There has been a lot of flak on the web about AC2’s DRM system. When it was first announced, everybody went “They can’t be serious!”. And when it did actually come out, people just stopped and pooped in their pants. “They ARE serious!”
Just a small recap of the DRM system that Ubisoft is using:
PermanentPersistent and consistent online connection required.- Game pauses if connection is disrupted.
See Ubisoft’s official page to read more. A reviewer managed to see and experience first-hand the benefits/meh/horror, as viewed by the publisher/developer/player respectively, of such a system.
Somehow, this move doesn’t feel like it’s just about piracy anymore. Second-hand sales gets affected too. From a publisher’s viewpoint, a second hand sale means that someone else gets to play the game and the makers don’t get a cut by doing so. By registering your game to Ubisoft’s platform, you can no longer sell the game, unless you’re willing to share personal information as well. Sure, you can populate it with random junk, but you probably can’t change the email address you registered with after confirming the account. If you do sell it, are you comfortable with a total stranger using your email to login?
Somehow I also think it’s about some form of weird competition with Steam. Ubisoft does not need to create an “Online Services Platform”, it can in fact, simply outsource it to Steam. Steam is itself a form of DRM system. Just have some sort of exclusive partnership with Steam, which does the auto-updating and auto-checking, which Ubisoft’s system does, whether it’s you behind the screen and not your half-brother from hell, and you can also achieve this same effect. But of course, this means some form of revenue-sharing with Valve. Ahh, yes. That good ol’ bottom line.
However, if AC2 is going to be a Steam exclusive on the PC, Ubisoft will get cut from knowing all the juicy little details of its users. And I doubt Valve would release details of its users to Ubisoft. Not unless it wants to get sued. Data aggregation is a really powerful tool and a huge company like Ubisoft will always want it.
The persistent online connection is a real b*tch. Why do you need to be online if you’re playing single-player? But then again, which gamer doesn’t have one? Approximately 11 million people have proven that a constant persistent online connection is possible. However, AC2 isn’t an MMOG, it’s primarily a single player game. By making this a requirement, Ubisoft has effectively created a new genre of its own: Massively Single-player Online Game. It even stores your savegames on its server, just like an MMOG. And true to all MMOG, it’s experiencing teething problems. A broken connection means that someone is unable to play. And by “play”, I mean, playing a single player game without any need for multiplayer.
I think that the fact that it is a single player game is the crux of the problem with this system. I’ve always wondered about those companies who said that they’ll be able to maintain DRM servers “forever”. Single player games are typically a one-time purchase. How can they sustain them via a one-time purchase? By hoping to make more sales down the road? Sounds like a ponzi scheme though. Recurring revenue via other products, or 3rd party products? Sorry it’s not a sales platform. Subscription? Micro-payments? Sorry, it’s a single player game, which does not require an on-going service to play. Of course, such companies also promise their customers to remove the DRM. Might I ask, when will that happen? 10 years from now? How many games have had their DRM removed?
If this is meant to combat piracy, how can Ubisoft’s PR deal with all the negative press? Is it worth it? No matter how flawless this system is, everyone will condemn it. If there is a problem, no matter how small or tiny, it will mean more work for the PR team to counter the bad press for it. Why does a company prefer to go down this route? Contrast that with a company releasing DRM-free games. You get goodwill and good press. Those who pirate your game have no say and will most likely be condemned by the community. Those who has no intention to buy your game in the first place will definitely pirate it, but it’s not a lost sale. That person has no intention of paying in the first place. You attract and pull at gamers’ heartstrings. And they will have no qualms about loosening their wallet in return, because they perceive your company as “one of the good guys”.
Of course, if such a system is beaten, it means more value to pirates! Those “filthy, stealing people”! Install and play! No fuss, no mess. And no mucking about with your internet connection.
Sure, piracy is a problem on the PC, as well as the consoles but somehow, the latter doesn’t get as much hype. But I don’t think this is the way to combat it. Smells more of a “How To Milk Customers” scheme to me.
