When they decided to release prince of persia and call of jaurez drm free to see if more people bought the game. guess noone did which is why we have this always online drm. can anyone prove here that these games sold as well as their console counterparts.
You can't attack a company for trying to protect their property. If you don't like it don't buy it. And don't say that these hack/crack groups are heroes. They are really the cause of all the problems we have with drm. they are the cause of it.
crozon
Why do you think those games didn't sell well? I don't mean to sound offensive but do you got any proof or are you just making assumptions?And even if they really didn't sell well, it probably has more to do with the games' popularity instead of piracy. Prince of Persia is not a very popular game on the PC and neither is Call of Juarez.
To answer your original question of why everyone is against Ubisoft's DRM. Why shouldn't we be against it? It forces you to be online all the time, so that means you won't be able to play when your connection or their servers screw up. So, that's a big con and what pro do we get in return? You can store your save games on their servers. Well, that's a nice feature but not a pro of the DRM. They could give us that feature without the DRM. So what this means is that the DRM has only cons and no pros. OK, so this is kind of obvious because that's what DRM does, it restricts you, so that you can't do anything the publisher doesn't want you to do.
But why should you put up with this? It's not like they have to implement this type of "protection" against piracy. They can implement other kinds of protection systems where you aren't being put on a leash. The "features" of a protection system (like, forcing people to be online non-stop) are irrelevent when determining how secure the protection system is. It's about how it's programmed that determines how secure a protection system is. Besides, they can change the programming a thousand times or even add more DRM features but such things will always be cracked by pirates. You can argue that the couple of weeks or months during which the pirates are being delayed is enough for the publisher to make enough extra money but at the end it's always the legitimate customer that gets hurt with such DRM systems. (fyi, DRM is mostly aimed towards second hand sales, the legal copies, publisher lose a lot of money that way)
If you aren't happy with the practices of a publisher or game developer, you can make him know how you feel about it by writing a (respectful) e-mail and posting a (respectful) message on their forums to let them know how their DRM is an inconveniance that "forces" you not to buy their game. And most importantly, don't buy their game, obviously. They don't care about you as an individual but if many people let the publisher know how they feel about this, then they will be forced to listen because it means they will lose many sales and they don't want that (and publishers other then Ubisoft don't want bad PR either).
It could be just coincidence but look at Mass Effect 1 and 2. Notice how the second one lacks the DRM that the first one had. I have a feeling it might have something to do with the thousands of angry people who complained. We complained and EA listened.
Finally, let me tell you that for some people this is about two more things. First of all, it's about principle, we like to actually own the games we buy and we don't want to rely on the publisher to be able to play, nor do we want the publisher to have a "kill-switch" that they can use to disable your game in the future ("sorry, you'll have to buy the sequal if you want to keep on playing", this already happens with some console games). And second, we don't want DRM systems to dominate the future. What if all games will use DRM and DRM becomes much worse? We oppose DRM now, so that we can play without fuss later.
In a nutshell: It's pointless against piracy because it always gets cracked. It only causes inconveniances. It could become much worse in the future.
Log in to comment