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

×
http://kingofgng.com/eng/2008/10/30/will-stardocks-security-solution-kill-the-drm/
He is a long-time supporter of the utter uselessness of intrusive protection technologies against videogaming piracy, and now Brad Wardell, Stardock’s CEO, takes up the challenge turned to him by the industry by working on a minimal security system that could be good for the labels and at the same time would satisfy the users’ need to not to be pointed out as pirates dangerous for society and business.
Wardell had strengthened his position with the Gamer’s Bill of Rights initiative, a desirable behavioral handbook for videogames producers that would adequately respect the consumers by stating “the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent“. Having scored commercial hits with its best known games like Galactic Civilizations and Sins of a Solar Empire (strictly sold with no DRM at all), Stardock has asked for other software houses to sign the proposal too.
Pretty predictably, on the contrary, the videogaming majors have refused to sign strongly reaffirming the need to protect the games somehow, even if it would be useless against the BitTorrent and P2P users. Furthermore, the companies have challenged Wardell to “Put your money where your mouth is. Why don’t you guys develop something that you think is suitable that would protect our IP, but would be more acceptable to users?“.
And the Stardock CEO, apparently, has taken up the challenge starting to work on a protection scheme virtually able to turn opprobriums like StarForce and SecuROM in bygone relics. “We’re investigating what would make users happy to protect their needs, but also provide some security for the publishers. (…) We’re actually developing a technology that would do that“, Wardell has revealed to Edge.
The new security solution, the executive says, will revolve around the key concepts of a license tied to the user’s identity and the utter transparency of the scheme for the software usability. If the Digital Rights Management restrictions are usually limiting the right to install a game beyond a certain fixed number of times or on any several machines you’d like to, the Stardock newborn will verify only that the license is owned by the player with no limits to the installation numbers. “We want that license to be yours, not per machine. (…) It’s not your machine buying the game. It’s you” Wardell says.
Another remarkable feature of the system should be the ability to regain the game, through a download from a remote server, if the disk or the original content had gone lost. And everything should be fine if you simply provide a previously recorded e-mail address: “If my license is attached to my (e-mail) account, let me go online and download the whole game later” Wardell says.
Looking at the views expressed by the community of its own games, Stardock has synthetized what could be a good compromise between the protection anxieties of the industry and the wish for easiness and respect expressed by the users. The industry wants to protect the games’ licenses? Then they must give something in exchange like the on-line download, Wardell states.
Insofar as he can be allergic to DRM, in the end, the Stardock CEO criticizes the class action brought by Melissa Thomas against Electronic Arts for the well-known issue with the protection of the new Will Wright’s “god game” Spore: “Publishers should have the right to be stupid if they want - Wardell ends up - That’s their right. And it’s the right of the consumer to choose not to buy“.

My opinion is: not at all, because the videogaming majors are dumb-assholes driven. Please discuss.
Post edited October 30, 2008 by KingofGnG
I'm tired, so just one comment. I strongly disagree with the following statement:
avatar
KingofGnG: Insofar as he can be allergic to DRM, in the end, the Stardock CEO criticizes the class action brought by Melissa Thomas against Electronic Arts for the well-known issue with the protection of the new Will Wright’s “god game” Spore: “Publishers should have the right to be stupid if they want - Wardell ends up - That’s their right. And it’s the right of the consumer to choose not to buy“.

If the consumer was informed properly then he would have a choice. As it is, EA is doing everything in their power to hide the presence of SecuROM from casual gamers. That's why I'm fully in support of Melissa Thomas' class action - if someone decides to install anything on my computer without my knowledge and consent - particularly malware - then he better be ready to defend himself in court for violation of my laws and breaking my property.
If I understand his Stardocks fundamental idea correctly (that it's ME purchasing a license, and not my machine), than I'm all for this.
I've never had a problem with the basic idea of licensing vs owning. It's just that the licenses end up being way too much of a one way street where my access can be (legally) cut off at any time, where I'm a faceless, nameless signer with no guaranteed right to get what I paid for.
If I could "buy" a fancy piece of paper that specifically said "The undersigned is hereby granted a non-exclusive, lifetime license to use my software as he sees fight in perpetuity forever and ever amen after he gives me $50," with my signature and the IP holders signature, something that will last and be respected forever with the force of law behind it, sure, why not?
avatar
sahib: That's why I'm fully in support of Melissa Thomas' class action - if someone decides to install anything on my computer without my knowledge and consent - particularly malware - then he better be ready to defend himself in court for violation of my laws and breaking my property.

Oh well, the majors never learn
I always found the presence of DRM completely useless. The crackers are always there and always provide cracks for ANY (well... almost) games. It wouldn't surprise me that the "3 installations per user" was something built to annoy the scene, as they must buy the game a lot of time to be able to decode and crack their protection...
Anyway. I'm tired too. So I'll make another statement about the "license tied to the user’s identity". It... isn't a bad idea, it just has to be well defined, I mean clearly. Will the license will be in relation with a lot of personnal stuff? I wonder how they want to elaborate this kind of "fake-drm protection".
Well, I assume it's meant to work on the basis of great transparency. We've always wanted transparency from these berks. So, if that requires a little transparency from me (ie my name+proof on a piece of paper), I'm more than happy for it, as long as the end result is that I'm guaranteed me right to play the game I've purchased forever on any machine I own.
Ive never cared for any of Stardock's games, but credit where its due they sure do run a good PR campaign, what with all this gamers bill of rights and such.
His DRM system sounds a lot like XBLA just adapted for disc games. And like Sony's (PSP and PS3) and Steam but without the install limits. Which is fine by me, I never really understood install limits anyway.
Also, what Wardell is describing is in itself a DRM system, so it wont be killing DRM any time soon. Rather it will eliminate the need for disc checks such as securom etc.
I posted this on Stardock's site in response to this story, and I'll repost it here:
"So the publishers are telling us, 'Put your money where your mouth is. Why don't you guys develop something that you think is suitable that would protect our IP, but would be more acceptable to users?

I find this... odd. Stardock HAS put their money where their mouth is: they don't put copy protection on their games. Their games have sold and sold well. If that isn't putting their money where their mouth is, then what would be? I just find it bizarre that publishers would say something like that to Brad when the solution is staring them in the face the whole time: don't use DRM/copy protection. THAT's what is more acceptable to users.
As to the lawsuit, I disagree with Brad's statement. It's not going overboard. Sure, they can be stupid if they want, but they damned well need to be transparent about it and not install this DRM on your machine without any warning on the box of what they're using. That's a big part of what the lawsuit's all about. The average Joe can't choose not to buy due to the DRM if he doesn't know it's on there in the first place.
Post edited October 30, 2008 by Coelocanth
One beautiful quote from the text linked above:
FTC chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras added that, "Installations of secret software that create security risks are intrusive and unlawful. Consumers' computers belong to them, and companies must adequately disclose unexpected limitations on the customary use of their products so consumers can make informed decisions regarding whether to purchase and install that content".

I think that's about it when it comes to EA's DRM.
Post edited October 30, 2008 by sahib
There are actually no less than FOUR class action suits in the court system against EA over SecuROM issues. I think it's probably only a matter of time before one gets cranked up against Ubisoft, who act on their forums like they don't enjoy having those icky 'customers' to deal with (amusingly, the lawyers heading up these lawsuits are the same guys who slapped Ubi a few years ago over Starforce. Nice to see a group of idiot suits learn NOTHING).
Hilariously, EA claims repeatedly that they install no spyware with their games...yet they had all of those exact percentages they've been throwing out in press releases about exactly what all of their customers are up to. Wanna know where they got THAT? One of the reasons SecuROM constantly goes online is to upload data based on your installation tendencies, visited websites, etc. so the company whose game it installed with. Hell, SecuROM trumpets the fact it's a Data Mining program on their own freakin' website!
How does this new idea differ from steam? I mean with steam you buy the game either online or on some you can put in the key from a retail store game, and then install it on whatever system you want with said steam account, and if you ever lose it then all you have to do is log on to steam and download it again... Maybe I'm missing something fundamental here.
Although I'd be happier without having to have online verification that I own the game every time I want to play it...
avatar
Anterocide: How does this new idea differ from steam? I mean with steam you buy the game either online or on some you can put in the key from a retail store game, and then install it on whatever system you want with said steam account, and if you ever lose it then all you have to do is log on to steam and download it again... Maybe I'm missing something fundamental here.
Although I'd be happier without having to have online verification that I own the game every time I want to play it...

The difference with SDC is that you do not need to be online. You only need to verify your files one time (when you first install/buy your game) and after that you can play your games anytime, offline.
Steam? I've always hated Steam since I installed my beloved (yes, call it coherence :-D) Half-Life 2 for the first time, because they are the WORST DRM EVER. Not only you need to "activate" all the damn Gigabytes of the game you download/install for the DVD (that's my case), but you have, as always, NO GUARANTEE the system will still be on-line years by now. Just as in the Spore case, it's the same thing but worse....
When the dark ages of DRM will fall, also thanks to the valuable work of the CD-Projekt guys, we will all look at this controversy like the most stupid thing the industry did to try to kill itself...
Oh, and a semi-OT regarding the above said CD-Projekt folks: I've looked at a Witcher triler, I've never played it but I think it's a very intriguing game. Your efforts to kill the DRM at all is very much appreciated :-P
avatar
tBOBXerxes: The difference with SDC is that you do not need to be online. You only need to verify your files one time (when you first install/buy your game) and after that you can play your games anytime, offline.

It also verifies before it let's you d/l patches or new content. Something I also have no problem with.
As to the OT, I will really be surprised if the other companies give this serious thought. EA and UBI both have stated how they feel about used game sales and the install limits are their solution. They have also continually demonstrated their real lack of supporting customers, something that Stardock has always prided itself on. Without a MAJOR change at the top, things like this really don't stand a chance.
Besides, Coelocanth said it quite well:
avatar
Coelocanth: I find this... odd. Stardock HAS put their money where their mouth is: they don't put copy protection on their games. Their games have sold and sold well. If that isn't putting their money where their mouth is, then what would be?
I don't get how stardock is "putting its money where it's mouth is" by developing DRM?!?
Surely Stardock put it's money were it's mouth was when it released all its games WITHOUT drm... and thats why people love them. The publishers seem to have gotten totally the wrong message.
As for the DRM solution outlined. It sounds fine. I like it. I already have it, its called Steam.