A DRM system without teeth would be worthless to publishers. If there woudn't be a way to take your rights to run the game away then the whole exercise with the obfuscated/encrypted container would be pointless.

You can be very sure that Goo is phoning home regularly, and even though that may not be required to run your game, you can be very sure that Goo can be used to kill your game any time they please.

This is where you demonstrate a pretty complete lack of desire for reasoned thought.

So let's go over it again. I'll keep using SecuROM.

- Both Goo and SecuROM is DRM. Fact.
- As they are both DRM, there are restrictions on the user. Fact.
- The Goo's restrictions are much lesser than SecuROM's. Fact.
- As such, given the choice between the two, it is better for the user if a game uses Goo instead of SecuROM.

Obviously no DRM is best for the user, but that's too big a step for most publishers. You have to be able to settle for  gradual 'better' before you can reach 'best'.

You also completely ignored the fact that Stardock itself isn't using it. What you're essentially doing is biting the hand that feeds you. Stardock can't make the other publishers go DRM-free. They can do their own games the same as they've always done, but other than that the only thing they can do is offer the publishers who will not drop DRM an option that's better to users than anything else currently.

But you also strike me as too lost in your anti-DRM crusade to realize this.

I don't know what you're arguing with me. We both have the same opinion (that no DRM is best). The only difference between you and me is that I have principles (born out of my personal history seeing DRM systems from the inside) which I'm not going to compromise on, and you have no such principles.

So basically you're saying you'd rather choose the lesser of two evils than something good?

Seriously though, I think under the current circumstances GOO is  the better choice compared to DDRM. I don't even mind that it only runs on windows since, and let's face the facts here, people who want to run a pure linux machine were are and always will be hosed when it comes to computer games.

BUT it's absolutely friggin rediculous that it's supposed to only run on IE!!! I think I have read that somewhere though I can't find the post right now. If it's really the case: What the hell are you thinking, SD?!?!?!!!!

No. Because "something good" is not a choice that we are given at the moment.  That choice is for the publisher to make. If they choose "good", we don't need to make any choice. If they choose evil, they are the ones who have to choose between greater or lesser. We get to choose to buy it or not based on the choices the publisher makes.

If a publisher is going to use DRM, yes, I would much rather they use Goo over SecuROM, the lesser of two evils. And without the lesser evil, we would never get to the something good. They're not going to flip the switch from DRM to no DRM. It has to be gradual. Lesser and lesser evils until they realize that the better it gets the happier everyone is, and make the final hurdle to take it off completely.

Goo is client free. It is not Impulse. It will not require the Impulse client. Therefore, that stuff is not true

They are not using it for Elemental. They are using the resale system as proof of concept. Yes, they've required activation on install for everything digital but this is how it was long, long before Goo and Impulse, and that's what will continue to be. Basically, the release of Goo changes nothing of what they currently do.

Quoting myself here. I'll put it another way..

There's no single side to all of this. There are people who are opposed to DRM on principle. There are people who are not opposed to DRM on principle, but are opposed to certain forms of it.

For example, many people don't like SecuROM installing a rootkit, having activations tied to hardware, and all that stuff.

Goo solves pretty much all (or at least most) of the issues people have with the dubbed "draconian" DRM schemes. It does not, nor was it intended to solve not liking DRM on principle.

People who hate DRM because it's DRM really don't have much reason to get excited over Goo, as is plainly evidenced by this thread. People who on principle don't mind DRM as long as its restrictions and implementation is loose enough have many reasons to be happy.

I see an alternative, which is not to do evil things, not to brandmark your customer as criminal and not to do DRM. Even if that view is extremely idealistic, it's what I (and others) want.

Now I'm getting mightily tired of this whole "we need copy protection/DRM rethoric", so I'm going to counter it with the words of one of your own, Brad Wardell

Another game that has been off the radar until recently was Sins of a Solar Empire. With a small budget, it has already sold about 200,000 copies in the first month of release. It's the highest rated PC game of 2008 and probably the best selling 2008 PC title.  Neither of these titles have CD copy protection.

Of course there's you naysayers and DRM apologists who say if you don't do DRM then you're just getting ripped off by pirates, let me just quote

If the target demographic for your game is full of pirates who won't buy your game, then why support them? That's one of the things I have a hard time understanding.  It's irrelevant how many people will play your game (if you're in the business of selling games that is). It's only relevant how many people are likely to buy your game.

And finally, in case you haven't got the memo, let me drive that one home

The reason why we don't put CD copy protection on our games isn't because we're nice guys. We do it because the people who actually buy games don't like to mess with it. Our customers make the rules, not the pirates. Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts. So we return the favor - we make the games they want and deliver them how they want it. This is also known as operating like every other industry outside the PC game industry.

So please, with suggar on top, tell me precisely how Goo (DRM) is about the paying customer and what he wants, and not about the pirate?

Specifically please tell me how obfuscation, encryption and online activation is about paying customers rather then pirates?

Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts.

We (as gamers) would love it if all publishers followed a policy of no protection on retail discs, but DRM is an unfortunate reality in the industry. The big publishers with shareholders cowering at the thought of the piracy boogeyman are going to demand *something* be done to stop piracy--DRM-free just isn't going to fly (yet).

In their vain efforts to stamp out piracy, they've come up with a lot of really nasty and harmful DRM systems: limited activations, hidden software dongles, ring-0 drivers, and more. All of these are very real and legitimate complaints for customers.

Enter GOO. The point of GOO is not to be "not DRM". As has been said, if you're absolutely against it in any way, shape, or form, then you're going to be unhappy for quite a long time. The goal of GOO is to provide publishers with enough of a sense of security that they won't use worse DRM schemes, while NOT doing all of the really bad things that other DRMs have done as above.

GOO:
- Has one-time activation, no subsequent phone homes.
- No fixed number of activations that you have to beg to be extended.
- Does not include or require any hidden "cruft" on your machine.
- Is vendor neutral, so DD platforms going out of business is much less worrysome.
- Facilitates the exercise of first-sale rights.

Nobody has claimed that GOO is not a compromise. But it gives back to users a lot of what other DRM systems have taken away (unlimited installs and resaleability), and solves a lot of valid complaints about such systems. If you demand perfection you're going to be disappointed, but it is definitely a step AWAY from draconian DRM systems and TOWARDS user rights. Down the road, once the big publishers see first-hand and realize that they don't need to fear their own customers, then maybe DRM-free will become a realistic option for them.

Just because the step isn't as big as you'd like doesn't mean it's not in the right direction.

(deleted)

pyalot . . you've been amember here for what, a few weeks?  Stardock has a  long history of treatign customers how they themselves want to be treated as gamers.  The goal is to keep everyone (developers, publishers, consumers) happy with as little disruption as possible.

I for one, applaud Stardock in what they are doing.  GOO sounds like an intelligent step in a direction other than the overlord-like DRM control we've seen thus far.

I do have a question for any of the Stardock staff (or someone who better understands the press-release):

I do understand that GOO does one-time activation through the publisher, thus rendering it Digital Distributor neutral.  I also understand that as currently built, there will be no limit to any future 'reactivations' should something go wrong and that become necessary, and that I could even 'de-activate' and then sell off my copy to someone else, irrespective of how I acquired it.  My concern, however, is that this "one-time" activation still requires a key server somewhere.  This server, based on the figures that were displayed in a post back on page 1 is located with the publisher.  While that makes sense, we also frequently see that publishers will merge, get bought/sold, and even get shut down or go out of business.  My question is thus:  GOO will protect us from digital distribution shutdowns, but how will it respond if the publisher goes out of business?  Will it fall to whomever owns the intellectual property rights on the game to choose whether or not to keep that system running?  At what cost to them?  We constantly see Master Game Servers going down on games that are 5+ years old; at what point would a shut-down publisher not be available for new activations, should the game fall to a digital distributor that deals in "classic" games a few years down the road?