Ubisoft Abandons Despised Always-On DRM For Upcoming Assassin's Creed: Revelations

[qubit]

Hot on the heels of our story Are The Days Of DRM Numbered? news reaches us that for its upcoming title, Assassin's Creed: Revelations, Ubisoft is abandoning its despised always-on internet DRM, which continues to cause much controversy. This type of DRM requires the hapless gamer to have a persistent internet connection, with authentication data constantly flowing between their computer and Ubisoft's servers. The instant that connection is interrupted, the game stops dead in its tracks with a warning message to restore the connection. What if someone experiences an extended ISP outage? What if they want to play while away on holiday, where there's no internet connection, or it's very limited and expensive? What if the authentication servers fall over as they have done so in the past? There are in fact, too many serious negatives to list here. This is a dreadful and shameful way for Ubisoft to treat its customers who are being handled like criminals with curfew electronic ankle bracelets. This requirement eats into a gamer's monthly bandwidth allowance just for the benefit of Ubisoft. No wonder it's despised and hated so much.



This drop is despite Ubisoft claiming that it has reduced piracy significantly. Apparently, they have seen "a clear reduction in piracy of our titles which required a persistent online connection, and from that point of view the requirement is a success". What they haven't said of course is whether the reduction in piracy has actually increased sales. If it had, one would expect this glorious achievement to be shouted from the rooftops, wouldn't it? The only thing that companies listen to are their bottom lines and lawsuits, which really affect their bottom lines. Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that sales have actually reduced due to this draconian DRM. Also, the servers must be expensive to maintain, which eats into their precious profits too. Hence, it sounds like they're just keeping their options open with that statement. Shall we take bets on them dropping always-on DRM from all their titles in time? The sooner the better. PC gamers will have to wait until December, a few weeks longer than their console counterparts, to get their hands on the game.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[FordGT90Concept]

*dances*

 

[xBruce88x]

now if only other publishers would follow this example... (and Ubi continuing to do so with future games)

 

[Deleted member 67555]

RRRR matee Now I'll be sure to buy thar games...
/jk/

 

[qubit]

RRRR matee Now I'll be sure to buy thar games...
/jk/

You poirate you! tsk tsk

 

[DannibusX]

Well now I'll entertain buying their games again. I'll have to see what they're going to use for DRM.

I'm glad my lack of dollars flowing their way helped them wake up.

 

[digibucc]

really that was one atrocious drm. i was unable to play that crappy settlers game because of my crappy connection at the time. now i can maybe buy ubisoft in the future.

though AC is a console title for me. unless, does pc get a reasonable release date with this one?

 

[newtekie1]

You bash always on DRM, yet you offer it as a solution in the Sony thread. WTF?!?

 

[qubit]

You bash always on DRM, yet you offer it as a solution in the Sony thread. WTF?!?

Nooooo I do not, NT! Let's not get into another heated back and forth.

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

About EFFIN TIME!

 

[n-ster]

#1 props to them because they listened
#2 Hope they don't replace it with some dumb shit similar to it

 

[nINJAkECIL]

Knowing Ubisoft,they would replace it with some software/drivers which messed up our pc.
Starforce 2012,anyone?

 

[jpierce55]

good

 

[Mr McC]

This is why I get mildly irritated by members who tell me to ignore DRM, shut up and simply play the game, or words to that effect, in various threads relating to DRM. Collectively, we simply do not have to put up with this crap. When companies attempt to force this crap down our throats, if we collectively refuse to accept, they are embarrassingly forced to admit the error of their ways and rectify. It is sad that no amount of petitioning or complaints cause them to change their practices: only dwindling sales drive them to attempt to return to affording the illusion of actually listening to their paying customers, rather than attempting to abuse them at every turn.

In all likelihood, it will only be a matter of months before they attempt to reinstate this DRM or a system that causes equal discontent amongst their customers, so whilst I commend this move, they will get no thanks from me for removing a system that never should have been in place.

 

[Ahhzz]

Too bad there's no chance Acticrap will listen to this, and change that for D3... course, for me, it wouldn't matter. Lack of LAN play breaks that one for me as well, and there's no way they're going to fix that. So, I'll wait. SOMEone will "fix" it for me

 

[qubit]

This is why I get mildly irritated by members who tell me to ignore DRM, shut up and simply play the game, or words to that effect, in various threads relating to DRM. Collectively, we simply do not have to put up with this crap. When companies attempt to force this crap down our throats, if we collectively refuse to accept, they are embarrassingly forced to admit the error of their ways and rectify. It is sad that no amount of petitioning or complaints cause them to change their practices: only dwindling sales drive them to attempt to return to affording the illusion of actually listening to their paying customers, rather than attempting to abuse them at every turn.

In all likelihood, it will only be a matter of months before they attempt to reinstate this DRM or a system that causes equal discontent amongst their customers, so whilst I commend this move, they will get no thanks from me for removing a system that never should have been in place.

Such a good post, were do I start? Ultimately, it's the fragmented nature of consumers that lets them get away with this crap. Most companies, especially the big ones, really are that ruthless in their pursuit of money and would do anything to get it.

 

[n-ster]

This is why I get mildly irritated by members who tell me to ignore DRM, shut up and simply play the game, or words to that effect, in various threads relating to DRM. Collectively, we simply do not have to put up with this crap. When companies attempt to force this crap down our throats, if we collectively refuse to accept, they are embarrassingly forced to admit the error of their ways and rectify. It is sad that no amount of petitioning or complaints cause them to change their practices: only dwindling sales drive them to attempt to return to affording the illusion of actually listening to their paying customers, rather than attempting to abuse them at every turn.

In all likelihood, it will only be a matter of months before they attempt to reinstate this DRM or a system that causes equal discontent amongst their customers, so whilst I commend this move, they will get no thanks from me for removing a system that never should have been in place.

Most people who don't care about DRMs make a huge exception for this one. I myself don't mind DRMs that aren't too restrictive. To me, I have not seen any DRM pass my limit of DRMs being too restrictive except the Always-on DRM

They receive a thank you from me, because they just proved that they DO listen a little bit and they DO care about their customers. I also imagine this was a hard achievement for some in the company, as investors etc are probably not that happy about this decision

 

[Mr McC]

Most people who don't care about DRMs make a huge exception for this one. I myself don't mind DRMs that aren't too restrictive. To me, I have not seen any DRM pass my limit of DRMs being too restrictive except the Always-on DRM

I also dislike data-mining to subsequently sell my details to third parties (Origin). If they are making more profit, they could at least reduce the price of their games. Nor do I like providing kernel-level access (Securom), or having installations limited (Securom, Tages, et al.) when it is clear that none of these methods serve to prevent piracy. Indeed, they are so ineffectual that it is clear that this is not their intent and I certainly do not like being lied to or treated like an idiot. They are all simply a method of excercising more control over the paying customer, frequently cause conflicts with other aspects of the system and, at the very least, unnecessarily eat up system resources.

DRM should be reduced to a bare minimum and the need for some form of anti-piracy measures should not afford companies licence to treat their customers any way they please. In this particular case, given the average Internet speeds in Spain and many other parts, it was simply a stupid idea from the outset.

They receive a thank you from me, because they just proved that they DO listen a little bit and they DO care about their customers. I also imagine this was a hard achievement for some in the company, as investors etc are probably not that happy about this decision

They do not listen to customers, they simply have not reached expected sales levels and somebody has finally had the insight to ask why. In the end, lost revenue is all they listen to, you are naive to think otherwise.

 

[n-ster]

I also dislike data-mining to subsequently sell my details to third parties (Origin). If they are making more profit, they could at least reduce the price of their games. Nor do I like providing kernel-level access (Securom), or having installations limited (Securom, Tages, et al.) when it is clear that none of these methods serve to prevent piracy. Indeed, they are so ineffectual that it is clear that this is not their intent and I certainly do not like being lied to or treated like an idiot. They are all simply a method of excercising more control over the paying customer, frequently cause conflicts with other aspects of the system and, at the very least, unnecessarily eat up system resources.

DRM should be reduced to a bare minimum and the need for some form of anti-piracy measures should not afford companies licence to treat their customers any way they please. In this particular case, given the average Internet speeds in Spain and many other parts, it was simply a stupid idea from the outset.



They do not listen to customers, they simply have not reached expected sales levels and somebody has finally had the insight to ask why. In the end, lost revenue is all they listen to, you are naive to think otherwise.

Theses are nice arguments, and I agree with some of them. But I still think that the solution is somewhere in the middle. Reducing DRMs is fine if they find another way to slow piracy (note I did not say stop). Admittedly, I do not know what Securom or Origin do, but installations limits should be fine if there is a way to deactivate them from previous PCs

 

[gorg_graggel]

the copy protection software is the same (orbit), they just disabled the always-on requirement.
i think the first game to be released without it, will be anno 2070 (dawn of discovery?), which is about to be released in a week...not sure if homm6 still has it...

no need for any bets, it's been dropped...for now anyways...

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Knowing Ubisoft,they would replace it with some software/drivers which messed up our pc.
Starforce 2012,anyone?

My money is on Tages.

 

[gorg_graggel]

it's neither starforce nor tages...it's orbit...

 

[qubit]

Nah, it'll be qubit's Quantum DRM.

 

[newtekie1]

Oh no, not Starforce or Tages, both of those cause everyone's computer that install it to instantly crash, the CD/DVD to explode in the drive, the motherboard to fry, and the tires to go flat on their car!

 

[digibucc]

Oh no, not Starforce or Tages, both of those cause everyone's computer that install it to instantly crash, the CD/DVD to explode in the drive, the motherboard to fry, and the tires to go flat on their car!

i've had more than my fair share of legitimate problems with tages.