[quote]Now you're just making assumptions.[/quote] You tell me, am I? Then what's the reason for IE only?
pyalot
[quote]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.[/quote] 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.
[quote]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.[/quote] 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 shuffl
[quote]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.[/quote] 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. [quote]That is why GOO encapsulates the exe. Th
[quote]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. As I've said, we're not your old work.[/quote] 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 as a company decide not to trust your pa
[quote]And your arrogance and god complex are even more astounding. [/quote] 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.
[quote]pyalot . . you've been amember here for what, a few weeks? Stardock has a long history of treatign customers how they themselves want to be treated as gamers. The goal is to keep everyone (developers, publishers, consumers) happy with as little disruption as possible.[/quote] 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
[quote]Just because the step isn't as big as you'd like doesn't mean it's not in the right direction.[/quote] I can see how you'd like that argument to work, I really can. But I'm not buying it. Let me explain it to you how it is. You're providing a DRM system, therefore you're a DRM system enabler. More people will choose to protect their games with your system because of you, not less. The level of hypocrisy and cynism displayed by claiming you're helping to pave the
[quote]Stardock knows that but t others publishers don't get it. So they must be educated/convinced that hard DRM aren't needed first, before they go to no DRM on retail disc. The aim of GOO is to offer to publishers an alternative to SECUROM or STEAM DRM that is more acceptable by customer and doesn't tie the publishers to a specific digital distributor[/quote] I see. So it's a bit like being a pacifist but you make a living selling guns. You know people aren't going to stop shooting
[quote]Goo is for publishers that want/must have protection on shipped games while avoid being too harsh for the paying customer[/quote] Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts.
[quote]I see no alternatives, but this does not mean that I am happy about it.[/quote] I see an alternative, which is not to do evil things, not to brandmark your customer as criminal and not to do DRM. Even if that view is extremely idealistic, it's what I (and others) want. Now I'm getting mightily tired of this whole "we need copy protection/DRM rethoric", so I'm going to counter it with the words of one of your own, <a href="http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/303512/Pirac
[quote]Obviously no DRM is best for the user, but that's too big a step for most publishers. You have to be able to settle for gradual 'better' before you can reach 'best'.[/quote] I don't know what you're arguing with me. We both have the same opinion (that no DRM is best). The only difference between you and me is that I have principles (born out of my personal history seeing DRM systems from the inside) which I'm not going to compromise on, and you have no such principles.
A DRM system without teeth would be worthless to publishers. If there woudn't be a way to take your rights to run the game away then the whole exercise with the obfuscated/encrypted container would be pointless. You can be very sure that Goo is phoning home regularly, and even though that may not be required to run your game, you can be very sure that Goo can be used to kill your game any time they please.
[quote who="Peace Phoenix" reply="22" id="2115881"] More like the first time you want to use your car but Frogboy hasn't really stated when GOO phone home. Sure it happens the first time, when entering the e-mail and serial id, but I don't see any mention about latter runs. But since Frogboy is adept of one time activation and due to item in the Gamer's Bill of Right about playing single player game without being required to be online, I doubt that GOO phone home every time it
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="20" id="2115872"] You're still completely missing the point of the whole thing, and your logic is mostly self-defeating. [/quote] I'm afraid it is you who misses the point of the whole thing. And logic that argues that artificial consumer restrictions are a hindrance to the consumer is, I'm afraid, not self defating. [quote who="Annatar11" reply="20" id="2115872"] It cannot be a "step in the wrong direction" because it does not d
[quote who="Peace Phoenix" reply="17" id="2115855"] Well, if you aren't using the correct key, you won't generally be able to enter in the car. And generally a car is registred with its owner. Goo is just doing the same thing. [/quote] With a car, at least you have the key yourself. With Goo, the key is hidden from you and you trust the system to lend it to you whenever you want to enter and start your car. That's all fine and dandy, unless the system decide
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="15" id="2115838"]I was talking about real books. I do not read e-books. When you buy a game, you pay for the right of owning the box, the manual, the disk and the right to play the game in it(NOT to own the game per se, as if you had created it). I want to buy a game, install it without online activations, serials,... and that as long as I have the proper hardware (computer) and software (drivers and OS), I can play the game as long as I w
[quote who="Peace Phoenix" reply="11" id="2115821"] Well, when you buy a car, it comes with the keys to be able to start it. What is the difference with GOO?[/quote] The difference is that your car is not welded shut so no mechanic can pop up the hood, and they key isn't fingerprinted to you so you're the only one who can drive it.
[quote who="Annatar11" reply="10" id="2115814"] They are, just highly improbable. There's nothing stopping it, short of people with the power to make such decisions.[/quote] You do not seem to realize that this is a free market and nobody is really "in power" except the ones who wield market share. If Stardock chooses to position themselves in the way of the digital revolution, then that is entirely their own choice. When they start to loose profits because of their broken philos
[quote who="Wintersong" reply="4" id="2115745"]stop buying any games at all.[/quote] Well, I'm certainly not buying any Stardock or Impulse powered game, that's for sure. [quote who="Wintersong" reply="4" id="2115745"]As far as I know, books don't need a disk on the drive so you can read them, a serial before you can open it,... or anything like that (yet).[/quote] I'm very fond of books, but you're sadly mistaken. Most e-books come defective with DRM sy
Because it takes rights away from you, the customer, in some or another form. If it wouldn't, it'd not be riddled with obfuscation and encrpytion.
[quote who="Micah" reply="1" id="2115707"] So again, it sounds like it's an improvement on DRM [/quote] It is a DRM like any other, a Digital Restrictions Management, designed to take choice away from the user. This farce about "oh we don't do a DRM" is just silly. [quote who="Micah" reply="1" id="2115707"]As a consumer, I don't like it.[/quote] Exactly, and that is what matters. If you start in the business of pissing off your customers, you end like the RIA
So disregarding your individual opinion on DRM, this is a hot topic and a lot of us are not happy with it. That's what you (Stardock) get for doing DRM, and that's what you'll continue to get more and more.
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: it encrypts the content The key for decryption is hidden from the user Decryption happens on demand trough the DRM code Impulse has the following properties: it encrypts the conten