"I will be very honest. I think it's a good [approach] for one reason: I have no alternative today. Is the best one? Certainly not but as of today if I can make something else I'll do it, but it's better to do something than not do something. At the moment they are doing a good strategy."As a matter of fact, analyst Michael Pachter stated his support too to the DRM stating the following:
"When a company sells you a game they have no problem if you resell it and someone else buys it and they have no problem if you give it away. If you make copies, though, it's against the law. The guys that ran bittorrent [sic] are in jail: it is illegal ... I think anything a publisher does to make sure you don't rip off their games is their right, and I think that people who steal should be in jail. I welcome the flamer comments on this one ... we have no interest in your business since you don't pay for stuff anyway."They make their point clear, and there is truth in what they say, but they forgot the main issue: lastly, the ones that have to suffer the online always system are precisely the users that spend their money on the product. I find it hard to believe that someone that wouldn't pay normally for a game decides to pay just because there is a copy protection system that last a month to be broken.
Comte also believes videogames are too expensive.
Companies have to think better about who is affected by the copy protection systems. I'll give them a hint: it won't be those that wouldn't have paid for the game anyway...