He's not asking about hardware...

Get the PC, thats a nice machine. If you're into RTS, you know PC is the only way to go. PCs are better for the FPS genre, PC games are cheaper. Don't forget mods either. Whats the deal with all the 'HD Gaming' talk when people have been playing games in HD on their beutiful LCD monitors for years. And as was said above, forget about console wars. PCs are here to stay.

In my view, as much as I dislike DRM, I do not think it is up to a game review site to highlight what DRM a particular game contains, or adjust their scores as a result. They should simply review the game on its own merits, and score accordingly.

It is up to the publisher/developer to ensure they 'come clean' about the copy protection/DRM they are using, so that the end user can make an informed decision about purchasing their product. I've said it before, but I think they should really include the logo of the copy protection on the game packaging somewhere, with a clear message if there are limited activations, internet activation, etc. Of course, it would be great to have access to the EULA before making a purchase as well...but I very much doubt that will happen.

Lastly, as much as I hate EA's new DRM, I do have to give them credit for making their intentions public knowledge. They made it clear when Mass Effect PC was released that future PC games would have similar DRM. At least now I can make an informed decision, and choose not to buy any future games published by EA. Other publishers should follow suit and be more open about the DRM measures they intend to use, including the brand of copy protection, as people who have experienced problems with certain copy protection schemes (as I did with SecuROM 7.xx) would then be able to avoid a nasty surprise.

9 out of 10 people may never encounter a problem, but for those who do it is a real pain in the butt trying to deal with it. In my view there should be legislation forcing 'FULL disclosure' in the gaming industry, because right now they are simply abusing their position to the detriment of their customers.

RobertBowen

As much as I agree with you that the publisher should inform their customers, I believe it prudent for reviewers to do it if publishers don't. People use reviews as much as any other medium as a tool to decide if they want to purchase a game. Even if it does not affect their opinion of the game, users should be informed.

Probably, but try telling that to the reviewers.Vilot_Hero

Thats the idea :)

Well, if you read the whole post, that's kinda the point. System specs and replayability are taken into account, but DRM is not. Also, the box does not list these restrictions. Its stated somewhere in the EULA no one reads.

I understand that the reviewer may not care about DRM, but I think most consumers would not like the idea of an install limit on games. I think it is something important to include in the discussion of any game.

Gamespot editors, reviewers, and other concerned gamers,

There is great uproar over the DRM present in the recently released game, Spore. This allows buyers to install the game only 3 times through protection known as SecureRom. This protection is not new. It has been used in a variety of games by a variety of publishers, but is gradually becoming more restrictive. Having the discussion is great. Gamers are making their voices heard.

The problem I have been noticing though as that very few editorial reviews even mention the DRM of the game. Gamespot's review of Spore makes no mention of any install limit or artificial limitation.Some might say that DRM simply should not be included as part of a game's review. I argue otherwise. Just as my system limits my ability to play a game, an install limit, such as that found in Spore limits my ability as a purchaser to play the game. Also, as I still install and play my copy of old games to play once in a while, an install limit takes away from the replay value. Both are considered in reviews, and I request, nay demand, that reviews from Gamespot, or any other reviewer, detail any DRM restrictions that go beyond the norm

Red Alert 3 is planned to include the same DRM found in Spore, with a limit of 5 installs instead of 3. I would like to see mention of this in the review that I am sure is forthcoming

Thank you,
A Concerned Reader

Side Note: I was unable to find a way to communicate directly with the editor, so I chose to post my correspondence here.