice. If they were to repackage windows 3.1 as windows 7.5 and put as much effort into selling it as they did Vista, they'd probably still be able to browbeat 50M people, worldwide into buying it.
DRM is only one of many factors. Another is the game itself....the music, the graphics, the gameplay, and stability.
I think there is also a question of how widely known it is that the game doesn't include copy restrictions. I mean, who'd assume that it was anything but in need of a crack?
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.
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!
Alternatively I'd suggest that it's fear over people giving negative reviews on Amazon about inclusion of DRM like they did for Spore. It'd be nice if I was right, the customers won one.
Quite honestly, Prince of Persia isn't as highly anticipated as Spore, GTA IV or a whole bunch of other games. Regardless of critical reception, it's a sequel, of a sequel, of a sequel that's gone on long enough they're re-using the original-original name. =P
Ubisoft may have put in a AAA effort (well, AA, since it's the Assassin's Creed engine already developed, right?), but it doesn't come across to me as an AAA title.
Now if they'd go DRM free on all their games for an entire quarter, or even a full year,
This is predicated on a whole lot of nonsense. Who in their right mind thinks that DRM increases piracy. DRM has very little to do with piracy at all. It only affects the people who legitimately buy the game, not the pirates. That's the point. The amount of people who would deliberately download a game because it has DRM is so minor it's silly. Hype is the single most largest factor on whether a game is pirated and that is a double edged sword
Congratulations to Ubisoft on coming up with their publicity
Who in their right mind thinks that DRM increases piracy.
Just about anybody in their right mind, actually. Requiring the disc to play the game is annoying, especially on PCs. Not being able to back up said disc is offensively annoying.
The amount of people who would deliberately download a game because it has DRM is so minor it's silly.
Only if you don't think it through. Back in the olden days the easiest thing to acquire was a NoCD patch for any given game. Over time, connections got faster, and games started requiring more and more patches that would, intentionally or not, break the NoCD patch. So in order to play that game without the disc, you are best of
Requiring the disc to play the game is annoying, especially on PCs.
For you, perhaps. I don't really notice it. I'm generally only playing one game at any one time, and games are the only thing my drive gets used for these days, so the disc just stays in there until I want to play something else.
If you want "annoying", go back to the days when games were played from 5.25" floppies, and you'd have like 8 discs for each game, and every 10 minutes or so everything would come to a halt and a little box would p
Who in their right mind thinks that DRM increases piracy.
Well, actually, everyone.
* If I need to put the disc in every time I play the game.. I'm going to download a pirated version which will run without the disc. That's purely because it's a headfuck to find the disc, put it in, wait for the disc to spin up at critical times when it checks it's still there and freezes while my DVD drive powers back on (takes a few seconds to spin up; old drive).
* If the DRM makes it incompatible with some drives people who paid for it will probably go and download the pirate v
How are companies buying into the DRM thing when every single DRM scheme has been cracked within days of release? Prince of Persia will probably be pirated at exactly the same rate as any other game, since every other game is on the torrent sites, DRM or not.
I would be very curious to know which angle they're looking to pursue at the end of this story. Honestly, as someone who's downloaded a piece or two of software, I would be surprised if the lack of DRM itself made any significant dent in the amount of piracy centered around this game. That said:
1) In Canada at least, this game is selling for $30 at retail. That's 30 CAD (~22 USD) as opposed to the flat 50 USD on steam. A very good argument in favor of lowered piracy rates right there, clouding any results
I honestly can't figure out why anyone would complain about piracy when there's isn't a visible demo for this game. The honest people are being forced to pirate this game so they can make an informed purchasing decision. This alone will skew any erroneous figures that they will ultimately make... When will these companies learn?
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday December 13 2008, @01:47AM (#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. =)
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.
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.
I absolutely believe that. I downloaded the demo of Medieval: Total War back when that came out, and thought it was pretty lackluster. All it was was a single siege battle. You had no choice of troops, no broader strategic decisions, none of the things that made the actual game good. I didn't buy it.
A couple months later, I got a pirated version from a friend, played it, loved it, bought it, and have bought every title in the series to have been released since then.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well I'll steal a car from your dealership and give it a real test drive.
Chances are I won't like it enough to actually buy one, so I'll just drive it around until I get bored of it...
You, good sir, fail at logic.
Stealing a car is "taking a long test drive"
in the same way that
Pirating software is "downloading a big demo"
The sad thing is it's people like you who don't seem to understand why good games are becoming less and less frequent...
why is it that you can't test drive games anymore? i bought doom way back in the day because of the free demo. same reason i bought quake. you don't want me to test out your game because you think i might not like it? too bad. i'll download it from the pirate bay, play through an hour or three to decide if i like it, and either buy it or be bored and uninstall it. and all of this is unaffected by your drm. the only thing that's doing is pissing me off once i've actually purchased your game. good thi
Virus free keygens (Score:3, Interesting)
I look forward to not having to download virus/trojan packed keygens.
Re:Virus free keygens (Score:5, Interesting)
Real nerds run them on a virtual machine, sandboxed in the copy of VMware they pirated years last week.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Real nerds are aware that VMWare Server is free. ;)
Quality (Score:2)
Seed plz! (Score:4, Funny)
What if piracy levels remain the same? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Considering how it might affect their business model, wouldn't be surprised if some DRM-creators try to push the "piracy" totals up. Would be great if they got caught at it though.
Re:What if piracy levels remain the same? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:What if piracy levels remain the same? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What if piracy levels remain the same? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Of Ubisoft and DRM (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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
I don't think it would help... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is the PROBLEM (Score:2)
This is not insightful, it pisses me off. What in HELL grants them entitlement to 8000 songs, whether or not they can afford it? Nothing, you say? I thought so. While I understand the gripes people have about paying good money for games that suck, I don't think piracy is justified. If companies are motivated enough, they will figure out a way to let prospective customers make educated buying decisions. But to suggest that people have entitlement to copyrighted works is utter nonsense.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Wow, you are a pedantic little fuckwad aren't you?
I'm buying a copy just to support the concept. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll do the same, a game without DRM (that I wanted anyway, but was going to get for console) is worth it. That said... I see that quote splashed all over... "They treat their customers like if they were criminals!"...though, they pretty much are :) Thats just human nature... people would be robbing banks, killing and murdering left and right if it wasn't for the fear of getting caught.. The 6 of us that wouldn't are just flukes.
Re:I'm buying a copy just to support the concept. (Score:5, Insightful)
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$$$)
Parent
Re:I'm buying a copy just to support the concept. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
$30 right now on GoGamer.com (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone (other than the government, who have guns) wanting my money had better be prepared to offer me value in exchange.
Removing DRM will certainly remove one factor that lowers the perceived value of this Ubisoft title. Whether it will be enough or not, I don't know, I haven't really looked at this game. But buying it even if it gets chucked in the back of my car? Hell no. I demand a lot more for my dollar than a pretty box with no DRM inside.
Vote with your dollars by spending them wisely, not by throwing
Money anyways (Score:2)
I'll spend my money on this one, just so I don't have to spend money on buying a legit Digitally Restricted game later.
Wait, what?
DRM is only one of many factors (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is only one of many factors.
Another is the game itself....the music, the graphics, the gameplay, and stability.
I think there is also a question of how widely known it is that the game doesn't include copy restrictions. I mean, who'd assume that it was anything but in need of a crack?
Could it be, just could it... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Alternatively I'd suggest that it's fear over people giving negative reviews on Amazon about inclusion of DRM like they did for Spore. It'd be nice if I was right, the customers won one.
Good idea, Wrong game (Score:2)
Quite honestly, Prince of Persia isn't as highly anticipated as Spore, GTA IV or a whole bunch of other games. Regardless of critical reception, it's a sequel, of a sequel, of a sequel that's gone on long enough they're re-using the original-original name. =P
Ubisoft may have put in a AAA effort (well, AA, since it's the Assassin's Creed engine already developed, right?), but it doesn't come across to me as an AAA title.
Now if they'd go DRM free on all their games for an entire quarter, or even a full year,
You'd have to be stupid to buy this bs (Score:2)
Congratulations to Ubisoft on coming up with their publicity
Re: (Score:2)
Who in their right mind thinks that DRM increases piracy.
Just about anybody in their right mind, actually. Requiring the disc to play the game is annoying, especially on PCs. Not being able to back up said disc is offensively annoying.
The amount of people who would deliberately download a game because it has DRM is so minor it's silly.
Only if you don't think it through. Back in the olden days the easiest thing to acquire was a NoCD patch for any given game. Over time, connections got faster, and games started requiring more and more patches that would, intentionally or not, break the NoCD patch. So in order to play that game without the disc, you are best of
Re: (Score:3)
For you, perhaps. I don't really notice it. I'm generally only playing one game at any one time, and games are the only thing my drive gets used for these days, so the disc just stays in there until I want to play something else.
If you want "annoying", go back to the days when games were played from 5.25" floppies, and you'd have like 8 discs for each game, and every 10 minutes or so everything would come to a halt and a little box would p
Re: (Score:2)
Who in their right mind thinks that DRM increases piracy.
Well, actually, everyone.
* If I need to put the disc in every time I play the game.. I'm going to download a pirated version which will run without the disc. That's purely because it's a headfuck to find the disc, put it in, wait for the disc to spin up at critical times when it checks it's still there and freezes while my DVD drive powers back on (takes a few seconds to spin up; old drive).
* If the DRM makes it incompatible with some drives people who paid for it will probably go and download the pirate v
stupid (Score:2)
How are companies buying into the DRM thing when every single DRM scheme has been cracked within days of release? Prince of Persia will probably be pirated at exactly the same rate as any other game, since every other game is on the torrent sites, DRM or not.
A semi-truth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the Demo? (Score:3, Insightful)
I honestly can't figure out why anyone would complain about piracy when there's isn't a visible demo for this game. The honest people are being forced to pirate this game so they can make an informed purchasing decision. This alone will skew any erroneous figures that they will ultimately make... When will these companies learn?
Re:How to make enemies and alienate people (Score:4, Interesting)
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. =)
Parent
Re:How to make enemies and alienate people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I absolutely believe that. I downloaded the demo of Medieval: Total War back when that came out, and thought it was pretty lackluster. All it was was a single siege battle. You had no choice of troops, no broader strategic decisions, none of the things that made the actual game good. I didn't buy it.
A couple months later, I got a pirated version from a friend, played it, loved it, bought it, and have bought every title in the series to have been released since then.
Sure, that sort of scenario may be the
They already have their answer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:They already have their answer. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:They already have their answer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:They already have their answer. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:They already have their answer. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:How to make enemies and alienate people (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why is it that you can't test drive games anymore? i bought doom way back in the day because of the free demo. same reason i bought quake. you don't want me to test out your game because you think i might not like it? too bad. i'll download it from the pirate bay, play through an hour or three to decide if i like it, and either buy it or be bored and uninstall it. and all of this is unaffected by your drm. the only thing that's doing is pissing me off once i've actually purchased your game. good thi