THis literally makes future Ubisoft titles unplayable for me. I have a laptop that I play games on during long travel times or waiting in areas where I do not have access to an internet connection.  This completely prevents me from playing any of their games.

What a joke, this is seriously too funny.  The best part is I can guarantee the product managers and executives truly believe they'll see a spike in PC game sales with this.

My biggest issue, which that article hopelessly failed to realise, isn't the problem of me not having access to the internet (although that is still an issue), but of the company not having access to the internet, that is, of the servers going down.

If this actually happens (the DRM, that is) there's no way I'm going to buy their  games again unless I can get them ridiculously cheap, because I want to know I can play my game even if the company goes under the day after I've bought it. At least with a 1-off activation I have the (very basic) safety net of just needing to keep that game installed on my computer and only being able to play it on that computer, but with a constant one there's nothing I can do.

Why is it so hard for companies to just do a very basic DRM - either a 1-off online activation, or preferably just a CD-check along with a CD key, or even better yet, not do DRM at all? Small wonder people turn to pirated versions when this is the route being taken by companies.

This is certainly not better than the so called "old way". Some of you who like this idea act as if the "old way" was only Starforce of Secruom when there are several other methods that do work that aren't elitist, don't lease games, don't rely on company's to pay for servers whicch they can yank at any time, which don't force you to be online everytime to play your game... this is not better. If you want you no DVD/CD fix, go to a digital store and get it. Screw publishers that pull this crap.

Stardock and Ubisoft will be a GDC 2010.

It would be so good  if Frogboy could persuade Ubisoft, and others, to follow his Gamer's Bill of Rights

1) Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.
2) Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
3) Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
4) Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
5) Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer.
6) Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.
7) Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
8) Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
9) Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
10) Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

Requiring logons all the time is pointless. Pirates will still pirate it just fine. The only people who will be bothered by this are the legit customers. Although everyone but the producers seem to already know this.

You must have missed the memo. The only people who complain about DRM (And this IS DRM) are the pirates who aren't affected by it. 

If this ridiculous DRM is going to be for Assassin's Creed 2 for PC (and if it costs $60), it's off to Pirate Bay for me.

And we thought EA was bad. Can't wait to see Stardock become a truely major publisher, people wont have to put up with this shit.

Just because nobody's done it right yet doesn't mean nobody ever would.  Anywyay MMO's are a different animal - I think a lot of people that hate WoW stay subscribed because changing games means facing the daunting task of starting over at level 1 with no alts or guild or expertise.  You don't  really have that dynamic in other games.  And even if you fix or improve the game eventually, by that time everyone else is gone (see:Vanguard) and MMO's with no people are no fun regardless of how well-designed they are.  Further, an MMO usually needs to give the illusion of being "infinite" - you can keep playing forever - to have much appeal to people.  That makes them MUCH harder to design and repair.  Good single-player games are quite a bit simpler.

The point is the current system gives devs an incentive to focus their time on developing the next ex-pack or game rather than improve the existing product, because that's their only potential source of additional revenue, and I don't like that fact. 

If the fee is $10/month, and it's a good game and I stay subscribed for 6 months, the developer gets $60.  If it sucks and I unsubscribe after one month, the developer gets $10.  That's a lot better to me than a model where the develop gets $40 regardless of how much the game sucks.

I'm not saying a subscription model would be guaranteed to fix everything; I'm saying I'd like to see some developers try it.  I know I'd pay Stardock $X/month to play their whole catalogue and be in their betas, and I think a lot of other people would too.

Let's see... i have begin play a game called Harpoon in 1989 on Macintosh... turn to windows and Harpoon classic in 1995... and finally to Harpoon Commander Edition in 2007... 3 version for a total around the 100$...

With a fee of 10$ by month, i will have pay a little over the 2500$ as today !!!!

Developpers and distributor have change several time but the game survive because it is a very good game... if these game was using a subscritpion system, it will have be long dead...

If you like a film, you buy the DVD, you don't go each month to the cinema... by the way, i don't know any cinema who show some good films from 10 year ago !!!

A lot of young people don't see the danger of the online server of monthly subscription... old guy like me, who have know the begin of home computer, the begin of internet know that nothing is eternal there... only way to keep something is too keep it yourself... thing really impossible with the monthly subscription or with the online control each time you play...

By the way, for check if a game sucks or not, not need to pay... you have always a bunch of review, sometime you have demo... and if really needed you have pirate version for test...

Put in that way, it doesn't sound bad. But I would imagine it would be more in the line of "Pay $40 for the game, first month free and then monthly fee of $10". Companies need the initial boost of $40 (or whichever price the sell it for) so they don't totally depend on hooking players for the following months (they have bills to pay and all that?). So even if it's a failure, they got some extra money ($40 for 10 players in one month is better than $10 for 10 players in one month).

It could force companies to actually be selective about what they produce/publish, control money spent in the production of games (less shiny shiny and more actual content too)... But big publishers aren't likely to go that way. Too many selfish interests. Independent developers might be able to do such things but they have lesser budgets to cover, have more freedom and can allow themselves to be more in touch with their customers. Crate Entertaiment (former Iron Lore) has voluntary donations for the development of Grim Dawn. And they work!

Well, CD keys are increasingly useless to any publisher as more and more game sales occur digitally. If one of them uses one, they also have to have a second system in place for the digital model.

As for why companies don't do DRM free, note that the ones that maintain a DRM model are publicly traded. They have shareholders. And if the shareholders want something, that's what happens. And shareholders don't exactly tend to be tech savvy gamer types.

I really think (unsure if this is illegal under anti-trust) Brad needs to talk with Gabe over at Valve and whoever is over at Gamersgate, and you three should come together and publicly suspend Ubisoft from being able to sell games on your services until this is removed.

Maybe that will send a message.  This is literally a "don't be evil" moment.  I will be UPSET if Stardock sells this game using this DRM scheme.

Yeah I am not seeing this "cloud" save crap being something the Steam or Impulse are going to be able to fix. This kind of DRM garbage is going to be stacked with digi store efforts. It's taken me 3 days and counting just to figure out why their forums require me to logoff because I am already logged in to login again

Online Service Platform Q&A

I've seen this before, as in before I made my decision not to buy Ubisoft titles. Ubisoft is now above EA in publishers I really don't want to support. At least with EA there are some titles I am willing to buy and many of them are released with only disc checks (retail versions) so when they are done milking customers with dangling DLC, the packaged versions will be wortwhile. Ubisoft can take their primarily poor selling products and yearly profit loss  tactics and shove it.

People seem to think the main incentive for Ubisoft to use this is anti-piracy.  It's not.  Despite popular belief that big game publishers are total morons (and it's easy to think this given many of their choices these days), they aren't.  They know any system they come up with for anti-piracy will be broken before the game is even officially released.  This is about monitoring and controlling when and where their customers can use their products.  They are simply using the PC as a testing grounds for this.  Since WoW took off, companies have been dying to get in on that gravy train with non-MMOs.  The real goal here is to start requiring console games to require constant connectivity to function.  Once they reach that stage, they can start doing awesome stuff like requiring a fee every so often to continue using the game.  You won't see it this generation, but with the Playstation 4 generation, or whatever they end up calling it, I think you will start seeing more and more single player games require a constantly active connection to use the game.  And while PC owners will say, "Screw them, I just won't buy it.", console owners may not have a choice if Microsoft or Sony enforces it.

Ubisoft probably knows that choices like this will result in increased piracy on the PC.  They don't care.  Again, this is simply a test run to implement the same system for consoles where it is not quite as easy, or kids do not know how, to pirate.

Q:Is there an "off-line" option.

A: No.

Done. I look forward to seeing you go under Ubisoft. Good Riddance. If you want to see how it's really done then check out Impulse or Steam.

I was really hoping that this recession would kill EA and Ubisoft. Time to let the big old rotten trees burn down and let new saplings rise.

Not gonna happen. EA seems to get its kicks by eating saplings. And ubisoft is like a zombie. No matter what you do, it just keeps coming back.

I find myself struggling to believe the Q&A:

As if they're going to release patches for (theoretically) a hundred games when they're about to go under.

Edit:

Just for added confirmation that you're no longer buying a product/game from them.

Impulse, Please boycott any Ubisoft title that includes this egregious DRM that strictly goes against even what is in the Gamers Bill of Rights. It is not sensible. I play MMO's so I am no stranger to being able to play only when connected to the internet. But those games are much different. I do not buy a Single Player game that i have to be online to use.

I'm going to boycott Ubisoft so long as they do this. I'll lose a lot of faith in Stardock if they carry these titles. I understand they're trying to make a buck; and that is why they've allowed more DRM-titles on Impulse. It helps Impulse swing more weight. But this is flat-out wrong. Stardocks mission with Impulse from day one has been to create a more Pro-Consumer [fairness] market. Especially in the realm of Digital Distribution. I use Impulse because its not Steam. This new Ubi-DRM is just like Steam 2.0.

We all know how much Steam cares about DRM....

I just really wish that Assassin's Creed 2 didn't have this DRM on it. The greed and stupidity of large corporations is sickening. No wonder we're in a recession.

I fucking knew this was going to happen. Since Activision and Infintiy Ward charged 60 dollars for their shit pc version of MW2 I KNEW other assholes would follow suit. Pisses me off.

Wow, talk about not answering a question..must be some old politician mind trick..not to mention a single-player game have nothing to gain being connected to the Inernet.

and I found this too at http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,703947/Ubisoft-interview-New-DRM-for-almost-all-forthcoming-games/News/

Yeah because before this grand technological revolution, I couldn't install my games on 3+ PCs...not that people actually have more than 1 PC to play on...even if they ahve the classic desktop/laptop combo, nothing stops someone form E-mailing their saves to the other computer and keep playing the same game.