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.