However, over the past 6 months or so I have noticed a decidedly different tone coming from EA, which is nice to see. ).
Well, I would really love to believe that Bioware's plan to turn EA's douchebags' opinion upside down through their policy of allowing Anti-DRM discussion in their forum to learn what it is that bothers their customers and communicating it to them finally came to it's fruition, and I actually did.
That was until the stupid constant need to be online to play C&C4 was revealed. I won't go as far as saying EA is plotting some evil kind of new scheme for DO:A without proof. However a certain suspicion is lingering in the backof my mind.
I wasn't about to pre-order DA:O anyway, because I don't purchase ANY game without reading the forums for a few months concerning bugs and other flaws anymore. So will have enough time to see whether my suspicion is going to be proven valid or wrong. If it's gonna be proven wrong however, I'll be the loudest one around to sing praises to EA's honor.
Well, I don't want to seem like I'm defending EA. I'm not. They've engaged in any number of indefensible anti consumer and anti competitive practices in the past, and Im certain they will continue to do so in the future, and have released games in the past that were so marred by excessive DRM, that they should not have been purchased by consumers.
Still, they are not going anywhere, and as much as one *should not* purchase the excessive DRM games, we must be willing to put down our torches and pirthcforks, and meet them halfway and support their efforts when they return to more reasonble standards, like they are With Dragon Age.
It just bothers me when people have sort of a kneejerk reaction, instead of of analyzing each situation on a case by case basis, and paint a game that doesnt deserve it like Dragon Age, with the "Blah Blah, EA evil, Blah Blah" brush, and regurgitate a number of tired arguments that everyone knows by heart now in a sutuation where they do not apply.
The truth of the matter is, EA *has* responded to some degree to consumer criticism as of late, offering versions of their games free of SecuRom over Steam, seemingly retreating form the Spore level of DRM on major releases, and allowing a major game like Dragon Age to go out the door with pretty much the same level of restriction as Baldur's Gate did 10 years ago. Are they as consumer friendly as say Stardock? No, and they never will be. But they do seem to be exploring less hostile alternatives.
People seem worked up over the Command and Conquer Online thing, but that is an apples and oranges situation. That has more to to with the game model , than DRM directly. My understanding is that the game has MMO-like persistent elements. Now, I think it's a *stupid* game model, and Im sure the fact that the MMO-like persistent element model also doubles as a fairly potent inherent protection method played no small part in their game design decision, but if youre going to go that route, theres not really any way to *not* require it to be played online. Regardless, that talk belongs in the C&C thread, about *that* game, and not here, about *this* game, where it simply doesnt apply.
The facts about *this* game are, Bioware is still Bioware, and *flourishing* under EA ownership, not diminishing. The game will not have *any* SecuRom on it, and DRM will be limited to a disk check, the same level of restriction as any game you bought ten or 15 years ago. And if you buy it over Steam, it wont even have that (Only Steam protection).
I preordered my Box copy when they announced the reasonable protection standard, simply because I intend to use the robust toolset and play all the mods that will come out for this, and I didnt want any third party file structure interferring with that. Otherwise, I may have picked it up over Steam.