RSS
Who Can You Sue When It's Your Own Copy Protection That Hurt Your Reputation?
from the sue-everyone! dept
Video game maker Ubisoft has a rather long history of employing crappy DRM (and then even using someone else's code to crack their DRM when it caused problems for legitimate customers). However, this latest story involving a Ubisoft copy protection scheme may be the most bizarre. Chris Gruel writes in to let us know that Ubisoft is suing the CD duplicator firm it used to produce the video game Assassin's Creed, claiming that employees from that firm were responsible for the game leaking to the internet. It appears they have pretty good evidence that this did, in fact, happen (the leak was traced to an IP address controlled by an employee of the firm, and a copy of the game was found at that employee's home). So you can understand why they'd be upset about that (though, they had to realize that it would be pirated eventually).
However, here's where the story gets bizarre. Because Ubisoft was afraid that this might happen, the pre-release copy it sent to the CD duplicator included (on purpose!) a bug that would crash the game partway through. That was the copy that the employee leaked, so Ubisoft is complaining that this leak harmed their reputation, because people claimed the game was really buggy and crashed. Try to keep this straight in your mind here. Ubisoft put their own (crude, yes) DRM on the game because they were afraid it would leak. The game was leaked, and the DRM acted exactly as intended, and thus Ubisoft's reputation was harmed.
It makes you shake your head in wonder.
If Ubisoft had not included this DRM, then it would apparently have less to complain about. Thus, I think the only logical conclusion is that Ubisoft should be suing itself for including such damaging DRM on its own pre-release copies of Assassin's Creed.
However, here's where the story gets bizarre. Because Ubisoft was afraid that this might happen, the pre-release copy it sent to the CD duplicator included (on purpose!) a bug that would crash the game partway through. That was the copy that the employee leaked, so Ubisoft is complaining that this leak harmed their reputation, because people claimed the game was really buggy and crashed. Try to keep this straight in your mind here. Ubisoft put their own (crude, yes) DRM on the game because they were afraid it would leak. The game was leaked, and the DRM acted exactly as intended, and thus Ubisoft's reputation was harmed.
It makes you shake your head in wonder.
If Ubisoft had not included this DRM, then it would apparently have less to complain about. Thus, I think the only logical conclusion is that Ubisoft should be suing itself for including such damaging DRM on its own pre-release copies of Assassin's Creed.
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
Finding Co-Founders in a Recovering Economy
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
I’m looking for research...
Geography Of The App Economy
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Willtons WebSite ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I'm confused
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm confused
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm confused
Lesson here is that if you're a disc presser, don't deal with Ubisoft. You're going to get screwed.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm confused
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm confused
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'm confused
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm confused
It's like a key.
The idea is this, no one can play the entire
game until the patch is released. So in a
sense the CD is a demo version that can be
upgraded to the full version.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
There must be a better method of DRM on games
If there was anything in place to try to stop me from copying the disc, I would have not even bothered and bought the game instead.
I think the biggest issue comes with single-player only games or games that most people won't play online anyway. With multiplayer games, it's easy to prevent sharing because the cd key is sent to the servers, and the game devs can simply deny anyone access if a key is already in use. They can even completely revoke a key if they see it coming from many different ip addresses.
I don't know what the perfect solution is, but there must be something.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
The toughest method for most games would be one where you have to log into a master server and start hosting a games from in there. That way the hacker can't get into a game lobby to host or play.
When ever they come up with a protection for locally played games they seemed to get hacked. It will always be this way.
The security on consoles may push a lot of game developers to abandon most computer based games. Consoles are by no means immune to hacking but it is definately a lot more complicated for the average game player.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Willtons WebSite ?
Screw that!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ubisoft released buggy code to the OEM. The OEM promised to take security measures X, Y and Z so the buggy code wouldn't get released to the public. There will be an analogy at the bottom of this post. Anyway, the OEM failed to take measures Y and Z, which they were contracted to do. This resulted in the release of buggy code attributed to Ubisoft. As a consequence, Ubisoft is suing for damages caused by this breach of contract.
Analogy: You build a great mock-up of a car. The powered windows don't work and the transmission still hasn't been implemented, so it will only go in 3rd gear. Also: No brakes. Somebody steals (yes yes I know scarce goods contra etc.) this car from the person who promised to guard it for you, because the guard was sitting on his ass, reading Vanity Fair. The thief proceeds to lend this car to every car magazine in the world, then... returns it to you or something so you can fix it and release it "for real." The analogy falls apart because of the Scarce Goods theme, but really, that's an OK analogy. Whether I built a crappy car, or intentionally handicapped my car so a would-be thief couldn't use it, it's still the job of the guard to make sure it isn't stolen - that's what he's being paid for, and if he doesn't, I can sue for damages.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
Developers can easily protect their content by other means. Whether it's subscriptions and/or membership for online play, extra downloadable content that depends on validating a purchase or simply making a great game, they can get lots of sales.
The trick is not to make the games more difficult to install and play than the pirated version. The only way to do this is to not include DRM.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
"I'm not allowed to play some older games I can no longer find the manuals for, as I need to enter codes before I can play."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm lost in that analogy, and I can't get out!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The DRM model needs to change to -
People that use pirated software weren't going to buy it in the first place.
So .... take out the expense of installing and managing DRM and you're still ahead of the game. (pun)
If you must have DRM ... the only thing that comes close to working is an activation type scheme like Microsoft uses ... its not a %100 but it makes it too difficult for most people to attempt.
You can't stop real pirates.
This whole lawsuit article just points out what a bad decision DRM is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The DRM model needs to change to -
LOL Microsoft Activation, really what more is there to say.
Microsoft products are arguably the most pirated software on Earth.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Even then, hackers will always be one step ahead. DRM is ultimately pointless and only harms legit customers and the devs themselves.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
uh duh
I hope Ubisoft gets justice.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The DRM model needs to change to -
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
why bother
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: uh duh
The problem is that Ubisoft intentionally added a bug to the code in the version that was eventually leaked. The bug that was intentionally added is the very one that they claim is ruining their reputation.
So basically, the duplication firm is most certainly responsible for the leak. Ubisoft, however, is responsible for intentionally introducing the bug that supposedly tarnished their reputation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
WTF??
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If Ubisoft never intended for this version to be leaked, why did it include the bug?
If it didn't intend for the copy to get leaked, then don't include the bug and there's no problem.
Imagine if they (those who leaked the game) took the finished product, and put bugs into it and passed it around as the finished game. Wouldn't that hurt Ubisoft's reputation?
Yes, but that would actually be the other company's fault. In this case Ubisoft put the bug in.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Obviously . . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ubi could be right?
i mean lets say its a virus and you are a storage company. if i send it to you and say, don't let anyone take this but us and you relaase it into the population, its your fault...unless maybe i cheaped out and used bob's second hand storage place, then i hold some blame for picking such a crappy place.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Random crashes?
Isn't that better than getting a reputation for games that crash randomly?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Random crashes?
I think these "broken code" stories have way more to do with creating an impression in the marketplace that bootleg leg code is broken code, then anything else. As a way to track and protect code, it just doesnt make any sense.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There must be a better method of DRM on games
Yeah, buy the game you fucking pirate.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment