This is a really interesting approach. I've been reading http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/ http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/ for a while now and the whole DRM argu

This is a really interesting approach. I've been reading http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/ http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/ for a while now and the whole DRM argument there has been that there's realistically a threshold on how much you make on a game before it pretty much becomes readily available to pirates and/or the initial sales interest is just gone anyway and the rest is not a reliable source of income. Something like that. So an approach which provides an incentive to maximize early sales during a brief period with a statistical understanding of what the target sales are and a reward to the public for getting there is really cool. It sort of embraces the piracy constraint and optimizes for being profitable in light of that. Imagine if the maker of some new, high-budget PC game called "DRM GoreShooter" decides that they will be in good shape if they make $5 million in the first three weeks of sales and past that point they won't really be profitable anyway (DRM or not). They want a profit better strategy than trying to use DRM to extend the window of pre-piracy sales out to week four or five, which might or might not work anyway. So they sell the game with something physically in the package that's really cool and you can only get in the first few weeks and they let you report in your product code, one time, for credit on Facebook or wherever for you having sponsored the development of the next game and been a generally cool person paying for quality entertainment. Would that be a better approach? It might ultimately result in the same money, but could be done as a way to cost less or at least provide a great marketing push and build good will in the fan-base. My argument would work better if I had any idea how much it costs to develop, maintain and manage a per-title DRM strategy, I suppose.