It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Could watermarks get more publishers to accept GoG?(42 posts)(42 posts)
(42 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted December 04, 2008
avatar
hansschmucker: Your sarcasm aside, that's the kind of post I want :)
Just a little correction: Watermarks don't live in the code. They live in the data. Sometimes, they're added as resources to the EXE, sometimes they live in separate packages (for example a text file included in the download) or if the publisher is sneaky inside game ressources (images, sounds, dialog descriptions, config files,...) But as soon as they are evaluated by the software, nobody can call them "just watermarks" anymore.
I also like my games clean... Even including a watermark on its own is definitely not something that I would consider if there wasn't the potential gain of having more games available without active DRM. It's just that I'd rather have a hundred games to with watermarks to chose from than ten without.
Edit: PS: About the second hand game market... You're right that's a problem I hadn't thought of and that would undoubtedly appear once newer games are added to the catalog. I simply didn't look beyond the current situation where we just buy classics for which the resell value is close to 0 anyway. I'll think about it, right now I can't think of any good solutions either.

Now talking about semantics: You separate the game code, from the game data (voice info, images, art, music,etc), am i right? In my point of view I include that on the gaming code because they are part of the game and some of that data is "merged" with the game code. And in all effects, in my point of view is part of the game.
You said " I'd rather have a hundred games to with watermarks to chose from than ten without" well im am on the oposite side. Of course that they can exist and I wouldn't do anything about them other then not buying. It is what i am doing now with current DRM'd games. (yes i know, i can be very thick skulled sometimes). :) Plus i am now going "Cold Turkey" out of not playing recent games. ;)
Post edited December 04, 2008 by Ghostfromthepast
Posted December 04, 2008
Sorry about that... I'm a programmer (although I don't deal with games) and technically the difference between active DRM and passive watermarks is pretty major, so it's a bit hard for me to accept people seeing it as the same thing. From a privacy point of view the difference is that DRM will spy on you no matter what you do, while a watermark, well, won't.. I buy DRM free games, because they a) work b) don't sabotage my system and c) don't spy on me. And watermarked games don't do any of that either, which is why I'm comfortable with them.
Anyway, I don't want to "convert" you. I'm more or less just thinking aloud.
Posted December 04, 2008
avatar
hansschmucker: Sorry about that... I'm a programmer (although I don't deal with games) and technically the difference between active DRM and passive watermarks is pretty major, so it's a bit hard for me to accept people seeing it as the same thing. From a privacy point of view the difference is that DRM will spy on you no matter what you do, while a watermark, well, won't.. I buy DRM free games, because they a) work b) don't sabotage my system and c) don't spy on me. And watermarked games don't do any of that either, which is why I'm comfortable with them.
Anyway, I don't want to "convert" you. I'm more or less just thinking aloud.

Yes I think I can understand what you feel when people doesn't see the diference between passive and active DRM. Is that just when the DRM issue is debated everyone sees everything red, no matter what. If it is DRM it is to shoot down.:)
Posted December 04, 2008
In case you haven't noticed. It seems like somebody has made it his mission to grade any posts made on this topic as "-1". Shame.
Post edited December 04, 2008 by hansschmucker
Posted December 04, 2008
avatar
hansschmucker: Sorry about that... I'm a programmer (although I don't deal with games) and technically the difference between active DRM and passive watermarks is pretty major, so it's a bit hard for me to accept people seeing it as the same thing. From a privacy point of view the difference is that DRM will spy on you no matter what you do, while a watermark, well, won't.. I buy DRM free games, because they a) work b) don't sabotage my system and c) don't spy on me. And watermarked games don't do any of that either, which is why I'm comfortable with them.
Anyway, I don't want to "convert" you. I'm more or less just thinking aloud.
avatar
Ghostfromthepast: Yes I think I can understand what you feel when people doesn't see the diference between passive and active DRM. Is that just when the DRM issue is debated everyone sees everything red, no matter what. If it is DRM it is to shoot down.:)

Then again when you replace DRM with watermarks to act as Big Brother to watch you, where do you stand? At the brink of making games more secure or at the edge of a Orwellian utopia?
Hansschmucker; You're on about -1 here and there? I got 4 in one post!
You still have not mentioned which Publishers are afraid of GOG without DRM. There seems to be enough publishers who are happy.
Post edited December 04, 2008 by Clagg
Posted December 04, 2008
Because I cannot right now...Right now it's an impression that I've gotten from various sources, ranging from developer blogs over certification discussions between publishers and developers to normal "consumer blogs". I simply don't have the time to look it up right now, but I'll try to get around to do it lateron.
I was complaining about the "-1" because it was targeting everybody participating in this thread, and looked to me like an attempt to keep other people from posting. And I really, really hate censorship, even if it indirectly like here. My "-1" Doesn't bother me. I don't have anything to loose here after all.
Posted December 04, 2008
That's the problem, you have had an impression that publishers have problems but if that were so sites such as GOG would not exist and the publishers that are represented here are not exactly bedroom wannabees.
Once word gets round that there is a viable market, as the increase in old games sites have proven, more of the major publisher will get involved but then again companies such as interplay and codemasters are not exactly unsuccessful.
You don't need any type of monitoring stuff, no controls, no watermarks, no Big Brother, no DRM and no silly online activations, that's why this works. And it would apear I have -5 in a post now! Thanks folks!! Grow up.
Post edited December 04, 2008 by Clagg
Posted December 04, 2008
hans,
in short, this is a terrible idea because of the privacy concerns.
i would stop purchasing GOG releases if my personal information were somehow embedded in the files. if my computer were hacked, that private information would be easily available. you even mention in your opening post that GOG could use credit card hash numbers, which is not secure at all.
honestly, i don't see the point of using watermarks. GOG understands the concept that there are people who will never purchase games yet will still play them. GOG recognizes that a download in this case does not necessarily mean a lost sale. putting in watermarks for the purpose of tracing shared copies of GOG releases will only add costs to their business model -- now they have to divert resources to finding and litigating offenders. and since GOG isn't necessarily losing sales in the first place, there's nothing to gain from adding in watermarks.
Posted December 04, 2008
avatar
hansschmucker: In case you haven't noticed. It seems like somebody has made it his mission to grade any posts made on this topic as "-1". Shame.

Yep i noticed! I don't know who is doing it or why? But even so the score seems a bit arbitrary "except all your posts, or almost all have a negative". I think the same thing is happening on other discussion threads. I don't thing people wouldn't participate here just because they would get a -1, would they?
OFF TOPIC :By the way what do you gain with that scoring anyway. I don't know if there is anything posted about that in the forum, if there is I haven't read and have no patiente to look for it, so if you'd be so kind as to tell me, i'd be apreciated. :)
Post edited December 04, 2008 by Ghostfromthepast
Posted December 04, 2008
I would just like to make a point about watermarking that seems to be a relatively common misconception (even the Ars Technica article linked to by illegalyouth mentions it). It is not necessary for watermarks to contain personally identifiable information (though in some actual schemes this does happen). The watermark could just be some random alphanumeric string that is stored in the user database (that GOG already has) along with the rest a user's information. Since the installer for the games are custom GOG code the watermark could easily be inserted in the installer (with no change to the actual game). There would be no way for anyone other than GOG (or the user themselves) to determine who the watermark referred to.
The problem for the copyright holder would then be getting GOG to give them the user's information once they found a watermarked file (unless GOG was authorized by the rights holder to pursue the infringing user). Obviously neither of these choices, GOG "selling out" their users or GOG "persecuting" their users, would make any current or potential customers happy.
So in terms of a watermark just being some random data attached to GOG's own code there is really very little, in my opinion, to object to. But for the watermark to have any use as an additional deterrent to sharing the files or helping to identify infringing users, GOG would have to do things that all users would find just as objectionable as adding DRM. There is also the problem that any watermark (especially as I've described them) would be very easy to remove. Not to mention that a watermark identifying a file as being tied to a particular user account doesn't prove that that user was the one responsible for making the file available.
When I first read hans' post I was supportive of the idea watermarks being an unobtrusive piracy deterrent, but once I thought about it (as opposed to some of the apparently rather knee-jerk reactions of a couple posters) the above objections began to take shape.
Post edited December 04, 2008 by jmgreen7
Posted December 05, 2008
avatar
hansschmucker: In case you haven't noticed. It seems like somebody has made it his mission to grade any posts made on this topic as "-1". Shame.
avatar
Ghostfromthepast: Yep i noticed! I don't know who is doing it or why? But even so the score seems a bit arbitrary "except all your posts, or almost all have a negative". I think the same thing is happening on other discussion threads. I don't thing people wouldn't participate here just because they would get a -1, would they?
OFF TOPIC :By the way what do you gain with that scoring anyway. I don't know if there is anything posted about that in the forum, if there is I haven't read and have no patiente to look for it, so if you'd be so kind as to tell me, i'd be apreciated. :)

It's a scoring system which if you receive a few minuses or plusses
in one post you get a single minus or plus to your account. I've got a -1 because silly childish people like to negative score because I don't agree with something. It's a ridiculous system that only causes needless arguments.
BUT if you help someone to solve a particular computer problem or game problem you get 3 points. It's silly.
Posted December 05, 2008
avatar
jmgreen7: I would just like to make a point about watermarking that seems to be a relatively common misconception (even the Ars Technica article linked to by illegalyouth mentions it). It is not necessary for watermarks to contain personally identifiable information (though in some actual schemes this does happen). The watermark could just be some random alphanumeric string that is stored in the user database (that GOG already has) along with the rest a user's information. Since the installer for the games are custom GOG code the watermark could easily be inserted in the installer (with no change to the actual game). There would be no way for anyone other than GOG (or the user themselves) to determine who the watermark referred to.

The thing is GOG have quite happily stated that "Once you download a game, you can install it on any PC and re-download it whenever you want, as many times as you need, and you can play it without an internet connection." so a watermark is useless for any reason whatsoever as GOG don't have an issue with what you do with it after you've bought it.
What you're suggesting is some kind of protection, some sort of anti piracy tool, when GOG don't want or need it.
Please feel free to give this a + after the childish gits saw fit to give me a - when I did not agree with a post.
Post edited December 05, 2008 by Clagg
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Could watermarks get more publishers to accept GoG?(42 posts)(42 posts)
(42 posts)