Why Not Digitial Distribution?

[lch]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Except in implementation. If you provide a code which allows a person to download to any machine, then you are back to allowing "casual copying" between buddies which has always been the main reason for DRM. Not pirates. As people say, you cant stop pirates.

Same with the docs as pdf thing. Just because pirate sites have it doesnt mean its worthless to protect it. As long as pirate sites openly declare themselves to be pirate sites then they arent much of a concern. But making it possible to get it from non-pirate sites would be disastrous to any effort to control it.

I don't understand what you're saying, or what your point is. The game as it is now does not depend on the CD as a physical medium to be present in the disc drive itself when installing. For machines that don't have an optical drive, I just copy the files on it over the network. The authentication of the game copy happens by the user when he starts the game the first time after installation, by typing in his serial code. Exactly the same could be done with a copy that has been downloaded over the internet.

As long as the game manual hasn't been made available for free download, other sites won't be able to offer it for free, too, and will refrain from doing so. Making it available then will be no less illegal than it is now.

What I've been saying is: There is no technical detail to the game that forbids digital downloads.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Except in implementation. If you provide a code which allows a person to download to any machine, then you are back to allowing "casual copying" between buddies which has always been the main reason for DRM. Not pirates. As people say, you cant stop pirates.

Stardock's system is actually exactly backwards from this. Since you must be logged in to your Stardock account to download/apply your patches, a pirate has a very difficult time enjoying their stolen product on even an SP level. Meanwhile, they have made statements that if someone downloads a game they purchased, on multiple machines in the same household, that it doesn't concern them so much if multiple people play off of that same purchase, though they "prefer" if only one person plays at a time.

Granted, unless you have an "always-on" internet connection like cable, there is some degree of inconvenience to this. However if you have constant internet access, then the DRM itself becomes hidden beneath the same patching process that you would endure for any game - but totally without requiring physical medium, or even a CD key.

I think that if it were feasible for Shrapnel to use that model, it could work fantastically for them. However, any company that doesn't make the leap to a system like that, is going to be in some way hampered by their need for some sort of DRM. One thing that I learned early on, with the Commodore 64, was that no DRM at all meant free copies for all. I was just a kid, but I learned very quickly that most games kind of sucked, and that I could never afford to wade out there and figure out which ones I liked, by simply buying every new $40 title out there.

Personally, I think that cost of media should relate to usage. So maybe it only cost you $5 to download something, then there would be an ongoing "subscription" fee, probably with a hardcap (if not a softcap that drops to a few pennies at the late end) at the eventual full price of the media. So if you grab a new game, and you find out that it is either incredibly shallow, incredibly short, or unappealing to you, you are not out a large sum of money, and as long as you use their web dialogue to uninstall, you won't pay full price for the title, and you can pick something else with relatively little risk. This would enable two factors to change the quality of games we see on the market - first it legitimizes the concept of "software returns", where your $5 initial download fee is like your restocking fee, but you aren't forced to eat a $60 loss for the worst game ever, and second it shifts the focus away from flashy, but stupidly short games, as if 90% of your players are just done with the game in a week, you will stop earning revenue very fast whereas a game with long term playability like Dominions would generate an ongoing revenue stream for years.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually I lock the doors to keep out the multitude that would walk easily in without locks. Some of which would do so without realizing that they werent supposed to. Thats how I look at copy protections also.

Ive also known quite a few kids who would not cross the line and go to a pirate site for something that foiled them at casually copying it.

And I wouldnt say "no chance of detection". Im a netcop and forensic consultant. Ive had my fair share of involvement in busting hackers, crackers, s-kiddies, wardialers, wardrivers, unlockers, and pirates. And the sites that go with them.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

And I wouldnt say "no chance of detection". Im a netcop and forensic consultant. Ive had my fair share of involvement in busting hackers, crackers, s-kiddies, wardialers, wardrivers, unlockers, and pirates. And the sites that go with them.

Yeah, but that is distribution. That doesn't stop a cracker from destroying the cp. Those tactics also stop hackers/etc from distributing programs without cp.

I disagree with you about the casual copying stuff, and the locking stuff remembers people that they break the law argument. As my experience totally differs, people that I know in the middle of nowhere hardly lock their doors. But I have no other experience than personal experience. And in the grand scheme of things, that doesn't count. So I'll let that part stand, and stop discussing it.

(Perhaps I don't have problems with downloading cracks, as I have a lot of games for which I had to download a crack to play the game I legally bought. I also have had games which shipped without a manual. Somehow, most support people don't believe you when you say the game hasn't shipped with a manual, and it takes ages to even get a reply. (Not to mention that the turnover rate of game companies is rather high). So for me the line of illegality of going to a crack site doesn't exist).

And downloading a game from the internet is not illegal in some countries. Offering it for download is. The problem with downloading is a moral one, not a legal one. (Yet). It is of course still a issue. But a totally different one.

Originally Posted by lch

As long as the game manual hasn't been made available for free download, other sites won't be able to offer it for free, too, and will refrain from doing so. Making it available then will be no less illegal than it is now.

Good point, it remains illegal. But as soon as a pdf file is offered as documentation by illwinter it will be in a moral grey area. It is clear that is illegal and immoral to give away the code to the game. But it will feel less immoral to only give away the documentation. "It is not the game right?". "I'm only sharing the documentation, which is useless without the game. So it isn't a problem, right?". Right now the position of illwinter/shrapnel is very clear. Sharing the manual is illegal, and they don't want it. A pdf manual would be useless in comparison with a irl manual. So that is why the manual is not provided in pdf. Seems pretty clear right? When they now start to offer the manual as a pdf, it will be a less clear statement.

Personally I doubt that a pdf manual would be useful. It is way easier to search in a normal book. I love my manual, I doubt the pdf one will feel just as great. And if you really want to have a pdf manual with your hardcopy one. You could always download one of a pirate site. In most places it isn't illegal to download stuff you already own.

[thejeff]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Personally I doubt that a pdf manual would be useful. It is way easier to search in a normal book. I love my manual, I doubt the pdf one will feel just as great.

I like the hardcopy manual too, but it's much easier to search in a pdf. I've paged through the manual many times looking for things that a quick Find command would have found in seconds.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by thejeff

I like the hardcopy manual too, but it's much easier to search in a pdf. I've paged through the manual many times looking for things that a quick Find command would have found in seconds.

I found the multiple indexes in the manual rather easy to use actually.

[Toran]

Guys, all that "The manual mustn't be available as PDF so it can't be pirated" is rather moot, since, well, in certain shady sources it is already available. So...?

I have heard of a friend of a brother of a cousin that was using the pirated version of the game and reading the manual while waiting for his game to deliver.. he decided the game's worth the buy after testing anyway (we have to admit - without the manual, you don't have a clue what's happening in the game, not even with the tutorial).

[llamabeast]

"friend of a brother of a cousin" is presumably a friend of a cousin?

[Gandalf Parker]

As always, facts are facts. But agreement often depends on the choice of words used to define the facts.

Backpedaling could also be called "learning" or "flexibility". Brad's "Gamer's Bill of Rights" initially had points in it which were wonderful but just didnt hold up in the real world. We all wish they had, but I cant hold it against him for figuring out that it needed some changes.

As to the other persons comment on Brad's reliance on MicroSoft that might be true but Id find it surprising. Brad's entry into the MS arena is actually fairly new for him. I knew him well before that and he was already well known in the areas of AI, gaming AI, and alternative marketing. For as long as he was a very vocal anti-MS person, until MS finally became capable of what he wanted (with WinXP irrc), Id be surprised that he has become such a staunch convert that he isnt keeping his eye on other directions to jump to. IMHO

[AstralWanderer]

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Backpedaling could also be called "learning" or "flexibility".

True. People should review the details and decide for themselves. The "no harmful software" removal seems hard to justify though.

Originally Posted by Gandalf Parker

Brad's entry into the MS arena is actually fairly new for him...until MS finally became capable of what he wanted (with WinXP irrc)

New? The first release of Windowblinds was over 10 years ago. What sort of timescales are we looking at here?