I'd rather they use DRM for the first week of sales, and then patch it out afterwards. Best of both.

LOL that's a horrible idea it's not even the best of both. Just don't include Digital Rights Management (DRM) copy protection software of any type at all if your going to patch it out later it's a waste of resources and money.

Not surprising, really. Most developers aren't fond of DRM (just look at what even seasoned developers are doing with their independent projects). It's publishers that push for it.

Witcher 2 had Securom (which was later patched out)

One of the devs mentioned a number of pirated copies. Made by multiplying the amount of simultaneous downloads he had seen once or twice (didn't say how he got that data) by the number of days since the torrents appeared.

Most sales are made in the first week. After that, you're not losing much if you remove the DRM. It solves both problems: those who don't want DRM just have to wait a week, and the developers aren't treating their customers like criminals and are still able to protect their investment.

So your saying the company should go out of it's way to lose money?

I don't know why you expect me to respond seriously to such a hostile question.

How is it in any way hostile, your saying they wouldn't lose that much money by removing DRM, I'm asking what wouid they get out of it? None of the good will from not having any DRM and none of the 'protection' DRM gives

They get the protection of DRM when it's most important- in the first week- and they get the goodwill of not having DRM after that first week of sales. How are people not following this?

DRM of any kind is disgusting. I will not be a slave to it.

Because that isn't what would happen. It's like if Bill Gates donated $2000 to charity, it's a nice sentiment, but he's not going out of his way at all to do it. And besides, there is no way a company is going to actively remove DRM unless it actually ruins the game, what motivation is there even if it did give them good will?

If only more devs/publishers could see past the "smoke & mirrors" of DRM we all would be better off in my humble opinion

It doesn't matter, so long as they turn a significant profit.

Well then your only choice is to avoid DVD & Blu-Ray, nearly all things that use an HDMI connector for HD video (HDCP), digital video recorders, PC games, game consoles, streaming video services (Netflix, Hulu, etc.), major e-book services, and so on and so forth. Almost everything has DRM now.

Its good to see at least one game dev so far isnt willing to comprimise and add in this multiplayer or DRM bullcrap, i eagerly await The Witcher 3

People often don't realize how much DRM there is.

All I see there is choices. A lot of PC games now are Steam, or nothing.

So your opposed to a lack of DRM options with PC games as opposed to DRM itself?

Really? How many systems can you play an Xbox 360 exclusive on? What are your alternatives to HDMI? Blu-ray? So what if you have choices between one e-book service or another when they both DRM their books?

I think you just don't like Steam... That's fine...lots of people don't like it, but don't dance around it. DRM is everywhere there's digital media. You can't escape it without abstaining.

I don't do any PC gaming with any DRM. I shouldn't have to and I won't.

Don't you play on the consoles?

It's quite depressing, really. The pernicious scale of DRM always strikes me as a misuse of technology.

I'm not required to download third party software on my console to play a game I've paid for. I just pop it in.

Do you plug your console to TV with HDMI? If the answer yes, you are a slave to a DRM.

Uhhhh.. You need to make an account to actually play on the console itself. Steam requires the same function. I don't see any difference, unless you mean Games for windows live, rockstar's annoying DRM, and or Ubisofts DRM.. Those 3 are all bad in their own ways. But most games just use Steam's, which is quite identical. Consoles do have DRM, which not many people realize.