for online games,
but this offline game,action/story based, u dont need a connection to play it.


Comparing it to WoW it's lame, since WOW its a online game, it require to be connected to play it,

AC2 doesn't have any online component other than DRM.

I ignored your first comment because it was plain and simple stupid.  It's as stupid as this:

I understand not liking the DRM, but my point is that it's not a surprise.  It's not like you bought the game and then found out that it had the DRM or they didn't put it right in plain sight that it required a permanant internet connection.  I would be absolutely outraged if I bought this game and later found out that I had to put up with that but since it's something you know before you buy it, I don't see why it's such a big deal.

I don't know, to me, it's just like not having the correct computer or meeting the minimum requirements and isn't a big deal.

Would I be upset if I wanted this game and couldn't meet the internet requirement for whatever reasons?  Sure, but no more upset than if I just didn't have the right graphics card.

If you don't like the WoW comparison that's fine, then what if I bought and loved AC for the PC but now I can't run AC2 because it requires a better graphics card than I have?  Should I be just as justifiably angry?  Both of those things are only requirements that every game has a list of.

Does the running steam in Offline Mode thing not work now?

According to Steam the third party DRM requires you to have a permanent internet connection so I assume even if you're running Steam in offline mode you will still need to be connectioned to the internet.

So thinking along the lines of this, would people be happier if it required an internet connection to save?  If every time the game saved or hit a checkpoint it phoned home so you wouldn't have to have a permant connection, just have to have one every 10-15 minutes?  I guess if it didn't find one, the game would simply hang until it found one?

I think the frustration is because people might like to buy the content, but the unnecessary and pointless barriers added by the publisher have discouraged customers from buying.

It's kind of like if Ubisoft had decided to price the game at $100 instead of putting DRM on it. The increased barrier would discourage a lot of consumers who would be happy to buy it at $50. Would it be so unusual for those people to complain about the $100 price tag?

The difference is that you can at least understand how a price tag of $100 might lead to increased revenues for Ubisoft. It's hard to understand how this kind of DRM benefits anybody at all. It costs Ubisoft money to implement, reduces the value of the product for legitimate consumers, and will do nothing to discourage piracy. The only benefactors are the hackers who love to get a new challenge to crack.

http://i.imgur.com/GxzeV.jpg

I think this image sums of people's grievances quite nicely.

Why pay for a game where they intentionally limit when you can play it? Pirating it is not only cheaper, obviously, but you get a better product as well.

If I drop 60$ on your product, I shouldn't have to jump through hoops to use it - I should be able to use it whenever I want to, not when you want me to.

There's something bitterly ironic about that statement being in the same post as the (not very funny or clever) picture you posted.

MY point is: nobody is acting like it's a surprise. Nobody is upset because it's a surprise. They're mad because of the stupid DRM itself. Which brings us full circle to my original point: It doesn't matter if you're fairly warned about something ahead of time, if it's bad, it's bad. If you get shot in a war, you don't think "Well, this isn't so bad. I was aware this would probably happen when I signed up.", you think "Fuck! I just got shot! This is fucking terrible!".

Because people want to play the game, but they don't want intrusive security measures. Yes, you can say "Well fuck that, I'm not getting the game because that there is some stupid DRM", but some people actually want to play the game despite this.

I find it funny that you posted that demotivator on bad analogies, when both your WoW-analogy and your PC requirements analogy aren't too good to begin with. WoW is a multiplayer game where as AC2 is a singleplayer game through and through. The game itself gets zero benefit from being online.
And compairing it to not having a strong enough computer, is like Ubisoft saying that you need a Radeon HD5970 to run the game, and nothing less will do, when in truth, the game will run well enough on a Nvidia 8800GT. Except here, there are actually benefits (better graphics).

But this brings me back to my point-- you're angry about something you don't even have!

If you don't like the DRM, that's cool, then just don't buy (or pirate) the game!

Meh, I get yours and blayd's point about analogies, but at least mine are are more similar than being held at gun point. 

An analogy can be slightly off, but, and no offense meant here, the gun point thing was just about as stupid as they come.