I feel that as long as the company's server is online and responsive, that online authentication (like steam does) is a great idea with more benefits than drawbacks.

First of all, let's compare the pros and cons of using something like Steam to play Half Life 2 vs playing a pirated copy.

Using Steam to play Half Life 2, I
- get automatic patches
- can download all game content from any location I'm at without having to search for it.

Playing Half Life 2 pirated? Well, I
- probably won't have the most up to date patch because the crack for it doesn't exist yet
- would have to wade through malicious sites trying to find a crack, bombarded with a bunch of annoying pop-ups and banners or (see next)
- may have to advertise to the world that I'm downloading a cracked copy of HL2 because my IP address is visible via Bit Torrent
- may end up downloading a bunch of malicious software bundled in with the cracked version, because, let's face it, I have NO way of knowing where this cracked version is clean; what is to stop Mr Leet Hax0r from injecting a keystroke logger service along with the crack that he has so "generously" provided?

Using pirated software is so incredibly inconvenient vs using Steam that aside from the legal and moral aspects, it is a complete no brainer for me to purchase the games. I'm currently investing 2-3 hours a day in Valve's Team Fortress 2, a title which you can purchase for __$20__. Who in their right mind is going to try to pirate Team Fortress 2?

And sorry to say, but if I'm a game developer and 10,000 people are pirating my game, I'm not going to care about the 10 people who want to play my game from their internet-less hotel room. That is also a no brainer. Online authentication is here to stay and if/when the developer/publisher goes out of business, as you pointed out, if the game is popular enough, cracked copies will be readily available, so your argument about needing to have a non-authenticating single player game is null.

"Excellent, some piece of technology that can magically make my problem go away without me expending any effort to try and actually solve it."

That's how we ended up with all these fucking computers in the first place.

KFG

We don't punish our successful businesses. We punish (or are supposed to, anyway) those companies which use illegal practices to gain an unfair advantage. Free market systems with no regulations or laws are rife with corruption and eventually implode.

Microsoft is not as successful as they are because their crew is just so darned innovative that they've made their products indispensable. They're as wealthy as they are because they've tried to limit competition and innovation using a suite of legal and illegal methods. Predatory pricing to gain control of a technology, our old friend "embrace and extend", threatening third parties with inflated prices, etc..

The way you describe it, Microsoft can do no wrong because after all, people can just refuse to do business with them. Sure, third parties might go out of business because their clients require Microsoft compatability - compatability that others don't have because Microsoft has specifically engineered it that way - but they can still say "No." This is ridiculous. By your reasoning, none of us should complain or seek relief for anything, because after all, we can just refuse to do business with anyone and go live in the hills.

Oh, and kudos on taking his "Exploder" bait. You really showed him with your blithe sarcasm.