Gundato: Actually, the entire big three have moved to it. EA has it for C&C. Activision has it for Starcraft 2. Those are just easier to swallow since they are inherently MP games.

Gundato: But ignoring the "fact" that DRM is inherently bad for a moment, let's think about it:
Steam is a DRM-model. But it has revolutionized gaming, and made Valve a household name, even for people who don't like FPSs. And it has also provided one of the most accepted (and effective) DRM models. And, at the very least, I love not needing to deal with discs.
EA recently took a big risk introducing a new DRM model in the form of the DLC-based model. That seems to have suited them well. And we benefit in the form of a crapton of free DLC (yay, free samples from a drug dealer :p).

Gundato: Now, imagine Ubi actually dies because of this, and let's assume it is actually about the Ubi-DRM model. What does that tell you, as a publisher/dev? Don't try anything new. Because you can't just drop a DRM model the moment a single bit of bad publicity comes out. But if you run the risk of going out of business for making a DRM model that makes people angry, what do you do? And please don't say "no DRM", because that is clearly not an option for the big guys.

Gundato: So we either get "Let's just pull out, we can't protect our IP", or we get "Well, Steam seems to work'. And as much as I love Steam, I am pretty sure that everyone who isn't in the USA would probably not like it if the only way to play a PC game is to use Steam.
Either way, Ubi actually falling is not a good thing.

Orryyrro: I wasn't contesting that fact, but you were contesting that the person was saying that Ubisoft makes crap, which is exactly what they were implying.

ceemdee: C&C4 had pretty bad reviews so it's hard to judge the effect DRM even had on it, but Starcraft 2's DRM is not the same as UbiDRM.
Yes, this shows that people are willing to accept a certain level of DRM as long as there are enough benefits.
Then you make a DRM scheme that doesn't make as many people angry. Like, oh, the ones you mentioned above.
I don't get it... if Ubi falls then they all decide to leave the market or move to Steam, but if Ubi doesn't fall then... what?

Gundato: As for if Ubi doesn't fail: Hell if I know. I am just saying that if Ubi were to actually fall, bad things would probably happen. At the very least, it wouldn't be the happy joyous occasion that so many people seem to think it will be.

Gundato: The first paragraph was basically my point. They would reevaluate a lot of things to ensure that they don't go belly-up.

Gundato: The second paragraph is just another "I don't like the games they make, so nobody does" argument.

FlintlockJazz: No, your point is that this will happen and so therefore everyone else will leave, I am refuting that point by showing that actually its alot more complex. You are presuming worst case scenario, best case scenario could be that we enter into a golden age of PC gaming with the removal of Ubisoft and the other companies coming to the realisation that screwing over the customer is bad. Its not very likely to happen, in fact its virtually a pipe-dream, but so is the belief that ubisoft not producing PC games will somehow cause the collapse of PC gaming.
Actually, I do like some of their games, I'm playing through the Sands of Time as we speak. Notice I said 'would be going bust', even though they are making a loss they are clearly a long way off from going bust, I was speaking hypothetically and explaining why alot of people want companies they don't like to suffer.
If they went bankrupt it would be because most gamers think the games they are making are not good enough, as Ubi are a big enough company that their games will get noticed for good or bad and not go under the radar. If they don't go bankrupt then obviously their games must be good enough for people to want to buy them.