Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubisoft's Authentication Servers Go Down

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the single-point-of-well-you-know dept.

Piracy 634

ZuchinniOne writes "With Ubisoft's fantastically awful new DRM you must be online and logged in to their servers to play the games you buy. Not only was this DRM broken the very first day it was released, but now their authentication servers have failed so absolutely that no-one who legally bought their games can play them. 'At around 8am GMT, people began to complain in the Assassin's Creed 2 forum that they couldn't access the Ubisoft servers and were unable to play their games.' One can only hope that this utter failure will help to stem the tide of bad DRM."

cancel ×

634 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

LOL (5, Insightful)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395374)

Ha, ha.

I don't know anything else that should be said here.

Re:LOL (0, Offtopic)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395390)

Oops my /nelson tag got eaten.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395618)

Ha ha! [nelsonhaha.com]

Re:LOL (4, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395778)

My karma ran over your dogma. Never seemed more appropriate. :)

Re:LOL (0)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395794)

Users: Our relationship is headed for an EPIC FAIL, young lady!
Ubisoft: But I LOVE my DRM!

Re:LOL (1, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395830)

OK, and in case anyone wonders why Ubisoft is the young lady:
Do you want to fuck them hard, maybe punish them for being a bad girl, etc?
See...? ;))

Re:LOL (2, Insightful)

IICV (652597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395882)

How about I called it, [slashdot.org] as (I assume) did anyone who gave the entire stupid scheme more than a moment's thought.

Down or DDoS? (5, Interesting)

Elgonn (921934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395398)

Down or DDoS? We all know exactly how easy it was going to be for an outsider to screw everyone.

Re:Down or DDoS? (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395420)

Does it really matter though? If they're using something like this, they should had have hardened and test the system properly. Things like this are completely unacceptable. I would have thought they did as otherwise its going to backfire so good, but it seems stupid people never cease to amaze you.

Re:Down or DDoS? (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395638)

Ok, so please inform us how you would had hardened their systems against the DDoS if there was one.

Re:Down or DDoS? (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395688)

There are various techniques to battle against DDoS even on network level. But as we know nothing about their systems, it's quite impossible to say anything towards that matter. Maybe it's network, maybe it's software, maybe it's hardware. But if they go for a system like this, they have to do it properly. These things shouldn't be run off someones basement with an old P3. I bet theres been a lot of DDoS and other kind of attacks against Google, Microsoft, Slashdot, even any kind of smaller site or IRC network and they cope with it well. Unless you can sustain the same amount of service level, then you just won't do it.

Re:Down or DDoS? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395812)

How convenient of you to use the excuse "I can't comment, because I don't know anything about their systems." You could quite easily list several steps you'd take to harden your systems; the theory will be the same no longer the system. This is just basically you speaking about some rhetoric without knowing the underlying topic at hand.

Re:Down or DDoS? (4, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395816)

Hey, remind me of something: what are you talking about? It's not like network administrators have a magic "prevent DDOS" button.

DDOS's can take a couple hours to be noticed and a couple more to fix, and that's if it's something simple. They come in a variety of shapes and forms. If it's more complex, it won't be as easy as just turning off a port or access to something or IP filtering.

As an example, did you ever think that it's entirely possible that ubisoft DDOS'd themselves with their connection checking?

Re:Down or DDoS? (2, Insightful)

Fanro (130986) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395710)

Ok, so please inform us how you would had hardened their systems against the DDoS if there was one.

I guess the same way google, microsoft update or similar sites do it. Massive bandwith, redundant servers, a little black voodo.

Re:Down or DDoS? (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395766)

...which would have cost them more than the game will earn in profits.

Re:Down or DDoS? (3, Interesting)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395884)

I think you dramatically overestimate the cost of redundancy.

poetmatt's theory that Ubisoft may have simply underestimated the packet rates needed to keep the auth servers up and responsive is interesting. It's entirely possible. Blizzard has faced such challenges several times with their authentication servers going down, although this is likely on a much larger scale than anything Ubisoft has had to deal with.

Shocker (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395690)

Holy shit, TripMasterFucktard said something I actually agree with for once! Go repent for daring to speak ill of a huge faceless corporation, you fascist bootlicker.

Re:Down or DDoS? (1)

dreampod (1093343) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395700)

Particularly because the amount of chatter on Slashdot and elsewhere regarding how a DDOS attack would help 'teach' them how stupid an authentication scheme this was and illustrate why DRM systems always punish the legitamate users and hardly bother the pirates. Even a moderately aware company should have been anticipating an attack and been prepared for it. I wonder if it is something like the fiasco with Demigod where pirated copies crashed the authentication servers attempting to connect.

I expect that regardless of the actual cause (my bet is bad design, poor testing, and a negligable attempted DDOS), that Ubisoft is going to blame 'the pirates' for the issue as an attempt to save face and illustrate what a bunch of dirty, horrible people pirates are and why NEXT time they will need to have an even more intrusive, absurd DRM system. My bet is a DNA testing fecal probe dongle, it is after all the only way they could screw their customers more.

Re:Down or DDoS? (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395768)

My bet is a DNA testing fecal probe dongle, it is after all the only way they could screw their customers more.

Now I have that bit from Idocracy stuck in my head. "OK. Stick this in your ass, this in your mouth, and this in your ear. No wait..." Should have the same effect.

Re:Down or DDoS? (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395590)

It doesn't really matter to the user, does it?

And before you say "A DDoS wouldn't be UBIsoft's fault": Deliberately and needlessly introducing a single point of failure to your system is patently dumb, and most definitly the fault of the party that introduced it if it fails.

Re:Down or DDoS? (5, Insightful)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395734)

Deliberately and needlessly introducing a single point of failure to your system is patently dumb

Quiet! You'll give them ideas.

Re:Down or DDoS? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395776)

either way, it hopefully will teach people why you don't buy DRM'd games, even if the game sounds potentially good (which assassin's creed 2 does not - they didn't fix lots of crap from the original)

DONT WORRY GUYS! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395400)

Skid-Row will soon have a fix for this problem. This will also lessen the strain on Ubisoft's servers!

Re:DONT WORRY GUYS! (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395810)

Soon? I bet it is out now...

Re:DONT WORRY GUYS! (3, Informative)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395870)

There actually is a version of AC2 in the wild now, but practical unplayable (need to download another savegame and then you still aren't able to play missions). Skidrow has not yet made a release.

The DRM is working. (0, Flamebait)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395404)

... it IS called Digital Rights Management. And we all know that "Management" is a code word for "Those who screw you over the most". And "Rights" really means "Restrictions."

Digital Restrictions by Those Who Screw You Over The Most", or DRbTWSYOTM just doesn't have the same cachet.

Re:The DRM is working. (1, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395490)

No it is called Digital Restrictions Management. They restrict how often you can play as per the current demands of parental and religious groups

Re:The DRM is working. (5, Informative)

SolidAltar (1268608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395496)

Actually, the proper term is Digital Restrictions Management.
DRM only exists to restrict, period. Any use of "Digital Rights Management" is due to marketing.

Re:The DRM is working. (2, Informative)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395674)

While I agree that "Digital Restrictions Management" is more accurate, it's not the "proper [wikipedia.org] " term.

Re:The DRM is working. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395848)

maybe you don't understand. Digital restrictions management was the original planned name for that which you know as "digital rights management". They just wanted the name to be more of an oxymoron.

Re:The DRM is working. (1)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395856)

While I agree that "Digital Restrictions Management" is more accurate, it's not the "proper [wikipedia.org] " term.

Whoosh!!!

Re:The DRM is working. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395642)

Actually I read "management" in "digital rights management" in the same way I read "management" in "pest management".

Digital Rights Manglement (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395728)

Actually I read "management" in "digital rights management" in the same way I read "management" in "pest management".

So in other words, "management" means mangle-ment.

They have the money already (3, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395410)

Why would this stem the awful DRM? They have the money, gamers are still going to play, life moves on.

Re:They have the money already (5, Informative)

berzerke (319205) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395466)

...gamers are still going to play...

Well, right now it seems only the pirates are still going to play, while those legitimate customers will not. Reminds me of a quote I saw:

The Arch Demon's mantra has always been they will do it The Arch Demon's way once the pain becomes severe enough. However, it absolutely amazes The Arch Demon how much pain the IDOITS [legitimate customers in this case] can endure.

Re:They have the money already (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395698)

...gamers are still going to play...

Well, right now it seems only the pirates are still going to play, while those legitimate customers will not.

It's a TRAP! Only the pirates are playing, so much the easier to identify them...

Re:They have the money already (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395874)

Agent Skid-Row: Now tell me, Mr. Ubisoft... with the current state of your servers, how are you going to identify them... when you can’t... connect to them? :D

Re:They have the money already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395488)

Because people aren't going to buy the next game they release. Of course that will just be blamed on piracy and the drm will get worse (for the legit customers, anyways, but pirates will be happy with the superior version).

Re:They have the money already (4, Interesting)

Pinckney (1098477) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395520)

Because it pisses off a wide audience, not just the typical Slashdot reader. This may matter when it comes to selling other games. In particular, the people affected are the people ill-informed enough or naive enough to pay for such software. Once Bitten, Twice Shy.

Also because it kills the argument that this DRM isn't a big deal for anyone who doesn't plan to play the game for years. I know I've been told (by Battlefront.com, when inquiring about their system) that I was more likely to stop playing after years due to compatibility issues than because their DRM servers closed. Ubisoft presumably would have said similar, if asked about the end-of-life of their servers.

Re:They have the money already (5, Insightful)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395570)

Why would this stem the awful DRM? They have the money, gamers are still going to play, life moves on.

Gamers have already paid for the game but you see the issue we have here is that gamers have only paid once for the game. All DRM schemes are about extorting more money out of customers. Whether by killing the 2nd hand market or planned obsolescence they want you to pay to keep playing your games.

Mark my words, in 12 or 18 months time EA/UBI and so forth will start complaining that keeping these DRM servers online is costing them money, meaning they require more money from existing customers to keep them on line.

Re:They have the money already (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395676)

do you honestly believe such bullshit? there would be 1000 lawyers descending on them for a class action. i know it's popular on here to come up with new ways to trash things like DRM, but let's keep it atleast in the realms of reality....

Re:They have the money already (5, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395702)

I think the more likely option is that they'll be taken offline about the time Assassin's Creed 3 is brought to market.

Re:They have the money already (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395782)

Presumably they want to sell people a *second* game a year from now and angry customers usually aren't repeat customers

Re:They have the money already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395868)

A *second* game? Assassin's Creed 2.5: Unbrokeness?

Re:They have the money already (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395790)

This will decrease or eliminate the follow on sales, not everyone buys a game immediately when it comes out. Those people who haven't gotten around to buying it yet, are much less likely to buy it now. Additionally, those who did buy the game right away are much less likely to ever buy another game from Ubisoft.

Tech support calls... (2, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395852)

you're only thinking of the hardcore that knows to hit forums. All it takes is 1 phone call or email and they've lost all the profit on the sale, even if the call consists of "Servers down, try again later!".

Hope they learned a lesson (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395452)

Stop supporting games with this kind of DRM

Re:Hope they learned a lesson (5, Funny)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395510)

Stop supporting games with this kind of DRM

Ubisoft clearly has.

Re:Hope they learned a lesson (-1, Redundant)

SolidAltar (1268608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395538)

MOD PARENT UP

Re:Hope they learned a lesson (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395628)

MOD PARENT DOWN

Re:Hope they learned a lesson (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395680)

MOD PARENT UP.

Re:Hope they learned a lesson (5, Funny)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395742)

MOD PARENT LEFT

Re:Hope they learned a lesson (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395826)

MOD PARENT LEFT

You do the hokey pokey and you mod them all around!

Re:Hope they learned a lesson (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395752)

MOD PARENT DOWN.

Re:Hope they learned a lesson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395828)

MOD PARENT UP!

Awful Anti-Pirate Systems That Will Probably Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395454)

1. Give The Game away free (sans DRM and assorted BS), let people pay for it on an honor/donations basis if they like playing it.

2. That is all.

Re:Awful Anti-Pirate Systems That Will Probably Wo (2, Interesting)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395608)

1. Give The Game away free (sans DRM and assorted BS), let people pay for it on an honor/donations basis if they like playing it.

      Actually my experience with Silent Hunter 5 (having played the game somehow for a frustrating hour or so) is that I don't want it even for free. The game sucks balls. I guess the only good thing about this whole experience is that I updated my video driver.

I do that with pinball play it for free on the pc (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395714)

I do that with pinball play it for free on the pc and pay to play the same games on the real games.

Re:Awful Anti-Pirate Systems That Will Probably Wo (3, Informative)

aliquis (678370) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395664)

The guy behind mIRC did this, and I still remember reading an interview with some guy probably years after the first release where he was one of the early people who had actually paid for it assuming that he had to. He was like number 10+ or something such.

So yeah, works great having people pay if they like the product, or not ..

Re:Awful Anti-Pirate Systems That Will Probably Wo (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395744)

Well, that probably won't work either because, well, people are cheap. Let's be frank here, maybe a few people who know what effort and work is associated with creating a game will donate, but most won't. And there's a few millions to be recovered.

But how about, you know, selling the games for 50 bucks a piece, without DRM? I know, it's a radical idea, but think about it that way: No 20 bucks per unit for worthless DRM and no customer service troubles due to faulty DRM resulting in a smaller support department. The amount of sales you lose due to copying is easily balanced by a lot lower per-unit costs, basically meaning you have to sell half the units to net the same revenue.

sue the fucks in small claims court (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395506)

Seems pretty open & shut.

I'm not mad (4, Insightful)

SolidAltar (1268608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395512)

I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble feeling sorry for people who support DRM (those who bought the game).
They paid for it. They got what they wanted.

Find someone else's sholder to cry on.

Re:I'm not mad (4, Insightful)

noz (253073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395602)

I'm sorry, I'm having a little trouble feeling sorry for people who support DRM (those who bought the game).
They paid for it. They got what they wanted.

Find someone else's sholder to cry on.

Good call. As someone else pointed out above:

Why would this stem the awful DRM? They have the money, gamers are still going to play, life moves on.

The publisher has the customer's money. Support after payment is always awful. Until customers vote with their wallets, it will only get worse.

Enjoy your intentionally defective products!

Re:I'm not mad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395644)

The sad thing is the bulk of customers probably just bought the game cause they wanted to play and didn't know about/take the into account the painful side affects of this DRM.

Re:I'm not mad (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395694)

most people who purchased this game had no idea about DRM, you jerk off.

Re:I'm not mad (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395802)

Exactly what I was going to say. Gamers who read geek news sites are a minority; a vocal minority, and one that is important because they are frequently looked to for advice by others, but still a minority. What if I hadn't seen an article about this and my pre-order had gone through?

Re:I'm not mad (5, Insightful)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395808)

Maybe they should educate themselves then. Consumer abuse such as DRM is getting by largely because of public ignorance. Even if they have to learn the hard way, ie buying a defective product, they learn nonetheless. If they need to feel burned to start taking notice then I'm glad we have companies like Ubisoft around to burn them.

Re:I'm not mad (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395824)

most people who purchased this game had no idea about DRM, you jerk off.

They do now. And if they make the same mistake again, then they deserve whatever grief they get, because they will have known better.

Re:I'm not mad (5, Insightful)

SolidAltar (1268608) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395842)

Now they know better.
This is the best possible thing that could have happened to them.

Interesting method... (3, Interesting)

InfinityWpi (175421) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395526)

First time I've heard of a DDoS attack being used to break DRM...

Re:Interesting method... (5, Insightful)

FauxReal (653820) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395684)

First time I've heard of a DDoS attack being used to break DRM...

It didn't break the DRM, it broke the game.

Do I smell a class action lawsuit? (2, Insightful)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395558)

Do I smell a class action lawsuit? Seems like it might make sense.

Re:Do I smell a class action lawsuit? (1)

malkavian (9512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395588)

There's a little thing in the EULA that states "If the media is faulty, then we'll replace that at your cost for about £15. There are no other warranties of fitness.".
Wonder if they've got the balls to claim that "get out of jail free" clause. If they do, wonder how long the company will survive afterwards as sales tank.

Re:Do I smell a class action lawsuit? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395760)

Is an EULA binding in your country? Poor you.

I already said it (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395560)

Can't find it now, but definitly NOW the DRM protection WILL be the discussion topic on the schoolyard. And maybe company lunchrooms too. People who bought the game will ask around, especially their "IT clued" friends what they could do to play what they paid for, and they will be informed about how to get cracks.

People who never pondered cracking will now be introduced to it. So far they did actually buy their games. Either because they simply didn't know about it or, worse, because they didn't want to go through the hassle and thought that paying 50 bucks is easier, faster and less of a problem than futzing about with cracks and copying this and cracking that and executing this registry tuner and writing that into the registry...

Now they learn that buying games leads to more futzing, more frustration, more "it doesn't just work" than finding it in P2P and downloading it. Legal copies just lost the only edge they had over cracked ones: Ease of use and "just working".

Great job, UBIsoft. Just as the software industry finally regained some footing in the battle against copying, you go and aim the bazooka at your (and the industry's) foot.

No sympathy (3, Insightful)

ebcdic (39948) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395562)

You knew the game had this DRM, you knew that it was susceptible to server crashes, you whined about it endlessly, AND THEN YOU WENT OUT AND BOUGHT IT ANYWAY. How stupid can you get? Ubisoft must be laughing their heads off.

Re:No sympathy (3, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395704)

Did they? I didn't hear about the DRM until after the game was released. If I had not been waiting until it came down in price a bit, I might have purchased it based upon the merits of the first game and some early reviews which didn't mention the DRM.

I might even have failed to notice the small print which said that an Internet connection was needed in order to play it. I certainly wouldn't have expected that to be a requirement.

I bet a lot of people had no idea. This might do more to kill gaming on the PC than DRM, though.

Re:No sympathy (1)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395820)

> I might even have failed to notice the small print which said that an Internet connection was needed in order to play it. I certainly wouldn't have expected that to be a requirement.

Without knowing how obvious the technology makes it, I wonder if some people didn't even realise it had this sort of DRM until the servers went down...

Re:No sympathy (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395858)

In this case they learned a valuable lesson: There's more in a game but graphics, sound and gameplay today that you should inform yourself about before buying it: Its copy protection, and whether it is something you deem acceptible.

Saying that this will kill PC gaming is a bit far fetched, unless companies insist in it by continuing to push these kinds of copy protection. I'd consider it highly doubtful that people who played on PCs so far will go out and buy a 200+ bucks game console. I dare to extrapolate from me, in this case. I am an "old" PC gamer. Computer gamer, actually. Starting with a C64, stepping over Amiga to the PC. My first console was a GameCube. My other console is an XBox, which only exists because it was the cheapest way to a mediabox back when I bought it. Would I toss PC gaming in favor of consoles? Unlikely, to say the least. First, FPS games are simply unplayable for me with console controllers. RTS is entirely a dumb idea on consoles. They excel at platformers and their 3d counterparts, they are great for beat-em-ups, but strategy and shooter on a console is a PITA. Before I play them on a console, I won't play them at all.

So unless studios deliberately kill off PC gaming by insisting in copy protection that customers will not accept, this won't kill PC gaming. But it will hopefully kill DRM schemes that are simply beyond anything a sensible customer could accept.

Re:No sympathy (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395712)

"You knew the game had this DRM, you knew that it was susceptible to server crashes, you whined about it endlessly, AND THEN YOU WENT OUT AND BOUGHT IT ANYWAY. How stupid can you get? Ubisoft must be laughing their heads off."

The non-technically inclined audience does not and did not know of the DRM and its effects. Not everyone knows what kinds of issues it might lead to. The fact that you knew about it does not negate that fact. As such, such audience got screwed by this and it is in no way their own fault.

"Stem the tide of bad DRM?" (1)

Huntr (951770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395566)

I think we all know it won't. Sure, a few companies here and there seem to get it, but most don't or won't. Not until we make them quit by refusing to buy their products and telling them why. If they can sell that many copies of ACII despite this crud DRM being announced beforehand, then there's very little incentive for them to not include it, even with the problems.

Re:"Stem the tide of bad DRM?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395658)

The problem is there's no way to prove to companies that they're losing money with DRM. All they see is that there are pirates out there, and for some reason immediately assume that every pirate would have ponied up the $60 if only there was a perfect DRM system. So they keep chasing the dream, never understanding the facts of the matter:

(1) DRM makes people not want to give you money. Maybe they pirate, maybe they don't play at all.
(2) A massively larger amount of people will pirate a game than would actually pay for it. When something's free, everyone who's even a little interested will grab it. When it's not free, only people who are interested above a certain level will. This means that only a small percentage of pirates are "lost revenue"
(3) Unless you're talking a really huge AAAA+ level game like Modern Warfare 2, the costs of implementing DRM get close to or outweigh the few people who you will "force" to pay.

But, as said, there's no graph you can plot this on to show the execs, so they keep just truckin' on into oblivion.

Some Converts (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395578)

Hooray! Now out of the pool of people who thought it was a good idea to buy this steaming pile at least some of them will now be thinking twice: and more important talking about it with the equally uninformed.

Well, duh. (3, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395592)

It's as if nobody learned the first time about DRM when Microsoft shut off its MSN Music Store DRM servers, thus having people locked out of their own music they bought legitimately.

For those who got burned, it's not like people weren't warned. If you bought the game, you got what you deserved.

--
BMO

Re:Well, duh. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395758)

If you bought the game, you got what you deserved.

Huge problem with that: If people simply didn't buy AC2, the execs at the top wouldn't go "Oh, hay, maybe we pissed them off with DRM and we shouldn't do that anymore." No, they'd either say "Oh piracy was so bad, that's why we didn't get many sales!" and increase DRM, or they'd say "well clearly no one liked the game very much, so we won't make another."

Therefore, instead of the intended effect of getting AC3 without DRM, you simply never get an AC3 at all. People buy the game because they like the game not because they want to support DRM. If there were a way to give money to the developers to reward them for making a good game, while not giving money to the publishers who mandated the DRM, I'm sure a lot of people would go that route. But there isn't.

Nice response from an Ubisoft rep (5, Interesting)

TSHTF (953742) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395614)

It's worth looking at how a Ubisoft rep replies [ubi.com] to a post that gives users information on how to use the now-broken service:

Please do not post about illegal activities and or downloads.

The response [ubi.com] summarizes the situation appropriately:

WTF I posted a link to google that shows how to play since UBIcraps servers are down and you call it ILLEGAL activities? RAbble rabble! I will never buy another ubisoft product and I advise you to do the same!

This is a good thing (5, Interesting)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395620)

Several DRM schemes have only involked a reaction in the tech community such as slashdot while the general public carried on not caring.
This shambles has made it painfully obvious to the masses of the dangers of DRM.
The 45 page thread [ubi.com] is evidence of it and is quickly filling up with hatred. Comments such as "I'll never buy from you again" which usually tend to be hyperbole this time ring true.

Hopefully the end result of this is that the public won't have a short attention span and make true on their threats of not buying from them again.

The DRM Monster [comic +1 funny] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395630)

http://www.themousetrap.co.za/comics/index.php?cid=26

Let me just say... (5, Insightful)

Paintballparrot (1504383) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395646)

When I saw this story: *laughing for 5 mins* *gasping for air* *laughing for another 2 minutes* wooooooooooooooooooooooooo! ha ha ha

fir5t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395650)

Murphy's Law (2, Insightful)

bbqsrc (1441981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395662)

Seriously, obey, or you will be fucked by it.

Thank You Ubisoft (4, Insightful)

jjohnson (62583) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395706)

We should all send flowers or candy or something to Ubisoft Headquarters. They've done more with one game launch to torpedo the use of DRM than a thousand indignant ./ stories and editorials.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31395722)

I need to find the guys DDoS'ing the Ubi servers so I can buy them a beer.

Re:LOL (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395854)

I need to find the guys DDoS'ing the Ubi servers so I can buy them a beer.

Assuming that it truly was a DDOS and not just incompetence on UBISoft's part. However, if it was a DOS attack, they should put up a tip jar and take Paypal donations. Given the level of ire arising over UBISoft's gaffe, they'd probably make a mint.

Preview (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395762)

This is a preview of what will happen someday when Ubisoft goes bankrupt and you still want to play AC2.

Re:Preview (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395866)

This is a preview of what will happen someday when Ubisoft goes bankrupt and you still want to play AC2.

Well, in this particular case the game has already been cracked, but your point is well-taken.

In germany you would now be allowed to crack it... (5, Interesting)

AlgorithMan (937244) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395792)

the german law 69d UrhG allows cracking of software that you legally own and that won't work otherwise...

Self-DDOS (1)

StormDragoness (1193535) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395796)

It is clear: Ubisoft have released a game (network client) that performs a DDOS on their own servers.

Bad DRM is good for consumers (1)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31395800)

It's just like Apple and Microsoft both pushing DRM that wasn't compatible with each other. It's good for consumers, in the long term, because it teaches them not to trust it earlier rather than later when it really matters. Thank you Ubisoft, I hope you learned your lesson as well.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>