ShackNews has a two-part interview with Stardock CEO, Brad Wardell. The first part talks about the plan to “revitalize” PC gaming. It also covers Stardock's stance on copy-protection.
A quick excerpt:
"Shack: A lot of people think the solution is making games that are so connected with the online experience that everything is validated online, patched online, controlled through the internet. But what you're talking about is an offline, almost traditional solution.
Brad Wardell: Well I think [we need] a combination. You have to be able to protect your intellectual property. And I'm a big believer in activation. Our games, not all of our games, but Galactic Civilizations uses activation for downloads. Basically, our system has always traditionally been that you purchase a game, it has no copy protection, but if you want to update it you have to get it from us with your serial number, and we validate who it is."
It's a great interview, and be sure to check it out.
Nice
Helped to see the reasoning behind the bill of rights thing. I'm thinking Brad Wardell's got a good plan going there.
I'm not 100% sure on Impulse trying to update video drives - I think that should be done the Microsoft Update personally (You don't want two different update systems trying to update the same thing!!!)
But I am generally in favour of what was said. And the reason is in the answer to this question - "Why did I buy Sins?"
Because I was able to get a copy from someone to play it (pre-demo) and pre-release in Australia. And then I was counting down for the release here to get a copy so I could patch and go online!!! And the fact that the game cost $20 less then most other new releases. And there is good support for the game in regards to patching/new content etc... Oh, and that it is FUN to play online (apart from the occasional noob...).
Wow... Mr. Wardell has really nailed it.
Just today, I was telling my brother that I wished Spore was coming out for the 360.
"Why?", he asked.
"Because then I'd be certain it would work."
-"but the controls might be crappy..."
"Better than blowing $50-$60 on a game that runs like crap on my system."
This is genius. This is precisely why Sins is the only PC game I've bought since WoW. (not counting the "id" ultimate pack from Steam) I've just become completely fed up with high-end games that won't run on my mid-range system.
There's millions of people that are gamers, that have a computer, but are not computer gamers... simply because it's too damn expensive to keep up with it. I can drop $300 and play a couple dozen amazing games, just by getting a 360. On the PC, I could spend that much, just on a video card... for what? Crysis? Spore? Meh. This bill of rights mentality could change all of that. Look at the success of The Sims as an example.
Brad Wardell is quickly becoming my hero.
Nice public relations save, Brad Wardell.
In the past, you've been able to bolster your sales by appealing to disgrunted gamers. You have done so by "taking their side" and criticizing DRM--this in turn makes them supportive of you and thus more likely to buy your games. I should know, that was a significant factor behind my purchase of SoaSE: Collector's Edition.
Recently though, you performed a complete 180 on us--disregarding several months of precedent and your incomplete/invalid SoaSE EULA, you suddenly decided to stop distributing stand-alone patches and force all of your customers (the ones that want updates--as a note, your customers have already paid for the updates with the full expectation of being able to receive them without any strings or programs attached) on your online store/DRM program, Impulse. This is an obvious case of customer "lock-in", which I've talked about before.
And now, you criticize merely copy protection--no longer DRM. As before, nice save. Still, that is a superficial public relations gesture, at best. To illustrate this, consider your latest tightrope act--putting DRM on the CD's are bad, but it's perfectly fine to use DRM via Impulse, which you're trying to link everything to. That's a pretty hard tightrope to walk--ultimately, you must accept that information is freely distributable on the Internet (both the disk and patches) and that you should make money on the quality of your games/actions as a developer, or that you should clamp down on all forms of media distribution, milk all the potential revenue possible, and baby-feed the customers that haven't deserted by now.
You see, people don't like copy protection because they like to really "have" what they bought. That's why people like to buy real cars, real houses, etc. People like real patches too. Anything else is just a scheme that keeps people hooked on your business model--there are many articles discussing the direct correlation between increased customer lock-in, increased profit, and increased customer maltreatment.
(somebody may bring up that many people rent apartments--that is an issue related to finance, not preference)
The fact that you still try to pretend that you're on the customers' side in this whole DRM conflict (anti-DRM/whatever in word), but in reality you continue to implement more forms of DRM through your software (pro-DRM/whatever in deed) indicates two things--your hypocrisy and your customer baiting.
Reminding you that you can still do the right thing,
Venym
p.s. Regarding the whole x-box argument, read it for what it is--propaganda, just like Brad's exploitation of customer anger against copy-protection. There are plenty of PC games that are "finished" when they are released without the need for a customer leash. For instance, Blizzard games, World in Conflict, Dawn of War, etc. In fact, piracy is actually helpful to customers--it lets them try out the full game (often minus multiplayer), see which ones are good, and if they like the game enough (especially if they want to play multiplayer), they'll happily buy the game. No tricks; both the company and the customer are happy.
Here's a good article on customer "lock-in", specifically regarding software industries. Article on Customer Lock-in, by Bruce Schneier
Oh god not you. Move on already, or do you have no life?
Well, one thing is for sure, he ain't that good in maths
<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
@Venym - here here. I completely agree.
Not having the Internet at home means I can not patch any bugs out of the release version of the game or use any mods if patches are online only.
I have no problem with registering on the forum to download the offline patch or with the patcher refusing to install if I'm using a known pirate serial (which I'm not) but requiring me to be online (and using Impulse (which does not allow online patching then transfer of application to an offline computer)) is one step too far for me. Especially since the box said nothing about it.
In effect this is a removal of support for offline users with no part refund for this reduction in service.
If Stardock keep to this activation policy I will not be purchasing any more of their products just like I can not purchase Valves or some of EA's recent titles.
Pity really as the rest of their DRM attitude is refreshingly straight forward and they make good games.
Oh well, I suppose I can spend the money on older games now that don't have this activation problem and cost considerably less then a new game.
Am having mixed feelings here, on the one hand, I DO understand that developers have the right and need to protect their product and I don't mind using my authentic key to download a patch threw the internet.
On the other hand, I'm sceptic at the whole interview as prior to this, it seemed Mr Wardell made us believe that all manners of copy protection would be excluded from any Stardock game, but, reading this interview, it DOES sound as if Mr Wardell as taken a slightly different turn.
So, I do agree with Venym's post though I'm sure I'll get trashed for it by you loyal Stardock fanatics, I hope you just realize everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Do want to add though that the game SoaSE is a marvelous game, but, it'll depend on how I'll be able to obtain any future patch/add-on that will determine if I'll actually will be getting it or say goodbye to SD/IC !
Stardock's position and implementation of IP protection has been the same for 9 years: No copy protection on the product you buy but we include a serial # to ensure that we can secure the way to get the myriad of free updates we offer.
Sins of a Solar Empire has no copy protection whatsoever. Not even activation. But to get updates, yes, we insist that we can verify who is getting the free udpates. If that is considered "too much" by some people then frankly, those aren't customers I want to have and I would absolutely prefer they never purchase anything from us again - ever.
Right, but that still relates to what I said in my post--you're "anti copy-protection", but pro-DRM (Impulse). Please refer to reply #5 for elaboration.
You should have told us that before we bought your game(s), instead of misleading us with all of your supposedly anti-DRM rhetoric (like the Gamers Bill of Rights). Or do you prefer to keep it a surprise for AFTER we pay you?
If you really prefer "dumb" customers that put up with whatever you throw at them (DRM, excessive fees, etc.), maybe you should make an MMO to leash them (and their money) to your business model. Oh wait... Stardock MMORTS
I don't even think you need impulse. Can't you just download from the download page still or from Stardock central?
Sorry Venym, but I don't see the issue. If, as the Gamer's Bill of Rights would have it, you can play the game out of the box, then what's the beef? You have to be on-line to get patches or new content anyway, so I see no issue with having to register an account to get these things. And yes, I've heard the argument that you can't DL from another machine and transfer it to your off-line one. However, I believe Stardock has said they're looking into a method to do that (perhaps I misunderstood, but that was my impression). So I still see no big issue. This is not DRM is the sense that it restrcits you from playing your game or locks you out after a certain number of installs or upgrades.
Thrawn: you'll need Impulse to get any future patches.
He's baaaaaaaaaacccccck!!!! <queue scary music....>
Venym, I will happily give you a full refund. Say the word. Otherwise, give it a rest.
Maybe you misread what I said. I'm not talking about refunds (though that is partially a good option at this point).
I'm talking about you baiting customers with your false claims of being anti-DRM (now anti copy-protection). Cheating on your customers' trust is morally bankrupt--in other industries, it's called false advertising, which is generally illegal.
In other words, this is a discussion about the relationship between business and consumer. In ages past, meat-processing plants used to process tons of filth into the consumer's meat supply--many horrific things (for the consumer) happened in many industries, and to a lesser extent they still do. Consumers back then didn't buy meat because of all the garbage in it--likewise, I'm very certain that almost everyone that bought SoaSE didn't buy the game for Impulse or any other DRM attached to it. Eventually, your two-faced marketing/'lock-in" strategy will backfire. Which brings me to my point.
Listen to your customers (seriously), even if you don't like what they're telling you. I guarantee that it will result in much better game quality, much better customer satisfaction, and increased revenue. Look at Guild Wars, for instance—many people don't like the concept of a monthly fee in a MMO, and they've sold at least 5 million units at approximately $30 per unit (which far exceeds the revenue you've made with SoaSE). Optimally, it would be best if your genuine love of gamers/gaming guided your company, but it's understandable if money (to a limited extent) is a motive.
Regarding the "hush money" you offered me, no thanks. Considering your past "tendencies", I should have seen that one coming.
To conclude with an improvement of Google's supposed motto of "Don't be evil"... Be good.
I'm pretty sure Brad's legal knowledge, as well of Stardock's legal department, far outstrips yours.
Plus, if you fail to understand what DRM is, what copy protection is, and what Impulse does how do you expect your argument to carry any weight?
But since I'm feeling generous this evening, I'll give you a hint: patching is free post release support for the consumers, and it is the only time the CD key is checked. There's no lock-in. If they made Impulse required to run the game, you would have a point. But it isn't. So, you don't.
You can try to twist it as much as you'd like, but it won't change the simple fact that you're wrong in your assumptions and your arguments.
Of course it also doesn't take much to notice your selective ignoring of all the rational counter-arguments to your prolonged whine, which would lead most people to believe (quite correctly, I think) that all you're doing is finding something to complain about just for the sake of complaining, no matter how much of a fool you make yourself. Keep it up by all means, though - you aren't winning any friends among all those "lied to" consumers you claim to represent
Indeed, your whole argument fails becasue you're operating on the premise that Stardock is somehow obligated to provide patches and upgrades to you for free. They're not. That they do so is laudable. Requiring you to use Impulse and a CD key/authorization to get these things is not a DRM scheme, nor is it 'lock-in', since it's free and you can still play the game whether you choose to use this service or not.
This certainly feels like it's continuing for the sake of continuing. It's been beaten to death... four times now?
It's a good thing I don't count my friends on this forum, wouldn't you say Annatar?
Regarding Impulse not being a "lock-in" mechanism, please feel free to brush up on what customer "lock-in" means (for starters, customer "lock-in" doesn't mean that Impulse checks the CD key before the game starts).
Also, I'm not going to address the rest of your post. Not because I'm being selective, but rather because you haven't backed up anything that you said. You say I don't know what DRM/copy-protection/Impulse is? Prove it. You say I'm wrong in my arguments and assumptions? Prove it.
I've taken the time to type my messages with sufficient examples and citations. You can opt to not be lazy and put some thought into your responses too. In normal forums, flamers are met with a swift ban, but you seem to be exempted by the merit that you and Frogboy share the same position.
Please refer to a reply I posted in the SoaSE 1.1 Beta Change Log Thread, specifically reply #121
The argument there is compounded by the fact that the SoaSE EULA & Manual both contain a section about updating the game, as well as updating the game is now a standard industry practice.
*sigh*
Your entire argument seems to hinge on the statement that people paid for the patches. That's not true. They paid for 1.0. As such, it's not lock in because the switching costs are something that was provided for FREE.
As for the argument that they MUST make patches... It's good business sense, but it's not MUST.
Browser error: Hope this doesn't double post...
I believe my supply of troll food has run dry.
Patches are fixes to the product that were paid for out of the retail cost of the product itself.
Updates are extra content that is usually charged for or released for free to customers who paid for the origional.
Most companies mix patches and upgrades together as its easier to do one patch/upgrade then seperate ones.
My argument is that I hvae paid for the patches (I was not given a discount for purchasing a game with no support) and I have no problem with verifying that I own a game. I do have a problem with not being able to patch an offline game (by what ever means) and by having to activate said patched game.
Nothing was mentioned on the box about the restrictions placed on support.
Someone else above said that Stardock are may be working on a way to get patches via an Impule enabled computer to a offline computer. Is this the case and will the offline computer need "activating" (hopefully not) or will this have been confirmed with the CD key on the Impusle enabled computer (hopefully)?
If Stardock are planning to do this in the near future I'll shut up right now!
If that's the way you feel you have to react to a fan/customer who bought your game ? No problem !!!
Goodbye, wish you the best of luck!
Thats one way or losing customers! At least pirates don't have to put up with this level of customer support!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
