Kudos to Ubi Soft -

Ubisoft have just confirmed for me that the game will not be coming with their hideous “always-on” DRM – a sign that perhaps, since it’s absent from such a big title, that they’re finally recognising it shouldn’t be anywhere near any of their products. Instead you’ll need to be online the very first time you play the game for an activation, and then it’s yours to play offline at your leisure.

Linky

Activation is horseshit. I love how game companies have shoveled so many shitty DRM schemes at us that 'activating' a game now looks reasonable.

Will it be like HoMM6 where it'll feature a tonne of online only features?

You're right, it is horseshit. Since they've outright lied for From Dust I'll believe it when I see it. Also, they consider activation to be "DRM free". Yeah... okay Ubi, keep on being... whatever the fuck.

We really need to acknowledge when a company makes a step in the right direction. Of Course Activation is not reasonable but when compared to the draconian always connected Ubi DRM this is a positive step on a very big franchise game. And come on you never have used Steam or Activated DA:O

Same answer for Orc ^ as his post hit right when mine did.

Since they tend to lie about this very thing and they don't live in the same world I seem to live in, I'm withholding my support. When they said "No DRM for HoMM VI" I said, "Okay, we should all buy it, just to make a point", so essentially what you are saying... then it came out that HoMM VI had activations, they just don't consider that DRM.

So, while in principal I agree with you, Ubisoft lives in some bizarre-o-land and they can go spin until I see proof they've actually scaled back (and not the "Oops, we accidentally released From Dust with always online when we told you it would only have activations... here let us fix it... two weeks later.").

Ubisoft is ADHD when it comes to DRM, as others have already pointed out above. Because of this I don't believe a single word they say about DRM until the game is actually in gamer's hands--it is only then that the real truth is revealed.

The only 'right' direction is to get rid of this activation and on-line requirement bullshit for anything other than multiplayer. In the case of Ubisoft, I already acknowledged their 'step in the right direction' when I bought Prince of Persia (2008) when they released it DRM-free (a game I wasn't all that excited about but bought mostly due to its DRM-free status). What did they do as a result? They didn't even offer us PC players the DLC epilogue that the console players got, and their very next game came out with limited activations via SecuROM DRM.

The only acknowledgement Ubisoft is getting from me is that they cannot be trusted.

Actually they are very clever. I imagine this being the plan:

1. Release games with always online DRM
2. Players will bitch about it for a couple of years.
3. Make the DRM a one-time activation. Gamers are grateful.
4. Profit.

Repeat cylce:

1.Release games with a ninja behind your back DRM
2. Gamers will bitch about it for a couple of years.
3. Make the DRM always-on line. Gamers are grateful.
4. Profit.

Next cycle: .... eh, you get the idea :)

And to remove it from multiplayer too.

Well the always-online thing originally started in multiplayer as an anti-cheating solution, and that's still a valid use for it, so that'll probably be the last thing to go. However, depending on how it's set up, you still get the problem of "Am I gonna be able to play this multiplayer in 5 years, even if there's still a market for it?" If the company cuts out their multiplayer support and there's no LAN alternative or anything, then I hope you like singleplayer.

The problem is that it's almost impossible to actually stop cheating without some third-party observer, so the alternative is either cheaters or DRM. Or consoles.

But how many times can you activate? I mean, say you change your computer or main components of it (such as motherboard). Does it then need re-activating? And if so, is there an activation limit?

There must be some miscommunication because I'm afraid I don't understand. If I'm not connected to the Internet then cheating is not an issue. How is not being able to play at all an improvement? And if I am connected to the Internet then I'm already connected to the Internet, so forcing me to connect to the Internet has changed nothing whatsoever.

Sorry, one time activation is still too much DRM for me. Ubi describes it as one time, but what they really mean is "when you install it." There are still games that I dig out of the closet from years and years ago and install on old computers to play around with. With activation at installation, there's no guarantee that I'll be able to do so years from now if I ever wanted to play the game again.

If I pay for software, I want to be able to use it when and where I want. I don't want to buy a license to play a game for as long as the publisher decides they want to keep up their activation servers.

I know that some publishers have patched games down the road to eliminate these DRM activations later in a title's life. But, again, there are no guarantees. Treat me like a thief, and I'll just treat you like your products don't exist.

Thank you GOG for keeping classic gaming alive, in spite of arrogant publishers!!

If the multiplayer for ShootyMcShooter 4 is hard-coded to require you to connect to the GameStab™ anti-cheating servers in order to run, and GameStab™ takes its servers down, then you can't play multiplayer anymore. It's not simply an internet connection, it's a requirement to connect to a specific place.