Comment Re:It Seems To Me... (Score 1) 186
Not in all cases, but in some 'you get what you pay for' is a realistic term. It does apply in this situation. If you can (and do) pay for a subscription or a legitimate copy, you get support from the people who can actually improve the game you're playing. You also get the ability to interact with more people, be involved in competitions and group activities, and make friends that way. The problem is there's a point where the joy of playing online becomes a necessity more than a feature. For some games it makes sense. WoW is an MMO, and so it's an expectation slated by part of the genre before you even purchase it. You have to have internet to play, simple as that. For games like Counter-Strike and Starcraft II, it shouldn't be. You still have single-player mode and should be absolutely entitled to play without internet access. As far as I know, Starcraft II has that option. But DRM's on consoles are becoming ridiculously restrictive of content access. If I paid for a game, I expect to play it. Not see a 'Sorry, but we couldn't validate your ownership due to a connectivity issue'.
This is going to become more and more of an issue the more companies manage to skate over class-action suits without compensating any of their customers whenever they can't provide access to the DRM they sell. It's bad enough that companies still package crap with quality products (compilation CD's, two-movie DVD's, Battle Chests, etc) just to raise the price when no one was buying the crappy products in the first place. I can already see a future where Capcom has their own DRM system on the internet over IPv6, and the million or so dedicated Capcom fans are all ticked off when Capcom uses AT&T's recent 'arbitration loophole' to avoid ever having to make the DRM content playable.