It's quite funny that Crytek for all thier bitching and moaning are now one of the richest developers, they even bought Free Radical and renamed them Crytek UK. No Crysis didn't sell very well when it was launched because no bugger could play it. A few years on and we now have the hardware sales of Crysis are high.
As for EA I prefer to wait and see. TBH any publisher serious about making PC games has been watching that train wreck that was UbiDRM. C&C4 has valid reasons for EADRM. Like I said before if they launch Mass Effect 3 or Dragon Age 2 with EADRM then I will be the first to throw shit at them.

Yeah, even more stupid, they said the game was profitable. The fact they blamed piracy on a game that only 10% of people could play yet was profitable at the time...ugh. They should know better. I don't get PC developers or publishers...I swear half of them are retarded.
Dragon Age has been doing very well on PC, and Bad Company 2 PC outsold the PS3/360 versions (separately), so that bodes well for the future...sends a very strong message about the supposed 'necessity' of DRM. Does make the C&C4 thing seem awfully weird though, particularly given like BC2, there's a loyal audience for it,

Yeah, it's completely without substance. Right now I just see a cloud of uncertainty over EA's future titles and nothing more. They announced the C&C DRM months in advance and said they did so to give people a head's up about what to expect.
So assuming that's their policy, I don't think that any more games for the next six months or so will be affected. But it is bloody annoying that they too tried to claim this isn't DRM.

I assume they just define it differently. Definition seems to vary from person to person. If it makes you feel better, one of the lead designers calls it DRM. There's a good chat about it here.
I think they have good intentions and all, and are aware of the shit they're going to get/are getting for it. Honestly it seems like half the reason they did it is to build up the multiplayer community. Which would be fine if it weren't for big SP fans like myself...they should've made the SP free or just cut it altogether.

Crysis had a demo available upon release--a very good demo at that, which demonstrated both performance and gameplay--so that's not a very good reason for pirating the full game.

Pentium 2.4 Ghz (yes, one core), ATI Radeon 9600, 1 GB RAM memory and Win XP... The game ran fluently on this configuration. When it was released, this machine was pretty much a relic. Besides, as Arkose has said, demo was out for some time. So seriously, how could most people NOT run it?

Because most people aren't sensible enough to understand that they can only run the game if they turn the details to lowest of the low. They try the game on their old HP Laptop with a GMA4500 integrated graphics chip, on high settings, find that the average FPS is about 0.31, then begrudginly turn down the settings to medium to find the FPS improved to 1.14.
Then they throw the game out. After complaining on a random Youtube video.

The only thing that stopped me buying Crysis when it first came out was the near 100 USD price tag applied to it locally. And then the regionally applied 60 USD price tag it was given when it was released on Steam.
In fact, I only got it eventually when it was gifted to me from someone in the UK at a fraction of the price they expected to be paid for it here.

You seem to know stuff, so... Why the heck did I write 'RAM memory'?

Bad Company 2's DRM is pretty interesting (for the retail version, at least):
Following a successful installation, the user is asked to pick a preferred DRM method. The first choice is a simple disc check (the game must remain in the DVD tray). The other choice is online activation, which frees the user from keeping the disc in his machine.

It's just a main executable wrapper so when it's uninstalled it stays uninstalled. No registry muckups or anything like that. If you have the Steam version, the latest patch even removed Securom.

The main problem in EA's case is that it saves online. If they meant to build up the multiplayer side of things they could easily have had it save to your hard drive like every other game out there (bar Ubisoft's latest). So I'm not buying any innocent explanations for this.

Exactly. Why pay for a coaster? Ludicrous hardware requirements are as much of a deterrent as ludicrous DRM and for the same reasons - they impact upon your ability to actually enjoy that entertainment product. Crytek screwed up with the second generation of their engine. They created something immensely powerful and capable of stunning results. But it was also about as streamlined as a brick.
My sentiments exactly. C&C4 was never really going to be a good game. So if the problem begins and ends there then I won't be too miffed.

"This my conspiracy theory. UBI and EA are in this scheme together and are holding out for Onlive in June. Onlive claim this will be the end of the consoles but i seriously doubt that and if UBI and EA belive this then they are deluded. Onlive targets will be the pc gamer and the consoles. But i think the only market onlive will attract will be the Hotels if they are lucky. I cant see pc gamers or people who play the consoles go in massive droves to onlive rental schemes. Sure you will save money on hardware and on consoles but at the end of the day people like to own there games and not be control by a company who can tell you when or when you cant play."
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/4811054957/m/6811098728?r=1251009348#1251009348

Ubisoft seem very interested in Onlive so I wouldn't be surprised to see them throwing their weight behind it. Anything that restricts the rights of the customer while increasing profit seems to be right up their street. I regard Ubisoft as a lost cause now, the future for them with PC games seems to be online restricted only. It's an utterly bizzare decision that can only restrict the amount they can earn from the market as not everyone has a stable broadband connection. I would imagine that if the online only option was denied to them then they would pull out of the PC market entirely.
As for EA I don't see them capitulating to Onlive in the same way as Ubisoft. Traditionally they like Activision seek to control everything about their products, one of the reasons it took EA so long to open up to digital distribution. I would imagine that if EA were to ever go online only then it would be on their own servers and their own terms. While they may not have the money they once had they are still a leviathan in size, big enough to bully any potential suitor.