An Interview with Oleg

[Codex]

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/7371056558/p/1

[Skoshi Tiger]

Link http://www.scribd.com/full/30381093?access_key=key-17v738ny20ljlqfyi6ww

Not too bad, but Oleg is still holding his cards close to his chest!

Cheers, and here's for a (planned) 2010 release date!

[Qpassa]

the main weapon to fight against piracy :(

[lbuchele]

So, we will have a Rise of Flight type of DRM?
It´s not working well with Silent Hunter 5 right now.
I wish we doesn´t have piracy, but the real problem is with people that BUY pirate software.
I will buy SOW anyway, because I feel that I need to support developers in not beeing stolen.
Too much hard work and money invested,they need some sort of protection,even if it´s not perfect.

[zapatista]

quick read of the article, nothing majorly new there in info, but good to see the intended release date confirmed

i dont mind an online check of some sort for online play, BUT it has to be possible to play coops etc on lan or local networks without obligation to be online (which from previous statements i think oleg has taken account of already) . and i'd like some safeguard that if the server-check thingy is broken/down on the 1C side, that it doesnt disrupt or block online play.

for ex on a private coop server all the way in australia (ie not a sanctioned no-cheat 1C certified server), does that server really need to depend on a permanent connection to a russian server for play ? that wouldnt make sense to me. i also should be able to play my own campaign on a pc at home without requiring a net connection, but again from previous statements it sounds like oleg allows for that.

oleg does need to have some anti piracy protection, i trust him to find a reasonable compromise that prevent the main piracy problem but doesnt end up being a major inconvenience for legitimate users and for them doesnt limit normal game use day to day (like the bad system RoF uses)

[leggit]

I to have nothing against some sought of online check....its a small price to pay for good quality games on the pc.

[Avimimus]

I need to be able to fly in rural/remote areas. Outside of urban centres and the high-arctic it is often impossible to find high-speed connections.

However, I will still donate the price - even if I can't run the game.

[Qpassa]

I just hope that Oleg just doesnt use a DRM, because in summer ill play it offline(if its avaliable), maybe theres a way to keep the pirates away from the SOW:BOB.

[Novotny]

Steam launch? Not completely effective DRM, but pretty good. Doesn't bother customers in general.

*runs away*

[philip.ed]

maybe theres a way to keep the pirates away from the SOW:BOB.

Send a diversion to Somali :D

[zapatista]

one other thought on DRM and using "online checks" with a Madox 1C server (for multiplayer online BoB servers)

a concern with RoF was that it was an unproven company without a commercial history, and so people were rightly worried about what would happen if the RoF company would collapse (making their game worthless and not being able to play it anymore because the RoF server thingy is dead)

oleg could add some statement that for 5 yrs from purchase online "server check servers" will be guaranteed to be available online, and that in case madox/1c stops as a company (highly highly unlikely because of its long track record and oleg's reliability, that the "server check" component will be released as open source to the community

that would be one way to deflect most possible criticisms about having the inconvenience of online checks

[Erkki]

Doesnt really matter to me - I will buy and play it anyways, mostly online.

But IF its more than just a check, ie. StarForce style spyware ##### software installed on my comp instead of the game just asking the main server if the code matches, its a different thing.

[zapatista]

But IF its more than just a check, ie. StarForce style spyware ##### software installed on my comp instead of the game just asking the main server if the code matches, its a different thing.

agreed completely. starforce killed 2 dvd writers in my pc (one sony one pioneer), i wont buy anything with starcrap, that junk is evil

i have absolutely no doubt that oleg wont be using it, it has had to much bad publicity

and as it later turned out starforce itself was stolen/copied/pirated from the danish company that originally designed that protection system, so the starforce mafiosi clan deserves to go to hell for the junk they created with their own theft, and the callous way they treated customers (despite a long track of proven damage to hardware, they never indemnified the customers who were affected).

[Untamo]

I think the anti-piracy methods are unnecessary.

Pirates will pirate, there is no stopping it. Trying to enforce pirates to buy is just futile, 1C shouldn't consider them as their market :)

1C should be saving their money from spending on anti-piracy, and use it for development and such. The only thing anti-piracy does, is make honest buyers suffer.

[zapatista]

I think the anti-piracy methods are unnecessary.

Pirates will pirate, there is no stopping it. Trying to enforce pirates to buy is just futile, 1C shouldn't consider them as their market :)

1C should be saving their money from spending on anti-piracy, and use it for development and such. The only thing anti-piracy does, is make honest buyers suffer.

piracy is a real problem, even if it is just friends at school making copies of games for each other, it all adds up in lost sales.

but the biggest problem is the real mafiosi who have organized networks for marketing pirated software, and it is bigger business to them then dope smuggling or women trafficking and their subsequent prostitution. piracy is BIG money ! this then gets sold openly to the public in 2e and 3e world countries in stores ( for ex even 90% of all chinese government computers actually use pirated OS and office programs), while in 1e world countries it is sold at markets and from car boots or down the pub. those really are the major thefts oleg needs to protect against (just like any other game designer), and a decent protection is needed for it.

[Feuerfalke]

The problem with copy protections is, that they are software and even forced internet connection can be overcome (as seen with current UBI-CopyProtections).

So IMHO there are two logic consequences.

1. Build a game primarily for playing online, which may be ok for a shooter or MMO-game, but for a flightsim with many people playing only offline, it's a no-go.

2. Protect the game by physical means. Physical?
In the good old times, when game-manuals were still printed and included in the box, people thought twice about making a copy from a complex game, because it would cost them real money and personal effort to copy the necessary media as well. As silly as it may sound on first glance, this takes a LOT MORE effort than the few clicks for downloading and installing a crack and it's pretty cheap compared to copy protection software.


But in the end, DRMs like that crappy thing from UBI is not really aimed at pirates. As stated above, you cannot eliminate pirating by such means. If you see how limited installations and limiting to one account works, it's pretty clearly aimed at the numerous copies sold on ebay.

[Untamo]

piracy is a real problem, even if it is just friends at school making copies of games for each other, it all adds up in lost sales.

but the biggest problem is the real mafiosi who have organized networks for marketing pirated software, and it is bigger business to them then dope smuggling or women trafficking and their subsequent prostitution. piracy is BIG money ! this then gets sold openly to the public in 2e and 3e world countries in stores ( for ex even 90% of all chinese government computers actually use pirated OS and office programs), while in 1e world countries it is sold at markets and from car boots or down the pub. those really are the major thefts oleg needs to protect against (just like any other game designer), and a decent protection is needed for it.

Yes, I agree it's a problem, but dealing with it is an even bigger problem and I see it as a futile one. There aren't many examples of games that haven't been cracked and pirated. So, my opinion is that it's better to just ignore the pirates and focus on serving the PAYING customers.

Plus: It's a growing trend to crack games just because they have anti-piracy systems in them (to remove the invasive protection systems, to relieve one of putting the cd in and such).

[6S.Manu]

Yes, I agree it's a problem, but dealing with it is an even bigger problem and I see it as a futile one. There aren't many examples of games that haven't been cracked and pirated. So, my opinion is that it's better to just ignore the pirates and focus on serving the PAYING customers.

Plus: It's a growing trend to crack games just because they have anti-piracy systems in them (to remove the invasive protection systems, to relieve one of putting the cd in and such).

I agree... really you can do nothing against piracy. Above all if the game has a good single player mode... for multiplayer there are lobbies.

Antipiracy tools only ruins the life of the honest guys.

[Antoninus]

Exactly, even UBIsofts vaunted online DRM system was already cracked after just a few weeks.

Back in the 90ties publishers tried to offer their honest customers a better product than
the pirates. Games came in big boxes with thick manuals and printed maps. Today
UBI plans to ship all new games without any kind of printed manual at all. The
pirates have actually the better product now without any kind of restricitve DRM that only troubles people who have paid for their game.

Today no pirate has to rely on school yard copies from friends that could be
suppressed with such systems. Anybody can just download the cracked version from the
Internet.

Punishing your loyal customers won't win the battle against piracy.

[baronWastelan]

The problem with copy protections is, that they are software and even forced internet connection can be overcome (as seen with current UBI-CopyProtections).

So IMHO there are two logic consequences.

1. Build a game primarily for playing online, which may be ok for a shooter or MMO-game, but for a flightsim with many people playing only offline, it's a no-go.

2. Protect the game by physical means. Physical?
In the good old times, when game-manuals were still printed and included in the box, people thought twice about making a copy from a complex game, because it would cost them real money and personal effort to copy the necessary media as well. As silly as it may sound on first glance, this takes a LOT MORE effort than the few clicks for downloading and installing a crack and it's pretty cheap compared to copy protection software.


But in the end, DRMs like that crappy thing from UBI is not really aimed at pirates. As stated above, you cannot eliminate pirating by such means. If you see how limited installations and limiting to one account works, it's pretty clearly aimed at the numerous copies sold on ebay.

Protect the game by physical means www.microcosm.co.uk/dongles.php (http://www.microcosm.co.uk/dongles.php)

[Letum]

Oh no...I hope this doesn't mean things will go down the Silent Hunter 5 plug hole.

[zauii]

Yes, I agree it's a problem, but dealing with it is an even bigger problem and I see it as a futile one. There aren't many examples of games that haven't been cracked and pirated. So, my opinion is that it's better to just ignore the pirates and focus on serving the PAYING customers.

Plus: It's a growing trend to crack games just because they have anti-piracy systems in them (to remove the invasive protection systems, to relieve one of putting the cd in and such).

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is the longest standing.
It took over a year to get a proper crack out there.(422 days) Yes UBI did succeed once...

^ Todd Ciolek (2009-06-16). "Interview: The Return Of... StarForce?". Gamasutra. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24035. "Everybody remembers Ubisoft’s Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. It held for 422 days without a piracy crack. This world record for AAA-class games is still unbeaten and no other solutions managed to make a game last longer."

[Blackdog_kt]

In one of Oleg's simHQ interviews i somehow got the idea that he's not really keen on these methods. I could live with a one-time online activation that i can transfer to a new PC/OS at my leisure, something that's tied to a gmail account for example.

However, limited activations/deactivations and constant connectivity is a no go for me. There are quite a few titles i didn't buy because of this, as well as some that I wait until they are cracked first and then i buy them.

Silent Hunter 5 for example. I didn't buy it, but now that it's cracked and i can play at my own leisure, i'm thinking of picking it up. Aside from the irony however (if people need cracks before they buy the game, it's like pirates making them money), it's obvious what that does for the title's success. By the time i get SH5 its price will probably have dropped from 50 to 30 Euros, maybe even less. Not to mention it's unfinished state at release made me think "i'll wait 6 months for mods and patches", by which time i could be occupied with something else and skip it completely.

Similarly, RoF i could have been suckered into buying if it wasn't for the always online thing. By the time it got dropped (partially dropped actually), the rest of the game's shortcomings had been so well documented that i decided i'm not going to buy it regardless of copy protection. Chalk up one more lost sale thanks to DRM. It gave me reason to pause and a chance to see beyond the protection and into all the other things i equally disliked about its game design decisions. Essentially, that's killing off impulse buying. With Starcraft 2 and SoW around the corner, i have no use for RoF.

These so called protection schemes only present challenges for hackers (they do it out of competition between hacker groups most of the times), they make the game unplayable for a few days/weeks for people who will not buy it anyway (aka they are not lost sales if the DRM can't force them to buy it), and to top it all off they make it a hindrance for legitimate buyers, who will hold off on their purchase until it's in the bargain bin. And here lies the million dollar question. Is it worth it turning away the people who want to give you money, just to spite the ones who will never give you any money anyway, for a few weeks tops?

[Icewolf]

This would be impossible considering the numbers and locations but as an example I use a business software that generates a code number everytime it is installed and to activate it, I must phone this code number into their office ,they then give me an activation code that I must manually type into an activation box.

[Feuerfalke]

Protect the game by physical means www.microcosm.co.uk/dongles.php (http://www.microcosm.co.uk/dongles.php)

Yes, that's physical protection as well. Several CAD and 3D-Tools use that for years. As long as there is a software checking for the dongle, the software can be modified.

[Qpassa]

This would be impossible considering the numbers and locations but as an example I use a business software that generates a code number everytime it is installed and to activate it, I must phone this code number into their office ,they then give me an activation code that I must manually type into an activation box.

photoshop uses some similar protection and have been hacked...

[WTE_Galway]

Oh well ... my gaming machine is offline.

I don't even fly FSX (with its one off activation) because its too much hassle to renew the activation.

The assumption that everyone that buys games is online is actually unfounded.

[zauii]

Been waiting way to long for this baby to care if it has online activation or whatever.. i am not missing out.
Sure if you live under circumstances where you've no decent connection options you can be worried but otherwise, just about any modern society has broadband.
Frankly it's not more than right that the developers exploit their right to protect their games, even if it's via online activation you do accept the terms when you buy the game.

The whole shenanigan about "We're not physically owning it then" Is just child's play, this has been done since 10 years back, besides a 40-50$ dollar investment ain't gonna cost you your life is it?
If it is maybe you should reconsider gaming at all...

[Blackdog_kt]

It's not about shennanigans actually, it's about options, rewarding what we consider good game design and the publisher rewarding his customers in return. If i have to accept a constant connectivity requirement with all the potentiall technical problems it poses, then the game better have some pretty funky features tied to that online protection scheme.

I used to play an MMO game which is, of course, always online. I accepted the risk of downtime because the connectivity requirement gave me so much in return, plus the company reimbursed its customers with extra subscription time if downtime was their fault. Heck, the connectivity requirement was in fact the entire game and it was a rich, varied and very competitive experience far and away ahead of everything i've seen in multiplayer in my life.

However, if a developer spends 30% of his total budget on implementing DRM that targets the non-buyers, instead of spending it on features to please the buyers, then that's a developer i refuse to reward with my cash, at least until workarounds surface that enable me to use the software with the least amount of possible overhead and things that could go wrong.

By that time the game is a lot cheaper too, which in the end evens out pretty nicely. If they force me to hunt for illegal modifications before their game is playable, then it's only fair that i'll pick it up at a reduced price. It's not like i'm stealing after all, a game that i buy is mine and i can do whatever i want with it. The EULA might say otherwise but EULAs rarely hold against consumer laws in any EU court anyway, so if i buy the game i can mod/hack it or do whatever else i want with it, as long as i'm not reselling modified copies and pretending it's my original work. If i buy a car that runs on unleaded and i want to try running it on 110 octane avgas that's my right to do so, it's the same with computer games.

I think the main drive behind DRM is not limiting piracy, it's limiting second hand sales, which is again a violation of most established consumer laws and ethics. If i buy it it's mine to use, change (as long as i don't redistribute it for monetary gain), donate and resell, end of the story. That's what DRM targets primarily and tries to change.
What they can't grasp is that they will never be able to totally control this, because legitimate buyers can just as well use modifications to circumvent the publisher's infringement on their consumer rights. They are essentially throwing money down the drain instead of using them on cooler stuff, like a fat, printed manual that actually documents the game's features like in the old days, or an extended storyline arc instead of the "weekend wonder" gameplay spans that some of the new games have.

Let them do what they want, we can still vote with our wallets and mod the heck out of anything we don't like.

[Untamo]

+1 @ Blackdog's comments.

[Aullido]

Protect the game by physical means www.microcosm.co.uk/dongles.php (http://www.microcosm.co.uk/dongles.php)

we already have that, it is called a joystick.

[Foo'bar]

US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/04/us-government-finally-admits-most-piracy-estimates-are-bogus.ars)

[BadAim]

It's not about shennanigans actually, it's about options, rewarding what we consider good game design and the publisher rewarding his customers in return. If i have to accept a constant connectivity requirement with all the potentiall technical problems it poses, then the game better have some pretty funky features tied to that online protection scheme.

I used to play an MMO game which is, of course, always online. I accepted the risk of downtime because the connectivity requirement gave me so much in return, plus the company reimbursed its customers with extra subscription time if downtime was their fault. Heck, the connectivity requirement was in fact the entire game and it was a rich, varied and very competitive experience far and away ahead of everything i've seen in multiplayer in my life.

However, if a developer spends 30% of his total budget on implementing DRM that targets the non-buyers, instead of spending it on features to please the buyers, then that's a developer i refuse to reward with my cash, at least until workarounds surface that enable me to use the software with the least amount of possible overhead and things that could go wrong.

By that time the game is a lot cheaper too, which in the end evens out pretty nicely. If they force me to hunt for illegal modifications before their game is playable, then it's only fair that i'll pick it up at a reduced price. It's not like i'm stealing after all, a game that i buy is mine and i can do whatever i want with it. The EULA might say otherwise but EULAs rarely hold against consumer laws in any EU court anyway, so if i buy the game i can mod/hack it or do whatever else i want with it, as long as i'm not reselling modified copies and pretending it's my original work. If i buy a car that runs on unleaded and i want to try running it on 110 octane avgas that's my right to do so, it's the same with computer games.

I think the main drive behind DRM is not limiting piracy, it's limiting second hand sales, which is again a violation of most established consumer laws and ethics. If i buy it it's mine to use, change (as long as i don't redistribute it for monetary gain), donate and resell, end of the story. That's what DRM targets primarily and tries to change.
What they can't grasp is that they will never be able to totally control this, because legitimate buyers can just as well use modifications to circumvent the publisher's infringement on their consumer rights. They are essentially throwing money down the drain instead of using them on cooler stuff, like a fat, printed manual that actually documents the game's features like in the old days, or an extended storyline arc instead of the "weekend wonder" gameplay spans that some of the new games have.

Let them do what they want, we can still vote with our wallets and mod the heck out of anything we don't like.

Be careful with all that freemarket thinking mate, people will think your a Yank or something. :P

[Codex]

This would be impossible considering the numbers and locations but as an example I use a business software that generates a code number everytime it is installed and to activate it, I must phone this code number into their office ,they then give me an activation code that I must manually type into an activation box.

photoshop uses some similar protection and have been hacked...

Same goes for Windows, you have a certain number of installs before you have to ring up and activate after a fresh install. It's interesting to think that software piracy has most likely contributed to Microsoft OS's being used on 98+% of PC's since the late 90's

I wish developers would get 100% earnings for developing games and apps etc but we don't live in a perfect world and we do need anti piracy measures, but +1 to Blackdog_kt for those comments, they're right on the money. I personally think anti piracy measures need to be re thought and become more imaginative.

[dduff442]

What really gets people going is that measures masquerade as anti-piracy requirements that are really methods of extending producers control over media, introducing anti-competitive elements like planned obsolescence into products. Many of the newest and most fashionable media, e.g. iPhone apps, exhibit rigid producer control. Some products have auto-update features that may limit functionality at any time chosen by the producer.

Not so long ago, purchasers of an ebook edition of 1984 discovered it had disappeared from their machines without their consent. Even ignoring the massive irony, the very idea that you can buy something only for the seller to unilaterally rescind the sale without notice is appalling.

DRM schemes requiring occasional net connection are annoying but bearable -- so long as consumers can be reassured they're not being muscled into a place where they're at the mercy of the content producer.

The music industry complains loudest about piracy, but is piracy really their problem or is it that they haven't had anything novel to bring to the market in more than a decade? No new Elvis, no new Beatles etc. New forms of music have reverted to their condition prior to the 1950s -- niche products of little interest to the mass market.

dduff442