DRM Discussion: Silent Hunter 5 and Ubisoft's UPlay

Please discuss DRM and Ubisoft's UPlay here.

This thread was originally the articles feedback thread for Tom Cofield's Preview:
http://www.simhq.com/_naval/naval_035a.html

A couple of Google links to multiple articles on Ubisoft's new UPlay DRM methodology which requires fulltime connection:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ubisoft%2...g.mozilla:en-US

http://www.google.at/search?hl=de&sa...p;aq=f&oq=

Thanks for that preview, very interesting. If it just wasn't for that DRM...

Have to agree, the DRM is keeping me on the fence right now.

Yeah,
the drm is a buster for me.
I still play SH3 and I am certain UBI will drop support for this sim a few years down the road.
Try playing IL2 at UBI right now...
Plus having my saved game files hosted on a UBI server? What are they thinking? I back my stuff up and I would bet that they will have a server snafu and than "welp, sorry about yer saves, lol"
Stuff happens ya know deal with it!

I simply dont trust UBI based on there previous history of selling it's customers short like they did with that bug fest SH4.
If not for the modders that game would have dies a horrible death.

Great preview. Sub sims appeal to that hunter/killer instinct that I often associate with helo sims. The DRM might be a big problem for me though. Too often I'm on the road at some craptastic FBO in the middle of the night sitting outside the locked doors with no internet connection. And that's too bad because Silent Hunter type games are perfect for the laptop..no need to have a HOTAS and Track IR and all that jazz.. Hopefully UBI will see the light and allow for offline play...

Nice job on the write-up..

BeachAV8R

I liked the detailed preview, but IMHO if you are talking about a new, deal-breaking DRM, you could do well to include some details of it directly in the text and not just some links.

Don't expect people to figure out themself what happens if they lose internet connection during gameplay, or if they can not get a connection at all. Most will not research this and simple buy the game, to be angry later. So any article explaining the virtues of the new SH5 should also in the same detail explore the negatives in same detail, and that means a clear spelling out that without internet connection, with unreliable connection or with any problems at UBIs side this game will be worthless.

I respectfully disagree. The article is about the game.

On other hand, there could be a link to another one completely on the DRM, or to the countless thread in the Forums regarding that.

The article is a preview. Not an exhaustive look at the game. Nor is it an exhaustive look at DRM - I think we already have a forum for that. I'd rather not muddy up reviews and previews with lengthy discussions of the DRM. I think TC pointed out, in a paragraph, that it was an issue and invited the readers to other places (both the Subsim forum and our own DRM forum) to discuss it.

Sorry guys, but what is this going to accomplish?

TC pointed out the highlights and reasons to buy the game in nice detail. On two and a half pages with mouth watering screenshots.

The negatives - and they are LARGE negatives - do get summed up in a single paragraph without substantial information and two links to other discussion forums. Which many people won't bother to click or read trough.

What does this mean for average Joe Blow reader? He will see three pages of "must have game" and not bother to find out what pitfalls he's buying into with his 50USD. UBI sells a copy, the DRM becomes a success, we all rent our games in the future.

IMHO, SimHQ has a duty to fulfill as one of the largest simulation websites to warn of the potential problems with such new DRM systems. Simulations more than anything else have a long lifespan where these things could become a factor. So if you are helping promote a sim while glossing over the unfriendly details of it's DRM, you are helping promote this DRM concept. Which might have a negative impact for the entire simulation community, long-term.

Beach, just because we have a forum doesn't mean people make the effort to inform themself there. People need to BE informed so they can make an informed decision if they want to support such DRM systems with their money or not. They can not get a refund later on when they find out the game kicks them for a failed internet connection.

BTW, I would revoke my criticism if the link in that paragraph was to a direct simHQ forum topic on the specific problems with UBI's model, and if at least it was mentioned in ONE sentence that this game requires a constant net connection. This would directly inform people on what they are buying here, rather than just telling them "there's some sort of bad DRM on this title, but if you want to know more, you have to follow externals links and read trough 100 pages..."

Thanks so much! Very interesting. I probably won't buy 'cause I don't want cussing(it's in the rating).

That will be more for the review. I didn't want to make this a hit piece on the DRM software.

I agree with others that I don't like the system but to explore this in detail would turn a 3 page review into a four page review. This isn't a review of UPlay, it is a preview of the game. My critique of UPlay is right out there, on the first page. Anyone interested in looking more deeply into can do that. There are very few publications, online or other, that would even mention this in a preview. I put it out there because it is a hot topic. My goal isn't to editorialize my opinions on Ubisoft's DRM decisions. That is not the time to do it. Maybe I should have mentioned the continuous connection aspect but I naturally assumed that most people who come here already knew about this stuff.

I would definitely be interested in this game if not for the DRM.

I'm frankly stunned by how ridiculous the constant internet connection requirement is. Like Beach, I'm in internet-less places on my laptop and love sims like this that can be played with keyboard and mouse.

TC pointed out the problem and controversy and it is up to the reader to explore further. It is a preview article. I mean - where does it stop? Do we have to preview (exhaustively) DRM, hardware support, Operating System compatibility, video card compatibility, monitor resolutions, localizations, etc..? We review the games, but we aren't going to hold everyone's hand and do everything for them. DRM is mentioned prominently in the article, two links to discussions forums are provided, and more is promised in the full review. I simply don't agree with your beef.

Caveat emptor..

That's where I would disagree and write a preview like it could be read by anyone just dropping by, from a Google search or whatever.

I didn't want to cause a stink, all I'm saying is: If you put the positive things of a new game right in the face of a potentially uninformed reader (like, great screenshots right in the second and third page) then, to make it fair and balanced, put the negatives also right in the face of the uninformed reader. Otherwise the uninformed reader will simple drool over the great graphics and promising gameplay and "forget" to inform himself further on the negatives.

Fair comment. The first sentence in the article has been changed to "I suppose this is as good a place as any to bring up Ubisoft's new Digital Rights Management System titled UPlay, their new DRM that requires a fulltime Internet connection." My oversight that it was not included within the Preview.

Fair enough IMO.

The problem is RS, how much to you write about the negatives without tainting the whole preview? I took a paragraph and a half on a 3 page review and basically told Ubisoft that their DRM system is an unfair penalization of the consumer and is bad software. Maybe I should have mentioned the continuous connection issue but I did NOT want this section of the preview to run longer than an paragraph. The preview wasn't on UPlay it was on SHV.

But you make a point. I just wanted to not harp on it.

Thanks. It was just kinda weird in a "this is not a really good DRM system, but I don't tell you why it isn't a good system" kinda way.

Thanks for correcting it.

BTW, here's a (IMHO) better Google search regarding this system:
http://www.google.at/search?hl=de&sa...mp;aq=f&oq=

The difference to 20mm's link is interesting. Not his fault, I'm sure - but you see, if you look for "Uplay" you get the official marketing hype, where the first page of search results is entirely positive (UBIsoft PR Department press releases mostly, direct links to the Uplay plattform).

If you look for "Ubisoft online DRM", you find more of the real problems since it doesn't contain the Ubisoft marketing keywords.

Tom, sorry, above reply was written directly for Doug.

Maybe I'm being wrong in what I think SimHQ's job is in these things, but for me the site has the chance (and almost a moral obligation) to warn the simulation community of all pitfalls with these new systems. And not just people who visit regularly and might have read it offhand, but also those who Google "SH5 Preview" and come to the site without any previous information.


SH5 is an extreme example: If you take away the DRM, the remaining stuff we know so far seems overwhelming positive. Kinda like Rise of Flight.

That IMHO makes it such a touchy subject to review. If you are focusing on the DRM, it seems you are harping on it. If you are not focusing on the DRM, you're blending out the biggest negative in the entire game.

I don't envy Tom when he has to do the full review.

My turn again.

SimHQ should inform readers of the facts first and foremost.

Editorial and opinionated comments should be in the proper context, IOWs a review or a specific commentary article.

Then the reader can decide if its an issue for them, or not.

And I do think for some people it is not an issue, and they have every right to shrug their shoulders if they are well informed before the purchase.

I thought seriously about asking TC about us pulling the paragraph on DRM and Uplay.

Not that it isn't important, but such topics are usually not included within Previews.

Because as Beach said, its important that the buyer is aware and buyer beware.

Agree on the editorial and opinionated comments and to keep them separate.

But a bad DRM is as much a "fact" of a game as bad graphics or buggy code. Some might not care about that either and shrug their shoulders, but you'd never stop talking about dated GFX in a new release and rightly present it as a clear negative - even in a preview. So while I agree that (as just discussed with 20Mike per PM) DRM shouldn't take over the entire discussion about a game, you can't get rid of it either. Especially in a fringe case like SH5 where the DRM IS the entire negative thing about the game, but an important negative.

I wish we had a world of "aware buyers" but I'm worried that with the current "fast and instant gratification" mentality, even bad systems with long-term bad implications can be financially successful due to lack of uninformed, unreflective buyers. So I think there's a certain need for Gaming Press to push the issue into people's heads.

If then someone says "fine, I buy it still" I won't blame him. Just as long as the market at large is aware of what they are buying.

RSC, I agree with your post.

But we're not trying to "get rid" of anything negative or cover anything up. Quite the contrary. Our intent is simply to separate gameplay issues from DRM, so that DRM doesn't overwhelm and dominate every single thread. Which it has been proven to do again and again. If you want to discuss DRM, about any game or sim, we have a whole separate forum dedicated to it. Rather than having these threads get tangled up in graphics and sound questions, they have a forum for it. And a history for it.

I didn't mean to imply you're trying to hide anything. But if you end up (like Doug said) not being sure if a mention of DRM should even be part of a preview, you risk leaving out stuff that some people perceive as really negative and it would bring down the usefulness of the review.

SH5 is an absolute borderline title since it also introduces to the simulation community a new system that is here to stay (not just for one title, but for the forseeable future for all sim titles released by UBI). So I think, maybe, it should actually become a separate article in itself, since this DRM has the potential to bring a massive change into computergaming. Not just for the better.

This will be my second sim-title I skip due to it's DRM in ~6 months! To bad since I was kinda looking forward to some new things they implemented (dynamic campaign and roaming around in the sub)....

Ohh well, I save some money I guess and have other stuff to play...

Just my 0.20 SEK for whatever it's worth.

/KC

Good to see all angles - and discussion, it's a personal thing; I won't pay for something I regard as really restrictive DRM protection. Don't like it can't make me. If others are happy (or ignorant) it's let the buyer beware, our rights are definately being erroded!
Anyway good review of SH5 will have to give it a miss, perhaps Ubisoft would consider removing this internet connection requirement in say 12-18months time?
Best Regards Mort

DRM is such a personal and owner-specific dilemma that I don't see the purpose in putting extensive writings about it in our articles. For instance - what if TC really liked the type of DRM that Ubi is using. What if he liked the fact that he could do all those things that the PR page touts..would he be vilified for having his own opinion of the "feature"? If you want to list the bad, you also have to list the good - and then you have an article that is 50% DRM and 50% content. I think it is understood that we can't address every concern for every reader (whether they are members here or get here through links to the site). Are we just as responsible for the guy that buys the sim and tries to run it on a 486 with 256MB of RAM? Some things go without saying - and in the case of DRM - it is mentioned as a problematic feature and we let the reader go out and explore the options. If we dumb down the articles too much we'll have pages and pages of extra review content that our regular members will fall asleep reading. It is all about balance. As Tom mentioned - I feel it is our obligation to balance the review content with the pro/con impressions the software leaves on us. If 95% of the sim is great, and the other 5% is crap, I think it is fair to balance the text of the review to reflect that ratio.

It would be one thing if he had never mentioned it, but it is clearly mentioned, gives links to further explore, and there is more promised in a full review. I just don't see how that can be done any better.

And as I already stated - I will not buy software that requires a constant connection to run. So it isn't like I'm in the "that's a great feature" camp.

Well, I see and agree with your points Beach. And with those from Doug and 20mm. I don't want you to overload the articles with DRM-specific details.

But it simple means that there will always be more people buying this stuff to find out two years later that DRM is bad, than people who will make an informed buying decision on initial release having weighed the pro's and con's.

Because people are lazy, and people are not researching their stuff properly, and the first time many of them will realize what DRM means is when the game doesn't launch one evening or UBI shuts down the servers two years from now due to bad sales.

For non-tech savy people, the simple line "requires internet connection to play" doesn't indicate even 25% of the potential downfalls of this new system. So they will say "Hey, I have broadband, it's cool..." to find out later how little control they actually have over what happens to their game.

And okay, I see and understand that it isn't simHQs job to educate the community about these things in detail. But we all lose if this kind of system takes a hold as market standard.

Thank for such a professional and helpful review. I appreciate such a well written review very much.

I am a casual gamer, but I have owned every version of SH and Aces of the Deep, as well. I am deeply disappointed at the requirement for a continuous connection, server controlled, mode of play. I avoid continuous Internet connections in general for security, and I am not able to bring myself to allow a corporate server such control over my own computer. I am extremely disappointed, but right now I do not feel comfortable enough to risk it and buy SH5.

I'm really kind of upset about it, as I was very much looking forward to it, even with all the known limitations, such as the lack of a Type IX and the 1943 cut-off. I could understand a cut-off of June 6, 1944, much better.

I would suggest that *everyone* that is put-off by this idea of constant connectivity contact Ubi and let them know what you think of it. It isn't enough to complain and preach to the already converted.. I'm totally against the constant connection thing and I'll be writing Ubi tonight to tell them I won't buy SH5 if that remains the requirement..

A very big computer magazine has taken a stand on DRM and here is the article online.

Boycott

Oh good grief - is every preview and review supposed to be three pages of DRM and one on the actual sim itself, owing to some "moral" imperative? This is SimHQ, not the anti-DRM Freedom Fighters HQ.

People buy sims first, and that is what we should preview and review. DRM is a consideration, but trust me - if the sim stinks it doesn't matter if it is DRM free or demands DNA from the fluid in one's eyes to start up.

That's what I want to know when I read a review - does the sim work, is it enjoyable, and why (or vice-versa). Yes, a paragraph on DRM is a good thing, but just a paragraph will do. No need to have an opinion piece detailing every possible scenario that might happen with any given DRM scheme, including a small history of European Law and Human Rights measures of the EU.

I have all their previous sub games and would buy this one also except for the type of DRM they are using.
It has been my experience that if the game is good the crackers will crack it.
Once they crack it, I will go buy it and implement the crack. I don't play much online anyway so the loss of multiplay because of a crack never bothers me.
If they were smart ubi would put out a single player only version of the game.
my 2 cents worth anyway
Thanks

I will not pay for a game and then be treated with distrust by the developer. So no DRM for me. When I buy something it becomes mine. Maybe I'll find a copy of SH4 it sounds very good. I think if DRM is boycotted the consumer will win.

Well, I have SH2,3 & 4, and I will most definitely NOT purchase SH5. I dont care how good the previews and reviews turn out to be. I think a lot of us are that passionate about these new DRM schemes that they should at least be mentioned as soon as possible. In cases like the CODMW2 dedicated servers and such, they didnt care about the petitions with the 250 thousands signatures from PC gamers cause they knew they would make a Kajillion dollars from the console kiddies. In a situation like this where it is a PC only release, now is the chance for PC gamers to be heard, and be heard as soon as possible where it MIGHT make a difference. So i think stating the DRM in even just a preview is important.

Beach, I agree with your points about going into detail on the DRM, and as you stated you will not buy SH5 if it is in place. But if you weren't as tied into the community as
you are, wouldn't you want to know as soon as possible?

I have always joked in the past that they should have to say on every PC Sim/Game " Internet Connection Required to Receive a Finished Product ". Can you imagine the poor guy with no internet in Australia or somewhere that bought Arma 2 with no way to patch it? So in a way we simmers require internet for this hobby anyway, just not 24/7 to run the sim.

On the positive side: One thing these new DRM's will do for me is save me some money by not purchasing every sim that comes out and give me a chance to catch up on the 12 years of sims accumulating in my garage!(my wife makes me keep them there). Cant tell you how many times I was just getting into something and something new came out and I never got back to it!

Hello,

i already posted this at the Naval combat section - that's how it will be playing pay-for-play games that require internet connection, and especially Silent Hunter V (it is in german, however anyone might understand this :D) :
"The loose change problem" lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp8LWSfne8E&feature=related

Greetings,
Catfish

Any good contact address that is in some way responsible for SH5 or the DRM? I'll be writing too... but don't want to send it simple to the next best receptionist.

If the largest negative side of a game is in it's DRM, it needs to be measured as such.

This joke actually hits the reality very good. It is high time that companies are held responsible for what they release, the state they release it in, and the future support of their games. Right now, all the risk and problems are offloaded to the customer - be it by requiring a few gigs of patch download or the hassle with non-working activation at the day you bring it home from the shop.

" ... Right now, all the risk and problems are offloaded to the customer ..."

You do not understand this doublespeak thingie - this is called service.


Greetings,
Catfish

According to whom?

DRM is about [.] much of a sim. In some very rare cases it actually matters.

"Constant Internet Connection Required" pretty much says it all. If you don't have a full-on Internet connection or find it a "human rights" violation, it should be enough.
"Must have Windows Live Account" does the same.

A brief overview of the DRM is enough. At least it is if this place is to be one about simulations and not some anti-DRM advocacy site.

I'd post it as a response in the comments of the official trailer on YouTube to start:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT4fUSBcFEs

Phone numbers for UbiSoft: http://www.ubi.com/US/Support/InternationalSupport.aspx

And a whole bunch of phone numbers and e-mails for UbiSoft: http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/index.php?p=69

And yet another map with clickable links to give corporate addresses and phone numbers: http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/index.php?p=62

Investor relations..lol..get them nervous about their sales numbers: http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/index.php?p=134&art_id=

No guarantee that you'll get any traction - but if you are willing to take 3 or 4 minutes to post in this thread, you should also be willing to write a short statement saying that you will not be purchasing software with online connectivity as a requirement for play. Then copy/paste it to a bunch of those addresses.. Flood em'..



BeachAV8R

I'll concede that point for sure. But, it IS mentioned in the preview (which should be a red flag for a person of average intelligence to research further) and it IS going to be discussed (hopefully not in agonizing detail) in the full-on review. Again, we can't put in there "Don't buy this because the DRM sucks" because maybe the DRM doesn't suck..maybe some people actually do like it. The ones that don't are the loudest, obviously (hell, I'm advocating flooding the Ubi HQ with e-mails) (pssst..polite emails!..).

In short - DRM "features" have a place in SimHQ articles, but just a small place. Just like how we don't do exhaustive investigations on XP, Vista, Windows 7 compatibility..it just goes too far outside of the scope of the article (unless the reviewer has some perverted desire to have three operating systems installed on his/her machine)..

We give a broad overview and I think we do a damn fine job on our previews and reviews, but we can't cover every base. At some point, the reader has to take the ball and run with it. It is YOUR hard earned money, be wise with it. And if you are going to withhold that money for a reason, it does no good to shout it out to the already converted..take it to the source - the developer and the publishing company.

Hopefully, through a collective effort, the decision can be reversed or altered..

BeachAV8R

A copy of the letter/email I've sent out:

--------------

To Whom It May Concern:

I'm writing to express my disappointment that UbiSoft has made the decision to implement Uplay (and its invasive requirement that the user always be connected to the internet) for the upcoming release of Silent Hunter 5: Battle of the Atlantic. My job takes me all over the world to places that often do not have internet connectivity available. Since Uplay will require an internet connection to make my purchase work, I have no choice but to not purchase Silent Hunter 5. I strongly recommend that you reconsider the mandatory online requirement and give us consumers the option to enjoy your product free from the virtual leash you are requiring. Additionally, I am recommending to all of my friends that enjoy UbiSoft simulation software to not purchase Silent Hunter 5 in a show of solidarity against such a rigid online connectivity requirement.

Thank-you for your time and consideration.

Chris Frishmuth



---------------

I'd recommend mentioning "Silent Hunter" a couple times in your emails to specify which title you are talking about. Since it has yet to be released, they may give more consideration to where their future sales are going..

Regards..
BeachAV8R

Hehe, that is positive. I have so many sims that not purchasing one may allow me to actually finish a career on SH3 or SH4.......

Wont buy with that drm system, don't want to keep my internet connection always on.
Not very environment friendly!

Frankly I'm quite stunned.

Prior to reading about the DRM issues, buying this game was a dead-cert. Now I will be passing it by.

What I don't understand is that Ubisoft's competition EA games did exactly the same thing two years ago and released a very draconian DRM system. Their sales dropped through the floor and now EA release their games with minimal DRM. You'd think they would learn from the competitors?

Also, I got my fingers burnt with Silent Hunter III. This game came with Starforce DRM which was ok in the day. But now I run Windows Vista and guess what? Yup Starforce isn't compatable with Vista so I can no longer play the game without jumping through lots of firery hoops.

To me DRM actually decreases the net worth of the game in the eyes of the consumer due to the restrictions it imposes. The danger is that the net worth of the commercial game is now substantially lower than the net worth of the pirated version which can be played anywhere with no restriction. The more unscroupolous amongst us might well realise this and opt for the 'theft' option.

I feel sorry for the development studio. Silent Hunter V looks very, very good indeed, but alas I and I suspect many others will not be buying it now.

Hello Rob,

i agree, being a Silent Hunter 3 fan in those day i was not really fond of the draconian Starforce rootkit, which b.t.w. opened your PC for all kinds of attacks from said company - if they had wanted, that is.
I always got those strange messages from Kaspersky, Antivir and SpybotSD about a "rootkit" - took some time until i realized it was that Starforce thingie.
It would not de-install if you de-installed SH3. In fact you had to download an uninstall kit from the very company.


" ... The danger is that the net worth of the commercial game is now substantially lower than the net worth of the pirated version which can be played anywhere with no restriction ..."

Spot on .. what about that :
Buy the software, put it on your sideboard, and download the pirate version to actually play.

When i look at my collection of my bought music CDs and vinyl LP records, i must be a very bad criminal. Or wa sthere somewhere written i have to destroy it after XY weeks of listening ?

Greetings,
Catfish

Wow. Just wow.

This is the first piece I have read about SH5 since I got back home, all I knew before was it was announced, and all I can say is 'wow', and 'damn'.

I work primarily in the Middle East and Central Asia (often non-metropolitan areas in them) where internet connections are generally either non-existent, crap-tastic beyond your wildest dreams or ridiculously expensive.

I can say that the total war, dangerous waters and Silent Hunter Series have been played a lot, a real lot on my laptop over the years, but this new DRM nonsense has just taken the decision to buy the game out of my hands.

It isn't that I won't, it is that I can't.

Whatever genius thought this one up is beyond me, but then Ubisoft have seen PC ports as a liability for a few years now, with almost all of their games seeing a significant delay on release to PC.

This will be the only Silent Hunter game I don't own, and that is sad.

This unfortunately is a no-go with me.

And any other UbiSoft game with this DRM. I can live with Disk Checking but to be constantly connected to the Internet for single player gaming:

That's horse crap.

As a gentleman in the SubSim forums so aptly put it:

"this DRM is the idiots way to nuke a whole village to kill one terrorist"

Could not have said it better myself.

"this DRM is the idiots way to nuke a whole village to kill one terrorist"

It will also most likley drive a fair few "civilians" into new "terrorist" too. Hidden collateral damage you could say.

The next step along this thinking will be a fee for each time you play your singel player game. Like a starting fee when you make a phone call. *click* Oops internet glitch for some reason, voila! new fee and money into UBi's purse *ca-ching!* We would really like that, wouldnt we?

There are things about the game that made me a bit dissapointed but I could live with them since i fully understand the reason for not having more then the type VII etc. The DRM however is unacceptable since its to intrusive and restrictive for me to accept.

Of course, that's the entire point behind building up this system. UBI, EA and others with similar ideas simple want to get their customers accustomed to the fact that they are renting games, not buying them anymore.

My prediction still stands that if UBI gets trough with this (with not enough financial fallout to force them rethinking their system) EA will eventually follow, and that's gonna then be the base for a subscription-orientated "Gaming Service" even for single player to hit us in the next three years.

I really would love to see an Interview with UBI where a game mag flat out asks: "Are there any potential ideas or plans to turn UPlay into a subscription-based service in the future, or can you guarantee that single player gaming will remain free besides the initial cost of buying the title?". The reaction by UBI to this question would be telling.

That's such an easy question to answer though..so it wouldn't really matter if anyone asked it..

"We (xxxx company) have no plans in the immediate future to go to a subscription based service in order to play single player games.."

Then they do it X years later and who cares what the guy said X years ago. That is the way things go. And that isn't a tactic exclusive to game publishers and DRM..apply it to politics, human resources, finances, etc..you name it..

It is the job of every company in a capitalist economy to maximize their profits. If the market will tolerate and increase in the price, then the price will increase. If the market won't tolerate the increase, then the company may give up in that market for another that is more lucrative. The Jane's line of sims is a classic case: EA saw an opportunity to maximize their profits by dropping the Jane's line with ever increasing development times, rising costs, and a small shrinking niche market. In their place, they focused on sports games that are popular with a much larger market that is willing to keep buying the same game with minimal updates annually. The people buying Madden NFL and FIFA Soccer every single year are effectively already on the subscription business model. MMOGs are also already on the subscription model. If you can get millions of people to hand you significan amounts of money periodically, why would you do business any other way? Only a few independent developers are going to deliver games at a fair price that have no DRMs and allow the end user to mod them as they see fit as well as continue to patch the game as bugs are found. Third Wire really stands out in this area. If you can live without multiplayer, clickable cockpits, and modern avionics, I don't think there are any combat flight sims that can compete with the SF2 series based on what you get for what you pay. It is a shame that more people don't like combat flight sims as TK will never get the rewards he deserves for his efforts compared to the profits EA has made cranking out the same crap every year for ever higher prices.

I think most people will transition effortlessly to paying subsciptions for the operating systems, software, and maybe even the hardware since they already do for just about everything else. Whether you lease or buy a car, whether you rent or buy a house, and of course every major service from power to water to internet to TV and even radio incur monthly charges. Is it such a stretch to have to do so to play a video game? People have been putting quarters into pinball and video games at the arcade for decades. I am not happy to see the way the market is changing, but it doesn't surprise me nor am I going to lose any sleep worrying about it. If paying a monthly fee will get rid of DRMs and all the problems they cause me, then I am all for it! In the mean time, almost every dollar I spend on games for me goes to Third Wire or hardware to support playing those games. If everyone backed developers like TK and ditched the big guys like EA and Ubisoft, then the market would be forced to change. But I don't ever see that happening. Of course, I was in shock when the Berlin Wall was torn down without a shot being fired, so logic and history don't always apply.

The problem is, especially with sims, is that this will simply mean they look at the balance sheet "Well Silent Hunter 5 sold terrible, it must be because sims have poor market appeal" and there is no SH6, or worse still, "The PC version of Assasins's Creed II sold terribly, we shouldn't bother with PC ports anymore".

And given that Ubisoft is really the only shop in town for sims, that doesn't bode well for the hobby.

Any word on Storm of War:BoB using this?

I really enjoyed the preview, and appreciate Tom taking the time to write it.

I feel he was fair to mention the DRM, and if I need more info, I can look it up. I certainly got my money's worth and I don't really think he has any 'moral obligations' for anything other than what he chooses to contribute.

Anyhow, I'm with 08x15, I actually used tp play Sub Battle Simulator on a 5&1/4" floppy: Clicky

Silent Service, AoD, and all of the SH series. (All of them paid for)

If I can't play it offline, I can't play it, can't buy it. But honestly, I don't blame UBI, I blame the dumbasses who are too cheap to buy their games.

I think the best thing Ubisoft could have done was add more value to the commercial product compared to a stolen one. Currently, they make the commercial product less valuable than the pirated product - which isn't good.

Why don't they make the game single player and add an optional online component - a bit like Dragon Age. This optional online component would provide global sunk tonnage reports, crew details and so forth. It could even document the missions you have done and be like an online logbook.

Of course to use the above services you have to have an official copy of the game. Such a scheme would even put off casual borrowers, because both copies would be updating the same web data, thus making it valueless.

I think this is the best way to handle piracy. Give your paying customers something that the people specialising in theft can't have. It has been proven time and time again (most recently EA have learned) that punishing your paying customer base is not a good idea.

Unless something significant happens, I think SHV is going to lose a LOT of sales and as has already been pointed out, the bean counters will blame the game and not the DRM.

You make it sound quite logical, and I'm sure for many it seems quite logical and fair thing to do.

But speaking of myself: I only rent my apartment as long as I need to get my own house; my car and motorbike is fully paid for; the only monthly "subscription" I have is my mobile phone plan and internet. I like it that way, owning the things I use.

Subscription-based software might be a nice idea (at any rate, they'd need to fix the bugs after initial release and properly support it) - but it would drive the price up. And that's where I have a problem with. If you end up paying 70USD or more for six months on an SinglePlayer Game that originally would have cost you 50 tops, maybe 30 a few months after release, then you are paying more money for the same entertainment.

To me that is a problem. And it's the very reason companies want subscription models - more profit for less work.

There's just one slight problem with UBI's wet-dream of once monthly big fat pay cheques. 95% of the games developed today are designed to have a limited life span. They're interactive movies ++. They're developed with a set number of playing hours, only exceeded by the extremely slow player. Who in their right mind would be willing to pay $15 a month for the next 12 months, for a game that's only going to last 20 hours? Will the entire sphere of game development studios shift to an entirely new model just to boost UBI's share price? I don't think so.

Simming is different to gaming. Learning curves are almost infinite and re-playability is huge. On the face of it, siming is definitely a more viable subscription model. But it's already been tried and it's already failed. Aces high, Targetware, Fighterops and ww2online are financially unsound examples that UBI and Co are certainly not going to want to follow.

Cheers

So where are they saying they're planning on going to a subscription based plan for SH5?

I think I missed that part.

To make it easier for you to keep up with the very latest in games, we are announcing the XYZ Game company subscription service. By paying $35 USD per month you will have full access to the next 6 titles from XYZ, and all the patches, news and updates. Each game will have a subscriber forum dedicated to you, our subscriber customers. If you would like our gold subscription for 12 games, sign up here at the cost of...

So, pay a per month payment and you get a predetermined number of games. They [the developers that subscribe to this] will present it like you're getting a ton of value added content, but it is really just centralized content that was there before, and some "features" that are added like "we will save your games in your very own private server area so you will never have to worry about losing your progress again." Then the developers will really be hammered to turn out titles like a Detroit assembly line (like they're not already). If they can't get the games out at the current acceptable length of gameplay, look for the games to get shorter and shorter to meet the criteria of # of units released within a specific span of time. Some developers will not buy into this business model and we all will be strongly encouraged to support them as devs who are looking out for us. Serious gamers will have 2 computers dedicated to gaming: one non-subscriber based playing the "old stuff" pre-2008, and a second that will be hooked-up to the service.

Far-fetched fantasy? Some of this has already started to happen.

<sarcasm>
It could all be so much simpler if players would just be reasonable and allow their PCs to operate like the console services.
</sarcasm>

Oh well, so much for the "personal" in PC.

Aces High is a successful business model using a small dedicated team. Of course, World of Warcraft is the current motherlode for subscription based games. Every big company out there wants cash cows like WoW, not niche games like Aces High or Third Wire sims. Ultimately, all sims will have to be made by small independent teams or not exist at all unless all of a sudden every kid decides he wants to give up his favorite fps or rpg to study F-16 flight manuals. Decent sims need a huge budget to improve upon what has already been done and such a budget exceeds the size of the market that will buy such sims. Third Wire represents the future: continuously build upon a core with periodic updates for the graphics technology. It takes TK a long time to get his code where it needs to go, but getting there slowly is better than not getting there at all.

Why should Ubisoft or EA ever release another flight sim? They just aren't profitable enough compared to other options. I suspect submarine sims are an even smaller niche, or else there would have been a Microsoft Sub Sim product. Even Microsoft has given up on the best selling flight sim of all time. Market forces do not bode well for simmers.

PC Gamer grills Ubisoft in interview:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596

But then UBI's only stating the obvious.

Greetings,
Catfish

6 games in 6 months just won't work; games development is too unpredictable. Sure, some of the games you are waiting for MIGHT be released in that time frame, but most likely they won't be. That means each month you'll be lumped with buying games that you probably won't want. What benefit does this give to the customer at all? Infact this idea of paying a subscription to buy product every month has been done before; book clubs. Most people are fully aware that while technically not a scam, they're financially a poor choice and are to be avoided regardless of the first month's incentive buy i.e "Quake X for only $2!"



Successful compared to what? The $$$ involved in such a venture just wouldn't interest the likes of UBI. The $$$ involved haven't even been big enough to bring aces high to 2000 standards, let alone 2010.



On the previous page you said subscription was the future, now it's the existing model that's the future.

Cheers

Hello AD,

exactly. If i am a fan of a flight- or submarine simulator, i will have no interest in role playing games or "ego shooters". So why should i be interested in all other things the company does or produces ?

Greetings,
Catfish

Subscription based software has been coming for years. There's already that "Deer Hunter" game where you pay monthly for single player.

What else would you think is the purpose of this centralized account DRM?

Brilliant comment here: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596&site=pcg



Isn't it interesting how things that would have considered "bugs" a year ago are now a "feature"?

I take the simplest one: it is an attempt to thwart piracy.

Constant connectivity requirements are crappy by the self evident crappiness of, well, constant connectivity requirements. There is absolutely no need (and even less proof) of some secret corporate agenda to say it is not a good thing.

It is sort of like saying the man drowning puppies is bad because he might be secretly be planning to put dog food companies out of business.

Broken By Design: Ubisoft's New DRM Scheme, Their Worst Misstep Yet

http://hothardware.com/News/Broken-By-Design-Ubisofts-New-DRM-Scheme-is-Companys-Worst-Misstep-Yet/

This will only stop if us the legitimate users stick together, and boycott UBI. Of course that wont happen, just look at the EA boycotts with MW2. Laughable. So they will keep implementing more and more draconian systems, well keep complaining but buying it, literally, and the 'pirates' wont care because they will have the system cracked within days of release, if not sooner.

And why then has UBI admitted they expect this to be cracked?

I'm not gonna look for the specific interview (lots of links around to different interviews with different UBI Spokespersons) but at least one of them clearly said they don't expect this system to protect the game more than 3 or 4 weeks after release.

So UBI themself are aware they can't really stop piracy. If they want to slow it - why not use the system of Black Shark, which holds up also a few weeks? Or a hardware dongle? By not paying for the cost of this online infastructure they could well afford to subsidize a dongle for their games.

Sorry Dart, I don't want to insult you - but your viewpoint here seems a tad naive. If the UBI Spokespersons tells you they are doing it to "add awesome new game experience" are you also going to believe them?

Lets see what constant online brings UBI:

1) Marketing data. User A of Age Group B plays Game C for X hours a day and Game D for Y hours a day. They can then serve their users targeted ad campaigns either trough the software or in other places.

2) Ability to promote and sell DLC much quicker, much more direct, since the users are already connected to the system.

3) Possibility to shut down servers for old games, like EA does, to force people into new releases.

4) The option to slowly transform their user expectations from DLC and Micro Payments to subscription based games.

5) Shutdown of the Second Hand Game market.


Now, there are other viable options to seriously hamper piracy (again, refer Black Shark or Steel Beasts). But the method they come up with just happens to have the most marketing/sales benefits for the company (and the most negative implications for the user).

So, to me it's clear logic they are accepting the most negative impact on the user since they see the most positive impact on their business models in it.

Piracy is but an excuse. If that was their main concern they could be doing things differently without putting such a negative impact on their customers.

Oh, appendix:

UBI themself have recently stated they are looking for more regular releases, more regular cash flow, and a steadier development headcount. A wish that would be perfectly realized with a subscription model. As has been tried with music services.

And it's no secret that ever since World of Warcraft most game publishing companies have a serious hardon for the Blizzard business model.

So, seeing that UBI are already taking us for a fool and expect to believe their sorry excuses ("We developed this system to give players the best possible game experience...") don't expect me to believe them that it's "all about piracy" when I can quite imagine their CFO Beancounters being well aware of the potential earnings if they can get their users tied to an account.

"Software as a Service" is everywhere today. You really expect UBI to be the one software company that didn't think about such a business model when everyone else does?

Not that it will make a difference, but I posted on Ubi's SH5 forum that I won't be purchasing it because of the CP/DRM scheme used. They even had a thread with a poll in it, and last I looked the "not buying" choice was ahead of the "buying" and "undecided" choices.

Edit: Here's a link to that thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1121062387/m/3641014928/showpollresults/Y

Yep, UBI has lost a customer here.

While I have a pretty solid internet connection, I refuse to be required to have a connection simply for DRM to play something I paid for. To be at the mercy of a company's servers to determine if you can use your purchased product just isn't acceptable to me.

Shame when such things make you cheer on the pirates, but screw UBI, I hope they take you for all they can.

I read that thread and it's quite refreshing to say the least.




Well, i say let UBI try it. I'm sorry for the devs,but it looks like we need a couple of high-profile games to completely flop because of a dislike for DRM before the publishers get the hint. The majority of the PC gaming public might be unfamiliar with SH5 and Rise of Flight (which made a 180 on the issue as a result of customer complaints), but that's not the case for games like Settlers and Assassin's Creed. If one of them flops, i predict a lot of hassle-free games that we can play at our own discretion in the future. It sure looks like UBI is stepping up to the plate for the good of us all

You know it is really weird that UBISoft isn't looking at Neoqb as its test case. Or maybe it is and figuring that A) Simulation nuts are weird nerds who can never be pleased and B) can afford to be pissed off, as they're too small a part of the market to really matter.

I tend to think that rather than a play for subscription services, they're laying out plans for DLC.

On demand DLC that is fairly thin in content, low in price, and prostituted to the player incessantly. In many cases, things that would otherwise be considered expected features. For SH5, additional sub types or "upgrades" in models would be the easy target, or maps and missions.

The attempts at episodic development have failed; God bless the guys at Valve for trying, but they were a victim of their own sense of, well, development. Had they stuck to the plan and simply worked on the next installment in the story arc of Gordon Freeman rather than re-envisioning the engine at every opportunity they'd of made their goal of "one every six months."

It is sort of like the infamous Verison and AT&T cell phone maps in commercials. One shows a huge amount of the country covered versus tiny blue corridors; the next commercial (AT&T) touts that 98% of the USA's population is covered with 3G service and that the maps are bogus in comparison of service. Which is correct? Both.

You won't get AT&T 3G service in the middle of the Mojave desert. Verizon would have one believe that it is really important to get 3G service out there - and if one is part of the tiniest wedge of the population that is out there it's true - but in the main it isn't.

Coming from a rural background I really hate the dismissal and abandonment of the market by corporations. I can understand it, but I don't like it.

The truth, though, is that the target demographic is pretty much connected to the Internet all of the time. Twenty-somethings (in the main) regard connectivity as a right and are shocked when their laptops can't get a signal; it is a personal insult to them. Add in that Wi-Fi is being replaced with cell tower based connections and its even more saturated.

While we're winding our watches and debating the merits of connection reliability and second order effects, the majority of the market has moved on past us. They don't care. Every other device they carry is always on and always connected; so what if their game has to be connected as well? Does it come with a freebie? Can I find my friends and play with them, or talk to them with the push of a button? Does it show my ranking so I can talk trash?

If SH5 tanks it won't be blamed on connectivity requirements. Sub sims are never a big seller anyway, and they'll chalk it up to a thin niche product failing.

You are perfectly on spot with that analysis, but the problem is: These stupid, non-caring customers are going to raise the prise and lower the service/quality level for everyone else.

Because what these people don't realize is how fundamentally they are giving up (voluntary giving up!) rights on a product they paid for, like the right to resell. And how that means they are going to pay more for the same thing in the future than they paid in the past (and I'm not just talking money inflation).

It's also true that SH5 won't bother UBI a ton if it tanks - but we'll see what happens with Assasins Creed 2.

I dunno, I think most games are shovelware anyway!

It is both suprising at the number of games I have on my PC and how few I actually play (or play twice).

I'm running through Bioshock 2 again just for the heck of it, and maybe one more time afterwards. Then it falls into the gray area under the cut line. I might re-visit it again in a year or so, but probably not.

Even Fallout 3 has lost its appeal, as I've now explored every inch. I might go back once more and kill everyone just to see if it can be done and how the engine handles it.

Ironically, the games with the most replayability (outside of flight sims) for me are the ultimate in shovelware - "casual games." Bookworm, Peggle, Luxor, etc. seem to be endlessly repeatable.

Well if my old knackered pc will run it, I will buy SH5.

I hope they release a demo (paying £30+ to see IF it works is out of the question).

As for DRM, the thing that will annoy everyone is obvious, it is always the same, When your looking at your payed for legal copy wondering why it wont work, and the bloke next to you says, my pirate copy works fine KTHX, it does not do any software company any favours.

There have been an increasing amount of games where the only way legal users could get them running was by using cracks designed for illegal copies.

I feel sorry for the devs.

When they were "OK'ed" to produce SH5, I would guess they had no idea UPlay was about to be glued onto their work. Now, after devoting their best efforts, they have to read "I won't buy it". That's tough to take for anyone.

Now I'm NOT saying people should buy it because of that. Each person must decide for themselves if its a show-stopper or not.

But its a damn shame the developers have to suffer because of UPlay.

So true! That's the ragged edge of free enterprise. How many decent tv shows have been scrapped because some knuckle-head programming genius decided to change time slots? How many bands have come and gone because of shoddy marketing and promotion by a record company? Sadly, success or failure rides on too much beyond the developer's control. Just building the better mouse trap isn't enough.

Successful compared to what? The $$$ involved in such a venture just wouldn't interest the likes of UBI. The $$$ involved haven't even been big enough to bring aces high to 2000 standards, let alone 2010.



On the previous page you said subscription was the future, now it's the existing model that's the future.

Cheers[/quote]

Aces High is successful in that the staff has remain gainfully employed for nearly a decade since going pay for play. HiTech made enough money to afford his own airplane. I am by no means poor, but I don't have my own aerobatic airplane that I can fly on the weekends. As far as quality, Aces High far surpasses any other WW2 flight sim I have ever played at the cost of less than stellar terrain and slightly lower poly 3d models. When you balance realism versus gameplay versus graphics, the IL-2 series just doesn't compare unless you are trying to make historical screenshots or need the more extensive planeset.

Subscription is the future for gaming and just about all other software with the big companies. Sims will die with the big companies (they pretty much already have as far as I can tell), but they will survive with independent developers like Third Wire, Aces High, and community efforts like Targetware. So there is no conflict in my statements unless you quote them out of context.

I am still waiting to see if the guys that delivered Falcon 4 Allied Force ever follow up with a new expansion. It seems that doing more than patching up the existing code and adding higher res textures requires more resources than they have to release anything in recent years.

Fighter Ops looks like it is going the way of Targetware: by the time it is released, it will be obsolete compared to its peers.

Agreed on the pity for the developers of SH5: They are guys right out of the community and deserved better.

Tinfish, I don't really get people like you. You are clearly aware that it's annoying to have this DRM, but you support the Publisher who's annoying you with your money, sending a signal that it's okay if he wants to annoy you.

As I said, it's peanuts for a company like UBI. They aren't for a second going to look at sims as a viable subscription software. Nor will they look at the vast majority of other game genres to provide a stable platform for a subscription service. The only games that are suitable for subscription are those that have no (or limited) offline function. However, the big publishers are definitely going to try going down the route of annual license purchases for popular sports games. It's going to bite them in the ass as class action lawsuits will follow shortly thereafter.



Sims will die blah blah blah. How many times have we heard this in the last 10 years? Sorry but simming is looking pretty healthy right now. 3 WW1 sims just released in what 18 months? A new WW2 sim just released, a ww2 series coming up, a full-on hardcore modern series in DCS. New subsim. What more could you want. Currently the biggest threat to simming is over-zealous DRM splitting customers into two camps; those that will purchase regardless and those that will refuse to purchase.

Cheers

Will not purchase SH5 because my internet connection is not reliable enough. Simple.
Allow offline and I'm there...

Mick

AD,

My idea wasn't that there wouldn't be one game per month. Its that people would have to buy a subscription to get some games they would want. A year subscription would be a minimum of say 4-6 games in total, and that would include what used to be called add-on packs. Agreed, game development is too unpredictable, unless the same engine is used over-and-over to create minor changes with maximum hype. Its not a palatable offer for gamers -- unless its the only way they can get an exclusive title they really want for the first 6 months of the titles release.

Dart has a good point too with the DLC.

They'd love to have a Netflicks sort of setup for games, that's for sure, guod.

For $24.95 a month, get access to all the latest games, on the day of release! When you're done playing it, select another - and on demand downloading will have you in the action in no time at all. And with up to four games on your system to choose from, you'll never be bored!

The problem, naturally, is simulations don't fit the template of the standard PC game.

Simulations are like hard cover books to us. We might put them on a shelf, but we never throw them away and will revisit them over and over again. Games are like magazines. Once you'ver read it, throw it in the recycling bin.

Strange thing is, they've already kind of tried it. Anno 1404 (Dawn of Discovery in North America) was released with DRM based on Tagès and had to be activated online. The game could only be activated for three times and there was no possibility to revoke the activations.

As a consequence, the game got pretty bad critics on Amazon.

In October 2009 (the game was released in June 2009) Ubi released the first patch (v1.1), which completely removed the DRM.

One might think that they've learned their lesson. But no, they not only bring back the same DRM in the official add-on for Anno 1404. Now they even introduce their own DRM system in all the other games they'll release.

Well then, they can keep their games and I keep my money. Fine by me.

You know Dart, I think you hit the nail right on the head here with that comment.

I think the powdered wigs at Ubisoft, EA and others can't get their fingers wrapped around the simulation genre because we are different. You don't see someone pulling out Madden 2003 to replay that season. Tiger Woods? Nope, new version out every year. Any of the shooters that are out there? Rarely do people want to fire them up again simply because there is something better out there.

On the other hand, there is still a dedicated group of people that play games like EAW, F/A18, SHIII, the Targetware series, Falcon, and so on. We don't throw away games, we keep them and update and replay them. We look for mods for them, we cherish them. I still have my old Aces Over Europe box that I played way back when. 1942, disks still in the box even though I don't have a floppy anymore.

That is the biggest objection to these kinds of schemes. They are taking a gaming approach with simulation fanatics and they can't figure out why we don't like it.

Ubi is operating on what I call my "Philosophy of Modern Management". The analogy goes like this:

Say you're a pilot flying along enjoying the scenery, all indications in the green, flight controls trimmed...everything's going hunky-dory. You reach up and flip a switch and chaos breaks loose!

Now what would be your first impulse? Most people say they would return the switch to the position it was in before the significant event.

Not so with management! They will flip every bloody switch in the cockpit. By the time they get around to flipping the errant switch to its original position, it will be a whole new, revolutionary idea. Of course in the management world, this fresh idea would be attributed to some rising star who would receive accolades from above and below his pay point, resulting in a promotion.

So, Ubi, having not learned from their Anno 1404 experience (or likely blowing it off as not having been released to the "right market") will likely try flipping that switch yet again.

Got that right.

Of course the attribution to the "rising star" probably won't have any real connection to the poor worker bee that actually saw the problem and flipped the switch.

Performance awards all around. Except for the worker bee; he or she will be awarded a required ten additional hours a week of unpaid overtime due to the demands of "special projects," which is shorthand for making sure nobody flips switches when they shouldn't (and makes a report about it).

Oh, and a fifty dollar gift card to O'Charlie's. Whoopie!

It would appear that the DRM in Silent Hunter 5 has been successfully cracked by pirates.

LOL, so much for that then.

Yup. R&D, servers, etc, all, money down the drain. Good for them I guess?

So, in the end, we're back at it again, legitimate users are screwed over the pirates. With things like this I can't believe how anyone can argue over those stupid DRM methods they're using.

Software piracy is not going anywhere. If hackers can crack government computers and such, what chance does a game DRM have? Evidently, about 2 days.

While I can understand a publisher wanted to protect his game, until they come up with a mild form of DRM that works, they are better off having none.

I'm not real keen on the DRM by ED, but it looks pretty mild in comparison to UBI. Screw 'em.

Hello,
well i bought it. I think that those draconian measures do not prevent piracy, and are bad for consumers (nice word b.t.w. consumers, almost sonds like parasites, against those noble producers)
I doubt that a pirate or someone who downloads a cracked game, would have bought it anyway, so it did probably not hurt sales. My idea is that all this DRM crap is a sorry excuse for gaining control about consumers, and making them pay for every second of use, sooner or later.

If they now sell a "license" but not the copy of a game, and are so "proud" of it, why do they sell anything at all ? Let them keep their f!"§$ "license" and rot with it. Does the playing of a copy instead of using a license, pose a threat to a producer or company, if the pirates do not resell it or change the code ?

Now i'm here, with a paid sim, have every disadvantage that it poses, while there is a fuzz-free version around - for free.

Greetings,
Catfish

The problem is - you bought it. They will see cash flow and conclude that they can get away with doing stupid things.

Yeah, I was kinda baffled there too. If you think the DRM is just peachy, then go buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it.

What you are telling UBI is, no matter if I like or dislike the DRM, I'll fall in line and buy your crapware. If that's the case, then don't complain as you already voted FOR the DRM with your wallet. And that's the only voice we have.

BTW, this game is getting hammered at Amazon (reviews) mainly for the DRM, but also for bugginess. A big 'thumbs up' to all that posted to let people know what's going on. Certainly UBI isn't going to declare this DRM scheme in big letters on the box!

Actually it's in a huge white box on the front of the box.

Not sure what you mean by mild, but on a technical point - right now any type of authentication that happens on your own computer as opposed to some remote server is far too easy to bypass. It is simply not reliable in terms of DRM.

UBI failed when it came to implementing their own DRM as well now, probably; that it was cracked so quickly points to either massive effort or poor implementation, and I really doubt that the effort put into this was partuclarly massive

Fact is, this was predicted and should have been totally foreseeable had Ubi pulled their collective heads out of the up-and-locked position. Will they learn from this? No trend seen in that direction, so expect more dumb moves to inflame the legitimate patrons. Even a rodent learns to run a maze eventually.

Ubi claims the DRM hasn't been disabled and that the cracked version isn't complete, without specifying what exactly is missing.

I've been searching for more info and from what I could find it seems the game wont give
you any new missions unless you're online. Some people have speculated that's because they
aren't in the game at all but only on the UBI servers and that's why you need the
online connection.

So basically we are buying an incomplete game that needs constant online updates to function
at all!

Sneaky SOBs!

UBI's DRM has been cracked so quickly, not because of any particular failure in the implementation, but simply because it was flying on the radar screens of so many crackers. Over the last couple of weeks it's received massive amounts of press in various communities and subsequently the bragging rights for defeating it were huge.

Online DRM is fundamentally no more difficult to circumvent than offline copy protection. Clearly proven by the speed at which this cracking team broke the DRM right open.

No doubt when people start complaining about the dis-functional DRM packaged with SH5, UBI will start shipping the crack as a solution. Just as they did before.
Cheers

Hello,
well the problem is i have been with so much titles of the Silent Hunter series, and "we" (subsim forum et al) have lived through so much ups and downs that we are going to really feel pity with the dev team now - not with UBIsoft mind you.

As Dan (call name "Elanaiba") from this team said the only sim he was halfway happy about to release was Silent Hunter version 3, in all other cases they were more or less forced to release the game before they themselves thought it was ready.
Even SH3 was buggy, but at least the basics and engine was well-developed. Dan and his team even implemented a dynamic campaign after being begged (and cursed!) in the subsim forum, which delayed the release for more than 5 months - but after all it was a complete fine sim out of the box, and with later "patches" and mods became legendary in this sector - with a side effect.

When the dev team heard about the online requirement they were not really happy about it, as they weren't with Starforce.
But in a company which wants to "generate" money, whoever spoils the party or maybe even speaks the truth a bit too loudly, would be soon to leave the team. The company wanted SH4 and 5 to release at a certain date, with a certain "DRM", despite being told it meant harsh critics and losing sales on a long term because it was not ready and had the most intrusive kind of DRM since Starforce. Even a former planned time frame would be shortened, for quicker cash. Managers in a greedy company are nowadays seldomly in place for more than two years, they change positions quickly in the management departments, so what happens does not matter for them on a long term. Maybe at some time it will, but they will be long gone.

Silent Hunter V is, as Rise of Flight, a niche sim or whatever you call it. Since there is no other submarine simulator around at all (which was different a few years ago) you also vote with your wallet about the carrying on of a series at all. And then there is the dev team, with Dan himself visiting the subsim meeting in Denmark in 2009, and going to the last equipped type VIIC boat in Laboe/Germany to shoot photographs for improving the sim, seeing the objects and instruments in reality, and getting a better feel for the cramped space and all.

SH5 is really a new breed of sim, and it was foreseeable at least that it would be buggy as hell - it is a complete new concept to introduce RPG elements into a simulator, where the "captain" (you) does indeed not do all himself anymore, but gives orders to the crew, interacts and has to even ask or discuss the range of fuel left, along with improving the engines for a last run before having to return to base, as well as trusting the IWO to shoot torpedoes during an attack if it suits you, to train him.

As well you will not see all on a mouse-click, but you have to ask your officer of the watch, or go the station yourself and have a look at the dials and gauges.
This is certainly not liked by all, and there are already patches that give you the direct access to information regarding your boat, as it was done in SH3, and 4.

Oops, long post - what i wanted to say is that i probably did a mistake in buying it before UBIsoft removing this DRM sooner or later, but then we have lived through the making of this thing, getting poersonal contact to the devs etc., so ... just an explanation.

I really hope that UBI and all other companies will give up that ridiculous online requirement, it just is not necessary. There are models how to really and effectively protect a sim, but it honestly seems as if companies are more interested in an online scheme for whatever purpose, than to really protect "digital rights" of the devs, or whoever.
As i wrote before: How does selling a copy instead of a licence, has an impact on digital rights ? People were not allowed to use an engine or reverse-engineer code before with the content of a copy, and then rewrite and sell it - and it was not done. I really think this is not even paranoia of the companies, but an idea to make the customer pay, who can be controlled time- and location-wise, for every second in the near future.

Greetings,
Catfish

I feel bad for the developers as I know they typically have little say in what the Publisher will do to protect their games. However I cannot bring myself to support Ubisoft in anyway now and will not be buying any of their software including SHV. The fact that they think its perfectly ok to tell me when and where I can play a game I bought with my money is just so wrong. Your internet connection burps because you are on a wireless connection sorry we kick you out of the game now. You want to play a bit while on a 6 hour flight oh well too bad. Internet is down not our problem. It is just ridiculous and pretty offensive.

And the sad thing is developers seem to care about the PC gaming genre less and less so they would rather it just die away anyways. Well at least Stardock and Valve seem to get it...

Ha! The problem with that is it assumes that the copy that people are plunking down their cash for IS complete.

No more Ubisoft games for me.

I bought Assassin's Creed I, Silent Hunter series, and other Ubisoft games -- good games.

No more. Its as if Ubisoft does not exist for me.

Couldn't continue with the campaign in SH5 today, so I searched various forums, and this is what seemed to have happened:

Apparently, Ubi's authentication servers have been attacked by hackers (DDOS), so currently many players (including myself) are unable to play SH5 (read on some forums that such an attack had been planned for this WE).

Good show, Ubisoft!

The attack itself is not Ubi's fault, but if there wasn't an online requirement in the first place...

Those hackers risk international legal trouble. It's a good way to show the customers how fragile UBISofts system is, but I wouldn't want to be in their shoes when Amazon's Cloud Computing divison goes after them.

I would imagine it is almost impossible to hit back at a Botnet, let alone the guys controlling it.

UBI were wide open to this happening, I wonder what they'll do to mitigate the inevitable future DDOS attack.

Nate

If customers can't play SH 5 due to this, isn't Ubi technically in violation of the license agreement?

Weird moral dilemma:

I have a really hard time sympathizing with people who control botnets. Botnets after all are made from virus-infected systems and chances are the botnet owners have close contact to the virus authors.

OTOH I have to admit it's absolutely the most efficient way to run a massive hole into UBIs DRM system. Which will benefit paying customers in the long term.

AND, funny enough, botnets are normally used for cybercrime (DDOSing websites for ransom or such). These criminals are DDOSing UBI Servers for free, with no "income" to be made from it.

Seems even the scum of the internet has sometimes it's good sides.


Jayhawk, I bet they covered that in the EULA.

The servers for Assassin's Creed II are obviously down as well. Big disaster for Ubisoft.

Not sure that the DDOS attack is a fact. I've read several comments in various forums (Gamestar.de for example) that suggest hackers were planning to attack Ubisoft's servers.

Whether true or not, the servers are down (for both SH5 and AC2), and customers around the world are pretty p!ssed off.

The marketing people at Ubisoft should write a book: "How to shoot yourself in the foot for dummies".

Well, if it isn't a DDOS attack, then it's the most stunning display of incompetence I've ever seen.

It would actually be bad it if turns out to have been an attack since it would give UBI an excuse "Our servers are 100% uptime but you see, those damn hackers..."

In either way, it's very educational for people who underestimated how annoying such a DRM could be and bought those games.

This is UBI remember. While a DDOS is more likely, UBI are quite capable of stunning feats of incompetence, such as this.

Nate

If I hadn't bought the SH5 collectors Edition I think that i might have pissed my pants laughing at this ridiculous situation by now. (I might as well laugh about it anyway! )

UBI DRM goes Down

Thank you Neoqb for getting rid of this always online nonsense for single player mode for Rise Of Flight .

I cant even read the UBI Silent Hunter 5 forums. It keeps going off after about a second and leaving a "system error" message on a blank screen.

" ... If customers can't play SH 5 due to this, isn't Ubi technically in violation of the license agreement? ..."

Bingo !

But then ... since Ubisoft preemptively considers all people as pirates, and pirated versions of SH 5 run without problem, it is not a violation. This is even better than Catch 22.


Greetings,
Catfish

Well, I didn't have to buy it, so at least I didn't lose money, but I'll have to write a review tomorrow.

Hello,
well it is not really sympathy for the hackers - i still think Ubisoft is perfectly able to screw up its servers without external "help" - but i bet they will blame it on "hackers" anyway, with one of their cloudy accusations.

I see it as follows:

Long ago there was the military DARPA net, which was then made public, at least for universities, and eventually became the so-called "internet". This was done by people who did it more or less for free, driven by the idea of an international exchange for eMails, newsgroups and forums.

Then the whole thing started to get commercial, by people who had not contributed time nor money for this internet, but certainly tried to use it best to make their deals, and money.
Now that the internet is commercialized in a way that you cannot visit one f*cking website without staring at blinking commercial advertisements, those initial inventors and thinkers slowly got "a bit angry" about their net being abused, as they saw it. And even if i do not like viruses and trojans i can perfectly understand them.
You can call this "sympathy for the devil", but for those people and me, the devil is elsewhere, in form of companies and governments that spy out their own people, and support sensorship for some nations, or certain themes.

Greetings,
Catfish

You mean like radio? Big deal - it's the way all things go.



Vandals are no less destructive.

So, has Ubi or anyone issued a work-around while this is happening? Please PM me if there is.

Confirmed to be simple incompetence:

from http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5181026566/m/7541043838

"Exceptional demand" with only a handful of titles using it now? So what about Assassins Creed coming out on PC in 2 days? And the next release? 3 releases? Sounds like they've sat on an upright broomstick.

oh my word! If the review for SH5 is correct about Ubisoft's new DRM requiring a fulltime internet connection then I will pass on those titles.

You think Ubi would admit that a DDoS took down their DRM-servers? Tho, an DDoS attack *is* "exceptional demand"

I think if they had an excuse to show that it's not the fault of their system, but rather the "evil pirates" they would have said so.

Of course, a partial DDOS overload on the server would result in exactly what happened.

I'd thought they would admit it was an attack to put the blame on someone else. And they do - according to this report it was an attack:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/ubisoft-drm-was-attacked-at-weekend

Well, we'll see how it goes, but if indeed they can't cope with 2 titles, how are they going to cope with the login demands for the upcoming ones?

They way it's described, i think it looks just as likely to be their mistake as it is to be a DDOS attack. The various links up to this point state that you can keep on playing just fine if you are already logged in, it's the actual logging in that's facing the problems. This could in fact be a DDOS attack taking up login spots, creating lag and an automatic "connection dropped" message by their system as a result, but it could just as well be a case of simply not enough login spots resulting in login queues.

I've been looking for a "workaround" so that i can finally buy this and bypass the DRM on my legally bought copy, but the comments so far are contradictory.
I've been hearing that the work-around is a bit problematic, but for the amount of coding that goes on behind a hacker's door it's ironic how many "plug-and-play" mentality people that can't follow instructions off of a readme file exist on illegal file sharing sites. I usually crack most of my legally bought games for various reasons (see below), so i have seen my fair share of it by browsing such sites.
As far as SH5 is concerned, for every person in a comments field that says by-passing the DRM doesn't work there's another one who says it works just fine.

Naturally, i got curious and decided to investigate.
So, i downloaded the readme from the pirated version and after taking a quick read, i'm willing to take a wild guess that it's a classic case of people not reading instructions. I almost missed the important part on my first read-through as well.

So, on with the findings. The game in its original form comes with a launcher/updater and the actual game executable. Nothing out of the ordinary here, right? Well, the "modified" files only alter the game exe file and not the launcher. In fact, the pirated version readme clearly instructs to start the game via the game exe and not the launcher.
For example, if you try to start the game via the default start menu shortcuts it probably won't work, because it points to an unmodified launcher that probably doesn't like seeing you run a game exe that it doesn't recognize.
The readme also said that you can just block the launcher from accessing the internet via your firewall settings, which to me looks like the launcher doesn't locally "know" which is the correct game exe, but communicates it with the UBI servers upon launch.

I usually crack most of the games i buy to do away with any DRM, disc checks and also preserve my original discs in a good condition, but that has mostly been non-DRMed, hassle free games up to now (eg, IL-2 series). That is, i would buy the game anyway and it was working fine, i just didn't want my discs to get scrathced, but i could certainly wait a week for a working "modification" to surface.

However, now that the decision on these newer titles hinges on wether the DRM is actually by-passable or not (since it can make my legally bought copy unplayable), i might actually have to start using a reverse sequence in order to know if i can bypass it immediatiely. Sadly and ironically enough, the only way to do this is to test the workaround before buying the game, ie downloading a pirated copy before buying the original one.

If any concerned and frustrated buyers or potential customers are curious, we could do some further investigating to see if it is indeed possible to bypass the DRM, but we would need to know exactly when the supposed halt in the game's campaign comes. For example when it's said that the modified version doesn't give you new missions, does it refer to new missions after the tutorial or new missions after the 1st,2nd, or any random number of mission? The first one is easier to test, but random failures might require a complete campaign play-through to spot, which is a bit too much.

Naturally i'm not going to point anyone to the source of these files, but it's easy enough for everyone to google it up themselves. In fact, if any owners of the original copy could compare it with the modified version they could be of a big help to the rest of us who are sitting on the fence in regards to buying this title, plus it would do away with the moral dilemma of having an illegal version on our hard-drive without having first bought the original, even if it was only for testing purposes before making a purchase. If the workaround is confirmed to be working, then maybe we could have a system where proof of purchase (eg, a photo of someone with a receipt and the game box) could make a verified customer elligible for a PM that tells him how to get rid of this junk.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/gaming/news/a207458/ubisoft-says-sorry-for-drm-lock-outs.html

(apologies if this is repeat info)

Sorry ,but no purchase with another intrusive DRM that mandates UPlay. Nope its called NOTplay.

For the outage UBI just gave me my choice of one of two full games for free. Shawn White Snowboarding or Prince of Persia. I already have PoP on the PS3 but I'll take a free snowboarding game for not being able to play for a half hour.

Did they write you an Email? Got one today which says that as an apology for the server outages I'll get one games as a free download. I wonder if this is legit (since Magnum's PC got killed by a virus recently because he opened a legit-looking email, I dare not click on any of the links.

Yeah it was an email. I'm pretty sure it's legit or else my ubi account has been compromised. They had the correct account name which isn't my email name or address.

Thanks Jeevz! The mail is indeed legit.

Hello,
the mail is legit, however the links somehow do not work right or so it seems, or it points to an older version.
"Shawn White snowboarding", i am sure every submarine simulator player will rejoice for playing virtual snowboard on a PC.

From the official UBI Forum. by Tinkerbelle12:



Please read the text thoroughly.

Greetings,
Catfish

LOL, that image kills me.

Also from the same poster:

Hilarious stuff

The only thing Ubisoft has achieved with their DRM in my household is to boycott all their future games, DRM or no DRM. Way to go Ubisoft!