Ubisoft DRM Servers Under Fire Again

Ubisoft tweets that their DRM servers are experiencing another denial of service attack, and users are having trouble playing, as was the case over the weekend. Word is: "Our servers are under attack again. Some gamers are experiencing trouble signing in. We're working on it and will keep you posted."
View : : :
36.
 
Re: Ubisoft DRM Servers Under Fire Again
Mar 8, 2010, 21:22
Prez
 
36.
Re: Ubisoft DRM Servers Under Fire Again Mar 8, 2010, 21:22
Mar 8, 2010, 21:22
 Prez
 
Drayth wrote on Mar 8, 2010, 19:25:
I really gotta wonder if the philosophy that went into the decision for this DRM was, 'We don't get enough sales on the PC.' or 'How can we make sure we get more sales on the PC?'.

... But this DRM is draconian, and this type of failure was absolutely bound to happen and they either chose to ignore the possibility of this happening or just didn't care.
JohnnyRotten wrote on Mar 8, 2010, 19:27:
I'd be stunned if Ubisoft management was not warned that this kind of stuff was sure to happen as well as the problems with the general consumer and press backlash over such a draconian plan.

If true - then the really interesting story becomes "Why?" Why proceed when it was nearly a guaranteed cluster fuck in the making.

This has been my line of thinking for a while now. Even though I'm laughing my ass off at this whole debacle, I do consider the situation from a serious angle most of the time. I'm not a conspiracy theorist; I usually disdain such thinking because it inevitably has to take a gargantuan leap over a bevy of far more logical answers on the way to it's dubious conclusion. In this case however, assuming that Ubisoft knew this was not only possible, but probable (which they had to, unless the place is run by people with the collective intelligence of a doorknob), what conclusion could be logically drawn as to why they decided to go ahead with it anyway?

There has to be an end-game involved. What's their goal? Was it really as naively simple as "this is going to end piracy!", or as blissfully ignorant as "this will only inconvenience the pirates!"? I just can't see it. All I can come up with is that they either consider the inconvenience they are immorally and unethically putting loyal customers through to be a secondary concern to the main goal of getting back at pirates, or they consider all PC gamers as pirates and thus all of them are cast into the same pot. "This is what they get for being thieves, regardless of whether they purchased this particular title. Ultimately they are all the same, and any inconvenience this system causes is nothing more than they deserve."

Maybe someone could point out a better explanation. This is all I've got, despite how crazy it sounds.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
Date
Subject
Author
16.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
17.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
18.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
20.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
21.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
22.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
25.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
30.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
31.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
41.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
47.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
52.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
57.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
60.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
19.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
6.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
27.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
28.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
24.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
32.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
38.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
40.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
46.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
49.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
 36.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
 Re: Ubisoft DRM Servers Under Fire Again
37.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
42.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
43.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
44.
Mar 8, 2010Mar 8 2010
56.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
58.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
59.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
63.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
64.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010
50.
Mar 9, 2010Mar 9 2010