It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Ubisoft scrapping always-on DRM for games(110 posts)(110 posts)
(110 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
JMich: So, what does the 1 key - 1 profile - 1 user have to do with the engine limitation I mentioned above?
That for multiplayer for certain games, a key is a unique individual and can't be used by more than one person at a time.

So yeah, in some cases it doesn't matter. In others it 'manages' what you can do with your game (ie, only have one copy running with multiplayer at a time).
Post edited September 05, 2012 by Pheace
Posted September 05, 2012
high rated
avatar
SimonG: It's speaks volumes about the actual "restrictiveness" of always online DRM that a company can quietly shut it down and nobody notices it for month ...
If you were right and no one cares if games have always-online DRM, why then did Ubisoft decide to change it? Of course there is nothing saying "no one noticed", just because they didn't mention it specifically for you.

Not to mention many people who were still playing the games didn't necessarily even try to run such games offline, if they were expecting them to still need internet connection. I wouldn't try to run Diablo 3 offline, because I'd expect it needs to go online. That has nothing to do whether I wish my single-player games to be playable offline.

I certainly didn't notice the change with the Ubisoft games, simply because I have specifically made sure I don't buy such Ubisoft games which would require always-online DRM.
avatar
SimonG: And it still has a single online activation. Which pretty much renders the whole change moot. Either a PC has internet or it hasn't. It's not like anybody is still paying per minute ...
Yeah yeah, and everyone should be fine with streamed games too, because everyone is certainly connected to high-speed internet all the time while gaming... I just love these "I don't care about it, so no one else is allowed to care about it either"-arguments.

So I guess the Steam offline mode is completely irrelevant then too. Even for that certain GOGer who wanted to run his Steam games in offline mode for six months, while working abroad.

"Validation only during installation" is probably the least restrictive form of online DRM, but whether you are able to reach all the single-player content offline in future Ubisoft (F-2-P?) games is another thing.
Post edited September 05, 2012 by timppu
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
SimonG: It's speaks volumes about the actual "restrictiveness" of always online DRM that a company can quietly shut it down and nobody notices it for month ...
As far as I'm aware more or less everyone knew about this change.
avatar
SimonG: And it still has a single online activation. Which pretty much renders the whole change moot. Either a PC has internet or it hasn't. It's not like anybody is still paying per minute ...
I think te_lanus and many people in the US on metered internet will disagree with you. Not everyone has unmetered internet like here in Germany.
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
Trilarion: Makes them comparable to Steam. No need to differentiate between them anymore.
Almost. I think Valve (or at least Steam support) has stated that the Steam offline mode is not guaranteed to remain offline forever, but there are certain things that can and will trigger the client to demand go online. They just didn't want to specify what those triggers are.

As far as I can tell, Ubisoft is plainly promising that the single-player game can be played totally offline after the online activation during installation. Most probably this activation is needed whenever you reinstall the game, even on the same PC.
Posted September 05, 2012
Nice: cracks will be released faster this way. Not that I have touched a Ubisoft game in ages, mind you....
Posted September 05, 2012
Good thing. But as usual with Ubisoft, I'm worried they have something even worse prepared :P
avatar
SimonG: It's speaks volumes about the actual "restrictiveness" of always online DRM that a company can quietly shut it down and nobody notices it for month ...
Maybe it's because nobody played them ;)
Post edited September 05, 2012 by keeveek
Posted September 05, 2012
A lot better. Now I can consider their games again.
Not nearly perfect though, online activation is online activation, not just a cd-key.

The difference being, Ubi could go titsup next year, and then it's no longer possible to install any of their games.

And I wouldn't be amazed if they do go kaputt. Ghost Recon is pretty much dried up, left to Assasins Creed and Far Cry to keep them afloat, despite the hoard of other flops they produce.
Posted September 05, 2012
Here's another (and better) article; the Ubi PR machine is revving up. I'm happy, though: they're definitely taking steps in the right direction. The new UPlay is actually pretty good (shame about that one security fiasco and the idiocy that is "Steam mode"), and more or less a model example of what a modern client should look like and how it should work.
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
JMich: Shouldn't that be "necessary for multiplayer with the engine that game uses", since quite a few games don't mind people using the same cd-key?
Nitpicking, but if you can't nitpick with a lawyer, who can you nitpick with?
Some games need an individual key to play multiplayer. Of which GOG only gives out one key. Effectively restricting MP to one person at a time. If that isn't a DRM then what is.

But I don't mind and I certainly don't blame them. Complaining about online multiplayer being not DRM free is pointless anyway, imo.

It just shows that DRM is a marketing phrase. There is no clear definition of this and companies all over the net use the words "DRM-free" or "it's not DRM its Steams something something" simply for marketing. Just as Ubisoft now did.
avatar
keeveek: Maybe it's because nobody played them ;)
Always a possibility XD!
Post edited September 05, 2012 by SimonG
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
SimonG: Some games need an individual key to play multiplayer. Of which GOG only gives out one key. Effectively restricting MP to one person at a time. If that isn't a DRM then what is.
GOG is selling a single license to a single person. There is no reason to give more than one key.

But yeah, it's a DRM (that affects multiplayer only). But it's a DRM that can't be easily removed, so I can manage that. And I can use pirate cd key for my friend to play online with him. (sharing a game with him is the same as pirating the product, so it's no different if I use legit key or not). Like I care...

I guess you're that kind of person who would rather have multiplayer removed completely, to say that GOG is not using false advertising. But then you'd bitch that they don't sell a full product.

They use false advertising in more than one place, and more damaging way than having a CD key

"You buy it, you own it" -> the biggest lie.
Post edited September 05, 2012 by keeveek
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
jamyskis: I think te_lanus and many people in the US on metered internet will disagree with you. Not everyone has unmetered internet like here in Germany.
Always online DRM doesn't use a lot of traffic. I moved twice with my Steam desktop and it took roughly three weeks in both cases before I had "proper internet" again. I had one of those USB mobile net thingies to go online. I used a traffic monitor as they where clocked 1 GB (I think) a month.

The amount of traffic generated through games was negligent. Although I don't know which games I was playing for sure, I am fairly certain AC II was among them. I had to keep an eye on updates though, as this stick was fast. It was impressive to see how much traffic you rack up by average surfing. Webpages certainly got bigger in the last 15 years...
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
SimonG: Always online DRM doesn't use a lot of traffic.
Once again, this is a problem of not having exact definitions. As far as I know, Ubi was merely pinging their server at pre-set intervals with a simple data packet, which indeed is perfectly negligible. Something like Diablo III which stores part of the game logic on Blizzard's servers will eat up a lot more.

(I don't have metered internet, but I do have a very crappy ADSL modem/router provided by my beloved ISP which makes sure always-on isn't an option for me, as it is prone to random heart attacks every once in a while. But that's not the main reason I consider always-on excessive; that would be its zero benefit to the customer.)
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
bazilisek: Once again, this is a problem of not having exact definitions. As far as I know, Ubi was merely pinging their server at pre-set intervals with a simple data packet, which indeed is perfectly negligible. Something like Diablo III which stores part of the game logic on Blizzard's servers will eat up a lot more.
Diablo III is for me partially a streaming service and therefore not what I would call "always online DRM". And something I don't buy.
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
SimonG: Diablo III is for me partially a streaming service and therefore not what I would call "always online DRM". And something I don't buy.
Same for me, but there are others who feel differently. Including those who see little to no difference between the two. The "DRM is DRM is DRM [is evil]" crowd.
Posted September 05, 2012
avatar
SimonG: It's speaks volumes about the actual "restrictiveness" of always online DRM that a company can quietly shut it down and nobody notices it for month ...
avatar
timppu: If you were right and no one cares if games have always-online DRM, why then did Ubisoft decide to change it? Of course there is nothing saying "no one noticed", just because they didn't mention it specifically for you.

Not to mention many people who were still playing the games didn't necessarily even try to run such games offline, if they were expecting them to still need internet connection. I wouldn't try to run Diablo 3 offline, because I'd expect it needs to go online. That has nothing to do whether I wish my single-player games to be playable offline.

I certainly didn't notice the change with the Ubisoft games, simply because I have specifically made sure I don't buy such Ubisoft games which would require always-online DRM.
.
Same for me. Didn't notice it either as I don't own any games that require always-on, and would never buy any.

In Thailand, we also occasionally have power outages which can last anything from 30 minutes to 4 hours. Every time we've had one, I haven't been able to get much work done so just played a computer game till they came back on and, as I don't have always-on or Steam, it's never been a problem.

The reason why always-on won't work in most places is because most people still don't have reliable internet either. Mine goes off every hour or so, sometimes every few minutes and in surrounding countries like Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar it's often not on for longer than a few minutes in many areas of the country.. Yet people there still want to play computer games, so will never buy games with always=on.

Looks like Ubi has finally gotten a clue that most of the planet doesn't live in America or Germany :)
Post edited September 05, 2012 by Bloodygoodgames
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Ubisoft scrapping always-on DRM for games(110 posts)(110 posts)
(110 posts)