Go for ease of use over speed.

If the contest allows entries in Python, then you would expect that python code is capable of running fast enough to win the contest.

"How is he exactly doing any of that?"

The increase in price is set by Microsoft at a level that will give them a modest profit once they have covered their own expenses - if they have to employ developers to implement e.g. WGA (a direct backlash against pirated copies of windows) then their own expenses will rise - and so will the price we pay for it.

If in addition some of the people who pirate windows would pay for it if they were unable to pirate it (as assuredly a small proportion of them would), then that's a reduction in profits.

Admittedly it might be a relatively small effect, but it's there. Pirating windows, contrary to what the parent of my post claimed, does not help microsoft. I would expect that it slightly harms everyone but the person receiving windows for free.

"Software developers all have the choice to implement DRM or not, and even those who have software copied may not necessarily choose to implement DRM."

Certainly, but more pirating seems very likely to lead to more DRM. Do you think that Ubisoft would have put their ill-conceived needs-internet-connection DRM on Assassins Creed 2 if they weren't worried about their product being copied?

By pirating "Windoze":

- You're making legitimate customers pay more - harming them;
- You're reducing the profits of microsoft - harming them, their employees, shareholders and families thereof;
- You're giving file sharing bad publicity - harming the legal uses of it;
- You're making software developers resort to DRM - harming everyone;

In fact, the only one who you're helping is yourself. Get off your high horse. You've no more 'moral right' to do this than you have to steal a car.

"Just isolating at the economics of it, why does it being on the disc matter?"

Interesting point. I suppose the fact that it was present on the disc doesn't matter - rather the fact that they are charging extra for something that you might reasonably expect to be included with the original game matters - but then, perhaps you just wouldn't want to buy the game in the first place with this in mind.

Another economic point is that if the original game is worth $50, then is it worth paying $5 for a couple of extra maps? Perhaps - from the developers' point of view, it probably didn't take anywhere near as long to develop the DLC as write the game, so extra profits can be gleaned by adding DLC. From the gamers' point of view, extra maps may give more than a 10% (5 into 50) increase in playtime. So in terms of cost versus benefit, both parties may be better off for it.

Personally though I think the worrisome thing is that if DLC becomes the norm, we may end up buying games that are effectively unfinished.

"What does DRM have to do with this? This content was absent due to DRM, it just wasn't enabled. The patch will enable it."

If the software were cracked to allow access to the DLC, then legitimate users would be paying for something which could be obtained illegally for free.

If DRM is cracked, then legitimate users are paying for something which can be obtained illegally for free.

So I was just drawing the parallel between the two cases: They both encourage cracking of the software for personal gain. I wasn't saying that DRM was involved directly. :)

Isn't it an issue anyway that the (unenclosed) school playground is next to a busy road?

"Also there's the fact that DNA tests aren't cheap, or particularly quick. They aren't the kind of thing you can use for every criminal case, it'd be way too expensive, not to mention unnecessary."

Really? Here in the UK, we have the biggest DNA database in the world. Almost everyone taken into police custody (guilty or otherwise) is DNA profiled.

How long until someone cracks this and accesses the 'Downloadable Content' without paying for it? At which point this becomes another way in which legitimate users get hurt. Proponents of DRM everywhere will be proud.