By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Quite possibly the worst DRM and most ridiculous idea ever

ssj12 on 17 February 2010
WilliamWatts said:
If they see piracy as being that much of a problem and it helps them combat it and in turn achieve higher revenues then I cannot see it as being anything but an overall positive thing for PC gamers that actually pay for the content.

OK, I've read every one of your posts in this thread, but since this is the root of your insanity, ill target it.

1. There is no plausible way this is going to help any game sell. A constant connection required for a single player game is stupid. I understand a random authentication check once in a while when connected to the internet, but this type of DRM makes SecuRom look good.

2. In later posts you point to massive franchises like Warcraft and Starcraft requiring internet connections. Guess what? you are completely wrong in everyway. I can play OFFLINE with NO internet connection what-so-ever. And since you brought the MMORPG World of Warcraft into this, I'd love to point out the obviousness that it requires an internet connection because of the fact it is a Massive Multiplayer ONLINE Role Playing Game. There is not single player mode to be seen in WOW.

3. Combat piracy? Impossible to pirate due to authentication? Your joking right? UbiSoft is asking for their games to be pirated, and pirated any game with this worthless attempt to combat piracy will be. The funny part is how easily this game will be to be pirated. Just rewrite the code where it pulls the game saves from, since the game still stores a physical copy of the game save onto a PC anyways, and remove the required server check.

 

 

Its obvious that you have no idea what your talking about, so hopefully this informs you on how wrong you are.

Still just to throw you an example of how stupid UbiSoft's DRM is. Lets say Wii Sports was made by Ubisoft and had this DRM installed. Everytime you wanted to play Wii Sports on your Nintendo Wii you have to have an internet connection to start the game. What would happen if you took the console and game to grandma's house who has no internet at all? You wouldnt be able to play it. Why? Unisoft requires an internet connection even though its a single player only game, and even though you have authenticated that you own the game at home its useless to you until you can connect your console to the internet.



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network
Barozi on 17 February 2010

and here I thought I could grab a copy of AC2 for my PC when it's cheap.
Well I guess it will get VERY cheap VERY soon, but I'm not gonna buy it unless they patch the DRM...

I already own the 360 version, so this would be just a bonus, but not when the bonus gives you that much troubles.



WilliamWatts on 17 February 2010
ssj12 said:
WilliamWatts said:
If they see piracy as being that much of a problem and it helps them combat it and in turn achieve higher revenues then I cannot see it as being anything but an overall positive thing for PC gamers that actually pay for the content.

OK, I've read every one of your posts in this thread, but since this is the root of your insanity, ill target it.

1. There is no plausible way this is going to help any game sell. A constant connection required for a single player game is stupid. I understand a random authentication check once in a while when connected to the internet, but this type of DRM makes SecuRom look good.

2. In later posts you point to massive franchises like Warcraft and Starcraft requiring internet connections. Guess what? you are completely wrong in everyway. I can play OFFLINE with NO internet connection what-so-ever. And since you brought the MMORPG World of Warcraft into this, I'd love to point out the obviousness that it requires an internet connection because of the fact it is a Massive Multiplayer ONLINE Role Playing Game. There is not single player mode to be seen in WOW.

3. Combat piracy? Impossible to pirate due to authentication? Your joking right? UbiSoft is asking for their games to be pirated, and pirated any game with this worthless attempt to combat piracy will be. The funny part is how easily this game will be to be pirated. Just rewrite the code where it pulls the game saves from, since the game still stores a physical copy of the game save onto a PC anyways, and remove the required server check.

 

 

Its obvious that you have no idea what your talking about, so hopefully this informs you on how wrong you are.

Still just to throw you an example of how stupid UbiSoft's DRM is. Lets say Wii Sports was made by Ubisoft and had this DRM installed. Everytime you wanted to play Wii Sports on your Nintendo Wii you have to have an internet connection to start the game. What would happen if you took the console and game to grandma's house who has no internet at all? You wouldnt be able to play it. Why? Unisoft requires an internet connection even though its a single player only game, and even though you have authenticated that you own the game at home its useless to you until you can connect your console to the internet.

1. When was the last time you were without a connection to the internet on a PC capable of playing Assassins Creed? Laptops have suspend/hibernate functions so you can still play games without a connection to the internet, you just cannot save them until you do.

2. The major component of Warcraft and Starcraft was the online. Blizzard are moving towards this kind of copy protection as well as even LAN games require a connection to the Battlenet servers out of the box. Just because a game is single player doesn't stop a requirement for internet access being plausible. Have you seen Flash games? Single player games requiring an internet connection.

3. Not impossible, just more difficult. If it was easy then they wouldn't have considered it. Its funny how companies fall into the supposed trap of being total douche bag idiots who would not have considered the above. The PS3 is unhacked, the Xbox 360 as produced at the moment is unhacked though the DRM is circumvented so it is possible.

 



vlad321 on 17 February 2010
WilliamWatts said:
vlad321 said:
WilliamWatts said:

You're assuming they aren't familiar with that method to counter-act this type of system because????

Because there IS no way to counteract this. You do realize the code of the game is RIGHT THERE ON THE PC? Nothing they can do will amke something hack proof. Just like there is nothing to make your computer safe if the hardware falsl in the hands of a hacker, your software is automatically unsafe the moemnt its files hit another person's computer. With PC games that's all the time. There is no way to stop hacking, none.

Not all of the code is right there on the PC. This makes it harder as you'd have to figure out what the code which is out of the hackers hands does.

It's not code.... it's part of the save game.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Khuutra on 17 February 2010
WilliamWatts said:
Khuutra said:

The lack of a CD check isn't actually a positive! The fact that they aren't using one kind of DRM is not a benefit when there is a net loss in terms of convenience!

You are not explaining how this helps me, the consumer. I don't think that you can.

You the consumer are atypical. Im talking about the public at large here not a small sample of people with spotty wireless controllers.

There is no such thing as a typical consumer of PC games, unlss you take "typical" to mean "DRM is going to increase the chances of piracy happening"

The inability to play the game meaningfully offline is a problem.



Around the Network
radiantshadow92 on 17 February 2010
vlad321 said:
WilliamWatts said:
zexen_lowe said:
WilliamWatts said:

The Ubisoft protection means you can crack it as many times as you want but you cannot save your game unless you authenticate on Ubisofts server.

Imagine the game code were something like this

User wants to save game;
var = connect to ubi servers to check if user authenthicated correctly;
if  (var)
   save game
else
    return error

 

And you only have to rewrite it to

User wants to save game;
var = true;
if  (var)
   save game
else
    return error

 

And there, it doesn't connect. Of course, this is a rough generalization done in pseudocode, but you get the idea

 

 

Its not the same as simply logging in to a server to authenticate. A portion of the game has to be run off the server for it to function properly. In this case its the ability to save. So whilst the system can tolerate an internet outage you cannot treat the game as any more than a demo unless someone manages to put the save functionality back into the game code.

No it's false. It's actually very simple to crack. You just make the game think that your own computer is the server. It's been done before, it's not like online authentication hasn't been cracked before. Trust me, the pirated version will be infinitely superior to the bought copy, they jsut fucked themselves over. Also the fact they are selling a agme at $60 on the PC is laughable.

OT:

Making of Game: $15 million

Developing DRM: $3 million

Pirated copy better than retail: Priceless.

this comment just sickens me >.>



vlad321 on 17 February 2010
radiantshadow92 said:
vlad321 said:

No it's false. It's actually very simple to crack. You just make the game think that your own computer is the server. It's been done before, it's not like online authentication hasn't been cracked before. Trust me, the pirated version will be infinitely superior to the bought copy, they jsut fucked themselves over. Also the fact they are selling a agme at $60 on the PC is laughable.

OT:

Making of Game: $15 million

Developing DRM: $3 million

Pirated copy better than retail: Priceless.

this comment just sickens me >.>

It's true too.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

CatFangs806 on 17 February 2010

I understand why they use DRM, but this is just pure bull****. It's not even an online game, and even if it was, you shouldn't be kicked out of single player, either. This would also be a problem for me, since I share only one LAN connection with my parent, so if she wanted to use the internet for another computer, I'd be screwed even though it's a SINGLE PLAYER game. Ubisoft needs to wake up. Although I wonder if this is all an elaborate plan to migrate players to the consoles, and sadly, it seems to be working.



ssj12 on 17 February 2010
WilliamWatts said:
ssj12 said:
WilliamWatts said:
If they see piracy as being that much of a problem and it helps them combat it and in turn achieve higher revenues then I cannot see it as being anything but an overall positive thing for PC gamers that actually pay for the content.

OK, I've read every one of your posts in this thread, but since this is the root of your insanity, ill target it.

1. There is no plausible way this is going to help any game sell. A constant connection required for a single player game is stupid. I understand a random authentication check once in a while when connected to the internet, but this type of DRM makes SecuRom look good.

2. In later posts you point to massive franchises like Warcraft and Starcraft requiring internet connections. Guess what? you are completely wrong in everyway. I can play OFFLINE with NO internet connection what-so-ever. And since you brought the MMORPG World of Warcraft into this, I'd love to point out the obviousness that it requires an internet connection because of the fact it is a Massive Multiplayer ONLINE Role Playing Game. There is not single player mode to be seen in WOW.

3. Combat piracy? Impossible to pirate due to authentication? Your joking right? UbiSoft is asking for their games to be pirated, and pirated any game with this worthless attempt to combat piracy will be. The funny part is how easily this game will be to be pirated. Just rewrite the code where it pulls the game saves from, since the game still stores a physical copy of the game save onto a PC anyways, and remove the required server check.

 

 

Its obvious that you have no idea what your talking about, so hopefully this informs you on how wrong you are.

Still just to throw you an example of how stupid UbiSoft's DRM is. Lets say Wii Sports was made by Ubisoft and had this DRM installed. Everytime you wanted to play Wii Sports on your Nintendo Wii you have to have an internet connection to start the game. What would happen if you took the console and game to grandma's house who has no internet at all? You wouldnt be able to play it. Why? Unisoft requires an internet connection even though its a single player only game, and even though you have authenticated that you own the game at home its useless to you until you can connect your console to the internet.

1. When was the last time you were without a connection to the internet on a PC capable of playing Assassins Creed? Laptops have suspend/hibernate functions so you can still play games without a connection to the internet, you just cannot save them until you do.

2. The major component of Warcraft and Starcraft was the online. Blizzard are moving towards this kind of copy protection as well as even LAN games require a connection to the Battlenet servers out of the box. Just because a game is single player doesn't stop a requirement for internet access being plausible. Have you seen Flash games? Single player games requiring an internet connection.

3. Not impossible, just more difficult. If it was easy then they wouldn't have considered it. Its funny how companies fall into the supposed trap of being total douche bag idiots who would not have considered the above. The PS3 is unhacked, the Xbox 360 as produced at the moment is unhacked though the DRM is circumvented so it is possible.

 

1. err.... ??? hibernate stops all functions of a PC putting it into a temparary state of sleep while saving all data stored in the flash memory of the system's ram... its like a human being being knocked out or being in a comma pretty much. Humans retain their memory even though their bodies shutdown.         I really cant believe I had to explain this.... 

Putting a PC into hibernate or suspend mode solves nothing in this situation, actually, using these functions would probably make things worse because when you awaken the PCs their internet functions are tempararily stalled.

 

2. Online functions make sense to have a need for an internet connection. Stop ignoring the fact that the single player campaigns of those two games, as well as thousands of others, dont require internet to play them. I'm seriously doubting Blizzard is stupid enough to kill of lan functionality like that, as well as, the single player function of the game. A single, or randomly timed, authentication when a connection available should be exactly what Blizzard is going to do.

Flash games? Did you seriously bring them into this? I really want to laugh at you for this. You want to know why? They dont require internet connections to use unless they have some form of leaderboard or some multiplayer function. And even then, you really dont need one.

Let me explain. Flash games use an internet plugin utility from Adobe called Adobe Flash Player. The plugin calls the software installed on ones PC to load a function inside a web browser. Its pretty much a program running inside a program.

Now, if you download the flash game file off of a website, usually a .swf file, then kill the internet connection for your PC, guess what? the game will function perfectly. Why? the game will either A. load itself in your offline web browser and function perfectly. or B. load in Adobe Flash Player's own program window. There is ZERO internet required to play the game.

 

3. I;m going to leave this comment alone... I'm just going to sit here and continue to laugh my ass off because of how stupid your comment is...



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Katilian on 17 February 2010
WilliamWatts said:

Public Key encryption of any quality would take at least a month of solid effort to crack. By that time the damage typically done by piracy would be averted.

Obviously they would use encryption.

Obviously they would ensure that the data recieved back from the server was not identical to the data sent.

Not every packet sent would have to be relevant, but it would waste their time making them figure out each one.

The victory is not perfect protection. The victory is in if they can slow down piracy for a few weeks and let themselves sell their products without the need to compete with pirated material. In addition to this, if the effort required is substantial enough then smaller releases would never be cracked due to the effort required unless the the release groups can develop a method which is portable to all games using this methodology.

Wouldn't slow them down in the slightest. The client has access to the data both before it is encrypted, and after it is decrypted, meaning so does anyone with a decent debugger. There is no actual need to break the encryption! All I need to do is piece together how the unencrypted sent save maps to the unencrypted return save. Then all I do is strip out the encryption/decryption funcationallity in the client and get it to handle the unencrypted data directly, as does my spoofed server. Or I could just complete overridely the save/load function entirely and get them to use the exact same data anyway...

This is the fundanmental flaw with DRM. (Taking the old encryption metaphor) Alice wants to send a message to Bob without Cylde being able to read it. Trouble is with DRM, Bob and Cydle are the same person.

Edit: Just focusing on your last paragraph. They only generally get a one shot at delayed piracy. Unless they come up with a new scheme for every release (expensive and time consuming, unlikely to get the money back in sales), they might slow down the crackers for the first release that uses it, but once the inner workings are known, repeating the procedure is simple.

This also assumes the crackers don't get a copy before release (usually they do) and aren't working on cracking it before it comes out. Given how many games have pirated versions before or on the release date (hint: most of them), you really need to be on the ball to get that window of opportunity.

Also, the crackers do usually generate methods that can be tailored to future releases using the same copy protection (many copy protections also share similar traits, so even if they are different, figuring them out is a fairly generic process). This is why pirated releases appear so quickly. You're also forgetting that there is "glory" in the Scene for defeating copy protections and being the first to release the pirated game. Crackers also do this for the fun and challenge, so the "effort" required for smaller releases isn't an issue.