Poll: Does DRM ever actually affect your purchase?

[Vivi22]

I'll get games on Steam happily. Sure it's DRM, but it's not very intrusive DRM and Valve go out of their way to make it something that adds to my experience rather than taking away from it.

Beyond that though, there aren't many forms of DRM I'll put up with. I originally passed on AC2 on all platforms until Ubisoft did an about face on the always on requirement for them. They've since brought it back for other games, and if they choose to implement it in one I actually want again I'll pass on it as well. I refuse to give them money for games that include intrusive DRM.

I also refuse to buy anything that uses Origin. Aside from the lovely clauses they decided to bury in the TOS, I've heard far too many horror stories about it to ever trust EA with it, let alone give them my money for games on any platform again any time soon. Luckily the whole Origin thing came about before I played Mass Effect 2. Now I can leave the series alone after playing the utterly boring and mediocre first entry and not worry about possibly getting sucked into it with the second and then be disappointed at not getting a conclusion from not buying the third.

 

[freakylarzzy]

i rarely have internet, seeing i mainly play sandbox/adventure solo games and the like, it's not that much of a big deal.
still a pity they feel the need to do this stuff

 

[cgaWolf]

Heavy handed DRM makes me not buy games i would otherwise be interested in.

I have zero interest in complying to arbitrary conditions that decide when and how i get to play games i bought; especially when there are light DRM measures that also add convenience without bothering me (Steam for example).

Here's shit DRM: Always-online in a single player game
Here's smarter DRM: Extra daily missions for players chosing to login to X-online-account for single player games

Here's shit DRM: limited number of installs
Here's better DRM: limited refundable number of installs while allowing multiplayer inside a LAN with the same key

etc...

Not all DRM is inherently evil, but the more annoying and heavy handed it is, the more it exclusively annoys legitimate customers. Games with a high DRM annoyance potential just won't end up on my buying list - there are enough other games to chose from.

 

[masticina]

Mmm as long as it as a decent central ownership system that allows me to play the bought games offline. Yeah I play on consoles but also bought in my pc days steam games. Is that DRM? Yes!

But guess what it is so not in the way that really I don't mind it. They even made it easy when I had to transfer to a new PS3 [due to the old ones blu-ray drive dying ] .. Telling me on screen to deactivate my old and after transfer reactive the new one. And I could play all my gamesaves, even the protected ones, all my content all my games.

Always Online DRM though well... no way! I am a player that plays mostly single player games. And yes sometimes offline.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Yep, if it has a famously draconian DRM I don't want to buy it.

I want to play a game, not become CEO of the center of bureaucracy just to get into my account to play the game.

 

[Naeras]

There's a simple test: would a DRM-free, pirated version of a game make give me a significantly better experience than buying it? If yes, the developer just lost my purchase.

I don't pirate the game either, by the way.

Serious Sam 3-DRM is the way to go tbh. It was damn hilarious and didn't affect buying customers, unlike, say, the shit Ubisoft is pulling.

 

[UbarElite]

Really would depend on the DRM. I can take steam, although that is more about the fact that it gives me a lot of convenience in exchange for my freedom.

Not down with always on DRM at all. The thought that a single lag spike from my modem, or any computer on the way to a company, or the company itself could shut down my single player experience is not anything I want to be a part of.

 

[Newby_Newb]

If a game has DRM, I refuse to buy it.

I don't buy games that require steam, have limited installs, use GFWL, have securom, etc.

 

[seraphy]

If game has GfWL I might not get it no matter how good the game is (arkham city). I have had so many problems with that thing.

 

[kebab4you]

It depends on the DRM, say a game comes with origin, that´s a DRM I refuse to put up with. So in that case I wouldn't even consider it.

 

[Duskflamer]

Most of the time it's only a factor for me if I wasn't sure if I wanted the game or not, but I will say that I was nothing but excited for Diablo 3 until I learned about the always-online requirement.

 

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

Yes, if the DRM is bad enough. Pirates aren't affected at all by it, so all the developers are doing is making it harder for their paying customers to play it.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

If Mass Effect 3 is "Origin Only" the series ended for me.
Same goes with *sniff* (sorry just got emotional) Dragon Age 3.

And if nobody else has the balls (or ovules) to do that well at least EA loses one customer.
Most of the other wussies really deserve their Origin / Ubisoft DRM anyway, especiall if their consumeristic addiction forces them to buy those games.

 

[Rumpsteak]

I voted "Yes. When I have a problem with it.."

I have no real problem with the idea of DRM, the problem rests more with the type of DRM used. I have steam and other similar services and while these are DRM They do not really have a negative effect on my game experience. Other forms of DRM however I will avoid no matter how good the game they are attached to.

 

[MisterM2402]

Well I haven't bought a new game since Portal 2, and before that I can't remember when. And by "not bought" I mean "I love replaying my old games and don't have the money for new ones" rather than "YAAAARRRRRRR!!!!!".

I don't think I've ever had a game with DRM... wait, does Steam count? I'm not too clued up on this stuff, sorry. Portal 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 are awesome games, so no, if Steam counts as DRM, it's never affected my purchases.

 

[Scorpid]

Yes, I've pretty much turned my back on any game that requires a constant connection. I didn't have an internet connection for a few months way back when and when i went and bought Empire Total War, I was slightly more then a little disappointed I couldn't actually play the game I bought. So I had to find a pirated version of the game I paid for to actually play it. It was absurd. And also Spores only 3 installs of the game you bought was worse. That i actually heard about before buying and avoided it like the plague. I have this crazy idea according to publishers that when i buy a game that that physical copy of the game and all its data on it belongs to me, and isn't in fact a lease.

 

[ubersyanyde]

Playing a game through Steam is fine, it is a well refined game client.
Playing a game through Origin isn't because, well, EA (I don't like them).
Playing a game that requires a constant internet connection is out of the question. My connection is completely crap (f*** you, Virgin Media). If I want to play a single player game I shouldn't need to be connected to the internet.

EA, Ubisoft and all other companies that use sh*tty DRM should stop being so scared of losing a few sales through piracy because they're certainly losing a hell of a lot more through DRM, online passes and generally branding everyone as a theif unless they pay unreasonable prices for a game that we would have otherwise considered buying.

 

[shrimpcel]

I think I can't even play Assassin's Creed II anymore, so yup, it sure as hell affected the fact that I didn't buy the next two games.

 

[Substitute Troll]

I was so damn hyped for ME3, but noooooo, EA has to pull this Origin bullshit...

 

[TheOneMavado]

I don't even touch new PC titles anymore. With GOG being the only exception, I'm sticking to consoles.