Worgen said:
Your argument is inherently flawed, pirates are a red herring, the assumption always goes "if they didnt pirate it they would buy it" but thats a flawed argument since in all likely hood they wouldnt have unless its a special case like spore when pirating it was also a form of protest against the heavy handed tactics. Pirates are just a way for a company to say "look this is why our game had low sales, its not our fault the game sucked/was too system intensive/no body knew about it" altho piracy would probably help that last one.
Your argument with alcohol is flawed also, it didnt matter what the outcome of drinking was to the moral crusaders, they viewed it as the cause of many of sociaties ills and would not be disuaded untill it because obvious that banning it created bigger problems then allowing it did, its one of the few times in history you can see someone blaiming all of sociaties ills on something and literaly watch it blow up in their face. Other things that have been blamed include gays, women, cathlics, athiests, commies, black people, irish, mexicans, chinese, japanese, eastern europeans and many more. Some spelling may have shifted during the course of this rant.
Actually, my argument isn't as flawed as you might think (at least I don't think so, heh). I am not coming at this from a moral viewpoint, but rather from a purely economical.
Let me give you another example, Titanic would never sink right? So why invest in enough life boats to save everyone in case she sank? The smart economic move is to only buy the minimal necessary amount of life boats, because you won't need them anyway and they cost money.
The alcohol argument is kind of the same, because it wasn't a moral choice. The people holding these events sure wanted to sell that alcohol, it was a great profit. But in the end, they faced the prospect of losing money because a certain demographic of attenders got drunk and disorderly and that threatened to scare away other paying event goers. So, the profit form the alcohol had to go in favor of keeping the event goers coming.
DRMs are the same. They are usually third party software (such as StarForce, SecuROM etc.) and I can bet that they are rather expensive to buy a license for. These servers that Mr. Young are talking about also cost money to keep up and running. Now, I am not in anyway affiliated to any publisher except for buying the games they offer. But I think that if piracy was percieved as a negligable problem and not as severely affecting the projected income in a negative way then these invasive DRMs, Online Verifications and similar would never be used.
Think of it as this, you wouldn't buy a gun or hire a guard if you didn't feel threatened. Game Publishers aren't putting in DRMs for fun or beacuse they can, they are doing it because they believe the cost of using one will be justified by an increase in profit from denying casual "pirates" the chance to use an illegal copy.