The OP addresses this. The pirates claim that there's nothing missing besides the DRM; this makes it incomplete in Ubisoft's estimation. And Ubisoft isn't citing any particular things that it might lack.
This kind of in-game check led to the practice of cracking "100%". This means the cracker played the entire game through and verified everything worked properly. They'd often add "trainers" (eternal life patches) to make this process go quicker.
With a fully online system as Ubisoft claimed to have, you can just store the level code/data on the server. In this case, EVERY crack will be limited as you can always download new protection code with level N+1. It remains to be seen how well they adopted this approach to updating their protection, but you can see it work in fully online games like WoW.
We designed the Blu-ray protection scheme to have the same renewable property, it's just that the disc itself is the transport channel since your player is not guaranteed to be online. A PC-only environment can make that kind of requirement, and an online-only system is easier to protect.
Having PC software players seems like the weak point to me; they'll always be analysed far more quickly than the turnaround time for key revocation/distribution/version updates.
Can you give specific info as to exactly what is missing?
It's a great game, I'll definitely be buying it when the DRM is gone despite not really being much of a gamer anymore.
I stress when, because it's the biggest backfire in copy protection history and Ubi know it. After all the development time and resource that has obviously gone into the DRM, I was surprised/amused to see that the hack is pretty much just a cracked exe.
I really don't think there's going to be a "when", TBH. I don't know for sure, but I'm worried that this is a last attempt at trying to make the big-budget PC games market profitable. Either it works and stays, or it doesn't work and publishers start to drop out of the market. EA are doing exactly the same thing with the next C&C by the way.
I think this attitude is a big part of the problem.
The mindset that they can only be profitable by preventing copying, whatever draconian measures that requires, puts them in a box that will prevent any innovation, either in gameplay or in business model.
It may be that efforts at copy protection are well past the point of diminishing returns. Perhaps the investment in these technologies, and the resulting loss in customer goodwill, are costing more than the actual piracy.
Maybe the vast cinematography, scoring, voice acting, etc., aren't what gamers really want, and the "big budget" games are really throwing away money. Maybe gamers just want new ideas like Tetris.
But the idea that "this DRM must work or the industry is doomed" will prevent the publishers from discovering these approaches, or others like them.
I was referring specifically to big-budget blockbuster titles. The major publishers have divested portfolios. If the big budget PC titles aren't profitable they'll be dropped and the investment will be elsewhere, like facebook games or whatever.
I'd argue that a lot of people do want these games though, because although PC sales are very low, millions of people play them.