This article seems well-researched, yet it doesn't really explain why it makes the leap to the conclusions that it did. Spore was the most pirated game, yet the DRM had nothing to do with that even though the ones without intrusive DRM were pirated less? Sure, it gives examples of games with just as bad DRM that weren't pirated as much, but they didn't receive any bad press over it, so it clearly wasn't as well known about.norb wrote:
ahh, I found one of the better researched articles:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_1.html
The only consistent, predictable correlation seems to be the popularity of the game itself, which stands to reason. And, frankly, these numbers don't impress me. I was lead to believe they were larger.
The article is good at gathering numbers but poor at making conclusions. It seems determined to misrepresent any counterarguments. They go on about looking for evidence and reason (those words in bold, no less!) while neglecting the latter and even (in the height of irony) post the definition of a 'straw man'! The further into the article the worse it gets.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't have the right to protect your game. If there was a DRM method that worked, I would support it completely. Since there isn't, short of multiplayer, the DRM that is out there only punishes your customers and does not hinder pirates. Activation or a plain CD Check is one thing; the DRM arms race is delusional.
