This is the future that big videogame companies are rushing to embrace, one where customers do not and cannot own games, merely rent them for an uncertain period. Indies and smaller studios with Kickstarter funding are going to continue eating a bigger part of their lunch.
And I can't say that this trend is all bad. I know what I pay for (temporary access), and I'm OK with that.
This is in service of saying that DRM isn't in the user's best interest and even big companies that care about user experience don't like DRM. Apple didn't ship DRM on its OSes when they were DVD based either. Yes they probably lost some sales due to piracy, but not having to deal with serial numbers is big for users.
Are you sure it wasn't the other way around? People were building huge libraries of music that only worked on Apple products (iPods and iTunes) around the time the labels allowed Amazon to start selling DRM-free MP3s. Apple would have gained an enormous amount of leverage if the labels had allowed that to continue: "Oh, you won't accept our terms? Well, then your product won't be playable on 90% [0] of portable music devices [1] and won't be available in the largest online music store (and your competitors' will be)! I hope not all your artists have left by next fiscal quarter." For all he talked amount it, I'm not convinced that Steve Jobs ever wanted to see the iTunes Music Store go DRM-free.
The market penetration of iPods meant that only path forward for the labels was one that allowed people to listen to music on their iPods. The only way to do that was selling DRM-free MP3s or protected AAC files. As a bonus, DRM-free MP3s worked on all the cheap flash-based players (which always had greater deployment than any of the DRM-compatible players from Sony and Microsoft).
[0] A number generated by my PRNG (posterior random number generator). But the iPod Classic really does have an absurd share of the >64GB market (probably declining now that you can get tablets and phones with 128GB of flash). [1] Don't forget that Apple has only ever supported their own DRM. Protected AAC files play on Apple devices and only Apple devices. Apple devices support only protected AAC and DRM-free formats.
You must have missed this. A Steve Jobs classic. Music industry execs have confirmed Apple was behind the move away from DRM.
I agree that this is a strong deterrent but given how even MMORPG servers have been reversed engineered [1] it's not impossible. If SimCity proves as enduring and as desirable as WoW we may well see it coupled with a LinCity-NG-derived [2] backend or similar.
Edit: That said, a powerful stimulus for the development of MMO server emulators was that players dissatisfied with the official servers' community simple couldn't run their own server how they'd like it for whom they like. I assume that the new SimCity is designed to be a far less community-oriented experience and people in control of the neighboring cities are largely replaceable from a player's perspective.
[1] See http://www.runuo.com/, http://www.galaxiesreborn.com/, https://launchpad.net/aurora-runescape-server-emulator, http://arcemu.org/, etc. Note how many of those are community FOSS projects, even though running them with an official client is almost always a ToS violation.
First, the new layout engine finally allows you to construct roads at arbitrary angles and not just along the axes. This makes it fundamentally incompatible with the old grid-based map format used in SimCity since version one with few alternations [1]. Then there's the agent model of economics [2], a change from previous games' broad statistical model, that seems to be deeply integrated with the game's visualization.
[1] The biggest change was likely the introduction of varying terrain height in SimCity 2000.
[2] The developers give a brief explanation in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz-UGPRilUE. Looks like they've done some pretty interesting things with it.
Running a private server for a MMO has a ton of fundamental barriers. 1) Players don't get timely balance updates. 2) Players have no confidence that admins won't hack/give away items/cause crazy events etc. (Central point of authority = central point of corruption. Even if there don't happen to be any game-breakingly generous admins on a server, you can't signal that reliably to potential players.) 3) Servers may disappear. Since info is central, but private servers may fold under takedown notices, owners running out of money, technical problems, lack of other players, or anything else, players can't have trust that their time spent will have lasting rewards. Credibility is almost impossible to build.
Basically, by making games reliant on a central authority, you force the element of trust and credibility into the picture. Usually the only server with any credibility is the one run by the game company itself, since ideally you can trust that their actions will be in the best long-term interests of their game and audience. (EA in particular lost that trust a long time ago, I haven't bought a game of theirs in a LONG time. But Valve, or Blizzard, and even Ubisoft to a lesser extent still have that credibility.)
My story was the same as numerous other players: started playing hardcore, died not because of a mistake, but because of lag (internet lagged for a few seconds, that was enough for monsters to kill me, when internet came back moments later I was told I died).
At that moment I decided not give ANY more money to Blizzard, and closed my WoW membership.
hack into their servers, steal binaries of game server, modify client to work with local server.
Sure, and with sufficient bandwidth and computational power you could actually hide all the game logic using a secure computation protocol. Only a complete idiot would do that for something as performance-intensive as a video game.
The problem here is that we do not have reliable or fast Internet connections. As soon as your connection has a burp, or you get hit with some bufferbloat, or half your neighborhood starts streaming the Super Bowl in 1080p, your game starts to play worse. What EA failed to realize here is that the best way to make money in games is to offer a superior online gaming platform, not to try to sell individual games as products. Microsoft figured that out with XBox Live a long time ago.