Ubisoft has eliminated its controversial PC DRM technology that required players to remain connected to the internet in order to play the company's games, enabling consumers to play many 2010 titles offline for the first time.
A Reddit user first noticed that a recent patch now enables the PC versions of Assassin's Creed 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction to be played with web connections turned off – although they do still require an Internet connection to authenticate the game on start-up.
Ubisoft's innovative DRM technology was heavily criticized by players when it was announced in January last year.
The company had acknowledged consumer outcry, as one Ubisoft spokesperson said "[we] wouldn't have built it if we thought that it was really going to piss off our customers." But the company went ahead with the system, launching it to coincide with the release of The Settlers 7.
However, following a spate of server attacks which prevented players from being able to access their own games, and continued criticism from gamers in the face of these issues, Ubisoft eliminated the system for the release of the PC version of real-time strategy game RUSE.
This latest retroactive removal of DRM server authentication for games that previously required it represents a further backtrack from what Ubisoft once considered "the best way to deal with" piracy in the PC market.
My only question is this - what if you don't have a net connection? While its safe to assume that a connection is a given in western companies, there are many gamers who live outside of the US and Europe who can't play Ubisoft games because of this.
Its a pity that these emergent markets aren't taken into account.
At least in the developed world, I think the PC increasingly is just going to be treated as a connected platform. Of all the devices people (again, in those markets) own, it is the one that is by far most likely to be equipped with a high-speed internet connection. Someone who owns a gaming PC that is capable of playing games like Assassin's Creed 2 is very, very likely to have the internet on that computer. If you really can't get the internet on your PC, there will probably come a point in the near future when you simply have to accept that there are some games you'll have to play on consoles.
I'm still glad to see Ubi reduce this DRM--after all, even with a decent internet connection, there are temporary outages and hiccups all the time. But I think Ubisoft can, in the broad sense, look at markets with enough users who own competent PC gaming hardware and determine that a significant enough portion of them indeed have at least halfway-decent internet access.
I question whether it's currently "very, very likely" that every US PC user also has access to the *high-speed* Internet that is required for today's games. While it's probably true in the large media markets like SF/LA and NY, I suspect there are millions of gamers in "flyover country" who can't get DSL yet.
DSL isn't required for activating a game (which is fairly low-bandwidth). But a continuously-active leash starts to be a different matter, to say nothing of digital distribution of games or storing savegames to a cloud, one or both of which are presumably strategic goals for Ubisoft as a publisher.
So the question is simply what amount of control over the gamer's desktop maximizes potential revenue. Requiring a one-time online activation is probably the best approach, providing some anti-piracy control without excluding some meaningful number of gamers who don't have access to high-speed Internet.
I understand what you're saying, and agree for the most part. I don't think having mandatory internet access is the answer though, developed country or not.
Ubisoft certainly can, and I believe in the interest of the core audience should, look at their users and determine how they can best cater to them. However, this should be done without alienating other gamers.
I'm glad that Ubi is moving in the right direction.
Requiring online verification on game start-up is still a pain in the ass for players who would like to take their games to areas where the internet is not readily available. My family owns a cottage with no internet connection, and I've been unable to play various Ubi titles while there. This change in DRM doesn't change that fact, which is disappointing, but at least it removes the huge hassle of frequent pauses during play and being booted out of the game during a net drop.
And it shows that Ubi recognizes the concept was one of those 'looks good on paper' things that doesn't work when you start involving actual human beings.
This is good news--but its a shame that I bought a PS3 for this reason alone--to many publishers were moving in the restrictive DRM direction--just didn't want to deal with it---haven't bought a PC game since.
It's a start. I might start buying Ubisoft games again. I haven't bought any games from them for any platform since they introduced that DRM. Requiring Internet at launch still sucks. But I might be tempted to buy the games when sold at a reduced price. (just like I do with Steam games, and alike)
Ubisoft is the only major publisher left incapable of releasing simultaneous PC version with their console versions. They also seem to be struggling with piracy the most, and poor sales on their PC games.
What the hell will it take for them to realize that it's not amble piracy protection allowing for games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, Bad Company 2, and countless other simultaneous multiplatform releases to sell well on all platforms games are released for?
it's not a question of being "incapable" of releasing on PC simultaneously, it's a question of choice. Ubi, like all developpers, develop their games for PS3 and xbox on PCs running Windows, it would be a minor effort to release it at the same time as on consoles, but considering that the piracy on PC would reduce their console sales they just don't do it. someone who was ready to wait a year for the PC release is probably less likely to pirate it in the first place. And they apparently are not alone to think like that, look at Rockstar or Bioware for instance, they are not moving out of PC for any religious reasons, it just make business sense.
That's the thing though - this notion that simultaneous releases would cause PC piracy to cannibalize console sales is unproven, with countless examples that show the direct opposite.
I think they are finally heading in the right direction. I mean the more restrictions like having to constantly be connected to the internet for games that you buy the more people will start turning to piracy. My feeling is if I pay upwards of $60 for a game I should be able to play that game regardless of having an internet connection or not.
I'm still not buying Ubi until they do.
Its a pity that these emergent markets aren't taken into account.
@Tejas-True, and there are still many in the US without an internet connection.
I'm still glad to see Ubi reduce this DRM--after all, even with a decent internet connection, there are temporary outages and hiccups all the time. But I think Ubisoft can, in the broad sense, look at markets with enough users who own competent PC gaming hardware and determine that a significant enough portion of them indeed have at least halfway-decent internet access.
DSL isn't required for activating a game (which is fairly low-bandwidth). But a continuously-active leash starts to be a different matter, to say nothing of digital distribution of games or storing savegames to a cloud, one or both of which are presumably strategic goals for Ubisoft as a publisher.
So the question is simply what amount of control over the gamer's desktop maximizes potential revenue. Requiring a one-time online activation is probably the best approach, providing some anti-piracy control without excluding some meaningful number of gamers who don't have access to high-speed Internet.
Yes, that's what I mean. I never thought Ubi's always-on check was feasible or advisable.
Or if i have it on a laptop and am mobile without internet I can't play the game?
Yeah brilliant strategy to assume all western gamers are always on the internet.
Ubisoft certainly can, and I believe in the interest of the core audience should, look at their users and determine how they can best cater to them. However, this should be done without alienating other gamers.
My mistake :)
Requiring online verification on game start-up is still a pain in the ass for players who would like to take their games to areas where the internet is not readily available. My family owns a cottage with no internet connection, and I've been unable to play various Ubi titles while there. This change in DRM doesn't change that fact, which is disappointing, but at least it removes the huge hassle of frequent pauses during play and being booted out of the game during a net drop.
And it shows that Ubi recognizes the concept was one of those 'looks good on paper' things that doesn't work when you start involving actual human beings.
What the hell will it take for them to realize that it's not amble piracy protection allowing for games like Bioshock, Mass Effect, Bad Company 2, and countless other simultaneous multiplatform releases to sell well on all platforms games are released for?
The funniest part of this article was the word "innovative".