I've often wondered this myself, seeing as though when I was somewhat in the pirating scene the only game that ever even remotely resisted it was XIII (in hilarious ways, might I add). It always seemed like a waste of time and money that they would bother attempting to prevent it, as well as developing the protection itself. Also, the author of the article brings about a good point regarding the horrible DRM that Spore contained (limited number of installs):
"Publishers aren't stupid. They know that DRM doesn't work against piracy," he explains. "What they're trying to do is stop people from going to GameStop to buy $50 games for $35, none of which goes into the publishers' pockets. If DRM permits only a few installs, that minimizes the number of times a game can be resold."
In the end, the DRM is still about the money - or more specifically, who sees the money.
1 comment
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 9.7 ms ] thread"Publishers aren't stupid. They know that DRM doesn't work against piracy," he explains. "What they're trying to do is stop people from going to GameStop to buy $50 games for $35, none of which goes into the publishers' pockets. If DRM permits only a few installs, that minimizes the number of times a game can be resold."
In the end, the DRM is still about the money - or more specifically, who sees the money.