Well I gave him a + to rep also but what is that weak poke at me supposed to mean? What did I do wrong? If you got a problem just say it directly. And I didn't have a problem with you until after reading that comment and am now coming to a blank as to what I did to deserve that kind of negative feedback. I guess you don't like others opinions.
Back at Phoenix yes I guess I did misunderstand your purpose but it wasn't clear either. Either way that last bit is funny, forums are great practice for debate team if you look at it like that.

Yeah but the DRM itself was so bad even Starforce (the people who made it) admitted it was going too far.

I remember a site was made to boycott and list all games made with Starforce, which caused Ubisoft to not use it anymore. http://www.glop.org/starforce/
Apparently since Starforce renamed itself to Frontline Proactive most people have forgotten it, even companies looking for DRM yay :)

Not entirely right.
Frontline is one of many separate models that Starforce offers. You can see the whole product range on their site here : http://www.star-force.com/solutions/products/
The name of the company is still Starforce. There was no name change.

+Rep for clearing that up. I only read about Frontline and didn't know there was many flavors of SF. Oh noes now the world weeps :P

Well, Starforce only ever really disappeared from the Western market. They've continued to do huge business in Eastern Europe, Russia and China. And having run a game using one of their new versions of DRM (Combat Mission : Shock Force from Gamersgate)...it actually isn't bad. It uninstalls with the game, it isn't hidden from the user...just a single activation and it's good to go.
I guess the full version on retail copies will let the user decide if they want it to function as a server check or as a disc check, with the ability for the user to change their mind to the other type whenever they want.
Not bad at all.

When it comes to DRM, i think there are a lot of factors which attribute to it working or not working for some people. Talking about games in general, where I live (the Netherlands) new games cost 50 euro's at launch in the shop (info for US gamers, this is about 67 dollars). With the notable exception of COD:MW (the first one, which was 59 euro's at launch, for pc.) To be honest, price isn't that important to me. I bought Bioshock at launch, The witcher, Fallout 3, DA:O (first time for a digital download not on GOG)I still pirate some games, for different reasons.
1st reason. Whenever there is any kind of DRM, I cannot trade the game if it doesn't work (for whatever reason) or I end up not linking it. That's like flushing my money down the toilet. I don't mind paying 10 euro for I game I end up playing 5 hours, but 50? That's a bit too much.
2nd reason. I'm a pc gamer. I know companies cannot guarantee that a game will work with my particular system setup. Do I want to pay full price for a game today that I can run decently in 3 months time? Honestly, anyone who bought GTAIV who wasn't shocked at the way rockstar rushed the game out to stores without any kind of optimization? It looked and ran worse than any other games on the market. And did big reviewsites like gamespot make any mention of bad optimization? That it would hardly be playable without at least a NASAcomputer under your desk? Didn't think so. I want to know whether a game will run.
3rd reason. I read reviews, I can get really excited by a good review. I can get excited by a good review and find out the hard way I cannot relate to the reviewer in any way. I had to grind through Lord of the rings: Return of the king. I hated it, yet it did get good reviews. It wasn't that I didn't like the genre it was in, I just thought it was a terrible game.
Do I think developers deserve to be paid? Absolutely. Do I want to pay them for a product I don't like? Hell no. Do I think reviews are sufficient? No. In the end the thing that entertain a person all come down to a matter of taste. I never had the feeling 50 euro's was too much for a game like the witcher, which I spent 100+ hours in (multiple replays) or DA:O (still playing.) Will I ever buy MW2? Nope. I'm more of a singleplayer gamer and I will never pay 50 euro's for 4 hours of gameplay. I try games with demo's, if there are any, if not, I download them. And if the deal is any good? I'll easily buy them (Already bought about 10 games of GOG which I've never played before)
Personally, I still think there is a better way to battle piracy, and that's lower prices. But I get the feeling that publishers want to find the best way to eliminate piracy and keep prices high, thus maximizing their potential profit. Then again, steam has done some tests and the outcomes were quite astonishing. Link to article : [url=]http://www.edge-online.com/features/valve-are-games-too-expensive[/url]
In short, Steam gave third party developers the possibility of dropping their price. And those that dropped their price with 75% (a quarter of former cost) found that sales of their product increased by 1470%. Do the math.
just my 50 dollars.

We seem to see gaming in much the same way, I don't pirate games but I do agree with your 3 reasons, especially the cost for "new" games.
Add in mediocre single player, no LAN (a lame attempt to push all gaming online for the subscription fee IMHO), limited installs, new hardware/graphics requirements for a minimal increase in the game graphics, internet connection required, minimal game play hours with DRM'd DLC at an extra cost, software installed on my system that does not enhance game play . . oh yeah, BUG infested new releases . . . they offer a product that I have no incentive to buy.
I'm not their target market so losing my business has no affect on publishers who seem obsessed with profit, online gaming, distribution control and stopping resale of games.

Oh my good.... this is still going....
It was only meant to be a yay for GoG .....
As for whether old stuff gets pirated.... checking certain site shows a large number of places for things like the old warcraft games and the scummvm games to name but a couple.
Given that there are several scummvm games on GoG that, I would have thought, indicates the potential for someone unsavoury to share certain things from here - the 4 disc feeble files, simon the sorcerer, broken sword, waxworks to name a few for the easy install and share method - but GoG really does seem rarely, if at all, shared out - even some classics like Psychonauts or Beyond Good and Evil or The Longest Journey or Tropico....
What really stands out to me is services such as Steam or Impulse that have the same games as GoG but DRM'd in some fashion - at least an authenticate once. One would have thought that the above would have been prime candidates - especially given the effort GoG goes to in order to ensure compatibility with XP, Vista, etc which the others services *cough*Steam*cough* rarely do.

I think this thread switched to a discussion about DRM several pages back. Seemed to be a consensus that the GOG community has no reason to upload games. I have witnessed some very public beat downs of new users that may cause some uploading but overall I think everyone in the community values GOG too much to upload their games.

Indeed and it's not as if they are that expensive....
Heck I (and I know many others here) have bought some games I already own (Ghost Master, The Longest Journey, Evil Genius come straight to mind) for the convenience factor, the extras and to support GoG.

Read the entire TweakGuide article on piracy. It gives an interesting perspective on Starforce. e.g. that Starforce's negative press came from pirates who couldn't crack its games, rather than users who'd experienced system problems as a result of installing Starforce drivers.
Neither Ubisoft or Starforce admitted it went too far - the reaction each company had to the situation was based on saving face from widespread negative publicity that could damage their reputation. I've never had any problems with Starforce and I used and installed it back at the time all the furore was kicking off.
I don't think Gundato's wrong in advocating DRM if it's reasonable DRM. I've said in the past, EA's getting it right these days and I can accept their kind of DRM (though I still dislike it as it doesn't pass my "will I be able to play this game in 10 years " test). I can't accept Take 2 Interactive's unreasonable 3-pronged DRM and it's making me reconsider buying games like Bioshock 2.
Imo DRM is just as much about controlling how a game is installed as it is about piracy prevention. E.g. DRM is dictating how we play our games, even becoming something that is promoted as adding value but dealt with in different ways by different publishers. When I emailed Take 2 pointing out their DRM is extreme in comparison with games like Mirror's Edge, which can be played without disk and also redownloaded free from EA, their reply was that I can play without disks if I bought the Steam version. In some cases, EA uses their DRM to add value to existing purchases. In Take 2's case, they use it to say hard luck if you bought the physical version - go buy the download one too.
I disagree strongly with Gundato's idiot analogy, it's condescending. Downloading a game from Bittorrent or Limewire is not hard and both have been well-publicised. The crux of piracy is about people who can't buy (e.g. poor people, kids) and people who will not buy. I don't think DRM targets either successfully. What DRM does do unfortunately is give companies peace of mind.

I agree, eventually there will be no game ownership, just a UI you download and a monthly, weekly or hourly fee to pay to access the game online.
I have to agree with this as well, I know a couple of idiots that download games from torrent sites all the time without one bit of trouble . . .=)

After reading through all this DRM seems to be treading thin ice on what many think is right and wrong. Too little DRM and the market goes down, enough DRM and the market goes down as nobody wants to buy only 3-5 installs of a game for $50. DRM can be a way of making sure a game isn't illegally distributed or a way for a company to control how much you can use a game. No matter what side I'm on it will keep going. All I can do is just buy DRM-free games and not buy ones that I learned or know have harmful DRM, let the free market show DRM lowers sales over time hopefully.
I do like that study from Valve though how games being discounted increased sales over 10 fold, maybe instead of DRM pricing is the real problem as we are paying not $5, but $50 for games many people end up not liking after playing. That may be the reason piracy of GOG games is so low, the prices are under $10 and if you dislike the game you can live with the loss and won't feel like sticking it to GOG. I sure don't, even though it would be easy since Demonoid is back up I won't upload GOG games.

My favorite was "If ppl buy it . . . they will keep using it." But . . .I believe the time for debate over DRM is long past. It's here to stay. I buy nothing but DRM free games . . . don't plan on changing that regardless of how well the case for DRM is presented.