New Ubisoft Games Must Always Be Online

Ubisoft are watching you, always.

Why not? Everyone loves it when our crazy comments page numbers thing kicks in. Ubisoft have taken their senses and posted them into outer space. Responding to the public outcry for more draconian, inconveniencing copyright management, they have replaced Starforce and announced their new PC-only DRM system. One that requires you be permanently online in order to be able to play.

The attempt to sell this new system begins with what it doesn’t do. There’s no CD check, and there’s no installation limits. A good start. And then, GameSpy reports enthusiastically, it will support cloud saving. Well, I love cloud saving – it’s something Valve promised ages ago (although with sadly little movement since). When I choose to use it. Which with this DRM, the current reports suggest, you cannot.

The price we pay for not requiring the CD in the drive, and for being able to install a game we’ve legally bought on as many machines as we want, is to be permanently online when playing Ubi games. It will authenticate itself online each time you load it, and then save remotely every time you save. This is, to stress, a game perhaps bought in a shop. So from now on, beginning with Settlers 7, potentially all Ubi PC games will require you to check in with them to let them know you’ve started playing their game, and then tell them every time you save, send them all the data in doing so, and then say bye-bye when you’re done playing for that day.

Shack News received some clarifying information from Ubisoft. They explain that they will apply patches should they ever remove the servers behind the games. They also explain that if your connection drops while playing, the game will pause while it tries to reconnect, and then will apparently allow you to carry on without the internet. They don’t say whether it will be impossible to save if you do, however. They also say in the same notes that, “you will need to have an active Internet connection to play the game, for all game modes.” So this is a little unclear.

This seems like such a bizarre, bewildering backward step. Of course we haven’t experienced it yet, but based on Ubi’s own description of the system so many concerns arise. Yes, certainly, most people have the internet all the time on their PCs. But not all people. So already a percentage of the audience is lost. Then comes those who own gaming laptops, who now will not be able to play games on trains, buses, in the park, or anywhere they may not be able to find a wifi connection (something that’s rarely free in the UK, of course – fancy paying the £10/hour in the airport to play your Ubisoft game?). Then there’s the day your internet is down, and the engineers can’t come out to fix it until tomorrow. No game for you. Or any of the dozens of other situations when the internet is not available to a player.

But further, there are people who do not wish to let a publisher know their private gaming habits. People who do not wish to report in to a company they’ve no affiliation with, nor accountability to, whenever they play a game they’ve legally bought. People who don’t want their save data stored remotely. This new system renders all customers beholden to Ubisoft in perpetuity whenever they buy their games.

Clearly publishers are terrified by piracy. While none of the major publishers has ever produced any evidence to support the claims that piracy decreases their sales, they clearly think it does, and are trying to do anything they can to prevent it. Their ultimate goal – to make more money from sales – is in our favour too, of course. We want more PC games, and we want them now. So if publishers aren’t willing to invest in the medium because of piracy fears, we’ll lose out in a big way. But sadly these peculiar, Big Brother-esque approaches do not seem close to the right way to go about it.

Perhaps Ubi will react to public outcry. Perhaps a more sensible version can be created, one that offers an offline mode for those who play games offline, as with Steam. A solution that’s designed to make games accessible to those who legally purchase them. I really hope so.

Update: Just noticed two other things.

Firstly, this new DRM also prevents the option to resell your game. There are implications here.

Secondly, this rather remarkable wording in the FAQ:

Why is Ubisoft forcing their loyal customers to sign up for a Ubisoft account when they don’t want to give their private data and only play single player games?

We hope that customers will feel as we do, that signing up for an account will offer them exceptional gameplay and services that are not available otherwise.


  1. Hypocee says:

    Hooray, I just saved the price of Silent Hunter.

  2. Ven says:

    Second last paragraph “major publishers have ever produced”.

    Anyways, I like the idea of cloud storage, but only for Multiplayer games themselves, like TF2. What it should do is save onto the harddrive and then, when online, transfer all the info over to the cloud for achievements and stuff.

    • aldrenean says:

      “Has” is correct as it refers to the pronoun “none,” which is singular. “Have” is valid but not preferred. :)

    • John Walker says:

      Indeed, “none” is singular. We do prefer that people not correct grammar in comments threads. (It’s slightly more of a waste of time when the grammar was correct in the first place : )

  3. gryffinp says:

    I actually am rather less incensed about this than, say, Bioshock 2’s DRM. This seems a lot more reasonable than installing GFWL and having activation limits. That said, I don’t want any of the games Ubisoft’s publishing, so fuck em.

  4. Tacroy says:

    This poses some ridiculous technical problems, too. What about when Ultra-Mega Game 2.0 comes out, and on release day nobody can play because Ubi’s servers are being hammered into a fine paste? What happens when the same number of people who didn’t manage to get in try to play Ultra-Mega Game 2.0 the very next day, and the day after that, and the day after that? They’re going to have to whip up some mighty expensive infrastructure to be able to handle all of those cryptographic handshakes.

    Basically, with this DRM, Ubisoft is saying “Our games may only be this successful,” where “this” is however much they’re willing to spend on the DRM infrastructure.

    What’s worse is that this will not deter piracy at all. It took a few years to crack the PS3, but that was because Sony controlled both the hardware and the software. Ubisoft does not control the personal computer. All a pirate needs to do is reverse engineer whatever handshake is happening between the game and the Ubisoft authentication/savegame server, and figure out some way around it – even if it means spoofing your own server and lying to the game.

    • aDelicateBalance says:

      As you have basically said – this still won’t do /shit/ to stop piracy. It will simply piss off regular consumers, who will go… I can get a crack for this that lets me play it offline. Oh and it also lets me play without even paying Ubisoft, so why don’t I just do that while I’m at it. As Urthman says – when a pirated version of a game has /superior/ features to the official version, it’s a no-brainer – it’s free AND better! Ubi-Fail!

    • MadMatty says:

      Confirmed. They clearly underestimate the power of tha dark side. Anti-piracy checks will simply be REMOVED by crackers, no matter how convoluted and ridiculous the publishers make them.
      Even the Military gets hacked from time to time, despite the fact that they got no games on their servers!

    • solipsistnation says:

      Ah, but what good does removing the anti-privacy check do if you can’t save your game? Are the crackers going to write their own game-saving code?

    • Azradesh says:


    • cliffski says:

      that makes it substantially harder though. removing a disk check is one thing. reverse engineering the save game code is another, especially if canny developers do evil stuff, like use a different save game format for Wednesdays, or a different one for each alternate month (meaning pirates never know if they really cracked it).

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      @solipsistnation: Even WoW has private servers to substitute for the official ones, this shouldn’t be that much of an obstacle.

    • Tacroy says:

      @cliffski: Cracking a CD check is easy nowadays because people have literally been doing it for the last decade. Once one person cracks the first Ubisoft game with this copy protection (I’d give it not more than two months at the outside), the rest will come much more easily – after all, it’s not in Ubisoft’s interests to completely rewrite this DRM every time they release a game.

  5. Antsy says:

    Why don’t you want my money, Ubisoft?

  6. Urthman says:

    At some point, the pirate version of a game is going to be so much better than the original that it qualifies as a derivative work rather than a simple copy, making it morally okay to download and use it.

  7. Forscythe says:

    I agree with yallz about how incredibly stupid this move is for Ubi, but it looks like an ideal test case to prove the point that onerous DRM can be far more commercially damaging than piracy is (if it is). Thankfully, PC gaming is a frightfully competitive market.

    As always (we hope), the companies that get it (or at least those who figure out what they can get away with) will prosper, and those that harass, annoy, and insult their customers too much will fail. If Ubisoft sticks with this, they probably won’t be releasing PC games at all in two years, and that’s fine – it makes room for someone else to get it right.

    On the other hand, if they manage to get away with it, and most gamers eventually accept it (never underestimate a gamer’s tolerance for annoyances), then they know the market better than we do. Huh.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      “Tolerance for annoyances”.

      That’s just a fancy way of saying “stupidity”.

  8. JonFitt says:

    It’s notable that they’re kicking this off with the admirable but niche Settlers7. Seems like a good game for a potential suicide play.
    They wouldn’t risk something like Splinter Cell Conviction until the system has been shown to not kill a game. Arguably, Spore sales and it’s potential cash cow of expansion packs were cut short by a badly received DRM system.

  9. Labbes says:

    While that has little to do with the actual discussion, Steam has been using cloud saving for Torchlight, at least. Meaning my PC crashed and on upload Steam asked whether it should use the local or the SteamCloud saves. That’s how it should be, Ubisoft!

  10. jpipesup says:

    Soo… What happens at those 50+ player LAN’s where internet is disabled…

    Ubisoft fail…

  11. Shadram says:

    I live in New Zealand. Internet is expensive (abot $1 per GB) and relatively unreliable here. The thought that I’d have to be online at all times and upload/download every save I make (and I press that F5 key a lot in most games) pretty much guarantees I’ll never buy a game using this system. I’d be able to work out exactly how much each save was costing me, and very few games would be worth that extra expense.

    • Baboonanza says:

      @Shadram (first page)
      Haven’t you got the message yet? Jesus, and we thought the ridiculous pricing alone would be enough!

      Antipodeans aren’t allowed video games!

  12. Devan says:

    This type of copy protection may be bad, but at least it’s easy to explain to people why it’s so bad. If they go full-force on this, they can expect their PC sales to decline, and with the additional cost of 24/7 server authentication, storage and support for all their offline games, the profit margin will be reduced on both sides.
    If they drop PC games altogether, that’s bad. If they succeed in sedating the PC community to such tight leashes, then that’s even worse.
    But what I’m most concerned about is them letting up just a little. It seems that whenever a publisher pushes the envelope on draconian DRM, everybody gets upset about it, then the company makes a compromise and it eventually sizzles out. But the envelope has still been pushed, and we lose ground.
    What we need is for these kinds of initiatives to fail so badly that they provide a counter-case to DRM. Almost any other outcome is a negative one.

  13. sjkeegs says:

    I swore off UBI games after my computer got messed up with the starforce DRM on SHIII. It’s been off my machine for years, and I haven’t bought or acquired any more games from them since (despite interest in a number of titles). After hearing about SH5 I thought that I would try it again after hearing that they had removed the DRM from SHIII. Just finished a session…

    If this new DRM info is true though, I guess I’ll just stick with my previous UBI ban. I want to be sure that I can play the game if they take their servers offline (look at the DRM music servers that are being taken offline). I also want to be able to Save/Archive any save games on MY server, not online.

  14. DarkNoghri says:

    BTW, from the Ubisoft FAQ:

    Will all my saved games be stored online?
    Yes! They will be stored both online and on your PC.

    Still, Ubi has no business whatsoever requiring an online connection for single player games. Hey Ubisoft, this is how I like to run games.

    1) Buy game.
    2) Install game.
    3) Possibly enter CD key, preferably not have to keep the CD in the drive. The whole reason I install it is so I don’t need a CD, yah?
    4) Play the game.
    5) Uninstall the game.

    Nowhere in there is there anything about screwing around with online user accounts, logins, extra services running in the background, or anything. I want to install an executable, run the executable, and uninstall when I’m finished, with no extra crap to deal with. IS THIS SO HARD?

    Why is it only Stardock that gets it right?

    My internet went down the other night, as it sometimes does. You know what I did? I installed a singleplayer game to play.

    I quite like Steam (friends list is good, as is adding non-steam games). It does have its drawbacks, one of which is requiring a connection half the time. And you know how many full-price (mostly) games I have on Steam? Somewhere around 5, and they are all by Valve. It’s extremely unlikely that I will buy a Steam game over a retail game, for various reasons. ONE OF WHICH IS THE CONNECTIVITY REQUIRED.

  15. Spacewalk says:

    How large are the filesizes for saved games these days?

    • Blackberries says:

      Still fairly small, I think. So uploading/downloading shouldn’t take too long, though as someone else pointed out on launch week Ubisoft’s servers will probably be being hammered, which might floor anyone’s attempts to save or load their games. Hum.

      Edit: though the lag still might be noticeable enough to be severely irritating with quicksaves. We tend to quicksave a lot. We don’t want an annoying pause every time we do.

  16. BarneyL says:

    I expect that when they see their sales drop they’ll still blame it on piracy…

  17. Ramojn says:

    an account will offer them exceptional gameplay

    So it’s the account that gives gameplay, not the game? Ooooh. That explains why I was disappointed with so many games recently. I should’ve known that the fun is all in the account.

  18. leeder_krenon says:

    do you all live in the the fucking middle of the sea or something?

    • solipsistnation says:

      Actually, I live in the mountains. Not BIG mountains, but when we have big storms (and I’m about 20 miles from the beach, so we get a couple of big storms a year), we lose things like phone and power. When it gets really windy, my internet connection may drop for a split-second a few times an hour. When I’m just surfin’ teh web, it’s not a big deal. If my GAME PAUSED every time this happened, I’d have my fist through my monitor before the day was out.

      I also occasionally play games on my laptop. As mentioned, this wouldn’t work so well.

      This is the stupidest goddamn piece of shit idea I’ve heard in a long time, and if I find that a game I want to play is locked down in this fashion, I won’t play it. I won’t pirate it either, since I tend not to have the time to deal with that (and the associated threat of malware). I just won’t play it. There are plenty of games out there, and I’ll give my money to a publisher who actually wants it, since Ubisoft clearly doesn’t.

    • Psychopomp says:

      The area I live in only has one broadband provider. That is Charter.

      Anyone who has spoke with me online has heard me rant about Charter’s total ineptitude many times.

    • Blackberries says:

      Not everyone lives in a well-connected western metropolis. Rural parts of the UK, Ireland and Europe just aren’t going to have great internet connections – none at all in a significant minority of cases. What about these people?

      Then consider instances like my parents’ house: yeah, they have a reliable broadband line, but the walls of the house are so sturdy local-wifi is laughable. When I visit with my laptop I spend a good deal of time not connected to the internet as I don’t necessarily want to be tied to the wall when I’m doing something non-internet related. Like, you know, playing a game.

      That’s to say nothing for gaming-on-the-go.

      Even in my London flat, the infrastructure is creaky enough that our connection will give out at least once a day. Playing Dragon Age last night we lost connection for about 30 seconds (I was chatting on Steam with someone). A piffling concern of no consequence to me, but if it had paused the game while it attempted in futility to reconnect and/or prevented me saving when it failed, I’d have been livid. The day before last the connection dropped briefly again, this time confusing my PC into not being able to re-connect at all. It required a restart when I wanted to browse the web again. What if I’d just wanted to play a single player game? Or had been in the middle of doing so?

      As a person living in the relatively affluent south of England this would inconvenience me; what about the literally millions who are still further afield?

  19. Bret says:

    Aw, Scott Pilgrim?

    Whelp, if it’s good, its unlikely to have graphics the Nintendo Revolution can’t handle, with the whole retro feel they’re supposedly going for. So?

    Console this time, I suppose.

  20. Guildenstern says:

    Those people are fucking insane. That’s all.

  21. ohfp says:

    yeah, why not? guess it will be possible to “fake” a connection and save offline. might probably take a bit longer than a day to get it done, but Crackers are seriously bright people (mostly), so I guess they’ll happily accept that challenge.

  22. Tei says:

    Lets make a car analogy:

    “I sell you this car. Only to start the engine, you have to call my home, and ask for a password that change every time you start the engine.”

  23. Bret says:

    Anonymous Coward said:
    yeah, why not? guess it will be possible to “fake” a connection and save offline. might probably take a bit longer than a day to get it done, but Crackers are seriously bright people (mostly), so I guess they’ll happily accept that challenge.

    Solipsistnation might have been using some of that fancy internet sarcasm the kids are into nowadays.

    I don’t trust it.

  24. unangbangkay says:

    Soldiers work in the middle of the desert a bunch these days. In fact, their case was one of the reasons cited by Bioware and EA when they backed down from their phone-home Mass Effect DRM.

    And when the plan crashes and burns up whatever sales they expected to gain from this crap, Ubi is just going to raise their hands and cite this farce as PROOF that PC gaming is/should be dead. Christ, some of these moves are starting to sound like Solium Infernum turns.

    In before “soldiers should be doing their jobs not playing games,” and a big eff-you to anyone who decides to say that anyway.

    • VelvetFistIronGlove says:


      Exactly. And what sane person would want to come between a soldier and his games? Soldiers have big guns, and access to even bigger guns.

  25. mrmud says:

    If this is what it takes to keep the big publishers interested in PC then im fine with it.
    And while this kind of stuff never is never pirate proof what it does is delay the release of the iso.
    Starforce for all the venom hurled against it did succeed in slowing down the cracking procedure for several games.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      “Starforce for all the venom hurled against it did succeed in slowing down the cracking procedure for several games.”

      But did it help increase sales? That’s the interesting question. One of the Splinter Cell games was uncracked for a year or so – did that sell ten times as much as others? We never found that out, I believe.

    • dingo says:

      Interestingly there was no Sales surge in those first few months without cracks of said games.
      The people pirating I knew simply played something else and waited for the crack.

    • sjkeegs says:

      Starforce also messed up my computer enough so that I had to reinstall the OS.

  26. Dalamar says:

    Sales numbers will determine the success of this approach. If The Settlers 7 sells 1,000,000+ games in the first month, this online authentication will not go away.
    If sales are bad, it will still not go away immediately (I bet they’ve invested a lot in this), but maybe the rules will become less strict.
    If sales are bad and there’s no pirated copy to download anywhere… that should give publishers something to think about.

  27. Jaedar says:

    Guess I won’t buy any more Ubi games then.
    Fancy that.

  28. bhlaab says:

    Didn’t they try to do this already with Anno 1401?

    And isn’t that fairly cracked?
    And also they had to patch out the drm after everyone complained?
    And also isn’t this the same company that released a Reloaded crack as a hotfix?

    • Bob says:

      Maybe they are reloaded? And are making pirate copies of their games, so they can moan about it then make bigger and badder DRM *looks around and whispers* “THEY” are all in on it you know!

  29. Ragnar says:

    The publishers are hard at work at killing PC gaming I see.

    • mrmud says:

      I think its fairly obvious that they are hard at work trying to come up with ideas so that they dont have to pull out of PC publishing.

    • Blackberries says:

      True MrMud; this is (I think) still better than giving up on the PC altogether. But it nevertheless remains true that by pulling this kind of barmy stunt they’re making PC gaming a more frustrating experience, doing nothing to assist it. What makes this worse is the dubious amount of difference it will make in converting potential pirated copies into actual sales.

  30. Tom says:

    Dammit, now I have to wait until the Ubisoft servers behind the games go down, before I buy Silent Hunter V and Trackmania 2. That’ll be a loooooooong wait…

    • Bob says:

      Noooooooooooooooooo not Trackmania 2!!! I forgot they were behind that now! :-( *weeps like a guitar*

  31. Frankie The Patrician[PF] says:

    Oh sod it! Looks like another deal breaker…just like StarForce…
    DRM my ass, UBI!

  32. Ravenger says:

    My internet connection has been dire for the last two months (still trying to get a proper fix from the cable company), and I’ve been unable to play online. Even GFWL wouldn’t log in most of the time so I’ve been playing single player games instead.

    That’s why Ubisoft’s scheme is so stupid. It assumes we all have 24/7 high quality broadband.

    I guess all Ubisoft games are off my purchase list now, but then I don’t often buy Ubisoft games anyway. The last one I bought was Assassin’s creed 1. I boycotted Far Cry 2 due to the DRM. I was going to get Assassin’s Creed 2, but that’ll use the new DRM system I guess, so that’s off my list. I was wondering why they hadn’t announced the Assassin’s Creed 2 DRM system when they released the technical specs. Now I know why.

  33. sendmark says:

    To be honest for me sounds less bother than the likes of Starforce.Steam already logs all this game playing data anyway and saving games online should save disk space?

    I guess we’ll see how popular it is.

  34. Malagate says:

    Why am I not surprised that this is Ubisoft doing this? Every time I’ve played one of their games on PC it’s either been hugely buggy from the get-go, choked by DRM, left unsupported a few months after launch or all of the above.

    The last game I actually bought from them was Dark Messiah, mostly for the Multiplayer. That game was incredibly fun, but riddled with crippling bugs, MP exploits and MP balance issues that will never get fixed due to them dropping support the moment the Xbox version was getting ready for launch.

    The xbox version, which was advertised as including “over 200 bug fixes”, bug fixes that will never reach the PC version. Either I’ve been spoilt by the likes of Valve (when it comes to supporting an existing game), Ubisoft really hates PC gaming, or both.

  35. piphil says:

    I would have probably taken a look at Settlers 7 (should the PC Gamer UK review have been positive). However, due to a series of cock-ups by BT and Virgin’s ADSL department I have no landline; I’m stuck on the connection provided by a 3G dongle. Having had accidents in the past with download limits (leaving Steam on, and it “helpfully” downloading 1.7 GB of updates, with my monthly limit set at 5 GB…) I’m damned if I’m going to buy any game that randomly decides to ping data across the net.

    Some of the features mentioned sound great, but they need to be implemented so the consumer can agree to them in advance. I’ll be waiting until the DRM is patched out, and will probably buy any games I’m interested in from the bargain bin.

  36. Rei Onryou says:

    So far DRM has never stopped me purchasing a game. It’s made me unhappy, but I’ve dealt with it. I’m not going to let any old DRM stop me having fun.

    And then Ubi pull this. Well, I’ll be £100+ better off this year, who knows how much more I’d save next year. In fact, I’ll take the money I’d spend on Ubi games and buy some EA stuff. How you like that shit?

  37. Greg Wild says:

    Oh wow, that’s a whole lot of games I won’t be buying now.

  38. Greg Wild says:

    Also, I guess we now know why AC2 was delayed.

  39. Sharpblue says:

    Well i must say that is probably one of the most infuriatingly stupid things ive read in a good long while. They sound about as in touch with their audience as the British government is with its subjects.
    I will NEVER buy another ubisoft game again *sighs*

  40. Lambchops says:

    The last line in that FAQ is ridiculous.

    Still as stupid as I find the idea that you have to be online I’m not going to complain to loudly while there’s still a chance Ubisoft will eventually release Beyond Good and Evil 2 – no amount of restrictive, annoying authentication systems could ever stop me buying that game!

    • MacQ says:

      There’s no guarantee that the game will be any good if they ever release it.

  41. jon_hill987 says:

    Damnit I was looking forward to RUSE and maybe Silent Hunter 5. No more! I won’t pirate them (and there will be a crack within a week) but I won’t buy them either.

  42. Super Bladesman says:

    On first reflection, I wasn’t at all bothered by this. Then I remembered that my broadband connection has been up and down like a lady of the night’s underwear lately. Now I’m more bothered by it… I can just imagine the frustration of a game constantly pausing due to a dodgy connection.

    As someone mentioned above though – I’m not particularly enamoured with any of the forthcoming games from Ubisoft anyway…

  43. Blackberries says:

    Holy. Crap. My jaw was in danger of shattering the mug of coffee clutched limply in my shellshocked hand as it rocketed to the floor upon reading this.

    What are Ubisoft thinking?!*. This is full-on, balls-out ridiculous. No way I’d even consider getting a game with this sort of DRM.

    If you’ll allow a tenuous and sensationalist analogy (aren’t they always?), this is somewhat akin to having custody of one’s child removed, with access rights strictly controlled by a suspicious court. Internet connectivity to launch? To keep playing? To save? Unbelievable.

    *OK, I know what Ubisoft are thinking. They’re thinking about piracy and the bulging sacks of money scurvy internet dogs are definitely undoubtedly unquestionably depriving them of every single day.

  44. Bloodrite says:

    As a smart man once said “DRM only annoys the people that acualy bought the game, not the pirates”

  45. Demon Beaver says:


    I think someone just finally lopped the head off pc gaming… X_X

  46. Bobsy says:

    I think it’s very important that Ubisoft gets held to account for this by the press. Haul them in front of the general public, show off their ridiculous practices, have the consumer watchdogs take an interest. It’s utterly reprihensible.

    Of course, the conspiricy money’s on this being a PR gambit where they climb down in a week or two, propose slightly less awful DRM measures and we all say “yay, that’s okay”. But that’s just crazy talk. No, you’re crazy.

  47. TheApologist says:

    So, hasn’t Steam worked through all these kinds of problems. Why are they making all of Valve’s mistakes again?

    It’s just weird.

    But yes, the pausing when my connection drops and lag while my save uploads means I will be thinking very carefully before buying an Ubisoft game.

  48. pignoli says:

    Hmm, so a little perspective: I’ve noticed similar things already in play, I think. I can only load my save games for Dragon Age (which are admitedly stored lcoally) once it has connected to some sort of server to verify that I own the DLC whose content is in the save I’m trying to load. The DLC that came free with the game. That everyone gets. Bah.

    • kromagg says:

      Well exactly. Where was John’s outrage when dragon age implemented basically the same system? I think DRM is horrible and all that but steam + dragon age is basically the same deal.

  49. Greg Wild says:

    I was considering that as well pignoli, true.

    Ubi’s method seems a little more omniscient – it’s always there, all pervading. It’s certainly enough that I won’t be buying Ubi’s games now.

  50. MacQ says:

    LOL. Well said! :D