back to article Ubisoft sues handful of gamers for DDoSing Rainbow Six: Siege

Game developer Ubisoft has lodged a claim against the owners of a website that allegedly sells DDoS attacks against the servers of its best-selling game, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege (R6S). The lawsuit, filed in the US Court Central District of California on Thursday, holds the owners of the SNG.ONE website - who hail from …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "the number of attacks has dropped by 93 per cent"

    Well that certainly is a successful lawsuit.

    I personally don't care for Ubisoft games in general, but you have to be a special kind of loser to want to actively hurt the play experience of people you don't know and will never meet. These four don't care about that, they're in it for the money, which is just evil. I hope they go down for the count.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "the number of attacks has dropped by 93 per cent"

      Given Ubisoft's long history with DRM/rootkits then DDOS attacks against them could be seen as a public service, that being said I personally have little sympathy for either side.

    2. RyokuMas

      Re: "the number of attacks has dropped by 93 per cent"

      "... have to be a special kind of loser to want to actively hurt the play experience of people you don't know and will never meet."

      ... and yet it's deemed perfectly acceptable to stick paywalls in games so that you need to pay to continue playing and/or get the required stats to progress?

      Free to Play - invented by a special kind of loser...

      1. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

        Re: "the number of attacks has dropped by 93 per cent"

        Which Ubisoft game(s) are you referring to specifically? I've played some of their recent ones on PS4 including The Division 2 and Ghost Recon, and I also spent months rampaging around ancient Greece in Assassins Creed Odyssey - and I've not come across any paywalls or "pay to play" mechanics whatsoever. In fact, I think the the sheer volume and quality of additional free content released by UBI in support of ACO is to be commended, and from what I've read, that view was also shared by a lot of players and games journalists.

        So please, do tell... or is it that you just resent games companies making any form of profits whatsoever? I guess you think that the hundreds of talented artists, software engineers, composers and designers etc. that contribute to these sorts of games all work for free yes? Just like you do... right?

        1. RyokuMas

          Re: "the number of attacks has dropped by 93 per cent"

          "Which Ubisoft game(s) are you referring to specifically?"

          I wasn't - I was taking a step back and looking at the games as a whole. Apologies for not specifying this explicitly.

          And I absolutely think that the artists, programmers, composers, designers, testers et al involved in making a game should be justly rewarded - in fact, if you look back through my posts, you'll see that as a hobbyist game developer I have often bemoaned the state of the games industry.

          ... except we all know that these aren't the people who are reaping the benefits. Just try searching the web for "EA Spouse". Or the more recent "100 hour week" scandal at Rockstar. Or - seeing as we're looking at Ubisoft here - this.

          If it were the actual creative talents getting the payoff from these mechanics then I would be more supportive. But paywalls and free-to-pay, pay-to-win are primarily a device created by the corporates to turn games into money-milking machines, and the only time the devs get anything out of it is when they are tasked with making additional content so that people keep playing these games and thus generating even more revenue for the executives.

      2. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        Re: "the number of attacks has dropped by 93 per cent"

        and yet it's deemed perfectly acceptable to stick paywalls in games so that you need to pay to continue playing and/or get the required stats to progress?

        well yeah. you wanna play a game - you pay for it one way or the other.

        Just because you got a free sample doesnt mean you get the whole meal for free.

      3. Patrician

        Re: "the number of attacks has dropped by 93 per cent"

        What games have "paywalls" that prevent you from "playing and/or get the required stats to progress"?

        I'm no expert on Ubisoft game but have/do play a few "free to play" games and they are all fully playable with no payments. Planetside II, Aion and Lord of The Rings Online mainly, and it's perfectly feasible to play all three without paying anything, albeit it might require a bit of grinding in the case of LoTRO; you, pretty much, have to do every quest, task and achievement in each area to be able to use in game currency to buy access to the next area.

        But none of the above have any "paywalls" that stop you from playing, just your time.

  2. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    what's the point?

    What even is the point of ddos'ing the game server? (I mean what's the point for whoever's hiring them, obviously for the people running the site... the point of them doing it is $30.)

    Lag it when you're about to lose so everyone's kicked off and it's a draw? Player loses so they rage quit then ddos? Did they make some trivial change to the game some people don't like, therefore ruin it for everyone else? Simple trolling?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This is why.

      This is why we cannot have nice things. People will always race to the bottom. Partly it's also down to the community/points system the publish makes. Back when it was private servers, abuse got banned, or messed up your "points" for a day till the local admin reset it, or the server naturally reset points (most only lasted 1 match). Now things like "premium stuff" and "XP boost!!!" exist, often for cash, or *alternatively* given to higher scoring players, there is more incentive to win. And some take the easy route.

      (Alternatives provided to sidestep gambling laws, thus "it's free, honest!!!" when really it's near impossible to get freely, but you can gamble and get it possibly even less likelyler XD )

      1. chuBb.

        Re: This is why.

        Couldnt agree more, its for the reasons you outlined i no longer play online multiplayer, unless its with a handful of mates on our own servers. That and frankly i got bored of FPS multiplayer after becoming obsessive with quake 3, and FPS's on the whole after halo (in glorious SD on the original xbox).

        1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

          Re: This is why.

          xbox? so you wernt using a mouse?

          in that case, you might *think* you were playing an fps , but you were just , er , playing at it.

          Much the same way a toddler with his fisher price plastic screwdriver thinks he's got a toolkit.

          No matter how effective or skilled you think you are / can get using those little mushroom things on a console controller, you would be 10x as effective with a mouse.

          Its like running 100m with your shoelaces tied

          or playng snooker using a baguette instead of a cue.

          Sure you can use a console controller from the sofa rather than needing a desk , but at the end of the day you dont have the speed and precision , which is what is great about fps - The fluidity and transparency of the control system.

          1. chuBb.

            Re: This is why.

            LOL, saw xbox and missed q3 in the same sentance???


            History lesson for a newb who doesnt remember when 3d accelarators were an additional card you installed with a little vga pass through cable.

            Quake 3 was a PC game, which those of us who couldnt be bothered with the children playing counter strike played, before unreal came along and did a better version of death match only gaming. It was time when hard plastic mouse mats were very cool, and new fangled optical mice came with ps2 adaptors (PS2 is a mini din plug made popular by IBM, and was what people used to be "IBM" compatible back in the day, before usb gained traction, not a playstation 2 before you get triggered again at the thought of a console).

            Anyway thank you for highlighting my exact point of why i havnt played a FPS in years, and if you must know the last one i played was duke nukem forever, why i hear you cry?, because i had waited for it since it was announced in '96 or '97 and i was going to give it a go no matter how bad it was. And no what is great about FPS is watching idiots try and keep up with credit card repayments on graphics cards they cant afford to get a homeopathic increase in FPS, who then cry when a) they get fragged repeatedly, and b) find they are out of stock because someone bought the continents supply to mine crypto

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: what's the point?

      Reasons for attacking the gaming servers

      Usual immature stuff such as

      1. you can, so it's a laugh right?

      2. you buddy asked you to

      3. your buddy's buddy didn't belive you could

      4. the game bores you

      5. someone in support / in game / forum disrespected you and (1) so now who is best?

      6. OOPS, wrong button ah well who cares

      I could go on but you get the idea and quite frankly none of the above are new in online gaming so why didn't Ubisoft build a system that would handle the environment in which it was going to have to operate.

      Other online games use server hosting with greater resilience since they at least care about the players who are not dicks.

      Clearly Ubisoft thought that spending money on lawyers was a better investment than on hosting and historically with other games this has been shown to be a bad investment. Yes they shut down one set of DDOS leeches but the typical result in gaming is that other people will just DDOS them out of fun and in retaliation.

      In summary online gaming has a lot of toxicity, you can spend money on infrastructure to combat your customers attacking you or you can ignore it, anything else encourages yet more attacks.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    From the article: "The website sells $30 monthly subscriptions to services purportedly designed to help clients "test" their own website security. But screenshots taken by Ubisoft claim to show the website listing specific game servers,"

    Several questions spring immediately to mind:

    How many of those $30 subscriptions are used for attacking Ubisoft, and how many for other purposes? (If all SNG.ONE ever does is DDOS Ubisoft servers then fair enough, but if there are other Users who DO NOT target Ubisoft, then what gives a games manufacturer the right to shut down someone else's service?)

    How do Ubisoft know it is the website owners specifically targeting their servers, and not one or more of SNG.ONE's clients?

    How long has the Republic of California been running the governments and/or legal systems of German, Nigeria and the Netherlands?

    Why should we trust Ubisoft when the poor performance could be down to their penny-pinching and not spending enough to buy hardware capable of running the games and not the antics of a bunch of stroppy ex-players?

    I am not saying what these morons are doing is right - it's not just annoying Ubisoft, it's affecting all the sheeple playing the games as well - but assuming that Ubisoft is telling the truth just because they're Ubisoft is silly.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like