SOW - with new DRM model by UBI ?

[Avatar]

Wow, I had always thought that 1c had finally gotten away from UBI, especially after the Pacific Fighters BS they went through...

Like others here, I have finally said no to UBI's new type of DRM. I'm not against DRM but I am against having to be online all the time to play offline, just plain BS, IMHO. So if SoW comes with this form of DRM I will unfortunately have to pass, just like I am with SHV. I will not give the impression to the suits that I approve of this type of DRM in any way shape or form. I know too many people that can't play SHV just because of this requirement, e.g., military personnel stationed abroad on active duty, friends in remote, and not so remote places where their connections aren't reliable at all, etc. and UBI has made it abundantly clear in their statements that they don't care about people with those types of issues: "We think most people are going to be fine with it. Most people are always connected to an Internet connection." Well I guess their marketing guys need to learn a bit more and I hope they learn the hard way, and the only way they will learn and that's by losing money.

Unfortunately, people who say they are against this type of DRM but buy the game anyway stating they are "supporting the developers" are still sending the wrong message. The bean counters only look at the bottom line, how much money a title makes. They could care less if you agree with their chosen DRM or not, they only care if you buy their games. PERIOD!

[MikkOwl]

UbiSoft has plenty of people working for them. They have many different values and motives. But the owners and executives have one motive in common - they all want to get paid more. So that's how they act. Most corporations, as they are made up for more than a single owner, act on this one unifying motive.

If whatever they do brings in more money for them (or at least they think that it does) then they will conclude that this is a terrific idea. Losing some reputation is nothing if they percieve that they are either gaining more profit or that their profit decreased less than expected.

I too would love to have bought SH5 (I bought SH3 and SH4) and support this niche sim market, but it will NEVER, EVER happen if it is bundled with extra software designed in a way that significantly affects my ownership and use of the product they want to sell me. Moreover, it is fairly certain that they use it for very extensive data mining (monitoring and logging my personal profile + game usage patterns) for uses that might further profit them, and who knows what.

Buying this is not showing support for Silent Hunter, but showing support for this DRM (+ who knows what else) system. You are voting, with your money, sending a message to not just UbiSoft but everyone else saying "I like it, it works, and here's my money to prove it". Your forum word doesn't carry any weight if you still buy it.

I will never, ever buy Storm of War either if they try something similar. Requirement to be online to use their online gaming services (multiplayer on public servers they host) is Ok, but not for single player or playing with my friend on a LAN. There it steps into the "None of their business" zone.

If SoW did do this, then perhaps some other company will make a decent flight sim (maybe not WW2 but whatever), and I'm sure IL-2 will have increased lifespan and more improvements. And maybe some future release of a stand-alone addon to SoW will come along that doesn't have the DRM crap in it.

[Wolf_Rider]

An employer friend bought an English designed winch control program which he runs on concerts to enhance lighting effects... an interesting feature of the program, was in having to be online to install it as well as having to be online to uninstall it. In between those two situations however, there was no necessity to be online to run the program.


If it weren't for the pirates, there would be no need for protection methods eh?

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

An employer friend bought an English designed winch control program which he runs on concerts to enhance lighting effects... an interesting feature of the program, was in having to be online to install it as well as having to be online to uninstall it. In between those two situations however, there was no necessity to be online to run the program.


If it weren't for the pirates, there would be no need for protection methods eh?

Next year, the Ford Motor Company intends to release an 'online' control system for their cars: you don't have to be connected at all times, just when you want to use the accelerator or brakes...

Ridiculous? Of course it is. Nobody would even think of coming out with such c**p if it wasn't the computer software market. I don't know what the real solution is, but hopefully whoever is responsible for publishing SoW:BoB will realise from the RoF fiasco that p***ing off potential customers and encouraging the 'crackers' and pirates isn't a sensible marketing strategy. In my local supermarket, there are plenty of opportunities to 'pirate' a tin of baked beans or a bar of chocolate, but the profit they make on making purchases easier for the rest of us outweigh the losses. I'm no fan of the retail food industry, but at least they understand how to look at the big picture.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Next year, the Ford Motor Company intends to release an 'online' control system for their cars: you don't have to be connected at all times, just when you want to use the accelerator or brakes...

Ridiculous? Of course it is. Nobody would even think of coming out with such c**p if it wasn't the computer software market. I don't know what the real solution is, but hopefully whoever is responsible for publishing SoW:BoB will realise from the RoF fiasco that p***ing off potential customers and encouraging the 'crackers' and pirates isn't a sensible marketing strategy. In my local supermarket, there are plenty of opportunities to 'pirate' a tin of baked beans or a bar of chocolate, but the profit they make on making purchases easier for the rest of us outweigh the losses. I'm no fan of the retail food industry, but at least they understand how to look at the big picture.

Good analogy with the supermarket there. I'm going to remember it for the future. Copyright crimes are very different in that no one is deprived of anything, unlike the supermarket analogy. But the concept of business doing something that is good/bad for them is absolutely the same.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Bought Silent Hunter 5, it needs internet connection when playing. No biggie for me, as RoF used it too. I understand the reasons why people dislike such features, but for me no problem at all. I have a legit copy of the game and no need to keep DVD in drive with this feature..much like Steam.

[mazex]

I get so tired of all this hysteria regarding DRM systems whatever they are called...

I just don't understand why people get so upset? Software has been protected by different versions of copy protection systems since the C64 days. Remember the tedious work of finding weird codes in those manuals? As it is now the online solution is the one that will prevail. Just face it. Everyone that are in the target group for buying games are connected now They have spent enough cash on a rig to be able to play the game and computers like that are in 97% of the cases connected to the Internet. The ones not connected are the ones travelling in the lap of their owner and that is a minor problem. People on 28k modems are not in the target group, and they have not been for 10 years.

I just installed Battlefield: Bad Company 2 yesterday and after the installation I got the question:

Do you want a DVD check when starting the game or online autentication that removes the need for having the disc in the computer?

I suppose you can guess what I choose? The alternative that makes it easiest for me as a paying customer. I just love that I don't to find a disc to play ROF.

There is only ONE developer of high budget sub simulators right now and their publisher decides to go with and online DRM system. What happens? Half of the so called "community" says they will not buy the game (like they refused to buy the excellent SH3 due to Star Force whining). It's fortunate that they are only a couple of hundred people so their crying will have no effect. The "men on the street" will hopefully buy the game so the whiners can get SH 6 in the end. Guess what? Whoever publishes it will sure have an online protection too. As will all other games in a few years. Start looking for your old board games while the rest of us enjoys the removed need to find those discs to be able to play.

Sure - as a customer I would love to have a game with no protection systems at all. But as it is now the companies are fleeing the PC market due to piracy. The invention of a fool proof DRM system (and that will require online authentication in some way) could actually be the solution that brings on a new renaissance of PC gaming where enough copies are sold to support nice markets like the flight simulator market...

/Mazex

[csThor]

The day when you have to subject to a monthly subscription even for playing offline games will be the day when you know why people object to such bullcr@p, mazex. This is only the beginning of a development that gives publisher executives wet dreams - DLCs at every turn, monthly subscriptions even for offline content ... I for sure won't act as cow for the publishers to milk for money at every corner.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by MikkOwl

Good analogy with the supermarket there. I'm going to remember it for the future. Copyright crimes are very different in that no one is deprived of anything, unlike the supermarket analogy. But the concept of business doing something that is good/bad for them is absolutely the same.

Actually, it was a terrible analogy, though ya get used to that sort of thing

but there is something which is quite, quite misunderstand there as well, I think... a purchaser, in reality only buys a license to run the game/ sim. The inner workings/ code. etc. etc belongs to the author/ developer/ publisher.

With copyright crimes... there is a hint in there... there are losers. They would be royalties, ownership, sales profit, etc.

Could you give some more detail on your hesitation at having to be online to perform an uninstall? (similar to online activation but for removal from the system... the uninstaller throws up a code for removal verification)


There was a court case down here in Australia featuring the movie and music houses versus ISP's. The issue was forcing ISP's to monitor and flick illegal downloaders. The plaintifs hired private investigators to join up to bittorrent, etc, and log IP addresses. The IP addresses were forwarded to the target ISP (IInet, which is the smaller of the big provider) at a volume of 3,000 per week/ over a few weeks and their refusal to honour their own ToS forced the legal action (the refusal was based on the sheer volume of complaint). The case went in favour of the ISP but is in appeal.... two weeks after that, a local got busted uploading the new super mario bros game, a week before release... his out of court settlement to nintendo was a ridiculous amount of money - AUD$1.5 million. The Federal Government here is battling to have installed a China type site/ keyword blocking service through the ISP's.

[MikkOwl]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Actually, it was a terrible analogy, though ya get used to that sort of thing

Heh heh. I thought it was good, because he was only talking about smart business as far as selling copies went. The supermarket is much like the game developers in the sense that by having unguarded easily accessible collections of good scattered about, people in there can easily grab them. And some of it gets lost. They could do it in other ways to minimize theft, but they don't, because they earn more profit in the open way.

but there is something which is quite, quite misunderstand there as well, I think... a purchaser, in reality only buys a license to run the game/ sim. The inner workings/ code. etc. etc belongs to the author/ developer/ publisher.

Almost everyone that buys a game, considers it to be buying a product - it is theirs. Maybe not to reverse engineer and re-sell parts of the code for their own profit. But the unlimited use of it, and the ability to sell their copy of it to others. Technically you are absolutely right - there's all those 'you must agree' things popping up in order to be able to install it.

With copyright crimes... there is a hint in there... there are losers. They would be royalties, ownership, sales profit, etc.

Maybe yes, maybe no. It is a potential loss, and I think there are people who definitely would buy it if they could not copy it elsewhere, if they could justify the expenditure, if they wanted it badly enough, if they had the money, if they liked the company enough, if there was not something else they would rather spend the money on, if they were willing to risk buying something that might be very shitty, and perhaps without being able to sell their copy. Knowing who would have done what in what circumstance is impossible, and is only speculation.

A copied work does not destroy the original, and a copy in itself is not considered a "rival good" legally, and as such, not lost income. Unless, of course, someone is literally selling unauthorized copies at large quantities, and passing it off as as the official, original product/seller etc.. Like trying to sell imitation apparell with the label of the original company to people.

Could you give some more detail on your hesitation at having to be online to perform an uninstall? (similar to online activation but for removal from the system... the uninstaller throws up a code for removal verification)

(Code as in you just have to enter a code to uninstall it that is on the case/manual/disc, or actually be online and connect to some server? It does not matter much though, as my specific objections are similar for both cases).

I am concerned about the potential problems it would cause if my install become non-functional due to any reason (hardware failiure the most common, but also me messing about with tweaks in my XP Home Edition, or by modding the game). This meaning that the install could dissappear off my drive (the drive itself could have died), or that some files are missing that do not permit the uninstaller to function, or internet to function in corellation. I then see the really significant pissed off expression I would have at the prospect of having a game I bought and not be able to install it, because it was not uninstalled, without messing around with begging for them to 'authorize' me to install my game on my hardware.

I'm also just not accepting the idea that the copy does not belong to me and that I would not be able to sell it to someone else. I'm not very firm with this principle though.. For example, I use Steam, and I bought several games there, including IL-2 1946. Steam does not require me to have neither a DVD in a drive nor to be online, which is as it should. But of course, I cannot sell the games to others. I have never once sold a game to anyone in my life though so it's probably why I'm letting it slide. But principally I want to be able to. :p

I am fine with some DRM/functionality limitation. But only in non-invasive ways and in ways that do not limit my freedom with 'my copy' beyond a minimum of hassle. I have 100mbit internet fiber optic connection which flies at 12 megabytes per second, yet it, as well as my router, just is not stable enough.

There was a court case down here in Australia featuring the movie and music houses versus ISP's. The issue was forcing ISP's to monitor and flick illegal downloaders. The plaintifs hired private investigators to join up to bittorrent, etc, and log IP addresses. The IP addresses were forwarded to the target ISP (IInet, which is the smaller of the big provider) at a volume of 3,000 per week/ over a few weeks and their refusal to honour their own ToS forced the legal action (the refusal was based on the sheer volume of complaint). The case went in favour of the ISP but is in appeal.... two weeks after that, a local got busted uploading the new super mario bros game, a week before release... his out of court settlement to nintendo was a ridiculous amount of money - AUD$1.5 million. The Federal Government here is battling to have installed a China type site/ keyword blocking service through the ISP's.

Scary stuff. The EU and Sweden (my home) is experiencing similar things. The movie/record industry and some of the game industry are lobbying like MAD in all the local governments and in the EU headquarters. They build networks and manage to even, in a couple of cases, appoint corrupted judges to judge in critical cases regarding copyright infringement interpretation (The pirate bay trial).

Over 90% of the Swedish population (and we have a representative democracy system - or so we thought) is completely against the idea of copyright extending to include copying media/software for private, non-commercial use. Yet the laws that are being altered represent the interests only of the industry special interest group.

The governments are also very keen on surveilance and wire-tapping + storing all communication through ISP's and mobile phone companies of EVERY citizen in the whole country irellevant of being suspected of a crime or not, which is being implemented too. I think the two are related. Need infrastructure to carry out either of them, and they are both mutually supportive of each others' cause, so..