No, the irony is Mr. "I don't buy games without playing them first, thus justifying my piracy and then arbitrarily deciding on a price indepedent of the game company because I have this sense of over-entitlement and feel that I should get to play whatever I want, whenever I want regardless of the game company's rights in the issue" telling game companies how to increase sales.
Arbitrarily deciding on prices? Oh dear. I sincerely hope you buy every game at full MSRP because consumers evidently have no say on how much they're willing to pay for any given product.
And God forbid you think one game is worth more than another because it offers more content and/or quality.
With that said, I really don't see any irony in what I said. I buy games that I enjoy. Were it not for the DRM, I would buy AC2 (though not for $60 because I definitely don't think it's worth that much). I would most likely buy the upcoming PoP game as well. However, as long as the current DRM is in place, I will never buy these games. If Ubisoft removes the DRM, I will buy them. Seems logical enough to me.
Petty moral indignation aside, were there any specific points that you disagreed with? Do you think this DRM actually increases sales? Do you think that pissing off your customers is a good business practice? Do you think that delaying ports for 6 months will get you more sales?
Ah. So that's how you justify piracy.
I guess..? Should I be ashamed that I don't throw my money away on a whim? Or that I think the best way to judge a game is to actually play it?
This comment was edited on Apr 19, 2010, 02:56.