I think it's kind of presumptuous to say that DRM like this could never be beneficial just because, in this particular instance, it completely failed.

DRM - trying to fix something that isn't broken by punishing your paying customers and making the game worse Tell me, how this could ever be beneficial to anything?

If the piracy it prevents would have amounted to a more significant loss of revenue than the cost of development and implementation of DRM (including any sales that may have been lost as a consequence), I'd say it's most likely going to be beneficial for everybody. Except the people who would've pirated it, I guess.

I've never seen DRM prevent piracy, only increase it. If you can find me a case where DRM works as intended, and increases sales, on top of decreasing piracy.............i'll eat my hat.

I don't know if DRM of this kind has or will ever have a beneficial effect on a publisher's bottom line, but the thing is that it's far from inconceivable, so it's really something for the publisher to decide. To judge all DRM as immediately and irrevocably detrimental just because it's screwed up so big-time here is kind of a leap, I think.

I make that leap because the core principle of DRM is irrevocably detrimental: "punishing the paying customer in an attempt to stop piracy (which arguably isn't even a problem)"

Except that's not necessarily detrimental if the degree to which it stops piracy is more beneficial than the way in which it negatively affects customers is detrimental. You can't just put forward a conclusion and then justify it by making a postulate.

[quote]You can't just put forward a conclusion and then justify it by making a postulate.[/quote]Didn't you just do that? >.> Anyway, from the consumer standpoint, DRM is always detrimental, and from the publisher's standpoint, well i've already said it, it's never been shown to be beneficial (and my hat remains un-eaten)

[quote][quote]You can't just put forward a conclusion and then justify it by making a postulate.[/quote]Didn't you just do that? >.>[/quote] Where? [quote]Anyway, from the consumer standpoint, DRM is always detrimental, and from the publisher's standpoint, well i've already said it, it's never been shown to be beneficial (and my hat remains un-eaten)[/quote] I'm not confident it has never been shown to be beneficial. Even if that were the case, however, that doesn't mean it could never be beneficial.

Oh god, bungie really should've kept the post preview button, this'll take a while [quote]You can't just put forward a conclusion and then justify it by making a postulate.[/quote][quote]Didn't you just do that? >.>[/quote][quote] Where?[/quote]Here [quote]Except that's not necessarily detrimental if the degree to which it stops piracy is more beneficial than the way in which it negatively affects customers is detrimental. [/quote] [quote]Anyway, from the consumer standpoint, DRM is always detrimental, and from the publisher's standpoint, well i've already said it, it's never been shown to be beneficial (and my hat remains un-eaten)[/quote][quote] I'm not confident it has never been shown to be beneficial. Even if that were the case, however, that doesn't mean it could never be beneficial.[/quote][/quote]Saying DRM can be beneficial is like saying getting shot in the foot can be beneficial. DRM is founded on the idea of making the product objectively worse, to prevent something that arguably isn't a problem.

[quote]Here[quote]Except that's not necessarily detrimental if the degree to which it stops piracy is more beneficial than the way in which it negatively affects customers is detrimental. [/quote][/quote]Ok, step back for a second. I'm saying that something which brings about two consequences, one somewhat detrimental and the other beneficial to a greater degree, amounts to an overall scenario which is preferable to the alternative in which neither of those consequences are brought about. Do you really disagree with that? [quote]DRM is founded on the idea of making the product objectively worse, to prevent something that arguably isn't a problem.[/quote] You can say piracy is arguably not a problem, but it's equally, arguably, a massive problem. Further, the driving idea of DRM is not to make the product worse, but to verify that the people consuming the product have obtained it legally; making the product worse is just a common by-product, and it's usually not significant unless the DRM is as invasive as most always-online technology. You're being [i]incredibly[/i] intellectually dishonest right now.

[quote][quote]Here[quote]Except that's not necessarily detrimental if the degree to which it stops piracy is more beneficial than the way in which it negatively affects customers is detrimental. [/quote][/quote]Ok, step back for a second. I'm saying that something which brings about two consequences, one somewhat detrimental and the other beneficial to a greater degree, amounts to an overall scenario which is preferable to the alternative in which neither of those consequences are brought about. Do you really disagree with that?[/quote]Yes, because it's only preferable if you're the publisher, and even then it's only preferable if it works (and seeing as my hat remains un-eaten.......yeah) [quote][quote]DRM is founded on the idea of making the product objectively worse, to prevent something that arguably isn't a problem.[/quote] You can say piracy is arguably not a problem, but it's equally, arguably, a massive problem. Further, the driving idea of DRM is not to make the product worse, but to verify that the people consuming the product have obtained it legally; making the product worse is just a common by-product, and it's usually not significant unless the DRM is as invasive as most always-online technology. You're being [i]incredibly[/i] intellectually dishonest right now.[/quote]The only way DRM can 'work' (as in, only allow legal buyers to play) is to be extremely restrictive/invasive, and that objectively makes the product worse.