Coming to Terms With UbiSoft

I have an insane theory about the airline industry — I think they genuinely want me to stop flying on their airplanes.

I think that when major air-carriers tuck into their silk sheets at night, they dream of a hyper-efficient fleet filled with steely-eyed business class flyers with practiced methods of travel and corporate expense accounts. Never again would they be burdened with a bunch of pesky amateur flyers with screaming kids and an over-inflated sense of entitlement just because the family managed to scrounge up a few hundred dollars to fly to Omaha.

Were I to write to Delta airlines and tell them of how I chose to spend three days driving across the country with my two boys rather than endure ten hours under their thumb, would the response be a curt but genuine, “Thank you?”

Sometimes it very much seems like certain companies are entirely comfortable with the idea of just annoying a certain segment of consumers away. You know, companies like Ubisoft.

Is it insanity to imagine that a game company would seed the foundation for catastrophic PC numbers so they can justify ending support for a customer base they neither like nor trust? Is that nutjob conspiracy theory territory, because every time I look at the evidence the slippery slope gets greased just a little more.

I had been looking forward to buying Assassin’s Creed 2 for the PC. As friends raved about the experience on the consoles, I decided to hold off for a release on my platform of choice: the trusty Personal Computer. But as Ubisoft slowly revealed worse terms than Lando Calrissian got from Vader in Empire, I realized that for me, a line had been crossed.

Historically my reaction would have been histrionics, but for a lot of reasons that I don’t want to explore right now, I have been thinking hard about learning to accept the things I can not change. It is a distressingly voluminous list, to which I must now grudgingly add the schemes and machinations of multi-national game publishing companies. Unless I’m willing to become a mid-80’s Sally Field movie, the only question left is how mad I am willing to let the whole thing get me.

Rather than take this to the next level of a broad and meaningless call to social action — Boycott Ubi, yo! — I have chosen instead to realize this is a very personal choice where no available option seems particularly desirable. Do I reward Ubi with my money in the hope that they might be grudgingly forced to create more PC games with even tighter restrictions? Do I deny myself the experience of playing a game I had been looking forward to? Do I build flimsy self-justifications for piracy, choosing to contribute to the problem out of an overwhelming sense of self-entitlement and convenient moral flexibility?

Ok, obviously not that last one. Whatever moral subjectivity it is that endows people with the latitude to pretend like rules don’t apply if they are sufficiently mad at the victim just doesn’t work for me. So, for me, the choice is only one of buy or sit out.

Why is this such an emotionally charged dichotomy for me and for that matter so many other people? Ubi and its ilk have presented a product and presented their terms. I can either take part, or I can abstain. That I am disgusted by the terms offered should be the point where I get the luxury of keeping my $50. I mean, it’s not like when some guy comes to the door asking if I’d like to let him fertilize my lawn for a hundred bucks, I suddenly have the urge to punch him in the face.

I recognize in a very rational way that the internet’s response to Ubisoft’s decision to make all PC gamers maintain constant internet connectivity to play their games is one of breathless hysterics. Three Stooges movies show more moderated self-control than message board discussions in response to this issue, and yet I am drawn to the furious debate like a moth drawn to a flame if that flame were the burning singularity of a super-massive black hole.

I hate the corporate policy of Ubisoft for this. I hate the precedent it entrenches for PC games, and I hate that I have no recourse to protest save a few hundred futile words and a well practiced glower. Therein lies my real problem, and the point this all draws back to.

I don’t get a vote, not even with my dollar. Choose to buy and I am supporting something I believe undermines the rights that should be afforded to PC gamers. Choose not to buy and Ubisoft is free to interpret diminished sales as evidence of the impact of piracy and the antipathy of the consumer base. Check and mate.

I must learn to accept that which can not be changed. It is a bitter lesson.

I choose not to buy, and I choose not to pirate if for no other reason than it would provide publishers with one drop of additional proof that PC games aren’t worth the trouble.

Now I must choose to accept my own decision, and that, so far, has been the hardest choice of all.

Comments

Switchbreak wrote:

Meh, I bought it and then cracked it. I can't bring myself to be bothered with voting with my dollar, I'm just a consumer who wants some damn video games.

This is an interesting solution to me, especially since I've done the exact same thing with old games I own that have CD swapping. You're not stealing the game, and yet you are circumventing the aspect of the DRM that is most instrusive.

Great post. Really resonated with my thoughts about the whole mess. Ultimately I decided the only real voice I have is with my wallet. So, I won't be purchasing any Ubi PC games that use this DRM and I will only buy used Ubi console titles so they don't get a new sale from me. I was very much looking forward to RUSE later this year, but I have crossed it off my list.

Elysium, you captured the essence of my resignation with this issue to the tee. Except perhaps the pirating part, where you're prevented by your goodness, and I'm prevented by my laziness. But the outcome is the same.

The only part I disagree with, in principle is:

I choose not to buy, and I choose not to pirate if for no other reason than it would provide publishers with one drop of additional proof that PC games aren’t worth the trouble.

The way you phrased this, implies that Ubisoft, EA and Activision is an all encompassing category of publishers. They are not. And when they stop messing with the PC market, less egocentric money grabbing machines will get a chance to invest into PC gaming and all will be well again. For a while at least.

I dream of the day when PC game business plans will be made for niche markets. Not mass markets. Currently, the only way that future will come true is if Ubisoft PC market dies a horrible, horrible death. Which I truly hope for. And if the price for that is that I do not play Assassin's Creed 2, Silent Hunter 5, R.U.S.E., or a few other games that may look interesting and come out in the near future, then so be it. It's a small price to pay. Especially in today's saturated market.

After looking at the numbers of how piracy effected Crysis when it came out I've stopped blaming publishers in any way for their DRM schemes. They are loosing real money to pirates, and to publish anything that is compatible with PC is more of a risk than, frankly, not to.

There is a reason that Ubi and 8 other major publishers have signed on with OnLive. AC2 will be a launch title in July, and the only way to pirate it will be to record the video feed of yerself playing it. OnLive and other services, Steam inclusive, are the future of PC gaming.

Nice read. Any rational modern being should encounter the same dilemma. Perhaps their HQ sits atop some inter-dimensional hellgate that nullifies reality and logic vis a vis Wolram & Hart.

This is pretty much where I've been sitting since the Starforce DRM days. I wait to find out if a game I'd like has DRM I'm okay with, and if it doesn't, I skip it.

I've skipped a number of games now that I'm sure I would have enjoyed. At the same time, there are companies out there that respect me as a customer enough for me to give them my business, and they have probably received extra sales for it.

Ideally, Ubisoft will see that their DRM strategy is flawed and learn from it, and I'll buy from them again. AC2 looks good. If not, I'll stick with Valve games and others with a similar philosophy.

TheWanderer wrote:

After looking at the numbers of how piracy effected Crysis when it came out I've stopped blaming publishers in any way for their DRM schemes. They are loosing real money to pirates, and to publish anything that is compatible with PC is more of a risk than, frankly, not to.

Yeah, its worthwhile to point out that its understandable that publishers would latch on to the one solution to the piracy problem - DRM. However, DRM will also cause you to lose sales, so you need to balance between the two.

There will always be new PC games, because there is still money to be made, and because there are still passionate developers who enjoy making those games. Assassin's Creed 2 may be the hot-new-game of the moment, but in a year, there will be new games, new franchises, and new *companies* all competing for my attention and consumer dollars.

TheWanderer wrote:

There is a reason that Ubi and 8 other major publishers have signed on with OnLive. AC2 will be a launch title in July, and the only way to pirate it will be to record the video feed of yerself playing it. OnLive and other services, Steam inclusive, are the future of PC gaming.

I don't think OnLive is going anywhere. And how can Steam be the future of PC gaming when it is both the present and the past?

After buying every Silent Hunter game, I'm giving the newest one a pass because of the Ubisoft's DRM. Sadly, some financial wonk will crunch the sales numbers and they'll come to the conclusion that the market doesn't want any more sub sims instead of understanding that we just don't want a sub sim that requires a constant link to the Ubisoft mothership.

OG_slinger wrote:

After buying every Silent Hunter game, I'm giving the newest one a pass because of the Ubisoft's DRM. Sadly, some financial wonk will crunch the sales numbers and they'll come to the conclusion that the market doesn't want any more sub sims instead of understanding that we just don't want a sub sim that requires a constant link to the Ubisoft mothership.

If only there were a good way for them to capture the "I would have bought your game, but..."

A thoughtful, rational article that goes beyond the DRM discussion into how we deal with such decisions as people. Nice piece Sean. I hope some of the Ubi people read this.

I'm interested to know what sales projections for AC2 on PC were, how heavily expectations were discounted because of this new DRM, and what Ubisoft thought was an acceptable level of lost sales. AC2 could be viewed by the executives as a loss-leader, something to get people into accepting their new DRM system so resistance on their next big PC title isn't so influential. Or Ubi could have expected their PR machine to smooth over any wrinkles created by the new DRM system...

I guess after all is said and done I feel like Ubi is marginalizing my favorite platform by throwing roadblocks in front of me. I shouldn't feel the same way toward a gaming company as I do towards my cable or utilities company. I want to cheer for the people bringing me entertainment. Right now Ubi makes me want to buy their games Used, if at all.

I find it hard to blame Ubisoft for taking steps to protect their investment. Everyone is telling Ubisoft what they shouldn't be doing, but do you have a better solution? What should they do? What would you do?

Yes, there are companies that release their games completely DRM free, like Stardock. And they seem to be doing well, although they make very niche games aimed perhaps at more mature, affluent gamers, not action games. And there are companies who are driven out of business due in large part to piracy, like Titan Quest maker Iron Lore. They were seeing 10 to 1 piracy to sales rates of Titan Quest. Titan Quest barely broke even, and they couldn't secure funding for another game, and had to shut down.

I prefer this DRM to something invasive like Starforce. At least the only piece of software I'm installing when I set up the game is the game itself.

Do I wish that PC games had no DRM? Of course. Is it a choice between DRM'd games or no games? Not for all games, but definitely for some. Piracy is a reality that won't go away. I want good games on the PC. If I have to suffer an online connection (which I do already for all my Steam games) so be it.

@ Switchbreak

Let us know how well your cracked version works. Everything I have read so far says that this DRM has been successful. If your cracked version works, and this DRM is resulting only in inconveniencing paying customers, it will change my mind.

Please keep in mind we don't allow links to pirate sites or discussion about how to attain pirated materials. Cracks included.

I find it hard to blame Ubisoft for taking steps to protect their investment. Everyone is telling Ubisoft what they shouldn't be doing, but do you have a better solution? What should they do? What would you do?

I'm not getting tangled up in the argument. It's not my job. As I mention in the piece they have made an offer, and I refuse. I'm not impeaching in the least their right to institute the protection scheme -- I'm simply saying that for me it crosses a line that I can't accept.

I do think your basic point is not incorrect. In a perfect world, I wish people would spend more time decrying piracy as the plague it is rather than some romantic notion of civil disobedience, but that also falls under the scope of things which I have not the power to change.

This is the world. This is the cards being dealt. This is how I choose to react. Ultimately, that's really all I'm prepared to talk about.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I don't think OnLive is going anywhere. And how can Steam be the future of PC gaming when it is both the present and the past?

Publishers like OnLive because it is a new market and it is impossible to pirate games from it. The surprising thing about Onlive is their stupid pricing structure they announced two days ago: $15 per month, but you have to buy or rent any games. The whole attractive thing with Onlive was paying a monthly fee for access to whatever game was in their library. So, this just makes them the same as Steam, but with llower max resolution (720p) and a $15 per month fee. Forever.

Steam is the future because still only 15% of sales are electronic downloads. The vast bulk are still retail. However, electronic downloads increase every year. Heck, even Microsoft is getting into the business. So at some point, download services will overtake retail, but not for a while yet.

How the heck did you get the 15% figure? And is that dollars or games sold? I've never heard of accurate electronic distribution figures.

As for what DRM I'd prefer, I like EA's method. Grant extra content to people who legitamately buy the game, and let others that rent, buy used, or presumably pirate pay extra for it.

And offer freebies to people who sign up at their site and join their community. I don't have to do it to play the game, but they've provided enough incentive that i want to allow them to make sure I've got a legitimate copy so I can get ma phat lootz.

For those of you that were around when Steam released, I seem to recall quite a lot of the same weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about another end to PC gaming. I may have even contributed some myself. In an ironic twist, Steam is now held up as a good standard to compare, against another jump in DRM restrictions with Ubisoft. It had its growing pains, and to be sure at launch there were a vast array of problems. But it seems like most people dig it now. I know I have a decent library of games on Steam.

Ubisoft's iteration of this kind of integration into the net, seems just more like an evolutionary refinement of where online activation services have been moving, rather than anything radical.

The only thing really different about it is in frequency of checks, obviously several orders of magnitude higher than something like Steam, but I am willing to bet that the frequency will be reduced further, especially with the obvious issues their servers have had keeping up with even the load of one major release (sorry sub fans...I said MAJOR as in headcount). If they lower the frequency so that a minute or more could pass without kicking you out, I think that would take a lot of the sting out.

Also as was pointed out above, services like OnLive are coming. They also require 100% net uptime for single player games.

Just playing devils advocate. I bought the game on the xbox, so I am definitely not seeing the issue through the lens of the desire for a really sweet game.

Bullion Cube wrote:

As for what DRM I'd prefer, I like EA's method. Grant extra content to people who legitamately buy the game, and let others that rent, buy used, or presumably pirate pay extra for it.

That's actually Stardock's method as well, except a bit more organic. They won't fight you about acquiring the game. But in order to get support, multiplayer features, or game updates, you need to have a legal version, as those aspects are handled by an online platform.

Ubisoft has reacted, though maybe slowly, to the DRM concerns of its customers in the past. Weren't they one of the first publishers to announce they would no longer use StarForce copy protection back when there was a lot of two-way debate about it.

I thought that policy change was due to the business reality of lukewarm reception to some of their key titles upon announcing the inclusion of that particular DRM solution. It had become a negative marketing point for bringing their development investments to retail.

There is probably hope here. I think Ubisoft has invested in this particular solution and so they are for now committed. They will give it a shot, give the public a chance to see how it works or doesnt in real world gameplay and if it actually drives down the more lucrative profits of day one sales, re-think the whole scenario over time. I don't think it will be a single-title decision though. They will need to crunch the numbers on several key launches before they make decisions to keep, tweak or scrap.

ahrezmendi wrote:
Switchbreak wrote:

Meh, I bought it and then cracked it. I can't bring myself to be bothered with voting with my dollar, I'm just a consumer who wants some damn video games.

This is an interesting solution to me, especially since I've done the exact same thing with old games I own that have CD swapping. You're not stealing the game, and yet you are circumventing the aspect of the DRM that is most instrusive.

Honestly, I think it's a method they would approve of.

Arclite wrote:

@ Switchbreak

Let us know how well your cracked version works. Everything I have read so far says that this DRM has been successful. If your cracked version works, and this DRM is resulting only in inconveniencing paying customers, it will change my mind.

Certis wrote:

Please keep in mind we don't allow links to pirate sites or discussion about how to attain pirated materials. Cracks included.

Hopefully linking to a BoingBoing blog post about it doesn't count as discussion of how to attain the crack. If this is out of bounds I'll edit it out.

Ubisoft's notorious "uncrackable" unfair game DRM falls in less than 24h

Ubisoft has responded with a twitter update that the crack doesn't fully work, which I'm not in a position to dispute as I haven't played much of the game, but I can confirm that it at least launches.

Wayfarer wrote:

For those of you that were around when Steam released, I seem to recall quite a lot of the same weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about another end to PC gaming. I may have even contributed some myself. In an ironic twist, Steam is now held up as a good standard to compare, against another jump in DRM restrictions with Ubisoft. It had its growing pains, and to be sure at launch there were a vast array of problems. But it seems like most people dig it now. I know I have a decent library of games on Steam.

Steam's problem starting out was its activation servers were woefully inadequate for the blockbuster games that required it on release day. You're right though, there were definitely a lot of angry people back then and I think it was Steam's initial stumblings that made people a lot more wary of systems that extend even further.

Just a question for you guys that aren't buying the game because of the DRM:

Ubisoft released Prince of Persia in 2008 without any DRM. Did any of you buy that game?

Ubisoft released Prince of Persia in 2008 without any DRM. Did any of you buy that game?

That is only relevant if someone chose to pirate it instead of buy it -- and I'd prefer not to get this thread completely derailed by going full-bore into the piracy angle.

But, it's not like I'm going to go around randomly buying up games that don't have restrictive DRM.

I have an insane theory about the airline industry — I think they genuinely want me to stop flying on their airplanes. ... Sometimes it very much seems like certain companies are entirely comfortable with the idea of just annoying a certain segment of consumers away.

I think they have a term that approximately fits what you're describing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_...

So Elysium, how about buying the game and get the pirated version. Then play the pirated version. If you wouldn't go for this, would you still think there is support for Ubisoft, but also for Piracy? Either way though, you get to play the game on your terms and you have paid for it....

Just noticed that Switchbreak already mentioned this basically. Still curious about a reaction on this.

The comparison with early steam keeps coming up, but I don't think it's a true comparison. Steam is DRM, plus a store, digital downloading (as many times as you want for most games), auto patcher, and a reliable friends/community system came later. This ubisoft DRM only brings DRM to the table (when it can contact their servers), without any other benefits. It reminds me of the phrase "locks are only good for keeping honest people honest".

Supporting piracy is not an answer for me.

Sparhawk wrote:

So Elysium, how about buying the game and get the pirated version. Then play the pirated version. If you wouldn't go for this, would you still think there is support for Ubisoft, but also for Piracy? Either way though, you get to play the game on your terms and you have paid for it....

Just noticed that Switchbreak already mentioned this basically. Still curious about a reaction on this.

Not to put words in Elysium's mouth, but I think that would be the worst of both worlds. You're buying the game, supporting the idea that this DRM is fine with you. You're also pirating the game, supporting their claims that X copies were pirated.

I'd go with the solution someone suggested earlier - Buy a used console copy. You get to play a good game. The company doesn't see a dime from your purchase.

Cheer up, Elysium, there are thousands of other great PC games out there. If Ubisoft want to be jerks, let them scuttle their own PC games business.

Demigod, anyone?