Bioware said in this case Denuvo was used as a anticheat option for the multiplayer side of the game.

Intrusive DRM just makes me NOT want to play a game. It certainly doesn't make me more likely to want to play it.

Predictable.

+1 for having extremely good taste.

When you use gog mostly, you can sometimes forget about the DRM in the "outside" world, then unwittingly you get bitten by it.

I bought Alice : Madness Returns on Steam last night for €2.50, I don't mind Steam too much when you get a price like that, but, when I installed the game (remember it was on Steam), I had to make an EA account and then enter a CD key there to allow me to play the fecking game, so essentially 3 forms of DRM, Steam, Origin and a CD key. Then I get a message that I have only authorised it for "this" PC.

I will be more careful in future, cos even at 2 fecking 50, I was still pissed off over this >.<

All it does is piss off legitimate customers.

You already received lots of replies as massive counters to the small and irrelevant thing you said.
I'll add just one: most of this "great" drmed games that you are talking about will be released years after as a drmfree variant to milk even more sales. So it's not "missed", in worst case it's just "delayed".
And lets not even talk about that "other" free variant ... if one is determined there's not any "missing" happening.

running on 3 ssd's, not going to get back into those...

Hard to say, it is a complex thing to sum up in one sentence like that, especially as there are different kinds of DRM. Some thoughts:

- If certain DRM system gets bad press and clearly inconveniences the users, then it will most probably be detrimental to the sales. Many people will avoid the game due to that. Maybe this has affected Denuvo a bit too, the reports of if causing crashes or poorer performance.

- On the other hand, I do believe that some kind obstacles to freely copying around the games may make some people, who had otherwise just pirated the game, buy it instead. Take for example that Serbian guy here who says he is entitled to pirated and free games because Serbia is so poor (yet he can afford a PC and.a broadband internet connection?). I'm pretty sure if he was unable to pirate any games, he would buy some (or get them otherwise in a legit way, I guess that's why he is begging for free games).

Note that this doesn't have to be only DRM. It could be also that the IP rights holders try to actively hunt down people who share or download pirated games as torrents (making it less lucrative for many people to share or pirate their games online), or merely some kind of watermarking system that doesn't prevent you from making copies of the game, but is still an incentive not to share it around.

I personally would be fine with a DRM system that would stop me from sharing the game to others, but wouldn't even theoretically prevent me from playing my legit copy years (or decades) from now. I just can't figure out what kind of DRM system that would be. No, the answer is not Steam CEG as it is still dependent on Valve, and even may restrict my access to the game when they are around (e.g. like I was suddenly unable to play my games on Windows 2000, just because Valve decided so).

CD copy protections were close to that, but their problem ultimately was that they tied the game to that media. Ie. when the media or the device used to read that media dies or becomes obsolete, I can't play the game anymore.

Even better would be the watermarking system. I wouldn't care if all my GOG purchases had an (uncrackable) watermark which would tell at least GOG, or maybe even the game publisher, that I am the person who bought that copy of the game originally. I'd prefer though that watermark would be incomprehensible to others, ie. there shouldn't be directly personal information in the watermark, only some kind of identifier which the store and/or the publisher could possibly map to me.

Failing those two, I prefer DRM-free. :) I vote with my wallet.

Damn this DRM looks really awfull ; writing so much on a SSD.

Some publishers are just stupid or what ?

Similarly like a Steam user who refuses to buy Steam games with 3rd party DRM (UPlay, SecuROM etc.) and strict installation limits, and/or always-only requirement for single-player games, will miss out a lot of great games. Their choice, I guess.

So what's your point? That people shouldn't have principles and preferences for the service, when purchasing games?

Not if they want everything. If you prefer being able to live with yourself you could have principles. :P

Sadly this is true. Insanely enough there's even cases where DRM is actually added to a formerly DRM free game in a re-release. Publishers are stupid.

Now the pirates have a superior version. 11/10 IGN for EA. Those who paid have the DRM shit and those who didn't pay anything got a much better version. Will definitely stop piracy.

Good riddance.

I know it is not really possible to make a "survey" like this, but I'd be curious to compare the "money won because of DRM" and "money lost because of DRM". Basically comparing the amount of people who bought the game because they couldn't pirate it, and the amount of people who refused to buy it because of DRM, but would have bought it otherwise.
I'd be REALLY curious to see the results. Hey, maybe it would even convince me that DRM is a good thing and is indeed helping sales :P *sarcasm*

Calling it a long-term rental is easier on the nerves.