I trust Ubisoft will eventually come up with some sort of offline mode (for steam users at least, since you can pretty much track ever game that was bought and every account with it, so they would be able to tell pirates from real gamers) eventually, but I guess I'm just optimistic.
Umm... you do realize that this completely invalidates your arguements? One-time activation has been around for ages, and although I'm not familiar with Ubisoft games DRM beyond the current arguements, I highly doubt they haven't used this form of activation in the past. And what's more, the Steam version, despite having steam's DRM, still requires always-online gameplay.
The reason people are so upset by this is that it degrades game functionality (what are you supposed to do if you live in the middle of Alaska, where there isn't likely to be any internet at all? And dont forget that despite widespread penetration, there are still almost as many households without internet as there are with internet, and in many non-urban areas the only internet available is dial-up, which is unworkable for just about anything more than email). People don't mind steam's preference for online mode because a) if you buy from steam, chance are you have enough bandwidth that always online isnt an issue, b) if offers useful features, like friends, a community panel, automatic updates, and achievements, and c) you can access it from any online computer, download your games, and play.
You claim that gamers always find something to complain about, and there is a grain of truth in that, but frankly businesses like Ubisoft or Sony share far more of the blame. Protecting your product and sales is understandable, even laudable in fact. However, when you start degrading your product, insulting your customers, and shipping products that are unstable or even potentially unusable because of your DRM, you've crossed a line into the realm of unethical business practices. Removing core functionality, such as an offline single-player mode (Ubisoft) or the previously supported ability to install alternate operating systems (Sony's latest controversial PS3 update) hurts legitimate customers, doesnt boost sales, and in fact makes the pirated version of the game superior to the version offered by publishers.
That's not to say that DRM has no place in the gaming industry, but businesses need to remember that people want the best value for their money. If I can download a copy of a game that is pirated, has no DRM, and is as a result LESS buggy than the version I can buy at Walmart, I'd be an idiot to pay for the game. On the other hand, when businesses present compelling reasons for customers to use and even endorse DRM (Steam, Impulse, etc) by giving customers added value for buying a legitimate version over what pirates could offer, then you get the best of both worlds. If you want to see companies that really understand how DRM needs to work, look to businesses like Valve and Stardock (Stardock's CEO has a great series of articles on pirating, and I think he really nails the issue - in short, Publishers need to understand their goal is not to defeat piracy, as many pirates wouldn't buy the game at all if their only option was retail, but to prevent losing customers who would pay if the pirated version was not, in fact, superior to the retail version).
