Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
PC Games (Games) The Internet Games Your Rights Online

Ubisoft DRM Problems Remain Unsolved 430

ocean_soul writes "More than three weeks after the release of The Settlers 7, with the controversial 'always on-line' DRM, a lot of people still can't connect to Ubisoft's DRM servers. The forum threads where people can post if they are unable to connect keep growing daily. One reason for the lack of fixes or responses from support seems to be that the people responsible were on vacation during the Easter holiday, despite the promise of 24/7 monitoring of the servers. The moral of this story seems to be that it is a bad idea to buy a game just before a major holiday." Or perhaps that it's wise to avoid games with such DRM altogether. So far, Ubisoft hasn't shown any sign that they're reconsidering the requirement of a constant connection. They've recently said it's "vital" to the success of their games and promised that their DRM would "evolve and improve" over time.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubisoft DRM Problems Remain Unsolved

Comments Filter:
  • by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:31PM (#31887662)

    It's clear they don't really care about addressing the problems people are having today. They have already accepted that there will be issues, and they just plan to react and evolve the DRM, but to never remove it. They're in it for the long haul, and if a few eggs get smashed along the way, they're quite fine with that.

  • It's vital, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InsertWitticismHere ( 1091735 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:45PM (#31887774)

    Fuck 'em, then...

  • by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:48PM (#31887796)

    and if a few eggs get smashed along the way, they're quite fine with that.

    Will their shareholders feel the same way when Ubisoft titles have the reputation of being flaky, hard to play, and prone to technical malfunction?

  • by deadmongrel ( 621467 ) * <> on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:48PM (#31887804) Homepage

    DRM only punishes people who actually pay money to buy.

  • by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:54PM (#31887852) Homepage Journal

    "You get what you pay for", or, "A fool and his money are soon parted"?

    I think it's more the story of the fool and his money. Don't buy DRM, people! DRM is a promise that you'll be screwed, later if not sooner. Think hard, then name a half dozen DRM schemes that have lasted for years, and STILL WORK. I'll bet you can't do it. No one supports much of anything after just a couple years. Windows XP was probably the longest lasting support story, and that was what? 7 years?

  • by Goaway ( 82658 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:58PM (#31887880) Homepage

    put their piracy statistics through the roof

    Clearly the game was a runaway success, but the DRM was just not strong enough.

  • by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) <> on Sunday April 18, 2010 @12:59PM (#31887886)
    Why pirate it? Is your sense of entitlement so great that you couldn't simply go without a game that goes against your principles?

    People need to stop considering piracy as a viable alternative, and start considering other products instead. Making a stand without making a sacrifice isn't going to prove the thing you want it to.
  • by Ziekheid ( 1427027 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:00PM (#31887890)

    Yep but the problem lies exactly with these people who keep buying the games with this kind of DRM protection. If people stop buying they're practically forced to stop using this kind of protection.
    But we all know this is never going to happen and people will keep buying their products.

  • It won't happen. Any marketing exec can tell you that if a product isn't selling, just keep throwing money towards advertising. Cool factor and peer pressure ("Dude, you don't have Game 3: The Game? What the fuck man, that game rocks!") will keep sales at more-than-acceptable levels.

    It's just like Brave New World. So long as the entertainment is good enough, people will remain placated and apathetic.

  • If you REALLY want to send them a message don't buy it and don't pirate it either.

    Pirating the game tells them that you would have bought it had their DRM been foolproof.

  • by Ozlanthos ( 1172125 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:19PM (#31888060)
    Remember Doom? How about Quake, Quake 2, and Unreal Tournament? If you've been playing computer-based FPS games for over a decade like I have, you KNOW these games. Why? Is it because they were so freaking wonderful that EVERYONE had to play them? No.... In my mind the popularity of these games was rooted in the fact that they were (for their time) kick-ass games, but primarily their popularity lie in the fact that you could install them on as many computers as you'd like. With one legit (or otherwise) copy you could start up a LAN party and frag the night away. Then long after the Dew and pizza was gone, you'd swear on your Redeemer that next time you'd kick the crap out of that 12 year old (who incidentally LIVES on UT) who gleefully pwn'd you for the majority of the night. But how? You didn't have a high-speed internet connection with which to dl the game, and despite his age, the pre-pubescent pwn-pro has nuts enough to tell you to "buy your own damn copy!" You already KNOW that you like the game, and your thirst for vengence is just enough to get you to cough up $29.99.

    The above mentioned process made millions of game sales possible. Not DRM, not other anti-piracy policy or provision, just the ability to entertain 10 plus nerds on a single copy. Despite whatever other goals game developers may have, selling copies is the ultimate goal. That being said, things like DRM, and excessive prices (which would be much less without having to pay DRM developers) dissuade gamers like me. Oh well as long as nubes are dumb enough to buy games they have to pay for monthly, or have the digital equivalent of the great wall of China protecting against their copying their games, game makers will keep on plodding along.


  • Re:eff them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:19PM (#31888064)
    Steam actually adds value (download to any PC anywhere, never need a CD, etc) in compensation for the loss of certain freedoms associated with their DRM system (no resale, etc.)

    Nobody elses DRM is adding value.

    An example of the value its given me: I purchased Left 4 Dead from Walmart a year or so ago I guess, but when I opened the product, the CD was broken. "Aww crap!" .. This stuff happens.. but wait.. its a steam game! No need to go back to the store! Launch steam, enter the product key, latest version downloads with all patches applied, and off I went killing zombies....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:21PM (#31888070)

    Pirating the game tells them that you would have bought it had their DRM been foolproof.

    It doesn't tell them that, though moronic media and game execs tend to imply it because they don't know any better.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:26PM (#31888106)

    What's broken with the tagging here on Slashdot that this article is not tagged defectivebydesign []?

  • by masmullin ( 1479239 ) <> on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:26PM (#31888112)

    Hello Pirates, or shall I say AHOY!

    I am not against piracy, I think it's a terrific method to get free shit. However for this situation, using the "Im going to Pirate this game to stop teh 3\/i! DRMers" is an counter-productive move.

    If you pirate these games simply 'on principle' software companies will adjust themselves with stronger DRM.

    For these games, the publishers are willing to give up a certain portion of their profits in order to change the culture of PC gaming towards the standardization of using Draconian DRM Systems (DDRMS) in their games. Their goal is to make it 'normal' for players to buy games w/ DDRMS.

    The most effective methods of fighting this DDRMS from least to highest are:

    6. DDoS the DRM servers (I do not condone this action because it is illegal)
    5. Do not buy the game
    4. Do not buy the game and evangelize to friends and gamers why THEY should not buy the game
    3. Buy a non-DRM game
    2. Download an Open Source video game
    1. Donate to an Open Source video game.

    The most effective methods of HELPING this DDRMS from least to highest are:
    4. buy the game
    3. buy the game and tell your friends how awesome the game is
    2. pirate the game
    1. Donate money to UbiSoft to help they promote the DDRMS (I expect that other companies are quietly backing UbiSoft here)

  • by Kneo24 ( 688412 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:33PM (#31888168)

    Sympathize or don't. When you don't, don't expect any sympathy in return. Expect decisions like the ones Ubisoft has made.

    Your entire position is ridiculous. The consumer shouldn't need to sympathize with a company. It's not a person. It's a thing. Companies exist to provide services. If their services aren't pleasing their existing customers, then they are doing something wrong. What other people do to them doesn't matter in a sympathy context. Even when people do sympathize with things, like faceless companies, they still fuck their customers in the ass. So again I ask why any person should sympathize with a thing.

    Customers are people who pay.

    Yes, and?

    And if they don't pay enough to cover the cost of the trouble they cause, then they're not worthwhile, are they?

    How are their customers causing trouble in this scenario? Is it due to their complaints about a broken product that hasn't been fixed after 3 weeks? Is that, "causing trouble"? Should they just shut up and silently take it like good little consumers?

  • by GrumblyStuff ( 870046 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:36PM (#31888188)

    The American way of doing business is slash-n-burn anything and everything. Why sell one kidney when you can sell two for twice the price? You'll be rich before you die! Air and water? If I make it unbreathable and undrinkable, I could sell it filtered at a 100x markup! Anything to prop up that quarterly report, cinch the bonus, and skip town. No one gives a shit about long term.

    Shareholders will see the quarterly report (Looks great on paper!) and spend their imaginary money.

  • by masmullin ( 1479239 ) <> on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:39PM (#31888218)

    No, its because there is a culture of piracy surrounding PC gaming. I remember back when I was in college, all my classmates were shocked that I paid for my video games.

    I dont judge the people who pirate games, I dont pirate software because I find it to be "unsafe computing" ; its like sticking your cock in a streethooker and saying "OMG how did I get the Herp?" Im just saying that the culture of piracy is what is behind companies like Ubi installing DRM systems.

  • The Main Problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sonicmerlin ( 1505111 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:40PM (#31888228)

    Here's the thing. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the most prolific pirates are also the most voracious consumers, purchasing far more material than the average, casual gamer. These companies don't seem to understand that piracy does not correlate to a loss of sales. If anything, as a recent Arstechnica article mentioned, it may *increase* sales as people are able to legitimately sample the product and decide to buy either the current or future releases.

    The real problem is that the executives and CEOs of these companies are performing their duties on behalf of the shareholders. The shareholders see people using their company's product for free, and like greedy little children who want to have their cake and eat it too, equate every torrent download with a lost sale. Even if it's not a true correlation, they can't stand the idea of someone using their stuff without adding to their pockets. If the shareholders don't recognize the value that targeted piracy, or even *demos* as the recent article about Crytek demonstrated, can have for a company, then nothing is going to improve, and the CEOs will keep shooting themselves in their foot trying to "stop piracy", all the while punishing their customers in the process.

    What we need are more studies conducted by independent third parties to assess the true affects of piracy on sales. And I don't just mean a straight-up numbers analysis. I'm talking about determining the sociological implications of piracy, and its effects on buyers' habits over the long-term. Once these studies are performed we need to educate people about the *actual* conclusions, not some made-up garbage by the RIAA or other entrenched schemers.

  • by teh31337one ( 1590023 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:41PM (#31888240)
    Once again, the pirates get the better game, while people who pay for the game have to put up with the DRM. Bravo Ubisoft, bravo.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:46PM (#31888312)

    You have a funny definition of "fucked". I'd PREFER that they stop releasing their garbage on PC. It would clear the way for good games from good developers that tend to get buried by all the money and hype that these huge corporations throw around.

  • Re:IANAL, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:46PM (#31888316)

    Class action = no time spent, a little money
    Small claims = lots of time spent, possibly a full refund. Maybe.

    Given the crazy lives people lead, I'm not surprised so many choose the 'no time spent' route.

  • Not only that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:52PM (#31888368)

    But once the protection has been figured out, future cracks will be faster. When a new DRM is introduced, it does take some time for crackers to figure out how it works and get around it. The more different it is from past DRM, the longer it takes. Thus this DRM, being custom Ubisoft stuff that's never been seen, takes longer than SecuROM or the like.

    Ok but one they figure it out, and they have, well then in the future it'll be much faster. While the details will change, the base workings are going to be the same and thus not take so long. In this case it may be even easier as the method used seems to be to just emulate the server.

    No matter, it is a losing battle for Ubisoft. They can invest the time and money to make a totally new DRM system for each game if they like, but they'd lose money due to the development expense and it'd still get cracked.

    Game companies really need to knock it the fuck off. You can't make an uncrackable game, so stop wasting your money trying. Also all the people pirating are NOT lost sales. The vast majority would simply do without if they couldn't get it for free. Make good games for a reasonable price with nice extras for paying customers (things like achievements) and you'll find that your game sells fine. Pull shit like this and you'll lose sales because people don't want to deal with it. I was planning on getting AC2 and Settlers 7 but both are off my list because of the DRM. There are plenty of other good games out there (too many in fact, I don't have enough time to play all the games I've got) that have non-invasive or no DRM.

    I'm not unreasonable, I'll meet publishers half way, I can deal with some DRM so long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to play the game. However shit like this is a no go.

  • Re:$60 per month (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ThePhilips ( 752041 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:54PM (#31888400) Homepage Journal

    Data plans, anyway you look at them, are still luxury. Time after time I check with my friends how much they pay for iPhone per month and for myself I simply can't justify the expenses.

    And the laptop gaming is on rise. What is rather obvious as for few years now laptop shipments outnumber that of desktops. It is simple fact that more and more people own a laptop and have no desktop at all.

    That means that "always on-line" DRM is screwed in long run.

  • by Roogna ( 9643 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:57PM (#31888430)

    No, just don't buy OR steal. Don't use Ubisoft products at all! Sheesh people, stop trying to justify your piracy.

  • Re:IANAL, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MadnessASAP ( 1052274 ) <> on Sunday April 18, 2010 @01:58PM (#31888440)

    My guess is that class action law suits require very little effort from 99% of the people involved, they simply have to say that they were in some way harmed and then get to collect their reward. Small claims court means you actually have to work and put effort in even if it's not alot. As well know on Slashdot everyone wants the world to be fixed, so long as somebody else does it.

  • by icebraining ( 1313345 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @02:07PM (#31888538) Homepage

    Let me change that:

    No, its because there is a culture of piracy surrounding online music downloading. I remember back when I was in college, all my classmates were shocked that I paid for my mp3s.

    Yet, all major online music stores moved to DRM-free mp3s.

  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @02:19PM (#31888650)

    I get tired of people wanting things done for them without offering anything in return.

    Also, there are clearly two sides to every dispute, even when one side is wrong. These discussions on Slashdot end up being stupid because you guys don't seem to have the imagination to try to understand the reasons behind the decisions you don't like. A few posts in, the groupthink conclusion always turns out to be:

    "[Whoever] made [this decision] because they're morons and evil and they hate money and puppies and if they just did what we wish they would do, everything would have worked out great for everyone."

    And then you all wonder why the world is in such bad shape when you have all the answers to what everyone should do in every situation -- or at least every situation where you personally have something to gain.

  • by Svippy ( 876087 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @02:24PM (#31888702) Homepage
    What about Steam? I'd consider that a pretty successful DRM scheme too.
  • I don't think this has anything to do with theft. Ironically, if you were to steal a copy of the game (walk into a store, put it up your shirt, walk out), you'd still have the DRM, and as far as Ubisoft's servers are concerned, your copy will be entirely "legitimate".

    I think, however, that this topic is largely about copying. I'm not sure how any DRM system could impact actual theft, and I don't see anything in this one that even attempts to address it.

    Now, of course, you weren't trying to disingenuously equate copyright infringement with theft, were you? They're not the same thing. Copying something cannot by definition be theft. It can still be illegal, just like murder, rape, and extortion are illegal. But copyright infringement is not equivalent to any of those things either, and to use one of those terms instead of the proper ones because it sounds "more serious" is misunderstanding what theft is at best and deliberately dishonest at worst.

  • by blahplusplus ( 757119 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @02:47PM (#31888876)

    "If you pirate these games simply 'on principle' software companies will adjust themselves with stronger DRM."

    You're under the illusion that companies CARE about their customers, they don't and it won't change.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 18, 2010 @02:54PM (#31888938)

    Wow, way to misunderstand what the parent was trying to say. As I understand it, one of the larger problems of DRM is that if the company providing the content one day folds (or maybe just switches DRM schemes), it's verly likely they won't bother unlocking what you bought. Suddenly you'll be locked out of potentially hundreds of dollars worth of music, video or software. It has happened.
    And your post pretty much adds to that pain. Cracking DRM has one long term benefit: it ensures that in a couple of years your content won't become a bunch of dead files, wasting hard drive space. Do you want to risk your money on content with (as of yet) unbroken DRM?

  • by b4dc0d3r ( 1268512 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @03:00PM (#31888986)

    You're right, but it doesn't change anything. Pirating means someone cracked it and gave it away, so let's get a better lock on the door. whether it's true or whether they infer it doesn't matter.

    If everyone stopped buying, playing, and pirating DRM-infested titles for 1 month the industry would shit itself. We sold 0 titles? Oh then they must be downloading. No downloads? No activity on the servers at all? W-T-F? Let's get a new title out there with full-on advertising. No one bought it? W-T-F? OK, maybe let's look at this DRM thing.

    Won't happen, most people don't care and it's good enough. But at least be honest - yes, it tells them that, whether they infer it logically or not.

  • by Alphathon ( 1634555 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @03:50PM (#31889390)
    I would say the only real way to send them the message is to litterally send them a message. Don't buy the game, and tell them that you didn't because of the DRM. That way, they can't say "look, that person didn't buy it - he must have pirated it" and they can't say "people aren't buying it - we didn't market it enough" - it's the only way the loss of a sale can have any meaningful impact and can't be attributed to something else.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 18, 2010 @03:59PM (#31889452)

    OK, maybe let's look at this DRM thing.

    Their current piracy-related claims aren't grounded in reality, I doubt that would change if the total rate of pirated copies was zero.

  • by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @05:18PM (#31890102)

    Big companies are all the same, especially if most of their customers are from the US.

    What? It's not even an American outfit and we're still to blame?

  • by ScrewMaster ( 602015 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @05:28PM (#31890172)

    I've had excellent luck with Steam

    Me too. I think Valve Corporation is a. not as boneheaded greedy as Ubisoft and b. is more competent technically. Yes, there's just as much potential for abuse, but so far I've not had any grief with Steam at all. Certainly not when compared to the likes of Ubisoft. As always, if you buy into a DRM-laden content-distribution system, expect that at some point your "investment" may become worthless. It's the nature of the beast, and I wish more people would understand that. It's not such a big deal with a video game, I suppose. However, if I spent a lot of money on e-books (say, reference materials that I need) and I found out one day that my privileges had been revoked, I'd be pissed. And if you're involved with DRM, especially online DRM, that's what it amounts to. A privilege granted by a corporation. Consequently, for anything that's remotely important to me, I want nothing to do with DRM.

  • by destrowolffe ( 1089243 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @05:28PM (#31890176)
    I got a free steam copy with purchase of a new i7 860. Seriously though, having to be online, register a ubisoft account, login every time I play the game, and remain online while playing for a single player game is ridiculous.

    If Ubisoft want me to ever buy another one of their games (and I'm a big Tom Clancy game fan) then the DRM will have to go away or change significantly from this non-sense. Especially since I know it would take all of 20minutes or so to find, download, and install a cracked version of the game for free with less hassle.

    I don't claim to be the pulse of the nation, but I am one customer who will no longer be a customer. I don't think I'm particularly unique in this regard.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 18, 2010 @05:47PM (#31890290)

    I don't think this has anything to do with theft.

    I think, however, that this topic is largely about copying.

    Close, this has absolutely nothing to do with preventing copyright infringement. They know that they'll never get pirates to buy their games.

    What this is, is an attempt to stop the second hand game market. By allowing only one account per code, they've effectively taken away your first sale doctrine rights.

  • by TheVelvetFlamebait ( 986083 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @06:29PM (#31890614) Journal

    Dude, I completely agree with you, but choose your battles wisely. All the groupthink is asking for is, if not a DRM-free copy of the game, then at the very least, a well-maintained working service. The latter is not an unreasonable request if you've already paid for the game.

  • by leety ( 1762478 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @07:22PM (#31890940)

    had their DRM been foolproof.

    No such animal. I would think that DRM programmers more than anyone would know its like a battle against terminal illness. You can deter and delay, but the house always wins.

  • Look, for example, at the respective outcomes:


    -User has the game
    -Ubisoft doesn't get any money


    -User has the game
    -Ubisoft doesn't get any money

    Not everything that has the same outcome is the same thing. Take, for example, the following two scenarios:

    Someone suffers a stuck accelerator, loses control of their vehicle, and strikes someone, killing them:

    -Victim is dead.

    Someone points a gun at that person and pulls the trigger, killing them:

    -Victim is dead.

    Yet, despite the same outcome, only one of these acts is a murder. It would be absurd to say they both are, just because the outcome was the same in both cases.

    By your means of definition (similarity of outcome), a secondhand sale would also be a theft: the purchaser has the game, and the publisher got no money for the sale. Yet this would seem absurd, at least to me.

    Theft requires a physical deprivation. That's the critical point. If someone steals my bicycle, it is theft because they now have it, I did not give them permission to have it (both true of copyright infringement), and I now do not have it (untrue of copyright infringement).

    All of those conditions must be met for a theft to occur. To say that the "deprivation" is in not a loss but a lack of gain (a "deprivation" of a hypothetical profit which may or may not have occurred) is to stretch the definition until it screams, and I don't think it at all holds, as it results in an absurdity (secondhand sales also being "theft").

    If someone could somehow make a copy of my bike, rather than purchasing one, it may not be something bike manufacturers would like too much. But it wouldn't be a theft.

  • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @08:05PM (#31891188) Homepage Journal

    go buy your games from (steam creates issues with patching or mods generally) and get the 'outsourced' server emulator fix from razor1911.

    these good people, without being paid, have fixed ubisoft's clients' problem for ubisoft, i hear.

  • by tsm_sf ( 545316 ) on Sunday April 18, 2010 @10:05PM (#31891916) Journal
    As a discussion on the Middle East lengthens, the probability of someone juxtaposing Zionists with Nazis approaches 1.

    Have you thought your sig through to its logical conclusion?
  • The people don't even have to play it. They just have to buy it, and the bad reviews or complaints can be buried in Google or compensated for with advertising, paid reviews, astroturfing, etc. It is one of those situations where you can just keep throwing money at it to make it a non-issue.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2010 @01:57AM (#31893090)

    "We sold 0 titles? Oh then they must be downloading. No downloads? No activity on the servers at all? W-T-F? Let's get a new title out there with full-on advertising. No one bought it? W-T-F? OK, maybe let's look at what our bought politicians are doing in office. Surely we can use this as a valid bailout or spread fear that the hackers have found out an entirely new way to pirate the game that we are unable to track with our current means. This should help drive through the bills we wrote last year to be able to get a person's identity from their ISP or even disconnect them from the internet without court approval or oversight at long last. All that's left is to get a mandatory monthly fee out of anyone who makes less than 50,000 dollars per year - which will of course provide a loophole for us and our legal dogs in office. Now get back down to the R&D department and get them to strengthen that DRM!"

    (A more realistic outcome compared to your utopian view.)

  • by judeancodersfront ( 1760122 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @02:10AM (#31893176)
    and you think that will then get them to make DRM free games????? All you've done is started an asshole war.

    The only way to show your non-support is to support competing products. Otherwise you're telling them that their game is of value to you but you don't want to pay for it.

    Not that I have any faith in pc gamers to protest this properly. They're one of the worst groups on the internet when it comes to having a sense of entitlement. I say this as someone who has bought about a dozen video cards in the last 10 years.
  • by jonaskoelker ( 922170 ) <> on Monday April 19, 2010 @03:48AM (#31893554)

    I agree with you (the parent) more than your parent (my grandparent).

    That is, I agree with your conclusion but disagree with your arguments.

    Not everything that has the same outcome is the same thing. [...] Theft requires a physical deprivation. That's the critical point.

    Okay, so let's edit what your parent said:


    • User has the game
    • The previous owner doesn't
    • Ubisoft doesn't get any money


    • User has the game
    • The previous owner also has the game
    • Ubisoft doesn't get any money

    I don't think you have disproven "things are equal if they have equal outcomes". Your parent just didn't describe the outcome in sufficient detail.

    And second hand sales doesn't prove your parents way of defining things wrong either: add the extra requirement that the previous owner of the game (the seller) has a freely accepted compensation---this distinguishes them from cases of theft.

    As a very philosophical point, the only description of outcomes that is sure to be sufficiently detailed is a complete description of the state of the world, suitable for your Laplacian Demon. Sometimes less will do, but you might need to keep adding more.

    Hmm... interesting. Thanks for making me think a little about this :-)

  • by GigaplexNZ ( 1233886 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @04:06AM (#31893604)
    What you have just explained is not a legitimate justification for calling copyright infringement theft, but is instead a legitimate justification for why copyright infringement is illegal.
  • by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @05:16AM (#31893846)

    I still think DRM is a large trick played on investors, promising huge profits if "we can just get this technology perfected". Probably so investors don't look at stuff like Farmville and go "why don't your multi-million dollar projects experience growth and sales like that?".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 19, 2010 @05:32AM (#31893914)

    If you play games for graphics, then you aren't a real gamer. Nice troll by the way, but it all fell apart when you claimed that Nexuiz only needs low end hardware. Clearly you've never actually played Nexuiz, because if you had you'd know that if you even turn up half of the graphical details, it will drag a beefy gaming PC down.

    Go buy a console, kid.

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp