I love FM so anything that protects the longevity of the series is okay by me even if it is a pain in the bum.

I really wish to know how helpful has DRM been in the past to prevent piracy.
People who wish to buy are always going to buy and those who wish to pirate will always pirate.
Among these there may be a select few who will pirate,try the game and if they really like it buy the game. I don't see a person who buys the game pirating it if there is no DRM.

I really don't blame companies for putting DRM on their games to try to reduce piracy, theres no real reason they shouldn't attempt to protect something they have worked on possibly for months or years.
And Nashnir I just don't buy that excuse that people hide behind of 'i only pirated it to try it before i buy it' because clearly the number of people who pirate and then buy is incredibly small and most who 'try' it just don't buy it when they already have it for free.

I have nothing against DRM, in the pure sense of the world: digital rights management. The problem is that "invasive measures" is now sinonim with DRM, and I can't say I'm ok with it.

Do people really think their game won't be pirated because they have online verification?

It is obvious people need to put some copy protection on their games, but as long as the users experience is painless. I have both a copy of a original game and a pirated version, because the DRM is so buggy and unfair, there is no way I can play it.

With invasive DRM, you push your consumers to pirates. That is why people hate it, not because you want to protect your software...

They have just been repackaging the same game for years. If you aren't going to offer anything new then expect to be pirated. If you want high sales then offer a great service that users cant avoid, or make something worth paying for.

Truthfully, the argument over piracy is a pointless one. With such a decisive split between those for Piracy, and those against, if you're left in the middle-ground then you're shunned by either side. The fact is, both feed the other - Publishers claim that piracy is rife and hurting their sales and future, where as pirates and consumers claim that publishers are tyrants and are invading their privacy with over-the-top DRM. It's a circle of hate and greed - from BOTH sides. So long as something of value exists, there will be those who want it for free, and the stronger the measures to try and stop it, the more determined those people will be.

Now this isn't to say publishers should just give up, on the contrary they have every right to protect their stuff - But, no matter what measures they try and implement, they will eventually be broken, and in the end the only people who have suffered are the legitimate consumers. Those who say DRM today is fair, and those who say DRM is tyrannical, are simply two sides of the same coin - complete opposites, but both blind to the core issues and unable to see the whole picture.

The core problem with DRM is that the manufacturer cannot possibly foresee or prepare for every circumstance that could arise where legitimate access and use could have been permitted... whether it's because of power failures at the server site, newer hardware than what the creators had envisioned, or something else entirely. Who can fault them, however? Can anyone claim to predict the future, or know every possible outcome to a decision that they make?

When the day comes that they can make a DRM that does not, IN ANY WAY EVER, interfere with any completely reasonable access and usage by legitimate owners, then it will probably stop being reviled to the degree that it is. I expect that day will never come.

I can respect that companies want to try to discourage pirates, but DRM is not the way to accomplish that. The way to accomplish it is to make stuff that people want to actually buy. Sure there are always going to be a segment of the population that try to cheat or get it for free, but if you can make something that people actually want, and price it fairly so that the people who would be most likely to utilize or want it can actually afford it, then piracy isn't likely going to impact your bottom line as much.

All the points of anti-piracy have been made. The problem is not that piracy won't go away, it's the hastily-concluded idea that it will, as if piracy is some kind of treatable disease.

Morons like Jacobson are just as unapologetic as people who pirate everything. If Jacobson realistically understood the impractical ramifications of DRM, he would support and reward the people who buy his products legitimately, rather than focus on fighting an unstoppable force precipitated by this newfangled gadget called "broadband."

Jacobson should have worded his allegory like "I would love to get in my car in the morning and have it start-up, but instead, I put my key in the ignition and nothing happens. Then, I realize that the engine cannot recognize my key because the car's communication to the manufacturer's verification system has been broken by a third-party contractor who uses unreliable equipment and underestimates the volume of cars trying to verify keys at the same time. So I contact the manufacturer for support, but they say this problem is my fault because the vehicle left the garage at some point. The only solution would be to buy another car from a different manufacturer."

I simply don't buy things that have DRM on. DRM is a sure sign that the product is below par and I wouldn't like it anyway. Companies that waste their money on copy protection anno 2011 will eventually go away.

I love DRMs so much fun to crack them. Most of which just takes a google search. But with the state of games these days I am sure watching grass grow would be more entertaining. Tell the industry to stop worrying about graphics so much and more on making there games fun. Graphics are all well and good but if I wanted %100 accurate graphics I would go outside I want entertainment. Same goes for movies.