Gildan Bladeborn said:
Wow. No really, wow. I kind of halfway thought you were crazy before, but that was... wow. Okay, not even going to remotely bother trying to counter that point by point, so let's just hit the highlights.
That's adorable. You don't actually want to have a real discussion about this. Fantastic, now let's watch you misrepresent my stated points, and create straw men you can beat down. No wonder you enjoyed the supposed satire of this article. Let's watch.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
The presumption that "necessary annoyances" are still valuable features: You real life analogy does not work - going through security screenings is very annoying to be certain, but there is a positive benefit to the people going through the screenings - ideally the crazy person with a bomb does not make it onto the plane with you, and you don't get blown up. Keeping pirates out by screening everyone as if they were pirates provides zero benefit to the customer, because the customer is not negatively impacted if pirates get to play the game, duh.
And we're off to the races. The positive benefit from preventing piracy is more money going to the developers meaning they can invest in more games being developed, and even spend some money on things like Okami. Simply saying "hurr, the consumer isn't negatively impacted" is insufficient. You're looking at only one part of the entire games economy. Sorry, you're simply wrong from an economic standpoint.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
Insisting my arguments contain fallacies: Those are only fallacies if they are not true - DRM exists to restrict customers rights; it is by its very definition a negative detraction from anything it gets attached to, impeding our ability to use the products we purchase as we choose to. How obtrusive and annoying it ends up being may vary, but the concept behind it logically precludes it EVER being a feature that adds value to us the customers. Therefore, anyone who argues differently is in fact uninformed, crazy, or a liar - you can only be one of those three when you're on the other side of the truth. You can make DRM palatable by offsetting it with other features you bundle it with like Valve has with Steam, but you will never make it something your customers "like" - they like your system for the features and don't notice the DRM. If you're going to use it, the best you can aim for is "something they won't notice", which is still not ideal but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
Actually, you're no true scotsman argument of "no one who's being honest about this would ever suggest DRM itself is good". Which means, of course, that I cannot possibly be both honest, and believe DRM is good. It's called begging the question, doofus.
As always, you're focused solely on the single point issue of whether or not DRM is good or bad for consumers at the time of play. Your tunnel vision precludes you from ever discussing this with any sense of scope, scale, or integrity, so we're better off agreeing to disagree. But, since your entire thesis hinges on no one being able to articulate the points I have made (remember this argument spawned from your ridiculous claims about no one ever in the history of the world writing in persuasive defense of DRM).
In addition, since you did not dispute my definition of what "convincing argument" would consist of, you accept it by fiat. So, let's find some random people without an existing opinion on the issue and see if any of them are persuaded. If they are, your initial point is false, and the rest of this is window-dressing.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
The utterly ridiculous notion that publishers intentionally design DRM to punish us their paying customers for not "speaking out against piracy more": Seriously, what the hell. How on earth can you go about casting yourself as a rational defender for DRM and attempt to point out logical flaws in my admittedly hyperbolic rants and then turn around and say something like that. Do you have any conception of how stupid that sounds? Locking paying customers out through the vagaries of system conflicts and buggy DRM implementation, while a known quantity that publishers remain aware of and yet deem not worth abandoning DRM to correct, is not an intended consequence of implementing DRM for crying out loud!! Who do you think is running these companies that they're purchasing expensive software solutions expressly to piss off people who buy things from them. Are you actually aware of how businesses work? (Hint: Not like that!)
Again, cute. Simply saying that something is utterly ridiculous doesn't actually make it so (watch: I am Brad Pitt... It didn't work, damn). But, way to latch on to three points which were at the periphery of my argument, instead of addressing the fundamental theses. It's an interesting way to argue, but basically dishonest. I made the point you're responding to here by way of explaining that presuming to know a company's motivation is (at best) a decent guess, and thus applying normative standards of "success" or "failure" is inherently predicated on our own senses of what they 'should' be attempting to do. But, hey, keep grinding that axe.
So, sorry, you've not responded to any of the points I made about the macroeconomic harm, the eventual technological changes which come from further investment and development (which will increase the efficacy of DRM), or about the harm that comes to us gamers in the form of decreased selection and even increased cost from the companies needing to make up for lost sales from thievery.
Further, since you do not address the argument I make about the actual number of pirates who are likely to pay if forced to, your position that there are only two types of pirates (those who cannot pay, and those who will never pay) must be deemed confessed.
Gildan Bladeborn said:
I'd go on, but the fact that you would honestly suggest that systems which present varying degrees of extra hoops to jump through before launching what you paid for, that pirates have been easily circumventing all along, is functioning properly when it locks a legitimate customer out of the service for no reason. You are a madman.
Awwwwww. I love it. You can't win, so you resort to invective and personal attacks. I have little wonder why you enjoyed an article which engaged in the same level of intellectual dishonesty, and which was simply insulting to the mere concept that anyone would disagree.
If you'd ever like to actually discuss these issues with a level of maturity and reason due the topic, I'm happy to. Otherwise, I respectfully request that you cease to claim any form of logical "proof" to your claims, and apologize for your rather insulting statements.
