The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom (do not create new DRM threads below)

[Bullethead]

RE: The Distant Guns DRM thread of doom

Well, you see, I have a serious fascination with the Russo-Japanese War.

I'm glad somebody besides me feels that way. The whole war, both on land and at sea, is my favorite conflict of history. It's just been nearly impossible to find games covering it specifically, and even harder to find somebody interested in playing one with me.

My reasons for liking this conflict so much stem from the vast variety of the naval tech employed at the time, thanks to everything having changed so fast in the years leading up to it. Plus, the styling of the ships, with their cowl ventilators and decorative ironwork, tumblehome, towering military masts, etc., just appeals to me. That, plus their fragility (in terms of lack of underwater protection, silly armor distribution schemes, etc.) and the short battle ranges make for highly fluid, quickly changing, and spectacularly destructive battles. Plus, the land campaign had some truly epic battles that mixed WW1 tech with Franco-Prussian War tactics and Vauban-era fortress assaults. What's not to like? :laugh:

I worked with Paul Shaffer for many years on his Raider Operations game. I managed to convince him to work the RJW into it and we had lots of fun with that, within the limits of that engine. I've been jonesing for it ever since we parted ways about 5 years ago. Thanks for doing an RJW game for me.

 

[Neutrino 123]

What's to stop me from using the CD from the initial activation to activate a dozen machines? If you're describing the situation accurately, how does this bother a pirate? And if it doesn't bother a pirate, why inflict it on your customers?

John R.

Well, since the game is initially activated, I assume that a CD (assuming it even will be sold by CD) would have nothing to do with activation unless the license was transfered to the CD. Basically (if I understand correctly), the license will be like a file, capable of being transfered around but obviously not able to be duplicated. Thus, activating one copy would require transfering the license away from whereever it was before (floppy, CD, etc).

 

[chetnikk]

Excuse me?

Basically (if I understand correctly), the license will be like a file, capable of being transfered around but obviously not able to be duplicated. Thus, activating one copy would require transfering the license away from whereever it was before (floppy, CD, etc).

Uh, what kind of magic file is "obviously not able to be duplicated?" Or, to put it another way, if Mr. Koger has developed such a miraculous, uncopiable file, why bother with activation?

John R.

 

[Neutrino 123]

Uh, what kind of magic file is "obviously not able to be duplicated?" Or, to put it another way, if Mr. Koger has developed such a miraculous, uncopiable file, why bother with activation?

John R.

I don't know of any file that cannot be duplicated (in my relatively limited computer experiance), which is why I said "like a file" describing its transferability, and then clarified with a "but" describing its ability to not be replicated. The activation is, of course, necessary to obtain this file-like thing in the first place, as I would not expect full copies of the game to be downloadable for free.:cheeky:

 

[Cougar_DK]

Norm, I'm really happy that you have decided to do something that hasn't been done yet. And I really like game designers, like the guys behind Lock On/Flaming Cliff and Oleg for IL-2, that starts out with something deviating from the mainstream trend. To bad people always complain though, but like me, the could learn something new

 

[Rhetor]

I really think that the discussion about the activation / copy protection scheme should take place only after the game is published. I don't see any reason to spoil another forum with endless speculations about copy protection.

 

[2054172]

Norm

I will also give it the once or twice over and purchase if it's all that you and the TOAW boys think it will be.:smoke:

 

[chetnikk]

I really think that the discussion about the activation / copy protection scheme should take place only after the game is published. I don't see any reason to spoil another forum with endless speculations about copy protection.

This is like saying we shouldn't discuss the status of the barn door until some of our horses go missing.

Obviously, the time to discuss a copy protection system that seems likely to alienate a good many paying customers is BEFORE the publisher is foolish enough to implement it. And a good many paying customers have already made their opinions clear, they're not interested in activation or this crazy "license transfer" nonsense.

"Distant Guns" was #1 on my wish list, until it became clear that the designers considered me a crook and were going to hammer on me as though I were.

John R.

 

[Rhetor]

Ok. So make your opinion clear. That's enough. Above I can see the beginning of a pointless debate over how the activation scheme would work.

I'll also make myself clear - I don't care about activation, copy protection ect, and no, I don't think that the company consider me a crook by implementing such a scheme.

 

[cameronian]

Hello guys,

I figured it was about time to start making appearances here, so...
.

Well, Well, what a surprise. The great Koger finally comes down from the holy mountain to honour us with his presence.
I'm sure that Distant Guns will be a huge success but you'll excuse me Norm if I don't buy it. You seem to have a habit of designing really great games like Age of Rifles (remember that one) and then when you get bored just wandering off and leaving entire communities of gamers behind without a by-your-leave. Now this is your prerogative Norm but it's also bloody bad manners so, thanks for the guest appearance but once you've maximised sales I don't think we'll be seeing too much of you, right?

 

[Blackcloud6]

seem to have a habit of designing really great games like Age of Rifles (remember that one) and then when you get bored just wandering off and leaving entire communities of gamers behind without a by-your-leave. Now this is your prerogative Norm but it's also bloody bad manners so

And why do you think he owes you his personal presence after designing a game? I don't recall the desginer of Panzer Blitz ever calling me to see if I like the game.

 

[JAMiAM]

Sounds like somebody (cameronian) has a major chip on his shoulder, an axe to grind, and is a crass hypocrite, to boot. He derides Norm for coming down from his "holy mountain to honour us with his presence" and babbles on about communities left in the lurch, yet he wasn't even a member of this one, before he registered with the transparent motive of launching his rather pathetic diatribe.

 

[MajorH]

Sounds like somebody (cameronian) has a major chip on his shoulder, an axe to grind, and is a crass hypocrite, to boot.

In his profile he lists www.madminutegames.com as his home page, though I doubt that he is one of the MadMinute developers. I did a quick search and did not find him beating up on Koger at the MadMinute web site. Guess he prefers other playgrounds for this sort of behaviour.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Please, if you have a point to make that may be a hard-hitting criticism, that's fine. But I would ask that you do it with some tact. Most game developers never interact with the community at all save for Q&As done through major gaming sites. In this particular case Norm and Jim have elected to come here and answer questions in person, so I would ask that members treat visiting developers/publishers with a degree of respect.

Again, developers and publishers are not immune from criticism here and I am certain they do value feedback from the community. But please make an honest attempt to provide constructive feedback whenever possible.

 

[Neutrino 123]

It's just that some people are extremely opposed to many forms of copy protecton. Combined with the fact the Norm Koger is generally well-liked designer, and you have many highly annoyed people.

However, these fears about lack of support and troubles of copy protection seem greatly exaggerated to me.

On the issue of support, Age of Rifles seems to have gotten a fair amount of patches, so even if the designer did not give continually support like for Tacops and Europa Universalis I&II, this certainly qualifies as a 'decent' level of support. Furthermore, the Distant Guns engine will remain in Norm Koger's hands, with plans for multiple sequels. This means we can probably expect more support then his previous titles (and the more recent The Operational Art of War seemed quite well-supported to me).

On the matter of copy-protection, the downsides seem fairly small to me. This is not Starforce (though it did not affect me, there are enough problems with people having copy trouble that concerns about it seem legitimate), so systems failures should not take place. The license transfer utility should allow the small portion of people that play on multiple machines to do so with hardly more effort then removing/inserting a USB hard drive.

The main trouble with the license/activation scheme would be if the license was lost due to a general system crash (that prevents any accessing of files). The files from these crashed hard discs can be restored by experts, but presumably you want not want to do this just to get your Distant Guns license (it would probably cost more then the license...).

Now, let us ASSUME that Storm Eagle does not have some sort of contingancy in place to give another copy of the license to people who lost their first one in some accident. Exactly how bad would this license-losing be for the average customer?

First off, we must obtain the probability of a TOTAL system crash during the time period in which the customer plays Distant Guns (for customers that stop playing a game for awhile and then come back to it, I would recommend transfering the license away from the computer during this time period). For calculations sake, let us go with the extremely high figure of 10% during that period. The crash will be, on average, halfway through the time in which the game is being played. The, the average reduction is gaming happiness will be one half for the customers that crash. Combined with the above, and the gaming happiness reduction for people who have a 10% chance of total system failure is 5% (and they could just double the cost by purchasing another copy, and this option further reduces the gaming hapiness drop). The conclusion is that even with several assumingtions in favor of gaming sadness, there was only a 5% drop in gaming happiness, or to put it another way, the game was 95% as good as it would be without the copy protection in these conditions (and again, ~100% if the first assumption turns out to be incorrect).

Meanwhile, copy-protection can be a benefit to honest games. Most pirates, it is true, will not buy that game assuming they couldn't pirate it (hell, for a wargame, they will probably barely play it since 'thinking' is required:cheeky: ). However, a portion of them would indeed buy the game ("oh this game looks good, but first I'll see if I can get it for free":devil: ). Though pirating is unlikely to have a massive impact on sales, it CAN be a signifigant factor [I heard that pirating in Dangerous Waters (an excellent modern naval combat game) gave a noticable sale loss, and it seems strange that so many companies would invest in copy-protection for no benifits]. For a game to have sequels, it is important, of course, that the game does well.

 

[cameronian]

In his profile he lists www.madminutegames.com as his home page, though I doubt that he is one of the MadMinute developers. I did a quick search and did not find him beating up on Koger at the MadMinute web site. Guess he prefers other playgrounds for this sort of behaviour.

It is impolite to use the third person when you could easily use my tag, 'Cameronian'. I'm certainlty not a mad minute developer (I didn't say I was) though I'm a regular contributor to that site and have been since it opened way before release of TC1. I was also a founder member and moderator of the Greatest Battles (WNLB and ANGV) boards. I've been a keen war gamer for almost forty years and a regular AOR player since it's release. You've never heard of me, well my dear Sir, nor I you.

My point - lost among the rather self righteous huffing and puffing above (MajorH, JAMIAM) - is this.
If Norm Koger wants to design a game and make a buck then walk away, fine, good for him, I wish him well, but I'm not playing because now, there are other ways of doing things. Look at how the two designers over at MMG relate and interact with their community (and they have day jobs too dammit!) and contrast that with the somewhat Prima Donna'ish behaviour of Mr. Koger, who, let it be known, declines even to reply to the emails and petition sent him by the members, scenario designers and players over at the official AOR site.

Sorry, but if bad manners is unacceptable in children then it is doubly so in adults. Enjoy Distant Guns (it does look very good indeed) just don't expect too much support when the designer becomes bored and wanders off to the next project that's all.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Sorry, but if bad manners is unacceptable in children then it is doubly so in adults

Maybe sir, you should read that line again, slowly.

 

[Redwolf]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but what Norm described what the copy protection allows and doesn't allow is rather on the "light" side, isn't it.

Transfer to new computer without contacting the developer and without being online, if I understood that correctly.

Of course it still only affects the honest customers and the pirates use a crack, but it could be worse for the paying customers.

 

[MajorH]

It is impolite to use the third person when you could easily use my tag ... You've never heard of me, well my dear Sir, nor I you. ... self righteous huffing and puffing above (MajorH, JAMIAM) ... if bad manners is unacceptable in children then it is doubly so in adults.

You get back what you give. :smoke:

 

[Reckall]

Meanwhile, copy-protection can be a benefit to honest games. Most pirates, it is true, will not buy that game assuming they couldn't pirate it (hell, for a wargame, they will probably barely play it since 'thinking' is required:cheeky: ). However, a portion of them would indeed buy the game ("oh this game looks good, but first I'll see if I can get it for free":devil: ).

Pirates, as a matter of fact, do crack copy-protection schemes, know where to download games (even wargames), and play/sell pirated games without having a single problem. Half Life 2 was available in a "Steamless" pirated version ten days after the game was published - so much for the legit customers that *had* to depend on Steam.

Anyway, if we talk about a copy-protection method for the legit user, then why don't simply use the good old activation code like Matrix does? While I understand that having the *possibility* to update the game via internet could be a cool thing, it should not be mandatory. This is the whole point of the "remote activation" debate.