For shame, Ubisoft.

[Scotty]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lingus]

Lol, nice. I'm sure anyone could have called that. Don't most online games have problems with servers on first release? I love all of the comments of people complaining that this happened. And then the one or two guys saying, "You shouldn't have bought the game if you weren't going to like the down-time... etc." But all those comments are grayed out. To be honest, I agree with them. If you can't deal with an online game going down, that clearly states you must have a constant internet connection and therefore implying that you would need to be connected to a server at all times, then don't buy it. Yes, if they are going to impliment this kind of feature it should work, but most online games have this problem and people deal with it. The only reason they are having a problem (and I will give them this) is because it's pointless to have the feature in the first place. But again, then they shouldn't have bought it. If everyone had just not bought the game, we might have waited a month for them to drop the DRM, and then everyone would be happy.

[ARTgames]

Its not as bad as games that you cant finish do to a bug.

[Scotty]

They're hinting that it was likely a DDOS attack via the forum topic.  It's kind of funny, because all the people who are split on the whole DRM thing are going "Those pirates F'd you over!  How can you..."  But the topic that they are talking about is ridiculously heated.  I'd hate to be the one forum moderator that's been trying to control it.  Hell, they even had photos of giant cocks pasted on the topics.  They had to take down the topic long enough to allow the mods to go in and clean it up before they could open it again (foolishly) to allow more bashing.  Quite entertaining!

[ARTgames]

yeah it was a ddos
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/08/ubisoft_anti_drm_hack_attack/

I don't think that's fair. That just proves that other people can take down a service if they really wanted to. Not that the service has a fault if used correctly. Its true if its offline it would not matter but that's what the past 9 pages talk about.

[Lucifer]

The attack wasn't a "SEE SEE, YOUR SERVER'S DOWN, WE TOLD YOU!", it was the hackers making the customers aware of what can happen to their product, how quickly their hard earned $60 is no longer usable. (As well as punishing ubisoft for their dipshittery)
Keep at it!

Meanwhile Ubisoft's much criticised controls have been broken by software hackers. A hacker group called Skid-Row managed to bypass DRM restrictions on Silent Hunter 5 less than 24 hours after the game was published.

I lol'd.

[ARTgames]

The attack wasn't a "SEE SEE, YOUR SERVER'S DOWN, WE TOLD YOU!",

thats not my point at all. and i did not say that any ware in my post. unless you can point it out.

it was the hackers making the customers aware of what can happen to their product, how quickly their hard earned $60 is no longer usable. (As well as punishing ubisoft for their dipshittery)
Keep at it!

The point is hackers did something it was not made for. If the server can take a normal load and under normal circumstances then i don't see how this proves anything because a ddos is not a normal load but an attack. All it proves is ddos are good at taking down servers.

If i hate cell phones because i don't think they give good service (or if Ubisoft makes a game with drm) and i put out a powerful radio jammier (or hacker ddos) to stop phone calls, does that prove cell phones have bad service? No it does not.

Now if Ubisoft servers when down because a lot of people were playing there game then that's ok. Thats there fault. That proves a point.

[Chaos]

The point it proves is that, if the server goes down for ANY reason, all the consumers who bought it are !@#$ED.

[ARTgames]

Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

[Chaos]

Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

The point it proves is that, if the server goes down for ANY reason, all the consumers who bought it are !@#$ED.

[ARTgames]

Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

The point it proves is that, if the server goes down for ANY reason, all the consumers who bought it are !@#$ED.

we know that already! WHY DO WE NEED TO PROVE IT? All it did was make the people who payed for it not be able to play... Should i cut the power to your house to prove that your pc takes electricity? no, you already know that. As i said, a bunch of hacker acking like children.

[Jake]

Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

No, it was Ubisofts fault.

Let me give you an analogy. There is crime in the world, no? For that we have policeman. What if every police officer decided that they hated life, and took out their anger on innocent people? Does that mean it's the criminals fault for how these officers act, considering the fact that these officers only exist because of crime?

The answer is no. It's one thing to deal with crime as an officer, and it's another to wrongly take out your anger on unsuspecting civilians.

In my opinion, the hackers are proving a point. The DRM should not stop people from playing a single player game, even if the servers are down. I blame Ubisoft for making a terrible decision. They're not protecting anything, they're stopping people from enjoying a game they payed for.

[ARTgames]

Its just a bunch of hackers acting like children. Yeah no duh, if ddos there servers people will not be able to play. Does that really need proving? no.

Was it Ubisoft fault that people could not play that day? no, it was the hackers.

No, it was Ubisofts fault.

Let me give you an analogy. There is crime in the world, no? For that we have policeman. What if every police officer decided that they hated life, and took out their anger on innocent people? Does that mean it's the criminals fault for how these officers act, considering the fact that these officers only exist because of crime?

The answer is no. It's one thing to deal with crime as an officer, and it's another to wrongly take out your anger on unsuspecting civilians.

jake your missing it. Your analogy is missing a big point.

What if every police officer decided that they hated life

In this chase the did not "police officer decided that they hated life". A criminal gave them a drug to make them hate life. Now whose fault is it?

[Jake]

Eek, shouldn't have hotlinked  :-[

[ARTgames]

But really, no matter how you look at it. The hackers were not in the rite and did not rite. IMO.