-

report

report

copy paste this to Start\command promt* (for ubi servers)

report

report

report

A new group devoted to stopping this type of drm.

as its catching on (see C&C 4 by EA), better dealt with sooner rather than later!!

report

First and foremost, we apologize for inconvenience to the players who bought the game and now cannot play. Please understand that we would prefer not to impact you negatively if we had the choice. In fact, many of us have a licensed version and also cannot play the game during DDOS. However, Ubisoft designed the DRM in a way that holds their customers hostage. Reasons for that will be explained further. The simple truth is that if we don’t stop this DRM system now, it will become accepted for most PC games by ALL major publishers. For the sake of the future of PC gaming and consumer rights PLEASE TAKE A STAND WITH US.

What are we trying to achieve

We are trying to get Ubisoft to remove their DRM or at the very least to implement an offline mode. In the bigger scheme of things, we are trying to prevent this form of DRM from taking over the PC gaming market.

Why Ubisoft has done this

People who think that this is about preventing piracy of a specific game are missing the BIGGER PICTURE. Ubisoft is testing a new platform for game delivery (think: Steam). This is NOT about piracy, as much as it is about maximizing revenue. If your game is tied to your online account, you are no longer in possession of the game. The game cannot be resold. It cannot be given as a gift. You cannot buy a game from a different platform (think: Half-Life 2). You cannot lend it to a friend. If you can only play the game while online, Ubisoft is in complete control of how and when you use the game you bought. In the future, it enables them to implement whatever pricing structures they feel like. They can even charge you per save if they want to.

What Ubisoft could have done differently

If Ubisoft had more concern about you – their customers, they would have implemented fall-back mechanisms. For example, forcing online saving and pausing the game when the connection is lost was unnecessary. IT DOES NOT MAKE THE GAME EASIER TO CRACK. Instead, the game could easily pause at the next checkpoint. However, it was not their objective to create a worthwhile gaming experience. Their objective was to BETA-TEST THE MOST RESTRICTIVE FORM OF DRM POSSIBLE to see how easily users will adopt it. Unfortunately, without this protest, they will be successful.

If Ubisoft wins, you can expect this form of DRM to become standard in the PC gaming industry.

-webxakep.net
http://webxakep.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6067

report

It’s okay for a third party provider to continually protect you against threats, but not the same one that actually knows about and made the OS you are being threatened on?
Ooooooooookay…

Also, view it like this – you are on a platform. Even if it is perceived as secure right now, smart people will find ways to create exploits, even on the best, most perfect open source OS.
This is the counterparty actively developing malware against YOU.
It is irrelevant whether it is a trojan programmer that abuses the fact that most people (not MS, people) use admin priviledges, or an exploit programmer that abuses a bad handling of buffers.
Both write a program that benefits them over you and outsmarts the status quo.

You say you are fine paying party X for a post-effect protection(virus scans are always AFTER the fact, even if realtime protection is on the virus already has to be ON your system), but you are unwilling to pay for updated protection to PREVENT you from even getting a risk onto your system(patching holes for exploits to work with)?

How turned upside down IS your reasoning, dear sir.

Also putting aside the fact that you will apply the same reason for lease and pay to one party – ongoing development costs – but not the other.
All you are effectively saying is that you DEMAND that the people YOU CHOOSE must be capable of writing several hundreds of thousands of lines of code so that they can never in any way be exploited, because you feel it is unfair for you to pay them for ongoing development after a one-shot release.

Do you have even the faintest idea how ludicrous your demands are?

So, to summarize: you have chosen to have an opinion and personalized preference, discriminating arbitrarily, rather than based on factual reality and reason.

Just thought I might point that out.

report

report

report

Ubisoft just don’t give a shit, all they care about it money. Its about keeping the board of directors happy. This is all it comes down to, what a crying shame. I really can’t wait to see the outcome of all this, it’s the most captivating gaming story for a long while…

report

report