Vosene

It's a deal between the publisher and the consumer. The customer accepts DRM for a limited period in the knowledge that we will be able to use the product in 6-12 months without having the well known issues of DRM while the publishers gets the opportunity to use DRM without a big backlash during the period when any game makes the most sales, in the first 6 months or so after release. If users buy a new module then that comes with DRM but if you stick with the base module then it won't be an issue. It would also stop publishers from having to keep costly servers and the activation details on them up and running for years to support a product with a dwindling user base. There are several companies recently who have tried to stop supporting DRM products due to cost (mostly in the music business) but who have been forced to keep the servers active due to a customer outcry. If handled correctly there is the opportunity of a win-win with this approach.

...and there, highlighted in bold, is the problem for a great many people, we are reliant on the publisher to continue to let us use a product we have already paid for in full.

Flawed analogy I'm afraid. I see some value from having locks on my car, they are there for my direct benefit as per locks on the front door of my house. DRM only benefits the publisher, while the customer only gets inconvenienced by DRM'd products. It doesn't stop the pirates and they don't have to worry about DRM restrictions as they have been removed/bypassed on the pirated version. There is an interesting article that covers this very point here: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/hated-and-broken_0 Would you buy a car knowing that at any time the dealer could simply stop you using the product without you having any recourse, that you might not be able to sell it second hand or that if the dealer went bust you wouldn't be able to use the car any more? That sounds more like a hire car to me, in which case I'd expect to be paying hire car prices. That is effectively what DRM is, the renting of software, and it should be priced accordingly. The music industry have recently adopted a new model where, for a fixed fee each month, you can have access to millions of songs but they are DRM'd. If the games industry could agreed and charge a reasonable monthly fee, then I'd be happy to 'rent' the latest games and then just buy the ones I really liked for future use without any DRM (eg iTunes are now offering DRM free songs for a slightly higher fee). One compromise, as I have suggested before, would be for a publisher to promise to remove all DRM after a set period (say 6-12 months) once the main sales have been achieved.

Heaven forbid that the top man at EA would spin us a PR line. :D Before it's release Spore sales were estimated at about 2 million units to the end of September. As it is they reached about 1.15 million units by the end of the month. Not too shabby but almost 50% down on most industry estimates of what it would shift. Difficult to know how much was down to the DRM issues but I doubt it was an insignificant factor otherwise they wouldn't have been so quick to relax the DRM a bit.

Thanks GGTharos, the opportunity to provide feedback on the official forums is appreciated. As one of EDs potential customers I'd like to say that the use of the chosen CP has put me off purchasing, as has online activation and limited installs DRM. While I respect EDs decisions and those of other people who don't have any issue with this, I would simply ask ED to focus more on their customers and less on the pirates as I'd don't think this a battle they will win. Meanwhile people willing to pay for their product are being lost in the cross-fire. I still play Falcon with an online squad 10 years after it's release even though Microprose and Spectrum Holobyte are long gone. If it had this type of DRM on it then it would simply be a coaster sat on my shelf. As a way forward: If ED were to promise to remove the DRM (including SF) say 6-12 months after release, by way of a patch, when most of the sales were done then I'm sure this would be viewed as a suitable compromise between protecting the product and giving paying customers want they want, they may even see an increase in sales as people like myself buy the product.

Slightly off-topic but I just watched the presentation and I though Matt Mason made some excellent points especially where he said 'If pirates are adding value then companies need to compete with them'. Certainly food for thought.