Then perhaps change the post title to 'Why Digital Distribution worse that DVD' 

I just read my 'Super Smach Bros.' EULA, and sure enough, any warrenty, service, or assistance that comes with the game is only intitled 'to the original purchaser', so this is definatly something that's universally in-place.

You will have to wait till 2015 or maybe as early as 2011... there is some changes in federal laws governing the EULA statements and how they are to be used with future softwares. Also and most esp. how piracy is being addressed with a new way of protecting such softwares.
We are working on a new Windows which will address this totally and in many parts more completely. Vista was a start up for a new age in licenses and how it is used to protect such things. Windows 7 or that is "Phoenix" will be almost the same - but with other enhancements to include license data for programs being registered or not. unregistered programs will not function after 4hrs of use... or even less. We are working on a way to stop piracy in it's tracks. With this in mind and allowing this to be added to any and every program being developed. Only those programs will be allowed to run on said OS and it should stop the illegal use of software pretty much.
Sure there is a lot more to it - but we are working on this and like any good thing give it time and it will be achived here in the future. With the latest release of Vista SP1 there is of course additions to Windows update looking more completely at everyones system and how it is designed with what drivers and software. This same system will be used to activate and use those softwares here in the future. Maybe...otherwise we have to come up with a different program or system to do such and that may be more costly. But the current system is a good one and just needs other things with it to complete what we are trying to do.
Give it time and EULA's will be able to be passed on and controlled much easier than present day.
You can thank your ole friends the hackers and/or those kids that dad allowed to use the free downloads for illegal softwares for all of this.

SGT :HOT: 

SGT: Who is the "we" you speak of?

Well, I don't have illegal software on my system, but I still don't like the idea of my OS snooping around to see what's there. That's seems ludicrously invasive. As annoying as it is, I can understand and accept Microsoft looking out for its own interests through the "validation" concept, but if my Windows install is now going to start checking to see whether everything on my machine is registered, then I'll stick with XP.

After all, look at the HUGE problems that MS had when rolling out the validation and "Genuine Advantage" programs for its OS software. Many individuals and businesses with legitimate individual- and site-licenses for the software found themselves declared "illegal" because the validation scheme didn't work properly. Who's to say the same thing wouldn't happen with, oh, I don't know, GalCivII? If my GalCivII stopped working because Microsoft deemed that I didn't have a proper registration, I'd be pretty aggravated. And since when is ANY of that Microsoft's business anyway? This concept just bugs me as a person who values his privacy highly, not because I condone software piracy.

KarmaGirl


True but before digital distribution "SCD/Impulse type" appeared nobody cared since registration in most cases gave you nothing - you could still get support with serial number etc.
Now it does makes a real difference .

Also I am sorry I did not kept a link on that EULA issue - it was not too interesting to me but the main ideas were that different states has different laws and there are conflicts and 2nd thing that in most cases you have an option to decline EULA only after you opened box so no store takes it back.

BoogieBac

Partly you are right but in same time you are wrong since it depends on the WAY you do your digital distribution. If you for example allow to user to "unregister" the product then someone else can register it then I see no problem there.

Anyway as I said multiple times in this topic - nothing wrong with your/Ipulse approach AS LONG AS CUSTOMERS AWARE of this limitation and it's not injected from the back door out of fear to loose sale or something like this.


Anyway, nobody addressed the problem I post in that link, what happens it StarDock like Microsoft suddenly decide to stop activations or God forbid got out of buisness ?
I do trust StarDock actually but that's not a question of StarDock but of principals, you here guys creating something new that lay foundation for years to come.
And while I trust Stardock I do not trust averyone who might follow that path.

SDC and Impulse both have an archive and restore function.  The user can always back up their content and reinstall if Brad decides to take his bees and boat to his private island on sunny Lake Huron and make honey. 

Lord KiRon you are stating that you feel there are problems in the way Stardock handles protection of their software from illegal distribution. If that is the bottom line then you have a choice to make as you will with any other software program that handles it in the same way. Don't use them. You are not going to get companies to change thier policies soley because you either don't like them or think that they are unfair.

Seems very simple to me.  :NOTSURE: 

To your question of "What happens if Stardock goes out of business?"  I believe we've stated in the past that if that were to happen, we'd simply unlock the content so reinstalls wouldn't require activation etc.  You could then archive your installs to a CD and that would be that.

As for allowing a user to unregister a serial and then allow someone to re-register it, that wouldn't be workable.  That second user would then download the game from us, or subsequent patchets etc, incur a not insignificant cost in bandwidth for the download, load on our login servers, and in all likelihood at some point request support if something goes wonky.  All that expense and time on our end for $0 from this new user.

When you buy a DVD at a store, there is no ongoing cost associated with the purchase.  I buy a copy of Dawn of War for example, and if I give the CDs to a friend and they install/play the game at no point am I burdening any system other than my own.

To make a transferrable purchase system work, there would have to be a cost associated if it was done at all, something to cover the money it costs to simply provide the game to a second (or third) customer.  What's the right price for something like that?  I don't know.  It wouldn't be trivial since it would be covering the lifetime of the account/service, and people would probably bristle at the idea of paying to "give" their game to someone else.

Well said. The people who make stuff have the right to decide how that stuff will be used. Those who don't like how those people are protecting their stuff can either make their own stuff or find people who make stuff whose protections they agree with.

In the case of the game market, we've already all gotten to see how the industry "protects" its stuff and the result has been the decline (relative to consoles) of the PC market, intrusive DRM and copy protection.

I think Impulse's solution is the best win-win out there.  People who download the game are obviously connected to the net by definition and so it's no big deal since the protection is integrated with the download and invisible to users.

Stardock has been doing this stuff since 1999 and it works great for both customers and the company.

Philly0381, Frogboy :


You absolutely wrong.
Either I do not express myself clear enough or you did not read it well enough

My "problem" is that there is "hidden" approach shift within Impulse that most of the customers used to buy hard copies are not aware of. From their perspective it's just another way to get the software - download instead of disk, which is not.
I am not saying the Impulse way is a bad way or wrong way, what I am saying that this shift need to be visible and described to users not come as unexpected side effect.

Other then that ... I love SDC and probably will like Impulse as well.

Zoomba
Such system does exists and it works and works well, check the Daemon Tools Pro ( http://www.disc-soft.com/products/dtproAdv ) distribution. Anyway I am not saying Impulse should adobt this approach it's just one of the options.

Surely people can differentiate between a 'hard copy' and a download.  I know I can.  The former is a shiny disk thing in a box....the latter is a phoneline preoccupied with obtaining data for minutes/hours from that Internet thingie....;)

Nothing's 'hidden'.  No-one's expecting a cardboard box and a plastic drink coaster to magically ooze out of their telephone/modem....

....are they?....;)

Lord KiRon either you like how Stardock distrubtes it software or you don't.

You spent a lot of time explaining your feelings and opinions. Prove it with facts. Find a survey somewhere that supports you position. Lets face it, I couldn't find one that disputs your opinion. It's not anything that warrents a survey.

In this day of high tech, as it is, I really see those people who download online understand fully the restrictions. If they don't like not receiving a hard copy they go to a store and buy the software. But guess what, you still have restrictions of use and distribution. If caught they can and do face legal action. Yes, we are not talking about the disk you give to you brother. We are talking about the folks that do it on a large scale.

As pointed out there is nothing hidden by choice or by chance.

So, was your intent to see if anyone else had the same opinion or to cause Stardock to change their policy? In other words what was your bottom line here?

Jafo


That's exactly what I am talking about , most people view it exactly like you described , however my entire point is that's not all the differences.


Philly0381
I can't make a head or tails out of your post , why IO should prove anything ?
Anyway my intent is to discuss the issue nothing more - so more people will aware , will or will not StarDock change their policy it's totally up to them I hoped they will see the issue here and will address it in one way or another or simply take it in consideration but I can't advice here StarDock is commercial company and should make it's own decissions, whats right to them both short and long term.

I think it's been made very clear that selling software you purchase in almost any form forbids you from reselling them.  Just because retailers allow it does not make it right.

There really is no difference in downloading an app or driving to the local Gamestop (or wherever).

If your argument is that the licensing of apps should change that's one thing . . if your argument is that Stardock should be more clear about not being able to transfer licenses that is another (and resolved with this entry in the knowledge base)

It is , as for "knowledge base" - how many people look there ?

It's in the users best interest to do their own research before purchasing; it's their responsibility.

Again though . . not transferring licenses *IS* the standard in the industry.

"WE" can be found here Zubaz ... WWW Link



Anytime you use their software it is completly their business.

I did not come here to fuss over who is doing what and why either. But only to say there is a solution to these problems being worked on at this time for the future.


SGT  

Since they are boilerplate there are sections of the EULA that would be easily enforceable and those that are wishful thinking kinda like how the back of pay for parking ticket stubs have that 'disclaimer of guarantee' when it comes to someone stealing your car (it's settled law in all states that I know of that parking outfits do have responsibility of someone steals you car from their place.)

Noone's really challenged EULA's because they are for the most part unenforced and unenforceable with current technology. Although I think if M$ and the rest really forced the issue they would be very surprised and disappointed at how much of it would be struck down since it is an adhesion contract and even the law is averse to enforcing this type of contract

WOW, so many devs in a single post, and some i've never seen before

back to topic, selling on games is against EULA, I believe in the UK some publications where trying to stop second hand games from being sold... then again that did happen a while ago, not quite sure what happened about it, never mind.

The thing is this, your idea seems to be that you want software (including games) means less money for the company, (why would you pay full price, when you could buy a cheaper copy? :D)inturn companies will go bust, if said company is "stardock" (i hope this doesn't happen), than those who brought games over stardock will lose out. (I know about the whole storing games if stardocks does go bust).

I hope this post is even linked to the topic, because to be fair Lord KiRon point is a bit confusing ><, hopefully he will send me a message with nice little bullet points :D

Thank you

When games first came out .. you bought the console and all software was contained inside, to transfer ownership you physically had to hand over the console. Thus no piracy.

Then Consoles started using cartridges, while transfer of the console was not necessary to sell the games, it was still necessary to transfer the cartridge/hardware. thus piracy was still not a huge factor as it still required manufacturing a hardware based Pirated copy. ( most folks did not have the necessary hardware/ knowledge to duplicate the cartridges)

PC's evolved in to the picture, in the beginning there was some piracy as folks copied games, etc but it was still a minimal factor as there were few with Home pc's. Eventually Piracy hit big when the PC became a staple for most homes and the ease of mass file duplication became prevalent. Once CD burners hit the market Mass piracy took a whole new turn, no longer did people need to hand over the hardware to transfer games, they just burned a copy.

With the new growth, came the ever expanding problem of piracy gone wild. Which is the problem we are dealing with daily.

The Eula was originally intended to cover the rights to use the software and keep from stealing/redistributing the source code.
In time it evolved in to the current license agreement tagged on to the original anti reverse engineering agreement. While it was hoped that the license agreements for a specific user would deter piracy, it did not, as there was little/no way to enforce it. Now companies typically take extreme measures such as Key codes and active registration # motoring etc . Example* games you have to log in to a master server to play.

Piracy and the fight against it took away our once enjoyed rights to own physical media. We have lost the ownership of the very CDs we buy, in fact ive even seen CD's with the tags on the disc its self as well as the box, that If you do not agree to the Eula you must destroy the CD it's self. As well as there is no longer the ability to transfer owner ship by giving it to someone else if you have already registered it.

If you want to thank anybody for the losses we as a world suffer by the Anti Piracy movement... Thank the hackers and pirates who caused it. Not the software companies who are trying to keep Piracy from putting them out of business.

huh?

Well said. 

I've always kind of assumed that, simply because SD is so well-run and has such excellent customer service, but it's nice to see it spelled out.

That is awesome GH. It is cool to see that software companies are realizing that gifting software to others is becoming more common place.







It was meant to offer reference to the fact Piracy is the reason for the DRM/anti piracy problems we face now as a world. As well as a general timeline as to piracys comming about in the software industry and the steps taken as it progressed, to fight it. Its not software companies being greedy as many would sugest, but really trying to keep theives at bay.