|
|
|
Ubisoft: PC games have 95 percent piracy rate
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 22 August, 2012
Ubisoft, always one to bring ridiculous figures to the table, has come out today with a number that should scare any developer looking to create a game for the PC.
CEO Yves Guillemot has said today that 93-95 percent of PC games are pirated.
Reads his quote, when asked about free-to-play titles:
It's a way to get closer to your customers, to make sure you have a revenue. On PC it's ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. August 2012 @ 13:55 |
Link to this message
|
Ubisoft is a complainer but they also have initiated a new method of catching torrent users. I do not know why they complain they are asking the pirates to cough up 2K USDs/game.
Estuansis, I have 2 AVs running in parallel and know I have 3 bot nets 'in a jar'. I always run my browser in a sandbox because even AVs do not stop all malware. I know there are 3 malwares trying to attach to my browser. I update the browser as an admin user every few days. I do not browse under that ID I just allow the browser to get updated in a clean environment. All the updates trying to up date the sandboxed browser under my non admin account I use for browsing are probably bot nets. Every month I empty the sand box and I stop getting the message do you want to allow this update to happen. By the end of the month they will be barking for me to let them in.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 14:30 |
Link to this message
|
Mez, you're doing it wrong. Running 2 AVs in parallel - at least any real-time scanning modules - is a rather bad idea, because they will interfere with each other and cause drastic additional performance overhead on your system.
Furthermore, without more information, your description of "3 botnets trying to attach to your browser" is shaky, indeed; from your description, they're most likely legit browser (especially if Firefox, which updates ridiculously often) and/or plugin updates.
Excessive paranoia is just as destructive, in the end, as NO paranoia.
A good heuristic protection system, akin to Comodo's "HIPS" module (comes with their AV and firewall products) or something similar, is just about as effective, in the long run, as an actual traditional AV, if not more so, especially combined with a strong firewall with outbound detection/protection. Definition-based scanners aren't really very effective against new threats.
|
|
xboxd00d
Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 15:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mez:
I have 2 AVs running in parallel and know I have 3 bot nets 'in a jar'. I always run my browser in a sandbox because even AVs do not stop all malware. I know there are 3 malwares trying to attach to my browser. I update the browser as an admin user every few days. I do not browse under that ID I just allow the browser to get updated in a clean environment. All the updates trying to up date the sandboxed browser under my non admin account I use for browsing are probably bot nets. Every month I empty the sand box and I stop getting the message do you want to allow this update to happen. By the end of the month they will be barking for me to let them in.
Overkill alert!!!
That's like wearing 2 condoms after having a vasectomy (just to be on the extra safe side)!
Lol
"Trying is the first step towards Failure" Homer.J.Simpson
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. August 2012 @ 15:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
Mez, you're doing it wrong. Running 2 AVs in parallel - at least any real-time scanning modules - is a rather bad idea, because they will interfere with each other and cause drastic additional performance overhead on your system.
Furthermore, without more information, your description of "3 botnets trying to attach to your browser" is shaky, indeed; from your description, they're most likely legit browser (especially if Firefox, which updates ridiculously often) and/or plugin updates.
Excessive paranoia is just as destructive, in the end, as NO paranoia.
A good heuristic protection system, akin to Comodo's "HIPS" module (comes with their AV and firewall products) or something similar, is just about as effective, in the long run, as an actual traditional AV, if not more so, especially combined with a strong firewall with outbound detection/protection. Definition-based scanners aren't really very effective against new threats.
Gee WIZ! I wish I had you brains! You think know more about my computer than I do. I know a bit about computers myself.
No, if they were legit updates they would have updated with the legit updates on the clean side.
If you read carefully, you would have noted after I flush the sandbox I do not see the phantom updates for weeks. The real updates are all that are asked for. Instead, right after I have done all my legitimate updates under the admin user I am still asked to do more updates under the other user.
Now, maybe you think I am paranoid but I don't really care what you think!
I will agree with the scanners not being very effecting against new threats but mine find enough that I am satisfied. They still are the only defense against threats coming in by USB sticks etc.
I have picked two lighter weight scanners that can work together. 2 that use way different methods to detect threats. I have been doing so since 1995. It takes awhile to find 2 that can work together. I hope I am smart enough to have figured out by now if I have been doing something wrong by now. I also pick scanners that are highly configurable. I have way too much static stuff to have moronic AVs try to scan 6 tb of data that doesn't change. They both do find stuff so they are doing something. Neither find most of what is trying to up date my browser.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
25. August 2012 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
a) If you don't care about other peoples' opinions, why are you posting your info on a forum/blog..?
b) If something is trying to "update" your browser externally, then your system is already guaranteed to be compromised.
c) Many AVs are quite bad about false positives. Norton, McAfee, and AVG are arguably the worst about this, especially the 1st two, since they also ignore user-defined exclusions.
c) While multiple on-demand scanners is never a bad thing, more than one real-time scanner is never good. Don't believe me? Google is your friend.
d) Sandboxes *are not* perfectly secure. Again, Google is your friend.
Stuff that willy back in your pants, buster.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
25. August 2012 @ 23:51 |
Link to this message
|
a) Actually I do not care about youropinions. That might change in time. You haven't said anything technically stupid yet and I don't mind jerks since I can be one if you yank my chain like you are doing. As long as you are a smart jerk you will be OK in my book. However as long as you are condescending to me I will give you a hard time.
b) Actually the sand box is compromised, at the very worse the limited user is compromised. You are getting better since before you said I was paranoid and now we agree. There is hope for you yet!
c) I Don't not use any of those. More importunately, especially Norton they are not all that configurable. I really am not worried about false positives unless they happen all the time. I use configurable AVs which I can tell the AV to ignore the threat. More than 80% of the time it is obvious one way or the other. For the rest, I do know how to use Google.
the second c)I can read. Back when I started doing it the 'geniuses' thought 2 were better. Now the 'geniuses' think one is better. Since the the predicted disasters never happen I know the experts AREN'T.
d) Oh yea! I will tell you a bigger concept NOTHING IS PERFECT! I am not even proud that I know that one. My the way, I didn't need to Google to figure that one out.
Next you will be bragging that you are sooooooooooo smart you know night is dark!
Sorry! I can be a hot-head and a self admitted jerk.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. August 2012 @ 08:39
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
26. August 2012 @ 00:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
He[Bozobub] simply stated some known facts about AV programs, and speculated that something was maybe amiss. He didn't call names, and he didn't use condescending language. You got confrontational and condescending and started calling names all on your own. No call for it.
If you disagree with something, do so in a civilized manner, this is not Youtube. Would have been a lot simpler to just explain why you used 2 AV's in the first place than calling names, no?
--------------------------------------
Personally am a fan of Comodo Internet Security due to being very good about false positives and being very good in general.
As far as running no AV, it's just that simple. If you have a strong enough grasp of the internet, and the warning signs of a fraudulent site, it's not hard to avoid them. The last virus or bot I've had to deal with was on a PC protected by AV software.
The trick is knowing how to avoid clicking bad links, and blocking pop-ups and ads before they appear.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. August 2012 @ 00:36
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
26. August 2012 @ 00:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
Mez, edit your posts as we don't need the language & insults.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
26. August 2012 @ 01:17 |
Link to this message
|
Mez, the only vaguely insulting thing I've said to you, is "Stuff that willy back in your pants, buster." I believe I was justified in doing so, as you've leapt down my throat twice now. Stop waggling your willy at me, I'm not impressed.
For your edification:
- I can have no idea about what you already know about PCs and security, except via what you tell me. Coincidentally, you've told me you're doing something that is generally considered inadvisable. Hmm...
- I was only using those AVs as an example. No one has the time to write (or read) an exhaustive list.
- There is more than one malware that DOES cross the line and escape sandboxes/VMs, sorry. Google it if you don't believe me, there are many references.
- Nearly all security *experts* say that running more than one real-time AV module at once is a bad idea, for many reasons. For example, they not only can directly interfere with each other's operation, but WILL cause significant extra CPU and I/O overhead, as they "fight" over new files presented to the system (say, on a USB stick). It's asking for trouble, with no clear payoff.
- If you have too much confidence in any given security measure, that security measure is a *weakness*, not a strength.
- This thread is about Ubisoft, their obnoxious DRM, and piracy, NOT your PC. Let it be.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. August 2012 @ 01:23
|
|
xboxd00d
Member
|
26. August 2012 @ 03:46 |
Link to this message
|
Wow, this is a really heated discussion over av usage, lol.
And just to chip in again on software, on my windows 7 partition I use avg free (and have done for years) with windows firewall enabled (formerly used any product with norton stamped on it but found that it so deeply roots itself in the system is a drain on resources).
And on my other partition I use nothing cos it's a hackintosh running snow leopard, and after 2+ years of constant use it has never failed me (maybe crashed a few times).
"Trying is the first step towards Failure" Homer.J.Simpson
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
26. August 2012 @ 05:19 |
Link to this message
|
The whole conversation came up because one person mentioned being told to remove his AV as a workaround for some crap DRM, which is horrible advice and whoever told him that should be fired.
I simply commented that I don't use an AV and haven't for quite a long while, so have never had the issue. 64-bit Windows is nowhere near as virus-prone as 32-bit for a large variety of reasons. One of them being an extra software layer between the OS and hardware. Not saying I haven't had ANY viruses, but nothing that I didn't cause myself knowingly. Whether or not I use an AV, one will eventually squeak through and the fix is as simple as a reformat. I have long since de-centralized most of my software so the only component that is affected is the OS itself. most of my software and games are on separate drives.
As far as DRM is concerned, Ubisoft are by far one of the worst offenders, right next to StarForce. There is a significant percentage of gamers who have been unable to use purchased disc-copies of games due to the insane requirements for getting past the DRM. Assassin's Creed II requires a constant internet connection for an entirely single player game, and other games have activation limits which is just plain stupid.
My disc copies of Bioshock and Mass Effect were rendered useless. Granted they patched this out later, but by then I already had a superior version of the game sitting on my hard drive by then.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. August 2012 @ 05:29
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
26. August 2012 @ 10:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
What's even sillier is that, if you Google it, disabling/removing your security software also never works to fix the issue. It was just a transparent, "Oh, it's not OUR fault" ploy by Ubisoft.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
26. August 2012 @ 11:14 |
Link to this message
|
I was up too late last night and must have been cranky. Sorry again Bozobub for jumping all over you. All the advice you gave was technically correct. I just wasn't in the mood for someone telling me a laundry list of stuff I already knew.
BTW...
1) The account I used last night WAS compromised and had to be deleted. That is how I get around that the sandbox does not offer complete protection. It usually works much better if you empty the sandbox at the first sign of trouble but I was lazy and complacent. However, it takes no time to delete and create a new user. You run it in a sacrificial user account with very limited rights.
I would not say what I have is the best protection out there but it is better than some and way better than none. There seems to be malware smart enough to fool everything but me the human that their attack is simply a legitimate update. That ought to worry some of you.
2) I am too busy to surf the web these days and the only 2 places I have gone that have adds in the last 2 weeks that I can remember were Facebook and AD. I do not click on ANY adds or anything else. If you think behavior will protect your computer think again.
Sorry to be off topic but security is a big issue with me.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
26. August 2012 @ 13:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Now that was right pleasant :)
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
|
