1) The legal ramifications are not the same, as endless court cases show that EULA-breaking for personal backup reasons is not a clear cut case.

2) The moral implications are MUCH different.

I use cracks all the time but I NEVER advocate piracy. If you refuse to buy the game then you never play the game, end of story.

It gives me the satisfaction that I did not give into the demands of an evil organisation. Their DRM harasses only their legitimate customers and did absolutely nothing to curb piracy. Piracy did happen and their versions didn't have DRM . Legitimate buyers got a game with irritating DRM even after paying the money. So who's the loser here and what's the point of the DRM then?

And dude, why did post spoilers for those who haven't played the game yet. Those are some very big spoilers and may ruin the game for many.

Just recently I read another guy's statement which contradicts what you say. Who am I to believe? As long as Ubisift doesn't give an official confirmation, I'm sorry but I can't believe anybody else on this.

Oh, so it's based on history then?

I keed, I keed:)
It's absolutely clearcut, if you get sued, you lose whether you're right or not. How much money do you have for attorneys because they can file motion after spurious motion until you're bankrupt. The EFF can only take so many cases.

As for number 2, that depends on your morals. My clearly don't say what yours do. Then again, I'm pretty jaded.

Recently as in they posted the contradiction within the last 24 hours? As if it's older than that then their information is out of date. And yes, other people have confirmed the same thing I have all within the last few days.

I think he'd like Ubi's confirmation, or at least that's how I'm reading him. They can always patch whatever right back in there for ya, it's Steam, after all.

If they send me a threatening note then I will respond with a picture of my massive games collection. If they still sue me then I welcome it, as it will be a chance to clear some things up in our legal system and dozens of lawyers would take my case for free in an attempt to make new law.

Also, read up on copyright infringement cases, it's not as corporate-run and one-sided as you think.

I don't know what being jaded has to do with it... I don't use creators' creations without compensating them, simple as that. Taking the game without paying for it doesn't do anything but lower PC sales and stop money from filtering through to the people who deserve it.

It's got nothing to do with Steam. The same holds true for all versions.

That's not presently true, there isn't a clear indication that the anti-circumvention rules don't apply. There's an implication that if you're doing it because the DRM adversely effects you in the near future, but it hasn't been litigated particularly well, and so far it doesn't appear reliably so.

Moreover trying to defend yourself against charges if somebody decides to sue is likely to cost a similar amount of money to what it would cost if you were pirating a single game.

For better or for worse, you're not legally any better off cracking a purchased copy than a pirated copy. They can still sue and they can still win the suit. You might get the award knocked down to the minimum, but even then you're still talking about a substantial amount of money.

If you don't believe me, read section 1201 out of the DMCA, there are no clear exemptions for cracking software that one owns for personal use. And at present the courts aren't interpreting it the way that you are.

Doesn't Steam force you to patch up to the latest version? I'm not aware that standalone PC games have done that even in heavily DRMed cases.

Depends on the game. There are a fair few games that don't patch via Steam but via their own in-game patchers.

Ah, well, my Steam ignorance obviously shows, I knew Steam forced you to patch all their multiplayer titles (like CS), I thought they could force any patch on you even if you were perfectly happy at your current patch level. I guess if you're smart you can probably avoid them patching BS back in, depending on the title.

Actually yes, I read about that just a few days back when AC 2 was on sale on Steam.

Well it's all moot now, as plenty of others have now confirmed that the always on requirement has gone. Including those who originally said the information was false. They changed their tunes after testing it for themselves.

Maybe you're right. But still, I wouldn't wanna financially support a company by buying their games as they have put that DRM in the latest Prince of Persia too.