Ubisoft DRM Authentication Servers Go Down

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

I think this image says everything about DRM like this.

NickCaligo42:
just like Hellgate: London.

IIRC, Hellgate still has a single player function. Can't imagine it has even half the content the online game had though.

7ru7h:

Icehearted:

7ru7h:

Maybe it's because I'm thick or I'm somewhat sleep deprived (I'm betting that last one), but I don't see how any of that Bioshock stuff related to Steam.

As for Steam's "DRM" being similar to Ubi's, I really have to call shenanigans. First, because Steam's "DRM" is quite nice to the customer: you pay for the game, download it, then it phones home once, and you are done. Anything above that is the game's fault, not Steam's. Second, you can play offline, you just have to make sure you let the game phone home that first time, then restart in offline mode. Finally, the "virtual ownership crap" as you put it, really is not all that different with Steam than with a physical copy, the only difference is that for Steam you have to make the backup for yourself (and if you think you really OWN any game you've bought in the last 5+ years, you are fooling yourself).

I like that long post snip trick... gotta remember that :)

I have, in my hands, a copy of Mirror's edge for the PC, I also have Mass Effect 2, GTA4, hoo boy I have a lot of games, and they're on a physical disc, of which I actually own and can maintain of my own accord, without having to dial in anything, without having to get connected to a server, I just input a key, or put a disc in my console, and off I go. That's ownership of a tangible property.

Digital distro means you own squat. You pay for it, but they can deny you play at their leisure. I'm going to reach a bit (because it's late, and I'm way too tired to think good and hard of an example in gaming even if I know they're out there) and point to that Kindle fiasco where Amazon basically decided to reach out and delete a book people had paid for. Again, I know it's a reach, but the principal is the same. The complacency of 'you don't actually own the games you buy' is what permits this kind of thing Ubisoft and Steam have created to permeate the market much deeper than they should have.

I own a copy of God of War 2. No activation required, no negotiations, the game is mine to play and enjoy. The intellectual property may not be, but the game is. That's the line they're blurring, and I mean no offense when I say this, but statements like the one you've made prove they've been succeeding at blurring this line with their customers.

Again with the long post... sorry I'm verbose (though this is a topic that bothers me quite a bit), but the sleepier I get, the more long-winded I can become.

I never said that I agreed with the non-ownership of games, I just stated the fact that on any piece of software "buy" is merely rented. If you read the EULA on pretty much any software it states that you don't actually own it.

Anyway, I highly doubt that Steam would disable games games that users have paid for, since they are a much smaller company than Amazon, and probably wouldn't be able to navigate the shitstorm of bad PR. Hell, IIRC, even if your account becomes VAC banned they don't stop you from playing your games, you just can't play on VAC enabled servers.

As for owning the game more with a physical copy, that's debatable. Depending on the game, you'd have to have the game dial home to activate it, and if they shut down the game servers, you no longer own that game. You could use a crack or something to get past that since you do legally own the game, but what's to stop you from doing that with a game you backed up that you bought with Steam? I buy almost all of my games via Steam because of the convenience, but I back them up to DVDs so I don't have to waste my bandwidth. By your arguments, by backing up my game to a physical medium, I now own it since I can just copy back and play.

Again, this is that consumer complacency that worries me. By this logic, I don't own anything. I didn't design my clothes, that belongs to the company's design team. I don't own my bottle of Coke, the formula and bottle were designed by the Coca Cola company. My tooth paste, bed, sliced provolone, money... where does it stop?

The only business that really uses such brainwashing (no offense intended) on their customers most is software, though the entertainment business as a whole's been trying to pull this crap for years now too (OMG you heard a song on someone's radio as they passed by in a car, you awful awful thief!!!).

That's my point. As I see it, I paid for it, it is a property that exists in a physically tangible means and can ergo be stolen. Let's say you went brick and mortar and bought God of War 3 and as you take it home someone races by you and yanks the game from your hands, disappearing before you know what hit you. Did they just steal from Sony or from you?

My logic is based on that, and not on the idea that nothing I buy is mine. I have an extensive library of games, most of which I own physically. If they were ever stolen, I doubt I'd be pissed because my 'rentals' were taken. I'd be pissed because the games I own were taken.

I feel like I'm harping now, my apologies for that.

Woodsey:

BlindMessiah94:

Woodsey:
AHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

I knew it! I fucking knew it!

Idiots.

Petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ew15dl94&1

Yeah because online petitions always accomplish something.

Ooh I know next let's "boycott" ubisoft.

You're right, we should all just ignore it and do fuck-all. We might as well all get bum-fucked by some ridiculous system.

I highly doubt it'll work, but its more of an effort then I see you putting in.

Fair enough, but I also see the absolute futility in trying to change a ridiculous system by signing some paper. I'm just the type of person that would rather do nothing and move on than do something pointless and get angry. Besides the effort I'm putting in is not buying their DRM stuff. Not in an effort to end DRM or anything, but just because I'm not gonna waste my money.
But do what you will if you must. Call me when the petition ends DRM.

So, has there been any proof yet that pirates are responsible for the server downtime, or is that just a good way to put the blame off of Ubisoft not having the correct servers to support their Draconian Restrictive Mismanagement?

If there has been actual proof that the servers are being DDoSed by the pirates, not anyone else mind you, just pirates, let me know.

You guys should be blaming the people who are pirating the games, not the DRM people. The DRM is only in place because of pirates.

Hopefully Ubisoft will fix their little DRM issue by patching it out at some point. If they can't see their failure at this point, then they don't deserve any business at all.

Irridium:
All I can say is this:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
HA!

*ahem*

Hopefully Ubisoft realises what a stupid system this is and drops it.

All the more so since the pirates are happily playing their games.

Meanwhile, all the pirates are probably enjoying their cracked copies of AC2.

Congratulations Ubisoft, you've done nothing to stop piracy at the expense of pissing off your loyal customers!

williebaz:
You guys should be blaming the people who are pirating the games, not the DRM people. The DRM is only in place because of pirates.

Uh.. no the DRM is in place because Ubisoft wants to protect what is theirs. This is just a form of DRm that tragically has a large pitfall. A DRM that phones home constantly and requires that connection to stay on sounds great on paper. In practice it fails as can be seen by this event. Too many requests broke the authentication servers. And its not like one can say oh well the authentication server only needs to authenticate one person and then drop them because thats not true. This DRM requires one to stay connected. So that means everyone who authenticates stays connected. Everyone has the connection to the server. And what happens when more and more requests to the server begin to pile up? Well... the server crashes and goes down. Like it has done here...

But like some others have said All those who pirated and or cracked their game are now happily enjoying it without have to deal with this bullshit.

Mercsenary:

williebaz:
You guys should be blaming the people who are pirating the games, not the DRM people. The DRM is only in place because of pirates.

Uh.. no the DRM is in place because Ubisoft wants to protect what is theirs. This is just a form of DRm that tragically has a large pitfall. A DRM that phones home constantly and requires that connection to stay on sounds great on paper. In practice it fails as can be seen by this event. Too many requests broke the authentication servers. And its not like one can say oh well the authentication server only needs to authenticate one person and then drop them because thats not true. This DRM requires one to stay connected. So that means everyone who authenticates stays connected. Everyone has the connection to the server. And what happens when more and more requests to the server begin to pile up? Well... the server crashes and goes down. Like it has done here...

But like some others have said All those who pirated and or cracked their game are now happily enjoying it without have to deal with this bullshit.

I'm well aware of that but if no one ever pirated games then there would be no need for DRM in the first place.

If the companies didn't charge $60 for their games but instead had decent pricing on products, there wouldn't be a need for piracy and hence no DRM need either so in the end - The companies are at fault.

williebaz:

I'm well aware of that but if no one ever pirated games then there would be no need for DRM in the first place.

That's like saying everyone would be at peace if we just got rid of the concept of violence altogether.

It's true, but it's something that probably will never happen.

The problem is, the DRM system is so horrible, if anything it encourages even more pirating, because then you would not have to deal with so much security just to play a SINGLE PLAYER GAME.

Nimbus:

Hubilub:
First the PS3, now the PC.

Now we just have to wait for every 360 in the world to stop working and the circle is complete!

...oh wait.

Ok, that was kind of flamebaitey, but damn, it made me laugh!

Amen.

OT: KARMA, UBISOFT. KARMAAA.
maybe they'll learn from this. and stop using it.

NAH. WISHFUL THINKING.

Caradinist:

williebaz:

I'm well aware of that but if no one ever pirated games then there would be no need for DRM in the first place.

That's like saying everyone would be at peace if we just got rid of the concept of violence altogether.

It's true, but it's something that probably will never happen.

The problem is, the DRM system is so horrible, if anything it encourages even more pirating, because then you would not have to deal with so much security just to play a SINGLE PLAYER GAME.

What your saying is certainly true, and while I do feel that Ubisoft is being obnoxious with DLC this heavy, I still hold that the people who pirate the game are more to blame for this DLC than Ubisoft. I realize that even this DLC can be cracked, and that it's ultimately for nothing. But I don't think it's fair to demonize the game developers because they have no choice thanks to all the pirates.

har har har har, they should post this on failblog its so stupid

Woodsey:

Zefar:
Server went down today? Well it's online now anyway. As my brother plays it right now.

Yes he uses a real version.

Also you people overreact when the servers go down.

Ever thought too many tried to access it at once? :/

Ever thought that should be irrelevant, as the game is single-player?

You sound like you don't know any of the story, or how this DRM is being implemented.

Yes I understand how it works. Yes I understand it's for SP only.

I know all that. STILL I think people around here are overreacting. It's not as if the server is going to be down 24/7. Heck the only reason it was down to begin with was because it was being Ddos attacked. So it was butt hurt users who made it go down.

Also if the server are down, play another game. You STILL got an internet connection so might as well use it. Servers are also not going to be down for that long to begin with.

But if this protection can fight against piracy then I'm all for it. My internet hasn't gone down like once in 2 years. Steam rarely goes down. Ubisoft was down due to an attack. Yea um I don't think I'm ever going to have a problem with it.

williebaz:

Caradinist:

williebaz:

I'm well aware of that but if no one ever pirated games then there would be no need for DRM in the first place.

That's like saying everyone would be at peace if we just got rid of the concept of violence altogether.

It's true, but it's something that probably will never happen.

The problem is, the DRM system is so horrible, if anything it encourages even more pirating, because then you would not have to deal with so much security just to play a SINGLE PLAYER GAME.

What your saying is certainly true, and while I do feel that Ubisoft is being obnoxious with DLC this heavy, I still hold that the people who pirate the game are more to blame for this DLC than Ubisoft. I realize that even this DLC can be cracked, and that it's ultimately for nothing. But I don't think it's fair to demonize the game developers because they have no choice thanks to all the pirates.

It's DRM, DLC is something completely different.
DRM = Digital Rights Management.
DLC = DownLoadable Content. (Map packs and the like).

Anyway, this DRM is ridiculous. Especially for people who live in countries that doesn't have really good internet. For example, Australia. If someone with a 512/128 connection with a 5GB cap wants to play AC2, they can pretty much say goodbye to doing anything else on the net. A constant connection is really taxing on a internet connection like that, it would eat up their download cap.

Legendsmith:

williebaz:

Caradinist:

williebaz:

I'm well aware of that but if no one ever pirated games then there would be no need for DRM in the first place.

That's like saying everyone would be at peace if we just got rid of the concept of violence altogether.

It's true, but it's something that probably will never happen.

The problem is, the DRM system is so horrible, if anything it encourages even more pirating, because then you would not have to deal with so much security just to play a SINGLE PLAYER GAME.

What your saying is certainly true, and while I do feel that Ubisoft is being obnoxious with DLC this heavy, I still hold that the people who pirate the game are more to blame for this DLC than Ubisoft. I realize that even this DLC can be cracked, and that it's ultimately for nothing. But I don't think it's fair to demonize the game developers because they have no choice thanks to all the pirates.

It's DRM, DLC is something completely different.
DRM = Digital Rights Management.
DLC = DownLoadable Content. (Map packs and the like).

Anyway, this DRM is ridiculous. Especially for people who live in countries that doesn't have really good internet. For example, Australia. If someone with a 512/128 connection with a 5GB cap wants to play AC2, they can pretty much say goodbye to doing anything else on the net. A constant connection is really taxing on a internet connection like that, it would eat up their download cap.

Sorry, I know that, it's just I got a crapload of work to do lately and I've been getting <6 hours of sleep per night for about 5 days(I'm used to 9), I gotta wait a bit before I get back to you on this one.

Woodsey:
AHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

I knew it! I fucking knew it!

Idiots.

Petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ew15dl94&1

Thanks for showing me this. Signed.

williebaz:

What your saying is certainly true, and while I do feel that Ubisoft is being obnoxious with DLC this heavy, I still hold that the people who pirate the game are more to blame for this DLC than Ubisoft. I realize that even this DLC can be cracked, and that it's ultimately for nothing. But I don't think it's fair to demonize the game developers because they have no choice thanks to all the pirates.

Yes, actually, they do have a choice when it comes to DRM. It's called Steam. Or doing what Batman: Arkham Asylum did. In other words, it's not about treating the legitimate buyer like the pirates who are getting to play the game without this crap anyways.

Cracked before it came out, and already failing.

Can we please come up with a different scheme now?

mjc0961:
Meanwhile, all the pirates are probably enjoying their cracked copies of AC2.

I can assure you they do not. There hasn't been a single crack that makes the game work yet. There's some half assed crap that doesn't even work properly. So I guess pirates aren't any better than paying customers, for the time being.

The problem that I see here is that Ubisoft already got their money for all these copies of Assasin's Creed II (and whatever else might be running it). Thus they probably don't see any problem with what's going on since gamers always gripe about stuff like servers going down.

Really they won't get a clear message until they release a big product, promote it heavily, and then take a bath because of DRM. Until then like all companies they will simply view it as impotent nerd rage. They are pretty much banking on the fact that in the final equasion we, the gamers, are going to stomach the inconveinence and respond with nothing but words.

Truthfully, given how things have normally gone with the gamer consumer base, their attitude is probably not unfounded. As a group, gamers make noise, but almost always wind up taking whatever the companies want to dish out. People cried about the lack of dedicated servers for "Modern Warfare 2" for example, and it caused problems apparently, but in the end it was a record shattering game, IW has no real reason to even consider what even a lot of gamers say at this point, nor do most other companies who have seen things like that happen time and again.

*sighs* and Ubisoft joins the list of fail with it's fail DRM.
I'd really like to know who in the Ubisoft team thought of this DRM...and why they actually went ahead with it. It's hardly convinent for someone who doesn't have an internet connection in the first place. Are they assuming every house-hold has the internet nowadays? I can see the logic with that but not everyone has the internet -_-;

I preferred the older systems where you had a CD key. What's wrong with that system? I see nothing wrong with the older systems so why did Ubisoft had to be all like "we want to be special n unique"

My hat goes off to you Ubisoft, you really did screw this one up XD

williebaz:
What your saying is certainly true, and while I do feel that Ubisoft is being obnoxious with DLC this heavy, I still hold that the people who pirate the game are more to blame for this DLC than Ubisoft. I realize that even this DLC can be cracked, and that it's ultimately for nothing. But I don't think it's fair to demonize the game developers because they have no choice thanks to all the pirates.

How about a silly non-digital equivalent: Say a retail store was having a huge problem with theft. Say they added one of those setups for detecting stolen stuff at the front door. That doesn't help, so they hire a security guard. That doesn't help, so they start patting down everyone as they leave the store. Again, theft isn't reduced, so they start making everyone consent to strip searches. Meanwhile the thieves are walking out the service entrance in the back because they don't lock the doors. When it escalates to full body-cavity searches, it's not the thieves fault even though they are completely and utterly in the wrong. The fault for the full body-cavity searches would lie entirely with the retail store for being very, very stupid.

Of course, for that metaphor to work it would have to be completely impossible to lock the back door. It still makes absolutely no sense to harass the people walking out the front though. In fact it eventually starts to make more sense to sneak out the back. Thus the store's flailing loss prevention attempts actually cause more thieves. Not because of the first thieves, but because the store itself.

well, a reasonable reaction (as gamers worldwide have demanded before) is to put this kind of drm right where it belongs - the trashcan.
but ever since "reasonable" and "(big) publisher" don't get along so well, player's probably will have to shove the f*****g drm servers right into the publishers' faces and knock some sense into them
but i'm afraid they are pretty resistant to that, too.

williebaz:
You guys should be blaming the people who are pirating the games, not the DRM people. The DRM is only in place because of pirates.

excuse me, are you smoking crack or something?
the profits made with games are tremendous, and by no means a reason to punish the legally acting people who buy games. nowadays, when you simply download a crack or a cracked game you just have far less trouble. you have it, you can play it. that is how it is meant to be.
also, how come that there are some developers/publishers out there that stand down from any kind of copy protection?

no, it's not the pirates fault, and even if it was, you should punish them, not the buyers; and now you might say that they cannot reach them pirates, so they have to do something on the buyers, but that is utter nonsense. or would you punish a faithful citizen because you are unable to catch thieves??

(sorry about being rude at the beginning. i guess this drm-stuff gets me a little excited)

Zefar:

Woodsey:

Zefar:
Server went down today? Well it's online now anyway. As my brother plays it right now.

Yes he uses a real version.

Also you people overreact when the servers go down.

Ever thought too many tried to access it at once? :/

Ever thought that should be irrelevant, as the game is single-player?

You sound like you don't know any of the story, or how this DRM is being implemented.

Yes I understand how it works. Yes I understand it's for SP only.

I know all that. STILL I think people around here are overreacting. It's not as if the server is going to be down 24/7. Heck the only reason it was down to begin with was because it was being Ddos attacked. So it was butt hurt users who made it go down.

Also if the server are down, play another game. You STILL got an internet connection so might as well use it. Servers are also not going to be down for that long to begin with.

But if this protection can fight against piracy then I'm all for it. My internet hasn't gone down like once in 2 years. Steam rarely goes down. Ubisoft was down due to an attack. Yea um I don't think I'm ever going to have a problem with it.

1) If I've bought that game, why should I play an older game because they can't run their servers properly?

2)Whether it was attacked or not, it still proves that this only affects people who've bought the game.

3)AC2 and SH5 have reportedly been cracked already (although Ubisoft denies it, obviously).

4) Good for me and you then, because my connection's just as stable. What about the millions that live in the countryside who are given barely any coverage, or who's connection drops for a few seconds every 15 minutes? What about the people who can't afford to pay for a monthly connection? What about the people that use their gaming machine separately from another machine which is connected to the internet?

RelexCryo:

Woodsey:
AHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

I knew it! I fucking knew it!

Idiots.

Petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ew15dl94&1

Thanks for showing me this. Signed.

Thanks for signing; send it to Steam friends, groups, etc.

Ubisoft, you are dissapoint. The more you do this retarded bullshit the more your going to lose your fan base. *claps*

reed.whaley:
So, has there been any proof yet that pirates are responsible for the server downtime, or is that just a good way to put the blame off of Ubisoft not having the correct servers to support their Draconian Restrictive Mismanagement?

If there has been actual proof that the servers are being DDoSed by the pirates, not anyone else mind you, just pirates, let me know.

I was actually discussing this with HuntrRose in the other thread.

Icehearted:

7ru7h:

Icehearted:

I like that long post snip trick... gotta remember that :)

I have, in my hands, a copy of Mirror's edge for the PC, I also have Mass Effect 2, GTA4, hoo boy I have a lot of games, and they're on a physical disc, of which I actually own and can maintain of my own accord, without having to dial in anything, without having to get connected to a server, I just input a key, or put a disc in my console, and off I go. That's ownership of a tangible property.

Digital distro means you own squat. You pay for it, but they can deny you play at their leisure. I'm going to reach a bit (because it's late, and I'm way too tired to think good and hard of an example in gaming even if I know they're out there) and point to that Kindle fiasco where Amazon basically decided to reach out and delete a book people had paid for. Again, I know it's a reach, but the principal is the same. The complacency of 'you don't actually own the games you buy' is what permits this kind of thing Ubisoft and Steam have created to permeate the market much deeper than they should have.

I own a copy of God of War 2. No activation required, no negotiations, the game is mine to play and enjoy. The intellectual property may not be, but the game is. That's the line they're blurring, and I mean no offense when I say this, but statements like the one you've made prove they've been succeeding at blurring this line with their customers.

Again with the long post... sorry I'm verbose (though this is a topic that bothers me quite a bit), but the sleepier I get, the more long-winded I can become.

I never said that I agreed with the non-ownership of games, I just stated the fact that on any piece of software "buy" is merely rented. If you read the EULA on pretty much any software it states that you don't actually own it.

Anyway, I highly doubt that Steam would disable games games that users have paid for, since they are a much smaller company than Amazon, and probably wouldn't be able to navigate the shitstorm of bad PR. Hell, IIRC, even if your account becomes VAC banned they don't stop you from playing your games, you just can't play on VAC enabled servers.

As for owning the game more with a physical copy, that's debatable. Depending on the game, you'd have to have the game dial home to activate it, and if they shut down the game servers, you no longer own that game. You could use a crack or something to get past that since you do legally own the game, but what's to stop you from doing that with a game you backed up that you bought with Steam? I buy almost all of my games via Steam because of the convenience, but I back them up to DVDs so I don't have to waste my bandwidth. By your arguments, by backing up my game to a physical medium, I now own it since I can just copy back and play.

Again, this is that consumer complacency that worries me. By this logic, I don't own anything. I didn't design my clothes, that belongs to the company's design team. I don't own my bottle of Coke, the formula and bottle were designed by the Coca Cola company. My tooth paste, bed, sliced provolone, money... where does it stop?

The only business that really uses such brainwashing (no offense intended) on their customers most is software, though the entertainment business as a whole's been trying to pull this crap for years now too (OMG you heard a song on someone's radio as they passed by in a car, you awful awful thief!!!).

That's my point. As I see it, I paid for it, it is a property that exists in a physically tangible means and can ergo be stolen. Let's say you went brick and mortar and bought God of War 3 and as you take it home someone races by you and yanks the game from your hands, disappearing before you know what hit you. Did they just steal from Sony or from you?

My logic is based on that, and not on the idea that nothing I buy is mine. I have an extensive library of games, most of which I own physically. If they were ever stolen, I doubt I'd be pissed because my 'rentals' were taken. I'd be pissed because the games I own were taken.

I feel like I'm harping now, my apologies for that.

Actually the EALA is saying that you dont own the graphics, sounds etc on the disc. Basically you cant copy their work as your own. By licencing the product they are saying that you paid for that copy, but they still own the IP and copyright of the software on the disc.

I'm aware of that. It's losing more ownership than even the copy I paid for that I'm talking about. Virtual ownership is not the same as actual ownership. I also don't doubt that every EULA with services like Steam have some jargon or fine print smoke and mirrors that suggest they have the right to remove your ability to play or own any game you've paid for on their service at any time, for whatever reasons, which includes lines on rights "subject to change" often with the caveat "without notice".

Owning a physical copy means that they can't pull such garbage. You own the disc, you own the rights to play the game on said disc at your leisure, without interruption or prevention. No invalidated gamertags, no hacked accounts, no locked accounts due to 'suspicious activity', no changing things because of new licensing issues.

williebaz:
You guys should be blaming the people who are pirating the games, not the DRM people. The DRM is only in place because of pirates.

Yeah, and they sure showed us didn't they?

Probably raised the pirating rate by 1000%. Thanks for the help, Ubi.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here