Ubisoft WIN

[coder0xff]

What's kinda interesting about this DRM technique (or any really) is that the more it's used the less effective it becomes - and very aggressively at first. Crack teams will make analysis tools and techniques specially suited for this type of DRM and we will be right back where we started. Ubisoft may have won this round, but the war is far from over.

[RefaelBA]

What's kinda interesting about this DRM technique (or any really) is that the more it's used the less effective it becomes - and very aggressively at first. Crack teams will make analysis tools and techniques specially suited for this type of DRM and we will be right back where we started. Ubisoft may have won this round, but the war is far from over.

I thought about it too.
You're a coder, think of the challange. Breaking this DRM is nothing like hacking systems like SecuRom or SafeDisc. Once those older measures were cracked, it was easy to apply the crack to any game that used them, by bypassing or replacing the relevant pieces of the program. You just had to identify the right place on the file and deal with it. You're getting me right?

But this kind of DRM is different, and a relatively simple iteration to the method can mean a completely new challange for the cracking team. Also, it's technically much more difficult to trick this system - after all you need to create an emulator of something that's a closed box to you. Tough shit. I think this system gave real hell to the crackers out there.

The crackers might understand this system enough to create an emulation. But it's enough to make minor changes for the solution to stop working. I mean, if we had the source code we could both write a patch within a few hours that completely cancels the crackers' solution (I guess that patching the game won't be available in the cracked version for this reason). They'll have to go through reverse engineering every time the system changes. It might be a whole new effort for evey game released. The flexibilty that Ubi has with this system is tremendous.

[YokaI]

You say this as if the developers get paid more if you buy the game and don't if you pirate. You aren't purchasing content from artist, you're purchasing a license to play a game from a corporation. En masse, yes it can contribute to prosperity or layoffs, but that is more a reflection of the market than the actions of pirates.

Yes that's a good point, it doesn't go straight to the developers. However, more importantly, it goes to the publishers who give money to the developers to develop game all together. The reason why you don't see sequels to games such as beyond good and evil for YEARS is because the ammount of money they are given is proportionate to the sales they provide the publishers with.

It's like the way record labels will pay more for bands that sell more, it's the same for game development. Also, brief side note, if you are a lead of said project and it ships out, there's a likelihood that upon it's success it can either a) give you more executive power or b) give you quite a bonus (according to kotaku, anyhow.)

Factually wrong, but apparently inconveniently so. There are plenty of examples of games and developers eschewing DRM and still making a profit which allows them to make more games.

I would agree to this, but something just irks me about the whole stance. Are you against it but still see why they do it? They do lose in this case as well, they lose consumer trust which is generally a pretty big loss. However, it's worth it on many levels to protect your content from being tampered and or pirated, however their reputation is sullied. It's kind of like the infinity ward thing, in which activision wins the legal dispute but loses in terms fanbase and consumer trust. Come time for modern warfare 3, the casual consumer won't really even care or remember, so it will still sell, but it's probably caused quite a shock in their stock investments and also helped EA because it caused a large fanbase of previously CoD players to flock over to Battle Field Bad Company 2. So while they win on one aspect (their arguments over the CoD ip) they lost another (consumer trust)

The same can be said for Ubisoft now. Profits may be slightly up, however it's made quite a group of hesitant adopters even MORE hesitant in purchasing a game by Ubisoft. Hell, the majority of you are outraged to the point where it sounds like you'd never even try an ubisoft game with this sort of drm policy in place. It's literally they win but they also lose, so is it really a win after all?

Painting things black and white, either right OR wrong, is simply fallacious, things are far from that easy.

I wouldn't say that, right / wrong isn't the same as good and bad. In fact, they are quite different. Right just implies that it's the appropriate way of doing SAID thing, and in this case there's an appropriate way. The only way you SHOULD get things is by buying them, at least in an capitalist society. Having said that, people can offer games for free, but you'd have to think about the fact that each game has people behind it who develop these games and if they don't make a profit, their company won't get paid, and in relation they won't get paid from their company. The pie in the sky would be that all digital assets would be free to consume because there's no physical matter applied to them, and thus it is technically valueless, but that's not true because the way our modern society rewards workers is not by the materials they gather but instead the time they invest into their practice. (We get paid by the hour, not paid by the sale or any other material production) That is, for most jobs. Being a doctor is actually quite a bit different, but that's a whole other matter that I don't know very much besides what my father rambles on about.

We are on the brink of the real digital evolution, where old concepts of ownership of information are forced to change and culture is expanding at new rates because of it. Games aren't dying, because people still support what they like (case in point: Valve). Same with music and art. Some cling to the concepts of an artificial market practice that was only possible due to the "primitive" nature of information technology in previous decades. The human trade of sharing information which was already then apparent but limited due to the level of technology is able to freely unfold itself today, much to the dismay of those who have gotten used to disproportionate profits and market power.

This goes back to the concept I presented above this quote, but I have a bit more to say.. Valve wouldn't be making money if their games were pirated more. The reason why their are not pirated is simple, it's mostly about being able to play online against opponents, something which you cannot (easily) do with cracks. Valve hasn't changed the way the market place works, in fact valve is just a publisher just like EA or Ubisoft or Activision. What valve did do was provide an easy to use system to download the game, both easy for the consumer and the producer to deal with and keep statistical information, so on and so forth.

I wouldn't say that many companies are used to disproportionate profits. In fact, valve probably gets more money through steam than EA does through retail sales, since the price of the product is equal to the price of the product + the few dollars of materials needed to produce cases / marketing for retail products. Ofcourse if you are talking about Exxon or even Adobe, that's a different story, but the games industry has been rather constant about it's sales policy. In fact, the price of games has gone down since the super nintendo ages, which sold games at about like 80 bucks or something along those lines.

[BaRRaKID]

So, a month later:

As most of you probably know, Ubisoft's new PC DRM, currently included in the company's recent releases such as Silent Hunter V and Assassin's Creed II, requires players to have a constant Internet connection so the game can be experienced. The protection system caused a lot of problems for a majority of legit users. The PC edition of Assassin's Creed II hit the market last month and there were various hack attempts, one of which involved a scheme that allowed users to emulate Ubisoft's DRM servers on their computers.

Hacking group known as SKIDROW managed to circumvent Ubisoft's protection completely. There's a cracked version of Assassin's Creed II PC available on torrent sites as of last night, complete with a readme file in which SKIDROW addresses Ubisoft directly:

"Thank you Ubisoft, this was quiete a challenge for us, but nothing stops the leading force from doing what we do. Next time focus on the game and not on the DRM. It was probably horrible for all legit users. We just make their lifes easier."

There you have it, kids. It took them about a month or so. We all knew this would happen.

[SotaPoika]

So, a month later:

As most of you probably know, Ubisoft's new PC DRM, currently included in the company's recent releases such as Silent Hunter V and Assassin's Creed II, requires players to have a constant Internet connection so the game can be experienced. The protection system caused a lot of problems for a majority of legit users. The PC edition of Assassin's Creed II hit the market last month and there were various hack attempts, one of which involved a scheme that allowed users to emulate Ubisoft's DRM servers on their computers.

Hacking group known as SKIDROW managed to circumvent Ubisoft's protection completely. There's a cracked version of Assassin's Creed II PC available on torrent sites as of last night, complete with a readme file in which SKIDROW addresses Ubisoft directly:

"Thank you Ubisoft, this was quiete a challenge for us, but nothing stops the leading force from doing what we do. Next time focus on the game and not on the DRM. It was probably horrible for all legit users. We just make their lifes easier."

There you have it, kids. It took them about a month or so. We all knew this would happen.

WIN!

[Psy]

Let's hope for a Splinter Cell patch soon!

[ErikKiller]

So, a month later:

As most of you probably know, Ubisoft's new PC DRM, currently included in the company's recent releases such as Silent Hunter V and Assassin's Creed II, requires players to have a constant Internet connection so the game can be experienced. The protection system caused a lot of problems for a majority of legit users. The PC edition of Assassin's Creed II hit the market last month and there were various hack attempts, one of which involved a scheme that allowed users to emulate Ubisoft's DRM servers on their computers.

Hacking group known as SKIDROW managed to circumvent Ubisoft's protection completely. There's a cracked version of Assassin's Creed II PC available on torrent sites as of last night, complete with a readme file in which SKIDROW addresses Ubisoft directly:

"Thank you Ubisoft, this was quiete a challenge for us, but nothing stops the leading force from doing what we do. Next time focus on the game and not on the DRM. It was probably horrible for all legit users. We just make their lifes easier."

There you have it, kids. It took them about a month or so. We all knew this would happen.

WIN!

pwnt

[Supervillain]

@ Supervillain: You're talking about the micro-transaction model. It can't work on everything, and I believe it's not suited for a real AAA single player game. It will be like asking people to pay for watching the next scene in a movie. A single player campaign should be a pretty continuous experience, and this model won't work in this case, imo.

I agree, such a business model cannot work for every game, and probably won't/can't work for single-player games.

I was more pointing out that there are other business models which can be successful, and it is becoming clear that $60 bucks for a mystery box isn't going to work.

Part of difference between a free-to-play (with microtransactions) model and the "pay up front" (for lack of a better term) model is that with the latter you have no idea what you are paying for. You can read reviews (which are rigged), you can trust your friend (mine are all idiots), or you can rent it first (so now I need to pay ANOTHER company to find out if I like a game?).

With free-to-play you know what you are getting, and you can decide to pay for extras.

I'd love to play Splinter Cell: Conviction, Assassins Creed 2, God of War 7, or whatever shiny new game is coming out, but there is no way of me knowing if the game is crap. Many games even trick you into thinking it is fun for the first 8 hours, then you end up realizing you are playing the same mini-game over and over and over again (Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood).


So basically, most of this DRM garbage is just a way to force the consumer to continue playing into the same business model.

When you insist upon charging $60 for a game, then release a DLC for $10 a month later, and the game is standard fair with nice graphics you are alienating the customer, and so many of them will turn to "unsavory" methods.

[coder0xff]

coder0xff says I told you so.

/thread

[Dionysos]

coder0xff says I told you so.

/thread

Everyone did, don't claim the glory all for yourself

On topic, good news. But worrying that consumer protection has to be upheld by "hackers".

[coder0xff]

coder0xff says I told you so.

/thread

Everyone did, don't claim the glory all for yourself

On topic, good news. But worrying that consumer protection has to be upheld by "hackers".

Then you can all join me in gloating lololol

On topic, It's like my whole belief system of good vs. evil has been called into question.

Edit: Just noticed I never responded to RafaelBA at the top. My understanding as a coder (and someone who's done reverse engineering) is what lead me to say what I did. Techniques and tools of code analysis will rise if this type of DRM continues to be used. It's already very easy to search a binary for calls to the Win32 API and C++ libraries. Using a modified version of QEMU you can track memory and flow changes around networking APIs, and it would be highly effective. It doesn't matter what the method of validation is. If a program can be separated from all it's instances of checks, then it's cracked. A computer program is still just a computer program. It wasn't even necessary to emulate the server, but the team probably decided that it was the easiest way to do it with the resources they currently had available.

[Dionysos]

I partly see it as a good thing. Challenges are what drives technology forward.

Also, I don't really meant hackers as a negative thing, I just think corporations shouldn't do these things in the first place, ideally. I very much doubt Ubisoft etc is gonna learn though.

It's fun to observe this, I wonder what they'll try next.

[BaRRaKID]

The server emulator was a different hack. This one, as far as i can tell, is a simple patch that completely avoids the phoning home system:

The hack itself removes the DRM entirely and is being claimed by a consortium known as Skid Row. It requires users to download and install a modified version of the game’s executable file to their computers. These modified game files, alongside a crack that can be applied to a retail version of the game, were uploaded to various file-sharing sites late Tuesday evening.

This release is an accomplishment of weeks of investigating, experimenting, testing and lots of hard work. We know that there is a server emulator out in the open, which makes the game playable, but when you look at our cracked content, you will know that it can't be compared to that. Our work does not construct any program deviation or any kind of host file paradox solutions. Install game and copy the cracked content, it's that simple.

[RefaelBA]

This was an incredible debate.
It's true that the DRM was cracked, but actually, during the month or so in which it could not be pirated, Ubi made the crucial money hit from the game. I'd say they lost the battle but won the war. In the end: they got their money, at least the huge launch sales, which are the biggest in most games' lives.
If a game isn't cracked within days of its release, it just doesn't matter that much after that.

[coder0xff]

This was an incredible debate.
It's true that the DRM was cracked, but actually, during the month or so in which it could not be pirated, Ubi made the crucial money hit from the game. I'd say they lost the battle but won the war. In the end: they got their money, at least the huge launch sales, which are the biggest in most games' lives.
If a game isn't cracked within days of its release, it just doesn't matter that much after that.

I hardly think you can credit the DRM for their adequate sales. I would bet that they'd prolly have done better if people weren't so put off by the DRM.

If the goal was to make money off their game, they started an unnecessary war. If the goal was to defeat piracy, they simply lost.