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.).
Zyxpsilon, I have no idea what your point was with that reply. I read it three times, but I'm just not bright enough to decipher it. Are you saying that my using a cd crack for a game I own is morally wrong?
Pyalot, you're an idiot. Welcome to the majority of the population. The Frog is being exceptionally nice to you, I'll explain why. It's called context, you're ignoring it. No, links to articles by other people ignoring context don't count either. The Frog, and Stardock in general have never stated that they were against DRM. They come across as anti-DRM because the DRM that's out there is generally batshit insane.
For instance, this article stating that Stardock is anti-DRM, the writer is in error. The forum post being reported on says no such thing. Read it yourself, very, very slowly. There is one obvious, grammatical annoyance that only an idiot wouldn't catch. The writer of the article was, sadly, one such idiot like yourself, and completely forgot about context while paraphrasing the post. The english language sucks for clarity.
Stardock games ship with no copy protection, not no DRM. GOO, as far as we've been informed, is not copy protection. Copy protection prevents you from making an archive of your software, GOO is EXE encryption. Encrypted files aren't copy proof, broken cd's are copy proof. Stardock games don't require your cd to be in the drive, GOO relates not in the slightest to this either.
DRM is just about anything. Not shipping the source code with the game can be argued to be DRM. Stardock is on record opposing unreasonable DRM, not DRM in general. DRM that prevents creating backups, has finite activations, phones home, requires remote authentication during play, installs rootkits to subvert your system, disables various software...
Once you correct your errors, the only complaint can be that they might be doing something they've previously said they wouldn't. They might be building a nuclear arsenal and plan world conquest by years end.
Here is a thought and suggestion for Frogboy. The life of most games is around 3 years. There are some exceptionally long lived games - the recent spate of write up suggests that there are many gamers who are replaying old classics such as Baldurs Gate (which is 10 years old). But these are not going to really add up to much sales.
So why not add a condition to GOO that after 3 years (pick any number) this activation will be removed automatically? This way it wont matter if the distributor goes belly up or not. For the active life of the game some control is exercised. But after that a gamer is free to intall the game as many times and play it without worry (just like the pre-DRM days).
Apparently you are the ONLY one who thought this topic wasn't already about how big a wanker you are. From the first post, that's all this has been about. You clearly failed to argue on any factual basis.
In practical terms, everyone treats everyone else like criminals. Do the locks on your house have some magical feature that keeps burglars out but lets in honest people who just need to use the can while you're not home? How about antishoplifting devices and scanners? I've never shoplifted in my life; probably you haven't either, but we both still need to walk through the electronic scanner when we leave the store.
From the way you're bitching, your idea of a digital sales platform would be a torrent site with a "donations welcome" button. Grow up, the real world doesn't work that way.
You make an excellent point. If "stand-alone/no-drm" zip patch(s) were issued at the 5-10 year mark, I believe it would greatly increase the acceptance of current DRM methods.
I pointed out my facts, please just google "Electronic Arts DRM" and see the stuff they have come up with such as limited installs on games you have bought, intruisive DRM that leaks out information to them like maleware. Just do it I DEAR you.
Yes we are the children looking for attention by posting trolling spam on forums. Like the Stardock guys said, you have an issue contact the actual department for sales. But people like you are useless to talk to. Anyways I am sick of wasting time typing stuff that you are to blissfully ignorant to except, and i hope others follow my lead. For all you seem to be at this point is an attention wh**e.
I'll be blunt;
Brand of copyrights is on everything by law & intent. It must be distributed by whomever, for whatever reasons as to make it obvious for the consumer to obtain further support. It's good practice, business wise, to identify the manufacturer. That's not a restriction, it's an advantage to both sides of the usual consuming equation. It works, it's obvious.
Why do you care if THEY don't want to reveal some sensitive technicalities about their products?
You want the source code so you can crack it and use it to circumvent the situation of (as you define it, anti-consumers in fact, btw) a company that owns these copyrights?
Who knows - i might be interested in the solid features that fit my consuming needs, but calling anyone who does a "fanboy" illustrates how far deep into provocation & lack of perception over this specific issue you are, have been and continue to be unless you simply admit being (somehow) wrong by proof exposed by others.
This conversation is coming dangerously close to become silly, pickery and pointless. Your argumentative isn't bringing anything to the table, you're quoting Brad just to contradict without READING what others have tried to explain since the very first post of this thread. I can read ya know - even pages worth of repetitive subjective *incohesive* direct attacks to StarDock just for the sake of *flaming* (gee, i'm caught in your trap). Should i repeat myself twice as much? No, cuz you have yet to demonstrate (to me, in particular) you deserve it.
I'll presume you have some excuses to make (AND, not necessarily to me only) otherwise i will ignore you since i've much better things to do in life than listening to a TROLL.
Easier said or *read* (by those who absolutely must) than done.
Whoever invented the freeware method wasn't accounting for the lowest sales figures and anyone dumping a demo (trials, stripped of features, name it) of their products (for teasing purposes, btw) gives me a decision to take that i will never ever make.
Meaning; they stick a thung out while laughing it all out by stating -- Here's exactly what you DON't get, you poor nerd.
I pay for what i own, thank you for your kind attention. If i want a used car, i know where to purchase it... but booby trap it with a faulty tranmission, you steal my security on roads and are endangering my life.
MSOffice trial is still on my Vista PC, i get a few popups every time i click on doc files. Sure, i can associate the darn files with something else.
DRM is no different... it protects my investment and doesn't remind me my trial run is over.
I think so too, totally, you're the man.
Some games really have long-term legs though- think games such as TF2, Civ, maybe GalCiv. For them a 5 yr no-DRM patch isn't as practical as it is for FPS games.
Then again, the great games like that tend to get pirated less. Also, you have GOG for those games anyways. (another DDL service that specializes in older games under $10, not really in the same Market as Impulse. Good service for that but needs more older games)
I like this. My big concern with Goo, and internet-activation schemes in general, is what happens to the people who are still playing the game long after the developer has moved on to other stuff. Surely I'm not the only one who occasionally oldschools it with HW or SC2000, so what can I expect if I want to reinstall and play a 10-15 year old online-DRM game? Unfortunately, since a lot of cracks already exploit system time it might be difficult to make it an effective protection scheme.
Also I'd like to give a shoutout to Frogboy and the Stardock crew for fostering discussion on the issue. IMO pyalot is being more than a little unreasonable, but the SD crew have clearly taken the time to explain their position in a civil and respectful manner and I very much appreciate that. Most other publishers seem to have the attitude that they're a living god and any who question the arcane magicks that fuel their munificent products will be ruthlessly persecuted. I'm pretty new to the Stardock community, but so far I like what I see.
Thing is, those games still don't pick up all that many new players after the first few years, it's just happy owners continuing to enjoy their product. DRM, and copyright law in general, should protect the creator's investment but they shouldn't be used as a sledgehammer to bash bystanders and loyal customers because some MBAs are on a power trip. If the game is past its lifetime, off the shelves and support dropped by the developer does protection really accomplish anything?
One of the objectives of Goo is to make it so that ANY digital distributor that supports the game can activate the game rather than just one source.
I.e. if I buy Game X from place Digital Distributor Y and they go out of business I can still get support from Steam, Impulse, GamersGate, Direct2Drive, etc.
The people who are yelling about Goo and saying "But what happens if X has gone out of business" haven't read up on Goo. Same as the people who are yelling about "but DRM keeps from reselling my game".
DRM is not the same as copy protection. It's just that it's been so poorly implemented over the years that it's become synonymous with copy protection.
This is surest way to drive independant developers, like Ironclad, out of business. Are you sure this is what you want?
Some questions:
GOO requires me to validate my purchase online, right?
So I will need to have an account at one platform, be it Steam, Impulse, Direct2Drive, X, Y, Z?
And how can I prove that I own the game once Impulse/Stardock goes down without having registered the game on my Steam-Account?
If I do not have a physical copy of the game, got a new system and want to download and re-install GalCiv 7, how can I tell Steam or Direct2Drive that I once bought the game on Impulse and now want to download and play it again?
I am only used to have accounts for MMORPG games or optional online accounts for things like Diablo 2 and so on. I am quite unsatisfied to have some account for verification, but well, seems it is not possible without. Developers want people to buy their games, after all, and I can understand that.
But could it not happen that someone gets access to my account, be it through hacking, my own mistake or something else and then just transfers rights of ALL my games to some random dudes???
I read up about GOO, but it takes some more to convince me that not simply downloading a no-cd crack for Securom stuff and similar protections would not be easier, sorry for being so blunt.
Blizzard Entertainment, in June 2008 released a "zip" patch (1.12a) for Diablo 2/LOD which removed the safedisc DRM/Copy Protection check. That's seven years after LOD's release. Given Diablo 2 Battlechest retail sets were still selling at Xmas 2008 (long-term legs), it would seem the lack of DRM didn't stop sales or cause some new firestorm of net piracy. If Blizzard can take the moral high ground on old software titles, other publishers can too. That is, if talk about taking care of the end user isn't more than just a smoke and mirrors show.
I find this slightly misleading, though perhaps I am misinformed about how this works. From everything I have read on GOO, it's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is still a central activation database that is maintained by a single company. In the past, this activation database was maintained by the distributor. With GOO, that database is now maintained by the developer or the publisher. This means that the problem of "company X goes out of business, I can't install my game" is still a major issue. The only difference is the change from "distributor X" to "company X", which is arguably worse since as a consumer I can pick the most stable distributor but I can't pick a different developer/publisher for a particular game.
No. While Impulse Reactor does "activation" the net result is that a used license code gets provided to the publisher. The publisher then provides those codes to all their partners so that if company X goes out of business, the user can go to company Y and redownload their game with the same serial #.
What happens if the publisher goes out of business though? Are the distributors all expected to cache all licenses for all legacy games (that are no longer published)?
Example, Stardock publishes Demigod, which is developed by GPG. You can purchase Demigod via Impulse, Steam or D2D. You make your purchase from Steam. Steam sends the license to Stardock (publisher) who then distributes that license to Impulse and D2D.
Stardock goes out of business.
What happens if I want to activate the game I bought (back when they were in business)? Is it expected that Steam and D2D will keep around (indefinately) a copy of the last license list they got from Stardock before they folded?
What happens if I want to sell my game, there is no longer a central authoritative database for Stardock published games so am I just SOL on this point?
In your example, where you buy Demigod from Steam, I think the GOO wrapper would ask for account info (email and serial) and deliver that direct to the publisher via Impulse Reactor. The publisher then delivers this info to all other digital distributors that carry Demigod, and that game is added to any account you may have there (perhaps based on the email address that you have given to those accounts). I don't know what would happen if you didn't have an account... I have a Steam account and an Impulse account, but I don't have a Direct 2 Drive account, so I don't know how it would be applied in that case, if at all...
This is just what i've gather from different places, I don't really know any of this for sure but it makes the most sense to me...
If I'm wrong on something someone official can set the record straight.
Wow.
A system no worse than activation systems that have been around since the days of DOS - and people still complain.
Frankly, I'm surprised GOO is so lenient.
pyalot:
Oh he answered them. You just didn't like the answers. I'm not even sure you read all of his answers.
Stardock is, frankly, one of the most trustworthy businesses I know of. And frankly, GOO reinforces my trust because it is actually very consumer friendly, which is practically unheard of in other forms of DRM.
THE solution.
Corporations take over each other, don't they?
Well, they should always be held responsible for what they control.
Fiat buys out the whole GM (instead of investing partly in it to maybe prevent bankruptcy, so it seems lately) in the US, OnStar system & all... Fiat *MUST* from now on honor every darn last contracts, guarantees, loans & customers assets both in America & abroad. That's the reasoning. That's the principle.
Same with softwares. Intellectual & International properties included.
Actually that's not what I am thinking, that's what Brad Wardell thinks.
I'm thinking that the balance of copyright is tipped far to heavy on the holder part. However copyright is the law, and laws are here to be respected or reformed. Inventing new custom brands of the law in the form of Digital Restriction Systems at your discretion isn't exactly my idea of ethical conduct if you respect the consumer end of copyright.
Since you are thinking that copyright isn't an honor system, what is your remaining problem with GOO?
Modern copyright is a regulative industry law originally designed to encourage producers of content to do something valuable for society while enabling them to reap better profits then they ordinarily would have. The authors of copyright and its subsequent editors do acknowledge that the right to restrict copies indefinitly and without exception is detrimential to society, which is why copyright is limited in duration, includes provisions for works to enter the public domain and makes fair use possible that does not require compensation or permission.
Since the global content industry is driven by america and countless international law harmonizations have since happened, the version of copyright that is globally used today largly started with the first American copyright act in 1790. At the time this law:
Todays copyright as established by the 1976 and 1998 copyright acts has:
It can be seen that copyright over time has tipped more in favor of copyright holders then consumers of works.
The internet age and the age of cheaply available consumer computing hardware saw two new technical changes transform the landscape of works. Digital copying and distribution becomes inconcievably easy and a great boon for society. Copyright holders are quick to point out how this pervasive ability to digitally copy has greatly harmed them, however I dismiss this on the grounds that everybody benefited from the digital age (as can be seen by the content industries sales figures). At the same time the technical means to restrict rights enjoyed by the consumer under copyright become subject to arbitary technical limitations.
Copyright makes no provision to ensure that the rights it intends the public to enjoy are actually preserved in the actual practise of work distribution. However rights holders have lobbied laws (the DMCA) to make their own technical brand of arbitary copyright un-attackable by the consumer. Therefore rights holders have managed to massively extend their end of the bargin of copyright while not being held accountable for the rights consumers should enjoy under copyright.
At the core, this is my beef with DRM, which is why I am opposed and since Goo is a DRM it makes me oppose Goo.
Brad Wardell is exemplary with his statement of copyright as a honor system how right holders sees the rights of consumers. Right holders would like to enjoy all rights granted under copyright while acknowledging none of the rights given to the public under it.
I do not believe that this drakonian model of work ownership as enshrined in todays totalitarian copyright laws is beneficial for society. I believe the net cost this extorts from society greatly exceeds the benefits it creates. Lobbyists will quickly point out with market numbers how the industry does at any one time, however you cannot put a price on the lost opportunities and innovations that have not happend while we gradually slide down a path towards a culture that discourages creativity and innovation.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
