I couldn't agree more with you, tomblifter. The controls part is what also disturbs me the most about design. Because of the design, the controls are at the very bottom of the device, but you can't hold the device by the bottom part (thumbs upwards), because the center of mass is where two slides meet, so this means you have to hold the device from it's sides, thumbs pointing inward. That's not a pretty comfortable position at all, not to mention making it hard to hit buttons properly... I'm not even going to talk about the smaller screen... The old design was better in comparison. I don't even like the looks of the new design, though I generally don't like slideable controls (mostly the same reasons as above). UMD support being dropped is also a big bummer. What is going to happen to the games that have been released to UMD so far? All of them going to be included in the store? If not, then that's really bad. Also, what about newer games? Will both UMD and PSN version appear to satisfy all customers? In the end, I see the PSP Go as nothing more than Sony's desperate attempt to stop piracy on it's platform (unlike it's brothers, it has quite a different architecture and can't be modded or firmware downgraded at the moment). It brings nothing new or exciting to me. It just seems like Sony is trying to trick me into buying it so they can plug their piracy hole (or at least make it smaller), but offers nothing in return.

"We've never heard of a DRM solution that improved an enemy's AI, created a new physics system to model water, or even painted a decent unit uniform. So in short, cracking these systems will not improve your game," - Brigden Correct, up until the last sentence. It doesn't improve AI, doesn't create new physics, doesn't paint a decent uniform, so in short it's very , at which point you could use that new information of what the requested encrypted information was and what the result (the decrypted information) is to find out the encryption key and just make a program that removes the original code from the encrypted container. Also, validating a game just on email address and serial alone (without any "number of installs" or "number of registered machines" scheme) is very easy to pirate: just get someone to buy the game (or hack someone's account) and then share the email address and serial with the rest of the world. So what if the game has been validated for 293.754.239.057 machines? It has no installation/machine limits! The only thing that doesn't work well with piracy is online play, as evidenced with GTA4. Since online play is less P2P (peer-to-peer, as in computer's themselves connect to each other and transfer information directly between themselves, without being hosted on or passed through a server whatsoever) and more server-hosted-oriented, it's hard to fool the guys who have the server you have an original copy when they ask for information from the installation (like the executable code), though even that can be done. However, recently, I'm seeing a rise in emulation technologies that tries to emulate the server the game tries to connect to so that pirates can play with each other on those servers (just like how there are millions of WoW pirate servers). Oh yeah, and I get a few giggles every time I hear Razor's (and other groups') excuse/disclaimer saying they only do this for fun and they only upload to internal FTP servers and their cracked versions are not meant for the public, while every. single. time. they make a crack, it gets "leaked". Why are they doing fancy, detailed nfos in which they post very clear and user-friendly instructions if this is meant to be shared internally (i.e.: by only a few people)? I'm sure the other crackers would figure out easily what to do with those files even without the nfos. As a closing comment, I'd like to congratulate jeffcenate for his wonderful comment. I agree full-heartedly with his comment and opinions. The only side in this debate that was ignored were the consumers themselves, the key part of the industry itself, the one and only thing that moves the industry and the thing this article should have covered the most! It doesn't matter what the publishers think or what the pirates think, if the consumers are downright angered by DRM and decide to not pay for games anymore (or the contrary): by that time, the publishers are already at the consumers whim about things.

@ Hekynn YOU may be used to it. The rest of the world isn't... Just because you're rich enough so that every family member can have a separate copy of a game doesn't mean everyone is, or if it justifies the number of installs ploy or make it a little less bad. I wonder, does every member in that family also have his own PS3/360/Wii, TV, copy of a book, computer, car and, eventually, house on that land? Also, when you buy a DVD and really like it, and want to watch it with your family or friends, do you buy a copy for each and every one of them? God, I wish people would stop complaining about people complaining about things that really matter and just think with their heads sometimes.

@ Dark_Wr4ith How do YOU know they lose your profits. I can pretty much tell you that the majority of pirates are die-hard pirates, meaning they would buy a game, even if they can't pirate it. Casual pirates or people who would buy games if they couldn't pirate them are few, so few that I think it can be considered a total waste to spend money on DRM (and decrease and share your profits with someone else). Also, publishers limit the number of installs not just to hamper piracy, but also second hand sales (which is VERY legal), the later of which is a disgusting, dirty move, and they should be burned for this. As for why this isn't implemented on consoles, well, here's why: the publishers themselves don't decide what copy protection(s) the game has, it's the console manufacturer that does. In other words, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all hard-code the copy protection mechanisms into consoles, and publishers have to pay extra dough to them so that they get the license to put the copy protections needed in order for the game to run on the disk (and this also has the side-effect that the consoles won't accept pirated games, though I think the primary reason this has been done is to make sure that publishers can't distribute games on their console without paying them first, as happened with Atari, I think). In other words, the publishers have no control whatsoever over what copy protections they put for consoles, since they only have one option: either put the copy-protection the console manufacturer gives you, or don't publish that game for that console. Also, because this is hard-coded, it means console manufacturers can't change the protection on their consoles this generation. I don't know if they will try and do this in the future (since they also benefit from games sold, since they get royalties - mainly because they licensed their "copy protection"), but I can tell you one thing - if they do, expect to see more modchips. People will surely not accept this. In any case, from an anti-piracy point of view, it's meaningless to put an install limit on console games since the copy protection mechanisms there are already very efficient: you can't play a game (even if it's installed on the HDD) unless you also have the disk, which means you bought it. On the PC, that's not the same, since the people trying to install or run the game might not necessarily own it (the PC can run the disk regardless, and the protection-cracking methods might not be able to crack all protections). Of course, it's useless most of the time, and this is just a shallow motive so they can crumble the second hand market (remember, on consoles they can't because they are not the ones deciding what "copy protection" methods they implement).