4 ms·

Even if it is a DDOS, the hackers are doing us a favor by reminding us how much DRM harms us as consumers. Let's hope Ubisoft does the right thing, owns up to

Even if it is a DDOS, the hackers are doing us a favor by reminding us how much DRM harms us as consumers. Let's hope Ubisoft does the right thing, owns up to their epic failure, and patches all DRM out of their games.

eli 17y ago
I don't think you'd feel that way if you were one of the people unable to play your fancy new game.
- shpxnvz 17y ago
  Maybe, but it's hard to feel sorry for anyone who knowingly bought into the deal. I will, on very rare occasions, purchase DRM'd products, but when I do I know full well it's my own darn fault if I end up losing access to them.
  - Psyonic 17y ago
    Not everyone researches the DRM in their games before purchasing. Some people just buy the box at Best Buy. Seems unfair to expect everyone to know these things ahead of time... shouldn't you be able to just buy a box at Best Buy, and rightly expect to play what you paid for?
    - shpxnvz 17y ago
      Hence the "knowingly bought" qualifier. I sure agree that you ought to be able to expect your fair use when you drop your cash, but unfortunately the days are long since past when that's been the case for anything content related.
      - Psyonic 17y ago
        Ya that is true, ff they know what they're getting themselves into, I don't feel bad for them. If I had to guess, though, I'd say that the majority probably don't.
viraptor 17y ago
Unfortunately, they're likely to simply deploy even bigger cluster of authentication servers and add the cost to the next game. Then it will fall down again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Yeah, think of all the meetings they had to design this feature. They can't let those go to waste; better to have another meeting to decide how to beef up the network. I love all the blog posts that say "don't hire good programmers because they will waste time programming something fun instead of doing work," but of course, in the real world, "doing work" is the much bigger productivity sink. Imagine how much better the game would be if all the resources on the anti-piracy team were programming the actual game instead. Maybe more people would be willing to pony up $60 for the game if it was better.
donaq 17y ago
Ok, I'm against DRM too, but no, if this is a DDoS, the hackers are not doing anyone favours, because what's harming the consumers in this case isn't the DRM, it's the DDoS.
- cryptoz 17y ago
  That's some twisted logic. The DRM is indeed what's harming the consumers. It doesn't matter who or what took down the servers: what matters is that Ubisoft's DRM won't let users play the game. If that DRM didn't exist, all the anti-Ubisoft hate in the world couldn't stop consumers from playing the game! Ubisoft's DRM is what's hurting the customers. The DDoS (if that is actually what's happening) is just a side-effect, and probably an inevitable side-effect of DRM.
  - donaq 17y ago
    It doesn't matter who or what took down the servers Sure it does. Just like it matters and should affect our responses whether a building was destroyed by earthquake or some dude who sets off a bomb under the building to prove that it couldn't survive an earthquake. Intention, while not everything, matters a hell of a lot. Illegal and malicious actions like these don't serve to punish the companies who use DRM, they just give them a scapegoat to blame. If, like me, you're against DRM, vote with your dollars and stay the hell away from companies who use DRM in their products.
    - three14 17y ago
      There's a big difference between the earthquake case, where it's really unlikely that there's a dude who will actually set off a bomb, and here, where it's guaranteed that over the whole internet, there's at least one dude who is going to DDoS you. The fact that someone in particular actually sets it off and is therefore morally responsible for disconnecting all those users doesn't remove any blame from Ubisoft, who was releasing into the real world where the DDoS was guaranteed.
    - cookiecaper 17y ago
      It actually doesn't matter how the building was brought down for the people who are in it -- what matters is that the building is down and they can't get to work/get out of the rubble. We have this benchmark of "reasonable expectations" for designers of things. Sure, you could whittle endless years away contemplating and preparing for every conceivable eventuality, but we don't expect that of people because that's crazy. However, we do install security in buildings because we know from experience that every once in a while you'll get a loon trying to blow the building up with a truckbomb or trying to shoot up the lobby. Security isn't perfect, but they perform reasonably in most situations. We ask our architects to consider disaster resistance in building design because we know that it's plausible that the area may one day be affected by earthquake or some other calamity. If either security or architects and engineers are found to be negligent of their duties to provide reasonable protections against violent crazy people and/or natural disaster, they are ostracized as seen fit by society. While they didn't cause the earthquake or the explosion, they knew, or should have known, that an earthquake or a violent assault might occur in the building they had designed and/or were assigned to protect. If they were found to have prepared adequately and still failed, they are generally "let off the hook". Now, in the case of a highly unpopular, highly publicized DRM scheme, do you think it's reasonable to assume that some out there might be interested in negatively affecting its operation such that people don't buy your game? A lot of people want to gob up the debut. I would say that it is reasonable, and that Ubisoft doesn't get any kind of pass for inability to ward off a DDoS in such a case. Ubisoft is a big multinational company, publicly traded, with a lot of money. There's no good excuse to let their servers die from either DDoS, non-malicious overload (effectual DDoS), or other standard calamity.

eli 17y ago

I don't think you'd feel that way if you were one of the people unable to play your fancy new game.

shpxnvz 17y ago
Maybe, but it's hard to feel sorry for anyone who knowingly bought into the deal. I will, on very rare occasions, purchase DRM'd products, but when I do I know full well it's my own darn fault if I end up losing access to them.
- Psyonic 17y ago
  Not everyone researches the DRM in their games before purchasing. Some people just buy the box at Best Buy. Seems unfair to expect everyone to know these things ahead of time... shouldn't you be able to just buy a box at Best Buy, and rightly expect to play what you paid for?
  - shpxnvz 17y ago
    Hence the "knowingly bought" qualifier. I sure agree that you ought to be able to expect your fair use when you drop your cash, but unfortunately the days are long since past when that's been the case for anything content related.
    - Psyonic 17y ago
      Ya that is true, ff they know what they're getting themselves into, I don't feel bad for them. If I had to guess, though, I'd say that the majority probably don't.

viraptor 17y ago

Unfortunately, they're likely to simply deploy even bigger cluster of authentication servers and add the cost to the next game. Then it will fall down again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

jrockway 17y ago
Yeah, think of all the meetings they had to design this feature. They can't let those go to waste; better to have another meeting to decide how to beef up the network. I love all the blog posts that say "don't hire good programmers because they will waste time programming something fun instead of doing work," but of course, in the real world, "doing work" is the much bigger productivity sink. Imagine how much better the game would be if all the resources on the anti-piracy team were programming the actual game instead. Maybe more people would be willing to pony up $60 for the game if it was better.

donaq 17y ago

Ok, I'm against DRM too, but no, if this is a DDoS, the hackers are not doing anyone favours, because what's harming the consumers in this case isn't the DRM, it's the DDoS.

cryptoz 17y ago
That's some twisted logic. The DRM is indeed what's harming the consumers. It doesn't matter who or what took down the servers: what matters is that Ubisoft's DRM won't let users play the game. If that DRM didn't exist, all the anti-Ubisoft hate in the world couldn't stop consumers from playing the game! Ubisoft's DRM is what's hurting the customers. The DDoS (if that is actually what's happening) is just a side-effect, and probably an inevitable side-effect of DRM.
- donaq 17y ago
  It doesn't matter who or what took down the servers Sure it does. Just like it matters and should affect our responses whether a building was destroyed by earthquake or some dude who sets off a bomb under the building to prove that it couldn't survive an earthquake. Intention, while not everything, matters a hell of a lot. Illegal and malicious actions like these don't serve to punish the companies who use DRM, they just give them a scapegoat to blame. If, like me, you're against DRM, vote with your dollars and stay the hell away from companies who use DRM in their products.
  - three14 17y ago
    There's a big difference between the earthquake case, where it's really unlikely that there's a dude who will actually set off a bomb, and here, where it's guaranteed that over the whole internet, there's at least one dude who is going to DDoS you. The fact that someone in particular actually sets it off and is therefore morally responsible for disconnecting all those users doesn't remove any blame from Ubisoft, who was releasing into the real world where the DDoS was guaranteed.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    It actually doesn't matter how the building was brought down for the people who are in it -- what matters is that the building is down and they can't get to work/get out of the rubble. We have this benchmark of "reasonable expectations" for designers of things. Sure, you could whittle endless years away contemplating and preparing for every conceivable eventuality, but we don't expect that of people because that's crazy. However, we do install security in buildings because we know from experience that every once in a while you'll get a loon trying to blow the building up with a truckbomb or trying to shoot up the lobby. Security isn't perfect, but they perform reasonably in most situations. We ask our architects to consider disaster resistance in building design because we know that it's plausible that the area may one day be affected by earthquake or some other calamity. If either security or architects and engineers are found to be negligent of their duties to provide reasonable protections against violent crazy people and/or natural disaster, they are ostracized as seen fit by society. While they didn't cause the earthquake or the explosion, they knew, or should have known, that an earthquake or a violent assault might occur in the building they had designed and/or were assigned to protect. If they were found to have prepared adequately and still failed, they are generally "let off the hook". Now, in the case of a highly unpopular, highly publicized DRM scheme, do you think it's reasonable to assume that some out there might be interested in negatively affecting its operation such that people don't buy your game? A lot of people want to gob up the debut. I would say that it is reasonable, and that Ubisoft doesn't get any kind of pass for inability to ward off a DDoS in such a case. Ubisoft is a big multinational company, publicly traded, with a lot of money. There's no good excuse to let their servers die from either DDoS, non-malicious overload (effectual DDoS), or other standard calamity.