Here is the link to PC Gamer UK's blog who just recently talked to Ubisoft about their new and unpopular DRM. This includes questions from the public about the subject.
I appologise if I this has already been mentioned in another thread and for making a new one on the subject. But I think it deserves to be talked about, a lot...
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=235596

It's best in the main thread, where it is being talked about a lot.

I just wonder how long it will be before the first class action lawsuit by people who get their identity stolen by someone hacking Ubisoft's servers. All this has done is make Ubisoft a new giant target for all kinds of criminals.

They're so stupid, they honestly praise this DRM after knowing the entire PC community hates it. Blatant stupidity.
I will purposely pirate their games on release day just to make a point. They deserve it, screw my traditions of trying then buying I'll just download and re-seed Ubi games from now on without remorse because they said they will stick with it until they die.

I am pretty sure the hackers of 4chan and 888chan will DDoS the master servers.

"Do we think that it's the one system that God has sent onto earth that will never be cracked by anybody ever? We can't guarantee that, but we believe in it."
Hilarious. It may take some time but it will most probably be cracked within a month (probably sooner). Unless they are sending data in some irrationally scrambled way.

I'm torn. On one hand, I hate this DRM. On the other hand, I'd really like an unbeatable DRM scheme. I'm hoping it takes a long time for pirates to crack it, and no one buys it because of the ridiculous DRM.

PCG: What's the problem this DRM is trying to address?
UBI: Ubi are increasingly concerned about piracy on the PC. "It's a huge problem - you know it, I know it, other people know it. It really is a very important issue that all serious companies need to address," says their spokesperson. But they also believe that their online services will make PC gaming better. "The real idea is that if you offer a game that is better when you buy it, then people will actually buy it. We wouldn't have built it if we thought that it was really going to piss off our customers."
ME: How about prosecuting the pirates. Spend a little time and money going after the folks that are the issue here and leave us law abiding, PC Game Buying folks alone. Oh, and by the way you are pissing off what were and probably will not be your customers.
PCG: How will I know what I'll lose?
UBI: "You'll have to wait for the reviews, and to hear what your peers are saying."
ME: So they will not even tell us how there implementations of the save will work on the games they are releasing. UBI needs to have the PC Community totally boycott any game they release for the PC.
PCG: What happens if Ubisoft take the DRM servers offline for maintenance, or suffer a technical breakdown?
UBI: In the case of a server failure their games will be taken offline, and you'll be unable to play them. "The idea is to avoid that point as much as possible, but we have been clear from the beginning that the game does need an internet connection for you to play. So if it goes down for real for a little while, then yeah, you can't play."
ME: Is it me or are these guys the most arrogent folks you have ever heard. "yeah, you can't play"

I don't think it will be that easy. The save files are stored on the servers. Redirecting the calls will be rather easy. The problem is converting the save data that is sent to the server into a save file that may be used by the game.

Yeah, the main point of this protection is that the game is missing an essential part: the saving/loading routine. So the hackers will have to write their own. It's possible but a lot harder then just altering the protection code.

This is possibly to dumbest DRM scheme I have heard of; if your intent is to alienate your customer, I don't see how they could have worked it better.
Sadly, though, I don't see how it could have turned out differently. Companies are going to escalate their DRM and security measures until they get rid of piracy, or until they drive everyone to a console (which is essentially the same thing to them).
Sad to say that in my case it actually worked. I bought a PS3 a few months ago when the priced dropped to $300. Crazy DRM schemes wasn't the only reason (I also got it for the Blu-ray player and the multimedia capabilities), but it is what probably pushed me off the fence.
I must say, that I got Assassin's Creed II for PS3 a couple weeks ago (yeah, yeah, a little late, but I had several games as Xmas gifts that needed playing first). I am actually happy that i was able to avoid all this Ubisoft PC junk and just play the game.
I am NOT a console fanboy***. I hadn't seriously played a console since the Atari 5200 in the mid-80's (I was 8 or 9 when my Dad bought it, I think) prior to buying the PS3. I, in fact, have looked down on console gamers in the past. However, the way the gaming situation is getting for certain PC games, I almost think it is worth it just to get a console and be done with it.
***If they ever start releasing decent turn-based strategy games (like a Total War type game) on a console, without dumbing it down, I may become an actual fanboy. :P

It depends just how the saving is implemented, and how much of it is done server-side. If the save data is being generated client-side then the file just being sent to the server after it's built in RAM (or as a temporary file) then I'd expect the crackers to be able to develop a work-around pretty easily. If it's only certain key pieces of game data that's being sent to the server with the save file actually being constructed server-side then it might end up taking a bit longer to reverse-engineer the process (as they'd have to intercept both the save and load data, then develop their own method of writing save files as this process on the server would basically be a black box). However, I wouldn't be surprised if the implementation of this DRM created the save file client-side, as creating it server-side would mean more bandwidth required, more processing overhead required, and a greater chance of saves being corrupted upon creation (although I'd expect the two former cost issues to be the main motivating factors for Ubisoft).

If they are generating complete, valid save files locally on the client, and tout this as the second (or possibly third) coming of fool-proof DRM, then they are so incredibly dumb it's hard to imagine them being able to make a videogame in the first place. Doing it this way is basically like just saving the file on your harddrive. The data is there for the taking.
A black box implementation with one-way encryption is the only thing that would work - but honestly, is the cost of the infrastructure they have to build up to implement it properly worth the added extra in sales? They might not even have good sales because of the intrusive DRM. Apparently they've learnt nothing from EAs complete failure with Spore.

I expect they are going to generate the saves client side, after all the suits are bound to turn up their noses at the mere suggestion that they waste resources generating save games on their servers when such simply things can be done at the expense of the processing power of the player's computer.
I can see it now, this DRM of theirs failing due to "business reasons".