Gotta disagree with you on that one, Gundato. This is basic information the publisher should know and be able to give to the consumer. That's like saying "Yeah, there are activation limits, but we don't know how many. You'll have to wait for reviews to find out".

That is just it, it isn't. It is more like saying "This game has a few unskippable cutscenes" or "This game uses checkpoints" or "You can quicksave"
The DRM model doesn't change, the games change. You are still forced to reload your most recent save if you don't want to wait, it just is a matter of what save that is. Should they probably mention it? Arguable (where do we draw the line on game information?).

In essence, the DRM model DOES change, since it means you don't know how much progress you'll lose. Personally, I'd want to know, if I were considering buying a game, whether an interruption in an unnecessary (other than for DRM purposes) internet connection is going to make me have to replay from the most recent save, the last check point, or several hours back.
I'm not saying this needs to be on the game box, but that info should be available at the very least from Ubisoft's web site. Not from a review or waiting to see what other game players are telling you.

I agree, you have a valid point which is easily understood.
Ubisoft's rhetoric is the same as always no matter who is spouting it . . .=)

Interesting statistic, made up of what is almost certainly 100% bullshit. Looking at the methodology of the study that these figures came from (Fifth Annual BSA and IDC Global Software Piracy Study), you will see terms like "surveys" and "analyst local knowledge". On how they got the figure for the software load, they say: "The number is derived from a model that uses results from surveys in the field, analyst estimates and spot inventories, and other local research."
In other words, they're pulling it out of their ass.
Interestingly enough, their way of calculating the piracy percentage means that any software sale that they are not aware of counts as a piece of pirated software. Since digital sales figures are notoriously unavailable, this leads to the thought that all digitally sold software counts towards the piracy rate in this study.

But again, people wouldn't believe it, or would complain for other reasons.
Let's use an arbitrary checkpoint game. AC2 uses those, right? So Ubi says "Reload to most recent checkpoint". Ignoring the fact that they already said that in describing the DRM model, people will want to know what the time between checkpoints is. They can either create an estimated time based upon their playthrough (people will complain it is wrong), or just say "not that long", which leads itself to even more complaints.

I didn't even notice that it was a BSA report. While the specifics on the methodology for this study aren't given, the usual BSA modus operandi for these kinds of studies is to come up with (read: make up) some number of how many copies of BSA member software are "needed" in a country, then compare this to the actual number of copies sold with the difference being claimed as the number of pirated copies. Naturally under this model people going with open source alternatives or simply doing without various pieces of software is counted as piracy, which given that it's the BSA shouldn't really surprise anyone.

People possibly not believing something is hardly an excuse to not provide information. I don't see your logic on this one. Ubisoft is publishing these games and should therefore be able to provide at least the minimal information about the DRM as to how it works with any particular game they're releasing. Information about how it affects a specific title should your internet connection happen to go down is not asking for too much.

You have so little faith in solid scientific research merely because it has questionable methodology. What's next, you going to complain about holistic business synergy too?

They DID release "minimal information about the DRM". It is always going to be "you either wait, or load your most recent save". Beyond that, it becomes a matter of how the game handles saving.
I honestly don't fault them for that one. They may be full of crap on a lot of things, but I would NOT want to open the can of worms related to that. Let's say it is a game that lets you quicksave, but not during cutscenes. That is going to cause confusion. And there are so many more special cases and the like.
Or let's say it is a game with checkpoints, but at the start of every level. Or at the end of every room. Again, it is just a really complex thing to explain. The simplest solution is what they picked: You have to reload your most recent save.

Hmm a thought just occurred, they say this system will require a maximum of 50KB/s, its clearly not just a "is he online y/n" check. I wonder how much bandwidth this will consume with a normal gaming session, call me a cynic if you like but I have a feeling they've not designed this with people in rural areas in mind. In Australia it's not uncommon for broadband to be unavailable or limited to 256-512Kb (with extremely limited bandwidth allocations, at least one has 300MB/month!) so calling 50KB/s "even the slowest connection" implies a big "fuck you" to people who have no better option.
Then again given the fact that they're saying a big "fuck you" to everyone I should hardly be surprised

Almost sounds like more trouble than its worth to implement a system like that, doesn't it?

Well, we're going to have to disagree on this one, Gundato, but I feel that saying "Yeah, wait until everyone else tells you how it works" is completely unacceptable. To me there's a vast difference between losing everything since the last checkpoint, losing everything since your last save, and being able to continue right from where your connection went down. And them not being able to (or not willing to) tell you that, but rather directing you to wait to hear what your friends and other gamers are saying about it is inexcusable.
Here's what Ubi says in response to questions about this:
If you find that's an acceptable way to do business, that's cool. But it turns me off and I won't do business with a company with that kind of 'figure it out for yourself' attitude.
It's a moot point anyway though, as I feel the whole system is a giant wheelbarrow of bullshit and I won't be buying any game that uses it,

One of the features is synchronised cloud-style saves, so it will be regularly uploading every time a new save point is made (it's not clear whether it does this for manual saves or only autosaves). That is why it needs the extra bandwidth. The style of game will determine how big the saves are, e.g. a persistent-world RPG where you can move and interact with every world object will have saves much larger than one with simple non-persistent checkpoint saves.

I thought that only happens at the end of your gaming session, not during, and is entirely optional.

This. Distributors are saying "fuck you" to people since the start of regional (un)availability. Probably the people in regions where something is not available are not worthy of their products.