Ubisoft is dropping PC DRM but....

That's still DRM...

I will never buy a Ubisoft game if this is true. Many still will but not me.

Most likely somebody will crack the game and release an unofficial version that needs no internet to play. Before the official version is released. Some true sales will then be lost to people who would buy the game but don't like the restrictions.

Impulse should make a stand and not carry this game, starting concerns over the DRM affecting customers.

It's also $60 for Ass Creed 2 on PC BTW.

A pity. I was interested in Settlers VII (and the hypothetical/eventual Heroes of Might and Magic VI). Feeling like Jack Sparrow about Ubisoft and I wonder why.

This is the worst form of DRM they could have come up with, the equivalent of turning every single title into an MMO. Looks like Anno 1404 is the last Ubisoft game I bought. There's no chance of at least Silent Hunter 5 not utilizing this nonsense, is there?

Quoting MichaelCook,

reply 2

Most likely somebody will crack the game and release an unofficial version that needs no internet to play. Before the official version is released. Some true sales will then be lost to people who would buy the game but don't like the restrictions.

The question remains, will they manage to circumvent the "saves are stored in the cloud" issue? I seriously doubt it is possible.

Moreover, forcing customers to resort to pirated copies for backup is quite the opposite of Ubisoft is hoping to achieve. Oh, the irony.

By the way, hello everyone. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

Cue someone cracking it or making emulated servers and we're back to stage one with only legitimate customers being negatively affected by this. Joy.

That's bull. DRM all around. I think this is part of that game launcher crap they are using too. It's close to having a digital download without the benefits. I wouldnt' even put up with 1404 DRM, and I will certainly not go for this. Was also hugely looking forward to Settlers VII until... well this.

In my opinion it's way better than any CD/DVD based copy protection.

It's still DRM, but there are hellastupid people around who hear "We're dropping DRM" and flock like flies on shit, which this is.

Quoting Spooky__,

reply 8

In my opinion it's way better than any CD/DVD based copy protection.

How so? DVD-based copy protection can always be removed via a patch, plus one doesn't have to worry about any company/internet outage/lack of internet connection/server maintenance preventing him/her from playing a game.

I knew publishers would eventually come to this. I'm just surprised it wasn't EA first.

Next on the agenda will be subscriptions to the game. "You can play for the low low price of $29.99 per year. That's half off of buying the DVD version. Most gamers don't play a game more than 6 months anyway and you can reactivate the game anytime in the future for only $19.99!!"

I hate the idea of DRM but hey lets face it with downloading, and sharing these days digital drm when you play online is probably the best way of control who is getting on to the game servers. I rarely have to use my drm because I rarely play online so I really never fear that my serial key is ever used

Quoting mbaron888,

reply 11

Next on the agenda will be subscriptions to the game. "You can play for the low low price of $29.99 per year. That's half off of buying the DVD version. Most gamers don't play a game more than 6 months anyway and you can reactivate the game anytime in the future for only $19.99!!"

Time to replay endlessly all those nice and good old games that have no install limits, online activations... and that we bought before such dark times, and ignore all those new shiny games even if they are from our favourite franchise (need to spend some more points in Will ).

Maybe table top games will benefit from such stupidity. And/Or indies with some functional integrity.

If this is true, then there are 2 reasons why I'm not buying games from them.

1. My machine has Terrabytes of storage. I don't need an online site to store my games. If anything, I doupt they would appreciate me storing as many saves on their servers as I do with other games locally. I'm certain I would among the first to hit the save limits (if there is going to be any).

2. I hate logging in to play games. I not sure what factor(s) make loath the idea so much, but for me its reason enough to get a refund. Logging in to play multiplayer online, or logging in to play an MMO is more understandable as they can offer services when I do so (like match making or worlds to play in). Log in, retreive my data, set me up with my friends and away I go.

For any other time, there is no real need for me to log in. Forcing me to log in to play is like looking over my shoulders in the most annoying manner possible. It makes me want to slap them.

Asking anybody to have an internet connection for a single player game is ludicrous.

If I am moving around a lot and I have no internet connections I can't play the game. This would be unacceptable to me.

Sorry I am not buying.

How so?

SecuROM puts files on your system for the decryption of the CD/DVD signatures etc.. SecuROM can and will cause problems on systems where

'explicit congestion notification' is activated in Windows Vista
certain disk mounting software is running or
certain debugging software is installed

even though you have a legal copy of the game. Some games do not uninstall SecuROM properly, so you have to use the SecuROM Removal Tool in order to get rid of it and the problems that it may cause.

Starforce is even worse, because it installs an actual driver...

CD/DVD based copy protection software should be a very, very big NO for eveyone. Simple online activation (not the kind that SecuROM uses, where you can only activate a game a certain amount of times) like Steam or Impulse is much more user friendly and more efficient than a CD/DVD based copy protection and thus beneficial for the customer and the publisher.

I may be the only consumer on the planet who feels this way, but I'd actually like to see some companies try a subscription-based model.

It provides a much stronger incentive to fix/improve games after release, and to release titles that have replayability as opposed to ones that look cool but become boring quickly.

Quoting Maxpower179,

reply 17

It provides a much stronger incentive to fix/improve games after release, and to release titles that have replayability as opposed to ones that look cool but become boring quickly.

But you are supposing that they would do such thing. And why would you subscribe for a game that has a life expectancy of 6 months (according to some companies, because obviously no one plays the same games for so long... just take a look at Master of Magic) when they will move to the next part of the franchise? (one or two exp packs later if truly succesfull or The Sims)

Quoting Maxpower179,

reply 17

I may be the only consumer on the planet who feels this way, but I'd actually like to see some companies try a subscription-based model.

It provides a much stronger incentive to fix/improve games after release, and to release titles that have replayability as opposed to ones that look cool but become boring quickly.

I hate to break this to you, but that wouldn't happen. Paying a subscription does not guarentee timely updates. In my few ventures into MMOs, I've seen many glaring balance problems and bugs that took months to fix. Stuff that should have been easy, like broken quests and abilities not working right, or at all. I was paying $15 a month for this patching service, and did not see fixes to many well known issues before I left the game. I've had friends say things like, "I'd pay $5 a month for this RTS if they released patches constantly." The devs can only release patches so fast. And that's not always a bad thing, as sometimes rushing out barely tested fixes and balance changes break things along the way.

To me, releasing timely patches and fixes is basic PC customer service. It they show they care about their customers and want their game to be the best it can be, customers will return the favour by being much more likely to buy future games and expansions. MMOs are different of course, but generally speaking customers should not have to pay extra for bug fixes and tweaks.

As for the OP, this is the way of the future unfortunately. EA started it, and others are quickly realizing this is a great way to completely control their customers reduce piracy. Yeah, that's it.

The good: no more intrusive and hidden "software/driver./..." installed without your consent.

The bad: cannot play offline. period.

As Frogboy said, paying users should be rewarded instead of "punished" and treated by default as a pirate and, DRM does not stop the piracy or recover any "lost" sales. Someone who doesn't want paying for a game, will pirate it or gives up, but will never pay.

A game protected on a serial number does not need any Internet access, but let be honest, how long before a keygen? And the player who want this keygen, will find a way to get it from Internet...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even Stardock with Impulse need an one time activation through Internet. IMHO and knowledge, Stardock implementation is the most acceptable "DRM" form for both users and software studios.

The good: no more intrusive and hidden "software/driver./..." installed without your consent.

The bad: cannot play offline. period.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Sure, not everyone will like the new way Ubisoft is taking. But people have to realize that the old way was definitely worse for the loyal, honest customer.

So the loyal, honest customer that doesn't have/use internet connection for his single players games doesn't count? So gaming, elitist by itself, now needs to be more elitist (instead of just removing DRM completely and treat customers as such).

Yeah, capitalist companies with execs with large salaries (remember, when in crisis it's code monekys and company who pay the price, not the people at the top with huge salaries) need a new generation of customers that give away all their rights and that do anything told by the companies. Sweet.

The idea that Ubisoft would use a subscription model seems like a good way to lose a lot of money. I doubt many people would play their big sellers for more than a single "subscription cycle" even when buying them permanently.

So gaming, elitist by itself, now needs to be more elitist (instead of just removing DRM completely and treat customers as such).

That's not what we are saying. We are just pointing out, that any disc based copy protection system is far worse. Of course a completely DRM free solution is always best for the customer.

I will never buy a game that I have to log in to play single player, nor will I buy a game on a subscription That's whats kept me away from the WoW's, etc. for so long and if I have to start doing that just to play games then I'll stick with Master of Magic and X-com for the rest of my life thank you very much... geez... corporate america is sick...

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.