This 'DRM' Chair Will Self-Destruct After Eight Uses

If the world were run by Ubisoft...

The armrests are part of a DLC pack.

So what you're saying is that a product that you couldn't use more than x number of times isn't worth buying.

Then why are you worried about the company that makes it?

I'm annoyed by people who protest these large companies....but yet those same people keep consuming their products (even if they have to steal them to consume them).

I believe that's a parasitic relationship.

The fact is, this "DRM" policy has existed in industry in general for a long time. It was known as "programmed obsolescence", and still is. No product is made to be as stable and long lasting as possible. Cars, stoves, rugs are all made with a specific goal of falling apart after a certain time or number of uses. When you see a "lifetime guarantee" of a machine working, that's not your lifetime, that's the lifetime of the machine! They are essentially assuring you that the machine will keep working while the machine keeps working! That's part of the business model of so many companies today, namely, being guaranteed of former customers coming back for another purchase.
And, as for the craven, contemptuous, blame-the-victim "principle" demonstrated by Bagpipes100, people come back to the same companies that sold them crap because those are the only companies selling that commodity! Another part of the moden business model for so many corporations, monopolize the field. In the words of part protesters, they have obtained all the "means of production" and reserved them to themselves! And if you think that there really is such a thing as "competition" between corporations, that they don't all work by conniving price fixing, then you may be as dim as the New World Order needs you to be. They all sell garbage for many times what what they deserve!

@julianpenrod

Companies are cheap and use dirty tricks. How does that justify theft?

If that company all a sudden disappeared would you still feel entitles to their product that you were currently stealing?

I'm not on the cooperation's side. But you're not a victim because you decide to buy a computer game with limited number of uses. You willingly bought the game, knowing it had limited uses.

Bagpipes100, an issue arises when those companies circumvent the law themselves by price setting and refusing to compete. We live in a capitalist market and it is founded on the principal that companies in the same industry will compete. We have laws governing antitrust and price setting, but it's extremely hard to prove, especially as the lowly consumer, that it's happening. However, we all see suspect behavior from many companies.

RIAA, MPAA, countless "Associations", mergers, etc that band multiple companies together. Are we really all so naive that we believe these companies still compete with each other in any way other than a superficial way?

It leaves the consumer without too many options. Pay the demanded price, refuse and go without, or steal. Sure, morally, we could all say we'll just go without, but isn't that giving up and saying the practice is ok? If we had all just given in, cd's would still be $20 and we wouldn't have single song downloads. That change was a piracy driven change.

I'd love to believe someone else would always come along and fill the need in place of these bad companies and the system would work as intended, but we all know that isn't what happens.

All that said, the real issue here is what is bought when you purchase an item? It varies from product to product, but certainly some products should not have limited use and still be charged at the old rates. Only time will tell how the consumers respond to these tactics.

@phoenixmaranth

But when there is no need for the product, it's for recreational use etc. (like video games....which seems to be the starting point of the article), how is anyone one entitled in anyway to the product?

Even if there is a need?

Bagpipes100 tries to suggest that I said that, because corporations are all criminal, it justifiers theft.
But I never said that!
I said there's not a single product corporations put out that isn't specifically designed to fall apart after a specific number of uses.
That's all I said.
I did say that people buy from these crooked entities because they saw to it that they were monopolies, that the “means of production” were isolated to their ownership alone, to try to keep the people from making those things for themselves or to keep ethical individuals from making those things for them.
But, then, Bagpipes100 accusing me of justifying theft when I wasn't is demonstrative of a general mentality Capitalists demonstrate. They always think someone is trying to rob them, even when they aren't.

That's already an outdated model. A proper DRM chair, now, would not only fall apart after x number of uses...but fall apart immediately if not connected to a remote server.

@julianpenrod

It was you're "blame the victim" line that made you seem like you were trying to justify theft. As if there was a victim.

But then again you come off as if you thought I was justifying the cooperation. Which I wasn't.