well.. listen to both talk about why not to pur drm as part of review process. i would agree if drm do nothing but just check rather user pay the product. however, since drm also have limiting user installation number, plus no so easy uninstall.. and possible root kit. they need to review as a whole.
its like u go to having new HDTV, u dont just judge how good is picture. you also rate how good is the speaker also, even you have best HDTV on the market if you have crappy speaker people would think lower over all rating.

it seems unfair to developer how EA mess up their game. but then we dont just install their game, we also install drm.

i heard EA will put DRM in all their new game, therefore from this point on i wouldn't buy their game anymore. people still play their game (student who BT it) but old timer like us (who work and have $$$ to spend) will skip their product.

Good points, guys.

DRM = Snake oil. The people that sell DRM are a bit like
scammers. The people that buy DRM for use on their
otherwise good to release products want very much to
believe in the lie that snake oil will work magic.
Unfortunately, there isn't a healthy placebo effect
with DRM.

Could a company such as eBay claim lost profits due to
problems in reselling DRM-enabled software? Could snake
oil engineers be sued for selling a product that does
little to stop piracy? Could the average human know
enough to NOT buy DRM-enabled-games? No to all of my
questions, I'd wager a handsome hay penny.

In the end, I simply wonder if a company like EA has
anyone to tell them that the cost of DRM software is
a waste. Then again.. we've seen just how intelligent
economists are, as of late.

Perhaps EA is merely being thoughtful and saving me
money.

One problem:

You say it's bad to review games based on distribution rather than simply the game's merits, but the majority of gamers will be looking at reviews with that being their main influence in whether or not they buy a game. A review is often simply a well-stated answer to "should I buy this game, should I rent this game, should I even play this game?" and to ignore such a glaring issue in the user's experience is irresponsible. I honestly don't have a simple solution, because there really isn't one. There needs to be a way to judge the game based on its merits and at the same time hold the publisher responsible for their methods of distribution.

Since you don't want to penalize the developer because of the corporate bean counter, i'm wondering how would you rate a Corvette that cannot be upgraded or repaired more than 3 times and you have to dispose of when you don't want it anymore because you are unable to sell it. Would you rate is as a a great car just because it's sleek and powerful or would you rate it poorly because of all the limitations above? Why do you have different standards for games than for cars or other products?

They cost a million times more Waves. you're comparing penny bubblegum to 100 pounds of bananas.

Either way they should call it a rental and reduce the price to 5 dollars.