I find myself thinking more and more like Signor Pococurante from Voltaire's Candide all the time. I still find amusement in some things though so I'm not as bad as him, but I do find myself longing for more practical things.

Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. I'm an oldschool gamer, with very oldschool sensibilities. Batman: Arkham City. Bastion. Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Those are three games that came out last year which I can assure you will be remembered very fondly in the years to come (and I'm told Saints Row the Third is another, but I haven't played that one yet). Four truly great releases in a year is a great score.

You got tired of gaming, okay. Just don't say games stopped evolving and are now just about the graphics or somesuch, because it's blatantly untrue (DXHR is a perfect example of taking an oldschool formula and modernising it without sacrificing the spirit). The ratio of good to bad hasn't changed at all, only the number of releases has.

So you are fine with Ubisoft DRM then, right?

I find it very funny that whenever someone criticizes Steam DRM, you jump in seemingly irritated, as if they have absolutely no right to dislike Steam DRM. Yet, at the same time you have gall to dislike some other form of DRM, e.g. Ubisoft.

But as it is, I actually agree that digital distribution makes it much easier to find and buy (legally) games that you'd hunt down high and low in the old days (e.g. I even bought many rarer (and older) PC games overseas on CD-ROM, including Ebay, because they were not available in stores here. Now I could buy the same for a couple of bucks and have them on my PC quite fast).

But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the acceptance of DRM (which is what the OP was clearly talking about), as GOG so clearly shows.

Dude, no offence but you don't need DRM-free game, you need an exorcism!
I have never experienced, nor know anyone else that ever has, a streak of problems like this...

Indeed, I don't disagree with any of that. The point remains the same: unless people start giving a shit about DRM it is going to be used by companies because it benefits them. A small group of persuasive people have not managed to get people excited about it, people still don't care.

The existence of a persuader does not guarantee anything, people have to be receptive to the message. On DRM they're not, they don't care.

I don't mind DRM all that much. What I AM kind of getting fed up with is the CONSTANT DRM DISCUSSION AROUND THE BOARDS! It comes in waves, it's always pretty calm for a few months and then people feel the need to repeat the same thing that has been discussed to the death AGAIN.

That's not surprising, peoples only started to care about smoking when people started dying and even then it took years of brainwashing before peoples kind of "got it", so it's no surprise that having them caring about DRM will be very hard and it's not helping that most member of the gaming industry who ever talked "against" DRM were mostly hypocritical to say the least (Gabe, brad Wardell , etc..)

Seems reasonable to me, both my brother and I have always had keys that would open our parents' house, seems rather odd to not provide one to ones children if they aren't thieves.

The point here being that you *have* a key. DRM is more equivalent to an electronic keylock that you have the access code to, there's just a chance the power might be out if you're really unlucky (DRM problems like the DRM servers being down, if it's an online check).

Well on some level life is a risk-reward balancing act. I know fatty burgers and pizza are bad for me but I sometimes eat them anyway. I know there were some women I slept with when I was younger I shouldn't have. I know there is a chance all my Steam purchases become deadweight someday.

How much of your life do you want to spend thinking about this stuff though? It depends on the person, but I know for most people DRM is pretty far down their list of give-a-shits, and honestly that is healthy in my opinion, not "complacency." There are a lot more important things to worry about.

How about this:

Mummy gave you the key to your shared house and allowed you to play with the toys in your room, but not to take them out and play with them in the streets (because then other kids might come and steal them, or you might even share them with other kids of your own accord). She doesn't treat you as a thief, but she likes to keep things under control and she's paid good money for your toys.

Mummy has the power to lock you out, if you don't follow her rules and don't behave yourself. You won't get to play with your toys then. But as long as you behave that won't happen, right? And besides, she's your loving Mummy who understands you.

Okay, on occasion Mummy might forget to pull her own key out of the lock and take a nap on the couch, and you won't get into the house, but shit happens and she's usually not that forgetful.

Well, there's at least one flaw in this analogy because it's only one house when in reality it should be more like a chain of stores or something. You get access to your toys in each store and there's a store at nearly every corner. But you still can't take them out the store and play on the streets or take them with you if you're traveling. And this toy service is not meant to be used by homeless street urchins. ;)

In any case, what I find amusing is that someone came up with a mother-kid analogy in order to defend DRM schemes. Doesn't that strike you as odd and revealing if we're talking about a business relation? :P

How about this for another analogy:

I go to a car dealership wanting to buy a car. All the cars are lined up as for sale. I find one I like and then pay for it. I get a letter in the mail the next day that states, "Surprise! You're leasing this car. Here are our rules and regulations for leasing this car. Don't like it, well, tough shit." Another car analogy but it's convenient since most people know what leasing a car means.

The same for buying a house. It's presented as a sale, I pay money like I'm buying it, and then I get some letters saying that I'm renting it and that I'm bound to the lease terms. Can you see people getting upset about this? Except, if I was going to rent it, I would have seen the lease terms and had to agree to them before signing it and before paying any money when moving in. I would have seen the clause that says the landlord can enter any time he/she wants to and negotiated by saying, "I'm not signing this unless you remove that fucking stupid clause. I can point you to the state statute that makes this illegal anyway, but you being in the real estate business, I'm confident you already know this."

You're a very good observer of social behavior I would say. We should keep all these discussions short and to the point to not waste time and to not do stupid things because of not enough thinking.

Here is my personal abbreviation to the Steam discussion:

Beware! It's DRM. Use it on your own risk!

Orcishgamer is wise. :D