I personally consider all forms of copy protection bad. All hail copyleft and Humblebundle.com!

My view on the subject is a little different, but I think probably mirrors a lot of people's out there (or maybe I'm just self absorbed).

Anyways, I really could care less about DRM itself. It's extremely rare that I ever go back and play games (other than the few that my wife enjoys like Super Mario 3), even ones that I consider my personal favourites I never touch again (I probably have 8 versions of Chrono Trigger lying around, and I've never actually played any of them except the original SNES copy, which I played through 18 times in one summer).

What I hate is being inconvenienced. DRM has the potential to inconvenience me. If I can't connect to servers, or if an install fails (although I don't generally play PC games), or any other problem, I probably will never play that game again, which poses a problem to games that build their business plan around continued service (i.e. selling DLC). I won't cry about the game, I won't bitch and moan on forums about the game, I just won't play it anymore unless I don't have something else to play (which is rarely the case).

It's a company's prerogative on whether or not to incorporate DRM, and it's my prerogative to either buy the game or continue to play it. I don't base my purchases on DRM, but I won't sit patiently for them to fix issues. I likely would just put the game down, never pick it back up, and not have any fond memories when the sequel comes out that would entice me to pick it up. Something that they should consider.

"Single Player" games that make use of cloud computing don't bother me. It's actually a cool way to give a new single player experience that might be impossible on a single machine. Again though, for me it's all down to convenience. I won't wait to log onto servers, and I might not come back to the game if it takes a week to get it operational.

I'm sure a lot of people disagree with my views, but at the end of the day I just want great game experiences, even with DRM or requirements to connect to a server. It's when these become problematic to delivering a great game experience that it starts to affect my spending habits in the future.

It would still seem a limitation if it's a multiplayer game that could conceivably be played on any server, but requires specific servers purely for attempting to limit piracy. (So, it's not really a limitation for games like massively-multiplayer, but many commercial multiplayer games could be played say over a LAN, or with people setting up their own servers.) I agree with the points made about ping times, and still being able to play it after the "official" servers are switched off.

It's funny how this works with software, and only software, too. Imagine this: [car analogy]

Actually I'd argue it would and does work that way, it's just that most software isn't put into life and death situations.

Cars are becoming increasingly complex - suppose the action between the brake pedal and enabling it was done by software. (Indeed, this may already be the case - http://www.pcworld.com/article/196293/car_hackers_can_kill_brakes_engine_and_more.html .) Are you saying that because it's done by software, they'd be allowed to get away with it? No, they're still liable.

But most software that people typically buy isn't intended to be put into life and death situations. Most licences clearly state that. If you use it in that situation anyway, you're on the own - it's like buying a car and driving it into a lake - you don't get to sue anyone when it sinks.

Perhaps we could complain that so much software is sold with the licences limiting them so much, but that's basically down to the complexity of software, and the cost that people expect to pay. If you want those guarantees, you can have them if you pay far more for it. (A new car can easily cost £20,000 - why should a £100 software package have the same guarantees?)

The fun will come soon with AI-driven cars, but you can bet that "being software" isn't going to stop manufacturers being liable just because it's software, when it's sold as a system to drive people on roads.