Another DRM rant

Summary:

I encountered a minor and temporary problem and rather than attempt to get it resolved, I've used it to desperately try to justify piracy.

Well, you've got to understand his issues, I mean, come on...A night without Sins? How does one manage?

That said, and Piracy issues aside, last i checked, the Pirates haven't been keeping up with the patches Sins gets, so I don't see how that would be any better. And since him and his friend would therefore be stuck with outdated versions of the game, they might as well just not patch it in the first place. ( Although I can't say I'd be opposed to seeing an option to play the game using old versions, if at all possible - or some sort of an "unpatching" process. )

first see and understand his problem then go rampage about him pirating

i wouldve pirated myself aswell in such occasions.... to be perfectly honest all the games that i buy digitally have an extra downlaoded pirate version  so should someone want to play i can just downgrade in a matter of minutes (becuase things like this apear to much for my liking)

ofocurse ive got the collectors edition retail box so thats not the case for Soase >.>

anyways, no sweat,  you bought it legally,  you cannot play,  you get a fix from a source wich does have immediate response, stardock wont be mad >.> they already have their cash

And less aggravation

I did.  Nowhere did I see how creating a post bragging about pirating the game because the official servers were down for a night was a legitimate solution.

Stardock isn't immune from Murphy's Law - servers will go down. It's very nice of Stardock to be able to get them up rather quickly when they do fail.

Consider the convenience of Impulse backup, updates, and purchases against the annoyance that, for one night, prevents you from playing a game with a friend where one and only one of you didn't update before meeting up. Is it really that big of a deal? If the servers were down long, down often, and the game couldn't be fired up without contacting the servers, you might have a strong argument.

Stranger still, a rare combination of events leading to a minor and short inconvenience causes you to declare that you're pirating the game and refuse to buy anything else online. If your car tire blows out, would you also bemoan the dependence on the car brand's tire technology to drive, steal a duplicate model from the dealership, and vow to never buy another car from said make? Then walk into the dealership office and declare all of this? It's about as helpful as yelling at a flat football.

Howabout we reword this complaint:

"I had a problem last night where I couldn't play a game with a friend because we had different versions and the Impulse servers were down. We don't get to play often, so that sucked monkies.

Before Impulse, I'd just keep copies of the patch files around just for this reason. How about a way to patch a friend's game up to my version without needing the server? To keep this secure, perhaps you could allow my client to keep copies of one or two friends' serial keys or activation codes local - keeping them behind some sort of strong private key encryption, of course - and do some sort of peer-to-peer checking to let me patch him. Maybe we'd have to both be connected to the server at the same time to trade keys/codes? Maybe have the codes/keys expire after a month? Six?

This might be expensive to implement, but this irritated me. Thoughts? Better solutions?"

None of which changes the problem that I get a more usable copy when I simply pirate the game. Quite frankly, I don't play the game anywhere near enough for regular patches to be an attraction. The largest single factor in my decision to purchase the game was to show my support for Stardock's vocally articulated 'opposition' to intrusive DRM. Forgive me if I feel a little let down when it turns out that in hindsight they're not much better than anyone else.

It doesn't overly aggrivate me that Stardock's server apparently has no effective redundancy or secondary backup. What aggrivates me is that I can't reinstall the same game on the same computer I downloaded it to with the same client I last saved it with without Stardock also forcing me to connect to their database to triple check that I'm the guy who put it there in the first place. I mean seriously, who else do they think is using my computer? How hard does this need to be?

On a related note, I have no ethical qualms about piracy. I've paid for far more than my fair share of crap games in the past that weren't worth the blank CD/disk they were printed on, none of which I could return because the law tilts so far in favour of software developers that I don't own the software I'm paying for and have no right to get it repaired no matter how buggy it is - seriously, I have more rights as a consumer if it turns out that my new t-shirt has a pulled thread. Anyhow, Stardock remains marginally better on some of this than other companies, but the gap has apparently become a little narrower recently.

Anyhow, Stardock can either take note or not as they see fit. On one level I almost hope that they don't as it'll at least save me a few quid next time.

I don't see the point of your whining.   Impulse is way less intrusive than most ditigital distribution systems.   You don't even have to *have it installed* to run the game.   After installing Sins you can remove Impulse and the friggin game will still chug along just fine.

Seriously, you've got no case here.  You're just getting pissy because you couldn't play for a few hours.

If I were Stardock I wouldn't want your business anyway.

His whole point is that he shouldn't be reliant on the mothership to be able to use (or in this case, get it to work)something that he's bought and paid for.  A point that I happen to agree with and the major reason why I'm not all that hot on Impulse myself.  It's not about piracy or the moral issues regarding that.

This particular situation would be largely mitigated if Ironclad simply made standalone patch downloads also available by other means.  It would still make sense for most users to patch via Impulse simply because it would be much quicker.  They'd still save a ton of bandwidth for most of the patching needs.  For those other cases, the old fashioned download would be available and save everyone a ton of headaches.  Thus far, they seem unwilling to do so though.

-dolynick

Making patches takes work, money.    The money that the game costs to buy pays back developing costs of the game, it doesn't cover indefinite patching too.  I don't really see anything wrong with being dependent on the mothership for patches, because of this reason.  

You understand that the money that pays the salaries of the Stardock  Devs, that comes from people *buying the game*, right?   So, with that understanding, I think it's perfectly fine for them to make sure that the people getting the results of thier continued labors are those that actually have paid for the game.

Your complaints are like complaining that you're dependent on an ISP to have internet connection.

You, sir, get a cookie.

Yes, developing a patch does cost money.  I'm not disputing that.  It costs them virtually nothing to take that patch content and simply zip it up in a standalone patch afterwards though.  Yes, it takes more bandwidth to serve the standalone patch but Impulse would remain the primary patch tool and mainly only those looking to roll back (a very small minority I'd bet) would need to download the standalone patches.  Be it through Impulse or a standalone download version, we're still dependant upon them to patch so your comment regarding the mothership via Impulse is not entirely valid.

Secondly, patching is largely a good faith procedure by game devs.  There isn't any law that says they have to provide patches, aside from the rare case where the game is actually broken and it's needed to deliver a working product as promised.  They don't make patches to make money, they make them for love of their product and to build good faith with their customers.

Thirdly, when I buy a game, I'm buying a product outright (with the expectation of at least minimal support for a working product).  I am not buying or renting a service like I would from an ISP.  Until they change the term from "game purchase" to "game rental" when they put out retail boxes or even their Impulse service then your ISP comparison is not valid and is apples to oranges.

At any rate, we've been down this road before regarding Impulse discussion in other threads.  Their is an obvious divide on views here and rehashing it again isn't going to serve any purpose.  Having said my piece, I'm just going to leave it at that.

-dolynick

You, sir, get a cookie.

Really? Seriously?

So you just want everything for free, basically is what it boils down to.  You don't want to have to pay for anything, and you want somebody else to do the work, and not earn anything from it. 

You *are* getting a finished product, not renting.    You buy Sins, install it, you've got a finished game.  It works. 

Sure, it's not perfect, there's room for improvement, but when I bought my original copy of Sins I played it for weeks, and loved it, without ever thinking about downloading Impulse and patching it that way.  

The patching is goodwill on the Devs, a way of saying "thank you" to the fans.  I think they have every right to control who those patches get to, and who doesn't get them. 

I agree that it would be handy if they included some tool in Impulse that allowed you to roll back to a previous version if you wanted to, and some "offline mode" would be nice too, but those are just feature requests, not something to rant about.

Giving a cookie is a form of agreement, not disagreement Apologies for the confusion

The Impulse thing worries me too.  I finally got around to picking Sins up the other day, and one of the reasons I went with it is so I don't have to worry about getting shut out by phone-home DRM (I learned my lesson from the Gears PC port, never pay full price for a glorified rental...).  I agree with dolynick, Ironclad should offer manual patch downloads to registered users who want an alternative to Impulse.

That's great and all. But how do you do that? How can you restrict a standalone patch to only registered users without phoning home to check if they're registered?

Logging in on-site to download doesn't work, because you could download and then put it up on any file sharing site.

Giving a cookie is a form of agreement, not disagreement Apologies for the confusion

 

My bad.   ^_^   But still, there's plenty of folks like that, even on this forum.

Right.  So don't use your ISP example as a way to back up your argument.  It's flawed for that reason and that's all I was pointing out.

I don't want everything free.  I bought and paid for my retail copy of Sins and I purchased Entrenchment through Impulse.  I've done my part to support Ironclad and Stardock.  I do appreciate the ongoing support through patches but I am less than thrilled (or impressed) by their apparent feeling that they need to make me, a paying customer, jump through their hoops to control things.  I am aware that Impulse performs more functions than just some form or DRM but that doesn't excuse that part of it either.

I wasn't defending the OPs piracy statements or that it was wise of him to state as much.  I do, however, agree with his sentiments regarding DRM and companies trying to control how and when I use a product that I've already purchased outright.

-dolynick

I agree with your assessment as well Dolynick.  Yes, patchs cost money.  But the devs have already made them.  Now I am sure you have all heard of a little game called Never Winter Nights 2?  Well you can patch that game with their patcher ORRRRRRRrrr  you can simply download the patches manually.....I have found many, many in the long list of patches available for manual download.  This is not the samekind of game to be sure, however, as I have stated before, if impulse is so good at what it does, i.e. checking my version/ archiveing old version/identifing that it is my installation without needing me to re-enter info upon instal,  then it should not be a long leap of logic that this is something they could reasonably look into for a better solution.

This post is certainly valid, if you do a short search of my post, you'll see same thing has happened to me.  Now, I am sure we all understand that it is not the end of the world when you can not use the program you have bought and paid for, particularly when you expect to and all.......ya know .....it worked when I left to go to work......and I paid for it an all.....however, I also understand these other concerns as well, 

                                                         "I think it's perfectly fine for them to make sure that the people getting the results of thier continued labors are those that actually have paid for the game."

Agreed, but it does not have to be an all or nothing mentality.  A solution can be found, I mean after all these guys are computer wiz's, and further, no one is suggesting that they shouldnt get the .... good results to their "paying" customers.  But, realize that this is a problem, and also notice that everytime this subject comes up there are two invariably identical takes on it.  First piracy.........pleeeeeezzzzzz... lets not beat that dead dog any further......if impulse allows me access to previous patches then I have no problem allowing them any verification they need to accomadate me.  Second, we already paid for the game, we have already played each of those patches and when restricted from using a program you have purchased regardless of the amount of time that you are restricted "is a problem".

I felt like the original poster was blowing off a little steam.......been there.  Planning a gameing session takes time too.  We all have carreers and some go to school, so YEAH, it is a pain in the arse to be informed you only sorta own the program,,,, kinda more like owning limited access sometimes though.  Shooting down a whole night of fun because of the inability to use a program that worked only a little earlier in the afternoon blows.  NO, I do not want them to take away money from development or expansions.   BUT this is part of the game..... it falls under that heading..... it is an aspect of the game that needs to be addressed.  As I have stated many times, and just as Dolynick stated in the above post....and many others have stated. 

One problem is when this happens to someone, they come here and post to blow off steam, then ensues the "bash Stardock///////defend stardocks choice of where to put their money"  forum post battle.  Well, I for one would like to be able to play the version I have that works.... frankly I dont care which version......but if I have a working copy of lets say  Mad Scientist....and so does my gaming buddy....then I would like to have been able to play the game when I got home and simply NOT patch to 1.02 untill I was ready.......WHICH means: that the modders will have had a couple days or how much ever time they need to get their mods working again with that patch....... It should not be unreasonable to expect to choose "when" to patch your game.  Then you could play that afternoon and when those that wish to wait to patch are ready to do so, they could.  At their discretion.

FYI, I love the patching system for a number of reasons..... but, I would just like to have the option to choose when to patch and the ability to play a previous patch, which, would allow me to play an old version of Mad Scientist(among other mods) that had techs in it that are no longer in the mod.  Oh well, guess I am blowing off steam now too.  But hey, this is only the second game that I have ever liked so much that I would sit down to type in the forums for.

Valkajin

you could have probably gave him the updated files if you were that desperate. Also you are not completely dependent on stardock to play your own game, you can quite happily play singleplayer or multiplayer with other people on the same version as you without them

Don't give me that "Oh, i have a career, and a life" thing.    I work full time, and maintain a relationship as well as regularly tabletop game.   Sometimes I want to play Sins, but things don't work out, I don't go throwing a Hissy fit just because I had to play something else for a few hours to pass the time.

I don't really have any sympathy for the anti-DRM wackoes and thier "blowing off steam".   Sure, I think there's as much justifable anger towards EA and SecureROM as the next guy, but Stardock has gone out of it's way to be accomodating to it's fanbase and to gamer's rights.   They don't deserve the same kind of ire, not even close.

the good news (if you can call it that)

http://islanddog.impulsedriven.net/article/344308/Stardock_throws_GOO_on_DRM

Goo...

based on past experience i expect to have to compleatly uninstall my games and redownload them and reinstall them after the Goooooo update.

I CANT WAIT  /scarcasm

With impulse, you can make the same... copy your actual folder in a other place, upgrade, compare the copy with the upgrade with tools like kdiff3, create a differential folder, zip it... and you have a perfect package for file sharing...

My main problem is not the rollback but the upgrade itself... for rollback, it build my own package like explain up...

Recently, i was using the 1.12 version... was wishing to upgrade to the 1.15 for test a mod... but impulse directly upgrade to the 1.16 ... so, i cannot use the mod until it is update ( if update )... and i cannot use my differential method since i have not have the 1.13, 1.14, 1.15 !!!

So, the "file sharing" excuse is a bad one... pirate can make package in a easy way... more, i will be obligate to use the service of pirate for have a 1.15 version of sins... having a legal version of sins and Entrenchment, i cannot have the wished update via legal way... Stardock and Impulse are promoting the pirate work in some way...

Dude - YOUR COPY WORKED JUST FINE.

Could you play?  Yes.

Could you play the latest version?  Yes.

Could you play online?  Yes.

Your problem is that downgrading your version didn't work as you expected, which could be termed a "bug".  The "bug" was fixed as soon as the servers were back online.

EVERY game has issues when people are playing different versions, which is what your root problem was (you and your friend were on dif. versions).  He couldn't upgrade because the servers were down, and you had your head up your ass and were not able to downgrade properly.  Can you think of any other games that let you downgrade to a previous version (aside from installing off the CD - which you can do if you have a retail/CD copy of Sins)?

I understand you're frustrated, but that's NO reason to pirate or STEAL a game.  It's illegal whether or not you already own a single license.