I'm not opposed to the idea, but license keys for software have existed for a very long time.

License keys also don't always represent an application or software, they extend the rights of use beyond the initial purchase.

As a simple example, you can get license keys for Windows that do not change what version of Windows is installed or how it operates. I work in IT, and when setting up remote access systems, we need to buy remote desktop license keys to allow users to connect. You're not getting anything you couldn't otherwise, but you're allowed to have more people connected at a time while the system is running.

There's similar examples across the board, this is just one that's pretty fresh in my mind right now. One of my clients is hitting the limit of their RD licensing.

For less complex software, like games, there used to be a physical component, usually an installer disk or something that would need to be validated when the game launches (though disk burning made this ineffective). With digital resources it's nearly impossible to validate someone has a licence without some kind of license key system in place.

I'll say again, I see their argument here. I don't necessarily agree with any of it.

IMO, it's a challenging subject, and one that we the people, via our elected representatives, should be pushing for legal representation on, by implementing laws that govern how all this works and limiting how much companies like Ubisoft can fuck us over because it's Tuesday, and that made them mad.