Thread: Ubisoft DRM

The DRMs aren't even meant to stop piracy. I started to drop that thought. This is the convenient excuse from publishers. The only explanation I can see for this absolute rubbish and complete disproportionate measures that hurt paying customers and never hurt pirates, is an intent to kill second-hand trade and possibly also move gamers to the console market. Publishers aren't concerned with piracy. Business has been great as always. The industry keeps steadily growing and is today the second largest entertainment industry in the world, second only to movies.

Hear hear!

If people pirate the game and you as a company allow them unfettered access to servers and in-game content then it is your design that is flawed for allowing that to happen. C'mon there has to be a way to make the retail purchased version more attractive than the stolen one. Surely all the gurus doing the games have enough smarts to figure this one out before allowing their industry to go kaput b/c of the mean evil pirates. Right now it looks like Pirates 1 Companies 0 and the companies are turning tail and running from the PC. Those that run here and now will not be prepared when it comes to their oh so precious console market.

Hear hear!

I refuse to buy DRM games, plain and simple.

The fact that I play games much less than I used to kind of makes it easier on me, but that is besides the point. I still play Civilization II

Having said that, there are a few games I am looking forward to, the primary one being Starcraft 2.

In agreement with what has been said about online activation of games, etc., I'll just bring out the example from Starcraft 2 itself, which has been said to not include LAN play. Hence...the LAN party is dead. You have no connection to the internet, but you do have a router, a group of people with computers, and a few copies of starcraft 2, want to play? Nope...sorry...can't do. No LAN play. Despite that inconvenience, at least it's not an intrusive DRM measure.

>> Seeing how popular sc1 was, and still is

Gosh, between SC1, the C&C series, Doom and Duke Nukem, I really can't tell which one I have played more on LAN. Heck! just 2 months ago, me and my 3 friends were happily revisiting Red Alert on one of our weekend sessions.

I do not plan to buy SC2 exactly because its lack of LAN. I said that much on Blizzard boards last year. It's going to be the first Blizzard game I don't buy since I purchased my first one (the lost Vikings in 1992). And I have the boxes to prove it! (Well, I didn't buy WoW either, but that's a very specific game and graphic MMOs never interested me).

Unfortunately, I suspect Diablo 3 will follow a similar approach. That is, lack of LAN support and an inferior single-players experience when compared to the multiplayer one. Which will also mean, if it becomes indeed true, I will stick to my guns and not buy the game I have been anticipating the most in recent years. Blizzard is in fact quickly becoming one of my least favorite studios due to their only-multiplayer-matters approach to their more recent games since more or less when they stated patching Diablo 2. They won't be seeing my money, if I have a saying about that. And I do.

Not to derail the thread too much, but looks like a server emulation project is already in the works:

Starcraft 2 BETA.RCE Multiplayer Emulation Project [TeamSC2 .RCE]

Blizzard is in fact quickly becoming one of my least favorite studios due to their only-multiplayer-matters approach

That's the whole reason I never got into Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament back in the day when those games were popular. Sure, LAN play is fun (hence I want the feature in Starcraft 2), but I despised the fact that single player wasn't even paid attention to. A good plot and storyline is essential to most games (I say most...because I think we'd agree that there are some games that don't need it...).

Having said that, I haven't received the impression that Blizzard is taking an "only-multiplayer-matters" approach. How have you received that impression? I've received quite the opposite impression as I've watched the Stracraft 2 development coming along. They seem to really be focusing on the story quite a lot, which I find exciting, so I can't wait for the game. Although the lack of LAN play is a glaring mistake that I believe they have made, I don't see it as a reason (at least for me) to not buy the game - especially seeing the effort they have put into the single player campaign.

Are you receiving different impressions from the Diablo 3 development?

The issue is not so evident in Starcraft 2... yet. Being an RTS, one can expect a single-player campaign and being Blizzard, one can expect it to be solid. The issue with SC2 is indeed to do with lack of LAN which basically reduces mine and my friends interest as we will never trade our monthly LAN parties over having everyone at their respective houses.

The Diablo franchise however, introduce in Diablo 2 a strong concern regarding single-player gaming experience. Blizzard started introducing new content exclusively for multiplayers with their patches. Right now there is a patch in the works for Diablo 2. Patch 1.13, which is actually becoming vaporware, so late it is, had already a beta version which revealed none of the single-player requests for this content to be moved to SP were heard. SPers have to resort to community-made hacks in order to get this content brought to them. We lack runewords, we lack items, we lack global events. And the hacks prove these things can easily be added to the game without removing (quite on the contrary) any of the fun or balance out of SP.

The community of Diablo 2 SPers is actually sizable as one can see on many of the Diablo 2 fan forums. We aren't just loud as the bunch populating their official forums. Who are, by nature of their presence there, almost exclusively multiplayers.

So, there is really nothing that makes me believe Diablo 3 will be any different. And SC2 may suffer the same fate as multiplayer only content is feasible. But on the particular case of SC2 the LAN play alone is the determining factor for me. Note that my only interest in a RTS is my ability to play with my friends. I could certainly enjoy the SP campaign. But there's only so much of fun in that. I tend to milk my games, playing them sometimes for years.

Originally Posted by DavidP

That's the whole reason I never got into Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament back in the day when those games were popular. Sure, LAN play is fun (hence I want the feature in Starcraft 2), but I despised the fact that single player wasn't even paid attention to.

I disagree: Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament. These were intended for purely competitive multiplay. Try Quake 2, or Doom for SP; I applaud Id's and Epic's uncompromising focus on a multplay experience. Q3A and UT2k made for many the epic LAN.

Originally Posted by @nthony

I disagree: Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament. These were intended for purely competitive multiplay. Try Quake 2, or Doom for SP; I applaud Id's and Epic's uncompromising focus on a multplay experience. Q3A and UT2k made for many the epic LAN.

Quake 3 = Quake III Arena. There was no other Quake 3. And also, I specified Unreal Tournament.

I never said providing an epic LAN experience was bad, but these games failed in my book because they didn't provide a single player option. I am the type of player who likes to play single player most of the time, and then when I am in the mood I'll go online and participate in some LAN/multiplayer play, but I don't want to be forced to only do multiplayer play, and these games forced that upon you. Hence I didn't buy them. I had no interest in them.

It's the same with me. Despite enjoying playing with my friends over LAN, there is no way I would ever buy a game meant exclusively for multiplayer. So I never touched those games and my friends didn't either. To me games better offer a SP experience, and it better be a good one, or no dice.

There's however one exception that actually made me do a purchase very recently, I wouldn't normally do. I'm a sucker for strategy games. Especially for board-like strategy games. And when they also offer LAN or PBEM play, I'm usually sold. Now, recently Solium Infernum came to my attention. It's a brilliant game by an indie studio. The possibilities in terms of gameplay are nearly endless. When I downloaded the demo to try it out, I learned the AI for SP play was entirely broken. And yet, it didn't take me much to realize how fun this game would be to play with my mates. I bought it and am convincing the others to buy it too. Yet, there's probably no way this game will ever be as good in SP as it is in MP.

Originally Posted by DavidP

Quake 3 = Quake III Arena. There was no other Quake 3. And also, I specified Unreal Tournament.
I never said providing an epic LAN experience was bad, but these games failed in my book because they didn't provide a single player option.

The bolded titles were to signify their focus on tournament play. It would be like saying "EVE Online failed because it had no offline component", or that "Starcraft failed because it had no FPS component"
Granted, I understand you were looking for a good SP experience, but I don't think it's fair to say that they "failed" or could be "despised" for not having one since it was never their intended focus.