Future Ubisoft games will require 'always on' internet.

zexmarquies01 said:

Oh, I agree. And I'm *NOT* in favor of everything going mass-multiplayer. But I am all for games having some kind of online component. Co-Op and Vs. are mainly what I'm talking about.

But there are a TON of other things they could do. Much more than just Leader boards, and achievements.

Hell, look at what nintendo does. You sign up on their site. You then enter a specific code that comes with each game. After so many games / peripherals, Nintendo will mail you free stuff. Usually something small, like a hat, or a shirt or whatever. ( Do they still do that? I know they did a while back. )

Find ways to make the player feel like the game was made for them, instead of feeling like it's just a paycheck for the publisher's share holders and CEO's.

Click to expand...

I agree with almost everything you said, but some of the best titles just aren't well suited to having a multiplayer component, Fallout 3 for example. Sure you could shoehorn in some kind of co-op, but it wouldn't be the main feature/gameplay mode that made people go out and buy the game and therefore it wouldn't do too much to deter piracy in those cases.

>HyperlogiK< said:

I agree with almost everything you said, but some of the best titles just aren't well suited to having a multiplayer component, Fallout 3 for example. Sure you could shoehorn in some kind of co-op, but it wouldn't be the main feature/gameplay mode that made people go out and buy the game and therefore it wouldn't do too much to deter piracy in those cases.

Click to expand...

Fine, just resort to giving free BJ's for every game purchased. That should curb piracy asap.

ThePerfectCore said:

Well, most Ubisoft games are crap to begin with, so not really a huge loss.

Click to expand...

Seconded.

Well what helps a game survive is community modding. I think of Neverwinter nights and how long it survived and how it allowed the online end of things to flurish. In fact I own 3 copies so that if i wanted my friends to play they could hope on one of my computers.

There are ways to make money, especially since there is a strong voice of those who have the disposable income to support gaming.

I wonder if Devs ever read posts like this?

It's the price we pay for the piracy era.

Chixofnix said:

Myst
Far Cry
Rayman
Chessmaster

Click to expand...

These games are from a dead era.

Age of Empires <-- they were responsible for publishing at least some of this series, iirc?

Click to expand...

publishing != creating

They've established themselves as capable in my book . Not arguing that a lot of paperweightware hasn't come out of their orifices, but let's not discount their proven potential to publish classics...

Click to expand...

They were alright until their business plan went from "let's make some games" to "let's start an industry-wide crusade against our user base".

>HyperlogiK< said:

Making everything massively multi-player would be even worse, there are a lot of gamers who view WOW and similar products with a great deal of suspicion and hate.

Click to expand...

Well you probably won't like where most game companies are headed. I don't mean just MMO's, every game that comes out seems to have more online features.

Luckily for me the best new release I have played in a while [including Mass Effect 2, Borderlands and Shattered Horizon] has been VVVVVV.

I wasn't knocking games with a heavy multiplayer component, BF2 is still my all time number one PC title and I play it more than everything else combined. BUUUT... story driven action games like Fallout 3, GTA 4 and Oblivion [and some other genres too] sell bucketloads and they aren't intrinsically well suited to having multiplayer gameplay modes shoehorned in. Thus devs might add a multiplayer component but it isn't likely to become a key feature and so it won't stop the game from being pirated.

STALKER sans multiplayer is still a great game, in fact the mutiplayer was quite mediocre. Battlefield 2 without the ranks and unlocks sucks hard, but hardcore RPG studios aren't suddenly going to switch to just making FPS titles with persistent online features unless their core market really stops being profitable.

The other factor is that quite a lot of people still seem to be running pirates on XBL without being banned. If piracy is rife on xbox then the PC situation is a minor concern by comparison if the intention is to protect revenues.

Shiggity said:

Well you probably won't like where most game companies are headed. I don't mean just MMO's, every game that comes out seems to have more online features.

Click to expand...

Define an online feature.

I don't call requiring a MS Live Account, EA Account, Bioware account, Ubisoft account or a mix of any of them a "feature." Nor do I really care for the recent trend in achievements. As they're not difficult...and often not tracked accurately in many games anyway.

ThePerfectCore said:

These games are from a dead era.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? My point stands valid .

Take a few minutes to pore over what they've been responsible for publishing in both recent years and in "ancient history" (since Far Cry in 2004 seems a dead era to you - not sure where you draw the line?) - I'm sure you'll find some titles that tickle your fancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft

ThePerfectCore said:

publishing != creating

Click to expand...

How awesome is a perfect game that you've never heard of, can't access or was never developed in the first place because no publisher would pick it up? How amazing would it be if some savant at Bioware came up with a great idea for a game like Dragon Age: Origins or Mass Effect, but they couldn't find an EA to sink the money in to develop it for a few years?

You can point fingers and demonize publishers as much as you want, but where would we be without the likes of them? Independently developed/published games have their diamonds in the sand, but throw out everything that's ever had a publisher attached and suddenly it's a pretty desolate looking beach altogether !

Publishing is not developing - fact! Game publishers are however vital to the industry and our enjoyment of many of the games we love. You cannot discount their presence in today's world of gaming.

ThePerfectCore said:

They were alright until their business plan went from "let's make some games" to "let's start an industry-wide crusade against our user base".

Click to expand...

While I doubt that was anyone's explicit plan, I agree with your sentiment completely. The actions and words of many publishers clearly have shown they've been in the dark concerning the root of the piracy actions, and how much backlash would come from their various attempts to combat it with various forms of DRM.

I don't blame them for trying however.

DRM is something everyone must live with in the modern world, as it follows from the priorities of any publisher. In an ideal world (ok, in my own ideal world), a publisher of any sort would have the following basic priorities, in this order:

1. Get the "work/art" out to the masses, by any number of avenues/means/methods.
2. Ensure the artist(s) responsible is compensated well for their work.
3. Ensure the costs of distribution/advertising are met.
4. Make enough profit on the side, so the shareholders of the publisher won't decide the world needs one less publisher and tear it apart, hurting everyone down to those who enjoy the art.

The developers' priorities are simply to create awesome games people will want to play, and ultimately sell as many copies as possible so they can keep doing what they love.

With all that on the table, the reality of gaming piracy clearly attacks all the priorities of publishers, developers and hybrid "devublishers" including Ubisoft. DRM had to happen at some point. I'd maintain that Ubisoft is taking the best approach out there by all accounts with their internet DRM checks - I would consider the same in their position, at least until a better option came along.

[EDIT:] (If anyone is interested in discussing piracy outside of Ubisoft/"internet-check" DRM, I might suggest starting a new thread and/or checking this one out , rather than hijack this thread!)

SteveLord said:

Define an online feature.

I don't call requiring a MS Live Account, EA Account, Bioware account, Ubisoft account or a mix of any of them a "feature." Nor do I really care for the recent trend in achievements. As they're not difficult...and often not tracked accurately in many games anyway.

Click to expand...

I'll got the next logical step - I'd call it an annoyance! Such "player accounts" unfortunately and transparently exist as another means of, often redundantly, enforcing DRM for non-digital distribution. I'm not sure we'll be seeing any less of them as long as B&M stores and end-users who like plastic on their desks are still in the chain forcing the sale of crackable, physical copies.

Stratus_ss said:

I wonder if Devs ever read posts like this?

Click to expand...

I sure hope so. I feel some consolation that many publishers and developers probably actively do, but due to internal policies can't voice their agreement or add to the discussion. Wouldn't do for some employee to say anything against the "official" position and then later lose their career over it. I doubt anyone in such companies' chains of command is freely allowed to express their thoughts anyway.

SteveLord said:

ThePerfectCore said:

Well, most Ubisoft games are crap to begin with, so not really a huge loss.

Click to expand...

Seconded.

Click to expand...

I'll take the bait / call the play - name one publisher as large as Ubisoft who you can't throw the same claim at. Publishers can't be successful and grow without taking a chance on a variety of games and budding developers. If all publishers only ever accepted platinum-quality stuff, new developers would have effectively ZERO chance of getting started in the industry (and we'd have a lot fewer quality developers today, meaning fewer quality games to play). I'm sure if Ubisoft or any publisher had the choice, they'd be extremely happy to put out amazing, mind-blowing foundation-rocking games all of the time - but the reality is they have to make do with what people actually create.

Chixofnix said:

With all that on the table, gaming piracy clearly attacks the priorities of both publishers and developers. DRM had to happen at some point.

Click to expand...

I do agree that piracy does attack the priorities of publishers and developers, the problem is that the DRM only seems to attack the paying customers. Take another Ubisoft publication for example, Silent hunter 3, one of my favorite games I've bought in years. Install Vista X64 and the DRM won't allow me to play. Yet the cracked version runs in an x64 environment.

As mentioned earlier, it seem the only thing that even slow down pirates is a good online multiplayer, but as far as I know there isn't any DRM out that actually stops pirating for more than maybe a day or 2.

jaymz9350 said:

I do agree that piracy does attack the priorities of publishers and developers, the problem is that the DRM only seems to attack the paying customers. Take another Ubisoft publication for example, Silent hunter 3, one of my favorite games I've bought in years. Install Vista X64 and the DRM won't allow me to play. Yet the cracked version runs in an x64 environment.

As mentioned earlier, it seem the only thing that even slow down pirates is a good online multiplayer, but as far as I know there isn't any DRM out that actually stops pirating for more than maybe a day or 2.

Click to expand...

I fully sympathize with your DRM/OS situation - but it could be worse... at least it's not a Mac !

Joking aside, despite the OP article's obvious bias, I can see potential for this new form of DRM (which sounds to me a lot like a somewhat heavier-handed Steam) to be a lot more "paying-customer-friendly" than other DRM attempts. Certainly better than your current situation!

I don't like the idea of a shaky connection pausing your game intermittently - but that wasn't from the words of Ubisoft, that was rather extrapolated by the OP article writer... I'm in the boat of "wait and see first" as far as that's concerned... If it ends up being that intrusive there's no doubt I'll be speaking with my closed wallet.

Chixofnix said:

I'll take the bait / call the play - name one publisher as large as Ubisoft who you can't throw the same claim at. Publishers can't be successful and grow without taking a chance on a variety of games and budding developers. If all publishers only ever accepted platinum-quality stuff, new developers would have effectively ZERO chance of getting started in the industry (and we'd have a lot fewer quality developers today, meaning fewer quality games to play). I'm sure if Ubisoft or any publisher had the choice, they'd be extremely happy to put out amazing, mind-blowing foundation-rocking games all of the time - but the reality is they have to make do with what people actually create.

Click to expand...

In short, Ubisoft was one of the pioneers for creating crappy console ports to the PC. And they also were successful in turning the Tom Clancy franchise to poo (which use to offer great titles, but not in many years.) I'll never forget the horrible state R6 Vegas was in, and their community manager literally told everyone in their forum the company was having a meeting over whether to continue supporting the game (this was 3-4 months after retail.)

They are also good at making the same game twice, adding maps to it and labeling it a sequel.

When I think UBISOFT, I instantly think "the better game is on xbox/playstation, and they created a PC version just to encourage it even more."

While I dont condone piracy. Its noted that every game that uses this "always on" type of anti-piracy has indeed shown up on the web and cracked.

Chixofnix said:

Joking aside, despite the OP article's obvious bias, I can see potential for this new form of DRM (which sounds to me a lot like a somewhat heavier-handed Steam) to be a lot more "paying-customer-friendly" than other DRM attempts. Certainly better than your current situation!

Click to expand...

Ubisoft's authentication servers went down in the last couple days, leaving all the people that legally bought the game in question completely unable to play.

Not very paying customer friendly if you ask me

I'm sure plenty of companies will sign on to this, and probably have their software report back to home base with computer serial numbers too just for good measure. I personally still think it's a terrible idea, the concept of their servers going down preventing me from playing single player mode is frightening.

noxqzs said:

After they ruined my favorite franchise Rainbow6, I am not willing to extend them any more of my attention. Their agenda is clearly different that what I want.

Click to expand...

funny they killed my favorite game too.. ghost recon

This is just stupid. So if I want to play the single player mission and I don't have internet, that means I can't play? Isn't that more like encouraging me to get the pirated version?

so this means one can't play the game on laptop when on the move? this is so stupid :/

Chixofnix said:

I fully sympathize with your DRM/OS situation - but it could be worse... at least it's not a Mac !

Joking aside, despite the OP article's obvious bias, I can see potential for this new form of DRM (which sounds to me a lot like a somewhat heavier-handed Steam) to be a lot more "paying-customer-friendly" than other DRM attempts. Certainly better than your current situation!

I don't like the idea of a shaky connection pausing your game intermittently - but that wasn't from the words of Ubisoft, that was rather extrapolated by the OP article writer... I'm in the boat of "wait and see first" as far as that's concerned... If it ends up being that intrusive there's no doubt I'll be speaking with my closed wallet.

Click to expand...

I bought Dragon Age when it came out. Saw the game and it was made by Bioware so I decided I wanted it. I didn't realise at the time that Bio was a part of EA. I had already decided to not buy any EA games. None. I loaded the game and because I was excited about it I bought the DLC microcontent. This is where my problem came. It seem you can play the game without any internet connection once its set up. You do need one for the DLC though. I started from a save and unbeknownst to me, my game never connected to EA's servers. I didn't get my DLC but continued to play on. I figured it might come back once a connection was made. It never did. Plus after a game is saved without it, it won't install for the rest of the playthrough. That was a first time experience for me and now that I know how it works I can avoid it.
It was enough to convince me that I don't need the hassle. I paid $50 for the game and another $10-15 for the DLC. By far the most I have paid for a game. Its a great game and I enjoy it very much but that just ruined the experience for me. Thats not good for a game that relies so much on immersion.

I hindsight and after reading the article it seems possible that EA's servers where being overwhelmed by pirates. Not saying I know that. Just that the linked article makes that look like a possibility. I don't blame EA, or any game developer, for trying to protect their content. Its unfortunate that they have to. What it means to me is hassles. I'm paying for problems. I could go to work and get payed to deal with problems. When I come home I don't really want to pay for the privilage of dealing with more of them.

Future Ubisoft games will require 'always on' internet.

Click to expand...

Future Ubisoft games will not have Douken as a customer.