Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Games Your Rights Online

The Awful Anti-Pirate System That Will Probably Work 1027

Posted by Soulskill
from the an-opposing-arrrrrgument dept.
spidweb writes "Much virtual ink has been spilled over Ubisoft's new, harsh DRM system for Assassin's Creed 2. You must have a constant internet connection, and, if your connection breaks, the game exits. While this has angered many (and justifiably so), most writers on the topic have made an error. They think that this system, like all DRM systems in the past, will be easily broken. This article explains why, as dreadful as the system is, it does have a chance of holding hackers off long enough for the game to make its money. As such it is, if nothing else, a fascinating experiment. From the article: 'Assassin's Creed 2 is different in a key way. Remember, all of its code for saving and loading games (a significant feature, I'm sure you would agree) is tied into logging into a distant server and sending data back and forth. This vital and complex bit of code has been written from the ground up to require having the saved games live on a machine far away, with said machine being programmed to accept, save, and return the game data. This is a far more difficult problem for a hacker to circumvent.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Awful Anti-Pirate System That Will Probably Work

Comments Filter:
  • Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:20PM (#31297504)
    It's all about finding the sweet spot. DRM is invariably going to piss of a certain number of paying users but if you piss off too many you lose revenue, or worse yet, if your product gets a rep for being unreliable ... you're throwing away potential customers. DRM is a risky game to play, and if you're gonna do it you better make damn sure it works.
  • The very worst (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PenisLands (930247) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:25PM (#31297546) Homepage Journal
    This is the very worst copy-protection I've heard of. Nobody should buy this game.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pluvius (734915) <pluvius3@gmail.WELTYcom minus author> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:25PM (#31297550) Journal

    Considering that DRM never works yet always pisses off some consumers, wouldn't the sweet spot then be no DRM?

    Rob

  • by Jorl17 (1716772) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:26PM (#31297558)
    Even thought it's hard to crack, it's not uncrackable. A set of talented hackers/programmers can try and reverse engineer the system and build their own server (or a server might leak out). Then, changing the binaries or using some other technique, they can replace the server address with the address for their server. Given enough time, they might do it -- but the game will probably have become deprecated when they do it.

    With that said, this is the most horrendous example of what the gaming society is becoming. I'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maxume (22995) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:26PM (#31297564)

    Yeah, if nobody buys the game, it will be hard to argue that the copy protection was a success.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Rockoon (1252108) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:27PM (#31297568)
    You know what works. Viruses and trojans.

    I don't pirate because I don't want viruses or trojans.
  • by sanborn's man (687059) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:28PM (#31297582)
    you'll have a non working game because Ubisoft will bother to have that old crap running longer or even Ubisoft could not exists anymore. No thanks.
  • by Manatra (948767) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:29PM (#31297594)
    It won't work, because all the crackers will have to do is emulate that distant server on your own box and route any traffic Assassin's Creed II sends through 127.0.0.1 (this is a simplification). That said, it may work for Assassin's Creed II, but for any subsequent releases (Splinter Cell Conviction, Prince of Persia: Forgotten Sands, etc.) the crackers will already know how the system works and break it easily.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The MAZZTer (911996) <megazzt@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:31PM (#31297616) Homepage
    Steam works, at least for me. It adds value to the games most closely integrated with it. Integrated out-of-game and in-game server browsing, community features, store, automatic installation and patching.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stumbles (602007) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:31PM (#31297628)
    No, the only sweet spot offered by DRM of any sort is the one between your cheeks.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:32PM (#31297632) Journal

    I don't pirate either, and that's one of the reasons. But I also don't buy things that come with DRM. Even if it's something that I would otherwise have enjoyed, I spend my money on something else.

    People seem to act like pirating and buying are the only two options, but we're talking about entertainment here. There are lots of DRM-free sources of entertainment and if you are going to treat me like a thief then I'm happy to be someone else's customer instead of yours.

  • It's stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by headkase (533448) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:32PM (#31297636)
    And heres why: the checks for Internet are already broken just substitute them as checks for the disc and you can see this. What does this leave? The crackers just need to write some save and load game routines that go local instead of cloud. So, in effect instead of having a copy that doesn't have stupid digital restrictions the day it is released you will have it a week after its released. And who suffers? Not the pirates, the people who bought the game. Luckily for me there is nothing in Ubisoft's upcoming lineup that I'm interested in anyway but if other publishers decide to follow this stupid anti-customer lead then I'm just going to go outside and take up baseball. You know, real baseball, in real life.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:33PM (#31297656)

    The common response to this is that Ubisoft will patch the game. Of course, no one thinks about the fact that if it's really so hard for pirate groups to patch the game, it's not going to be easy for Ubisoft to do it either. Since Ubisoft is so overtly hostile to PC gamers, I don't think they'd put in the effort.

    Rob

  • Re:The very worst (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RsG (809189) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:40PM (#31297742)

    I'll go a step further. I'm not buying this game. I'm not pirating this game. This game is not getting my money, my time, or my tactic approval.

    This is something that just bugs me about the attitude some people have about DRM and piracy. People will take the approach of "this DRM sucks, ergo I'm going to pirate it, instead of paying for it". This isn't a boycott, nor is it voting with your wallet. This is taking the approach that two wrongs make a right, and that pirating the game somehow "punishes" the makers of it for the sin of screwing over legitimate users.

    Want to send a message? Do what I'm going to do. Don't touch the copybroken crap with a ten foot cable.

    Because make no mistake, piracy rates for a game are measurable. If the game is popular, and pirated extensively, then the message sent to the publishers is that the DRM system, however extreme, still isn't "enough". That an even more extreme measure is needed to turn those hypothetical pirated copies into sales figures. And the developer still gets acknowledged as having made a game good enough for you, the pirate, to want it. If they think they can make a paying customer out of a pirate by making the game unpirateable, then they'll got to great lengths to do exactly that.

    The only way to break DRM in the long term is to vote with your wallet, and simply ignore the very existence of companies that cross the line the way Ubisoft has. They need to be told, and have that information backed by hard data, that DRM is hurting their sales by making the legit users leave (you know, the people who actually pay for the game?)

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HalAtWork (926717) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:42PM (#31297776)
    I don't pirate as well, but at this point it's just easier to do all my gaming on a console. Screw drivers, $200+ dollar video cards, inconsistant control methods, and of course screw DRM. I'd also say screw patches, but unfortunately consoles have caught up to their PC cousins here.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bertoelcon (1557907) * <berto.el.conNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:42PM (#31297780)

    I don't pirate because I don't want viruses or trojans.

    I don't buy PC games because I don't want trojans either.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:44PM (#31297806)

    Considering that DRM never works yet always pisses off some consumers, wouldn't the sweet spot then be no DRM?

    Rob

    Not at all. It's a tradeoff. I won't buy copy-protected software on principle: if I can't make copies for my own use then it's of no use to me. I'll find a more reasonable vendor. If there isn't one, then I'll do without. For example, I would never buy a copy-protected or DRM'ed accounting program: too risky. Remember the Product Activation debacle that Intuit Corporation suffered some years ago? On the other hand, for many people (most people, I'd say, particularly in the gaming industry and music-download business) DRM that doesn't cause too many obvious problems is acceptable. The market will decide very quickly whether games with this sort of over-the-top protection will survive. Personally, I think this just shows that corporation to be owned and operated by dicks, and I find it's best not to buy from dicks if you can avoid it.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by binarylarry (1338699) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:46PM (#31297822)

    Oh I think he's gonna have a tough time with that one.

  • Re:-1 flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:46PM (#31297826)

    This sucks. The only way I was gonna play this game was warezed!

    Hardly flamebait. If the warez scene offers a substantially more friendly product than the publisher, that publisher should consider rethinking its position.

  • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:47PM (#31297840) Journal

    Doubtful.

    Recall that everything else about the server is DRM, which could easily be sliced out of the client, just as we've been doing for ages. The only tricky part is that all of the savegame logic assumes a server -- so the obvious solution there is to write just enough of a local server to handle the savegame.

    So in other words, this is a combination of TFA's points 1 and 3, plus the fact that point 1 was assuming an actual hacker-run server, rather than something at 127.0.0.1. Possible, and probably not terribly difficult, for any group which has done this before.

    In his edited version, he claims you can't play the "real" WoW, only some "cobbled-together emulation server". But this is fundamentally a single-player game. All the ingredients you need are local. The only part that would be "cobbled-together" is the part that allows you to save your game, and face it, that doesn't take nearly as much to get right. The fact that people have made cobbled-together WoW servers, a much harder task, shows that it's possible.

    The final suggestion was to put more and more logic server-side. That's more and more of an investment on Ubi's part, in bandwidth and in server horsepower, and fewer and fewer people who can reliably play the game, given the number of low-bandwidth and unreliable Internet connections out there. I don't think they want to go that way.

  • by zigmeister (1281432) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:48PM (#31297848)

    I've often heard that for a lot of the cracker folks, cracking is "the game." As in that's why they do it, and as such the harder a game is to crack or the more boastful Company $X is about how robustly secure their system is the more "fun" it will be to crack it. Then again, I don't give a shit, I'm just going to take my money elsewhere seeing as I refuse to pirate games (not just for moral reasons, I also feel that to get some entertainment I shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of friggin hoops) and I refuse to pay for a game that is so obnoxious, for the same reason and because of I bought it it's mine, respect me as a customer and person. /rant

  • Re:The very worst (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Endo13 (1000782) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:51PM (#31297872)

    People will take the approach of "this DRM sucks, ergo I'm going to pirate it, instead of paying for it". This isn't a boycott, nor is it voting with your wallet. This is taking the approach that two wrongs make a right, and that pirating the game somehow "punishes" the makers of it for the sin of screwing over legitimate users.

    Wrong. It's taking the approach that Ubisoft considers you a pirate either way. Any gamer who didn't buy it is a "lost sale", and they have no way to determine what the cause is of that "lost sale". Simple answer: they're all pirates. So if you're not going to buy it, you may as well pirate it if you have any interest in playing it.

    A boycott is only successful if you can prove it is having a significant impact on their profit. Good luck with that.

  • Re:Save States (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:53PM (#31297886) Journal

    That is harder to do.

    First, emulated games have access to the entire state in RAM. So, save the RAM and the framebuffer, then restore -- easy. This one is also going to have tons of state in video RAM, meaning you now have to re-initialize the entire DirectX (or OpenGL) context and load everything relevant there.

    Second, emulated games assume a console, which is vastly simpler than an OS. Anywhere this game is accessing something in the OS, Internet, whatever, is a potential problem when restoring.

    And finally, it means dumping all of the RAM, rather than the most convenient on-disk representation of RAM. That means savegames are now going to be several gigabytes of crap, instead of a few kilobytes.

    And of course, as you say, if you update the game, it will cause problems -- I would say fatal problems. I don't see how you could reasonably expect to restore an old savegame to a patched game this way. With an emulator, you generally assume there isn't going to be a new patch to, say, Mario 64, and if you patch the emulator itself, it really doesn't matter, since the emulator knows how to dump the state of the emulated machine, not just a RAM image of the entire emulator. If there was a patch to the game itself, emulators wouldn't save you.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bert64 (520050) <bert@s[ ]hdot.fi ... m ['las' in gap]> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:54PM (#31297894) Homepage

    Legit purchases have been known to come with malware too, there have been various cases of storage devices being shipped out with malware preinstalled for instance.

  • by chatgris (735079) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:54PM (#31297896) Homepage

    With that said, this is the most horrendous example of what the gaming society is becoming. I'd rather throw myself off a cliff than pay these fucktards.

    Thankfully, you have a simple, legal option available to you: Don't buy the game. It's just entertainment :)

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ZankerH (1401751) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:54PM (#31297898)
    Oh Powers that Be, can we please have a hate speech mod so we can still browse at -1 for moderating purposes and not have to read through this crap?
  • by ZorbaTHut (126196) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:56PM (#31297910) Homepage

    Emulating the server can be pretty complicated. I'm imagining a setup where the "save" function sends a bunch of unprocessed data in one format to the server, then the "load" process accepts a bunch of heavily processed data in another format. The server could very well do things like pickle AI state, remap function, all the way up to generating an entire bytecode miniprogram to recreate the game state.

    I'm not saying it does, note, but it could. Saying "all they have to do is emulate the server" is pretty meaningless when you don't know what the server is doing.

  • by Gordonjcp (186804) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @12:56PM (#31297932) Homepage

    That way, when sales of Assassin's Creed 2 are pathetically low and there are no cracks available, then Ubisoft must be forced to accept that poor sales are due to poor products, not "piracy". Hopefully the movie, music and games industries will learn from Ubisoft's impending demise.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sancho (17056) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:05PM (#31298034) Homepage

    That you know of.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Unending (1164935) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:05PM (#31298038)

    Or he uses a private tracker site...

  • by AwaxSlashdot (600672) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:07PM (#31298050) Homepage Journal
    To me, the real target is to kill used video games. In France, 40% of video games sold are used games. For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO. But video games recyclers get a important commission and every time a customer gets it their shop to resell his game, it's the occasion to sell him goodies, accessories and useless insurances.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by badboy_tw2002 (524611) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:11PM (#31298100)

    The GP is opposed to DRM on philosophical means it seems, while you're only speaking of convenience. Consoles are built with DRM from the ground up - the DRM is in the hardware of the machine and you can't do anything without interacting with it.

    Of course, this means that its a pretty seamless experience for the user. I put a disc in or download a game and there's nothing I need to worry about - no installation, no activation, no online only presence. It "Just Works". Which of course forces one to ask: if there was an analog to this in the PC world - some hardware DRM you could put on your machine and be done with the various software based disc checked and network activated schemes once and for all - would you install it?

  • by karnal (22275) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:18PM (#31298178)

    Maybe running a "local server" would be an easy way to restore functionality; but why couldn't you just take the parts of code that "load and save" and just send them to files? I know, it's harder than the 50,000 foot view I just stated, but seems simpler than having a server that has to replicate the conversations etc.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LordLimecat (1103839) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:19PM (#31298198)

    $200+ dollar video cards

    Decent video cards can be had for far less, and drivers are going to be part of your computing experience whether or not you game. You may have your reasons for gaming on consoles, but lets not exaggerate here.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ifni (545998) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:19PM (#31298200) Homepage
    But at what point does this switch from DRM to software as a service? Once you start streaming data from a server, it is more akin to the MMO model (even if it is just single-player) than owning the game title. Of course, if (unlike most MMOs) the game remains static, then it merely takes a single inside leak of the server side data to allow the setting up of private servers for cracked clients. At a certain point, side-chanel attacks become more feasible, and they typically require changing human behavior to prevent, which is much more costly.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Endo13 (1000782) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:22PM (#31298232)

    All that means is you don't have a good virus scanner or trojan scanner.

    Or, it could mean that I know what to look for. I've found things manually before that even the best scanners miss.
    Simple truth is that, thanks to hashes, community feedback, etc. you'll basically never find infected torrents on any "reputable" torrent site.

    Or you don't visit that many torrent sites...

    That's relative, but probably true.

    Or you never have downloaded software, EXE files

    Most of my software comes as an iso, so if I understand you correctly, you would be right.

    .MP3.EXE files from torrent site

    I've never even seen those on a torrent site.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:23PM (#31298242)

    Toilet seat's a stupid argument. Close the fucking LID, not just the seat. Or do you like water containing urine and feces splashing all over the place?

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Blakey Rat (99501) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:30PM (#31298318)

    Well, first of all, everybody using Steam should know going-in this one simple fact:

    There is no customer service. Repeat it with me: Steam has no customer service.

    Secondly, what the hell game are you talking about that somehow has a censored and an uncensored version that are completely different game installs? Do you live in Australia, and one was the AU version and the other the US version? In short, what the heck are you talking about?

    The vast, vast, vast, vast majority of games let you set the censorship options after the game is installed-- there's only one version of the game, and no way for Steam to screw you over in this way. You must be either talking about the most mutant game ever, or live in a place that gets special kiddy-friendly versions (like AU.)

    Please let me know what game you're talking about, where not only is the censored and uncensored version a completely different install, but switching from one to the other "changes the fundamental character of the game." It's not adding up for me right now.

  • Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Joce640k (829181) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:31PM (#31298334) Homepage

    This is another perfect example of how DRM *only* hurts legal, paying customers.

    Want to be legal and play it on a laptop away from home? You're out of luck if you have a legal copy of the game.

    Mr. Pirate...? He won't be affected at all.

  • Re:-1 flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:34PM (#31298368)

    Free of charge sure is friendly.

    Oh go ahead and tell me that just about every pirate is of good conscious and is only interested in "try before you buy" and that if they like it they'll buy it. (Because there's no such thing as demos.)

    -1 Missed Point. If you're a game publisher (of anything, books, media, video games, whatever) copyright infringement is a fact of life. Wherever you stand on the subject, it's just something that publishers have to deal with as a cost of doing business. So, within that context, what are the risks of alienating legitimate customers with DRM? Fairly high ... and as I said in another post in this thread, it's a trade-off.

    I've purchased a number of PC games over the years, and if I decided I liked the game enough to keep playing it, I would immediate go out and download a cracked copy. I used to crack them myself back in the eighties but I don't have time or interest in that anymore, and besides, in the pre-Internet days the game producers had no control over that software once I had bought it.

    So yes, I download cracked games. I'll tell you why too: it's because I don't trust these people not to screw me over and leave me with a useless plastic disc, that's why. Until they wake up and realize that the people who gave them their hard-earned dollars deserve some respect, their actual customers will still be hitting torrent sites.

    Just a fact of life.

  • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:38PM (#31298402) Journal

    Actually, it might be easier, I'm just not sure. The local server would likely be a hybrid solution -- modify the game itself to perform fewer checks, and build a server which can handle saving files.

    But if you're already modifying the game to isolate which communications involve saving a game, maybe it would be simpler just to dump it...

    I suppose it depends how it saves games. If it just dumps all state over the wire, sure, easier to flush straight to disk. If it dumps some sort of delta, it might be easier to write a local server.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JDeane (1402533) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:38PM (#31298410) Journal

    Might I suggest that server address be 127.0.0.1 with some sort of application that emulates all the functions...

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JDeane (1402533) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:41PM (#31298430) Journal

    Also once again the pirates will enjoy the better copy of the game as this will greatly reduce any sort of lag induced from logging onto a remote server. Another thing is that pirates will enjoy the ability to hack there own save file have the save file backed up in case of emergency... DRM is a needed evil but at some points when the pirates are getting the better product.... It gets teeth grindingly annoying.

  • by MSRedfox (1043112) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:46PM (#31298464)
    All it would take is for their server to get hit by a DoS attack on an opening weekend for a major release. Every customer would suffer from being kicked out of their legally obtained game over and over. The complaints would flood their offices and sales would drop. I don't think I'd want a game where a group of bored kiddies could kick me out of my single player video game.
  • by MiceHead (723398) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:55PM (#31298532) Homepage
    I'm an indie developer [dejobaan.com], and I see our games pirated all over the place [google.com] despite their being available for roughly the price of a fast food value meal. It feels sorta sucky to be pirated, and while I can't prove it, I suspect that my studio would gain at least little more money if people didn't pirate it.

    That said, I don't forsee us ever taking draconian DRM measures to prevent people from playing our games. Piracy will change the way we design them, but I think what will end up happening is that we start creating games that make use of online content. Some examples:

    * Level of the Day -- Log in and download your free level right here.
    * Matchmaking/Leaderboards -- Pick up the game, and you'll have an account to taunt other people with your mad skills.
    * Server-Side Content/Collaboration -- Co-build a level with a friend, online, and make that available to everyone else.

    My thought is to offer additional, online-only content that gameplay into having an account. Sure, you can probably still pirate the game, but by picking up a legitimate copy, you have access to all this other neat stuff.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @01:57PM (#31298560)

    Not everyone is a porn freak. Some people actually have wives that take care of such desires.

    People like you really piss me off. You act like you cannot appreciate anything unless it is filled with naked women.

    You sound like a damned twelve-year-old.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CecilPL (1258010) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:03PM (#31298622)

    Or he uses an Operating System that isn't defective.

    You mean an operating system that isn't popular enough to bother writing viruses for.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:12PM (#31298726) Journal
    SSL?

    Unless Ubisoft are utter morons, they'll cryptographicallly verify that they aren't being spoofed. Now, that won't stop someone from attacking the game binary and defeating that particular check, and then spoofing the game save server; but they would have to be shocking amateurish for a simple spoofing attack to work on an unmodified binary.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mysidia (191772) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:13PM (#31298736)

    It is definitely [wikipedia.org] popular enough to write viruses for.

    The thing is, its userbase is predominantly populated with more people who don't fall for stupid tricks.

    Example stupid tricks:

    "Post a web site that displays animated GIFs of a virus scan followed by, YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED!! Download and run this program to fix!!!" or "Download and run this .SH file and pay $69.99 to fix!!!"

    Example stupid tricks: "Please type your root password into this form, click OK, click "Allow" when prompted by the security thingie, and software installation will begin"

    Example stupid tricks would be: "Click here to download and run this 'codec'. When prompted, type your root password"

  • by rmdyer (267137) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:13PM (#31298738)

    To all those creating, producing, and selling ...

              "The market for a product is the group of those who are willing to pay money for it, not those who will steal it, or can't pay for it."

    If you are trying to come up with a method to extort money from those who try to steal your product then you are wasting your time, and probably the time of those who actually buy your product.

    True criminals will never pay you. Teens without incomes can't pay you. The poor can't pay you.

    What's left is an insignificant sprinkling of people who will never increase your bottom line. Everyone else will hate you, and provide negative feelings to their peers about your company and product. Extortion is wrong and serves nobody, especially your true customers.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ultranova (717540) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:29PM (#31298864)

    I don't pirate because I don't want viruses or trojans.

    I don't buy games from a store because I don't want Securom [wikipedia.org], Starforce [wikipedia.org] or other software doing malicious alteration of my system [wikipedia.org].

    At this point the major pirate groups have a better reputation than game publishers. I'd never install anything that wasn't disinfected by Razor 1911 [wikipedia.org] or other trustworthy republisher first. Hell, even store-bought CDs [wikipedia.org] might be dangerous, so better stick to mp3s.

    DRM is basically about infect software with a trojan, and cracking is about removing it.

  • by vitaflo (20507) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:30PM (#31298868) Homepage

    "For every used game sold, the game editor gets ZERO."

    They already got their money, on the original sale. They have no right to any other money because they no longer own the item in question. Don't like that? Then don't deal in tangible/tradable goods. This of course is why game companies love downloadable sales. They can cut out used games when everything is virtualized.

  • by LordArgon (1683588) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:35PM (#31298910)

    If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.

    You have a fantastic point. I'll actually be surprised if this doesn't happen.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by trapnest (1608791) <janusofzeal@gmail.com> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:38PM (#31298928)
    That may have been his point.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeff4747 (256583) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:40PM (#31298948)

    (Of course it comes with a cost - CPU time on the server for the AI.)

    And horrible latency for anyone playing the game.

    Quote from future review using your system: "This game has great AI...unless you just bull-rush it in which case you kill everything before it can even decide to shoot you."

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SpeZek (970136) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:44PM (#31298996) Journal
    Or he just isn't foolishly running things like "AssassinsCreedIICrackedFullGameTotallyNotAVirus.rar.exe (52KB)"
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pinky's Brain (1158667) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:45PM (#31299008)

    To make the analogy completely ... you would have agreed to an EULA which said "we can repaint your car unless you opt out". The main thing which caused this was almost certainly that the ESRB rating the uncensored version wasn't bumped up, so it stopped making financial sense to maintain two versions.

    An update is not just a bug fix. Free content expansions are also updates (we might call them free DLCs now, but that is newspeak). They could have just as easily added extra quests with explicit sex scenes without changing any of the existing content and almost everyone would agree it was an update, and as long as the ESRB rating stayed the same it wouldn't be false advertising either. You always leave yourself open to situations like this with automatic updates.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:46PM (#31299012)

    Screw $600 underpowered consoles that can only do one thing, $50 for a controller, paying additional connection fees on top of my internet fee, RROD/YLOD, gimmicky motion sensors, no game backups, not being able to play games when my console dies after they cease manufacturing them, no keyboard/mouse control, no multi-display support and licensing fees for game developers.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:46PM (#31299022) Homepage

    Correction: Exactly one person will buy the game. He will pay cash.

  • They don't care about the real pirates, there's nothing they can do about the hardcore crackers anyway, and these people would rather do without than pay for software.

    What they do care about is the grey market middle ground, the kid who buys a copy from a store but lets his friends borrow it, the people who resell used games...
    These people, unlike the hardcore pirates, *ARE* willing to spend money on games, so the games companies seek to extract as much of it out of them as possible via whatever means necessary.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Austerity Empowers (669817) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @02:59PM (#31299144)

    Wouldn't that mean if you were an abusive moderator you'd simply mod comments as -1 Hate to prevent altruistic mod's from correcting it?

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Culture20 (968837) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @03:05PM (#31299186)

    And if you reverse the charge on your card? Your account is suspended and you lose ALL your games.

    That sounds dangerously close to illegal.

  • by jdcope (932508) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @03:59PM (#31299596)

    That way, when sales of Assassin's Creed 2 are pathetically low and there are no cracks available, then Ubisoft must be forced to accept that poor sales are due to poor products, not "piracy". Hopefully the movie, music and games industries will learn from Ubisoft's impending demise.

    No, they will just concede that PC gaming is "dying". The sad part is, even if it isn't crackable on the PC, it most like will be for those with modded consoles.

  • by gravyface (592485) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @04:08PM (#31299652)
    If you can stand it (or you have a busy life anyways), try staying a year or so behind game releases:

    1. hardware is cheaper: upgrade your video card for a fraction of the cost, while still getting a few years life out of it.
    2. games are all patched: any/all bugs in the main story-line and/or single-player are fixed by this point; usually performance tweaks are done as well, again benefiting your "old" video card.
    3. video drivers are stable: and there's usually game-specific improvements at this point as well.
    4. games are cheaper now: get games at half the price (or less) through Steam or in-store.
    5. Hype has worn off: reviews are everywhere at this point; get the games that matter to you and/or are worth the money.

    I'm just playing Crysis now, having picked up a Core 2 Duo with a Radeon 8500HD for really cheap and it runs great and barely cost me anything. Since I'm a casual gamer and look after my machines, this will likely end up as my niece or nephew's machine if not a home server of some capacity down the road.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tanktalus (794810) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @04:31PM (#31299776) Journal

    if there was an analog to this in the PC world - some hardware DRM you could put on your machine and be done with the various software based disc checked and network activated schemes once and for all - would you install it?

    Absolutely. As long as it doesn't interfere with any other executables I want to run on my general purpose personal computer. And doesn't compromise my personal security through invading my privacy.

    So I'll mark you down as a "no," then.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @04:32PM (#31299782)

    The problem is that they mistakenly assumed that not purchasing at all would have a different effect than pirating the game, it doesn't. If AC2 came out and was not pirated at all but a similar number of people didn't buy it ubisoft would STILL BLAME PIRACY.

    Complaints of piracy are utterly disconnected from reality, at this point it's just a boogeyman used by companies to justify the need for taking more rights away from the consumer. They could virtually stamp out piracy of their games and they would likely still find an excuse to claim that it isn't their fault they didn't make more money.

  • Local Server? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Garrett Fox (970174) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @05:12PM (#31300044) Homepage
    Wouldn't it be possible to set up a server on the user's own machine, and just have the game connect to 127.0.0.1?
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @05:15PM (#31300060)

    Wow that really seems childish. They can't easily pirate the game so they prevent actual customers from playing. Do they think this will help? Going from pirating to outright attacks is only going to make things worse. Wouldn't be surprised if the FBI got involved.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gd2shoe (747932) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @05:25PM (#31300120) Journal

    I don't know what game he was playing, but (1) not every guy wants porn (even the "soft" variety). Yes, I know the stereotype exists for a reason, but that's all it is: a stereotype. (2) He was taking social pressure from his wife/girlfriend/mother/etc and was no longer able to enjoy the gameplay because of it:

    Then one day they decided that they wanted to change the censored version of a game I bought into the uncensored version. I was annoyed, but more importantly the women folk didn't like it when they saw it.

    I'd say that's a legitimate gripe. He's not getting the game he paid for.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kdemetter (965669) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @05:31PM (#31300160)

    Just from reading the summary , i already see a possible way this protection will be broken.

    It's based on a verification server , meaning the game connects to a certain ip.
    So all you have to do is make the game believe it's connecting to the verification server , while instead it is going to a fake one ( has been done before ).

    Only added thing is that server also needs to store the savegames , but i'm sure this can be deduced from analysing the traffic.

    Offcourse , if they encrypt this traffic , it will be a little more difficult to crack , but that's just a matter of time.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AmazingRuss (555076) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @05:41PM (#31300212)

    "Complaints of piracy are utterly disconnected from reality, at this point it's just a boogeyman used by companies to justify the need for taking more rights away from the consumer."

    Actually, we'd just like to get paid for our work, so we can pay our bills and make more and better games. We have no desire to enslave humanity.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SharpFang (651121) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @05:44PM (#31300232) Homepage Journal

    Unless Ubisoft are utter morons ...what makes you think they aren't?
    Because the whole idea in the first place makes me really think they are.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @06:25PM (#31300468) Journal
    I'm assuming that that, since this is a DRM scheme, the certificate validation is going to be taking place inside one of Ubisoft's binaries, not depending on any browser or system lists of trusted CAs/certs. Presumably whatever part of the program is responsible for doing the validation will include some number of other usual DRM obfuscation/self-inspection/tripwireish stuff, since it will be the overwhelmingly obvious target for tampering.
  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @06:47PM (#31300608)

    The game likely knows the public key for the remote server, and any machine trying to contact it without using the appropriate key won't be able to authenticate.

    No. The attack will likely be to modify the client side code to bypass all encryption.

     

    The traffic between the game and the Ubisoft server could be completely encrypted, which greatly increases the difficulty of reverse engineering the game's "heartbeat" ping

    No. The attack will be to remove encryption and save/load the game locally.

     

    , not to mention that whoever cracks this game will end up writing a server for the game to communicate with, which will have to manage the save game files and such. No matter how you look at this, it's not going to be an easy crack.

    will be cracked in the first month.

  • by KingSkippus (799657) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @06:52PM (#31300642) Homepage Journal

    Actually, we'd just like to get paid for our work, so we can pay our bills and make more and better games. We have no desire to enslave humanity.

    Fine! Then stop treating me like a criminal, and maybe I'll buy your games, and thus you will get paid for your work.

    The things that you are doing are keeping me–an honest customer–from playing my games. Your DRM is keeping me from playing when my Internet connection is down. It's keeping me from playing without having to have physical media on-hand. (This makes your software effectively protected by a "dongle.") Your DRM has at times caused anything from mildly annoying bugs to grossly compromising holes in my system's security. Meanwhile, even if you develop a 100% effective DRM solution, the pirates will still not buy your game! I fail to see how even that helps you get paid for your work.

    I'm sorry, but there are more options than the false dichotomy of "give your game to everyone for free" or "enslave humanity," and if you really want to get paid for your work, then you're going to have to back away from your dug-in position. There are plenty of games out there without oppressive DRM that are doing perfectly well in the market. I'll simply choose those instead—and you'll continue to get nothing.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Volguus Zildrohar (1618657) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @06:54PM (#31300656)

    DRM is a needed evil

    Citation sorely needed. I have no need for this horseshit in my life.

    but at some points when the pirates are getting the better product...

    Even back in the day, when I had to look up word five on page ninety three of the printed manual, pirates were getting the better product.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thesandtiger (819476) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @07:01PM (#31300708)

    You'd like to get paid for your work. I'd like to get the work I paid for. Maybe you can help me understand something, since you seem to be in the industry?

    I paid for a copy of Spore - $59 or whatever it was when it launched. I got it home, tried to install it, and it just totally and completely failed to install due to the DRM used. When I called tech support and spent half an hour on hold to get through, they helped me find a couple of things that I could change that let me install it - but it wouldn't run. Somehow, whatever DVD drive I have, they say, was making it not work. When I tried to return it to the store I bought it from, I was told that because it was open I couldn't return it for anything but another copy. After arguing with the manager for about half an hour (and pulling up the myriad complaints that were posted all over the net by that point on my iPhone as proof), he finally, grudgingly, agreed to give me store credit to buy another game. I said fuck it and called my credit card company and contested the charge, and will never buy another product from that store, or from the publisher of the game, or anything that has to do with Will Wright again. The total cost to me was $0 dollars (once the charge was reversed) and quite a bit of my time (which is worth quite a bit, in my opinion) and frustration. The total cost to the publisher was 1 customer who will *never* buy another of their products, the cost of tech support time for my call, some very bad word of mouth (because of my experience and mentioning it to people I know, at least a dozen people didn't buy the game; from what I've seen on the net there were even more people like me than I might have thought). The retailer has lost me as a customer (and possibly several other people I mentioned the issue to). And Will Wright has lost a fan.

    Perversely, I did want to try an experiment - I got a torrent of Spore downloaded (in about an hour, in the background, while I did other things) and it installed and worked flawlessly as I played a single game up to the galactic level, at which point I deleted it from my system. But it proved the point - as a paying customer I was treated like a criminal, but when I went the criminal route, I had an extremely smooth experience.

    As an aside, I used to spend $100-150 on games a month before this experience; a $50 game was an impulse buy. Now, however, it isn't - where before I'd pick up a game after work, I now look at the box, say "Hm, is it worth the likely hassle?" and the answer tends to be "No." Spore was the last game I paid full price for. I've actually started doing more console gaming and I'm only buying used games since, ironically, the return policy on those is FAR better than on new ones - you guys aren't getting paid for those copies. I don't think I've bought a "new" game since Spore, but maybe I spent $10 on a jewelcase copy of something.

    The thing I'd like to understand is how this kind of situation is a good thing and how you (or people in your industry) think this situation is remotely a good one? Literally the only people who are even inconvenienced by DRM are the initial cracker and paying customers. Everyone else gets either a cracked copy (no hassle) or they pay for a game that works - I honestly cannot begin to imagine someone who is willing to spend an hour torrenting something, but sees it needs a crack (usually included in the torrent) and says "Curses! I guess I have to buy it!" going to buy a copy. How does this ridiculous situation help you get paid? To me it seems like it would make it much less likely that you would be able to get paid - gamers move on to other hobbies or refuse to buy anything but used copies or refuse to buy until the price drops, while pirates still get what they want for free. Maybe I'm missing something.

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TikiTDO (759782) <TikiTDO@gmail.com> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @07:36PM (#31300924)

    Sure, yours is a valid desire, but the execution of this desire is where it breaks down. Consider the following: How much time and money was spent to generate this system? How much time will be spent breaking it? How much money would it REALLY get you? What will the server maintenance cost? How big will the PR shit-storm be when Joe Average cannot play this game because his internet connection went bust for a few hours, and he decided to complain to his friend, Nelson Reporter?

    In my opinion, you can see that perhaps a few of the younger kids will have to convince their parents to get the game. The parents that agree will indeed be extra income, but I doubt they would be a particularly big market segment. Many more mature PC gamers would either have bought it anyway, regardless of the protection system, or would have pirated the game just to try it, but would never buy it, netting you next to zero extra profit. Other mature PC gamers will avoid it out of disdain for the DRM system, resulting in a net loss that may even surpass the gain from the young teen crowd. Finally, the hardcore pirates will just find another game to play. There is not exactly a shortage these days. Maybe they'll just get a modded 360, and play it there. Finally, the mid-level pirates will just wait until the game is in the bargain bin, barely covering the cost of production, and getting you little if any profit. This is not even taking into account the free advertisement you are sacrificing in terms of players that would play a pirated game, then hype it up for their less tech savvy friends.

    In my model is even remotely correct, you are likely to get maybe several tens of thousands extra customers. For a game that has already seen millions in sales this sounds to be like an utter waste of resources. Resources that could have been better spent on more QA/Optimization/Content. Best of all, when the system gets cracked eventually, you will just be left with an egg on your face with little to show for it.

    Finally, for the actual protection scheme in the article, the workaround seems trivial. You must send your save game data to a remote server somewhere to be stored, the access it from there once you wish to load. First, you will need to defeat the encryption schema in the existing system, which should not be too hard, since you simply need to get the raw data pre-encryption. There will likely be a few packet types to perform further checking, which you will need to reverse engineer; an unfortunate, but harsh truth, and likely the most time consuming step of the process. Next, create a local server that will intercept requests to the remote server, including saving, and then allow it to read back the saves. If you want to get extra fancy, you could build that right into the program, and replace the calls to network functions with calls to these new functions.

    This would doubtlessly be more work than a traditional crack, but since it is still a software solution, I would not expect much longer than an extra month or two.

  • by Wandering Idiot (563842) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @08:16PM (#31301190)
    To all those who think Ubisoft should just let the pirates win...

    Here's the thing- the pirates have already won/are winning. The DRM will be broken for any single player games. Even multiplayer games will have private servers hacked up. DRM doesn't work except against the most casual forms of piracy. I have no problem with games requiring a disc check or a serial key to discourage people from just handing the DVD to their friends to install. Anything beyond that is pointless and counterproductive (unless it's part of a larger online service, like Steam or a MMO, but even those have been hacked).

    you have no idea how frustrating it is to spend many millions of dollars and several years of our life making a game, and then see statistics from our update servers that 15 to 20 people are playing pirated copies for every legitimately purchased copy.

    So? I'm sure it is frustrating, get over it. Publishers shouldn't be looking at the number of pirated copies- it's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the number of copies sold. You're not fighting a holy war, you're a business. Attempting to keep people from playing pirated games from some sense of moral outrage rather than acknowledging the technological and business realities a) doesn't work, and b) just ends up pissing off your actual customers.

    PC gamers have $2000+ computers and drop $200-500 on a video card every year. But most of them are too damn cheap to buy their games. They grew up pirating them through high school and university, and don't see any reason they should stop now. Most of them have managed to convince themselves that (somehow) they aren't doing anything wrong.

    And you're not going to change that, especially not with DRM that gives pirates a better experience than paying customers.

    By the way, after the reactions to Spore and Bioshock (and a other heavily DRM-ed titles) we tried shipping the recent Prince of Persia without any DRM. Guess what? It was pirated heavily.. more so than any of the previous Prince of Persia games.

    How did it *sell* compared to them is the question, not how much it was pirated. Guess what? Someone pirating the game and someone not buying it gets you the exact same amount of money. And no DRM at all, not even a serial/disc check seems silly, as it does nothing to discourage casual piracy.

    So rather than give up on the PC market entirely (which is the other possible solution)

    If the company can't make a profit on the number of games actually sold, then yes, you should get out of the PC market entirely. Again, the number of pirated copies is irrelevant. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem that hard. The people pirating games aren't your customers, by definition. More restrictive DRM won't change that, especially as it never works.

    I can sympathize with you (I actually buy all the games I play), but if your post is indicative of the type of thinking within publishers, it's a shame as it seems entirely counterproductive and willfully ignorant of reality. Also, I presume you can estimate the number of pirated copies connecting to your servers but not which are which, otherwise I don't see why you'd be allowing them to patch...
  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @08:28PM (#31301296) Journal

    Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft. I write shrink-wrapped proprietary software for a living, so software piracy directly affects my income.

    I am also a gamer. I have over 190 titles in my Steam account (granted, quite a lot of that are old games; a lot still isn't), and that's not counting the boxes. For some games, I have it both as a box and on Steam (e.g. Oblivion, Doom 3, Majesty 2), so I've actually paid twice for those.

    Now, all that said...

    To all those who think Ubisoft should just let the pirates win... you have no idea how frustrating it is to spend many millions of dollars and several years of our life making a game, and then see statistics from our update servers that 15 to 20 people are playing pirated copies for every legitimately purchased copy. PC gamers have $2000+ computers and drop $200-500 on a video card every year.

    You have no idea how frustrating it is to not be able to start a game when your Internet connection is down (and you really just want some entertainment to pass time). Or, as I've heard you did in this new game, to have it exit as soon as your Internet connection goes down in the middle of a gaming session (I sincerely wish you guys are sued for this, and lose in a big way; it's far more sinister than anything I've ever heard about in this industry). Or how about limited number of activations, where you lose one if you, for any reason, cannot boot into your OS and need to reinstall?

    All those things are reason why I will not buy any Ubisoft game ever again (and you're not alone on the list). Frankly, as a customer, I don't care about your row with the pirates. I don't even care about DRM as such! What I do care is when you drag me into the mess, and have the audacity to take my money, and then refuse the service (entertainment) that you have promised in return for some vague reasons of "fighting pirates". I'm not one; why should all of this be of my concern?

    If you can come up with a DRM scheme that does not excessively bother me (a single-time Internet activation is fine, for example; server checks on connect for multiplayer are fine, too), I'm fine with that. I can even understand slip ups (activation servers going down unexpectedly etc), and am willing to tolerate that in minor amounts - though I would expect workarounds (phone activation, whatever) to be provided in such cases. But when you deliberately go out of your way to annoy me as a gamer, guess what? My money goes elsewhere, to companies like Valve, which understand these sorts of things.

  • It is a rental (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tepples (727027) <tepples@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Saturday February 27, 2010 @08:36PM (#31301374) Homepage Journal

    it would feel differently if I were renting a game product (i.e., software as a service) by paying a small monthly fee.

    You are renting it for (my estimate) three years, after which Ubisoft pulls the plug on the saved game server.

  • by Tromad (1741656) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @08:46PM (#31301438)

    And when Ubisoft goes into the ground, as most game companies eventually do, will I still be able to play AC2, with its non-existent save game servers? EA has had no problems shutting down servers for games more than a couple years old. I routinely play Wizard's Crown, a game released for the PC in 1985. In fact, every PC game I have ever purchased I am still able to play in some form or another. In understand Ubisoft hates pirates, but I buy games, and I'm not going to buy a game that will potentially be useless in a couple of years.

    The best thing would be for this to drive Ubisoft into the ground so no one else bothers going with DRM so draconian.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @09:07PM (#31301600)

    15 to 20 people are playing pirated copies for every legitimately purchased copy

    A lie like that makes it difficult for me to buy any of the other points brought up in your post. If 33 to 44 million people played the Prince of Persia reboot, then congratulations to your company on creating the cultural phenomenon of the decade, even if it didn't make you as much money as you'd have liked.

  • by bonhomme_de_neige (711691) on Saturday February 27, 2010 @09:13PM (#31301642) Homepage

    By the way, after the reactions to Spore and Bioshock (and a other heavily DRM-ed titles) we tried shipping the recent Prince of Persia without any DRM. Guess what? It was pirated heavily.. more so than any of the previous Prince of Persia games.

    How much did the number of legit customers reduce, as opposed to the number of pirates increasing? Or is it more like this [tinypic.com]?

  • Re:Sweet spot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, 2010 @11:24PM (#31302554)

    They can easily pirate the game, so they also demonstrate how anti-consumer this technology is.

    Fixt that for you.

    If they can't keep their servers up on opening week (which has been a problem with many online games even WITHOUT any DOS involved) then they'll get a huge black eye over this, lose even more consumers, and (hopefully) drop this needlessly over-the-top DRM.

You might have mail.

Working...