Big whoop, indeed. It is impossible to say what kind of effect this sort of negative publicity is having on sales of the game, but it can't possibly be a good one. Amazon is the largest Internet retailer, a go-to spot for finding virtually any product at a decent price. At the very least, the reviews are making it clear to anyone who might buy the game that purchasing and installing Crysis Warhead might cause more of a headache than the average person wants to deal with. EA's response to the anger has been largely to brush it off, a position that is made clear in dealing with the Spore DRM fiasco (the DRM on Spore is nearly identical to that on Crysis Warhead). This postion is somewhat understandable. After all, with EA owning so many of today's most popular titles, its hard to not buy their products. But on the other hand, Crysis Warhead currently ranks 22nd on Amazon's list of most popular PC games, right behind Crazy Machines: The Wacky Contraptions Game (which, by the way, has received far better consumer reviews).
But wait, there's less! Crysis Warhead is not the only title to be hit by the flurry of DRM-inspired negative reviews. In fact, the problem seems to currently be spreading across all of EA's offerings, from Red Alert 3 to the PC version of Mass Effect. Two-star reviews currently plague these titles as well, and EA isn't the only company being hit. Ubisoft's Far Cry 2, which also uses strict DRM (including activation limits), has been hurt as well.
I'd like to say that the efforts of these Amazon reviewers will cause game industry leaders to change their minds, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Like the RIAA, piracy-obsessed publishers have decided on the wrong-headed view that sliding sales are the result of freeloaders, not the fact that downloading an illegal copy of a game typically results in a piece of software that is easier to install and use than what you'll find in a retail box.
Article comments
1 - Robert Barga
I have never understood why people are opposed to others protecting their own property and to, you know, having something on a CD-game that you agreed to get
2 - Nathaniel Edwards
The sanctity of Amazon customer reviews has been well and thoroughly broken. This was obvious earlier in the year with the lady who went on Fox attacking Mass Effect for their alien-sex scene immediately got her book down to one star in the reviews. I liked that more than I like this situation.
I generally think that both sides of this DRM fight are over-reacting, but I tend to skew slightly towards the consumer. Limits on installs aren't a tremendously huge deal, but in principle they are fairly important. The company is so afraid of piracy that it puts this limitation on the disks, which likely makes more people pissed off and likely to pirate the discs. I guess all I'm saying is, it's crazy.
3 - Mark Buckingham
The big argument against DRM is that you're effectively only "renting" the title rather than owning it. Books, CDs, movies, etc. don't have a tether attached that will make them stop working after so many days if a server craps out or you change your motherboard. The DRM puts limitations on the users that other forms of entertainment wouldn't dare to do.
For me, while I think it sucks that these reviews are bringing down the overall score (at least on Amazon; MetaCritic and other aggregate sites are safe from this) and might mislead a few buyers, it's nice to have some honest information about what DRM is being put on which games. The companies aren't terribly honest or open about it because they know what it'll do to their sales.
In contrast, look at Stardock's games (GalCiv 1 and 2, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc.), which have sold hundreds of thousands of legit copies, despite them trumpeting the fact that they don't use any DRM whatsoever. They've realized DRM is hurting legitimate customers and isn't affecting piracy one bit, and sided with the interests of their players.