I recenly picked up a copy of the December 2008 issue of PC Gamer while waiting at the airport. I haven’t read it since 2004, but it’s not like I have a choice for PC-centric commentary in print now that Computer Games Magazine doesn’t exist anymore. Flipping through the reviews section, I came to a review of Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway, the full fledged sequel to one of my favorite games of 2005. Like many others this time of year, I’m struggling to figure out what games I should dedicate my limited free time to, and nothing informs gamers better than a review of pre-retail code, right? Though in the particular case of Hell’s Highway, I was astonished by the absence of a final score. The reasoning (emphasis mine):

While we didn’t encounter any bugs in the build we played, at the last moment before going to press, we received word from Gearbox that their commitment to fixing a one-in-200 crash bug has delayed final code of the game. In addition, Ubisoft was unable to provide specific information about possible DRM restrictions at press time. In keeping with our policy of reviewing finished code, we are withholding our score until next issue when we’ve played the final. In the meantime, we feel that the text detailing what we saw in the build we played will be helpful to you in making your game purchasing decision.

Being my usual cynical self, my first reaction was: what were you doing reviewing unfinished code? Furthermore, if specific information about DRM was required to provide a final score, what in the fuck is Spore doing with a 91%?

Is this another way of saying that exceptions are made for the big releases? That something as restrictive as the DRM that comes with Spore should simply be ignored in the interest of getting that high-rated exclusive review to press? In all fairness to PC Gamer, from what I saw in the other game reviews they do mention where games have potentially intrusive DRM in a sidebar.

Yet in the same issue, the review of Crysis Warhead has a note that says:

Although we know that Crysis Warhead will use SecuROM copy protection and require online activiation, there was no word at press time about the exact number of installations that will be permitted per copy…nor whether those installations will be revokable.

And despite that nebulous advice, the game got a 73%.

Hell’s Highway seems to be the exception here, and calls into question what should constitute a comprehensive and fair review in the age of DRM.

I’ve followed the saga of Spore‘s DRM and the backlash from fans, gamers and consumers of said product, and while EA has made the token gesture of allowing gamers to install it five times instead of three, the precedent has already been set: gaming software is disposable. By accepting the EULA and subsequently installing whatever copy protection or check-in application that runs alongside the actual game, you are essentially agreeing to terms that allow you to use the software temporarily, and completely on the terms of the publisher. Spore isn’t the first title that ignited such a response from gamers: Both BioShock and this year’s PC version of Mass Effect used similar technology. Though in BioShock‘s case, the DRM was removed by a later patch in response to complaints.

Despite this criticism from the game-buying public, the influence of these practices by publishers to protect their software are still absent from most reviews, and how it affects the game playing experience. In the interest of reviewing the game itself and not getting caught up in technical issues, I can understand this approach. But to me, this is the same thing as talking about minimum system requirements. It certainly affects the replayability of the game if you can only install it a limited number of times. And what about the game’s posterity? Will this authentication work in 10 years? The ability to play any game I own whenever I feel like it is a comforting thought – but this appears like it may be a luxury of the past. The once simple act of installing a PC game is becoming a more involved process; I only have to look back at the angry mob waiting for Steam to register their retail copy of Half Life 2 just so they could play it. And this, it seems, was only the beginning.

I don’t expect a reviewer to hold up a final verdict because DRM details were not available, or if the reviewer agrees with these practices. DRM isn’t going anywhere, and at that rate no game would ever get a score (certainly a good day in my book, but that’s a topic for another discussion). But I do expect to have some discussion on its effects on the game present in the review. Gamers should be made aware of what they’re getting into with each purchase. Once the user has accepted the EULA and is ready to install the game, the chances of returning it for a full refund just dropped to 0. If they are unsatisfied with any aspect of the game they are basically stuck with something they don’t want. They’ll be lucky if they can unload it on the secondary market, but for PC games that’s becoming an equally daunting proposition as modern DRM works towards isolating installations to the original machine. Indeed, DRM is now entrenched in PC gaming culture, and it’s about time that game reviews started addressing more diligently, or at the very least more consistently.