First of all, everyone should read this article:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html
I know it is long but read it all. It is a real eye-opener.
Next, I have to ask the question:
If your internet connection can't handle the small bandwidth requirements required to use this DRM (my 100Kbps dial-up meets the requirements), how is it going to handle the enormous bandwidth required to download a pirated game? If you have a good internet connection, you have no reason to complain about the DRM. If you have a bad connection then tough luck, you won't be able to get the pirated version either.
You don't have to crack a console game. Yet piracy rates on consoles is about 6 times lower than PC even though the install base is nowhere near that number. Two months ago, a game magazine I subscribe to declared that "THE PS3 HAS FINALLY BEEN HACKED!". Therefore, piracy on a console is much harder than a PC and that explains why every game developer prioritizes the consoles above the PC (including the former PC-exclusive Crytek).
Next, none of you have any evidence that shows how much money Ubisoft has gained or lost through using this DRM so stop acting as if you do. All it proves is how stupid you actually are. I have studied Business Management so I know what the goals of a business are.
The first priority of every business is to make a profit, end of story. Therefore, it is not logical to assume that a business would make business decisions that would risk that profit without a good reason. Once you think logically, you realise that this DRM makes sense. The game went uncracked for over a month. That is more than a month of people who couldn't wait for a cracked version and bought the game rather than wait. If you look at statistics, most of a game's sales happen in the week after it is released. If a pirated version of that game is released in that week, sales plummet. Therefore, DRM is only meant to protect the game in that first week.
Someone said that DRM hurts sales more than piracy. I'm sorry to say that your theory is not factual to the point that it is completely wrong and it proves that you have a very short memory. I, however, still remember the fiasco that happened with the latest Prince of Persia. Do you remember? The high-quality game that had absolutely no DRM? That was pirated so heavily that it has only made 2 mil sales to date (AC2, with it's highly-intrusive DRM, made more than half that figure in it's first week). Visit Wikipedia and you will find these sales figures. So actually, it is piracy that hurts more. YOU just shot yourself in the foot with that rediculous theory.
Actually, hacking future games that use this DRM will be just as hard because the whole system works by storing files on the Ubisoft server. The entire problem faced by the hacker is getting those files onto their PC. Even the person that created the emulated server had to ask people to donate their save games to make it work (Which is stupid of them. Why should they donate their saves from their paid copy to help others get the game for free? Talk about lambs to the slaughter).
To close off, I would like to pose a question to all of you:
When a shop is selling a game to someone, how is the person selling the game supposed to tell the difference between a legitimate buyer and a cracker?
When you can provide an answer that a gaming company can use, then you can complain about how DRM punishes the legitimate buyer. Otherwise, you're just showing off the fact that you are selfish and self-centered.
And finally for those of you that respect Skidrow, I have some bad news. According to this forum topic:
http://cs.rin.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=56074&sid=a3d0e980e106d8e61ff6bcdceebd1cf3&start=30
Skidrow actually stole the missions file that made the emulated server work to use in their crack then turned around and insulted the server emulation, describing it as "Inferior to our cracks". So what does this say about them?