Ubisoft finally ditches always on DRM


Recommended Posts

In an interview with RPS, due to go live in a few hours, Ubisoft? worldwide director for online games, Stephanie Perlotti, has said the Ubisoft has officially stopped using ?always-on? DRM and will not implement it in future games.

?We have listened to feedback,? he said, ?and since June last year our policy for all of PC games is that we only require a one-time online activation when you first install the game, and from then you are free to play the game offline.?

Previously Ubisoft titles required players to be online at all times whilst playing ? if your online connection dropped out the game would stop. It?s long been thought of as one of the most counter-intuitive, punishing forms of DRM conceived. Now it looks as though all Ubisoft games will require one simple activation, and players will then be allowed to play the game they?ve purchase on or offline.

Great news, and the right decision all round.

The full interview is set to up on RPS in a couple of hours.

Ubisoft Scrapping Always-On DRM For PC Games [RPS]

*applauds*

My opinion of ubisoft just nudged a little closer to the positive side of the spectrum.

It would be nice to see them release patches to get rid of the DRM on the games some of us already own. However, I doubt that'll happen.

  • Like 3

This is Ubisoft. They're probably getting rid of online DRM by abandoning PC gaming.

I was just about to say.. after reading the head line my first thought was 'ohhh no!' because ubisoft, ea and the rest of the DRM enforcement crews only usually ditch one DRM in favor of another more restrictive. I was expecting ubisoft to require a gps locator attached dongle on your PC and a copy of your passport to be sent in as proof its you or somethig stupid.

As a PC gamer, this is welcome, but unnecessary. I abandoned all Ubisoft games years ago. I got tired of crap like always-on DRM and them punishing me for wanting to play their games on my PC.

Fool me once...

  • Like 2

I wonder if Ubi trully understands just how much they've alienated so many of their customers. And just how many will never have anything to do with them ever again. :glare:

  • Like 3

PC gaming is far from dead. Infact due to consoles seeming more redundant these days, PC gaming has exciting days ahead.

Ubisoft must be well aware by now that intrusive DRM does nothing to prevent piracy, just humiliates genuine buyers while pirates point and laugh at them. Hence the decision. With that being said, I still won't buy their recycled Assassins Creed games.

Heh, cracks will be released faster this way :p (not that I have touched a Ubisoft game in ages, by the way). Anyway my opinion is that PC gaming would perform pretty well if the market was populated more by indie developers and less by big-budget monsters like Ubicrap whose only idea is to please shareholderds. I don't give a crap about shareholders, I want fun and games not "on-line plus services+achievements" and that's all.

hmm I think big triple A titles like MW, AC, ME, BF, Borderlands, and such when they're available on the platform do far more for the PC market than indie titles.

Besides there's no lack of indie devs on PC. it's where most of them are, even if many make more money of consoles. Though I guess that would be a problem for a person who insists on not buying anything that doesn't come on a physical disk.

John Walker over at Rock, Paper, Shotgun did a great interview and really took Perotti and Burk to task over the bull**** DRM, not releasing statistics related to DRM (or 1 minute saying it was a success and the next saying piracy rates were at 93-95%) and the damage the always on crap has done to Ubi reputation. It's a good article. I suggest people read.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/ubisoft-drm-piracy-interview/

It would be nice to see them release patches to get rid of the DRM on the games some of us already own. However, I doubt that'll happen.

I think they did. Splinter Cell: Conviction hasn't done any weird network related glitching in ages for me (And my ISP is definately glitchy.)

There was so recent comment I saw that indicated that they believed 90%+ of their players are playing a pirated copy.

Which begs the question, when they have a game that has 5 or so million sales, are they suggesting there's another 50 million or so people playing a pirated copy?

Or that a significant percentage of the human population in the world that has ready access to electricity is, at this moment, playing Rainbow Six.

In fact, 15 out of 10 people on this forum are playing it right now...

reaction.jpg

Too bad PC gamers ditched Ubisoft.

Too little, too late. Restore Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon to their original respective glories, and we might have something to talk about.

  • Like 1

reaction.jpg

Too bad PC gamers ditched Ubisoft.

Too little, too late. Restore Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon to their original respective glories, and we might have something to talk about.

According to Ubisoft's statistics, you're playing all of those games. Now. At the same time. And it's a pirated version.

  • Like 1

I'm not playing any Ubisoft games except Trials:Evolution on the xbox360. I only bought AC1 and completed most of it. Those are the last 2 Ubisoft games I've touched. I'm excited trials:evolution is coming to PC!!!

According to Ubisoft's statistics, you're playing all of those games. Now. At the same time. And it's a pirated version.

Statistics they refuse to show anyone else. They screwed up and in typical PR bull**** they are trying to avoid any blame.

Stupid company is stupid.

reaction.jpg

Too bad PC gamers ditched Ubisoft.

Too little, too late. Restore Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon to their original respective glories, and we might have something to talk about.

Mmm a real RB6 and Ghost Recon game.... The new splinter cell I actually like better than the old ones.

Yeah, the original article (not the one sourced by most of these, but also from RockPaperShotgun) said it happened in June 2011.

So it's certainly in time for whatever. (And funny that people still believed it was present, but anyway.)

The new splinter cell I actually like better than the old ones.

Hell yeah. Chaos Theory and Double Agent were fun but kind of annoying. I keep wanting to finish them and not getting anywhere.

As some of you know, we don't put copy protection in our internally developed games and I feel confident in saying that it has no noticeable impact on sales.

We released Galactic Civilizations II in 2006. SIX years ago right? I think it would be safe to say that whatever piracy could happen to that game must have happened by now. But we still made well into the six figures on that game in July.

Needless to say, I don't buy into the piracy argument. I never have. I've gotten flamed on this so many times over the years as if I'm some sort of gamer hippy. But it's not naivete, it's just business. People who pay money for stuff are a lot less likely to pay for stuff if they think they're going to get hassled for doing so.

There was so recent comment I saw that indicated that they believed 90%+ of their players are playing a pirated copy.

Which begs the question, when they have a game that has 5 or so million sales, are they suggesting there's another 50 million or so people playing a pirated copy?

Or that a significant percentage of the human population in the world that has ready access to electricity is, at this moment, playing Rainbow Six.

In fact, 15 out of 10 people on this forum are playing it right now...

No. They said on PC 90% of copies are pirated. Out of that 5 million sold, the majority of sales will be on console. The makers of the Witcher announced they passed 1 million sales, and at that point in time there were 4.5 million copies pirated so far. That's a ~80% piracy rate, not far off from Ubisoft's number, and Ubisoft games are more popular.

My question is: Do you think piracy cost them a measurable amount of sales?

My follow-up would be, do you think their anti-piracy methods cost them more sales than they gained through converting would be pirates.

And my last question is, is the goal of copy protection about increasing sales or keeping non-payers from playing?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • UK funds £60M AI labs to challenge US tech dominance with open-source models by Paul Hill The UK government has awarded £60 million to Oxford University and University College London to help keep the country in the AI race by focusing on open-source, low-hardware alternatives. This is in stark contrast to the expensive, closed-source, and high-hardware-requirement models being created in the United States and elsewhere. The money will be shared among two new academic research labs over six years to help them redesign the fundamental mathematics and architectures of AI to help the UK reduce its reliance on a handful of US tech firms. Commenting on the development, AI Minister Kanishka Narayan said: Initially, the government planned to fund just one lab with a £40 million investment, but with this update, two labs will now get access to a larger pool of funds. The labs are expected to invest in the top AI researchers at every career stage, with £2 million per lab being set aside for hiring at least ten doctoral students. The government hopes that this will grow the UK’s talent in the field of AI. The labs are also expected to work closely with the leaders in British AI research, such as the Alan Turing Institute and UKRI’s AI research hubs. This will allow the various teams to collaborate and create new solutions faster than they could alone. This development is pretty interesting for a number of reasons, chiefly that it could create a long-term challenge for US tech firms if these labs successfully scale these open-source architectures that bypass the proprietary ecosystems. It could also give British businesses and public sector organizations access to AI features without paying high licensing fees to foreign providers or needing to invest in specialized server infrastructure.
    • If I were them, I'm gonna hold out until the prices of these semiconductor parts normalize. $1,049 for a ~5 year old hardware is DoA, more so for gamers. On a deeper note, if Steam Machine is priced like this, we are soo effed up for the next gen Xbox console and PS6. With great AAA titles releasing at the end of the year, this just creates more demand...and more tears for me. Lol.
    • I suspect one reason its hard to justify subsidising is that it's not a locked down device like a traditional console is. In this climate sadly if it was a "good deal" you'd get people hoarding them for anything but gaming. The Lenovo Legion Go 2 with the Ryzen Z2 Extreme is £1300 here ($1720) for some context on how other SteamOS like devices are now priced. I got the older Z1 Extreme model for £300 with a dock, just shows how insane prices have got recently.
    • If you have an account with any of Meta's services, you technically have an account with all of their services. You may not use it, but it exists.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
    • First Post
      mike_rumble earned a badge
      First Post
    • Dedicated
      tuben earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      450
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      180
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      94
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      87
    5. 5
      neufuse
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!