Fact is also that "positive" measures - incentives to promote "good" behavior - seem to have a better effect.
...like, which?
iTunes, Google Play, Amazon, Netflix, Steam. They all seem to do just fine, all of them are expanding.
Apples and Oranges. You are comparing distribution platforms (entire markets, essentially) with publishers (aggregate content providers) and developers "non-aggregated" content providers). A market can thrive while the individual participants may suffer or starve, provided that there's a steady stream of new merchants coming in.
In fact, that's consumer paradise - enjoying goods whose production is subsidized by the producers going bankrupt in the process. For those who produce the equation is way less favorable.
Many of the tools I use for work are cloud-based subscription models, which can not be pirated, due to my user account being tied to the services I use (making me identifiable).
That's what I wrote, dude.
It also shifts the power balance towards whoever operates the server. It requires an internet connection. It provides the platform for user behavior monitoring. The fact that many people seem to be okay with this concept doesn't change one iota of the fact that it is a massive privacy intrusion with tremendous abuse potential.
Ubi also tried to include multiplayer or coop-features into their single-player games
Nothing wrong with that as long as it isn't mandatory, or essential to enjoy a game. For some games it may work, for others not so much. The fact remains that if such a construction was essential for games to both properly work and to be profitable, it rules out a class of titles that cannot sustain under conditions of piracy. In other words, piracy itself influences the design of games, platforms, ways how customers and developers interact with each other. The market does adapt for sure. I for one don't like the direction in which it is heading.
