Ubisoft DRM confirmed to boot you from your singleplayer game when the net drops out in Computer and Console Posted February 21, 2010 Neither is the EA run by Doctor Evil (though BioWare is run by two doctors ), yet: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/17...nquest-servers/ Here are the 'Service Updates' (games reliant on servers EA is shutting down) from EA: http://www.ea.com/2/service-updates It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in online authentication and indeed any other DRM that relies on any kind of connection to the publisher/developer after the game is purchased. Indeed, this great potential for losing the game I have purchased (and I consider it HIGHLY likely, as evidenced by this, by EA's shutdowns of NWN DLC, by shutdowns of music DRM servers by giant companies like Walmart and Microsoft,...) is one of the reasons why any game, no matter how good, that requires any connection to the publisher/developer after purchase is on the automatic no-buy list for me. For games, where only the multiplayer relies on being online (games that have deliberately excluded LAN to make you rely on the online systems of the publisher/developer), those make it to my no-buy list if it is the multiplayer part of the game I am after, but not if the single-player part of the game is the reason why I want it. EA is only shutting down the multiplayer servers, you can still continue to play the game as a single player title. That seems like a pretty obvious risk when you buy a game for online features. MMO's shut down as well. MMOs do shut down as well - one of the main reasons why I don't play them. I agree with you that it is an obvious risk that when you buy a game reliant on online authentication to install or play. That is precisely why I don't buy all such games and seek to warn others about the risk. The above should be a good illustration for why I don't trust the 'we will keep the servers up' arguments. This is one of the things I have been concerned about since the debut of the online authentication (or worse... always online) DRM, but even I didn't expect them to shut down servers so quickly after games' release. You are right that it is the multiplayer parts of games that have been impacted thus far. This points to the dangerous trend of using online-only multiplayer as a form of DRM and deliberately excluding LAN for that purpose that is becoming so popular these days. That's why if a game featuring both multiplayer and singleplayer modes is reliant on the internet for multiplayer (or some other feature) but not for single player, I evaluate the game as if it were single player game only (or as if it lacked the online feature) when I am deciding whether to buy it or not. The entire reason they did that was because they shifted to non-DRM music, which would seem to be preferable to someone against DRM. Sure, their new system is far preferable to their old one and I support their move to DRM-free music. That doesn't change the fact that they did cut support for their previous customers who bought DRMed music (though they did give them time). My point is don't let this happen to you with games! The companies will find lots of reasons to cut their DDRM servers. Perhaps they will switch to a different type of DRM that doesn't need them or they will decide that using them for older games with insufficient (for them) player bases is uneconomical, or they might release new versions of a game and will want to incentivize migration to it, or they might simply go bankrupt. The reasons are manifold. Just to clarify, however, I am not opposed to DRM. I am merely opposed to DRM that requires some sort of external contact with the publisher/developer/third party after I have already purchased the game - hence, my opposition to online activation and other online-reliant forms of DRM. I have no problem with disk checks. Even my SecuROM signature that apparently indicates dislike of SecuROM is only true for those versions of SecuROM DDRM that have become online-reliant - I have no problems with other versions of SecuROM or even with new versions of SecuROM when its online activation features are disabled (e.g. I believe NWN 2 uses SecuROM 7, but thankfully it does not utilize the online activation part of the DRM). But the whole scare tactics where these companies are purposefully trying to screw us is a bit overboard. Well, Ubisoft is purposefully trying to screw us (unless you think they are implementing this system by accident and not on purpose ), but not out of malice towards us. It is more like disregard for what we think driven by their fear of second hand sales and day 1 piracy. Hence, their screwing us is a byproduct of their policy, but their policy is deliberate. The key is to make them realize that it will not pay financially if they disregard our preferences on this issue. This is done by not purchasing the games that implement these systems, spreading awareness of what's happening and letting Ubisoft know about our opinions/purchasing decisions/reasons. I completely endorse your boycott. I think this is a stupid decision by Ubisoft and it will backfire terribly. Well, thanks! I appreciate the support. I am not going to campaign as hard against this as against EA decisions in 2008/2009 (and EA has thankfully learned after the backlash and now implements sensible DRM... disk checks), simply because I don't care sufficiently about Ubisoft titles (except for the games I mentioned that they hold rights to), but all who are opposed to Ubisoft's move certainly have my passive support, boycott participation (when it becomes relevant and Ubisoft produces titles I care about) and perhaps even active support occassionally.