@pleasenoname:
I'm guessing you're trying to say that it's better if we paid the developer directly by passing the publisher? Theoretically it makes sense, but when taken into real world it's not that easy. Let me elaborate - when the developer is working and developing the game, those people need money to live on while they develop the game, but since the game hasn't released yet there's no incoming funds to pay the employees of the developer. So, question becomes how to fund the development process, you need to find investors that would be looking to pay the developer to develop the game and then when the game releases collect some profit on that investment. This is why publishers are essential for smaller developers. For bigger developers they can seek investors to their company as a whole, sell their stock, accumulate income from previous games, etc. Point is there are ways to raise money for development even without a publisher and even if you're a startup development company. At least that's how it was in the past, today, many devs seem to choose the easy way out by getting in bed with some publisher which then pushes their agenda on the developer (most noticeable with EA titles, but others too)
However, there's another feature that we must not forget, publishers also handle distribution, that is marketing, making the DVDs with the game, shipping them to retail outlets, etc. The developer could do this themselves, but it requires part oft the money they have to be diverged from development budget, which isn't so hot if you think about it. This is also why you see so many indie games on steam, small developers cannot afford to release a game on DVD, and digital download is significantly cheaper alternative.
Another point that you bring up is to sell codes to add features to the game, that is precisely what DLC is, yet there's so many people hating the concept. Removing the ads once you pay for the game is a neat idea, however for those ads to work you'd require for them to be hardcoded (which makes them outdated rather fast) if you wish to keep up with current ads you'd require an internet connection (hey not that different from DRM now is it). What we've seen ubisoft try with a few titles (Heroes 6) they allow you to use certain game features only if you're online and authenticated with their game servers. If not, you can still play the game, just with a few features disabled.
So, what I'm trying to say is, there's experimentation going around in DRM world, and Ubisoft is at the forefront of trying different things, sometimes ending up with a lot of blame for it. Truthfully, it would be best if we could get rid of DRM completely (as some companies seem to be going that way now), but then you run into the issue with your artist and company or conversely company and pirates. How does one protect their work so others don't profit from it for free? or how does one protect their investment so pirates don't profit from it for free? Those two questions might seem like different situation, but if you think about it they are one and the same.
In the end I believe that piracy is driven more by economic factors, teenagers often cannot afford to pay for their games. Folks living in 3rd world countries cannot afford to pay their monthly/yearly salary for one game. Truth be told, video gaming is a leisure for the rich, because you need funds to purchase the system that will play the video games and then you need to spend money to purchase each game. People who cannot afford both will often resort to piracy, because they wish to experience the leisure the rich enjoy.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram