Ubisoft Done “Punishing” Players With DRM

Ubisoft’s Vice President of Digital Publishing Chris Early has said that the company doesn’t want to hurt players with DRM that any “pirate can get around.”

Early gave this statement speaking in an interview where he came out strongly against video game publishers and developers instituting DRM as a method of halting software privacy. Early would go on to say that piracy is inevitable and that the only people really affected by DRM practices are paying consumers.

“I don’t want us in a position where we’re punishing a paying player for what a pirate can get around,” he said. “Anything is going to be able to be pirated given enough time and enough effort to get in there. So the question becomes, what do we create as services, or as benefits, and the quality of the game, that will just have people want to pay for it?”

Early’s comments come in the wake of Ubisoft’s recent decision to abandon its DRM policies which, in the past, had imposed strict restrictions on players. These included measures such as requiring players to be online to play games like Assassin’s Creed 2, even during its single player mode.

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

6 Comments on Ubisoft Done “Punishing” Players With DRM


On June 23, 2014 at 10:05 am

Okay, so it takes some time but it appears the AAA industry can, in fact, course correct.

Just takes lots of yelling, lost money and tens of thousands of angry customers but eventually they might just stop treating us like meat with eyes and a wallet.


On June 23, 2014 at 3:34 pm

Yeah. I actually think the whole DRM thing should go. Many players are already affected with this problem, who have experienced so many issues, which is Uplay. It’s almost as if they don’t need the customers to give feedback on this situation. Uplay is a decent program, but it’s flawed and needs fixing.


On June 24, 2014 at 4:55 am

Believe it when I see it.


On June 24, 2014 at 2:20 pm

Read the source article. More online content “baked in”? How about that uPlay? How about those forced co-op missions? How about that locked content that you have to faff around getting stupid “achievements” in order to access? I hope you like all that stuff, cause that’s what Chris Early has just sold you.


On June 24, 2014 at 3:45 pm


You know that playing online is an option right?
Like how some people play Battlefield, Halo and Call of Duty just because they like the set-pieced/scripted single player and never touch the multiplayer.

I’ll give you Uplay being as much bull as Origin and Steam, forcing you to sign in to gain access to online or single player content. This is the main reason I play mainly on Consoles so that I can pretty much avoid that sorta thing.

I’m not sure what you mean when you say forced co-op missions, or stuff being locked off till you complete an achievement.


On June 25, 2014 at 8:32 am

The Battlefield games have a long history of locking things off until you’ve achieved a specific goal. 37,000 Assault Rifle score to unlock a FAMAS, for instance. It’s really just a really just a lame attempt to turn a straight FPS into a pseudo-RPG. That’s just one game. There are other games that do the same: tying unlockables to achievements. It’s really just an artificial and lazy means to keep a competitive game competitive. “Why,” you may ask. The answer is simple: games like CoD and Battlefield don’t have a lifespan of much more than a year (but we’ll call that two years to factor in the latecomers to these games). These games REALLY aren’t that interesting, truth be told. They’re the gamers’ equivalent of sporting events. The achievements are there so players will keep coming back to the game in an attempt to unlock something more. This is to buy more time, because frankly, these games aren’t much fun after the first playthrough or two, and multiplayer’s only fun until you realize that many gamers aren’t really working together as teams, but are, instead, seeking to unlock achievements and inflate their K/D Ratios.

This is why these games have to have yearly iterations. In truth, they get boring pretty quickly. It’s a formulaic system that works well for some devs, which is why they do it ad nauseam. Every. Single. Year. It’s also why we’re slowly getting to that point where the market is saturated with these sorts of games to the point where people are not as wowed by them any more. Those of us that play these games for the singleplayer campaign get bored after the first or second playthrough, therefore the $60-70 price tag that the devs tack on to these games is too much. The players that enjoy the multiplayer eventually get bored with them, too, within a year or two, and want the next one.

Also, we’re aware that multiplayer is an option. Reliable internet connections are an issue. When they’re not, there’s the lag issue (which can often be attributed to ISP issues). Then, there’s the fact that when we’re playing singleplayer games, we don’t like the idea of Joe Nobody popping in every five minutes to grief us while we’re in the middle of enjoying the singleplayer elements of the game.

I don’t have issues with Steam. I do, however, take issue with every game developer under the sun thinking that they need a Steam-like program to work with. Apparently, disc checks and official disc check removal patches are too much to ask for these days.

I am glad that they finally acknowledge that pirates are going to get around the DRM regardless, and so it’s a waste of time to use it to begin with.