Why Not Digitial Distribution?

[AstralWanderer]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

1) The likelihood of Impulse/Stardock going out of business anytime soon is nil.

Mm, quite a statement to make. Have you access to Stardock's accounts to back this up? If not, I would suggest such confidence to be misplaced. The most successful companies in the games industry can be brought to their knees within six months by poor decision-making, difficult trading conditions or actions taken by others (e.g. Interplay, Looking Glass, Black Isle).

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Due to Brad's disposition, and his strong stance on these issues, I would not doubt that he would personally see to it that all products purchased prior to dissolution of Stardock, would be allowed to be used in perpetuity.

Company bankruptcies can be sudden and dramatic. Even with a well-intentioned CEO, there is no guarantee that customers would be allowed to continue activating products. It would be up to the creditors/administrators to decide this and it would seem more likely that this service would be cut (in order to save costs) or customers made to pay extra to continue activation. Shamus Young's Authorization Servers article has more discussion on this.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

But to imply this is a possible scenario with Stardock, is to express lack of understanding of what Brad Wardell and Stardock are trying to accomplish.

I think I understand very well what Brad is seeking to accomplish. He's trying to make "his DRM" seem better than "everyone else's DRM". However if you check the implementation of Stardock's activation (an installation keyfile tied to a specific system) and the changes in terms and conditions they have already made (most notably, the imposition of a re-activation fee if they think that software has been transferred - see point 3 of this post), this should show that the downsides for Stardock's consumers are almost identical.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Supporting Stardock/Impulse, actually discourages conventional DRM.

Any system where multiple products are tied to a single account leaves customers open to digital blackmail at a later date (via annual or even monthly fees levied to keep that account active). Whatever Stardock are like now offers no guarantee as to how they will behave in the future. If there is any guarantee it is that companies will act in their own interests and should that involve bringing in a regime of regular payments by hook or by crook, then that will happen.

However, as Impulse sells games with "conventional" DRM, supporting it really isn't likely to make any difference.

Impulse has another specific disadvantage - it requires .NET Framework which not only makes it a slow application but one which adds a great deal of bloat to the Windows Registry (1.2MB - most other software adds 50KB or less) resulting in either reduced performance or greater memory usage, depending on whether that data is cached or not.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Personally, I've come to despise physical media. I've seen more disk failures in my life than I care to count, some of them irreplaceable.

The two times I've had CD failures were due to my not having installed no-CD patches (and hence using those CDs excessively). As long as CD/DVDs are kept packaged away and only used to install software, they should last for decades - no download site has this level of surety. The key thing is that software longevity is (almost) totally under the customer's control.

DRM-free software (like Dom3) is certainly the best choice, but media-based DRM involves less risk for the consumer than any online DRM.

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

Mm, quite a statement to make. Have you access to Stardock's accounts to back this up? If not, I would suggest such confidence to be misplaced. The most successful companies in the games industry can be brought to their knees within six months by poor decision-making, difficult trading conditions or actions taken by others (e.g. Interplay, Looking Glass, Black Isle)..

While the companies produced great games, I don't know if any of them were financially successful before their bankruptcy. At least Looking Glass wasn't, according to this article. It does describe high risks of game development and especially self-publishing game developers, but AFAIK Stardock is still making money from their non-gaming software and that should help them quite a bit.

[S.R. Krol]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

but AFAIK Stardock is still making money from their non-gaming software and that should help them quite a bit.

Which is where Stardock differs from most other indie game publishers/developers. Their business software is their backbone, allowing them to venture into the game side.

[AstralWanderer]

Originally Posted by Endoperez

While the companies produced great games, I don't know if any of them were financially successful before their bankruptcy. At least Looking Glass wasn't, according to this article.

An interesting read - thanks for posting it! However I do think it reinforces the point made above in that none of Looking Glass's problems were known to their customers - and the initial commentary after their closure almost universally pointed the finger at Ion Storm.

Originally Posted by S.R. Krol

Which is where Stardock differs from most other indie game publishers/developers. Their business software is their backbone, allowing them to venture into the game side.

Their desktop enhancement software (I really wouldn't call it business) is critically dependent upon them maintaining a good relationship with Microsoft and it has been whittled away due to features incorporated in recent Windows versions (e.g. XP's ZipFolders obsoleting ObjectZip, XP's Themes cutting into WindowBlinds sales, Vista's Sidebar displacing Control Center).

Stardock's increased emphasis on gaming may be a desire to diversify - but it could also be an increasingly urgent attempt to exit a vulnerable and shrinking market, under threat by the world's biggest convicted monopolist.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by AstralWanderer

Their desktop enhancement software (I really wouldn't call it business) is critically dependent upon them maintaining a good relationship with Microsoft and it has been whittled away due to features incorporated in recent Windows versions (e.g. XP's ZipFolders obsoleting ObjectZip, XP's Themes cutting into WindowBlinds sales, Vista's Sidebar displacing Control Center).

Stardock's increased emphasis on gaming may be a desire to diversify - but it could also be an increasingly urgent attempt to exit a vulnerable and shrinking market, under threat by the world's biggest convicted monopolist.

Errr, except that Stardock's first product happened to be a game? So they are diversifying back into the market that they got their start in, and doing so with top selling titles, and high profile partnerships? They may be de-emphasizing their OS optimization software, but at the same time they are refocusing on what got them where they are today, and they're doing so with effective and clear plans.

But this is tangential to my original point - that if I take Brad at face value, as the person he portrays himself as, then I am confident that he will make his software public domain, if his company completely fails. You can argue that if things get really rough, they will enact the draconian user fees and whatnot that you seem so scared of, but I simply don't think that Stardock in particular, is a company that would stoop to such levels, as long as Brad is at the wheel.

[AstralWanderer]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

...then I am confident that he will make his software public domain, if his company completely fails.

As this Authorization Servers article notes, if a company fails, it is the creditors that dispose of its assets. It is unlikely that anyone, even the CEO, would be able to release them free to the public without facing legal action.

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

...I simply don't think that Stardock in particular, is a company that would stoop to such levels, as long as Brad is at the wheel.

My view is that companies should be judged by their actions, not their PR. Stardock's PR has been great - especially compared to the train-wrecks of some other publishers (EA, 2K, etc) - but their actions (switch-and-bait DRM, imposing extra charges) differ little from the tactics used by others and the backpedaling on their "Gamer's Bill of Rights" seems to have confirmed that as PR over principle (not least since Stardock themselves don't comply - points 8-10 notably though 4 is open to debate too).