
Originally Posted by
Obturator
There are some who realize this. Look at stardock. They have a hugely sucessful game without DRM or even caring about piracy. They make money and will tell anyone that developers steal more money than pirates ever could from them.
Replace "developers" with "publishers". The founders of Stardock got defrauded of a lot of royalties from their first game by their publisher (that was back in the OS/2 days). I guess that helped to put things in perspective and they decided to become self-published.
Honestly, publishers are a huge problem for the business as a whole, and a lot of crap gamers have to put up with just aren't really the developer's faults. No developer in their right mind would even consider putting crap like activation or "authenticity checks" in their code for reasons other than to avoid cheating. It's one more neverending source of bugs and problems. It's the publishers pushing that crap upon them.
The gamers are responsible for that by giving their money to publishers and thinking that anyone in charge would read the forums, which they don't. If you don't like it, the solution is simple:
Don't give them your fricking money!
Let me tell you a little story. As of now, my "favorite" crap publisher is THQ, with which I've had the joy to deal, also with a SecuROM issue. The game: Supreme Commander. The problem: SecuROM failing to recognize the disk. The solution: mail SecuROM support, which delivered an updated game executable(!!) within a few hours(!!!). Then GPG patched the game, which invalidated the updated exec, and the problem was back. Another mail to SecuROM. No joy this time. Apparently, someone decided that THQ was supposed to handle those issues, so I contacted their tech support. That was in March, and I'm still waiting for a reply.
Another example from THQ: Titan Quest. The addon has rather massive issues, but THQ decided to stop funding the developer.
I have now blacklisted THQ for future games. I'm giving 2K/T2 a chance to get Bioshock sorted out. My guess is that they will either move to an "activations per month/year" scheme, make it easy to remove activations via a web interface (see e.g. Alcohol Software), or drop the activation scheme as a whole within the next 6 months. If they fail to do so and I have problems, T2 goes on the list. Easy as that.