Cool, I'm reading it right now.

Um wow, sorry about the text glitch.  Not my fault though--I've typed/quoted just like I have earlier, but your formatting software freaked out.

Feel free to fix the problem yourself--if need be you can delete that post and I'll resubmit it.

While your views on this are not only specific, but well thought through, there are a great many of us that strongly disagree with many of (though not always all of) your conclusions on these issues.  Just to bring up a couple.

There is a difference between having copy protection (which only applies to patches, and only those after a reasonable period of bug fixes, testing, and updates) and 'shackling customers' with it.  Spore would be an example of shackling a customer.  Installable on 3 systems ... ever... more if you e-mail and beg EA.  Now I AGREE that I would like to see the capacity to update the game without ever seeing the impulse thin client, and have stated this on other threads, but that does not make their current system an opressive machine that shcakles the average customer.  It does make it unwieldy if it is only being used to update SoaSE, something I hope they fix (and believe they can according to their report).  It is an area that they could improve on, but I do not think it is SD underhandedly backstabbing people based on their statements.

Anyone who has played any previous StarDock game, which I would presume accounts for a decent portion of those 500,000 copies, is aware of what the rules are and have been for some time, you don't need a code to play, but updates have copy protection on them.  I would submit that most of those who purchased SoaSE were not ONLY not expecting SD to release their later patches as standalones, but not even expecting the early ones to work that way.

This said, it DOES raise a concern.  If a customer does not have an internet connection, and it is not listed as a prerequisite for single player on the box, there should be a patch available that would allow the SINGLE PLAYER to work without the need of an internet connection.  Needing the CD-key and/or blocking multiplayer with the patch are reasonable compromises, IMHO, and trying to scream the rallying cry for the people who have several computers networked together but no internet access is stretching it pretty far, since there are probably a maximum of about 2 people out of that 500,000 in that situation, probably none.  Those cases can be handled in a case by case basis, probably with a refund of the game cost and deactivation of the cd-key.

I understand that some of the press that StarDock have gotten has led you to the impression that StarDock are trying to take a position that they are against DRM in all forms and that you find Impulse to be insulting and invasive, particularly as your updates require you to go into an app that inclusively is a store for other software.  StarDock has not taken the no copy protection or DRM stance.  They have taken a stance that means the majority of users will not even have to punch in the CD-key once or load anything (most users patch until they feel it works fine, and then any time the software requires them to).  I think the manditory running of the thin client is the largest issue here.  I do not think it is against SD's statements or goals, but the (uninstallable) back end should be all that loads.  THAT part is not about DRM, it's about forcing us to see their other products in the course of game and updating.  It's more like when games used to have (uninterruptable) video trailers for the company's other games the first time you play.  Not desirable, but nothing really to do with the DRM.  That front end is little more than a web browser with some javascript tabs, and is about what you'd run into if you were downloading an update off a publisher's page.

There IS an issue related to this that I WOULD like to see addressed.  I would like to see a written legal requirement, perhaps built into the updated EULAs that tend to come with updates, stating that IF THE IMPULSE SERVERS ARE TO BE TAKEN OFF LINE PERMANENTLY FOR *ANY* REASON, A STAND ALONE UPDATE PATH WILL BE RELEASED AND DISTRIBUTED ON THE INTERNET.  I have run into too many games where the company folded, didn't release an encapsulated update, and the game became no longer updatable except by pre-updated pirate copies (and often not even then).

This one, i'm going to back you on.  One of the few things I found disappointing as far as the gamer bill or rights and related information is that while you have the right to transfer the physical copies, it gives NO such rights as far as transferring the rights to USE those physical copies.  Taking WoW as an example, you can give your disks to someone, but they can not get a valid legal login without buying another copy.  I would not expect that they would make an easy tool to change all the details, but as it stands, if you were not the original owner and they find out, they shut down the account.  This does nothing to solve that issue, which I find to be a very real one.  Similarly if you have 3 games on impulse, it does not need to be easy, but there should be a way to move the CD-key to someone else's impulse account.  Completely aside from logistics, transferring the physical copies does not transfer the EULA to be in the new person's name, and this measure does nothing for that either, which I think gets to the core of why this measure, while it is a start, does not solve the issue it was intended to solve.  The physical materials are a coaster and some paper and cardboard.  Nice to have a drink in front of a roaring fire, but not worth much without the power to give the USAGE RIGHTS and POWER away.

Highly nonscientific results, though not as inaccurate as you might think as regards the impulse issues.  In fact, it is a better indication of the impulse issues than the game in general.  This is because the vast majority of those people who are looking for later updates got earlier updates.  The majority of those did so through StarDock Central with said login.

There is a large margin of error, but the reasons for such inaccuracies are such that it is highly unlikely that, say, 40% or more of those who purchased the game are angered about the update system but opted not to take the survey.  The results are to be taken with a grain of salt, but not all the salt in the Pacific ocean.

I am posting this primarily because a lot of the time I have seen such threads break down into a few people's objections and representatives of StarDock scrambling to defend themselves.  At this point, a casual reader might assume that these objections are held by the majority of those who play SoaSE, and while, as I have said, I find many of your viewpoints to be well thought through and comprehensively stated and supported, I think it would be in error for someone to assume they were held by the majority.  As such, I respectfully present my often (though not always) opposing views and welcome those on all sides of these issues to do the same.  If anyone disagrees with my points, I welcome your input, though ask first that it maintains basic politeness and decorum and second that you keep in mind that I am NOT a representative of SD, do not agree with them on all counts, but am instead, myself a customer and one with views just like you.

Just one comment i don't care if Stardock remains Windows only, even if i will one day move to linux, i just hope stardock never goes out of their way to break a game's ability to work in a program like WINE. If i want to torment myself to get a game working in WINE i'd hope that the company doesn't put up roadblocks just to force me to use windows XYZ. (odds are i'll never get windows beyond XP64)

-G

Venym... You're an idiot.  I take issue with just about every statement you made.  Your post is more of a flame than a thoughtful response to the letter from Mr. Wardell.

First, while many people find it inconvenient to need to install Impulse to get software updates, the fact is that if it is such a nuisance, you can still play the game without the update.  The choice is yours if you want to update your program and get new features and improvements, then it is fair to ask you to install a program which will verify your ownership of the game.  This program can even tell you of other software available from the manufacturer.  I have no problem with this... I have purchased many programs this way.  This is fine so long as I can turn the software on and off and control the content that I receive.  The alternative can be far far far far FAR worse.  For anyone who owns a scanner, Nuance creates a software called PaperPort.  I have actually paid for this program.  I think it's a great program. The problem is, yesterday I was told by their customer service people that I am allowed to install it only one more time before buying a new copy!!  On top of that, this professional, very expensive software ($150-$200 per copy) displays unwanted and unrequested adverts to me every 20th time I run the program.  Honestly, I think it is a blessing that software vendors offer software updates at all!  Many programs require you to pay for software updates.  Others work on a subscription basis where you need to pay yearly to use the software.  Some require you to pay yearly to have the privilege of receiving updates.  These, while I despise them, I think are fair methods.  If you buy a car and the vendor makes an update on the next model year version of your car, do they update your car for free?  Do you expect them to?  I bought my 2007 Santa Fe, which didn't have XM Radio available at the time I bought it.  I knew it was coming, but it wasn't available at that time.  Now it's available, and it would be a substantial investment for me to add it to my car.  Should I expect Hyundai to install XM into my car just becuase I was one of the first people to buy their new Santa Fe?  It would be nice, but it's wholly unrealistic.  I knew what I was buying the day I bought it and I bought it anyways.  MY point is, stop crying about needing to download Impulse to update your software.  While it is not perfect, it is a pretty good FIRST VERSION program.

"A developer who uses Impulse Reactor (the platform), for example, can make use of the capabilities of Impulse without having to distribute the Impulse client."

 

This is interesting--could you describe this in more detail? I assume there's a Catch-22 somewhere in the idea, but you haven't described it very much yet.

Finish reading the document before commenting about a detail (or lack thereof).  The Impulse reactor is described in the document, and the meaning of Mr. Wardell's statement is very clear to anyone who reads the document fully.  The agreements and details of a vendor-stardock relationship are NOT detailed in this document.  They don't need to be public knowledge.  Stardock is a company, and like all companies, it must make a profit to stay in business.  That's why your statement:

"Impulse’s objective isn’t to beat the competition. Its goal is simply to ensure that one vendor doesn’t become a monopoly in digital distribution."

 

Sounds nice, although considering Impulse's market penetration is extremely small this is more realistically another public-relations move. As you said earlier in that G4TV "Gamers Bill of Rights" advert, your job is to maximize profit. Thus, it isn't a far-cry to assume that you WOULDN'T oppose a monopoly if you owned it.

is completely ignorant.  I'm sure he wouldn't oppose a monopoly if he owned it.  That would be nuts considering his job IS ACTUALLY TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT!  Image that!  Someone who actually thinks that their job running a business is to ensure that the company makes money!  Though I agree the monopoly reference in Mr. Wardell's statement is a bit vague... your beating him over his earlier statement that his job is to maximize profit is ignorant at best.

As for your comment about the accuracy of a survey... If Nuance were to send me a survey about what I thought of their products and their company, I would be VERY inclined to complete it and take the opportunity to let them know what I think of them.  I am a very unhappy customer of theirs, mainly because I have supported them very well over the past few years and they turn around and tell me that I can no longer use software that I legitimately purchased.

Overall, I think Mr. Wardell's document is well written, and a refreshing alternative to some other companies' business practices.  I do hope the GBoW remains effective and stays true to it's name.  You must all remember, just like he stated in the document, there must be an effective balance between the rights of the user and the IP rights of the company.  I don't think many people realize how much money goes into the development of a game.  Just because you paid $50 for a game that the developer paid $5 Million to develop doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.  Stardock's stance is NOT anti-DRM.  Their stance is very clear in this document.  Stardock's goal is to not punish legitimate customers for purchasing their software.  They expect and deserve to still make a profit.

Finally, there is some talk about the part about transferring software.  Yes, this section deals with transferring physical copies of a game, not digital.  And most of the world wants to go to digital distribution.  I can't say that I regularly transfer computer software or even find it worth my time to sell my old software and games.  Usually, if I don't want it anymore, then there are very few people who actually DO still want it anyways.  If you want to sell and trade games, then stop playing computer games and play only console games.  We play computer games because we can customize and do much more with games built for the computer than we could with games built for the console.  At least I do anyways.  The trade off is that I don't get to sell my games when I'm done with them.  Could this policy change?  Yes... it would be easy to transfer activation keys between accounts through Impulse.  But... in a capitalist society, we can't really expect Stardock to make this easy for us.  Their goal, as stated, is to make money.  It is more beneficial to them to sell more copies, increase market share, increase their customer base.  If you were in their position, you would feel the same way.

Perhaps a solution to this would be what some companies do with their frequent flyer miles.  They will let you trade miles with other people, but you must pay the airline a fee for allowing you to do this.  Same could apply here.  I could transfer my software key to another user on Impulse... but Stardock should get a percentage (maybe 50%) of whatever I get for the salefor allowing me to do this.  I still get SOME money that I would otherwise have not gotten, Stardock gets money for their part, the new buyer gets the program at a discount, and everyone is happy.  I will then take my money and buy a new program from Stardock.

I am not a stardock employee.  And believe me, if I think that a company is deceitful to their customers I will be the first one to hold their feet to the fire.  I am a customer and a reseller to many companys, and I think that Stardock is onto a great idea.  Stop beating them up for TRYING to improve the situation for customers all over.  If you don't like it, I suggest you shut up and go buy some software from Nuance.com.  THEY will treat you GREAT over there! *sarcasm*  I also like Alcohol Software's method of managing activations, for anyone who has actually purchased their software.

thank you very, very much for the info! at the very least, whaever your motives are, you've informed me a great deal about where your headed, and how it will affect me. for that you have my respect and gratitude  . your the first gaming company i've encountered that actually gives a shit what your target market thinks. keep this up, and i'm sure you will be around for a looong time.