[Havoc]

So a few publishers have taken a new approach to making sure you can't play their games with an illegal copy. Ubisoft did this for example with the PC version of AC2 and with the upcoming Settlers 7.

And while I'm reading about the Settlers 7 I see people throwing massive fits and cursing at Ubisoft because of this new DRM that requires you to have a permanent internet connection while playing or the game won't start. And while this goes on I'm wondering why people are throwing such a huge fit over this.

EA uses a DRM that installs on your computer and acts like a virus. It can't be uninstalled unless you use force somehow. I can understand people complain about this, especially since there was no mention of it during the installation.

2K uses a DRM that limits the amount of times you can install a game. Bioshock 1 and 2 came with a system that would allow you to install a game 5 times (later it was 15 I think) after which the game will simply refuse to install. Obviously people complained, as this obviously gave a limited life to the serial number you legally bought.

Now Ubisoft comes with a simple yet effective DRM method. To play the game you have to be connected to the internet. This seems like a pretty reasonable deal to me. In this day and age I don't know anyone who is still on dial-up internet and if you are able to complain about the DRM on an internet forum you obviously have internet, so where lies the problem?

Obviously DRM is always a catch 22. After all, if you spend money to get a legal copy you are confronted with the DRM to make sure you have a legal version. But if you pirate that same game you get it for free and it doesn't have the DRM, so the question arises what the DRM is good for in the first place.

Is needing an internet connection to play the game a reason for you not to buy it/play it? And if so, why?