Dear Stardock, I'm sorely thoroughly dissapointed in you. You claim you do no DRM, yet you introduce a technology that encrypts the whole game and requires you to associate that container with your account.
A DRM hs the following properties:
Impulse has the following properties:
Now you may object "wait, but we don't do any of the other evil things". But that's not the point. Already you violate your own Gamers Bill of rights point 8 "Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers." by showing intent on possibly restricting a users rights (otherwise there'd be no need for the whole container/encryption farce)
At this point, pretty much the promise (and yes it is a promise) not to phone home and not tie an installation of a game to the hardware etc becomes pretty much meaningless. You showed you're willing to sacrifice the freedom of the Gamer already, and by all likelyhood the code to tie a container to a machine and to phone home everytime it starts is already in place, though not active until you "kill" a gamers installation (because you think he copied to much etc.).
Ah it has come to this now has it? I'm a member here since yesterday. And if you really where a company dedicated to consumers happyness you'd have thought twice before becoming a DRM systems enabler. I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy. Now the powers that be threaten to bann/silence me because I've become a public disturbance. Stirring up controversy not appreciated I see. You know silencing consumers has a long and glorious tradition with DRM proponents. Go on, make my day. I've stated my case and I'm not alone. The truth is out there and it will find you too.
Of course personal insult is the perfect argument to hold against my reasoned opinion that I don't like consumer restrictions as embodied by a DRM system. Perfect, carry on.
Sorry, you don't get to be a martyr based on your posts so far; none of the Stardock people who've commented on this thread have posted anything to that effect ("that's crazy, go away" is not the same as "stop or be banned")... As I've said, we're not your old work.
Even threads like this one about piracy are allowed to run as they will. Unless someone gets to be very personally insulting or confesses/facilitates illegal behavior, they're generally free to discuss as they like.
??? I haven't seen any warning about restrictions of your posting priviledges.
You know you're right, I hated the DRM part of my old work (I liked the web-development part). I've got two perfectly good reasons to hate the DRM part, which have nothing in particular to do with my previous work:
You see, I was always happy when I could generate tangible benefits for my customers and end users. However everytime I had to do something of which I knew it reduced the usability and rights of the end user, I hated it.
Well, since you have done some researchs about post by Frogboy, you may want to look at this one http://frogboy.impulsedriven.net/article/339313/Do_you_really_want_Steam_to_be_your_only_option_Are_you_sure
How are you sure that the customer is a paying customer? I remember a post on a Sins of a Solar empire forum from SD or IC explaining they have required sending Serial in e-mailed bug reports to ensure that bugs reported are on a legit version and not on a pirated one.
That is why GOO encapsulates the exe. The programmer doesn't have to worry about DRM in that case.
I'm sure paying customers are going to be hit with goo because you don't get to escape goo by paying, it's like you pay AND have to put up with goo.
I don't mean sucks from the perspective of the content producer part. I mean sucks from the perspective of the distributor part. It sucks because instead of just linking to the download you have to:
In case you're wondering why Goo needs IE7, that is why, because some custom activeX crap is going on designed to keep the user out of the loop of trust. It really would be *so* much easier if you could just link to the .EXE
You are right of course but my point was that with GOO scheme it's like with BD protection - once you crack system one disk you crack them all including future games.
Or am I missing something ?
I am not sure that it will works that way with GOO.
From what I have read, the first step is required, since it is the one that will allow people to download the game from any Digital distributor.
But step 2 and 3 are already in GOO since activation will be made on customer side. No need to do a specific packaging at the Digital distributor level.
Btw: it's really interesting how this GOO will affect StarDock sales, I mean up until now StarDock was persived as "one of our guys" on all the trackers, people were telling each other - buy this game , they are anti-DRM so by buying it you show that games without DRM can sell well. I am not sure how big part of the GalCiv success was this approach after all it's a damn good games but it was there, I saw people buying just almost anything from StarDock just to "support" them as being no-DRM company to show it can make profit. Now when this image will be gone ... interesting what will happen, the games are still good but how sales will be affected? My bet the StarDock games will be pirated more.
Come now, nobody implementing DRMs today is so simple minded. As you might've noticed Goo is delivered as encrypted exe containing the actual content. That means that the precise algorithm by which they manage the keys and encrypt the container is variable. If you crack one of the schemes, they just shuffle in a new scheme. In fact, it's not unlikely every container uses one of a variety of schemes.
Btw, Stardock, I know a company that has a patent on Polymorphic DRMs (surprise surprise), don't be surprised to hear from Packet Video soon ^^
Now you're just making assumptions.
I don't know, but I each really simple scheme that gives the end user too much trust is extremely easy to crack. Therefore you need to obfuscate stuff a fair bit, and part of this is not making the decryption key glaringly obvious.
You tell me, am I? Then what's the reason for IE only?
It is impulse, the means to donwload the game from Stardock server that is IE only
Which is what your assumption is.
See Annatar11? THAT is what I meant. Not that it needs Impulse or some other specific client. Guess you misinterpreted my post there.
If this is really the case THAT is somethhing I definitely have an issue with.
@Kryo: Very well written and fact stating post there in reply #68.
@pyalot: I can relate to your anger. Heck, I even was all fury and flames when GalCivI shifted from updates which you could download on one machine with I-Net access and install it on the game rig WITHOUT I-Net connection to the nescessity of an I-Net connection on your game rig itself. But lemme tell you that in my experience SD always tried their best to help their customers in any way they could and make their mechanisms as seemingless as possible. If they go down the GOO path then it is IMHO not with harmful intentions. More on the contrary.
And even though I'm also strictly opposing DDRM which kept me from purchasing and enjoying a number of games I would really have loved to have played, I really don't see neither a big risk in the GOO mechanism nor that SD expresses its distrust of their customers through it's introduction, rather than them trying to make things as easy as possible under the given circumstances. So you might want to cut those guys n gals some slack.
Granted this is not as easy now that Ubi obviously is going back to CD keys. But who knows what THEIR true intention behind this move is...
The Impulse client uses IE for its browser parts and HTML-rendering (the IRC client, etc) functions.
GOO is self-contained and vendor-neutral. It does not have any dependency or requirement on the Impulse client.
The two are separate and distinct.
Good thing that it isn't, then!
Okay, now I get it. Thanks for the clarification.
But even when this is only true for Impulse.
What good reason is there that it wouldn't work with FF when many people refuse to use IE coz it is such a bag of crap?!
I know: Sometimes you can't accomodate everyone. But be honest. Would it be THAT difficult?
So since this all seems to be about trust, and it's basically SD (and its fanboys) doing the "oh but they're not evil" part, and it's me doing the "I don't buy it" part, how about a token of trust from SD towards me (and in extension the "I don't buy it faction").
You can prove that you have nothing but the best intentions by:
By this I mean, which companies would be involved, what services need to be running, what registry entries and other data get written/inspected, what data is exchanged, what encryption scheme is used, what keys get exchanged etc.
Yes, actually IE is integrated into Windows, so everyone has it and it's easy to build on. Whether you use it or not doesn't matter, you only need to have it (which you do with any non pirated copy of Windows, since IE7 was pushed as a critical update for XP a long long time ago).
Few of us actually use IE7 as a browser (including SD), but we all have it because it's a critical Windows component. So people complaining about the IE7 requirement is like complaining that a game requires DirectX and wondering why they can't just rewrite it with OpenGL
Hasn't Stardock already stated that they will not use Goo on their own games, and that this is just for 3rd party publishers?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
