I found a crack that includes a sever emulator by searching just there
I said usually
Oh I'm more than happy to be proven wrong, but again is there a single case of DRM stopping piracy. And again, releases are usually cracked very very quickly. It's kinda more than just my opinion, the statistics are out there.
I already agreed with that, I just don't think it happens that often. Not often enough to warrant the existence of DRM & the headaches it causes for legitimate gamers
I wasn't aware Diablo 3 was cracked, I was under the impression it was uncrackable because alot of the data needed to play it was kept server side. How long did it take to get the crack out?
Not arguing that DRM has ever totally stopped piracy and I don't see the game publisher/developers arguing that either, but that isn't the point I was making. Just because it does not totally stop piracy does not mean its a failure. A small reduction in piracy or a small conversion of pirates to purchasers could be considered a success. It doesn't make sense that a developer would continue using systems that cost them money.
Last time I looked the crack was still in its early stages and the emulator only offered partial functionality in-game. The initial version was out a couple of weeks after launch I think?
When I look back over Ubisoft's last published releases I can see why they claim piracy has been such a major problem for them.
Ghost Recon Future Soldier
Adventures of Tintin the game
Assasins Creed: Revelations
NCIS: The Tv Series Game
Might and Magic Heroes VI
Driver San Francisco
Call of Juarez The Cartel
IL-2 - Cliffs of Dover.
- Ultra-intrusive DRM which effects legitimate buyers over those who pirate the game (From Dust).
- Poorly coded, poorly tested games which require extensive patching and day-1 patches. (IL2 Cliffs of Dover for example)
- Substandard Movie/TV cash-in games (Tintin/NCIS)
- Console Franchise Extensions which do nothing but reskin or reboot previous franchises but bring nothing dramatically new to the table (whilst omitting vital tools for PC such as dedicated servers/modtools) - Assassins' Creed/Ghost Recon)
- None of these games feature a "must-play" multiplayer experience (some try but on PC, simply never get there)
Reading a thread on any of the above on the first day of release would turn most PC gamers off purchasing the game. We are generally more well informed then the average xbox/ps3/wii buyer.
It doesn't take advanced thinking to realise PC gamers have very different buying behaviors - they are much less likely to walk into gamestop and drop €60 on a game without knowing more about it - Because we find out the truth about the games before we buy them, we avoid them or at most procure pirate copies of the game - not condoning it, just saying its easy and appears victimless on the outset.
IMO Ubisoft have made it their business to exploit the ill-informed buyer with hasty game design churning out passable games - The products they are associated with on PC have almost never represented the highest of quality to me and to me their attempt to claim piracy has made there business suffer may seem like a nice diversion, but it simply draws attention to the fact that as a publishing house they simply aren't involved in any games that the majority of PC gamers feel are worth buying.
Normally you would think so but in Ubisoftland though a small reduction in piracy is hailed as a 'clear success' even when the is a corresponding large drop in PC sales.
And since they are still claiming a 93-95% piracy rate one wonders what their defination of a 'clear success' was in the first place? Since they have been furiously patching the most draconian version of their always on DRM out of games like Ass Creed, Dust and Driver over the past year or so it would suggest that it wasn't such a clear success after all.
The article which PC gamer was based on was wrong, Eurogamer clarifed Patchers comments on Ubisoft, he actually said that he heard from Ubisoft that they where suffering piracy rates as high as 90% not that there sales had dropped 90%.
Capcom are also claiming a 90% piracy rate.Christian Svensson of Capcom where also of the opnion that DRM can make a meangingful difference to a projects profitability.
Sega where claiming a higher than 80% piracy rate on the the football manager series.
- Needing to be online when you launch the game isn't intrusive. It's a pain for people who may game on the go, but it's far from intrusive. That being said, the manner in which they handled this DRM was completely inexcusable.
- This wasn't an Ubisoft title, at least in the context you're describing. It was developed by 1C with Ubisoft acting as the publisher outside of Russia.
- Tintin wasn't substandard, it was alright actually. I highly doubt many folk bothered to pirate NCIS.
- So you don't like the AC franchise, great. Millions of people do though and while Revelations wasn't as critically acclaimed as the previous titles, it was still pretty great. Dedicated servers and mod tools are not "vital tools for PC", they're added niceties in some cases, with the former being a major issue when it comes to avoiding pirated copies playing online.
- Not every game needs a multiplayer experience. In fact, most games suffer when it's shoehorned in.
As for the rest, any subset of the gaming community which believes piracy to be either victimless or justifiable due to the quality of a certain product is in no position to talk down to anyone, whether it's a publisher or another subset of gamers.
Again with the superiority complexes
Of course Ubisoft aren't above some cash-ins or lazy titles: they're a big games company that needs to profit as the basic laws of capitalism and economics dictate. And while they make several awful games (which we can simply not buy - I fully endorse this method) they make a tonne of inventive, thoroughly enjoyable ones: Driver San Fran, Rayman Origins, From Dust, Trackmania from your list alone. Not to mention forthcoming titles such as Watch Dogs or Beyond Good & Evil 2, or recent ones like the genuinely transcendent Child of Eden (a better game than almost all released in 2011, hands down). I don't think anyone could possibly call Assassins Creed 2 Part 3 anything other than a cash-in, but then they look to be making one of the most ambitious, unusual sequels with the proper third game. If their annual updates helped fund that extremely promising experiment, well more power to them frankly.
A company has every single right to protect their investment, and gaming is a challenging, competitive industry. Yes, Ubisoft have made bad games and user-unfriendly mistakes and regrettable decisions. But when you're up against ludicrous levels of piracy, a demanding / ignorant consumerbase, and a market that is far, far less profitable than its console counterparts, it's actually quite understandable.
Fair enough I stand corrected I would still be fairly sceptical that any boost in sales due to the draconian DRM (and there is no doubt that it worked as pirated version for Assassins Creed took a a long time to appear), were more than outweighed by sales lost over the negative publicity it generated.
There was plenty of "negative publicity" over the inclusion of IWNet in Modern Warfare 2 a couple of years ago and we all saw how that affected sales, even when it came to the most "vocal" of protesters.
Don't think it was meant that way in fairness, I think PC gamers would tend to shy away from the forgettable franchise games that will never be played again because they are stuck with it for good, and won't have the option to stroll down to HMV and trade it when they get bored of it after a few hours.
What is a Ubisoft rep going to say exactly? "Nope, we got it wrong, wasted millions in the development of this DRM and all it achieved was annoying legitimate customers."
Azza, you can't believe everything a company representative says. It's in their own best interest to portray their own product and DRM in the best light possible. In any business, people crow about how good a job they did and how necessary they are to the company. To say anything different would be to risk losing your job.
With regards Football Manager, Sega took a new approach this year and put it on Steam. Now, it was just as easy to pirate as last years version but I'm betting the sales improved massively. What does that tell you?
Any opinion Capcom has on DRM should be viewed with a mountain of salt. Companies that practice business the way they do with on-disc DLC and unlock codes are on very shakey ethical ground when it comes to piracy anyway.
I'm in no way excusing piracy in this, I just feel that you are being very naive in your taking these quotes as gospel. These guys have an agenda.
Plenty of PC games sell bucket loads. And then some don't and it's all them nasty pirates fault. It's alot easier to blame an outside force than look at the problem that you might have within. Did we make a bad game? Did we market it wrong? Is our DRM counter-productive? Jaysus heads might roll if thats true.
Na.......it's them damned pirates! "They tuk er jerbs!!!"
The farce that was 3DS Resident Evil savegames was another example of DRM madness
You seriously believe there is a possibility a company would keep using a system that is costing them millions? Strikes me as rather naive. Sure its possible that companies can make mistakes and miscalculate with severe financial consequences, but to continue using a system that's costing them millions that sounds insane. I'd also like to see some proof that DRM systems cost millions to implement. Sounds like an exaggeration to me.
Did it help prevent zero day piracy?. All steam games are easy to pirate, but the fact that the developers can withhold say the .exe file off the retail disc, means that even if there is a leak at a disc pressing plant, the game will not be cracked until after release. That is all they may have been hoping to achieve, (obviously putting games on Steam with massive customer base is a great idea, expanding your potential customer base will always lead to increased sales). We don't have any figures on sales do we so it tells me nothing. I could say, its drastically reduced piracy, what does that tell you? Of course there are no figures so its just speculation.
I have no problem with any of that. I'm mildly irritated by pre-order DLC, but that's normally fairly trivial content, that makes virtually no difference to how much I would enjoy a game. More and more I'm simply buying from the store/website with the best price, regardless of pre-order DLC.
As for unlock codes, that's been the story with PC games for years. You use a code to activate it. Sometimes the code is tied to an account which makes second hands sales difficult.
As for on disc DLC. I believe a company can sell a product however they wish. Your no doubt referring to SFxT. I purchased the game and do believe I purchased a complete game (albeit a poor game from a game play perspective). There is as much content in that game as any other fighting game that I have played. They created the DLC with a separate budget concurrently with the main game. If they did not intend to sell the extra characters as DLC then those characters would not have been made, plain and simple. Who cares when they where developed. People where unhappy with the release date and complained, so Capcom moved them forward. People complain about the price of DLC, but no one is forcing them to buy it. Your not at disadvantage against these characters because you learn about them by playing them. (I do have an issue with certain DLC gems giving an advantage, pay to win so to speak)
Then to this argument that I own what's ever on the disc I paid for. You going call out Netherrealms, for their DLC plans with Injustice God's Amongst Us. No on disc content but when it comes to DLC people will be forced to download the DLC to their hard discs There doing this so people who don't buy the DLC can play against those that do. (the same reason Capcom gave for putting the DLC on the disc with SFxT) Netherrealms have said it been an issue with MK9 that people won't download the free compatibility updates for MK9 that allow non DLC users to play against DLC users. Thus people with the DLC can find it difficult to use the DLC online.
But think about it for a moment, the content is going be on your hard disc, you won't have an option of not getting it if you want to play online. Your hard disc is your property. You own the hard disc yet you can not access this content unless you pay for it, its locked down. But for some reason I can't imagine people are going complain. They didn't when they did the same thing with the expansion packs to Company of Heroes. People grumbled about having to download 10GB+ expansions because how time consuming it was, but none of them went OMG I have content on my hard disc that I can't use, F**K you Relic/THQ. If you actually think about its worse having content locked on your hard disc than on a disc, because your down storage space.
I'm trying to bring in some balance. I don't take everything they say as gospel I'm just trying to counter balance the argument. There isn't much facts and figures coming from either side, but you can as a neutral party go to file sharing and torrent sites and see the scale of piracy. Again I'm not equating each pirated game equals a lost sale but look at the scale of the issue, Its hard to say without an agenda that piracy is having no effect what so ever.
Time and again, people say it comes down to greed. After all games developers/publishers are businesses trying to make money which is fair enough. But if it all comes down to greed then why would they keep using DRM system that cost them money it doesn't make a lick of sense. There is no logic.
They could say nothing or they could give a vague "we believe our measures will be successful in reducing the high rates of piracy that is affecting certain titles we release". By saying that the DRM has been successful and lead to a reduction in piracy figures then they're boxing themselves into a corner.
And as I linked earlier, due to the one time activation required once purchased from Steam, there was fan outcry for such "outrageous" DRM. I'm sure sales did increase of course given not only the increased market but also the disturbingly large number of gamers who refuse to purchase content from any other digital distribution service that isn't Steam.
They are, however, an excellent example of measures which are decryed by most casual fans of their series but supported by the core fans as is evident by the reactions of many of the Fighting Forum folk around here.
EDIT: Amusingly enough I started this post before Azza replied and he has now rather conveniently provided an example of this.
It's a damn sight easier to blame pirates for lower than expected sales when you see your game being downloaded millions of times more than it sold.