I disagree that "everyone" would hack their Steam games. What about the vast majority of people who either don't know how to hack or apply a hack? What about the console users? Users should not have to hack their own legally purchased software for it to work. That's akin to expecting someone to have to rebuild their car's engine to drive it because the auto maker folded. How many people actually have the technical know-how and tools to do it?
Well, I agree, they shouldn't have to. That is why I boycotted EA. Google "motor city online". The game was apparently self-sustaining according to EA, but that meant little profit. So they shut it down, don't release the server software, don't make it an offline game, don't release the source code for server or client so someone else could write it. Tons of people are left with a game they can't play, offered a free month of Ultima online (related to racing, how?), and left with nothing but memories of, as most of the players who were subscribed to the game at the time of closing would agree, the best racing game. Maybe it was a blessing, since EA was already in the process of doing what it always does with games -- ruining them -- adding in things that changed the game, made it less unique, tried to appeal to a different demographic.
As far as technical skills, I figured someone might comment on that. From what I've seen, when people want to play something they'll search for it on google. Also, if steam died, the "underground" would "surface". You'd also have more pissed off people, some being excellent programmers, making simple ways (it's not hard as it is) to "hack" the game (I can imagine it being as simple as selecting the game and path of the gcfs and leaving your pc to chug away). Obviously, yes, some people are in over their head even at that level or don't know how to use google, but I think a large portion of a game's playerbase would make it over and survive.
The problem with Steam and any other company-controlled scheme is that it hurts the consumer and infringes on their rights to use what they've already paid for. This is why I take serious issue with Microsoft's product activation scheme. You're presumed guilty until you prove your legitimacy. There are far too many users who, due to Microsoft's bungling, have had legitimate product keys denied. There are also instances of legitimate keys being blacklisted because someone's key generator turned up that number and Microsoft decides it's a pirate key. Who gets hurt? Not the pirate, because they can just generate or acquire a new key or otherwise hack the software. The legitimate paying user gets hurt, whereas the pirate is not stopped at all. Prior to these aggressive anti-piracy schemes, only the company took a hit. Legitimate users were completely unaffected by the piracy as far as their ability to use their software was concerned. The argument can be made that by hurting the company financially the user is hurt in the long term, but I disagree with the argument that piracy is as serious a problem as it is made out to be. Would the pirates ever have paid for it? How can you count that as a lost sale when you'd never have made the sale in the first place? Now if you're talking about counterfeit distribution, that's another matter, but why does the user have to be punished for a criminal's behavior? That's exactly what's happening. There should be legal protections for the consumer in place to prevent intrusive anti-piracy schemes that can render a product inoperative. Unfortunately governments tend to side with the businesses on this sort of thing. I think we all know why.
I completely agree. Ethics do not apply to most "good" (as in profitable) organizations within capitalism. They see another opportunity to make money and will not let it slip by. They will bring lawsuits, instate ridiculous "anti-piracy" measures, and so on, so they can make more money off of legitimate users -- all done under the veil of "we must protect our property".
Capitalism, just as any other form of human created/controlled government, set of statutes, organizations, regulations, institutions -- however you want to put it, is showing that it doesn't work. History repeats itself, and the more something starts to "not work" the more the general populace becomes aware that it isn't working. I don't think we are at the "event horizon" (used metaphorically in this case) of what will almost certainly happen, but it's getting there. People are people, they always have been, and they always will be. They always say the same things, "that'll never happen", "it might not be perfect, but I'm content", or even worse, "everything is perfect" (blind patriotism, regardless of which country). People said the same things before, and let their governments take full control, government goes too far, people rebel, war, rebuild. The same cycle repeats, over and over.
The only thing I say to people is, in the past, the governments have not had weapons which could easily annihilate entire cities, areas of "terrorism" (not just the US is guilty of generalizing terrorism and giving the definition of that word over to the government and not to the people) and anti-government activities. It's inevitable, not because we are forced into it, but because humans do not change. The majority of people are just sheep, and as long as they have what they need, they won't care or think about what a government is up to. If they see other people, a minority, trying to attack a government's motives and actions, they (the majority) can easily be persuaded into thinking whatever the government wants. Sheep.
And as the level of corporate influence continues to rise in first world countries (not to say that it isn't happening in third world ones), all of a sudden the first world citizens will become moved to action, not because they saw third world suffering, but because their content little existence started to be imposed on by a controlling government. The US is a mess -- congress attaches whatever act or bill they want onto whatever other act or bill they want or make a special revision the night before. I thought the level of surveillance was bad in the US, but I've had some people from the UK tell me it's even worse there. But corporations don't stop at the borders of countries, they just use a countries laws to extend as much power as fast as possible -- that's relative.
So, I'm apathetic. I don't care, I know it's coming, and I don't bother reading about it or watching TV to hear and see it. It is inevitable which means no one can do anything about it. We can be angry, but it isn't worth it in my opinion. We might stave it off for a bit, but in the larger perspective it is meaningless.
