LOL, so angry! Except you fail to make a single point in your comment.
I don't poop in the ground because I have a toilet. If you advertise you have a toilet but then require people to have a subscription to toilets monthly to use the toilet well then you're not offering a toilet at all are you?
WoW is online online because it is designed that way.
Racing games have time trials so you can compete against yourself.
Quake II had single player modes because of the state of internet connections and gaming in general.
This company decided to make a single-player offering into a stunted MMO, but still wants the single-player moniker attached.
'Shut up, nutsack.'
It's obvious I just wasted my typing on you, but others find intelligent debate meaningful to read, and enjoy the opinions and concerns of others.
Go read a book, child.

Actually this is a developing nation problem more than a developed nation problem. The decisions we make in our developed nations will assist in the direction the developing nations will choose for their products.
I believe ACTA is an excellent example of this. By requiring member nations to get on board with the over-bearing repressive style of patent, trademark, and copyright litigation and regulation we have effectively stunted their ability to produce.
By opening these developing nations up to possible reprisals from developed nation based multi-nationals you have threatened with the stick but not offered a carrot at all.
"This forum is, unfortunately, populated by so many of the same kind of person, the one that rallies against any form of DRM because they feel it violated their basic human rights."
I'm confused as to where this comment puts you? Are you stating you have no vigilance whatsoever when it comes to human rights? Or are you stating this doesn't fall under human rights and should be ignored? Since I have yet to see a comment besides yours mentioning human rights so far in this thread, your statement is even more confusing.
The people here are rallying against having their ability to enjoy their entertainment hampered by questionable business practices and possible collusion between businesses.

No they are offering a stunted hard to use product when the product can just as easily be offered and utilized without their stifling add-ons.
I believe that is the basis for copyright and trademark infringement according to economists the world over.
Although no one is owed a specifically tailored product to their needs, when a company releases a product that has the ability, with minor modification, to meet a greater majority of their consumers desires, that modification will occur and the knowledge of how to circumvent the limitations imposed by the above mentioned product developer will be disseminated among the rest of humanity.
'They stole our bits!' Is currently a motto that is destroying the US from the inside out. Get your shit together you brain-dead Americans, you're walling yourself in, and you already sold off all your abilities to self-sustain.

So you're advocating further complication to simply enjoy entertainment?
Please extract your head from your ass, it seems all the technology you've attached to it in order to simply enjoy life has made it hard for you to remove it from your posterior in order to see the cognitive dissonance you're spouting.

No, they chose to be interested in a piece of software.
I'm interested in refrigeration for my food. Why should I need an internet connection in order to store my food in a refrigerator?
All I need is electricity, if the entity making the fridge decides I need a totally extraneous, and non-related subscription to some other service to store my food, guess who's fridge I wont buy?

Why offer a single player element at all?

You sir are either blind or enjoy pointing out the problem while ignoring it.
Your mentality is fairly disgusting as well.
"The fact you have no clue how to do it only underscores your ignorance and the general lack of education of the public."

So it's an education problem according to your own words. However two sentences later you remove all doubt as to your the depth of your insight and state this joke;
"The reality is, first and foremost, the biggest problem the majority of poor people have is themselves."

So what is, oh wise man? You seem educated yet you belittle those that are not. Although you know the value of education enough yourself to state that is the source of the downtrodden ills, you then state some ethereal statement the gist of which is; 'they only have themselves to blame'

Your foolish government is currently disemboweling itself for dead ideologies and all I hear from you mental-case Americans is greed, greed, greed. You used to take care of your own, what happened?

To be the unwilling pawn in a legal battle between the 'The side of good' and 'The side of bad', is indicative of the bible teachings in general. The idea that you are but a token to prove the good side right or the bad side right is a blatant control based teaching.
Essentially your comment stated the old testament was meant to crush the pride of the Israelites so as to make them more willing to commit horrible acts of murderous barbarism required by the leaders of Israel (genocide in the area of the 'Promised Land', internal and external purges). They idea being; "Hey you're a sinner anyway you should commit these horrid acts of violence against your own people and others." Do I have to give examples of internal purges or killings the Israelites themselves endured let alone the pain they brought as an occupational force in the 'Promised Land'?

People utilize Old Testament verses because they are still connected to a work they base their lives on. I am surprised to hear such an argument from your comment. The fact that all religious texts are interpreted by the extremists and the moderates to mean completely different things should give you an idea of it's actual worth. They are good reads and that's all.

How are we to judge a belief system if we do not judge by the entire population that serves it? To state we should only look at the passive moderates and ignore the extreme interpretations of the same belief system is folly. The sheep and the goats are a simplistic idea of segregation not a lesson. If your belief system engenders hatred, segregation, and violence it's broken and being an apologist for it simply proves it's shattered state.

Educated on what? The one time a member of a religious entity mentioned in the bible was not involved in the murder of an innocent?
Counterpoint; Remember the time the Israelites went around killing people in their tents for sex out of wedlock? I believe there was a double impalement in the act of coitus specifically ordered by god. (Num. 25:6-9)
The New Testament does not somehow whitewash the disgusting grave of the Old Testament.

Whats with all the bolding? You can make your points by using proper sentence structure and punctuation.
I fail to see your point here, first you curse the 'fanbois' but what 'fanbois'?
Then you claim the most buggy driver on any system is the graphics driver? Making a statement with bold lettering doesn't make it true. Citation needed, badly.

Then you laud game developers for writing secure game code? It seems you are already trying to sell us a bridge that everyone here knows is vapor. Game developers and designers have been writing the buggiest software ever and always have. Would you like some cheat and exploit sites to go look at? Can you find the same numbers of cheat and exploits offered for any other software anywhere?

Your Freudian slip in the last paragraph is the kicker though;
"they sure as hell don't want to hand the keys to the kingdom over to the WWW'
Yes they certainly don't and that's what this article and your strange comment are all about.

You sound very much like oil company exec's; 'But this other technology is untested and we see flaws, no one should use it no matter what, because our system only fucks up 4 to 14 times out of 1000.'

What? Are you implying criminals don't attempt to fence their ill gotten goods because they may get caught?
If they are so concerned about getting caught why commit the first offense?
If you are so dense you don't already know how to sell what you're stealing prior to the theft, you aren't gonna last long in the wonderful world of theft.
Are you trying to say these guys broke and entered with not a care in the world as to the consequences of that action, but somehow when it comes to making money off the break and enter they get weak in the knees?
What's the point of plundering if there is no monetization?

Yeah, so they are being paid. It could not be more obvious. Look at their list of targets, now look at who they haven't hit. This is blatant corporate sabotage/espionage, the attacks are WAY too targeted. Furthermore when they actually come across something of value, do they sell it to the spammers in Russia? Do they auction it off to various criminal bodies? No they totally don't, they prove they are being paid by posting it for free online. Lulzsec is prolly one of the first hacker groups to come up with a good business and marketing plan.

WoW? Going the strongest? You mean the MMO that just lost 600,000 subscribers? That WoW?
When a subscription service of any kind loses 600k subscribers it is considered dwindling in interest.
"I play WoW and there are lots of people who still play" is not evidence that your choice of MMO is 'going the strongest'.
EVE Online has showed steady growth since it was released. Every single other RPG has had a large spike of player interest followed by a brutal decline. WoW got great press and so its initial interest spike was drawn out and quite large, but it is in the throes of that inevitable decline all others have succumbed to.
I will go out on a limb here and side with CCP, no matter how big the world, a roller-coaster/on-the-rails style MMO will never survive that inevitable decline. By not giving player an opportunity to make their own game, of the construct you give them to play in, boredom will ensue and the exodus will begin.

I don't understand how you can incorrectly read my comments this many times.
If you choose to live in the public eye, you've also chosen to live with the consequences.

LOL, since when was I arguing about football in dark rooms? I used that example to show his fame and wealth only exists because he was in the public eye. The public's scrutiny of his life was because he put himself up for that scrutiny, had he not been an amazing athlete in public view (ie. in a dark room) the benefits (big money, fame, etc) would not have come but neither would the scrutiny of his life.
Please frame your responses in with an eye to the entire subject of a post rather than an excerpt that on its own removed from the subject matter you disagree with.