Looking for a critique

Hrmm.. purely from your perspective, it's a good move. But allowing publishers to control activations can backfire.

It appears that your goal was basically to make it as flexible as possible to appeal to.. basically anyone. But this has the side effect of allowing them to still do yucky things if the other publishers can set their own thresholds. The other publishers and bigger developers will not just automatically adopt Stardock's way of "no activation except patches/MP" model. If they use the Reactor, they'll probably want it configured similarly (at least initially) closer to other popular schemes today. It will of course be less intrusive than something like SecuROM and Steam, but if the other publisher can still say "Ha, you can only activate it twice!", when it comes down to it it'll be no better than SecuROM. The only difference is that Reactor doesn't install its own junk on the user's PC, but that's always only half of the complaint about SecuROM.

Personally, I would rather you take some of that flexibility away from individual publishers, because they do not think as you do and will abuse it. Or at least have a minimum number of activations that no publisher can dip below, and make it high enough (like, more than 3 :P) There are enough other good features of the Reactor that make it attractive. I'd rather you stick much better to your own guns on this issue, so to speak.

Good point.  Though, it does mention in there that the licensing agreement would have certain minimums in order to adhere to the Gamer's Bill of Rights.

I don't have a copy of the GBR here at work, but I do not recall if there is a provision there specifically talking about activation limits?

The limits themselves are rarely the issue, unless they become too visible. It's fine to have a limit, but it should be something that the vast majority of users never encounter in a lifetime of a game.

For example, let's say with your development/update schedule, you expect to fully support Sins for the next 2 years (so make it a 3-year run). The license allows for installation on 2 separate computers, so there's 2 activations. Then, if average gamers upgrade their PCs every 2-3 years, that's 2 more activations. Tack on things like re-formats, OS upgrades/reinstalls, hard-drive upgrades and you could reasonably add another 2-3 so I would say there's at least 6-7 activations that any average gamer can run through. (assuming simple game re-installs do not trigger an activation)

Granted the other publishers will all have their own licensing agreements, but I just hope you don't let them abuse the spirit of the Reactor, if you will. You designed it so that it's good for both parties, but currently it is still possible to manipulate it to be a hassle for the buyer

This thread could probably also use a more catchy title to attract more discussion.

Still, the ability for a small-timer to implement the wrapper without too much hoo-ha is great.  I would seriously consider re-purchasing the Evochron Renegade space sim if the author considers offering it up here.  Likewise Eschalon.

Yeah, that's a definite plus. I'm really not so much worried about the smaller developer houses, since those are generally a bit more in touch with their fans and customers. I'm mostly worried about the bigger publishing houses and their in-house dev studios. Obviously having the Reactor free is a financial advantage for them to use it, but if they have *too* much control over it they can shape it to be close to the same stuff we have now - only they won't care

   You've left the word 'installs' out of a sentence under the Implementation section. It currently reads: "The publisher simply the wrapper utility on their software’s executable and the activation protection features of Impulse Reactor are automatically implemented." 

   I'm curious how the Reactor will work if the user doesn't have an internet connection. Also, if there's a problem communicating with the Impulse Reactor servers what happens? For Example: The servers are down, something is blocking communication or the internet's series of tubes explode.

   "In the future, it will be a lot easier to port a library to console systems than a client application, making multiplatform support a possibility."

Big plans?

From and editor perspective:

• "Impulse is a new digital distribution platform that provides all of the features and tools necessary for a publisher to securely digitally distribute their PC software anywhere in the world with outstanding reliability and a very good consumer experience."  You might want to find more equal words here unless the reliablity is that much more important to your message.
• "When a user installs the program, they are presented with a registration screen in which they type in the serial number for that game or program as well as an email address."  You go from talking about the Reactor backend to the user front end.  Might want to clarify or transition.  A header called "Use Case:" might work.
• "For titles designed for ESD, Stardock. . . " You don't define ESD.
  
• "The publisher simply the wrapper utility on their software’s executable"  Missing a word.  Probably after "simply".

Otherwise, I dig it.  Everyone's a winner.

A thing that isn't mentionned on the Impulse reactor is the impact about linking serial Id with e-mail. This have generated some controversy in GC2 forums since people are used about selling games or buying second hand games. How are handled second hand games? What happen to people that are changing e-mails?

Those questions are about customer support and are a consequence about choosing the kind of DRM.

Not only on GC2 Sins had its fair share of second-hand sales and serial transfer debates

Uhmmm, does this mean that we'll see multiplayer matchmaking in Sins soon?

Does the Impulse Reactor provide anti-cheating measures?

My thoughts on the white paper...

1. I would like more specifics on the "N activations in M locations per [time period]". I note that, so far, this principle is being inconsistently followed in the Impulse store. The product page for Sacred 2 contains a "Protection" line that specifies the use of SecuRom and two (presumably simultaneous) activations with unlimited re-activations. Such a Protection line is completely absent from the product pages for The Witcher, Hinterland or Europa Universalis III.

If you are going to allow each product on Impulse to essentially mix-and-match their own DRM, then that "Protection" line needs to be visible on every single product page, even if it says nothing more than "Impulse-standard e-mail and serial number activation" (or words to that effect).

2. I'm reaching a little here but, as a consumer, I would like the ability to both see my current activation status for a given product (i.e., a screen that says something like "2 of 3 simultaneous activations in use; 7 activations of this license all-time) and have a clear process for "getting back" those activations if I have a hard drive failure or similar. In other words, you should only allow publishers to set their own (restrictive) activation limits if they commit to making those limits transparent and easily correctable for legitimate users.

3. Tying policies to the Gamers' Bill of Rights is problematic. The last edition of the GBoR was the "interim" one published in your 2008 Customer Report (unless I missed one, in which case please link me!).

The content was obviously still a work in progress and it contained a lot of vague verbiage such as "materially", "adequately" and "within reason". Those concepts need to be quantitatively defined. What is the definition of adequate performance? Who will determine it? How will you ensure you get accurate measurements? Will there be a specific set of conditions (such as the game resolution or which/how many non-game processes are running) that the gamer must check before complaining about inadequate performance?

You also need to get consensus on an enforcement scheme for when developers ir publishers are found to be in violation of the GBoR. Some will be as simple as refusing to carry games with too-restrictive activation schemes on Impulse at all. But what, in exact and concrete terms, will you do if a non-Stardock game carried on Impulse is found, after release, to have "defects that would materially affect the player experience"?

Until these sorts of issues are addressed, the Gamers' Bill of Rights, despite being a great idea, will remain a toothless PR ploy of absolutely no value in terms of guaranteeing gamers that they're buying products of particular quality. After all, it will be easy to get publishers to agree to rules that they know they're never going to be penalized for breaking.

- Ash

At the moment, neither Stardock nor the Gamers' Bill of Rights supports the transfer or resale of a digitally purchased product to someone else. The GBoR only allows gamers to transfer a "physical copy" of a game (i.e., a boxed retail version with phsyical media, not a digitally downloaded version). Even that support is constrained by the statement that, "the user has the right to sell their physical copy of their game but the publisher is not automatically burdened with creating some sort of user-friendly system [...] to aid in that transfer."

I think you meant, "from an editor perspective".

Sorry - I couldn't resist.

- Ash