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.).
Carry on.
@frogboy
I apreciate you hanging out here and spending some time to bash me. I think I've raised some valid concerns, I'm afraid they apear to be burried under a ton of other comments.
I respect your opinion of not wanting me as a paying customer and since you offer the truth so bluntly I shall respond in kind. I was deeply impressed by your impasionate blog entry how it's all about paying customers and not about pirates and how copy protection is worth jack, you connected to me. Then I find out you actually implement a DRM system of your own, and I'm absymally shocked. For a while there you where my hero.
Or is it, again, that Piracy tactics however adaptative they may get won't stop anyone from distributing unhackable products for a given period in such a manner that a balance sheet shows stable closing figures?
I'll say it once more, i have no respect for thieves. They're in a brain jail tough enough to just go by us in total indifference while we CAN ignore what they do, did or will.
Cracking an EXE has nothing to do with theft. Equating copyright infringement as theft is stupid. If you consider the downloading of a game you don't own to be theft, fine by me. There are logical holes in that reasoning, but I don't get particularly excited over it. If my using a cd crack is also theft, you need a brain transplant.
An EXE that has no modifications to it, and is simply wrapped by another bit of code, doesn't need cracked again once it's been unwrapped. You never have to mess with it, simply make an archive of the unwrapped version and be done with it. No need to keep updating the crack, no worry that no one will crack the last update. It simplifies the content surviving the demise of it's distribution system, simple is good.
No, you haven't brought up any valid concerns. You have outright stated that Stardock is somehow changing its policy which it isn't. You're not familiar with Stardock or what has gone on in the past. You're just flaming for the sake of flaming.
And sadly for the cracker, it's against the usual well known perfectly legalese mumbo EUA for people who DO have the brains to respect others' source code & 'copyright properties'.
I could unwrap & decompile & reverse engineer every last byte of whatever was *necessary* for myself in a secured working environment a few years ago (call it an Espionage skill, industrial or otherwise if you like), but i still don't (even today) for personal hacking reasons or fun or outright theft of the simplest of ideas indented in a such a manner that it's readable and reproducible.
If i need some sort of transplant, it's not for the brain either - it's tolerance against indirect ways for kiddy small crooks to mess around with something they certainly aren't aware of.
Pyalot seems hell-bent on earning a martyr cookie.
So Goo is nothing new?
Correct. Stardock has been doing the same thing that GOO has been doing for something like 7 years. GOO now allows *other* developers/publishers/distributors do the same thing as they have always done.
Goo makes it easy to offer what we have been doing fo rour own software to others and gives users and publishers the ability to transfer licenses (resell) and have a universal license system so that people can potentially redownload their game from anyone who carries that game.
Factually not true, get your facts straight.
While Stardock prez Brad Wardell maintains they do not plan on adding DRM to their own games, other publishers have challenged them to help make DRM more acceptable to consumers The new technology, known as Game Object Obfuscation (Goo), ... We're investigating what would make users happy to protect their needs, but also provide some security for the publishers. ... We're actually developing a technology that would do that.
While Stardock prez Brad Wardell maintains they do not plan on adding DRM to their own games, other publishers have challenged them to help make DRM more acceptable to consumers
The new technology, known as Game Object Obfuscation (Goo), ...
We're investigating what would make users happy to protect their needs, but also provide some security for the publishers. ... We're actually developing a technology that would do that.
I'm opposed to DRM (and that means Goo, which is new) on principle. But to tell it with the words of Brad:
For instance, if someone’s watermarking your personal info into an EXE and you’re cheering that on, you’re a fan boy.
Now, I wouldn't take my issue out here with you and Brad normally. However if you go to draft a Gamers Bill of Rights and publicly vocally oppose DRM and then go to invent your own... you're bound to take some flak.
Brad, I've plead for this before, but maybe it was droned out. Simply saying Goo is better and all isn't going any length to convince idiots like me that this is so. If you want to dispell doubts you'll have to disclose in acute technical verifyable details what Goo does and how it does it.
If you cant/wont do that, it just goes to prove my point that this is a vote of distrust towards consumers, which is what I personally find objectonable, both as a consumer and as a provider (developer).
Thank... sure that some other people have already ask something similar but due to the problem with the search function of the forum, i was not able to find any reply...
Ok, the method explain is perfect if i know the contact info of the people who will receive it for gift...
My goal was to buy 4-5 version of entrenchment... and organize a competition where a version of Entrenchment will be one of the price... no problem at all, i can order only once i have a winner !!!
By the way, do you make some promotion like : order 10 version of Entrenchment and you receive one more for free
Did you get an auto-reply with a ticket #? If not a spam filter may have prevented reception.
I have not think about this... since SPAM is directly removed on my ISP server... will need to check the rules...
By the way, thank you for the info and the reply
That's the issue here and why I am king of worried with Goo, some sort of account validation, until now this "sort of validation" was just a single validation once and for all when you downloaded or updated the game, after that you could copy the game to any computer you own or will ever own without ever have to reactivate the game again, for me it was as good as DRM-free.
But if SD starts using this "Goo" thing will it change ? will it means that, like Steam, like EA Securom, you will now have to reactivate you Stardock games everytime you change of computer/hardware ?
Would it be possible to have some more details "how" is the system going to work, especially...
This is a little vague: one time activation... when? when you first install the game? everytime you install or update the game ? everytime you modify you hardware or change of computer? or is it up to the publisher to decide ?
- No fixed number of activations that you have to beg to be extended.- Does not include or require any hidden "cruft" on your machine.
Well not really different than the other existing DRM but, does it means that it will enforced or is it up to the publisher to decide, for example Steam don't have any activation limit.. unless the publisher wants to add some. Also will something prevent the publisher from using Goo AND Securom or Goo and Steam?
Yes... it's kind a safer but at one condition that there are actually multiple distributor using Goo and that they will continue to use it in the future.
If Goo doesn't catch up or if DD move to something else in one or two year we will be back at square one; it might be vendor neutral but you still need at least one server to activate your game.
Also how is it going to work, if a DD use Goo for one or two games it sell will you be able to use it to activate all Goo games or only the one that are on it's catalogue ? The diagram mentioned that "...allow publishers to let customer redownload from any partner.", what if the publisher don't want to, or if it's the publisher itself that goes under ?
And how is it going to work with regional restriction that publishers loves soo much, if you buy a goo game in country X will you be able with Goo to reactivate it using a DD located in country Y ?
Well that's good for customer, but like I said in another thread, if there is something publishers hate and want to kill even more than piracy its second hand sales, so I wonder if they are realy going to like a DRM scheme that make it possible again.
Honestly I have to admit that I am not really convinced yet by Goo, yes the resale thing thing is a good thing (even though I never sold any games I bought until now), but the unlimited activation is not something new (Steam did it since the begining and also if publisher really wants to have activation limitation they wont use Goo anyway and those who don't care... well they don't have to use limitation with already existing DRM if they don't want to) and they are still, in my opinion, too many unknown variables about the "reactivate anywhere" part to make it really "safer".
I think you misunderstand my perspective. I don't care if people have doubts in the slightest. I feel at this point our long history of pro-consumer actions speaks for itself.
There are plenty of people who won't be satisfied with anything other than the honor system of IP protection and those are people I hope never buy anything form us because I don't want them as customers.
There have been enough posts and discussions on the specifics for anyone who actually wants to learn about it.
Heck, some months ago there were plenty of people who threw a fit because we require Impulse to download our games and get updates digitally even as they were clueless that IE can't download files greater than 2GB and we're not about to have people download Firefox or Opera or whatever.
There are always people with unreasonable expectations. And we hope those people will stay the heck away from us.
I would have been happy to have a better discussion on the topic but you started your thread out with a bunch of unresearched assumptions that were simply incorrect.
In the interest of trust built by mutual respect I ask you to show this token of respect to us (You will no doubt find many internal logical faults with this I'm sure)
A somewhat personal note on your style of posts Brad:
I don't see what the fuzz about not answering the questions about Goo details is. If you're as consumer friendly as you claim that should be a nobrainer.
And not wanting to be a flamewar spoilsport the best thing that comes to your mind is descend into anti-consumer rants, personal insults and by all means no accurate technical detail.
Well anti-pyalot anyway.
The specific details are strewn around the forum. They're just not in this particular flame thread. Some of these threads even have diagrams.
Putting it all in one place like a website's going to actually help you sell Goo you know. I bet every publisher that contracts you wants an understandable technical description.
You really don't want to give up on YOUR continuous ranting, do you?
Get a mirror, and look straight into it.
You claim being a developper above somewhere... okay, PM the proper SD staff and wait for an offer to an eventual business partnership which i doubt will ever happen for a number of reasons;
- Your personal attacks aimed at the CEO.
- Your opinions against DRM, GOO, name it.
- Your arrogance shown straight off Post #1.
What is it you are trying to do here exactly?
Push & shove everyone that stands in your way?
Want some technical details?
I'll give you some... copyrighted code and business solutions that StarDock creates.
Besides, with that account number, customer or forum member... i'd tend to agree with him, it was purposely created to torch this board into chaos until moderation steps in.
Ignoring you might be the only solution, from this moment on. Maybe some day, you'll get out of the Abyss.
Sell to whom? You?
Developers wanting to use Goo aren't hanging out on forums sifting through comments to get details. They sign NDAs and get the full development kit.
Anything posted on the web is strictly there for the community's interest.
Pyalot, I hope someday you realize how EA, and other compaines are out to sodomize every costomore with soemthing the size of the origonal Xbox, and the few like Stardock are the ones who help pull it out and tell us everything will be OK.
Untill then stop being a troll out to just p*ss off everyone.
@Zyxpsilon, CarlitX
I'm curious, seriously. What point is it that you think you have, you feel is advanced by explicit language, flaming and personal insults? You're unable to argue an opinion on a factual level and you degrade yourself by resorting to personal attacks against the originator of the debate. You know I think the topic of my personal flaws is quite boring and it is not the topic of this thread. If you want to open a new thread about how big a wanker I am, by all means do so, I'll even cheer you on there since then at least you'll have found a discussion you're mentally capable of having, however childish and premature it will be.
I'll summarize my judgement of this thread and its conclusion
My conclusion from these facts is that Goo (like any other DRM) is designed to restrict a users rights he otherwise enjoys, thereby stamping Stardocks own brand of copyright. The lack of forthcoming technical information to dispell any doubts about the best intentions of Stardock shows a vote of distrust towards the consumer.
If I was Brad I'd probably say that if you're cheering on (Goo) you're a fanboy, but I'd find that detriment to the discussion (which for my part I find concluded, and I'm inviting you to further degrade it by now carrying on to evade pointed questions and spew all the bile, hatred and consumer contempt you see fit).
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
