Probably no one has wanted to spend the money on setting up one. Since you seem to be clueless about a lot of things I'll explain. For an MMO you actually need servers, the actual hardware, not just the code. You need places to install all the code, and then storage to store all the data, chars etc. It takes a whole bunch of money to set one up, and I doubt anyone has bothered to spend it on STO yet. The problem with private servers has NEVER been the code, but the actual hardware setup.

I want to add that if they were to invest more time on the game, they could even let you download all the data you need. So all the things in the game will be on your computer. Of course, It takes up more space than the original.

I was able to buy a Ragnarok Online CD where you could play offline, called "ragnarok offline" btw. The original if I could remember took 600 MB while Ragnarok Offline is about 2-4 GB or more. Also, it's very buggy. I remember you can patch that game up for the newer versions.

So this method isn't really effective.

3rd party support for pc is dying soon only mmos and blizzard and valve games will remain...

Here, so early in the topic, we get such an intestesting reply.  Legitmimate buyers of the product are getting screwed, and this piece of scum here has the audacity to ridicule those people.  And that's what the "game industry" is doing to you - they are laughing at you as you struggle to make your legitimately purchased product work.  If you bought AC2 you are nothing more than a statistical joke to the bigwigs at Ubisoft, while at the same time the pirates are playing an undoubtedly better version of the game for free.  Go ahead, **** yourself up the ass with a cactus for the amusement of your corporate overlords.  We're all waiting.

It's an overall positive thing!

I remember the same outcry when Steam activation for Half Life 2 was announced. The exact same responses and now Steam is the saviour of PC gaming. Look at how far we've come.

When the entire thread is against you, there's an extremely high chance you're in the wrong.

Now, go take sometime to research on the DRM topic before responding anymore.

You are, really, stupifying everyone reading your misguided mumbo jumbo.

Those that cried out when Steam came along are still not using Steam. I know because I'm one of them. With Steam you no longer "own" any games you buy, you are on a long term rental. If Valve decides that I should not have access to a game any more, I can no longer play a game I paid for. Now Steam was a step in the right direction when to came to digital distribution (and has some value adding features), but until it has a system more like GoG, I'm not making the jump to any games that are tied to their platform. And once again, Steam did nothing to stop piracy, it just stops the second hand market (which is more of a threat because these people are willing to pay money for your game, unlike most pirates, yet you don't see the money) and allows for statistics tracking (which can then be sold to advertisers, think targeted advertising).

If I was a console gamer (I am, but I prefer PC), I would also be concerned about moves the companies make on PC. Once they proclaim their methods reduced piracy and the market is happy to accept it (usually because they attach it to a big name title which is going to sell anyway and the masses who aren't technically inclined don't know better), consoles will start requiring 24/7 access too. No longer will you be able to head around to your friends house with that game you just bought (cause it will be tied to your console) and the rental market will also be killed. This move is not good for consumers (and as other have pointed out, they erode YOUR rights as a gamer), yet they are currently happy to bend over and take it all in the name of "stopping piracy". Which it doesn't do.

Meanwhile, the pirates will continue to enjoy uninhibited gaming.

Nope.

WilliamWatts you have made it clear that you refuse to consider the consumer perspective on DRM

So

The last word is yours; I'm out