| tres said: how about if all game developers just stop making games? |
Right, because no game publishers or developers have made profits.
They should please shareholders 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Normally that means the customer is always right. Meaning if the customer says DRM sucks then MS shouldn't implement DRM. However when a business becomes so confident of it's ability to dominate the market or secure a sizeable market share, then pleasing teh shareholders means abusive practices towards the consumer to increase profits.
Let5s see if some publishers put their money where their mouth is if most don;t want this sort of DRM. If Sony releases a neutral platform (i.e. DRM has to be implemented by the publisher, which they can do on PS3 and 360 already if they wish), then let's see if those anti-DRM puhblishers release DRM free games on PS3, even if they have to comply with MS's compulsory DRM.
MS's alleged DRM is not for the benefit of the publisher, it's for the benefit of MS. The fee MS is charging goes to MS, the publisher must piggyback on MS's own money-making venture.
It'll also be interesting to see whether Sony as a publisher implements DRM on their DRM neutral platform. Sony went in for online pass on its games, so it will probably implement DRM on it's own games for PS4.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
