I remember that, there's a reason why I stayed out of that thread. Talking to a brick wall is more productive than arguing with some people

Basically every internet discussion and forum thread I've ever read. Sometimes I could use this.

and this
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-10-27/ (see next's days strip as well)
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-09-20/

Lol funny but not sure how I'm supposed to feel :P

Tell me about it. I've recently gotten into a "debate" with someone in the YouTube comments of an Angry Joe Show video, over Geoff Keighley's rather shabby treatment of Joe Vargas at the 2010 Spike Video Game Awards (which incidentally, Vargas should have expected). Apparently if you're the producer of a video game award show that only further reinforces poor stereotypes of gamers and panders only to corporate interests, then you're entitled to act like a colossal douchebag to anyone who isn't a busty celebrity, IGN, or GameSpot.

Ah well. The fault ultimately lies with me for debating someone in YouTube comments and expecting some level of rational thinking. Clearly, my logic was tethered; let that be a lesson to me.

I think he was an industry plant. He posted exactly the same text on multiple forums throughout the web under the same user name, and I remember checking up and find that he never posted on any of those forums again under that name.

How dare you bring common sense into a discussion about DRM?
Yes, and this is why publishers still prefer to keep DRM.

That's the OP in this case. The problem is, you can't win an argument that's wrong. How do you prove that DRM is dangerous to the industry when DRM has been part of the industry since games were sold? (Granted it was called "copy protection" then.) As another example consoles are DRM laden, and they're doing very well. So are mobile games. Your argument is irrational in the first place, so you can't win it.

It's possible to argue that DRM doesn't really help and is a waste of time and money, it's possible to argue that it removes consumer rights and hurts legitimate buyers, it's even possible to argue that it hurts sale, but if you're taking the "ruining the games industry" line then you will lose every time, because you'll always be branded the clueless zealot.

If you want a lengthy and well thought out series of articles by a respectable author that hits copyright and DRM in the head, check out Eric Flint's Salvos Against Big Brother. Read it or let the person you argue with read it.

The pirates seem to hate DRM, but if these self-entitled jackasses weren't pirating to begin with, maybe it wouldn't exist.

DRM sucks obviously. Pirates are just as bad as DRM.

You say DRM makes life tough for you as a consumer. I say, hell yes it does. And you, as a pirate, also make life tough for me as a consumer by making DRM desirable in the first damn place. Morons.

I would agree, but in many places outside of the States, they actually cap bandwidth. Seriously. Yeah, II don't get it either, but they do it. So that's a problem for them.

I'd say - pirates gonna pirate, no matter what. Only small fracture people pirate games only because of DRM.

Most of them just want the stuff for free.

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”
― Ben Goldacre

My guess is that always streaming, always online is kind of inevitable. It's the only solution that effectively fights piracy and most people will accept it, because they see the attached control losses and risks not so critical.

DRM free is a nice idea and maybe will survice as a niche for special single player games but it's just too good to be true. It's not for our world and will not become widely used.

Streaming (partly or whole) I say it is. The future I mean. Aye. :)

What I find most interesting about this thread (or discussion in general) is that people don't like DRM because it bothers them.

"It is bad because I don't like it."

Nobody hardly ever stops and takes the people that actually create the games into account. If a content creator decides to use DRM, as pointless as it is for the most part, it is his god-damn right to do so. If he informs any customer about the DRM used before the purchase, then there really isn't anything to get worked up about. The customer can then make an informed decision about the issue. (This is why I haven't bought D3).

That is what bothers me most about this whole "so called DRM free movement". They are a bunch of egoists who want others to act according to their own sensibilities.

I think DRM free movement at the very least started out to show people that DRM doesn't quite work, and to put some numbers behind the claims of 'a lot of people don't want DRM.'