My point is that they're doing it for different reasons; their intention is not to harm you in any way or to gain any profit from it.
Really, they don't think a game will make more money with a protection, than without? Hmmm, that begs the question, if the protection isn't designed to effect sales, what's it doing on the disc in the first place?
Geez <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> The profit you're talking about is the profit they legally have the right to already. That is obviously not what I meant, and you know it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" /> If people really only copied disks as backups for themselves, it in fact means that those copy protections wouldn't have an effect on their profits. "they don't think a game will make more money with a protection, than without?" Yes they do, money that is rightfully theirs to begin with.
Microsoft are in court every other week, for Monopolising the software market. Their software isn't disc protected (and at the mercy of illegal users) so how do they make more money than god? They're the biggest producers of software on the planet, and they don't feel it necessary to use disc protections. When you can show me another comapny that makes as much money as them, and has a disc protection to thank for it, I'll say "I love disc protections" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />
I very much doubt that disc protections or any kind of protections are even relevant when talking about Microsoft's profits. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />
*** Visit 