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

    • NASA: This asteroid may not kill us but it probably won't be far off either by Sayan Sen Image by Zelch Csaba via Pexels New observations by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope have eliminated the last remaining impact threat posed by asteroid 2024 YR4, ruling out the possibility that the near-Earth object could strike the Moon in December 2032. NASA said observations collected by Webb on February 18 and 26, 2026, enabled scientists to refine the asteroid's orbit enough to "rule out a chance of lunar impact on Dec. 22, 2032." Instead, asteroid 2024 YR4 is now expected to pass the Moon at a distance of about 13,200 miles (21,200 km). The agency stressed that the update "reflects improved precision in our understanding of where the asteroid is expected to be in 2032 rather than a shift in its orbital path." The announcement closes a remarkable chapter in planetary defence that began in late 2024, when the approximately 60-metre-wide asteroid briefly became the most closely watched near-Earth object in the world. Discovered on December 27, 2024, by the ATLAS telescope in Chile, 2024 YR4 initially appeared to have a small chance of colliding with Earth on December 22, 2032. As astronomers gathered more observations, the impact probability briefly climbed to around 3%—the highest ever recorded for an asteroid of its size—before steadily falling as its orbit became better understood. By early 2025, international observations had ruled out any significant risk to Earth. However, astronomers were left with another possibility: a roughly 4% chance that the asteroid could instead strike the Moon. "The probability that asteroid 2024 YR4 will strike the Moon on 22 December 2032 is now approximately 4%," the European Space Agency (ESA) had said last year, noting that "there is a 96% chance that the asteroid will not impact the Moon." ESA said such an impact, while unlikely, would have presented an extraordinary scientific opportunity. "It is a very rare event for an asteroid this large to impact the Moon – and it is rarer still that we know about it in advance. The impact would likely be visible from Earth, and so scientists will be very excited by the prospect of observing and analysing it," said Richard Moissl, Head of ESA's Planetary Defence Office. "It would certainly leave a new crater on the surface. However, we wouldn't be able to accurately predict in advance how much material would be thrown into space, or whether any would reach Earth," he added. The asteroid also exposed an important blind spot in planetary defence. Because 2024 YR4 approached Earth from the direction of the Sun, it remained hidden from ground-based telescopes until after its closest approach. "We looked into how Neomir would have performed in this situation, and the simulations surprised even us," Moissl said. "Neomir would have detected asteroid 2024 YR4 about a month earlier than ground-based telescopes did. This would have given astronomers more time to study the asteroid's trajectory and allowed them to much sooner rule out any chance of Earth impact in 2032." He added, "As an infrared telescope, like Webb, Neomir would have also immediately given us a much better estimate for the asteroid's size, which is very important for assessing the significance of the hazard." The latest NASA observations underscore the value of space-based infrared telescopes in tracking faint asteroids. According to NASA, Webb made "among the faintest ever observations of an asteroid," extending the object's observational record by nearly eight months at a time when it had become too faint for other telescopes. That additional data allowed scientists to eliminate the remaining uncertainty surrounding its 2032 flyby. Although asteroid 2024 YR4 is now confirmed to pose no threat to either Earth or the Moon, scientists say its discovery remains one of the most significant real-world tests of the international planetary defence system, demonstrating how continued observations can rapidly transform an object once considered hazardous into one whose future path is known with high confidence. Source: NASA, ESA This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Yup. Google is just scraping the entire internet for their own ad profits without sharing revenue with the sources. It's obviously stealing, but since these sites depend upon Google's search scraps to survive... As for me, I just stopped using Google for anything except Reddit searches. If Reddit's own search wasn't complete crapola, I'd never use Google search again.
    • I had a feeling this was coming. Picked up my first Mac ever last Saturday. Glad I did.
    • In a major surprise there is actually some good deals for the first time in years. At least for me.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      Admir earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      First Post
    • Apprentice
      daryld went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Contributor
      Carltonbar went up a rank
      Contributor
    • One Month Later
      The_Focal_Point earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      419
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      170
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      130
    4. 4
      Xenon
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!