Uplay Reception and the Controversy of Ubisoft's DRM
When Ubisoft introduced Uplay, its proprietary digital distribution and DRM (Digital Rights Management)—a set of access control technologies used to restrict the use of proprietary hardware and copyrighted works—it was met with significant backlash. While intended to manage game ownership and distribution, the platform became a flashpoint for tension between the publisher and the PC gaming community.
The Struggle with Always-On Requirements
The primary source of frustration for early adopters was the "always-on" requirement. Many early Uplay titles required a constant internet connection to function. If a player's connection dropped during a session, the game would halt immediately, forcing the user back to their last save point or checkpoint.
This vulnerability was highlighted in early March 2010, when a denial-of-service attack on Ubisoft's DRM servers rendered titles like Silent Hunter 5 and Assassin's Creed II unplayable for several days. Although Ubisoft quietly shifted to a single validation check upon launch by the end of 2010, the always-on requirement returned in 2011 with Driver: San Francisco and From Dust. In the case of From Dust, Ubisoft had explicitly stated prior to release that only a one-time activation would be needed, though the game was later patched to remove the constant connection requirement.
Despite Ubisoft employees stating in September 2012 that future games would only require one-time activation, the company deviated from this promise in 2014 with the release of The Crew, which required players to be always online.
Critical Reception and Industry Comparison
Industry critics and gaming journalists were largely scathing in their assessment of Uplay. John Walker of Rock, Paper, Shotgun described the service as a "technical mess" following a server collapse during the launch of Far Cry 3. Similarly, Kyle Orland of Ars Technica noted that the platform had not endeared itself to PC gamers due to a history of technical errors.
A recurring point of contention was the redundancy of Uplay when used alongside other platforms. Critics like Geoffrey Tim (lazygamer.net) and Patrick Klepek (Giant Bomb) criticized the requirement for Uplay to run simultaneously with Steam, arguing that it offered no real benefit to the consumer and served only the interests of the publisher.
From a technical standpoint, Shawn Sanders of GadgetReview compared Uplay to Valve's Steam and Electronic Arts' Origin, noting that Uplay consumed large amounts of system memory while offering fewer features than its competitors. Joshua Wolens of PC Gamer summarized the sentiment by suggesting such services exist for corporate benefit rather than to improve the gaming experience.
Security Concerns and Rootkit Allegations
Beyond usability and redundancy, Uplay faced serious security scrutiny. In July 2012, Tavis Ormandy, an Information Security Engineer at Google, alleged that Uplay's DRM functioned as a rootkit—software designed to provide privileged access to a computer while hiding its presence from the operating system.
Ormandy claimed that the software installed a browser plugin that provided unauthorized access to the system and provided proof-of-concept code to demonstrate the exploit. This security vulnerability was believed to have been resolved with the release of version 2.0.4 on July 30, 2012.
Key Facts
- DRM Issues: Early Uplay games often required a constant internet connection, leading to gameplay interruptions during connection losses.
- Server Vulnerability: A 2010 denial-of-service attack made Assassin's Creed II and Silent Hunter 5 unplayable.
- Platform Redundancy: Users criticized the need to run Uplay alongside Steam for Ubisoft titles.
- Performance: Critics noted high memory usage and fewer features compared to Steam and Origin.
- Security: Google engineer Tavis Ormandy identified a rootkit-like vulnerability in July 2012, which was patched in version 2.0.4.
| Year | Event/Issue | Outcome/Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 | DoS attack on DRM servers | Games like Assassin's Creed II became unplayable. |
| 2011 | Return of always-on requirement | Affected Driver: San Francisco and From Dust. |
| 2012 | Rootkit allegations | Security exploit found; patched in version 2.0.4. |
| 2014 | Release of The Crew | Reintroduced mandatory always-online play. |
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main complaint regarding early Uplay games?
The most significant complaint was the "always-on" DRM requirement, which forced players to maintain a constant internet connection or risk having their game halt and lose progress.
How did Uplay compare to Steam and Origin?
Critics argued that Uplay had fewer features and consumed more system memory than its competitors, while also being viewed as an unnecessary secondary layer when games were purchased via Steam.
What were the rootkit allegations against Uplay?
In July 2012, a Google security engineer claimed that Uplay installed a browser plugin that acted as a rootkit, creating a serious security risk by providing access to the user's system.
Did Ubisoft ever remove the always-on requirement?
Ubisoft lifted the requirement for existing games in late 2010 and stated in 2012 that future games would only need one-time activation, though they later required it again for The Crew in 2014.
Which games were specifically affected by the 2010 server attack?
The denial-of-service attack in early March 2010 rendered Silent Hunter 5 and Assassin's Creed II unplayable for several days.