Nice

I'm not 100% sure on Impulse trying to update video drives - I think that should be done the Microsoft Update personally (You don't want two different update systems trying to update the same thing!!!)

But I am generally in favour of what was said. And the reason is in the answer to this question - "Why did I buy Sins?"

Because I was able to get a copy from someone to play it (pre-demo) and pre-release in Australia. And then I was counting down for the release here to get a copy so I could patch and go online!!! And the fact that the game cost $20 less then most other new releases. And there is good support for the game in regards to patching/new content etc... Oh, and that it is FUN to play online (apart from the occasional noob...).

Nice public relations save, Brad Wardell.

In the past, you've been able to bolster your sales by appealing to disgrunted gamers.  You have done so by "taking their side" and criticizing DRM--this in turn makes them supportive of you and thus more likely to buy your games.  I should know, that was a significant factor behind my purchase of SoaSE: Collector's Edition.

Recently though, you performed a complete 180 on us--disregarding several months of precedent and your incomplete/invalid SoaSE EULA, you suddenly decided to stop distributing stand-alone patches and force all of your customers (the ones that want updates--as a note, your customers have already paid for the updates with the full expectation of being able to receive them without any strings or programs attached) on your online store/DRM program, Impulse.  This is an obvious case of customer "lock-in", which I've talked about before.

And now, you criticize merely copy protection--no longer DRM.  As before, nice save. Still, that is a superficial public relations gesture, at best.  To illustrate this, consider your latest tightrope act--putting DRM on the CD's are bad, but it's perfectly fine to use DRM via Impulse, which you're trying to link everything to.  That's a pretty hard tightrope to walk--ultimately, you must accept that information is freely distributable on the Internet (both the disk and patches) and that you should make money on the quality of your games/actions as a developer, or that you should clamp down on all forms of media distribution, milk all the potential revenue possible, and baby-feed the customers that haven't deserted by now.

You see, people don't like copy protection because they like to really "have" what they bought.  That's why people like to buy real cars, real houses, etc. People like real patches too.  Anything else is just a scheme that keeps people hooked on your business model--there are many articles discussing the direct correlation between increased customer lock-in, increased profit, and increased customer maltreatment.

(somebody may bring up that many people rent apartments--that is an issue related to finance, not preference) 

The fact that you still try to pretend that you're on the customers' side in this whole DRM conflict (anti-DRM/whatever in word), but in reality you continue to implement more forms of DRM through your software (pro-DRM/whatever in deed) indicates two things--your hypocrisy and your customer baiting.

Reminding you that you can still do the right thing,

Venym

p.s.  Regarding the whole x-box argument, read it for what it is--propaganda, just like Brad's exploitation of customer anger against copy-protection.  There are plenty of PC games that are "finished" when they are released without the need for a customer leash.  For instance, Blizzard games, World in Conflict, Dawn of War, etc.  In fact, piracy is actually helpful to customers--it lets them try out the full game (often minus multiplayer), see which ones are good, and if they like the game enough (especially if they want to play multiplayer), they'll happily buy the game.  No tricks; both the company and the customer are happy.

Here's a good article on customer "lock-in", specifically regarding software industries.  Article on Customer Lock-in, by Bruce Schneier

Well, one thing is for sure, he ain't that good in maths

Am having mixed feelings here, on the one hand, I DO understand that developers have the right and need to protect their product and I don't mind using my authentic key to download a patch threw the internet.

On the other hand, I'm sceptic at the whole interview as prior to this, it seemed Mr Wardell made us believe that all manners of copy protection would be excluded from any Stardock game, but, reading this interview, it DOES sound as if Mr Wardell as taken a slightly different turn.

So, I do agree with Venym's post though I'm sure I'll get trashed for it by you loyal Stardock fanatics, I hope you just realize everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Do want to add though that the game SoaSE is a marvelous game, but, it'll depend on how I'll be able to obtain any future patch/add-on that will determine if I'll actually will be getting it or say goodbye to SD/IC !

Right, but that still relates to what I said in my post--you're "anti copy-protection", but pro-DRM (Impulse).  Please refer to reply #5 for elaboration.

You should have told us that before we bought your game(s), instead of misleading us with all of your supposedly anti-DRM rhetoric (like the Gamers Bill of Rights).  Or do you prefer to keep it a surprise for AFTER we pay you?

If you really prefer "dumb" customers that put up with whatever you throw at them (DRM, excessive fees, etc.), maybe you should make an MMO to leash them (and their money) to your business model.  Oh wait... Stardock MMORTS

Sorry Venym, but I don't see the issue. If, as the Gamer's Bill of Rights would have it, you can play the game out of the box, then what's the beef? You have to be on-line to get patches or new content anyway, so I see no issue with having to register an account to get these things. And yes, I've heard the argument that you can't DL from another machine and transfer it to your off-line one. However, I believe Stardock has said they're looking into a method to do that (perhaps I misunderstood, but that was my impression). So I still see no big issue. This is not DRM is the sense that it restrcits you from playing your game or locks you out after a certain number of installs or upgrades.

Thrawn: you'll need Impulse to get any future patches.

Venym, I will happily give you a full refund. Say the word. Otherwise, give it a rest.

I'm pretty sure Brad's legal knowledge, as well of Stardock's legal department, far outstrips yours.

Plus, if you fail to understand what DRM is, what copy protection is, and what Impulse does how do you expect your argument to carry any weight?

But since I'm feeling generous this evening, I'll give you a hint: patching is free post release support for the consumers, and it is the only time the CD key is checked. There's no lock-in. If they made Impulse required to run the game, you would have a point. But it isn't. So, you don't.

You can try to twist it as much as you'd like, but it won't change the simple fact that you're wrong in your assumptions and your arguments.

Of course it also doesn't take much to notice your selective ignoring of all the rational counter-arguments to your prolonged whine, which would lead most people to believe (quite correctly, I think) that all you're doing is finding something to complain about just for the sake of complaining, no matter how much of a fool you make yourself. Keep it up by all means, though - you aren't winning any friends among all those "lied to" consumers you claim to represent

This certainly feels like it's continuing for the sake of continuing. It's been beaten to death... four times now?

*sigh*

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the statement that people paid for the patches. That's not true. They paid for 1.0. As such, it's not lock in because the switching costs are something that was provided for FREE.

As for the argument that they MUST make patches... It's good business sense, but it's not MUST.

Browser error: Hope this doesn't double post...

Patches are fixes to the product that were paid for out of the retail cost of the product itself.

Updates are extra content that is usually charged for or released for free to customers who paid for the origional.

Most companies mix patches and upgrades together as its easier to do one patch/upgrade then seperate ones.

My argument is that I hvae paid for the patches (I was not given a discount for purchasing a game with no support) and I have no problem with verifying that I own a game. I do have a problem with not being able to patch an offline game (by what ever means) and by having to activate said patched game.

Nothing was mentioned on the box about the restrictions placed on support.

Someone else above said that Stardock are may be working on a way to get patches via an Impule enabled computer to a offline computer. Is this the case and will the offline computer need "activating" (hopefully not) or will this have been confirmed with the CD key on the Impusle enabled computer (hopefully)?

If Stardock are planning to do this in the near future I'll shut up right now!

Thats one way or losing customers! At least pirates don't have to put up with this level of customer support!