Ubisoft responds to the latest DRM controversy: “There simply is no way to bypass that. We also do not have 7 copies of the game for you”

ubisoft logo

If you were planning to buy Anno 2070, you should know that it is limited to only 3 activations and if you replace your, say, graphics card more than thrice, you can say goodbye to the game. Now, this is absurd and baffling to me that a publisher would implement such a thing.

What exactly is Ubisoft’s thought process behind such a strategy for the PC market?

Yes, I know they have been talking about how piracy is rampant, and how almost “95% of the PC gamers would pirate it” anyway, and other nonsense. This to me, shows an utter lack of respect for the PC market, and while plenty of publishers are affected by piracy, they have shown us that there is a way to succeed and gain a lot of goodwill in the process.

Yes, I’m talking about Valve. But that’s probably not a right example, because they are quite established and know the market inside out. Now, when Guru3D found out about Anno 2070’s DRM, Ubisoft’s response to that was… well, terrible.

They said: “Sorry to disappoint you – the game is indeed restricted to 3 hardware changes and there simply is no way to bypass that. We also do not have 7 copies of the game for you.”

Why does Ubisoft have a problem with this when the other publishers don’t? Simple. They think that DRM will actually help them reduce piracy (lol). Hey, never mind pissing off your legitimate customers, the most important thing is to reduce piracy! There are so many things wrong with this logic that I don’t understand where to even begin.

If legitimate customers buy the game, then Ubisoft may think their DRM is a success, and if they don’t? They will say that “Piracy is killing the market… boo hoo”. So what good can come out of this? Ubisoft will never find out the state of the market this way.

You do make some fine games, Ubisoft, there is no doubt about that, but tying them up with ‘draconian’ DRM will just hurt you in the long run. Check out the Anno 2070 gameplay trailer below, in case you’re hearing about it for the first time.

Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Tagged with: , , ,

  • http://Website Wezz

    I was planning on buying this game, but I think I’ll just pirate it now, I change my hardware quite often, and you can bet that pirated versions wouldn’t have these problems.

  • http://Website Ancient

    I buy every game i have but lately i stopped buying ANY UBISOFT games because of there DRM and the limitation it have.

    A word To UBI : a game like Witcher sold a lot WITHOUT any Protection to annoy the legal customer BECAUSE making a GOOD game will make people Support and buy the game to Support the developers because they want them to make other GOOD games. I have even seen pirates who pirated Games and then bought certain games because it was REALLY good and they felt that the developers need support for such AWESOME product.

    So UBISOFT Your attitude with this DRM wont prevent PIRACY but it WILL INCREASE PIRACY because the pirated game is a lot easier to install and play while the one who owns the Original game and payed his money is F!@#ed because of the DRM. ( alot of people i know ~ 30 people who used to buy every game they got simply swore an oath not to pay UBI any money and they buy any other company games BUT UBI ONLY they pirate )

    I DONT KNOW WHY THIS IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND for UBI that DRM is damaging them.

  • Pingback: It’s hard to make PC exclusives due to extreme piracy- Reckoning dev « GamingBolt.com: Video Game News, Reviews, Previews and Blog()

  • Pingback: Ubisoft wants to provide a lot of value to PC gamers and ditch DRM « GamingBolt.com: Video Game News, Reviews, Previews and Blog()

  • Benguin

    I wouldn’t knowingly pay money for a game with such a patently unfair mechanism in it, even microsoft stops short of carrying on like that. Absurdly, as someone who doesn’t object to paying for good games, they’ve created a persuasive reason for me to seek out a cracked version of this one.

42 queries. 0.274 seconds