Assassins Creed Origin DRM Hammers Gamers’ CPUs

[Princess Luna]

Will it make my i7 6700 cry?

[Ekst4zy]

4 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

Would it be ok to take a smart phone without paying? How about a car? Probably not because it's "wrong", where in actuality it's just plain harder to STEAL these items. Online piracy is wrong no matter how you try to justify it.  It's just easier to STEAL digital content such as music, games, and software than it is to STEAL physical items from physical people.

 

It's easier to hide behind the safety of your computer screen and glorify how piracy helps those who may not have money to buy things.

 

Oh, the poor teenager. Hard, his life his.

Stop with the constant comparison. Not everyone in the US lives in a mansion and drives a Bentley. Not everyone in the US has money. And guess what, we were born here. Had no choice in the matter really. So chastising people because of where they were born.

 

I can try to understand and sympathize ( although I'm a privileged working American, so I couldn't possibly understand your struggles), but no matter how you try to explain it, stealing is stealing. Physical, digital, intellectual, or otherwise

 

I cannot stop you from stealing online digital content. Good in Ubisoft for trying. Their attempts to stop illegal distribution of their software doesn't make then the bad guy.

 

You still feel justified in your piracy activities. Good for you. If you are going to respond to me and tell me more about how it's ok for people who may not be able to afford... Then you better be able to justify stealing of physical content as well, because it's the same damn concept.

I never once said that I support / pirate. I'm pretty sure I even said that I only buy games when they are worth / cheap,  but not pirating them. 

 

Also, you might not have a Bentley... Sure, but opportunities are everything. 

I get it, it's hard to understand a feeling of having a masters degree and getting a salary lower than a garbage guy in US (nothing against the profession, job is a job). 

 

Interesting that you bring "I was born that way" argument. US is fucking cancer when it comes to people who are not native speakers. I get do much hate for my accent it's ridiculous. 

 

Peace. 

[mynameisjuan]

16 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Wrong. Real loss did not happen

Umm....lost profit happened. 

 

Now whether or not the person that stole the software would or could have paid for the software, that is lost profit or potential profit. Physical vs software goods should not be an argument. A person is spending time and effort to create this product that has a charge associated with it and if you copy it without paying what everyone else is entitled to than that is still theft. 

[jagdtigger]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

Umm....lost imaginary profit happened.

Fixed it for you...

[MageTank]

Just now, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

Wrong. Real loss did not happen, this is what you don't understand. I'm not saying it isn't theft, cause it is. But not the terms that you're still stuck on.

There's a huge difference between physical and digital.

Let's say Bob the builder has a company that makes chairs. Someone breaks in his company and steals three chairs for example. That's theft. Now Bob the builder will have to spend money and time to build three new chairs to make for the loss that he sustained.

 

Now let's also that Bob the builder has another company that makes photo editing software. Someone decides to steal three copies of that software. That's still theft by the way. Now here's the part that you can't grasp. Bob the builder doesn't have to go and spend money and time in order to make three new software in order to make for the loss that he sustained. Cause the product has already been made and can be copied almost infinitely.

On Bob's side theft occurred, maybe a potential buyer was lost, maybe not since we don't know if the person who did it had any intention of buying the product in the first place. But he didn't sustain any loss that would make him have to spend more money and time to recuperate.

 

Now does that mean I agree with piracy? No. But if that's what you think then that's your problem of not understanding things.

 

 

I understand this part is hard to grasp, but i'll try to explain it as simple as I can.

 

When you launch a product, any product (be it physical or digital), you tend to have "projected sales" to determine whether or not you will profit off said product. They tend to set projected sales based on a number of things, but the most important one, is the amount of sales required to break even/profit off of a product. If you spent money creating a product, and everyone decided to pirate it because they cannot afford the product, then it impacts their ability to reach that projected sales value. If they do not hit it, that becomes a loss in revenue. 

 

Now, as I said earlier, I will not argue the exact statistics of piracy, because I firmly believe such statistics do not exist. You cannot prove a pirates intent to buy, nor can you extrapolate the exact number of copies made without having access to every possible download server to get exact numbers for downloads. My entire point, in the most simplistic terms, is that one does not have the legal or moral right to pirate something, simply because they cannot afford to obtain it legitimately. If everyone operated under that exact same principle, companies would not profit off of their digital goods/services. They would go under, their employees would be terminated, their livelihoods impacted because of the nonsensical entitlement of others. 

 

Again, I do not care if someone wishes to pirate something. It's their choice to make, and I don't judge people for going that route. My only problem stems from the defense of piracy, that it's okay for some people to do it, and not others, simply because some people have it rough in life. That's a slippery slope and you know it. 

11 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

As someone from a much poorer country than US I stand behind everything he said. Gaming is a luxury and that's it. Not everyone is privileged to it, and that is the harsh reality. I don't like that either but it is all luxury. 

I haven't played a shit ton of games because I couldn't run them on my old pc. I waited literally years to be able to play them, and even on new PC I buy them. I wait for sales. I didn't want to pirate RoTR or DE: MD, I waited almost a year (or more, can't remember) for them to be on sale and bought both of them. Sure, they costed me $20 total but I still bought them. Why did I wait? Because I can't pay full price for every single one of them due to small things called "life experience". I buy some games for full price, but I still buy all games. Want to play a game? Wait a year or two until they are cheaper and then buy them. You won't die. No one died from not playing games. If everyone pirated there would be no gaming industry. If you can't afford $10 games how the hell did you even get a PC that's able to run them. At some point in your life when you start working you get a certain perspective that lets you appreciate the amount of time people put in their work.

Piracy has some benefits, as Neil Gaiman mentioned in an interview, but people are being really creative to justify pirating games.

As a man that finally landed an amazing job with great pay, I still don't spend my money on video games. As a kid, it was easy for me to think that once I was able to afford the games and candy I wanted, I would do it without question. However, as an adult, I understood quickly how wrong I was as a kid. Even now that I can afford to buy games, I feel it's irresponsible to waste my money on a video game, when I could be putting it back for future hardships. This thinking came in handy when the brake lines went out of my truck, and when I needed emergency surgery that was not entirely covered by my insurance (USA privilege).

 

I am sure many of us would love to be able to spend our money on entertainment, and it's especially more enticing when you can actually afford to do so, but self discipline is required to stop yourself from making a terrible decision and regretting it in the future. That's not to say I don't buy games or frivolous items, because I clearly do, I just tend to wait until they go on sale (Humble Bundle, GOG, etc) so that I can still maintain a decent safety net. 

25 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

At some point in your life when you start working you get a certain perspective that lets you appreciate the amount of time people put in their work.

This is by far my favorite part of your post, because it's very true. It's also true on an entirely different level. I remember when I worked mundane physical labor, how I used to mock "desk jockeys" for not having a "real job", but after landing one myself, and experiencing the constant headaches associated with that kind of labor, I learned to finally respect their kind of work. That might be why I have this disdain for the defending of piracy. Perhaps I see piracy as disrespect towards the hard work that people put into creating the product, and seeing others act as if they are entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. 

 

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

 for you...

Fixed that for you. 

 

All jokes and discussions aside, time for me to go to work. I'll be back in several hours, so hold off on the spam until I get home, lol. 

[paddy-stone]

Damn, how many more times must it be said, Theft/Stealing are defined as depriving someone of something... stop saying theft/stealing regardless of how you feel about it, it is not depriving someone by making a copy. Technically it is breaking copyright or copyright theft of the owners IP, secondary to that is breaking of encryption... which I bet most people on this site are guilty of, including the people that are trying to appear morally superior by saying it is "stealing" to engage in downloading of pirated material.

I can see both sides of this argument, but hate how people are trying to feel superior by saying about others pirating... but I bet that they have engaged in other "criminal" activities during their lives, unless they never consumed alcohol under age, engaged in sex under age, smoked dope, or engaged in other recreational drugs, broke the speed limits etc? Get off your high horses!

I'm not saying it's OK to engage on piracy, but unless you have walked in someone else's shoes you shouldn't judge them for it.

 

What about people that steal food to stop starvation of themselves and their families, maybe because they couldn't find jobs and would literally starve to death if they didn't steal a loaf of bread or something? - would you still condemn them for stealing to keep themselves/their families alive?  there is not always another alternative for some people and they do what they have to to survive.

I know that's not the case with piracy, but maybe they want to try the goods before they buy... maybe they have other reasons, but unless you have NEVER broken a law, then you shouldn't Vilify them.

[Thaldor]

After reading some Steam reviews and community posts I think Ubisoft just messed up a big time using VMProtect, tool that smells like huge pile of problems after reading through their website. That thing is some real shit at least with my quite light knowledge about virtualization.

 

VMProtect in it's full is way more than just a virtualization protection, it's also a sniffer protection. It can detect if the program is run in virtual machines, which means it digs way deep into the OS and not only there but into the HW also. Debugger detection, just dig into the OS and see what it's doing. Everything else is more or less just "normal" stuff that you can make into any game with some knowledge.

 

What I fear is the main part to think about VMProtect for Ubisoft (because they are asshats) is the serial number part of VMProtects features. Online serial number management, time limited serial numbers, serial numbers with limited time upgrades (updates), locking serial number to hardware and locking the whole code behind serial number.

 

Oh boy, what possibilities lie behind those features.

-"Want to keep your game updated, now only $XX /month!"

-"Want to free some space and uninstall the game? Too bad, to reinstall, buy a new copy"

-"We see you wanted to mod our game. Here's a black listing of your serial so you cannot play the game ever again. We also banned your hardware, so go and buy a new PC to play our next Ass is Greed -game"

-"You upgraded your GPU, no problem, just buy a new copy of our game"

 

The pontential behind VMProtect for asshats like EA and Ubisoft is frightening. Same kind of shit as Microsoft was pulling out with Batman games few years back with limited activations, just on a whole new level of asshattery. And I don't even think a second that Ubisoft wouldn't have been thinking going to far more than just protect their game from pirates, at least when on VMProtects site there's straight encourage for monthly fee updates:

Quote

The limitation of free upgrades

This feature allows to limit a customer by, for example, a year of free upgrades. If the customer install a build released later, his serial number will be rejected. A really good method of encouraging customers to buy paid support service.

 

[tinfoilhat] Considering the most of the game developers make their profit through games that have hardly any DRM (no-DRM / Steam-DRM) this level of protection must have way better reasons to exist than just keep the pirates away. Maybe over the software side there's some minor demand for this level of protection just because of company secrets, but on something that is sold to customers, way overshooting because there's probably no software developer that would want 20-30% increase in performance demand for their software just because pirates. Only reason, IMO, why someone would put that level of protection and increase of performance demand on something that is sold to masses is because the possibilities of the extended features. Without those extended features, there's simply no reason, at least in the perspective that everything gets cracked and it's only a question about when, other than testing it out how people take that increased performance demand.[/tinfoilhat]

[mynameisjuan]

15 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Fixed it for you...

If the software was unable to be copied for some reason or another, you cannot determine whether or not the person would of or would not of paid for it. Its potential  profit loss.

 

Saying its imaginary is just ignorant. People are willing to pay but some are just tempted when its being waved for free in front of your face.

[apm]

17 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Umm....lost profit happened. 

no it didnt.  

a download != a lost sale

theres 0 evidence that piracy hurts the industry.

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, apm said:

no it didnt.  

a download != a lost sale

theres 0 evidence that piracy hurts the industry.

How about look at the comment directly above yours. 

[XenosTech]

15 hours ago, MageTank said:

 Silkroad Online

Jesus T Christ... You had this struggle game too ?

 

On topic: I only pirated games to see if I liked it before I bought it. Heck I pirated TL and TL 2 because I got addicted to playing them after steam had a free weekend for them and then I bought them a short while after.

 

I'll probably never stop pirating games, if I like the game enough I'll buy but not gonna pay full price for a game then I can't refund it because I played it for more than 2 hours.

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

If the software was unable to be copied for some reason or another, you cannot determine whether or not the person would of or would not of paid for it. Its potential  profit loss.

 

Saying its imaginary is just ignorant. People are willing to pay but some are just tempted when its being waved for free in front of your face.

Or more like realistic. That profit never existed and nothing proves that it could exist. Hence its imaginary...

[MyName13]

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

 

Try  how the world works. Yeah, MageTank is evil for saying poor people are not entitled to video games, I'll own up to that. When video games becomes a requirement to sustain human life, I'll be sure to change my stance on that subject. 

I'm pretty sure I said "educational materials" not "entertainment is educational materials".You obviously don't understand that there are people who have much more important things to pay, you can have free educational materials or entertainment, but you can't have free tuition, food, bills, rent...Of course, why would anyone need entertainment, just lock yourself in a room and maintain your mental health, right?It's incredible how people feel more sorry for big companies than for other people.Divide and conquer...nations, races, classes, brands...no wonder why we are in such horrible situation.

[apm]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

How about look at the comment directly above yours. 

how about you provide facts?

a download wouldnt translate into a sale, thats a fact.

a fact is also that many people will wait for a crack or until ubisoft fixed the game.

 

pirates always win.

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

 nothing proves that it could exist

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing prove that it could exist....you mean like the millions of other people who actually pay for their shit? No those dont count obviously. 

[mynameisjuan]

3 minutes ago, apm said:

how about you provide facts?

a download wouldnt translate into a sale, thats a fact.

a fact is also that many people will wait for a crack or until ubisoft fixed the game.

 

pirates always win.

How about you look at the definition of potential. I mean if you would of read the comment it explained everything. 

 

I guess it goes over people heads when say this kid is on steam, added a game to his cart then his friend messages him saying hey look I found it for free. Kid empties cart, pirates game and boom. Lost sale. Kid was willing to pay. 

 

Cant prove how often this happens so there is nothing to show how much lost sales pirating is having on the companies. Thats why its a potential loss. Saying its imaginary or since its not factual evidence is just fucking retarded. 

[Bouzoo]

26 minutes ago, MageTank said:

This is by far my favorite part of your post, because it's very true. It's also true on an entirely different level. I remember when I worked mundane physical labor, how I used to mock "desk jockeys" for not having a "real job", but after landing one myself, and experiencing the constant headaches associated with that kind of labor, I learned to finally respect their kind of work. That might be why I have this disdain for the defending of piracy. Perhaps I see piracy as disrespect towards the hard work that people put into creating the product, and seeing others act as if they are entitled to the fruits of their labor for free. 

I reckon that's the reason why I buy games. Even the ones I played many, many years ago, I buy them to have originals to support the devs. Few $ may be nothing to them, but it's more of showing then their games do matter. 

[apm]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

How about you look at the definition of potential. I mean if you would of read the comment it explained everything. 

 

I guess it goes over people heads when say this kid is on steam, added a game to his cart then his friend messages him saying hey look I found it for free. Kid empties cart, pirates game and boom. Lost sale. Kid was willing to pay. 

 

Cant prove how often this happens so there is nothing to show how much lost sales pirating is having on the companies. Thats why its a potential loss. Saying its imaginary or since its not factual evidence is just fucking retarded. 

and that happens millions of times obviously.

ubisoft lost millions of potential sales because all these poor african kids just cant afford the game.

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

Real loss did happen. They spent money creating a product that someone obtained for free, even though they still wanted to consume the product. That is a net loss. If everyone adhered to your fairy tale logic, companies would go under because nobody would buy the goods. Anyone in the world can claim they have hardships that make it morally okay for them to pirate, but it's all nonsense. Entertainment is a want, not a need. Nobody is entitled to the goods/services of a company for free just because they lack the means to pay. This is not a human right that we are talking about.

A) I think you need to look up the definition of loss, because that "loss" that you mentioned is not a loss due to the pirate, but rather a loss due to the investment of creation. That pirate does not increase the amount of money needed to make the title. That pirate does not increase the amount of time needed to make that title. That pirate does not increase the cost of support or distribution since they need neither of those things.

 

The only thing "lost" due to the pirate is potential which, as already discussed, doesn't exist in the first place unless the pirate would otherwise buy the product. And as numerous studies on the matters have shown now, this is rarely the case. I.e the people who would buy a product if they couldn't pirate it, usually buy the product even if they can pirate it. There is an insignificant loss in potential.

 

On the other hand, once you start talking potential you enter the realm of increases to the potential of sale, which word of mouth contributes to. This is similar to the idea of let's plays, which similarly fall into the category of technically being copyright infringement.

 

B) Entertainment most definitely is a need, not a want... You can argue that the type of entertainment is a want, but entertainment itself is most definitely a need as it's a necessity for positive mental health.

 

C) You're right. We're not arguing that. Just like someone who's starving doesn't have the right to steal bread, or someone who's cold doesn't have the right to break into your garage to stay warm. But that doesn't change that people in these situations have a justification for doing it, regardless of your view of that justification, and it most certainly doesn't change the fact that people in those situations may not feel they have any other choice.

 

2 hours ago, MageTank said:

When did I say companies charge people for theft? My entire point is relatively simple. If you want to consume a good offered by a company, but do not want to pay, and take it for free, then you took a potential profit/sale from that company. If you did not intend to buy it ever, and took it anyways, that's still thievery in my book, regardless of whether or not it's physical or digital. Last I checked, thievery is defined as "the act of stealing another person's property". Digital goods are still property. 

 

As I stated above, if everyone followed your logic, companies would go under because literally everyone would steal their goods for free, and claim moral high-ground for doing so because of hardships. 

 

Call me privileged all you want, but it changes absolutely nothing. I go to work every day for the things I want. Because I work hard, it means I am automatically obligated to pay when others are not? That's nonsense and you know it. Also, how exactly is me working hard a sense of entitlement? I am not entitled to the job I have, the education I have, or the things I purchase in this world. I take none of it for granted, because I work hard for all of it. Are you simply assuming I am entitled and in a privileged position without really knowing what I did to get here? 

 

Try your best to justify this "victimless" crime, it's still a crime nonetheless. 

When did I judge others? Was it when I said entertainment is not a human right? Or where I said part of being an adult means discerning between wants and needs? Both statements are true, regardless of where you live. Also, how do you people automatically know about the experiences I've had, based on a few forum posts?

A) My apologies, that was my mistake. It was @mynameisjuan not you who talked about people thrown in jail for stealing. That, however, doesn't change the fact that you repeatedly called it stealing. Which it is not. It is copyright infringement.

 

B) As has been repeated multiple times, you're only taking a potential sale from the company if the potential for a sale had been there in the first place prior to the piracy. Otherwise there's no change. And a number of studies now have indicated that this is rarely the case. That a significant majority of cases of piracy are from individuals who would not have otherwise bought the product.

 

C) Yes, but you're not taking the property of another person with piracy. You're making a copy. You're violating their copyright in the process and infringing upon the license of their product but at no time do you take their property. Because 1) "Property" is, by definition, a physical belonging and 2) Even if the data was property, you never take the data but rather replicate it.

 

Again, it's more akin to going into someone's house and painting an unauthorized copy of an art piece hanging on their wall, than it is to stealing a car.

 

D) Have you read absolutely no studies on the sociology of piracy or on economic psychology? The *vast* majority of these individuals commiting acts of piracy would not otherwise purchase the product if they couldn't pirate it, and among individuals who pirate, they will often stop pirating when a service that appeals to them becomes available, even if it is equally, or in some cases even less, convenient than pirating.

 

You'd never reach that saturation of people "stealing" because compliance with the economic system is their natural resting state, and as goods come out that appeal to the consumers at prices reasonable enough to inspire purchase without piracy, the individuals will, in most cases revert from piracy to compliance with the economic system.

 

E) When did I ever say that they're not obliged to pay? I said they don't pay. I said that there's a reason for them not paying and that you should understand it. That there's deeper psychology to the matter than just them being "entitled" snobs, and that the opportunity that people have comes into play in things like this. I was saying that your dismissive attitude of the matter is as snobbish as the "entitled" individuals you speak of.

 

F) I never said it's not a crime. In fact I've said multiple times it's copyright infringement. I said it's not theft. Because it's not.

 

Entertainment may not be a basic human right but it absolutely should be something we push for a social baseline in. The amount of stress and anxiety that individuals have in society today is exponentially higher than even 50 years ago, and it doesn't show any sign of slowing down. Setting a basic baseline quality of life for all people with regards to entertainment media would go a long way towards both reducing piracy and improving mental health.

 

Because your experiences are unimportant? Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. I commented because you were acting like just because you can do something that anybody has that possibility, when the opportunity that large swathes of the population have are substantially less than your own (on the basis that you're here today and they're not).

 

 

[Guest]

Ofc pirating one copy of a game doesn't hurt the publisher. The same way as stealing 1 apple from the market doesn't hurt the vendor. 

 

But you still have to try and stop people from stealing. You can't just go and say "fuck it, if you want you can get our game for free we just spend tens of million in making it." That's not a sustainable way of making games. Unless all games end up being f2p and p2w games, even the single player ones.

 

I don't know thats my 2 cents. It's just understandable that companies want to protect their property.

[ItsMitch]

20 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Well it seems ubisoft totally lost it, 2 DRM is worse enough in itself but to call on one of them non-stop is just insane

tbf you could argue because you need to use the ubisoft client :vomit: which needs to be online all the time, let alone.......... DENUVO and that shit vmprotect, another bs move from Ubisoft which some people fell for; but hey if you have 1000++ rigs then you're fine!

[mynameisjuan]

46 minutes ago, apm said:

and that happens millions of times obviously.

ubisoft lost millions of potential sales because all these poor african kids just cant afford the game.

There is no evidence of what is actually lost. I mean if you actually read any of my post I say over and over again there is no study saying pirating hurts sales. Like what are you not understanding about potential loss in sales? You analogy of poor african kids dont apply because they literally couldnt pay for it in the first place unlike an average american that pirates a $30 game that could of easy afforded it. 

 

30 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

My apologies, that was my mistake. It was @mynameisjuan not you who talked about people thrown in jail for stealing. That, however, doesn't change the fact that you repeatedly called it stealing. Which it is not. It is copyright infringement.

I mentioned that people were in jail from pirating....like that is actually a thing. The law considers it theft or some form of. Theft, stealing, copyright infringment....who cares are this point. Its wrong..plain and simple. 

[Sniperfox47]

Just now, mynameisjuan said:

I mentioned that people were in jail from pirating....like that is actually a thing. The law considers it theft or some form of. 

No, it does not. As I have stated many many times now the law, at least in the US/Canada/Europe, considers it to be copyright infringement which is a part of copyright law. This is an entirely seperate branch of law from theft which is part of property law.

 

Copying IP is fundamentally different from stealing physical property. So much so that they're covered under entirely different laws.

[mynameisjuan]

4 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

No, it does not. As I have stated many many times now the law, at least in the US/Canada/Europe, considers it to be copyright infringement which is a part of copyright law. This is an entirely seperate branch of law from theft which is part of property law.

 

Copying IP is fundamentally different from stealing physical property. So much so that they're covered under entirely different laws.

Its just semantics at this point. If you take something that isnt yours, physical or not, without offering anything in return, its theft or stealing. I mean now we should be fighting over how I "copyright infringed" your recipe. Because after years of people saying I stole your recipe when in reality I jotted it down on a wet napkin its apparently incorrect. Yes copyright infringement is technically correct but this all started as people call it theft because it feels like it. 

 

Here is a thread (yes reddit) but it seems like in the comments pirating is considered theft or stealing. A few good points are made. 

 

[jagdtigger]

1 hour ago, mynameisjuan said:

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing prove that it could exist....you mean like the millions of other people who actually pay for their shit? No those dont count obviously. 

Those are realized sales... What you called improperly potential sales only exist in peoples heads(once again an imaginary thing), there is no real proof that those are exist.