Except the ISS wasn't a factory. It was a space laboratory and docking facility. the purpose of the ISS was to maintain a manned presence in space, not to serve as a serious jumping off point for exploration. Those who said that it would are speaking figuratively.
I'm not arguing that this is a real flesh and blood project (I think it is a case of the russians making a statement of national pride when they are flush with cash), but it certainly wouldn't be the ISS 2.
remember, talk is cheap. It is easy to talk about a subject of national pride like this and hard to decide to fund it. I put this in the same camp as GW talking about going to Mars in 2004. Anyone remember that?
Plain and simple. there is a long list of russian projects announced in boom times (like 1995 and now) but abandoned when the rubber met the road.
This is not to say that the Russians aren't advancing the state of the art in space--they are. They are also excellent builders of launch vehicles and spacecraft. BUT. That doesn't mean that proclamations like this are to be accepted without a huge dose of skepticism.
I would be much more willing to believe that Russians would fund a new launch site, a SSTO or similar projects. This smacks of unreality.
It is hard to see that because they AREN'T just dealing with the aether. This isn't some substrate at rest upon which the motions of the galaxy play out. I know it is comforting to take refuge in crackpot science, but there really isn't a zero speed reference frame. It doesn't exist. I'm sorry.
kind of. Imagine gravity as a vector field pointing toward the center of the celestial body (assuming here that the body is a point mass). So as you move from the center to the surface, the vector field appears to be less and less curved--you go from seeing things flow like they would into a funnel (where you are close to the source) to seeing a field that effectively looks like it is perpendicular to the surface. Again, this assumes that you have a point mass. but this is basically why you can do those simple physics problems (the arc of a ballistic projectile, etc) without assuming that gravity acts in a way different than right angles to the ground.
As for being explained by the oort cloud, what do you mean?
Also, it is totally cool to ask. I am not a physicist (I'm an economist) but I'll try my best to answer from what I know.
It's kind of like the Schwarzchild radius. Instead of slowing down and being forever entrapped by the immense gravitational point source of the black hole, it's like being entrapped in the immense graviational field of a sun.
No, wait.... Or it's like the doppler effect, except it is really small and happens only over long distances but we don't see it too far away because.....
Well, let's be fair. the Pioneer anomoly is just that, anomalous. We don't see the impact in other situations, we don't have a good explanation for it and it isn't very large. It is entirely possible that this could be the same sort of anomaly as the orbit of Mercury or the Michelsonâ"Morley experiment. It's possible, but it is also possible that it falls into the category of experimental error.
Please understand that the pioneer anomaly isn't treated in the same way as we remember (historically) anomalous results. No one disowned the researchers or completely dismissed their research. BUUUUTTTT...most of the explanations result in changes to the underlying framework of gravity (or alternatively, EM radiation) that don't really make sense. As far as we can tell it is better explained as an anomaly.
Hopefully we are wrong and we discover something really awesome out there!
people suggest that the stupidity of the army members leads to a higher percentage of click throughs. Remember, studies across the board have shown about a 60% 'gullibility' rate for almost any sector of the populace. Those using general banking, investment banks, 4 year degree holders, etc.
You may not be reading, but I meant playing hl2 after installing and verifying the copy. I installed hl2 on this laptop (the windows partition) and a desktop. I played hl2 one the desktop while underway on a submarine--most definetly not connected to the internet.:) I'm not sure if they have changed it since last august, but steam can be run in offline mode AFAIK.
IMO, steam isn't the best solution (Stardock's actually is pretty nice, but isn't as far removed from steam as they would have you believe), but it is a good one. It beats cd checks, which are stupid anyways (GG morrowind cd check crashing the game).
You don't get what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that you denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you. I didn't say that butchers should accost customers. Don't be obtuse.
But vegetarians prefer dishes without meat. Butchers sell meat exclusively. It's almost a total waste of time to change the habits of the butcher to suit the vegetarian.
Vegetarian: "Hey, Mr. Butcher, I don't like meat, but celery is neato."
Butcher: "Well, I don't know anything about buying, keeping or selling vegetables, but I'll be sure to take shelf space that would be granted to meat in order to serve all the vegetarians who come into my store."
Vegetarian: "That's great, of course, since I'm a vegetarian I probably won't set foot in your establishment and I probably have a good grocer to get celery from anyways."
I'll take your analogy. I'm pretty sure that if I'm a butcher I'm never going to worry about the wishes of vegetarians. Ever.:)
As for treating DRM like food additives....eh. I mean when you get down to it the basic problem remains. The company has to make money selling something that can be costlessly copied and redistributed by other people. Until companies can make their distribution netwroks such that the majority of the 'cost' to get the product is the price, they need DRM.
I don't steal music because itunes is easy to deal with. When there wasn't something like itunes out there, I did steal music. I download Tv episodes that don't come out on dvd because the company wants to string people along. But when the dvd comes out, I might as well buy it.
Let's put it this way. Would it be a good business practice to include, on the company's website, a link to a cracked version of a game next to a link to download a 30 dollar legitmate copy? NIN and Radiohead aside, does it make sense to do that? I don't think so. I think that is the first step. If it doesn't make sense for a company to offer a free product next to a costly product (for some companies it does), then that is the first step in reducing piracy. Those people who would otherwise have clicked "I would rather like this for free" versus "I would like to pay for this" are the first people deterred.
Of course. I agree with you there. My point is this: if you aren't the target market for an advertisement the fact that you don't appreciate the advertisement isn't really important to the company who bought it. You still have to hear it, but your disapproval isn't really key.
If I make software with copy protection and you are someone who will never buy software with copy protection on it, what do I care what you feel about my product. You'll never be a customer.
Those are bad examples. Why don't you pick id software or some other game company. Adobe and Microsoft are some of the strongest anti-piracy developers in the business. Adobe throws LOTS of money down the hole trying to stop piracy and turn in distributors. Microsoft went through the WGA debacle to get people to buy windows software. neither of them can be rightly accused of deliberately fomenting piracy in order to generate sales if you are going to also accuse them of acting rationally. Also, a huge percentage of the clients for both microsoft and adobe are firms whose liability is too large to choose to pirate software all the time, so they are likely to strongly prefer to buy software, even expensive software.
Both adobe and microsoft are where they are for many reasons. Aiding piracy is not among them.
Windowblinds, desktopX, and others are shareware (including some token mac products, but those hardly count because god damn everything for mac is shareware). Those aren't meant to denigrate the company. They have a good subscription model down for their b2b software. they made good games. he knows something about software design. I just don't think he is right.
Well, if you're deciding that a purchase is a moral act, that's your business. If we assume morality isn't involved then all that need be true is that the net pleasure you expect to get from a game (so fun-annoyances) is at least equal to the cost of getting that game (whichever method you chose). If you add another element, then it tips the balance, but it doesn't change the nature of the equation.
I guess I have to take you on your word that you don't make purchases because DRM has gotten worse. I can say personally I make fewer purchases just because I've gotten older and most of the PC games don't interest me anymore, DRM notwithstanding. To be fair, I didn't buy bioshock, I never had a problem with steam and I've never had a real problem with copy protection since losing the manual to MOO. So I probably don't see the same frustration you do.
In the end the solution will come in part from more widespread digital distribution of games, better middlware allowing for lower production costs and pricing models with more choices. The "need" for copy protection will drop as the price drops and the legitimate path to the consumer becomes easier.
He isn't, but the people who will listen to this advice and quote him endlessly are. And Stardock is a shareware company that has made good. That doesn't make them bad people. bungie is a shareware company made good.
My argument is that the business doesn't support it in the long run for games with production costs, higher costs of delivery (can't be easily downloaded) and smaller potential markets.
First, I don't presume anything. It isn't a presumption to look at potential game buyers thusly:
-Those who will buy the game, always. -those who might buy the game, but might pirate it if it sucks, is to expensive, or other stuff. -Those who are likely to pirate the game, but might buy it if piracy is hard. -those who are going to pirate it either way because DRM is for suckers and they can break it. -other (includes altruism, etc).
Second, of course the 8 year old isn't going to buy it, he'll make his mom do it. why do you think there are so many 12 year olds on wow and xbox live? don't be obtuse.
RAWR. Let's get a few things straight. DRM is a sunk cost. It increases average cost, but not marginal cost. Relative to the production cost of modern games, DRM is not a significant factor in the sunk (fixed) costs overall. And remember, average cost is the key. The firm has to produce and sell above average cost to make a profit in the long term. For large lot sizes, the constiuent of average cost that represents DRM will be very, very small. If DRM costs 100,000 to add and the publisher sells a run of 10M games, the cost is a penny per disc, explicit cost.
Cost to a consumer: Pirated cost includes time and effort spent getting the pirated copy. This is heterogeneous--you and I face different opportunity costs for pirating something. Legit cost includes time spent buying the product AND the explicit cost. You are correct in saying that the net implicit and explicit costs of piracy will be less than purchase for some goods for some people. My mom probably won't pirate something because she faces different tradeoffs for doing so. In high school I pirated lots of stuff because cash was precious, my time was cheap and I knew where to look (my cost to search was low). This is all assuming that piracy is 100% successful and there is 0% chance of being caught (there basically is). Change that and the numbers change accordingly (even for risk neutral actors).
So we have a small increase to average cost (dictating a small increase in the price seen by the consumer) and a change in the effort required (implicit cost) of piracy. We have to assume that in equilibrium without piracy there are some marginal pirates. Those pirates would be dissuaded by an infinitesimal change in the cost of piracy (or the price of the good), regardless of the method that presents the change in cost. empirically, we can gage the distribution of pirates. More are liable have high opportunity costs than low opportunity costs, as specialization (in learning about piracy) forces tradeoffs. As the cost of piracy increases, fewer and fewer pirates are expected to be dissuaded per dollar (we face diminishing marginal returns for out anti-piracy dollar, an uncontested point). Consequently, it behooves us to invest in DRM (assuming that is our only option) until the average cost rises to meat the marginal revenue.
Moving on from econ 101, we realize that people don't respond classically to these stimuli the way you expect them to.
there are network externalities at work, both positive and negative, to piracy. There are non-monetary signals sent by packaging a product with DRM and scary messages about copying (they work more than we would like to think). There are (obviously) people who make seemingly irrational choices to reject what they see to be stupid DRM beyond what economic analysis would suggest (Sony, Amazon Unbox, etc). The list goes on.
Protip. don't bust out "econ 101" on someone already talking about diminishing marginal returns.
it is free advertising, as long as the advertising is "this game rocks, go get it" not "this games rocks, to pirate it." Presumably, if a game is widespread enough, they could aim for 100 pirated copies leading to one sale, but that is hoping for a huge market. if your game appeals to such a large market (like a casual game), then this is a great model. Give the game away (basically) but wait for suckers like grandma to buy it. If your production costs are much higher and your potential audience smaller (for a FPS, say), then that is much harder to do. It is more likely your pirated copies crowd out potential customers rather than attract them.
No, it isn't. Managerial independence to run companies is fundamental in making profits in the long run. And as short sited as investors are, part of the model for stock valuation comes from long run growth prospect versus acceptable risk and alternatives.
Due diligence is important, but is REALLY important for large individual shareholders. in other words, a large shareholder may be able to press a company into a course of events it might not have done so otherwise, but it will require a lot of pressure. Not only that, it requires time, and time is (presumably) precious for someone who has lots of money.
That is not to say that analysts and mutual fund managers aren't hounding companies to take action, but the OP's suggestion was that action by a company was precluded by shareholder interest, which isn't true in large part.
You explicitly stated that you aren't buying a large fraction of PC games and you aren't pirating them either. If you didn't need the lecture then you already knew that the people copy protection is aimed at are those who might buy a game but pirate it instead for whatever reason. Copy protection is a way to address ONE of those reasons. It doesn't address all of them, and it isn't the only way to solve the problem, but it is one.
If you refuse to buy games on the basis of the existence of copy protection but you would buy them otherwise you might be more relevant than you originally suggested, but only so much. a sale to you costs EVERY lost sale to piracy that might have been avoided by minimal DRM. That's a pretty steep tradeoff.
And Don't lump my arguments in with all of those made for DRM on all formats on all media. Not all media is the same. Not all markets are the same. not all production is the same. To assume that the solution for ensuring people making stuff get paid would be the same is silly.
have you considered the possiblity that there are probably other, larger forces driving you away from PC gaming than middling copy protection? I mean, I'm not excusing the stupidity of the freedom force people....but that doesn't mean that DRM has caused you to buy 0 games necessarily. I barely buy any PC/Mac games anymore, but it is because I'm getting older rather than some anger over copy protection.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost savings in working with the russians is probably about 30-60%, not 99.9%.
Except the ISS wasn't a factory. It was a space laboratory and docking facility. the purpose of the ISS was to maintain a manned presence in space, not to serve as a serious jumping off point for exploration. Those who said that it would are speaking figuratively.
I'm not arguing that this is a real flesh and blood project (I think it is a case of the russians making a statement of national pride when they are flush with cash), but it certainly wouldn't be the ISS 2.
remember, talk is cheap. It is easy to talk about a subject of national pride like this and hard to decide to fund it. I put this in the same camp as GW talking about going to Mars in 2004. Anyone remember that?
Plain and simple. there is a long list of russian projects announced in boom times (like 1995 and now) but abandoned when the rubber met the road.
This is not to say that the Russians aren't advancing the state of the art in space--they are. They are also excellent builders of launch vehicles and spacecraft. BUT. That doesn't mean that proclamations like this are to be accepted without a huge dose of skepticism.
I would be much more willing to believe that Russians would fund a new launch site, a SSTO or similar projects. This smacks of unreality.
It is hard to see that because they AREN'T just dealing with the aether. This isn't some substrate at rest upon which the motions of the galaxy play out. I know it is comforting to take refuge in crackpot science, but there really isn't a zero speed reference frame. It doesn't exist. I'm sorry.
kind of. Imagine gravity as a vector field pointing toward the center of the celestial body (assuming here that the body is a point mass). So as you move from the center to the surface, the vector field appears to be less and less curved--you go from seeing things flow like they would into a funnel (where you are close to the source) to seeing a field that effectively looks like it is perpendicular to the surface. Again, this assumes that you have a point mass. but this is basically why you can do those simple physics problems (the arc of a ballistic projectile, etc) without assuming that gravity acts in a way different than right angles to the ground.
As for being explained by the oort cloud, what do you mean?
Also, it is totally cool to ask. I am not a physicist (I'm an economist) but I'll try my best to answer from what I know.
No, wait.... Or it's like the doppler effect, except it is really small and happens only over long distances but we don't see it too far away because.....
no, wait....
Well, let's be fair. the Pioneer anomoly is just that, anomalous. We don't see the impact in other situations, we don't have a good explanation for it and it isn't very large. It is entirely possible that this could be the same sort of anomaly as the orbit of Mercury or the Michelsonâ"Morley experiment. It's possible, but it is also possible that it falls into the category of experimental error.
Please understand that the pioneer anomaly isn't treated in the same way as we remember (historically) anomalous results. No one disowned the researchers or completely dismissed their research. BUUUUTTTT...most of the explanations result in changes to the underlying framework of gravity (or alternatively, EM radiation) that don't really make sense. As far as we can tell it is better explained as an anomaly.
Hopefully we are wrong and we discover something really awesome out there!
people suggest that the stupidity of the army members leads to a higher percentage of click throughs. Remember, studies across the board have shown about a 60% 'gullibility' rate for almost any sector of the populace. Those using general banking, investment banks, 4 year degree holders, etc.
I'm not an sysadmin. What is a "sleeping user"? What is ORDB? What does this summary mean?
Note: Don't tell me to RTFA, I will. Don't tell me to "justfuckingoogleit", because my returns on doing that will likely be pretty low.
You may not be reading, but I meant playing hl2 after installing and verifying the copy. I installed hl2 on this laptop (the windows partition) and a desktop. I played hl2 one the desktop while underway on a submarine--most definetly not connected to the internet. :) I'm not sure if they have changed it since last august, but steam can be run in offline mode AFAIK.
IMO, steam isn't the best solution (Stardock's actually is pretty nice, but isn't as far removed from steam as they would have you believe), but it is a good one. It beats cd checks, which are stupid anyways (GG morrowind cd check crashing the game).
You don't get what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that you denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with you. I didn't say that butchers should accost customers. Don't be obtuse.
But vegetarians prefer dishes without meat. Butchers sell meat exclusively. It's almost a total waste of time to change the habits of the butcher to suit the vegetarian.
Vegetarian: "Hey, Mr. Butcher, I don't like meat, but celery is neato."
Butcher: "Well, I don't know anything about buying, keeping or selling vegetables, but I'll be sure to take shelf space that would be granted to meat in order to serve all the vegetarians who come into my store."
Vegetarian: "That's great, of course, since I'm a vegetarian I probably won't set foot in your establishment and I probably have a good grocer to get celery from anyways."
I'll take your analogy. I'm pretty sure that if I'm a butcher I'm never going to worry about the wishes of vegetarians. Ever. :)
As for treating DRM like food additives....eh. I mean when you get down to it the basic problem remains. The company has to make money selling something that can be costlessly copied and redistributed by other people. Until companies can make their distribution netwroks such that the majority of the 'cost' to get the product is the price, they need DRM.
I don't steal music because itunes is easy to deal with. When there wasn't something like itunes out there, I did steal music. I download Tv episodes that don't come out on dvd because the company wants to string people along. But when the dvd comes out, I might as well buy it.
Let's put it this way. Would it be a good business practice to include, on the company's website, a link to a cracked version of a game next to a link to download a 30 dollar legitmate copy? NIN and Radiohead aside, does it make sense to do that? I don't think so. I think that is the first step. If it doesn't make sense for a company to offer a free product next to a costly product (for some companies it does), then that is the first step in reducing piracy. Those people who would otherwise have clicked "I would rather like this for free" versus "I would like to pay for this" are the first people deterred.
you know once you activate hl2 you can just disable steam's online mode, right?
Of course. I agree with you there. My point is this: if you aren't the target market for an advertisement the fact that you don't appreciate the advertisement isn't really important to the company who bought it. You still have to hear it, but your disapproval isn't really key.
If I make software with copy protection and you are someone who will never buy software with copy protection on it, what do I care what you feel about my product. You'll never be a customer.
Those are bad examples. Why don't you pick id software or some other game company. Adobe and Microsoft are some of the strongest anti-piracy developers in the business. Adobe throws LOTS of money down the hole trying to stop piracy and turn in distributors. Microsoft went through the WGA debacle to get people to buy windows software. neither of them can be rightly accused of deliberately fomenting piracy in order to generate sales if you are going to also accuse them of acting rationally. Also, a huge percentage of the clients for both microsoft and adobe are firms whose liability is too large to choose to pirate software all the time, so they are likely to strongly prefer to buy software, even expensive software.
Both adobe and microsoft are where they are for many reasons. Aiding piracy is not among them.
Windowblinds, desktopX, and others are shareware (including some token mac products, but those hardly count because god damn everything for mac is shareware). Those aren't meant to denigrate the company. They have a good subscription model down for their b2b software. they made good games. he knows something about software design. I just don't think he is right.
Well, if you're deciding that a purchase is a moral act, that's your business. If we assume morality isn't involved then all that need be true is that the net pleasure you expect to get from a game (so fun-annoyances) is at least equal to the cost of getting that game (whichever method you chose). If you add another element, then it tips the balance, but it doesn't change the nature of the equation.
I guess I have to take you on your word that you don't make purchases because DRM has gotten worse. I can say personally I make fewer purchases just because I've gotten older and most of the PC games don't interest me anymore, DRM notwithstanding. To be fair, I didn't buy bioshock, I never had a problem with steam and I've never had a real problem with copy protection since losing the manual to MOO. So I probably don't see the same frustration you do.
In the end the solution will come in part from more widespread digital distribution of games, better middlware allowing for lower production costs and pricing models with more choices. The "need" for copy protection will drop as the price drops and the legitimate path to the consumer becomes easier.
He isn't, but the people who will listen to this advice and quote him endlessly are. And Stardock is a shareware company that has made good. That doesn't make them bad people. bungie is a shareware company made good.
My argument is that the business doesn't support it in the long run for games with production costs, higher costs of delivery (can't be easily downloaded) and smaller potential markets.
First, I don't presume anything. It isn't a presumption to look at potential game buyers thusly:
-Those who will buy the game, always.
-those who might buy the game, but might pirate it if it sucks, is to expensive, or other stuff.
-Those who are likely to pirate the game, but might buy it if piracy is hard.
-those who are going to pirate it either way because DRM is for suckers and they can break it.
-other (includes altruism, etc).
Second, of course the 8 year old isn't going to buy it, he'll make his mom do it. why do you think there are so many 12 year olds on wow and xbox live? don't be obtuse.
RAWR. Let's get a few things straight. DRM is a sunk cost. It increases average cost, but not marginal cost. Relative to the production cost of modern games, DRM is not a significant factor in the sunk (fixed) costs overall. And remember, average cost is the key. The firm has to produce and sell above average cost to make a profit in the long term. For large lot sizes, the constiuent of average cost that represents DRM will be very, very small. If DRM costs 100,000 to add and the publisher sells a run of 10M games, the cost is a penny per disc, explicit cost.
Cost to a consumer: Pirated cost includes time and effort spent getting the pirated copy. This is heterogeneous--you and I face different opportunity costs for pirating something. Legit cost includes time spent buying the product AND the explicit cost. You are correct in saying that the net implicit and explicit costs of piracy will be less than purchase for some goods for some people. My mom probably won't pirate something because she faces different tradeoffs for doing so. In high school I pirated lots of stuff because cash was precious, my time was cheap and I knew where to look (my cost to search was low). This is all assuming that piracy is 100% successful and there is 0% chance of being caught (there basically is). Change that and the numbers change accordingly (even for risk neutral actors).
So we have a small increase to average cost (dictating a small increase in the price seen by the consumer) and a change in the effort required (implicit cost) of piracy. We have to assume that in equilibrium without piracy there are some marginal pirates. Those pirates would be dissuaded by an infinitesimal change in the cost of piracy (or the price of the good), regardless of the method that presents the change in cost. empirically, we can gage the distribution of pirates. More are liable have high opportunity costs than low opportunity costs, as specialization (in learning about piracy) forces tradeoffs. As the cost of piracy increases, fewer and fewer pirates are expected to be dissuaded per dollar (we face diminishing marginal returns for out anti-piracy dollar, an uncontested point). Consequently, it behooves us to invest in DRM (assuming that is our only option) until the average cost rises to meat the marginal revenue.
Moving on from econ 101, we realize that people don't respond classically to these stimuli the way you expect them to.
there are network externalities at work, both positive and negative, to piracy. There are non-monetary signals sent by packaging a product with DRM and scary messages about copying (they work more than we would like to think). There are (obviously) people who make seemingly irrational choices to reject what they see to be stupid DRM beyond what economic analysis would suggest (Sony, Amazon Unbox, etc). The list goes on.
Protip. don't bust out "econ 101" on someone already talking about diminishing marginal returns.
it is free advertising, as long as the advertising is "this game rocks, go get it" not "this games rocks, to pirate it." Presumably, if a game is widespread enough, they could aim for 100 pirated copies leading to one sale, but that is hoping for a huge market. if your game appeals to such a large market (like a casual game), then this is a great model. Give the game away (basically) but wait for suckers like grandma to buy it. If your production costs are much higher and your potential audience smaller (for a FPS, say), then that is much harder to do. It is more likely your pirated copies crowd out potential customers rather than attract them.
No, it isn't. Managerial independence to run companies is fundamental in making profits in the long run. And as short sited as investors are, part of the model for stock valuation comes from long run growth prospect versus acceptable risk and alternatives.
Due diligence is important, but is REALLY important for large individual shareholders. in other words, a large shareholder may be able to press a company into a course of events it might not have done so otherwise, but it will require a lot of pressure. Not only that, it requires time, and time is (presumably) precious for someone who has lots of money.
That is not to say that analysts and mutual fund managers aren't hounding companies to take action, but the OP's suggestion was that action by a company was precluded by shareholder interest, which isn't true in large part.
You explicitly stated that you aren't buying a large fraction of PC games and you aren't pirating them either. If you didn't need the lecture then you already knew that the people copy protection is aimed at are those who might buy a game but pirate it instead for whatever reason. Copy protection is a way to address ONE of those reasons. It doesn't address all of them, and it isn't the only way to solve the problem, but it is one.
If you refuse to buy games on the basis of the existence of copy protection but you would buy them otherwise you might be more relevant than you originally suggested, but only so much. a sale to you costs EVERY lost sale to piracy that might have been avoided by minimal DRM. That's a pretty steep tradeoff.
And Don't lump my arguments in with all of those made for DRM on all formats on all media. Not all media is the same. Not all markets are the same. not all production is the same. To assume that the solution for ensuring people making stuff get paid would be the same is silly.
have you considered the possiblity that there are probably other, larger forces driving you away from PC gaming than middling copy protection? I mean, I'm not excusing the stupidity of the freedom force people....but that doesn't mean that DRM has caused you to buy 0 games necessarily. I barely buy any PC/Mac games anymore, but it is because I'm getting older rather than some anger over copy protection.