There's a pretty good reason for this. Amazon ships literally thousands of these games, so an extreme negative reaction on the review pages to the game's restrictive DRM is a necessary and deliberate way for consumers (that's US) to register their objections to any attempt to limit the installation of a fully-paid, properly licensed copy of the game. You wouldn't buy an CD or DVD that restricted the amount of times you could watch or listen to, would you?
Many of us will change PC's, re-install operating systems, buy laptops etc within a year of purchasing games for high-end machines. Why should we be mentally counting our installations to make sure we don't bust the DRM limit of just 5? And why should a condition of buying a game be an obligation to provide continuous back-door access and data-mining facilities to the license provider?
PC gamers should not have to accept these restrictive limitations, any more than console gamers, IPod users or anyone else. Emailing the companies concerned does nothing. Using one of their prime retail channels to hit them in the pocket does. It's a great game, but we should be able to enjoy it without SecuRom 7. THAT is the purpose of these reviews, and all of us should be willing to reject the product and wait for a new release with a more user-friendly, less invasive DRM product to go with it.
Alternatively, publishers give up on the PC altogether because the gamers are a bunch of moaners and it's not worth the trouble of developing for it anymore. I have several of these dreaded DRM games installed and if it's made any difference to my PC, I'm damned if I can tell. And as for not wanting to connect to the internet - come and join us in this century.
'Submit to useless DRM or we will stop making game' is a scare tactic that unethical publishers like to use - especially the one that hide DRM information in the first place - now that the worthlessness of DRM is becoming common knowledge.
Ubisoft released Prince of Persia without any DRM; perhaps a sign that some publisher are re-thinking their business strategy to promote cooperation within, and reinforcing integrity between the publisher-customer relationship (Pay attention EA).
BTW, it is not certain who is really doing the "moaning." Customers who stand up for their consumers' rights by voicing their protest ? or those who gladly bend over to take the corporate shafting and proclaim that "it doesn't hurt" ?
I think both sides of the customers are innocent, and neither are more right than the other. As a lover of C&C games regardless of what the reviews on here or anywhere else say i'm likely to buy it, but that doesn't mean i don't want to come on here and read what people think of the game. I respect that some people want to voice their opinions about DRM and have no problem with their objectives because the best way to hit the companies who are probably the villians in this piece (tho they're just trying to protect their business against Piracy) is to hit them where it hurts: sales and revenue. But you get these rediculous ratings of 100+ people rating and a score of 2/5 when we all know the game is better than that. And then i have to go through them all to find people who are just rating the game. Surely the forums are meant for this?
Plus i thought the installation problem was just different computers, i believe thats what it is for Red Alert3, which is then not an issue at all, but if its not for some games then i agree it is a bit of a hassle, i do often uninstall and re-install the same game, but not on different computers.
Well, if you removed your head from your ass you would be able to see a website called gamecopyworld where CRACKS and NO CD PATCHES are availiable to download, and then DRM would not be a problem, would it?