DRM

[Garnier44]

norb wrote:

When I published with them, they used securom. It was hacked within a week of release.

I've had some less than desirable experiences with them, so excuse my lack of infatuation.

That was four years ago. Their games now have no copy protection that frustrates legitimate customers. It frustrates peoples pirate the game because they get no tech support and no multiplayer.

I'm curious as to what your goal is with DRM though. Is the goal to make as little piracy as possible happen, or is it to maximize sales regardless of piracy?

Would it be better to have say, 1000 people play a pirated version and 5000 buy the game, or 10,000 play a pirated version and 6000 buy the game?

We can't know what the resulting numbers would be with any approach. Personally I think the more frustrated legitimate customers there are, the fewer sales will be made, because people who are frustrated aren't going to spread word about the game.

It's impossible to stop pirating of the singleplayer unless it requires an internet connection while playing. I also wonder if there are any stories of indie games that were ruined because they didn't enforce strict DRM, and where it's reasonable to think they would have done better with strict DRM.

I think the best approach to curbing piracy is to give people other reasons to buy the game. Like being able to play multiplayer, get tech support, and something more in the game. That takes some creativity.

[norb]

Garnier44 wrote:

I'm curious as to what your goal is with DRM though. Is the goal to make as little piracy as possible happen, or is it to maximize sales regardless of piracy?

Would it be better to have say, 1000 people play a pirated version and 5000 buy the game, or 10,000 play a pirated version and 6000 buy the game?

We can't know what the resulting numbers would be with any approach. Personally I think the more frustrated legitimate customers there are, the fewer sales will be made, because people who are frustrated aren't going to spread word about the game.

It's impossible to stop pirating of the singleplayer unless it requires an internet connection while playing. I also wonder if there are any stories of indie games that were ruined because they didn't enforce strict DRM, and where it's reasonable to think they would have done better with strict DRM.

I think the best approach to curbing piracy is to give people other reasons to buy the game. Like being able to play multiplayer, get tech support, and something more in the game. That takes some creativity.

Like I said before, when you spend years writing your own game, then you can make that decision. But until you do I'm not going to debate whether or not to use DRM. I'm just trying to get some opinions about which methods people would prefer. When I stop seeing hack sites and thousands of downloads from torrent sites, then I'll start wondering about if it's necessary.

[Garnier44]

OK.

[BOSTON]

I second choice #1

[Fish_au]

norb wrote:

I fully expect to remove the drm stuff at some point. I like to do that once we're done with it ourselves

well this is good news, and makes up for the DRM system over the short/medium term perhaps.

i use gamersgate and don't mind it now; but it did take a bit of getting used to. but i have a residual fear that the company running gamersgate could fold and i would lose all my games. I won't use steam, the only steam game i bought was ETW and it seemed to combine all the worst aspects of disc AND internet DRM. I haven't played ETW since several failed attempts to reinstall it - with my own disc in the drive the whole time mind you, which cost me A$110 - i uninstalled steam shortly after.

Apart from that debacle, Im happy to pay full price for a game & expansions and whatnot because I think its important to support the programmers and the viability of the (short list of) companies that make the digital wargames/simulations i like. Even if that means tolerating the paradox model of releasing beta versions for public testing; MM/NSD has a much better rep than that tho.

[Gfran64]

#1 is OK for me.

Greg

[Janh]

For a CD version with a good old type manual I'd spent $50. I still remember the early times of PC games on 386 with Aces over the Pacific, Aces of the Deep, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe or Janes Longbow, just to name a few. Each came with a thick manual of 300-400 pages that even included substantial physical background or long history description of couple hundred pages. I would probably have bought those games just for the "book". It feels like you have a safety with a CD -- as long as you treat it well -- and like you got something real in return for your hard-earned money. Kinda sucks that good games barely have a good "booklet" nowadays!

So far I never downloaded a game, and probably will avoid unless totally impossible.
Your question of activation comes down to the price. If I assume that I typically install a game about 10 times on different/upgrades etc computer over its life span of 3-5 years, $40/10 would be $4 per install. So $8 for a two install and $20 for the 5 installs would sound great, but I guess that wouldn't help you guys so much in funding your future projects.
And I'd really be willing to pay my fair share in order to see one day a campaign game or maybe even a whole strategic/economic civil war game fighting all the battles with the War3D engine. I'd really like NSD to come out with a nice boxed DVD, but I understand that this has other catches aside from start capital.

I also have something for you to consider: What happens if you'd install in a virtual host, like I do on my work notebook running a Windows guest a Linux VM host? That would mainly require a lot of RAM, but with 2GB requirement and most computers today having 4-8GB no problem. I assume I could then just copy the VM-Machine with the game to my desktop if needed and launch the virtual machine there. But would I still have to reactivate? If not, that would be a some way for a "backup" or to move to a different machine, though pretty cumbersome.
The question is whether that would be something you'd tolerate, or whether not?

[Rich Mac]

I'd prefer #1, however if you implemented #2 it wouldn't be a show-stopper.

Would it be possible to give the purchaser the option of #1 or #2 at the time of download? Perhaps that is impossible or would be a major PITA to solve technically, but it would give you the best chance of keeping most customers happy.

[Los]

Some wargames allow two installs per license with checking back to a main server on initial install (your option one but w two installs per license). And you can uninstall and get the license back. Similar to elicense for battlefront games. This allows those of us with a few PCs at home to play the game on 2 machines via LAN (I have a son who plays as well) without having to buy two copies. Please consider something like that. Please consider something like that. Anyway either works fine irregardless though I prefer I.

The question of how to get multiple installs for various mods on the same PC is a good one as well.


Los

[Hancock the Superb]

My opinion:
Number 1. Because it would be slightly cheaper, makes it so you can't give this game to 5 of your best buds, and because your new modding system eliminates the need for multiple installs.