We always have a choice

Avault's Patrick Watts has a lock on the door to his house. If someone really wanted to get in, however, that lock wouldn’t necessarily stop them. They could shoot the door down with a missile launcher or even bypass it completely and break the window with a brick. He could worry about time traveling robot ninjas with energy swords that can cut through any material, but he doesn’t (mainly because he owns nothing of value). Most people would not buy a house or even rent an apartment that doesn’t have some form of lock on their door. People have the right to protect their property, and that includes video game companies.

[Christopher]

Best "wait, is this at all about gaming" lead in paragraph I've seen in a while.

While I'm not sure the simple answer of "don't get it if you don't like it" really does anything. Unlike locked doors, which prevent break ins daily, DRM typically punishes those who buy more than those who continue to steal.

[gamingdroid]

Except putting a lock on my house doesn't affect the neighbor so yes, I agree with you cgoodno.

Fact is, DRM indeed hurts the customers while rewarding the thieves. After all, while trouble yourself with DRM and $50-60 poorer while you can get that free game with no DRM with a few clicks.

I feel the same about online passes as well. It hurts the consumers and really only short term rewards the publisher. Used game sellers aren't affected at all. Ironically it gives them more room to fatten their profit margin.

[Christopher]

I'm on the fence about online passes. I like that they encourage buying games new, but their restrictive nature is something that should be worked out. I really don't care how online passes affect those who buy used or who rent games.

[Pikajew]

no we dont