Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
DRM PlayStation (Games) Games

Owners Of 'Gran Turismo 7' Locked Out Of Single Player Game When Online DRM Servers Go Down (techdirt.com) 118

Posted by BeauHD from the headache-inducing dept.
According to Techdirt's Timothy Geigner, Gran Turismo 7 on the PlayStation was recently rendered unplayable because the DRM servers that require an online check to play the game crumbled during a maintenance window. From the report: "The scheduled server maintenance, timed around the release of the version 1.07 patch for the game, was initially planned to last just two hours starting at 6 am GMT (2 am Eastern) on Thursday morning," reports Ars Technica. "Six hours later, though, the official Gran Turismo Twitter account announced that 'due to an issue found in Update 1.07, we will be extending the Server Maintenance period. We will notify everyone as soon as possible when this is likely to be completed. We apologize for this inconvenience and ask for your patience while we work to resolve the issue.'"

"Inconvenience" in this case means not being able to play the game the customer purchased. Like, basically at all. Why the single player content in a console game of all things should require an online check-in is completely beyond me. Console piracy is a thing, but certainly not much of a thing. There is zero chance that this DRM is worth the headache Sony now has on its hands. A headache that lasted for more than a full calendar day, by the way. And a headache that Sony's competitors picked up on to use in messaging to the public on social media.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Owners Of 'Gran Turismo 7' Locked Out Of Single Player Game When Online DRM Servers Go Down More

Owners Of 'Gran Turismo 7' Locked Out Of Single Player Game When Online DRM Servers Go Down

Comments Filter:
  • No single player game should ever require an online checkin requirement. Greedy, controlling companies want you to pay an extra fee for playing and check DRM !

    • Don't buy stuff with DRM.
      it's that simple. Nearly that simple.

      • Don't trust software that doesn't trust you.
      • Aka the good ol' advice of "Avoid DRM by avoiding almost all paid content". That's one practical advice right there, right along with "you can avoid document format conversion issues by using LaTeX" and "anyone can submit a patch to add support for it".

        I torrent my movies to avoid DRM issues (not to mention I save a ton of money), but unfortunately I tolerate DRM on games because modern online DRM for games is just too tough. The things that online DRM looks for cannot be simulated using standard tools (

        • DRM persists because the market tolerates it. And that includes you.

          There is a clear difference, though, between something like Steam and something like Denuvo. Mainly: Steam works offline.

          So while you might not be able to escape anything and everything that qualifies as DRM, you can easily escape the really nasty ones like Denuvo, and still have loads of games to play.

          • DRM persists because the market tolerates it.

            DRM persists because people want the things the DRM is attached to, so they prefer having a restricted version that not having it all. Yes, they could avoid those things to make a moral stand, but that's worse from a "getting what you want" perspective.

        • I have control over my dopamine in this particular arena so I just don't buy or play any games with DRM. To put it in perspective, I haven't had a Sony product since the rootkit fiasco and the last console I bought was the Wii and that was only because my sister worked for Nintendo. The last actual game I bought was Kerbal Space Program and I did that because it was ultra-fun and specifically because it didn't have DRM. If more people would learn to control their impulses regarding software, we wouldn't hav

          • I have control over my dopamine in this particular arena so I just don't buy or play any games with DRM.
            Also known as "growing too old for games".

            If more people would learn to control their impulses regarding software, we wouldn't have DRM but that's hard for humans so that's what you're stuck with.
            Also known as the ascetic lifestyle. Yeah, most people won't follow that lifestyle for any part of their lives and good luck convincing them to (including me).

            The DRM companies definitely enjoy the mone

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Don't buy stuff with DRM.
        it's that simple. Nearly that simple.

        This, it is that simple. Steam's got my back here, it'll tell you in simple terms if a game requires activation, online checks or a crappy always on 3rd party client like Origin. In which case it's a lost sale. I still get to play the game, it's just they don't see my money. If you treat customers like criminals you'll find yourself with fewer customers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      A lot of players are annoyed by the grinding too. A recent patch reduced the in-game rewards dramatically, so you have to grind for much longer to buy in-game items. Or you can buy them with real money, which is what they are hoping you do.

      One work-around is to use the Playstation feature that lets you play the game over your network on your Windows computer, where it is possible to automate gameplay using pre-recorded control inputs. Similarly in Forza on XBOX, players abuse the auto-steer accessibility fu

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aitikin ( 909209 )

        Eh. I've got a race running right now at my house while I'm at work with my accelerator masking taped down on the Daytona ring course that'll net me something like 75k in-game credits when it's done.

        Should I have to do this to earn enough in-game credits to buy the things I need to complete some of the races? No. But is it difficult to come up with work arounds? No.

    • To be fair, I could understand there needing to be some kind of license check if we're talking a digital version of the game. For people who bought physical copies, however, there's no need or excuse for this. The disc in the unit is the license.

    • The reason it checks home is because your unlocked cars and your money and settings are used for both single player and multiplayer. Without a checks and balances someone could use cars they haven't earned...same as why Diablo 2 went with realm characters instead of single player
  • "Owners"
    • Licensors. The industry has been clear (and pretty cynical) about that for quite a while: They don't sell games anymore, they license them. I mean, what do you "own" exactly? Even if you have a disc in your possession, it won't do jack squat unless the key is authorized against an online DRM system. When your use rights are subject to authorization by the true owner, you either leasing or licensing something, not owning it.

  • Let's face it, Microsoft normalized the idea that you can't just stick in some media and go, it's all their fault :)

    On the PC, though, you know who ruined install-and-go gaming? Valve. At least, in my house. The first game where I bought the disc and it was meaningless was Half-Life 2. Install the steam client from the disc and then you can install the game, right? Nope, that version is old, so after you install it and run it then it downloads a new version and installs that, too. Install the game from the

    • Sony doesn't actually deserve any slack

      This is the same Sony that installed a rootkit on your PC so you could use it to listen to their CDs.

      I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Valve didn't teach anybody that.

      • Sony doesn't actually deserve any slack

        This is the same Sony that installed a rootkit on your PC so you could use it to listen to their CDs.

        I'm pretty sure Microsoft and Valve didn't teach anybody that.

        You're both wrong, Garriot taught sony and valve with ultima online in 1997. We didn't get everquest until 1999 (which was published by sony). So no they've been stealing games since 1997.

        Valve got the idea for steam once morons bought incomplete rpg's with a subscription (mmo's are just pc games with stolen networking code and back ended).

        • mmo's are just pc games with stolen networking code and back ended

          Oh, is that all?

          MMOs handle more users than any PC-hosted game because of their server architecture. The server is certainly similar to what it would be if it were a PC game, but also different.

          I think it's arguably wrong to prevent users from using your client for other purposes, e.g. running third party servers. But there's nothing wrong with charging users server maintenance fees. You don't have to play that kind of game if you don't want to. It doesn't compare to gatekeeping single player games in such

          • mmo's are just pc games with stolen networking code and back ended

            Oh, is that all?

            MMOs handle more users than any PC-hosted game because of their server architecture. The server is certainly similar to what it would be if it were a PC game, but also different.

            I think it's arguably wrong to prevent users from using your client for other purposes, e.g. running third party servers. But there's nothing wrong with charging users server maintenance fees. You don't have to play that kind of game if you don't want to. It doesn't compare to gatekeeping single player games in such a way that paying customers are prevented from playing them.

            And you are the exact moron that gave birth to drm, you don't grasp client-server back ended software acts as drm naturally. You don't grasp valve got the idea for steam from the success of ultima online in 1997.

            Why as a publisher/developer would I ever give you a local application when I can give your dumbass a client-server app and prevent piracy all in one go? Idiots like you gave publishers the perfect excuse to hide behind the "MMO" label and steal PC games on a massive scale you dunce.

            You're not abl

            • you are the exact moron that gave birth to drm, you don't grasp client-server back ended software acts as drm naturally

              I understand it full well, so your insults are as senseless as you are.

              I also understand that paying for a service is a legitimate act.

              I personally have chosen not to pay for a game service which also requires that I pay for a game client which has no other purpose, as I find that to be an offensive waste of money.

              You don't grasp valve got the idea for steam from the success of ultima online in 1997.

              DRM predates Ultima Online, and Steam didn't launch until 2003. It's not UO that made Steam viable, it was the introduction of the DMCA in 1998.

              So yes MMO's killed PC games as local applicaitons you dumbass.

              No, they in fact did not. MMOs don't even depend on

              • Jesus christ you are delusional!

                So we'll have the ultima online devs talk about the cancellation of ultima 9 - the local application,

                See here on EA and ultima, and the death of games as local applications:

                https://youtu.be/lnnsDi7Sxq0?t... [youtu.be]

                So there you have it from the horses mouth, EA looked over their RPG's in development and reworked them into client server APPS after UO's success. So yes MMO's did kill pc games as local apps you jackass. You are so illiterate and delusional about PC game history you sho

                • You are so illiterate and delusional about PC game history you should be shot.

                  Okay, internet tough guy. You know this thread will be used against you when you snap, right?

                  Problem with your whole argument is you don't even know what the argument is. That's why you keep trying to point at Ultima and say it's responsible for Valve and then you wind up talking about EA or something. Learn to debate, noob.

                  • You are so illiterate and delusional about PC game history you should be shot.

                    Okay, internet tough guy. You know this thread will be used against you when you snap, right?

                    Problem with your whole argument is you don't even know what the argument is. That's why you keep trying to point at Ultima and say it's responsible for Valve and then you wind up talking about EA or something. Learn to debate, noob.

                    There's nothing to debate moron, I made the claim mmo's were garriot stealing multiplayer networking code out of the game and reworking it to sell back to you minus ownership which was 100% true. You are basically a computer illiterate monkey. I showed you how local RPG's with multiplayer were cancelled for their client server versions, which no one who played quake , descent, diablo or wacraft 3 wanted.

                    That's why we ended up with drm, drm is the same thing as mmo's retard - a client-server c application

                    • It was my understanding that MMORPG's including EverQuest and Ultima online had their inspiration drawn from MUD's. MUD's (Multi user dungeons) were client based (telnet etc) from the beginning. Brad McQuaid hired many of his friends that he gamed with in MUD's as early employees when building everquest. Client based gaming existed before Garriot claimed to invent the MMORPG which there were earlier ones in e the 80s.

                    • It was my understanding that MMORPG's including EverQuest and Ultima online had their inspiration drawn from MUD's. MUD's (Multi user dungeons) were client based (telnet etc) from the beginning. Brad McQuaid hired many of his friends that he gamed with in MUD's as early employees when building everquest. Client based gaming existed before Garriot claimed to invent the MMORPG which there were earlier ones in e the 80s.

                      Which is irrelevant to the financial question, if you will take a client server rpg, why would you get RPG's with the ability to host your own games like neverwinter nights (2002)? There is no special magical networking code, the mud stories were just verant and gariot covering their asses, we had "massively multiplayer" quake 2, see here:

                      https://youtu.be/TfeSMaztDVc?t... [youtu.be]

                      AKA if you have two videogames, both allow unlimited # of players in a multiplayer world, one hangs right off the multiplayer menu and is

                    • Not sure if you gamed back in the 90's but quake engine was used to do total conversion mods, and "total conversion" is right because quake had its own c compiler, so you could take quake engine and clone any "MMO" and have infinity players no user accounts, no monthly fee's.

                      You mean the quake engine that supported a maximum of 32 players in quakeworld? That quake engine? Too bad YOU didn't game back in the 90s or you'd know this shit

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

                  You want to blame DRM? Blame why there's a need for it.

                  PC piracy in the 1990s was around 95% or so. That is, for every legitimate copy of a game sold, there would be 19 copies of it that were being played but not paid for.

                  That's why in the late 90s when decent consoles came around, developers jumped to them because the piracy rate dropped from 95% to around 10-20% on a console. At the same time, this left PC gamers with MMOs and other online games because few developers would want to make a game only to see

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tepples ( 727027 )

            Let me try to restart this on a more professional tone:

            I think it's arguably wrong to prevent users from using your client for other purposes, e.g. running third party servers. But there's nothing wrong with charging users server maintenance fees.

            As I understand blahplusplus's thesis, things like Ultima Online and EverQuest were the first widespread PC games not to make the software for running a third-party server available to the public at any price.

            You don't have to play that kind of game if you don't want to.

            This is true. However, ts I understand blahplusplus's thesis, the fraction of online role-playing games that offer server software to the public has become insignificant since other RPG developers decided to follow the path of UO and EQ. In additio

            • ts I understand blahplusplus's thesis, the fraction of online role-playing games that offer server software to the public has become insignificant since other RPG developers decided to follow the path of UO and EQ.

              So are there in fact more MMOs made than single-player RPGs now? I assume you've counted.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by tepples ( 727027 )

                the fraction of online role-playing games that offer server software to the public

                So are there in fact more MMOs made than single-player RPGs now?

                I interpret the phrasing "stolen networking code" to imply that blahplusplus seeks online RPGs that are multiplayer though not massively multiplayer. These games encourage one player or the GM to run a private server, and they are becoming harder to find in the 25 years since UO, EQ, WoW, FFXI/XIV, and other MMOs became popular.

                I assume you've counted.

                I personally haven't counted such games. I am operating based on how much media coverage MMOs get compared to non-massive RPGs, be they single player or private multiplayer.

                Or blahpl

                • Or blahplusplus might be writing from a point of view of disappointment at never getting one particular anticipated single-player RPG: Ultima 9.

                  That is in fact my working theory. I haven't counted either. I don't think it's a good use of time. The truth as I see it is that many people want MMOs, so devs are producing them, and publishers are paying for them. But enough people also want SP RPGs that publishers are paying for those, too. To my mind the big curse in gaming isn't MMOs, which offer unique functionality, but loot crates and similar bullshit. When I buy a game, I want to play the game, not a slot machine. If I wanted a slot machine simula

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ormy ( 1430821 )
      While I don't disagree with anything you've said, this is not a binary black/white or right/wrong thing. What Sony are doing with GT7 is a lot worse than what Valve did with HL2.
    • Will play an offline mode. The only ones that won't are a couple from Ubisoft who insisted on always on DRM. They're not steam games they run inside Ubisoft's launcher I just happened to have bought them on the steam store because they were on sale then.

      Still if all else fails buy from Gog. I make it a point to buy from there whenever a game is available there but their sales tend to be pretty low. It doesn't help that they tend to get games well after steam. That's fine if I know the game is coming to

      • AFAIK all or at least nearly all of my games will play in offline mode. These days, it doesn't even take ages to restart Steam, so that's less annoying than it used to be. In fact I'm more annoyed that I can't start multiple games in online mode. I have multiple machines, and I'd like to play bits of a casual game on one while I wait for my turn in another game on another...

    • It's not even just video games. Cloud and SaaS everything are ruining technology and computing for me.

      I can see the problem that web applications solve. Web-hosted email was probably one of the earliest "SaaS" concepts and it is useful for a lot of people to be able to check email on different devices from different locations. But these days there doesn't seem to be a such thing as an offline, single-user desktop application anymore. If I don't have a really good need to host my text documents on someone el

    • > Sony doesn't actually deserve any slack

      Yes they do. Without it, the long drop doesn't work.

  • Great game though (Score:1, Informative)

    by Blightor ( 5895752 )
    Perhaps I'm not woke enough, but apart from a bad patch and a day I couldn't play, I'm pretty happy with it just personally.

    • Sony's CEO isn't going to be your friend no matter how hard you shill for them.

    • Not sure what being woke has to do with it, but you do sound like a cuck.

    • Not woke, just completely ignorant about how good games respect your time and wallet. GT7 does neither.

      There are MANY problems with GTS2, er, I mean GT7:

      * Campaign is literally half baked with only 39 chapters. Where are the GT1 races? Endurance races?? All Stars races??? Gr.2 races???? Compared to GT4, which is considered one of THE pinnacles in the series, the campaign in GT7 is a complete joke. Now [playstation.com] they add some of these? Why weren't they available at launch??
      * Cafe has a linear progression. That's not

  • I would expect better grammar from an editor. Although, the source website is "tech dirt". Perhaps it's for a reason.

  • I recall older versions of Gran Turismo having the same online requirements for single-player gaming.

    Unfortunately, none of this will change until people vote with their wallets and stop buying broken software.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

      So, in essence, none of this will change.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      Vote with their wallets, and get a pirated copy without DRM instead, your mean?
      The problem is that people tend to download pirated games this first after they have noticed that the game they have already paid for is broken.

      Ideally, game servers for single-player games should be outlawed in consumed legislation.
      (Unless you're a blind libertarian who does not think that consumers should be protected in any way)

      • "deally, game servers for single-player games should be outlawed in consumed legislation."

        No dumbass, multiplayer games do not require magic servers, multiplayer came inside most games until the mmo apocalypse in 1997.

        Go get a copy of Descent 2, quake 2 if you don't believe me, here's john carmack on infinity multiplayer quake 2:

        https://youtu.be/TfeSMaztDVc?t... [youtu.be]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nkwe ( 604125 )

      I recall older versions of Gran Turismo having the same online requirements for single-player gaming.

      Unfortunately, none of this will change until people vote with their wallets and stop buying broken software.

      You mean "license" or "rent" correct? Actually buying software is pretty rare.

  • I pretty much only play DRM-free games which I bought through GoG or similar sites. Yes, yes... someone's going to say that I won't to get enjoy the "latest and greatest" of games get released these days, but that's completely fine with me. I'd rather play games which:
    - I own outright
    - which have insanely good plots and high playability
    - which have no multiplayer, so that I can enjoy the game in peace and quiet, and at my own pace rather than trying to compete or cooperate with people; I play games to escap

    • Pretty much the same here. I'm still playing a game - and enjoying the relaxation - which I met in 1988, and it was 7 years old them .OK, the updated versions have rather better graphics (a 10 year old 1GB graphics card really doesn't need the "wireframe" version to avoid the computational load of calculating which faces are hidden), but the fundamental gameplay is the same, and still absorbing people 40 years after it's first release.

      I believe the "space trading and fighting" genre is still popular. But t

  • While I have been burnt buy this issue, I do not attribute it to evil DRMs, but to a Diablo 3-like philosophy. My best git is that is a way to ensure online consistency and discourage cheat with offline modified cars. Furthermore, it could also be linked to their aggressive push of in-app transactions. A virtual high end costing 20,000,000 of virtual money translates to $200 in real money.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by irchans ( 527097 )

      Can you elaborate on what "a Diablo 3-like philosophy" is? :)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by damaki ( 997243 )
        In Diablo 2, you had to create separate characters for one player mode and for multiplayer mode. It was a well-known practice to create a one-player passworded online game so that you could play alone, but still use your character in multiplayer mode.
        In Diablo 3, you cannot create an offline character in single player mode, the game is always online and thus you can use the character for multiplayer too. And in makes sense as you want to be able to transfer your character build, your equipment to an online

    • Could you play the game without access to a server? No. DRM.

      The reasons behind it are completely irrelevant. You could call it Sugarbear and it won't make the tiniest bit of difference to people who are pissed off they couldn't play a game they bought even in offline mode.

  • If you need license servers to be running to use something, you don't "own" it at all, and you haven't "bought" anything. In fact, calling this form of renting content a "sale" should be considered false advertising.

    • I hope someone makes a class-action lawsuit out of your comment one day that would send ripples through the world and actually make us own things again because all the digital sellers are taking a piss these days.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nkwe ( 604125 )

      If you need license servers to be running to use something, you don't "own" it at all, and you haven't "bought" anything. In fact, calling this form of renting content a "sale" should be considered false advertising.

      Even if you don't need a license server, you still don't "own" the software, you have only licensed it. You may feel like you own it, but you probably didn't actually read the license agreement - all that small print text we routinely click through. Without a licensing server, you may be able to violate the terms of the license, but it doesn't mean legally you could do all the things that you could if you actually owned it.

  • ... PlayStation was recently rendered unplayable ...

    A fool and his money are soon parted. If you're dumb enough to reward this crippleware with hard-earned cash, you deserve the misery. That said, this is entertainment so I doubt anyone was inconvienced.

  • Get a cracked pirated version. This is what we used to do back in the day.

    Or have the game companies developed new advanced DRM that can't be cracked? I genuinely don't know, I haven't played games in a long time.

    • Heavily DRM'ed games tend to be lower quality anyway (because they spent all their resources making a hackproof game). It's like spending 3/4 of your life savings on the safe to hold the remainder in.

  • Last I checked Gran Turismo 7 is exclusive to the PlayStation 5 (or maybe also on the PS4, I don't know for sure) and the existing DRM that all PlayStation 5 games have hasn't been cracked, meaning its not possible to pirate the game.

    So why is there a need for extra "always-online" DRM in this game?

    • Maybe Sony knows something you don't about their DRM, like that it's not very good. Or maybe they just want the chance to shove meaningless updates into the users' faces (information updates that is, not content updates or code updates) and this is how they accomplish that, and fuck the users which frankly has always been Sony's attitude.

    • So why is there a need for extra "always-online" DRM in this game?

      In short, to ensure there's no cheating in single player.

      GT7 has a lot of unlockables. I mean a lot. And they can only be unlocked via either payment, or lots and lots of grinding. Sony wants to make sure you can't cheese the latter.

      At best, they believe in single player progression so strongly that they'll kneecap the game to ensure it happens. At worse, they're making the game hostile in order to push microtransctions.

      https://kotaku.com/gra [kotaku.com]

  • Owner.

    Corporations keep using that word in marketing, because consumers actually believe it.

  • Sony. The same company that distributed malware rootkits via its music CDs, leaving its paying customers' computers vulnerable. Honesty, you're better off taking your chances with pirates. Arrr!

  • console where is MS / Sony / Nintendo? they can force this to not happen?

  • Why? (Score:2)

    by sconeu ( 64226 )

    Why the single player content in a console game of all things should require an online check-in is completely beyond me

    It's Sony and DRM. Enough said.

    Sony... f***ing with your digital rights since 2005.

  • First, this reminds me of the youtube videos of parents breaking their kid's consoles. OMG, DRM how could they? We couldn't play for an entire day!!!! Let me put this perspective for you. First the Gran Turisomo developers worked to create a patch. Next, they scheduled time to install the patch. Beyond that they had to spend time fixing something that they inadvertently broke. All this costs money. When folks pirate software, including console games, they take the money away that pays programmers for these

  • This is the company that put root kits on music CDs. Sony and DRM go hand in hand. Don't want their DRM? Don't by Sony. I have not purchased Sony for, my goodness, well over 15 years now.

  • LOL (Score:2)

    by quall ( 1441799 )

    It sucks but you get what you pay for. DRM doesn't stop people from pirating single player games. It mostly hurts people who legitimately buy the game.

    There are a lot of great games out there without this type of DRM. I avoid those that have it 90% of the time. When I buy a game with it, I know that I am assuming the risk and I have no right to complain.

  • People have been warned against buying DRM'd anything for several decades now. Yet they still act surprised when these things happen.

    As predicted.

    Decades ago.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close