The Awful Anti-Pirate System That Will Probably Work 1027
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.'"
Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that DRM never works yet always pisses off some consumers, wouldn't the sweet spot then be no DRM?
Rob
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Interesting)
No matter how good it may seem now, it will come back to screw you. It is still DRM, it just has a happy face painted on it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had to read that a couple of times before I understood/believed it: they uncensored a game and you were unhappy with that? You wanted the censored version of the game back?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He's probably Amish.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Interesting)
No matter how good it may seem now, it will come back to screw you. It is still DRM, it just has a happy face painted on it.
Yes, I agree with you about Steam, and Valve Corporation in general. What you are describing here is the difference between copy protection (which is the avowed reason that companies employ this crap) and Digital Rights Management. Game publishers that want complete, unquestioned real-time control of purchased content resident on your computer have gone way too far in my opinion, and it's just wrong. That applies to everything, not just games. Remember how Amazon removed access to an e-book on the Kindle, after the customers had paid for it? This is a level of control over the customer that sets the MPAA/RIAA drooling on their respective bibs.
Now, having said that, it would feel differently if I were renting a game product (i.e., software as a service) by paying a small monthly fee. I'm just paying for access. I get thoroughly torqued off, however, when I spend fifty or a hundred bucks on a disc, and then get told that a. I have to have an Internet connection to activate or use it and b. find that my use of the product can be revoked or modified at any time, and for that matter that the content can be swapped out at their whim. That's just ridiculous, but that's what they want. I say don't give it to them.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sweet spot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Informative)
I looked for any sort of way to roll it back on my own, but didn't find squat. In updating they removed the textures and meshes for the uncensored version. I'd love to know a way to roll back to the original, but I haven't found anything. They claim that it was an opt-in update, but that is complete hogwash. There is no way I would have ever approved it.
I dont care to be treated as a thief. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a bunch of good games out there-- that are filled with DRM.. and I wont touch it. And I kinda wish people had the collective backbone not to buy "hostageware" , even if you can get some awesome convenience factor as a bonus prize.. (steam installs are a tempting draw)
But I don't want to be treated like a thief.. And I avoid giving money to anyone that treats me as such. If the gas station says prepay only I'll fill up elsewhere -- even when I'm swiping a card to pay for gas.
Storm
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wi
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I used to like Steam, until I paid $30 for a thirty party game on there which asked for a CD Key which I obviously didn't have. Looked on the forums and everyone was having this problem. I contacted customer service and they wanted me to disable this Windows thing and edit that registry whatever. No thanks.
But the important thing is they told me the refund they gave me was a one time thing. Even though I asked for it within 48 hours of the purchase I was treated like I tried to download the game, play it, and return it. And if you reverse the charge on your card? Your account is suspended and you lose ALL your games.
So I'll still Steam... for Valve games. And not much else. It is part of the reason I moved from PC to PS3 gaming.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This whole story is about how and why the DRM will work. It's kind of funny someone always comes along with "it will be cracked" without understanding any of the fundamentals behind how the game copy protections work.
I'm just waiting them to take this one little step further - stream parts of the game code, textures or other data from server (something not used often). Spread it randomly around the game and it becomes almost impossible to build a working crack.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Interesting)
This whole story is about how and why the DRM will work.
Yes, and I don't agree with Vogel's premise. It's not going to be more difficult to crack this than it was to crack, say, StarForce; it's just going to be different. And once it's been cracked, how much can Ubisoft possibly change the method for all of their future games? This new DRM is just a complete non-starter.
I'm just waiting them to take this one little step further - stream parts of the game code, textures or other data from server (something not used often).
Yes, I'm waiting for them to finally come out and admit that they don't want any of the PC market as well.
Rob
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can always make a fake local server.
Did you read at all what I said? Sure, local server is probably trivial to make given enough time. But if the game streams content, code or other data from the server when it needs to in the game, or implements some functions only server-side (is the player at end of the level, spawn enemies when player opens a door and so on), all of that would have to be fetched and reimplemented. With large, open games theres a really good change you need to play hundreds of thousands of games to get all the content from
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, local server is probably trivial to make given enough time. But if the game streams content, code or other data from the server when it needs to in the game
Well, you're kinda blurring the line between legitimate online activities (this is an Internet game after all) and DRM. If the game is dependent upon remote content because it's an online game, well, that's one thing. But if I have a product that is capable of being played offline, but requires an active Internet connection solely for the purposes of Digital Restriction and Monitoring ... screw that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
$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.
Stay behind the curve (Score:5, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
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:5, Interesting)
PC gamers think they should get games for free (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I work for Ubisoft, though I had nothing to do with this DRM stuff. This is my own personal opinion only, I do not speak for my employer.
I hope those black hats are ready for a visit from the FBI.
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. 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.
People say Ubisoft shouldn't treat them like criminals. But an unfortunately large majority of PC gamers ARE criminals who will steal any game they can, and justify it to themselves however they want. 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.
So rather than give up on the PC market entirely (which is the other possible solution), we're trying the heavy DRM stuff. Some of those pirates (a small fraction probably) would buy a retail copy if they were not able to easily pirate the game. Most of them won't, and we don't care about those guys -- they can go pirate our competitors' games and thats fine. But after we spend 2+ years with hundreds of people working their ASSES off to make something just to entertain people, we would like them to pay us for it. Is it really so much to ask?
Re:PC gamers think they should get games for free (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:PC gamers think they should get games for free (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:PC gamers think they should get games for free (Score:5, Insightful)
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:PC gamers think they should get games for free (Score:4, Interesting)
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 you get accurate numbers on pirated games?
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a giant pile of games next to my tv. Even for a console, Assassin's Creed 2 isn't going to ever be among them.
Local Server? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
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:4, Interesting)
I once worked as a student developer for a company whose products were protected by hardware dongle. Near the end of my internship there, one of the larger customers demanded a dongle-less way to run the software, and my then-employer complied. By overwriting the hardware-dongle DLL with one that simply returned back "true".
I got to implement that DLL. It was entertaining.
My current employer uses software license keys. They're even funnier. The lawyers get all in a fit about them, when, in reality, they are basically no protection whatsoever.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Interesting)
Same here. I'm not so much into the game market, but I do buy a lot of music, and the same principles apply. But when it comes to the point where a game manufacturer is spending more resources on preventing someone digitally ripping off his product than he appears to be on the product itself, then everybody would be better off if the game was simply produced as a physical board game.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Funny)
There are lots of DRM-free sources of entertainment
You know, this being Slashdot and continuing with the "nerd in his parent's basement" theme, I would say that finding a girlfriend would qualify, but I've discovered that only very rarely do girlfriends come without some form of DRM.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Funny)
and if you find a girfriend without DRM on her sweet spot, she will likely have a virus problem
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Their DRM is very easily circumvented, though: ether and duct tape.
No, you're talking about the security system (i.e. User Access Control.) I'm talking about the built in Digital Restrictions Management that members of the fairer sex often apply to their mates ("don't stop at the bar on the way home", "don't leave the dishes in the sink", "put the toilet seat DOWN! when you're done" "keep your eyes off her tits!", etc. etc. ... etc.)
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Funny)
And for those of us without water tight seals on the toilet?
An otter will do in a pinch.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Fine! In that case... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Informative)
I have never yet found a torrent on any torrent site that had a virus or trojan.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
That you know of.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
Or he uses a private tracker site...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
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:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Up until the Internet went public, the only major cases of malware release were on commercial software. There was a computer outfit near me back in the early 90's that was selling blank 5 1/4" floppy disks by the hundreds of thousands ... all of which were conveniently pre-infected with a boot-sector virus.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh I think he's gonna have a tough time with that one.
Re:Sweet spot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which DRM has slowed down copying more than it's pissed off consumers? I don't consider CD keys DRM, BTW. DRM in my mind is screwing up a game's code for no reason other than to obstruct pirates.
Rob
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, if nobody buys the game, it will be hard to argue that the copy protection was a success.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Correction: Exactly one person will buy the game. He will pay cash.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Down (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Down (Score:5, Informative)
If it goes down just for a minute or two, you won't have problems.
Quoting PC Gamer:
I tried a different test: start the game while online, play a little, then unplug my net cable. This is the same as what happens if your net connection drops momentarily, your router is rebooted, or the game loses its connection to Ubisoft's 'Master servers'. The game stopped, and I was dumped back to a menu screen - all my progress since it last autosaved was lost.
[Emphasis added.]
Rob
Re:Down (Score:5, Interesting)
What if a certain group of crackers decides to DOS the servers?
This could easily happen and make the game unplayable for 48 hours after launch....plenty of time to crack it *AND* piss off all the people who went and paid for it.
Sure it's hard to crack (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 easie
And in a few years.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This isn't really accurate. Patching a game with access to its source code is an entire different beast from patching a game from assembly (or, even worse, DRM-mangled bytecode or hooked assembly or whatever wacky techniques they're using.)
Presumably, all they'd have to do would be to take the server savegame code and build it into the client.
Your argument is like saying "well, if it's so hard for people to write perfectly-compatible WoW servers, then obviously Blizzard has to go through the same amount of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure they can modify it easier with the source code, the real question is, why would they bother? It doesn't really gain them anything.
They would much rather sell you Assassin's Creed 4, than to take a programmer for even five minutes to patch an old game that doesn't make them money anymore.
Unless of course they charge for this unlocking service...
The Crackers Will Win (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Crackers Will Win (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
It's stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
Work is the operative word here (Score:3, Interesting)
Assassin's Creed 2 can be the best "game" of the decade, but it's not if it has intrusive DRM. Then it's just a waste of money.
Save States (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't really need some special code for save games when you can easily write a program that will save the state of any game and let you resume right at that spot. It's been done with emulated games, it will be done with these games, and will avoid the whole mess of picking apart the mechanism used by the game's DRM. If you update the game, however, it will cause problems, but it's certainly doable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 finall
The Free Market (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't like it, don't buy it. Copy protection goes through cycles. Companies think it's a great thing, start implementing it, and then customers stay away in droves. If anyone here remembers the copy protections of the 1980's involving induced bad sectors and other things, you'll remember that it pissed off customers and it died by the time the 1990's showed up, because they simply wouldn't buy the games.
Then the industry largely forgot about it and here we are with another round. Do the same thing - don't buy DRMed media and it will die the same death.
Don't break the DRM. Don't pirate, either. Pirating the game/software/media only skews the market in favor of the incumbents and locks out alternatives. Give your money and market share to the alternatives if you don't like DRM/copy protection. That part of the market will grow and favor companies that don't treat their customers like potential thieves. Indeed, Bill Gates said as much 12 years ago when he said that Microsoft will get the Chinese "sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
Strong copy protection and DRM in a free market always fails eventually, if you let it.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>it's far from a free market
ACTA is anti free market. It's kleptocracy enshrined in law, if it get ratified.
All copyright law is essentially the antithesis of a free market (as are all monopoly grants), and strengthening copyright is even more so. ACTA is a collusion between countries and corporations that can't compete in a truly free market to eliminate the free market.
--
BMO
Piracy is not the real target : used video games (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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.
If it ever gets hit by a DoS attack (Score:3, Insightful)
Diminish Piracy via Online Content (Score:4, Insightful)
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:-1 flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
His whole argument is predicated on his incorrect assumption that the game saves are solely online, and that the game is constantly using those saves. In fact, the game itself uses only your local saves, and the online saves are merely a backup.
The DRM will be broken, and just as quickly as ever.
Re:-1 flamebait (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:-1 flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:The very worst (Score:5, Insightful)
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:The very worst (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I hope this is "uncrackable" DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I hope this is "uncrackable" DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
A products market ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Wh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)