Ubisoft Relents on Driver: San Francisco DRM

August 18, 2011 -

Ubisoft, faced with a groundswell of opposition to the copy protection in the PC version of Driver: San Francisco, has announced that the game will not require a constant connection to a server in order to play. Players will no longer be required to have a constant internet connection in order to play the game, but they will still need to sign in online at the game’s launch.

"We’ve heard your feedback regarding the permanent internet connection requirement for Driver and have made the decision to no longer include it," said a statement from Ubisoft on the matter. "So this means that Driver PC gamers will only need to sign in at game launch but can subsequently choose to play the game offline."

Hopefully this will be a lesson learned by Ubisoft about "always on" DRM schemes. Consumers do not like them and don't want them in their PC games. Driver San Francisco for Windows will be released September 30. The game will hit Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii on September 2.

Source: Develop

Posted in

Comments

Re: Ubisoft Relents on Driver: San Francisco DRM

As much as it might hurt to miss the next Assassin's Creed, well, I dunno if console sales count or not.

Re: Ubisoft Relents on Driver: San Francisco DRM

Pretty much agree with the rest of you. I will continue to ignore Ubi until they realize that they can have all the soapbox arguments they want regarding the securing of their product but in the end you just can't force your customers to buy it if they dont like the restrictive DRM wrapper around it.

Its really that simple Ubi... The customer is KING.

Re: Ubisoft Relents on Driver: San Francisco DRM

This isn't relenting. You still need a constant internet connection to play. This is Ubisoft listening to gamers but totally not hearing them. Having to sign in everytime you launch the game is the same thing as requiring constant internet connection. The only difference is you don't get booted if your wireless goes down in the middle of gaming.

Ubisoft is pushing this hard and I think gamers are pushing back. I have not purchased and will not purchase an Ubisoft title as long as they have anything strong than a one time activation. They recently got caught out lying about their From Dust DRM on Steam as well, they said it only required a one time activation but you have to be logged into UPlay to play, meaning always on internet DRM.

I just can't wait for this company to go under. They are just the worst.

 

EDIT: I checked and their games are still getting cracked anyway. So what are you accomplishing Ubisoft? Tell me what you are accomplishing.

Re: Ubisoft Relents on Driver: San Francisco DRM

This is not Ubi not listening to gamers. This is Ubi listening to gamers and doing the opposite. This (with the From Dust fiasco) is Ubi flat out lying to gamers.

This is my reason never to buy an Ubi Soft game ever again. They went too far this time.

Re: Ubisoft Relents on Driver: San Francisco DRM

Not good enough. They're giving only the most token of concessions while not grasping that if you're somewhere that you can't connect to the internet, you can't play this game. If you can't contact their servers because they're down, and this will happen at some point, you can't play your game.

Pirates, in the meantime, will be able to play the game with no problems at all. And I know this game is going to get pirated despite this bullshit DRM because I have actually paid attention for the past five years.

Re: Ubisoft Relents on Driver: San Francisco DRM

On top of that, they said originally that From Dust would require a one-time internet activation, but as it turns out you have to be online to launch the game at all. Even if you're using the Steam copy, running Steam in offline mode, Ubisoft's DRM requires an internet connection.

Edit: Oh yeah, and they deleted their own forum post where they made that promise and replaced it with a new one, without any trace of apology.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/18/ubisoft-edits-forum-keeps-fro...


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Ubisoft Relents on Driver: San Francisco DRM

Yup.

----
Papa Midnight

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician