http://news.yahoo.com/wake-up--media-moguls--louis-c-k--no-drm-video-makes--200k.html

Not gaming related, but it seems other people has started to see the light regarding copy protection on their material. It just instantly reminded me of GOG and their Witcher 2 experiment also being a success.

This damn thing has been mentioned on Twitter like a thousand times. I watched the preview and didn't like it all, so... oh well. I like his business model though and am happy he is making some cash.

Hmm... Don't have Twitter, so no wonder I had never heard of it and yet he managed to sell this much. That pretty much explains it. The points the writer of the article makes halfway through are pretty valid though. The novelty of the business model might be helping him sell so well, but if it becomes the norm I'm not sure you'll see the same amount of support.

If this picture is accurate to other forms of media and those creating it then I am happy this guy and hopefully others are trying something new.

Agreed. He actually says in the article he still would have made more from a company.

Would he have made more for this particular product from a company? Or would the company have made it with him getting a smaller percentage?

Regardless, IMO any initiative to make media more friendly to the legal consumer is a good thing.

If you read it he says he would have been paid as a flat performance fee by a company, and that it would have been more than he has made using this method. Whether this method eventually could make more or not would be for him to say, I guess.

You, sir, are clearly insane.

From this article: It's still technically DRM-free, but no thanks to the limited download. It reminds me of Direct2Drive's 'download insurance' fee to keep the game you just bought in your account for more than one year. Thank god they scrapped that (or rather, make it indefinitely free).

From what I'd read on his website, he's the guy paying for the overall upkeep and development of the website. It's a humongous pain in the ass to be sure, but I can cut him some slack for this since he's effectively paying for this out of his own pocket. I'll just make sure to have redundant backups handy. And it is a pretty measly $5 after all.

Just the point I was going to make. $5 only goes so far so backup the video locally. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it's a soft cap and asking support for just one more download because you lost your only treasured copy would reset the limit.

Anyway, I'm going to buy this now.

Not to start a quarrel, but that would be like saying, "When I go to a movie, I want all of the money to go to the actors/actresses," or, "when I go to a major sporting event, I want all of the money to go to the athletes."

If they do all the work are they not entitled to all the money?

Except that (using a sporting event analogy_ : the building they're playing in costs money, the infrastructure for that building (water, plumbing, roads, etc.) costs money, upkeep costs money, the team has travel and food and other expenses that need to be paid, promotion costs money, broadcasting the event costs money, if you want your patrons to be able to eat or drink anything for 4 hours you need to pay people to sell that AND pay for the product, and so on, and so on.

So are the athletes, now getting 100% of the cash,. going to cover all those expenses themselves?