Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

October 29, 2008

Consumer-friendly PC publisher Stardock is working on a non-intrusive copyright protection scheme for PC games, according to Edge Online.

Citing an interview with CEO Brad Wardell, EO reports that Stardock is developing the solution for other publishers. GamePolitics readers will recall that Wardell and Gas Powered Games head Chris Taylor released the controversial Gamers Bill of Rights during PAX 2008.

It seems that major PC game publishers were unwilling to sign onto the Bill of Rights, however. While not naming names, Wardell commented on the publishers' reluctance:

While Stardock doesn't put copy protection on its retail games, the fact is that most publishers are never going to agree to do that. 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?'

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 stopped short of terming his new project a form of DRM:

The problem with 'DRM' is that it's so loosely defined... Stardock's products use activation, and I wouldn't say that it's DRM. We're just verifying if you're real customer... We want that [game user] license to be yours, not per machine... It's not your machine buying the game. It's you...

Publishers should have the right to be stupid [about DRM] if they want. That's their right. And it's the right of the consumer to choose not to buy.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

Stupid about DRM,game design and destroying thier products and the industry by proxy by ever focusing on the next product instead of finishing and polishing the one before them...


Online activation is a anti consumer practice that limits a consumers right to own the product, so online only is wrong and unacceptable.


You need a 3 step process  disc protection+key+online, hell a online setup that can check the key server without annoying the consumer unless there is a critical key issue. You the publisher have to give more online to get people to use a more secure online system, offering patches and ZOMG! better support through a better online system would bring in more legit consumers...but you guys want less for more and that is what you will get less paying consumers for a higher product price and inept DRM......

I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)

Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

If you look into Stardocks history, you'l see your rant is a little out of touch with stardocks usual approach.

Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

Not picking on Stardock I am picking on the indutry as a whole. *lick* =^^=

I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)

Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

The cat stuff is really creepy, please stop doing it.

Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

I'm interested to see if their schema does indeed put the lucre in the oral orifice.

Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

"Publishers should have the right to be stupid [about DRM] if they want. That's their right. And it's the right of the consumer to choose not to buy."

BINGO!  Thank you StarDock.

See EA, it's not that half of us are pirates and they other half just "don't understand."

You exercised your right to be stupid, and we exercised our right to say go to hell.

Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

Agreed.  Though I am still for piracy because the consumer gets 0 punishment at all, while the publisher gets shafted, if DRM is added.  I like the concept that you can tell how many people downloaded the illegal copy, so they can see how many people are pissed if they are smart enough to compare past games like Sims 2, and...  Wait, what are other EA PC games? haha  If 1/3rd of the people playing Spore are playing it illegally, I know that is far higher than the normal statistics, and it is prolly higher than that.

Explain the loss of 30% of your could be income for your biggest title of the year to your investers EA.  Seriously, explain...

Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

I can explain it focuing on the next product befor your current one is done is the reason!

I is fuzzy brained mew =^^=
http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/
(in need of a bad overhaul)

Re: Stardock Building non-DRM IP Security for PC Games

If games were not $60 a game, there would be less piracy.

--- Official Protector of Videoland!

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Login or register to post shouts