While I'm sure I'll take flak for this and with all due respect Annatar and Frogboy, I would submit this:

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/09/01/gamers_bill_of_rights/

It's a bit blurry I'm afraid but it's still readable.  I am aware that the "Bill" has since been "revised" in ways that allow for Impulse to fit into it but nevertheless that was the original statement.

In particular there is the line that states that we have the right to expect not to be treated as potential criminals.  Now I'm sure some will disagree with me on this but my general feeling is that DRM exists to primarily to (attempt to) prevent users (paid or not) from potentially redistributing something.

I am also aware that Impulse's patching system is designed to cut down bandwidth needs (which is a good idea) and not simply to prevent us from getting older patches or patches in a form that could be redistributed to other people who may not have purchased the game.  Nevertheless, it most certainly does prevent us from using older patch versions and no provision for a zip/exe of an older version has been made available since Impulse was launched (to my knowledge at least).  My point though is why do that if you're not going to treat customers as "potential criminals" in the first place?

Yes, I love Sins and I am a fairly satisified customer overall.  Yes, I know that piracy can be a problem for PC game makers.  Yes, I am even aware that Stardock and/or Ironclad (and Frogboy) are most likely trying to handle these tricky issues as nicely as they can.  The success of that endeavor depends on who you ask however and I don't think that will ever change as long as Impulse and the current system is in place.  What I do feel though is that Stardock has said certain things in the past and then backtracked (however carefully) to do things that, as I read and interpret those statements, contradict the original.

No doubt this is a waste of time to point out but there was a challenged issued and I figured this spoke directly to it.

-dolynick

I'm sorry but no, this is interpretation and while it is one with some merit (meaning, I can understand the reasoning), that's not what I asked the poster for and it certainly doesn't say Stardock doesn't use DRM.

Personally, I think you're hanging on the actual words "we don't use DRM" versus the spirit of what they've said but you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.  In truth, I don't expect to change anyone's opinion but I do feel that there are some valid reasons not to hail Impulse as a "good thing".

-dolynick

I agree. DRM as we all know means digital rights management. And it's clear that from the moment I want to update beyond patch 1.05, my rights are being managed by Stardock via Impulse. Should they ever have to shut down permanently, then that's it. Gamer's Bill of Rights or no Bill of Rights. If you go bankrupt or get bought out, there's very little you can do. Anyone ever played Hellgate London? Look how fast they went down. Now there's nothing left. If you wanna play Hellgate London online and don't live in Korea, you're out of luck.

In the case of SINS, I'm not too worried about this, because version 1.05 is actually stable enough for me to play it, so if I feel like a game of SINS five years from now and if Stardock doesn't exist anymore then, it should be ok.
What bugs me however, is the hypocricy. I bought SINS because game magazines all over reported that it was DRM free. Even better, the company behind it was reported to be against DRM, they even had a Gamer's Bill of Rights. But now I realize that Impulse is just like STEAM, maybe a little nicer at the moment. The direction they took is going away from "Gamer's rights first" to "As much control as possible over our intellectual property". I don't agree with that direction, I think no DRM is the way to go, the way to build a loyal customer base. So in the future I will meet Stardock and Impulse with a certain mistrust instead of buying their games in good faith.

Cheers

BlackfoxT

I dont see how Steam and Impulse are the same? Everyone has put them side-by-side. They are not the same. They do alot of same things. But its almost like saying Mac and PC are the same. They might do alot of the same things even use some of the same internal parts. But in the end you have to different products. That have both Pros and Cons. What you prefer is your choice.

Im sorry if see it differently. But Impulse is a different beast. It not Steam and I hope it never is. IMHO.

It doesn't work that way. Words are what you go by. "Spirit" of anything isn't a tangible thing you can hang on to to argue, or prove right or wrong, and again is interpretation by the reader which may not be shared by the writer.

If the poster is going to accuse Stardock of lying (saying they don't use DRM when they do), then "well, I think this means that" is not by any stretch supporting evidence.

The words have all the power, not every person's interpretations of what they may mean when they're ambiguous enough.

Let's take an example or two:

- A store makes a promise to treat customers curteously (this would be analogous enough to "we won't treat you like a criminal"). You go in, buy something, and when the cashier swipes your credit card and you sign the receipt, s/he checks the receipt signature with the back of your card to make sure they match.

- A bank has a slogan/motto of "We treat customers right". You have to call them to authorize a transfer or something, and they ask for a bunch of your personal details to make sure that you're you.

Now we get to Impulse:

- Before you download a patch, it asks you to log in so they know you're you and you have it registered.

Now, how are these three things different? All of them are just prudent and basic security procedures. If you're going to argue that using Impulse to get patches is "treating customers like criminals", what's a teller in the bank going to be? You're not a criminal, so why can't you just walk into the vault and take out the amount of money you want?

That's the problem with trying to argue the "spirit" behind something ambiguous - it has no legs to stand on. At all.

Indeed, except he made it pretty clear that he couldn't be bothered actually checking. Regardless, he's since clarified any confusion in his follow up post.

This thread has benefitted me greatly, by illustrating what Stardock is about.  I can sum it up in a few words:  over-zealous contemptuous bouncers (Stardock) and their sycophants (customers).  It's quite startling for an outsider to watch, a remarkable display of cliques and brand loyalty. 

I wonder if this post will result in my email adress being permanently blocked in an attempt to ensure I can never activate a Stardock game even if I do mistakenly buy one in the future, as I have failed to demonstrated the correct attitude to the company.

It used to be much easier buying games - you just made your choice based on the game itself, bought it, installed it and played it.

It's even more amusing how people who obviously have no experience with Stardock have tried to turn themselves into virtual martyrs for some misguided cause that doesn't even exist.

No, rest assured, your e-mail addy won't be banned so you won't be able to be a righteous martyr in the face of evil, evil Stardock and their sycophants.

Sorry

I didn't even ask much from you, either. Since you were so adamant at the injustice of lying Stardock, I only asked you to show me a tiny bit of proof, which you failed to do and instead just went on flaming. If you're looking for a sycophant, it's time to admire your reflection in the mirror.

Interpretation of something written is hardly as dismissable as you seem to think.  What do you think judges do all day?  They interpret laws, what their meaning and intent is and then decide whether or not they apply to a given case and what repercussions they might have.  Look at contract disputes.  There is what is written and, more importantly what it IMPLIES that may make or break a case.

They are not the same thing.  A cashier is a point of sale, where money exchanges hands.  Verifying ID at that point with a credit card makes complete sense to make sure that the person using the card is in fact me and not someone trying to steal from ME.  Providing ID at bank is also about keeping someone from stealing from YOU, their customer.  Once again, not the same thing and in fact the opposite.

There is a clear distinction between your other examples and your patching example.  The first two are about protecting the customer while the latter is about protecting themselves, at the possible inconvenience of the (already paying I might add) customer.

Patching a game involves no sale or transfer of funds.  They've already got my money.  After the sale, why do they even care who I am?  Because they're worried that I may not have paid for the game, IE that I am a pirate, IE a "criminal".  Hence I am being treated like a potential criminal.

That's just basic inferred logic from the process and you can't refute it.  So long as patches are only available via Impulse and there is no alternative way to download an older patch, that is qutie simply what is happening.

I am not saying that they aren't entitled to take some measures to protect their business.  That's the intention of DRM, whether it works or not.  DRM does, however, treat EVERYONE as equally guilty by default.  Legal customer or not.  Right or wrong.  Acceptable compromise or not.  You simply cannot challenge someone to prove they are a legal customer without implying that they may be a potential criminal.  That's just basic logic and it's something they stated they would not do to their gamer customers.

I have no problem with people liking and supporting Stardock/Ironclad.  I do, however, see so many defense statements that imply that Stardock is infallible and can do no wrong.  I am in no way saying that they are a bad company but dealing with that everytime a simple, logical fact is stated is becoming quite tiresome.

-dolynick

The issue is really one of digital distribution.  Preventing the copy of physical media is increasingly obsolete, as an increasing proportion of sales are by download.  So any copy protection system has to cover downloaded copies, which implies covering physical copies by extension of that system rather than running two separate systems.  There's also the lack of physical extras with digital distribution.  I much prefer to have a physical maual, artwork, maps and suchlike.  It's like the difference between reading a book and reading the same text on a screen.  Digital distribution removes that difference between legal copies and pirated copies.

Which leads, perhaps inevitably, to some form of product activation and authentication, i.e. a server controlling who is and who is not allowed to play a game.  Which effectively means rental rather than purchase, plus a need to remain in a company's good books if you want to play any of the games they control, because they will retain control.  Sure, there was a fuss when EA were honest about that and they backed off...for the time being.  They were just a bit ahead of the curve.

Which means that customers have to hand total control over to publishers and trust them to be nice forever.  That doesn't work - publishers become used to having more power and being sure they deserve it, and that leads to them looking down on the peasants.

I don't see a good answer to the problems. 

I'm not sure how much difference, if any, DRM actually makes to sales.  It doesn't stop piracy.  I've read that pirated copies of Spore, a game notorious for the harsh DRM on it, were available even before the legal release of the game.  People advocating more DRM claim that piracy is endemic and that's why more DRM is needed.  The only thing that activation-based DRM does do effectively is end the second-hand market.  Whether that's a good or bad thing is another argument.

Would I sell my own hypothetical games without DRM?  I don't know. It's a gamble.

That's only part of the question, though.  A more likely scenario would be a person employed to run a company that publishes games developed by a team of people, probably a different company.  Would I do it in that situation?  No.  I'd DRM it.  Even if the lack of DRM made no difference at all to sales, someone would see the existence of pirated copies of the games (that would have existed with DRM anyway) and have me sacked, so what would be the point?

I suggest you read the thread, in particular the posts officially marked as Stardock.  The attitude is a lot worse than that of EA, which caused such a fuss.

I do not accept your assurance, as you aren't in a position to make it.

Why are you making up this "righteous martyr" and "evil, evil Stardock" rubbish?

But that's incorrect. If someone takes money from your bank account, guess what: the bank is responsible to put it back, not you. They don't steal from you, they steal from the bank.

You're also not a "paying customer" for Stardock, as there's no subscription. You presumably bought something once, which can be gotten from many places, and now you are trying to get support for your purchase.

Here's another example then: you walk into an electronics store to have something you bought there some time ago to have it serviced. They ask for your receipt/something to show you bought it from them.

You paid once at some point, but the store doesn't know unless they check.

I sure can. They pay for bandwidth to distribute the patches, so a pirate downloading from them is in essense stealing from them. He didn't buy the original game, and so their money for development, servers, etc is in essense being stolen.

Your "inferred logic" is also one big assumption, which will be proved false on April 7th. Of course it didn't occur to you that Impulse is easier for them to work with than packaged installers, and from a support perspective, dealing with 10 different patch versions is an absolute nightmare. But no, of course it's only to restrict your rights!

Nevermind that Impulse Anywhere will allow you to download patches and install them on offline PCs and all that good stuff. The holes in your logic keep getting bigger

I said my piece already, so I say only this for thought...

Argueing on the internet is like hitting yourself with a hammer... even if you win, you still look stupid.

Except Stardock has been using activation for updates for its software for 6 years.

Actually, it would be some sort of identity fraud and become a criminal matter.  I'm sure the bank has insurance that covers that sort of thing and they don't pay it out of their own pocket, if they replace the funds at all.

You didn't refute anything, you just changed the topic.  You asked where Stardock made statements to the effect that they didn't use or support DRM.

I'm not debating Impulse's advantage in rolling out a patch.  It makes perfect sense to distrubte a new patch in this manner to save bandwidth.  Once again, you seem to forget that I have been responding to your earlier statement, not necessarily trying to prove disprove that Impulse is DRM or it's status as unfair or not.

I'm assuming something is happening April 7th as you seem to think it makes a difference.  Whatever it is, it doesn't change the facts at present or in the past.

Once again, a change of topic.  And by the way, I have no problem with downloading a (old) patch from a mirror site.

Once again, any DRM scheme that challenges me to prove that I am a "legit" customer automatically implies that I may not be by default.  A = Impulse/DRM says "prove that you are legit and not a criminal".  B = Their "bill of rights" says that they don't treat gamers as potential criminals.  A == TRUE (we can all plainly see that) and A != B as they are contradictory statements, therefore B cannot be TRUE.

You chose to ignore the simple logical argument.

-dolynick

I don't mind having to activate or take some measure to prove that I paid for the game (register the CD Key, etc, etc) in order to get an update.  What I don't like is having to constantly run back to the mothership everytime I need to do so after the fact.  Updates (as they stand) through Impulse don't give me a choice though and that's really what the OP was complaining about too.

I do understand that it's a tricky balancing act for devs and publishers.  You and your dev team made a great game and deserve to be paid for you work.  I would never suggest otherwise.  Sadly, there doesn't seem to be a way to keep both camps in the DRM debate happy.  I wish I had the answer as I'd probably be a much richer man.

-dolynick

wow, well, ive been reading these posts, then i got sick and tired, here is how i see it:

we have the old glory of Stardock (and i mean that with the utmost respect) i.e. Frogboy, Zubaz, Annatar11, basically all of the members before 2,700,000,

Vs the newer members like TheGreenBear and AngoraFish... who honestly are sounding more and more immature, stupid and arrogantly, selfishly adamnant that they are the poor victims and that evil Stardock etc are treating them as criminals and "oh, poor stardock, they have lost a good customer...."

i try not to swear too much on forums, but this is a case that really deserves it: everyone here arguing about Impulse bing DRM and Stardock is evil etc etc are simply arrogant, ignorant, immature pricks. get the fuck over yourselves

of course, i cant be sure, but alot of you newer players sound like you probably havent gotten over 20 yet, and im being generous.

here are the facts as i understand them.

AngoraFish wanted to play some Sins with his friends, but the server was down, so he and/or his friends couldnt update... granted, you only play once a full moon, so what? whats one more day? when i wanted to play Crysis Warhead or RA3, but couldnt because i had no internet, i was upset yes, but did i go screaming to EA? no, i waited till i had the opportunity to get internet and then i activated it and played the game. just like you should have done.

I really cant comprehend why you are being such an asshole and, honestly, an immature little creep about this. Life wasnt designed to please you, things go wrong, or, quite simply, things are geared in such a way to purposely make life more difficult for you, for whatever reason, you jsut have to get on with it. Impulse is Stardocks preferred style of gamer support, you have no rights to tell them, as a business with income, bills, taxes and laws to follow, that you want them to do X instead of Y because it will make your life easier, regardless of what it does to them. Thats just arrognce and selfishness, and that is the point, my friend, where you lost this argument.

To be quite honest, if Stardock used an FTP with a webpage and exe files, and the server went down, you would get the same result! So wake up and pull your head out of your ass. Someone was saying they wanted to upload an older version of Sins... WHY? Someone said for mod compatibility testing, so contact Stardock, explain to them, and await for their decision, after all, it is their property, you are paying for the use of it.

But really, the only reason i can see for wanting an older version is because you dont like changes in newer versions, well, fine, but in that case, sit on version X and play alone with your friends, because you do not have the right to make the majority of other multiplayers downgrade just because of you.

All in all, i think you are all being stupid, (especially TheGreenBear, member since yesterday or two days ago, daring Stardock to ban his account so he can become a martyr, and AngoraFish, for being impatient, selfish, and immature)

Stardock is well within its rights here, like anyone, they have the right to ensure they are getting compensated for their work, and to an extent, it is protecting you, because if someone did steal something of stardocks under your name, and you have no way to prove it, your in trouble mate

so honestly, pull your heads out of your asses, stop being so immature, arrogant and selfish, and grow up

It is Impulse Phase 3 which include Impulse Anywhere. 

Well, I think you are missing an important point: the frequency of the challenge. If you need to activate only once, and not everytime your are playing the game, Do you really think that you are really considered as a potential criminal?

BTW, some people seems to forget an important right given by registering their game on Stardock servers: the ability to download the game without any time limit. But for that, your really need to prove that you are owning a valid copy od the game. It is the same for updates: only legit customers can have them. And how can you prove that you are a legit customer?

Again, this is logical fallacy. By definition, a customer is legit. There is no such thing as a non-legit customer (if you're non-legit, then you didn't buy it, therefore you can't be a customer).

It follows that without logging in, they don't know if you are a customer or just some random guy. When you log in, they know you are a customer and you get all the perks of being one (patches, downloading your games/apps catalog at any time, etc). If you don't log in, you're just a random guy who shouldn't have access to that stuff anyway, regardless of whether you pirated or just never played it. Much like online logins at any site.

It's not about "prove you're not a criminal, then we'll let you download a patch", it's "did you buy something from us? Okay, here you go!"

You're trying to hammer the "criminal" thing in it with a blunt axe, and your "A==TRUE" is plainly false and anyone who cares to think about it rationally can see that. The whole premise of your argument is that you're a "paying customer" and thus somehow being asked to log in assumes you're a criminal, but how do they know you're a customer if they don't ask you to log in? That's where your so called logic fails miserably.

I'm beginning to wonder if these same people curse at their home or car when they have to present a key in order to enter.

Damn conspiratorial doors treating me like a criminal!

Both parties have licensed, paid for copies.  Neither is breaking any aspect of (C) law by downloading the software from a 3rd party.

Your summary should be: 

Lack of resilience in digital download services.

Or

Why 24/7 and 5 9's is a must in the digital age.

It's not even that. Every time they are asked their name, or asked to show ID or anything they're being treated like a criminal. The whole world is against them, the poor (not meant literally) opressed honest person who just want to patch their game, completely forgetting that there are very many non-opressed dishonest persons who want to patch the game they stole thusly facilitating the "please log in to your account" which is already the norm in every other online business.

But I digress