Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DRM Games Your Rights Online

Ubisoft's DRM Cracked — For Real This Time 443

Posted by Soulskill
from the see-you-next-scheme dept.
therufus writes "A few days after the release of Assassin's Creed 2, naughty piracy sites were announcing they had cracked Ubisoft's Online Services Platform. Turns out, that wasn't entirely true. While it was possible to load into the game, players were unable to advance past a certain memory block. But now, it seems Ubisoft will need to draft a new response. A new crack has begun circulating that removes the DRM entirely."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubisoft's DRM Cracked — For Real This Time

Comments Filter:
  • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:20AM (#31974684)
    I'm not a fan of 'Piracy' at all, but Ubisoft DRM tactics are draconian, ridiculous, and are just begging for the attention of those who break DRM for fun or profit.

    Ubisoft has brought this upon themselves and now they'll use the fact that their "unbreakable" DRM has been broken to justify their further efforts. Asshats!
    • by causality (777677) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:25AM (#31974726)

      Ubisoft has brought this upon themselves and now they'll use the fact that their "unbreakable" DRM has been broken to justify their further efforts. Asshats!

      The reasonable approach would be "Unbreakable? Yeah we've heard THAT before, no thanks, let's not waste money bothering with this. Lets use the programmers who would be designing complex DRM systems and have them join the team that's actually creating the game." Unfortunately I think that what you said will come to pass. They won't recognize that "try harder" is not the correct way to deal with a failed idea.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:32AM (#31974788)

        Here is how unbreakable DRM will eventually work:
        When internet connections are high enough bandwidths and low enough latencies, you will only have video transferred to you, all game assets will be entirely stored and run on their hardware, never will anything be stored on YOUR end that you will can manipulate.

        That is, you will play "unbreakable" games remotely.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by f4k3r (642406)
          you might want to google for "OnLive"
          • by asCii88 (1017788) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:47AM (#31974946) Homepage
            You might want to post the link [onlive.com]
            • Because it's not appropriate to post links to pump and dump scams on Slashdot?

              • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @11:58AM (#31975700)

                Indeed, "I'll believe it when I see it" is not a bad position to take with OnLive.

                Seriously though, it's going to take a very long time before an online system can replace a local system - think about it, current bus technologies between hardware and TV/Monitor run in the multi-gigabit range.

                Now that's uncompressed, Cable TV has shown that you can crank those numbers down quite a bit, but you're still talking about a lot of people completely saturating 200-300mbit connections to match the quality of video you get on your local hardware. The connection would have to be very very reliable as well - just a few hiccups in latency or speed can cause extreme annoyance for the gamer. So in reality you're looking at probably a 500mbit connection with a guarantee of no less than 300mbit or so.

                It would take one hell of an infrastructure improvement to handle that.

                It's also a moving target, because video advances continue (though slower than some would like), and by the time we get 500mbit connections in enough homes to make this viable (you'll always be cutting off a big chunk of the market with this setup), the target could very well need to be 1gbit to match local hardware.

                • The longer the latency, the worse the user experience. This is because it is a lag of everything, including user interface. You do something, you don't see it happen until later. That is noticeable, and is annoying. Now the problem with latency is that the only real way to combat it is to have the source and destination physically closer to each other. Reason is that light speed is the ultimate limit and while it sound fast, it isn't when talking data latency. Light can orbit the Earth around 8 times per se

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Andorin (1624303)

          When internet connections are high enough bandwidths and low enough latencies, you will only have video transferred to you, all game assets will be entirely stored and run on their hardware, never will anything be stored on YOUR end that you will can manipulate.

          At which point prices will have to drop significantly because you're no longer selling a game; you're selling a subscription to a game.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:50AM (#31974976)

            At which point prices will have to drop significantly because you're no longer selling a game; you're selling a subscription to a game.

            Hahahahahahahahahaha

          • by sowth (748135) * on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:55AM (#31975020) Journal

            You think they will drop their prices? Obviously, you don't know anything about the greed of the media companies.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Hurricane78 (562437)

              He doesn’t have to. He only has to know something about basic physics of a market.
              No price drop -> no buy -> bankrupt
              price drop -> buy -> PROFIT

            • And this is why we need mandatory economics education for every student.

              Price is not based on "greed", price is based on supply and demand. Companies charge what you are willing to pay, which is influenced by the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives.

              That's why electronic books are not significantly cheaper than paper books. The price of the paper and distribution is only a baseline lowest cost, it has nothing to do with what someone is willing to pay.

              • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2010 @11:24AM (#31975310)

                and this is why a high school level economics education is not sufficient to properly understand market forces.

              • by debatem1 (1087307) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @12:03PM (#31975732)

                And this is why we need mandatory economics education for every student.

                Price is not based on "greed", price is based on supply and demand.

                You may wish to avail yourself of that economics course- market forces have no control over initial prices, only what the price will trend towards. Companies could base their initial price on anything at all- greed being a significant factor.

                Companies charge what you are willing to pay, which is influenced by the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives.

                That's why electronic books are not significantly cheaper than paper books. The price of the paper and distribution is only a baseline lowest cost, it has nothing to do with what someone is willing to pay.

                And that would be relevant if they had equivalent sales. As things stand, it actually argues against your point: ebook sales in the US last year come to about $13 million dollars out of a (roughly) $23 billion dollar a year industry, according to the AAP. If the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives are the only driving factors, then I conclude that people are unwilling to pay equal amounts for a product that has no associated baseline costs and a product whose cost is dominated by those factors.

                • by qubezz (520511) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @03:03PM (#31977436)

                  And that would be relevant if they had equivalent sales. As things stand, it actually argues against your point: ebook sales in the US last year come to about $13 million dollars out of a (roughly) $23 billion dollar a year industry, according to the AAP. If the quality of the product and the price of the alternatives are the only driving factors, then I conclude that people are unwilling to pay equal amounts for a product that has no associated baseline costs and a product whose cost is dominated by those factors.

                  The low numbers are partially because the baseline cost is free - go to the library (or Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] for pre-1923 works, the last year to probably ever be public domain [wikipedia.org]). The truth is, the product you buy is not a product, it's a one-platform non-transferable DRM encrusted unresaleable bunch of words that will be disabled when the dot.com at the other end of the wire decides it's profitable to abandon [boingboing.net] or goes out of business [bricklin.com], sold for the same price as a tangible product. Ebooks are massively crippled so they are worth even less than a sherlockholmes.txt [gutenberg.org] ASCII file, and yet have still been priced uncompetitively, almost so they won't make a dent in the centuries-old paper codex business.

                  The only sheeple customers who can't say no to DRM seem to be those who respond to marketing that tells them they need to buy the latest gadgets to be cool and fashionable. Why do you think iPhone buyers were so upset when the price of the phone dropped from $600 to $400 [macnn.com]? Because more people could afford to join the fashionista club.

                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by Omestes (471991)

                    Why do you think iPhone buyers were so upset when the price of the phone dropped from $600 to $400 [macnn.com]? Because more people could afford to join the fashionista club.

                    Lowering the in-group bar might be why some people were angry, but I really doubt it was the main motivation for the anger. Even in the article you linked it states that people were pissed because they thought Apple was gouging the loyalists with an artificially high initial price, then lowering it to hook in the normal customers. Th

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by sjames (1099)

                The fact that prices consistently fail to fall to just about the marginal cost of production DOES, however prove that there are either very few truly healthy markets out there or that market theory is fundamentally flawed.

            • by arth1 (260657) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @11:40AM (#31975520) Homepage Journal

              You think they will drop their prices? Obviously, you don't know anything about the greed of the media companies.

              And why do you think that media companies will always be in control?

              Sooner or later, someone will come up with a viable economic model that isn't based on scarcity; knowledge, information and data is inherently both copyable and modifiable, and any scarcity is artificially imposed.
              The traditional model fails because it relies on the price of copying being higher than the price of buying.
              The ad model fails because it relies on the data not being modifiable.

              Games, books, or anything else that is basically data, need a different economic model altogether. One where you can copy and play as much as you like, and where a successful originator can't rest on his laurels, but will be forced to continue to create to get income rolling in.
              Perhaps an art tax, where each tax payer gets to tell who gets his art tax at the end of the year. Or perhaps something else. One thing is certain: The current system is broken, because it bases itself on limiting the supply.

          • by TavisJohn (961472) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:57AM (#31975040) Homepage

            And that sort of "Streaming" of a game will totally eliminate the re-playability of the game.

            I have games that are 5, 10, 15, 20+ years old that I STILL go back and play. Some of the companies that made the games I have do not even exist anymore! No game company is going to pay to keep servers running so customers can continue to play the game that long after it was released.

            I will NEVER EVER buy a game that is not totally contained on the media I am purchasing. I like to go back and re-play games for DECADES to come.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              Nothing stops them from resurrecting old titles as a "Vintage Special" and offering you the privilege of playing them for a fee.
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Yosho (135835)

                Nothing stops them from resurrecting old titles as a "Vintage Special" and offering you the privilege of playing them for a fee.

                Uh, except for going out of business. Assuming they had the proposed sort of DRM, if I wanted to play Pool of Radiance again, who would offer that? How about Tyrian or Jazz Jackrabbit...?

            • by PhilHibbs (4537)

              I will NEVER EVER buy a game that is not totally contained on the media I am purchasing. I like to go back and re-play games for DECADES to come.

              I hope that you still have the freedom to maintain that stance without giving up games entirely.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward

            At which point prices will have to drop significantly because you're no longer selling a game; you're selling a subscription to a game.

            Why the hell is this modded "insightful"? It's either "troll" or at best "funny".

            They'll just sell a lifetime* subscription for the regular price.

            * Really just as long as we feel like running the servers. No longer than the date of the release of the successor or 2 years from release.

          • by wall0159 (881759) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @02:18PM (#31977038)
            This isn't about price. This is about the freedom of the internet, which is slowly being eroded, and with it our personal freedom. It's easy to take the path of least resistance and simply seek technological circumventions to censorship and other online restrictions. But, while we keep playing with such toys, those that would control knowledge are busy building both the legislative and technological systems that will make this battle that much harder to fight in another decade or so.
        • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:38AM (#31974856)
          It's already in the works at On Live [onlive.com]. IMHO I think the latency related to gaming in this fashion will ruin it for everyone (unless you're playing board games or the like).
          • Dragons Lair was VERY successful- and it had a wee amount of delays..

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_Lair [wikipedia.org]

            The game's enormous contrast with other arcade games of the time created a sensation when it appeared, and was played so heavily that many machines often broke due to the strain of overuse. It was also arguably the most successful game on this medium and is aggressively sought after by collectors.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Khyber (864651)

              The delays in Dragon's Lair was for you to have a chance at actually doing the appropriate move at the right moment. Without those delays you'd be fucked.

              I still have the original laserdisc of Dragon's Lair.

        • by Espectr0 (577637)

          Then the crack will consist of downloading a permanent copy of the game assets and making the client download them locally from a running server, fooling the game to think it is downloading it from the remote servers.

        • Breaking the "DRM" in that case would actually be theft of service.

        • by rxan (1424721)

          The name you're looking for is Software as a Service.

          Bandwidth is one issue but the main concern is latency or "lag". In the case of games even a tiny bit of latency can cause it to be unplayable. Once you get round trip time for your commands to be sent and the video returned, you've got a lot of unhappy customers and the expense of feeding all that high resolution video.

          It doesn't have to be so extreme though. You can always implement pieces of the game not related to rendering on the server. Which is ess

          • It doesn't have to be so extreme though. You can always implement pieces of the game not related to rendering on the server. Which is essentially why Ubisoft has done here.
            The question then becomes how difficult is it to reimplement those parts...

            And the answer so far seems to be harder than cracking traditional drm but within the pirates capabilities to do eventually.

        • by BountyX (1227176)
          I had the same idea as OnLive a couple of years ago. My theory was based on the (reverse) evaluation of game code and how most games resided in small execution loops during gameplay. The biggest barrier to implementing my idea at the time was bandwidth and upgrade costs. The monthly subscription cost would have been too prohibitive and bandwidth requirements were unreasonable. I have no idea how these OnLive guys are going to handle frequent hardware updates since high-end games continue to push hardware. M
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Jesus_666 (702802)

            I have no idea how these OnLive guys are going to handle frequent hardware updates since high-end games continue to push hardware.

            Not really. Most games are essentially using DirectX 9 with additions because that's what the current generation of consoles supports. When the next round of consoles comes out they'll support DirectX 12 and you'll see nothing but DX12 games for the next five years. The boundary-pushing games are a thing of the past simply because that only works if you only release for the PC. Everyone else is tethered to what you can do with the chips found in consoles.

        • by rawler (1005089)

          That may take a while, at least for reaction-heavy games.

          Ignoring latencies in active repeaters (routers, switches...) just the speed of light in fiber has a measurable roundtrip (about 12ms from Stockholm to Paris). Then add audio-video-encoding, which realistically needs to buffer at least a few frames to get decent compression (x264 for live-broadcast is usually varying from 500-1000ms), so that adds another 20-30ms. Then you'd either need strong FEC, or very fast re-transmission to not occasionally suff

        • by Bragador (1036480)
          What would stop people from accessing the games from within or without and then sharing it with the world? Hackers could break in and disgruntled employees could leak games. So much for your "unbreakable" idea...
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kimvette (919543)

          ISP bandwidth caps and the lack of network neutrality will prevent that from being successful.

    • by Dachannien (617929) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:47AM (#31974948)

      In that respect, DRM is like a witch trial directed at legitimate paying customers. If the DRM stays intact, the witch sinks and dies, and the DRM perpetuates its own myth by "proving" its own success. If the DRM is cracked, the witch floats and lives only to be burned at the stake, and the DRM perpetuates its own myth by "proving" the need for harsher measures.

      Either way, the DRM isn't really doing anything but killing witches - I mean, eliminating paying customers.

      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @12:10PM (#31975804)

        Well, since paying customers weigh the same as ducks, they are all witches and deserve to be burned at the stake, obviously.

        Once again Science and Justice rule the day!

    • by MrHanky (141717)

      Brought what upon themselves? The so-called scene groups always try to crack any copy protection, and so far they've always succeeded in the end.

    • Ubisoft has brought this upon themselves

      Brought what upon themselves?

      Are you trying to say games with more permissive DRM have NOT been cracked? Or that games without DRM haven't been stolen?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bigjeff5 (1143585)

        I think he's trying to say that games without DRM are more successful.

        While it's hard to argue that piracy affects the bottom line of game sales (if piracy is an option, it WILL reduce demand for the retail version), there is little to no evidence that DRM measures reduce the amount of piracy. Due to their digital nature (the very thing that makes them easy to copy in the first place), once a game is cracked that particular version is cracked forever, and anybody with an internet connection can get it. Be

  • by illaqueate (416118) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:27AM (#31974748)

    Skidrow put their own copy protection on the crack because they simply placed the values from the emulator into a dll. It's nice and convenient to have a dll return the values instead of a server however if they had actually cracked then they would have also cracked the other games for which the emulator doesn't currently exist.

    So yes, Assassin's Creed 2 is playable but their copy protection is only broken in the sense that AC2 designers decided to make the server-client for this game return static responses that can be collected and eventually make the game playable for pirates.

    • by Jer (18391)

      So yes, Assassin's Creed 2 is playable but their copy protection is only broken in the sense that AC2 designers decided to make the server-client for this game return static responses that can be collected and eventually make the game playable for pirates.

      Wait - what? The server returns the same responses for everyone? This was their "unbreakable" DRM? Was it at least encrypted or something?

      • by moonbender (547943) <moonbender@NoSPaM.gmail.com> on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:48AM (#31974958)

        Even unencrypted it took weeks to emulate/"crack" the protection. So this was rather successful by the standards of DRM. They can step up this kind of protection in future titles. Allegedly the new Settlers game uses a variant of the same DRM which has a more complex integration with the server. Either way, the legit customer is stuck with a game that will only run when the server is up and reachable. If you see anybody playing AC2 on a plane or even on a train, they're almost certainly playing a pirated version, because legit customers simply can't run the game.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Derosian (943622)
          I really would only call this a success in name. No way to pirate the game should mean they would have a tenfold increase in sales, but they didn't see this. Sales were rather normal for a game of this magnitude, I wonder if this means people who pirate games are unlikely to buy your game anyway.
        • Even unencrypted it took weeks to emulate/"crack" the protection. So this was rather successful by the standards of DRM.

          I have to kind of grudgingly agree with you there.
          Look at the latest version of BD+ - used for the first time on the Avatar BLU-RAY.
          Avatar was released on Thursday it was cracked by the end of Friday by at least two different groups (Slysoft and Fengtao aka DVDFab).
          So, by that measure, Ubisoft's DRM was a massive success.
          Meanwhile, Fox just blew another $100K+ for a day's worth of copy prevention.

      • by illaqueate (416118) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:50AM (#31974982)

        The protection for AC2 is tacked on. Settlers 7 received somewhat better protection and there is no working server emulator for it yet. In the future it will be more dynamic and most likely include server side game logic. The significance of it not being truly cracked even with a basic protection as in AC2 is this: every time Ubisoft releases a new game then the pirates must play through the entire game collecting the values which can take a few weeks to get 100% unless the process can somehow be automated. This is over and above any changes to the protocol used to communicate between the client and server between games which the cracker must code for to capture those values.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:30AM (#31974768)

    The only ethical response to ubisoft is not to buy their product, not to use their product, not to infringe upon their product and then tell them you are doing it and tell your friends.

    I'm irritated at the pro-piracy attitude, it hurts open source as well. Without respect for at least copyright-driven IP you can't have real opensource that allows the creator to specify how it is propagated (GPL). All you would have would be the BSD, and we saw what Apple did with that eh?

    • by celibate for life (1639541) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:34AM (#31974806)
      Except Ubisoft doesn't know whether you illegally download their game or not, so pirating it and not playing it at all have the same effect, that is: Ubisoft will assume piracy.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sowth (748135) *

        So, why the fuck would you want to play their games if they are total assholes? It is not as if they are the only people who have ever made any games.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          However, they are the only people who have ever made Assassin's Creed 2.
          • by laparel (930257) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @05:22PM (#31978564)

            So... You don't like Ubisoft's DRM but since you really really like AC2, you wait for a crack then still buy the game?

            Look it's your money and everything so you're free to use it however you want, but to me buying their game whilst hating their DRM is very short sighted and counter-intuitive. If the current DRM-Crack arms war continues to escalate, I fear we'll just end up with a subscription model or something so draconian that pirates might just not be able to crack. You might be able to play Assassin's Creed 2 for now; but come Assassin's Creed 3, we'll all be fucked.

            I'd rather we just all stop buying Ubisoft's product now, even if that means we won't be playing their latest games, and hope that they shape up. Send a clear message to them that they're going to lose their customers and sales unless they remove their fucking DRM.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          The answer is obvious: if you want to play Assassin's Creed 2, playing Borderlands (or any other game) won't help any, because it's not Assassin's Creed 2.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          This is exactly the point. Do not feed them, you teach them nothing if you still buy their product. Refuse to buy their product, tell them why and tell everyone else.

          Proprietary software is not necessarily immoral or unethical, but treating your own customers like common criminals is arguably unethical (this goes for Apple too).

      • by krelian (525362) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:55AM (#31975024)

        That is why the parent was talking about ethics. Unfortunately, these days for most people protesting is fine as long as you don't have to actually sacrifice anything.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Do you really think that they don't take a peek at how well seeded the torrents of their games are? They have a pretty good idea when a game is being pirated and when it just sucks. The pro-piracy attitude is nothing more than being too cheap to buy the game and not having any respect for the developers. If you like the game, then you associate some value to it and you should buy it. Otherwise, don't play it.

  • Not so fast (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:32AM (#31974782)

    All Skidrow did was re-package the existing community-developed workaround. [cs.rin.ru]

    The community created a values.db which contains the name/value pairs to defeat Ubi's server checks, and a server emulator, Skidrow's DLL embeds this file and replaces the server-checking with a local access.

    Skidrow then takes full credit for the work (in a total douche move) and they also packed their DLL so no-one would detect their deception.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by X.25 (255792)

      The community created a values.db which contains the name/value pairs to defeat Ubi's server checks, and a server emulator, Skidrow's DLL embeds this file and replaces the server-checking with a local access.

      Considering those values are 'static' (which enables crack/emulator to work), what values would you suggest SkidRow to use?

      I have no idea what the story here is, nor do I care, but seemingly server/clients exchange static values, how could their crack use some other values? o.0

  • by GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) <almafuerte.gmail@com> on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:38AM (#31974862)

    Attached to the "readme" file that comes with the hacked content (which can be found here), Skid Row alerted other hackers that the group's methods were safeguarded against reverse-engineering in order to fend off competing hacking groups and Ubisoft itself.

    Let me see if I got it ... you are against the draconian practices of ubisoft ... so you crack the game and ... protect the source of your crack?

    I guess how you differentiate between hackers and crackers, this guys are nothing but thieves.

    And, before anyone replies saying that this is to protect the patch against ubisoft ... ubisoft created the DRM, they don't need to take a look at the crack's code.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2010 @10:41AM (#31974886)
    For the record:

    The actual hard work was done by a community of people who bought the game. They ran a proxy that logged all the "values" sent from the Ubisoft servers to the game. Each time the game progresses to another mission (or similar), it requires a different set of "values" to determine what game data to load (or a very similar method). The people who logged these values then submitted them to a community database, which collected them and sorted out any fake ones uploaded by Ubisoft employees or griefers.

    This community also made a server emulator, which served the "values" to the game upon request. The server emulator, written in python, was a pretty simple HTTP server; the game connected to it by editing the system's "hosts" file and hardcoding DNS responses for ".ubisoft.com" to localhost (where the server emulator runs).

    Thus, the game is only crackable once enough people have bought the game and logged all possible values for all possible missions states. It's not a total loss for Ubisoft in a sense -- it prevents "Pre" releases, wherein a release group distributes the game before the actual release date. It also ensures that a certain number of people must buy the game and contribute "values" to the community database; all in all this ends up lengthening the time from game release to full-working pirate release.

    SkidRow's new crack is simply an IPC (inter-process communication) method of delivering the "values" to the game, bypassing the network connection to the game. Therefore SkidRow's version doesn't use a server emulator running on localhost, but rather patches the executables of the game and has the "values" hardcoded into the cracked DLLs.

    The real issue here is that SkidRow took the "values" database from the community who initially logged them, and pretty much claimed it as their own work. The original cracking community inserted some fake "values" as trackers in order to determine when anyone stole their work and released it.
  • If Ubisoft applies a similar but tweaked version of this DRM to another game, will it take hacker groups like Skid Row the same amount of time to develop a crack? If so, then Ubisoft will be quite happy to continue releasing games that sell for several weeks before their DRM is cracked.

    On the other hand if this means Skid Row can now apply the same technique to all of Ubisoft's games, then the company has just wasted a lot of money and frustrated many of their customers all for the sake of one game.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2010 @11:57AM (#31975686)

    I work at Ubisoft as a programmer, which is why I'm posting as an AC. What the next step will be in the DRM, the ramp-up, is gameplay code that is run from the server. So in order to crack that one the pirates will have to fully emulate the server side code. Not the whole of the gameplay code mind you, just a small, but necessary and essential, portion. This should be in effect for the coming summer releases.
    For the record I think Ubisoft are being asshat idiots in continuing to ramp up this obscenity of a slap in the face to paying consumers. And I'm not alone, you should see the in-house mailing list flamewars about this (which also means that other employees are freaking greedy douchebags, it's not just the suits.)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 25, 2010 @03:54PM (#31977896)

      And I'm not alone, you should see the in-house mailing list flamewars about this (which also means that other employees are freaking greedy douchebags, it's not just the suits.)

      Please leak them.

  • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @12:48PM (#31976140)
    I wouldn't play Assassin's Creed 2, Command and Conquer 4, or any other game which required a constant internet connection for single player use, regardless of the state of cracks or how low the publisher dropped the price.

    Fuck Ubisoft. Fuck EA. They've both lost a paying customer [slashdot.org] by pulling this bullshit, and I buy a lot of games.

    Fuck 'em both.
  • by blueworm (425290) on Sunday April 25, 2010 @01:30PM (#31976500) Homepage

    Do not use the crack and do not play the games with DRM if we want to really see an end to DRM. Even playing the game without buying it can be good publicity that generates sales for those who would complain they are not selling enough. Resisting the temptation to consume products instead of creating our own is the real problem. Instead of consuming things because we feel we need to, if we do not agree with the product we should instead work to create our own. We cannot let self-doubts and temporary failures prevent us from being creative if we are to bring about a new creative renaissance without DRM.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...