[sirobviouspoint]

> But economically speaking, sound decision, just poorly executed.

I'm not sure it counts as a 'sound decision' if you take a very risky option that hasn't panned out well for competitors in the same market on the premise that if you beat the odds, you'll get a bit more money.

I think EA underestimated the cost of their "always on" DRM, and didn't adequately assess the risk against the payoff - and now have taken a business hit from it.

For example, literally no one I know that I used to play Sim City with for hundreds of hours as a kid purchased this game - precisely because of EAs decisions regarding always on DRM and their history with Spore design. They've effectively driven away over a dozen people in their 20s, perfectly willing to fork over $70-100 on a game they like. (Or $200 or $300 or $1000 on a really good game they like; I'm looking at you table-top guide books, trading card games, and minifigures.)

I consider that exactly the opposite of 'sound decisions'.

tl;dr: You have to assess the risk that you're going to poorly execute your choice to make a 'sound decision'; I'm not sure EA did.