.
Trainz: A New Era Pre-Orders Have Now Arrived! - Visit our Information Page to find out more.
Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 174

Thread: Appalled and Dismayed

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    N3V, QLD, Brisbane
    Posts
    4,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RRSignal View Post
    Perhaps you should recall Atari, Midway, and others of the business who are now no more. Heck, Atari was the Microsoft of the early 80's.
    .. none of which were responsible for Starcraft or the SimCities, unless my memory is worse than I thought. So while you have a point to some extent, your examples are not remotely valid. The Blizzard games especially- while they are a company with an outstanding reputation for maintaining their old games, if they were to go out of business then you could kiss the BattleNet functionality goodbye.


    Of course, a company does not need to go under in order for their DRM to screw customers. Walmart, Amazon, Yahoo and Microsoft have done it for a variety of reasons, including simple changes of marketing strategy.
    Yes. "DRM" and "screwing your customers" can go hand-in-hand, but need not. You can screw your customers quite effectively without "DRM", and you can have DRM without screwing your customers.


    And a lot of it is not...and a lot abandoned, mostly by companies that have been out of business for years.
    "Even if the copyright is not defended, copying of such software is still unlawful in most jurisdictions when a copyright is still in effect. Abandonware changes hands on the assumption that the resources required to enforce copyrights outweigh benefits a copyright holder might realize from selling software licenses." - wikipedia



    Seems a bit different than your previous post but, in that case, I suppose that means those of us who do not want to support DRM should write off future versions of Trainz without any further consideration.
    Or, you could avoid using that content- that's also a choice. But yes, we've committed to providing in-game payware. It's been something that has been talked about both publicly and privately for the past ten years, and we've decided that the market is now mature enough to make a serious go of it.


    Oh, Apple is a great example of how a wonderful side-effect of DRM is to tether users to a particular platform and, ultimately, lock them in to that ecosystem. Of course, at the user's expense.
    Again, you're conflating two different issues here. I think we can agree that Microsoft needed no DRM to "lock" users into their platform over the past 20 years (heck, the only reason that we might consider ourselves "unlocked" now is that other platforms are more popular, not that Microsoft has lost much control over the desktop market.) Apple is benefiting from the same effect, and this has little to do with DRM.

    But that aside, you're suggesting that Apple's actions are bad for their users. Whether you are right or wrong, a significant portion of the population of the world disagrees with you. Furthermore, I don't think anybody is suggesting that their actions are bad for Apple. It's quite feasible that Apple would have been liquidated by now had it not been for the opportunities that DRM brought them. Instead, they are currently the most valuable publicly traded company in the world. I'm not saying that DRM is a magic wand that will do the same for us, but it's clear that it's also not a horrible scourge upon mankind and that it can be made to work for both companies and users.


    The next logical step is the Trustworthy Computing goal of denying competing services to run at all.
    This is something that I agree with you about, and it's likely going to take government intervention to keep it under control. But again, it's not specific to DRM- Microsoft's Internet Explorer killed Netscape Navigator by being bundled free, not by technical means. I also remember earlier Microsoft antitrust cases about private APIs. There are many ways to achieve the end of unfairly eliminating your competition, and companies will always find new ones. We do need some amount of regulation to protect consumers from this kind of thing, but that doesn't really have anything to do with DRM.


    Oh, wait, we're part way there: Apps have to be approved before they can be listed on the App Store...
    This is an interesting one. In a practical sense, I think Apple have done a great thing by the majority of their users here. In a couple of cases, I question their motives, and some of these may eventuate in court cases. In an idealistic sense, I'd like something that gives the user advantages of Apple's system but without having a central corporate caretaker with absolute power.


    Because the worst-case scenarios invariably are what pan out.
    That's a very pessimistic viewpoint, and is not well supported by history.


    Your own comment above pretty well affirms that N3V has the worst intentions in mind.
    I suspect you're making that up from very thin cloth. Either that, or your "worst intentions" and my "best intentions" are very similar- which I guess depends on what you think of those intentions. Certainly, we're being quite open about what's going on here, so you can't say we're doing anything underhanded. It's your choice whether the decisions made suit you personally or not.


    chris

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,879

    Default

    One group of users were completely left out by the previous N3V 'exe' dlc system, but strangely no-one seemed to be up in arms about that.

    Mind you, the situation hasn't changed with the new system of course
    Last edited by amigacooke; June 6th, 2013 at 02:26 AM.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Floatin' Along the Delaware River
    Posts
    5,900
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WindWalkr View Post
    .. none of which were responsible for Starcraft or the SimCities, unless my memory is worse than I thought. So while you have a point to some extent, your examples are not remotely valid. The Blizzard games especially- while they are a company with an outstanding reputation for maintaining their old games, if they were to go out of business then you could kiss the BattleNet functionality goodbye.
    Ummm....the point is, these are all non-DRMed (well, Starcraft was, weakly) and, thus, are still playable many years later. As were many of the products of Atari, Midway, etc. which are still playable years after the demise of those companies. Something N3V apparently wants to ensure won't happen.

    Yes. "DRM" and "screwing your customers" can go hand-in-hand, but need not. You can screw your customers quite effectively without "DRM", and you can have DRM without screwing your customers.
    Sure, they do. Yes, you can screw your customers without DRM. With DRM, you WILL screw them with full intention of doing so.

    "Even if the copyright is not defended, copying of such software is still unlawful in most jurisdictions when a copyright is still in effect. Abandonware changes hands on the assumption that the resources required to enforce copyrights outweigh benefits a copyright holder might realize from selling software licenses." - wikipedia
    You automatically assume all old software is pirated.

    Or, you could avoid using that content- that's also a choice. But yes, we've committed to providing in-game payware. It's been something that has been talked about both publicly and privately for the past ten years, and we've decided that the market is now mature enough to make a serious go of it.
    Yes, I will...and all future versions of Trainz that rely upon it. I'll also encourage other community members to stop supporting N3V as well.

    Again, you're conflating two different issues here. I think we can agree that Microsoft needed no DRM to "lock" users into their platform over the past 20 years (heck, the only reason that we might consider ourselves "unlocked" now is that other platforms are more popular, not that Microsoft has lost much control over the desktop market.) Apple is benefiting from the same effect, and this has little to do with DRM.
    Your moving the goalposts. We're talking DRM here, not marketing strategy. Microsoft didn't need DRM because, for years, they were effectively the only bigl-league game in town - not to mention that DRM was largely infeasable prior the the high-speed internet era. Now that they're not, they're ratcheting up the DRM to lock in users, just like Apple is.

    But that aside, you're suggesting that Apple's actions are bad for their users. Whether you are right or wrong, a significant portion of the population of the world disagrees with you. Furthermore, I don't think anybody is suggesting that their actions are bad for Apple. It's quite feasible that Apple would have been liquidated by now had it not been for the opportunities that DRM brought them. Instead, they are currently the most valuable publicly traded company in the world. I'm not saying that DRM is a magic wand that will do the same for us, but it's clear that it's also not a horrible scourge upon mankind and that it can be made to work for both companies and users.
    You bet they are. And, no kidding that DRM has been good for Apple - it's been wonderful for Apple. I wholly agree, "Apple would have been liquidated by now were it not for the opportunities that DRM brought them," as you said. No argument there. But they did and continue to enforce DRM at the expense of their users, who cannot move to other devices because of it. It worked, at the consumer's expense.

    This is something that I agree with you about, and it's likely going to take government intervention to keep it under control. But again, it's not specific to DRM- Microsoft's Internet Explorer killed Netscape Navigator by being bundled free, not by technical means. I also remember earlier Microsoft antitrust cases about private APIs. There are many ways to achieve the end of unfairly eliminating your competition, and companies will always find new ones. We do need some amount of regulation to protect consumers from this kind of thing, but that doesn't really have anything to do with DRM.
    Again, please don't change the topic or move the goalposts, even though we're in agreement here. We're talking about DRM and closely-related schemes. DRM is as much about locking customers into a specific platform or product as it is about copy-protection, and, realistically, the latter pales in comparison to the former. And, if you're going to argue, 'well, there are so many ways for companies to unfairly eliminate competition' as a justification of DRM, you've already confirmed the worst-possible intentions on the part of N3V.

    This is an interesting one. In a practical sense, I think Apple have done a great thing by the majority of their users here. In a couple of cases, I question their motives, and some of these may eventuate in court cases. In an idealistic sense, I'd like something that gives the user advantages of Apple's system but without having a central corporate caretaker with absolute power.
    Too bad, that's not likely to happen. See, now you're starting to understand how the DRM infringes on our ability and our rights to do what we want (within reason) with the products and content we paid for. Difference is, most of us in the PC world and who use other platforms never agreed to be a part of the "Apple System" of proprietary products, locked-in content, and user restrictions that existed pretty much since the beginning of the platform.

    That's a very pessimistic viewpoint, and is not well supported by history.
    It sure is supported by history, and I gave you plenty of examples. The truth may hurt, but that doesn't make it any less true.

    I suspect you're making that up from very thin cloth. Either that, or your "worst intentions" and my "best intentions" are very similar- which I guess depends on what you think of those intentions. Certainly, we're being quite open about what's going on here, so you can't say we're doing anything underhanded. It's your choice whether the decisions made suit you personally or not.
    Lol, then yoju have to admit, it probably wasn't the brightest idea to defend your DRM by comparing yourselves to Apple, now was it?

    In doing so - not to mention your continued defense of same - you suggested/revealed that you wish to emulate a similar marketing strategy. Why not? It's working well for Apple, not to mention others. At the expense of the customer of course, but, hey, we're just cash cows to be pumped for money on a regular basis. Perhaps N3V should skip ahead a bit and emulate Adobe's marketing strategy, where Trainz is made a subscription product, so that we will pay more for the program in 18 months of ownership than would would if we bought the product outright, and it can be remotely deactivated (similar to Steam, EA, etc.) if you change marketing strategies or don't like a particular user.
    Last edited by RRSignal; June 6th, 2013 at 09:20 AM.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,015

    Default

    The use of DRM has been proven to actually increase pirating of software .......................

    The use of the DRM scheme in 2008's Spore backfired and there were protests, resulting in a considerable number of users seeking a pirated version instead. This backlash against 3 activation limit was a significant factor in Spore becoming the most pirated game in 2008.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States of America, California, Burbank
    Posts
    2,116
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Taken in context

    Limited install activations

    Computer games sometimes use DRM technologies to limit the number of systems the game can be installed on by requiring authentication with an online server. Most games with this restriction allow three or five installs, although some allow an installation to be 'recovered' when the game is uninstalled. This not only limits users who have more than three or five computers in their homes (seeing as the rights of the software developers allow them to limit the number of installations), but can also prove to be a problem if the user has to unexpectedly perform certain tasks like upgrading operating systems or reformatting the computer's hard drive, tasks which, depending on how the DRM is implemented, count a game's subsequent reinstall as a new installation, making the game potentially unusable after a certain period even if it is only used on a single computer.
    In mid-2008, the publication of Mass Effect marked the start of a wave of titles primarily making use of SecuROM for DRM and requiring authentication via an online server. The use of the DRM scheme in 2008's Spore backfired and there were protests, resulting in a considerable number of users seeking a pirated version instead. This backlash against 3 activation limit was a significant factor in Spore becoming the most pirated game in 2008, with TorrentFreak compiling a "top 10" list with Spore topping the list.[23][24] However, Tweakguides concluded that the presence of intrusive DRM does not appear to increase piracy of a game, noting that other games on the list such as Call of Duty 4, Assassin's Creed and Crysis use SafeDisc DRM, which has no install limits and no online activation. Additionally, other video games that do use intrusive DRM such as BioShock, Crysis Warhead, and Mass Effect, do not appear on the list.[25]


  6. #96
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    N3V, QLD, Brisbane
    Posts
    4,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RRSignal View Post
    Ummm....the point is, these are all non-DRMed (well, Starcraft was, weakly) and, thus, are still playable many years later.
    The point I made was that companies going out of business will generally lead to the rapid death of their games, DRM'ed or not. Nothing you've said here really contradicts that- the supposed examples you gave are still in business.


    As were many of the products of Atari, Midway, etc. which are still playable years after the demise of those companies.
    For the "emulators" examples, I'll take that as another point on my side- significant technical effort was necessary to make it possible for those games to be playable, probably quite in excess of what it would take to make a DRM'ed game play after the death of the owning company.


    Something N3V apparently wants to ensure won't happen.
    Please don't try to put words into my mouth, especially when they're clearly not true.


    With DRM, you WILL screw them with full intention of doing so.
    Disagree.



    You automatically assume all old software is pirated.
    It's a reasonable assumption, if we're talking about emulators. Not true in all cases, but certainly true in most. The whole concept of "format shifting" is questionable at best.

    I have nothing ethically against people doing this to abandoned games, but let's not confuse ethics with legality.


    Yes, I will...and all future versions of Trainz that rely upon it. I'll also encourage other community members to stop supporting N3V as well.
    Do too much of that here and you will be on the receiving end of a ban. We're all for free discussion, but we're not at all for people deliberately attacking our customer-base for the sole purpose of hurting us or our customers.


    Your moving the goalposts. We're talking DRM here, not marketing strategy.
    No, I'm demonstrating that the same effect will happen with or without DRM. You can't argue "DRM leads to evil" and then ignore that the same evil exists in the complete absence of DRM.


    You bet they are. And, no kidding that DRM has been good for Apple - it's been wonderful for Apple. I wholly agree, "Apple would have been liquidated by now were it not for the opportunities that DRM brought them," as you said. No argument there.
    And for that reason (among many others) I am glad that Apple embraced DRM.


    But they did and continue to enforce DRM at the expense of their users, who cannot move to other devices because of it. It worked, at the consumer's expense.
    Firstly, I don't think that Apple's DRM has much to do with the ability to move devices. You could perhaps argue this with their music (although that's available DRM-free these days) but the Apps would not be portable even if they were completely DRM-free.

    Secondly, I disagree that it was all expense and no benefit. If it was purely at the consumer's expense, consumers would go elsewhere. Instead, a vast number of consumers have voted with their wallets to accept the DRM. There are clearly some benefits here to the users.


    DRM is as much about locking customers into a specific platform or product as it is about copy-protection
    Uh.. no, not really. I can't agree with this. To demonstrate this point, you would have to show:

    1. That it was possible for customers to move platforms in the absence of DRM;
    2. That the addition of DRM specifically prohibited this capability.

    Neither of which is true for Apple's Apps, and neither of which is true for Trainz content.


    .. if you're going to argue, 'well, there are so many ways for companies to unfairly eliminate competition' as a justification of DRM
    I'm have no need to justify DRM. I'm just pointing out that your anti-DRM argument is flawed.


    Too bad, that's not likely to happen.
    Disagree.


    See, now you're starting to understand how the DRM infringes on our ability and our rights to do what we want (within reason) with the products and content we paid for.
    I'm not "starting to understand" anything here. This is a very well-understood concept. Apple's walled garden approach does this very deliberately, and in many ways it's a good thing, and in some ways it's a bad thing. We all know this. It's up to personal opinion as whether you'd like to be inside of outside that garden. None of this is directly relevant to DRM. Case in point: Trainz does not implement a walled garden.



    In doing so - not to mention your continued defense of same - you suggested/revealed that you wish to emulate a similar marketing strategy.
    Nope. If we were in Apple's position, we might adopt their strategies. Maybe. I can certainly sympathise with why they do. But we're not in Apple's position, so to imply that N3V will act the way they do is disingenuous.

    kind regards,

    chris

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    N3V, QLD, Brisbane
    Posts
    4,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BLACKWATCH View Post
    The use of DRM has been proven to actually increase pirating of software
    Citation needed. All you've shown is that one specific game with a specific and rather stupid limitation was heavily pirated.

    chris

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    dark side of the moon (WCT?)
    Posts
    412

    Default

    Hi Chris,

    To get a bit back on track and not hero-worship at the house of Apple (big in Oz, not so much in the outside world (Android anyone?)).

    With the DRM that will/may be in place, If someone wanted to add more detail on a DLC route or extend the route (or maybe merge to another route), will this be possible or not.

    Could we have a yes or no answer please on these points?

    If not, could yourselves add a function that allows someone to clone the route for editing (and use for own use), but the export of CDP's of a cloned route be disabled so pirate copies can not be made? Just a thought.

    At the moment, as I have cloned before the SP1 patch happened, I have edited versions of two pay ware routes. One of them is a winterised version of the S&C route. I also have an edited version that includes the west Coast Main line south to Preston which I'm slowly updating (again for own use).

    These are examples of why someone would like to edit DLC routes.

    Regards.
    CaptEngland.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    On The Edge Of Forever
    Posts
    2,563

    Default

    Another mod might be to swap the track type (or telegraph poles e.g. S&C 2009) for a preferred alternative or perhaps one that gives better performance. If we have paid for the route surely we should retain the ability to mod a purely personal copy?

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    The year 2046
    Posts
    543

    Default

    I feel the forums really gone downhill recently. You've got people whinging about the product, then the mods are saying "I think you will find our product is fault free and amazing" and doing the corporate thing by constantly arguing against others viewpoints, and then those people are arguing against those and it just becomes a circular argument.
    Nobody is perfect. I am nobody.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Floatin' Along the Delaware River
    Posts
    5,900
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WindWalkr View Post
    The point I made was that companies going out of business will generally lead to the rapid death of their games, DRM'ed or not. Nothing you've said here really contradicts that- the supposed examples you gave are still in business.
    Ahem, I mentioned Atari, Midway games, as well as Starcraft, SimCity (which is no longer Maxis, BTW), etc. No, those makers are not in business. I'll repeat my statement from post #87, "Don't tell that to those of us who still play Starcraft, SimCity 2000/3000, and all the great MAME, INTV, Atari 2600 and Nintendo stuff, to name a few. Almost everything I own besides Trainz and FS is over 15-20 years old."

    If you would like me to, I'd be more than happy to go through a list of games made by manufacturers and software companies no longer in business that I still play. I'll be a pretty long list, and compose nearly all I play besides Trainz, MSFS and Starcraft.

    For the "emulators" examples, I'll take that as another point on my side- significant technical effort was necessary to make it possible for those games to be playable, probably quite in excess of what it would take to make a DRM'ed game play after the death of the owning company.
    An 8-bit emulator isn't too difficult to write. Writing your own version of XP, probably a bit harder...just a guess...

    In any case, if these technical abilities concern you, then why bother with the DRM in the first place, since it'll just be beaten?

    Please don't try to put words into my mouth, especially when they're clearly not true.
    Again, then why bother with the DRM if this isn't at least part of the reason? Save some development time, money, and customer anger and put that effort towards something that'll actually improve the game.

    Disagree.
    Disagree all you want, but that's what will happen and you know it. Also, I've advised you of that, not that the ongoing controversy of DRM over the last several years did not serve as adequate notice.

    It's a reasonable assumption, if we're talking about emulators. Not true in all cases, but certainly true in most. The whole concept of "format shifting" is questionable at best.
    No, it's not. Format shifting is quite legitimate. The specifics are what have not been fully-developed, but it's a perfectly legal tenet, at least in the U.S.

    Do too much of that here and you will be on the receiving end of a ban. We're all for free discussion, but we're not at all for people deliberately attacking our customer-base for the sole purpose of hurting us or our customers.
    Great! I suggest you do just that. That'll help raise awareness about this issue and to irritate your customers further. Thanks in advance for the publicity, and also for showing N3V's true colors!

    No, I'm demonstrating that the same effect will happen with or without DRM. You can't argue "DRM leads to evil" and then ignore that the same evil exists in the complete absence of DRM.
    Um, no, we're still discussing DRM, not other marketing strategies. Besides, your argument is effectively, "Microsoft screwed Apple so why shouldn't we be able to screw you?" Good luck with that.

    And for that reason (among many others) I am glad that Apple embraced DRM.
    I'm sure you are. It allows companies like yours to do well at the expense of your customers. Great business model, in all seriousness. Not so great for customers, though...

    Firstly, I don't think that Apple's DRM has much to do with the ability to move devices. You could perhaps argue this with their music (although that's available DRM-free these days) but the Apps would not be portable even if they were completely DRM-free.

    Secondly, I disagree that it was all expense and no benefit. If it was purely at the consumer's expense, consumers would go elsewhere. Instead, a vast number of consumers have voted with their wallets to accept the DRM. There are clearly some benefits here to the users.
    Unfortunately, the DRM makes porting to another platform pointless, assuming it can be done legally at all. That's a large part of what makes it so wonderful for providers like Apple, and so awful for their customers. Putting aside that some music is now available DRM-free, once you buy the DRMed music, you're often locked into the platform, UNLESS you're willing to lose your investment thus far, or unless the manufacturer was gracious enough to permit software on another one to play their content. That's the POINT of DRM.

    If you can tell me what the benefit is to the end-user - if you can tell me why it's such a problem that people be allowed to take their purchased content to another platform, I'd be interested to hear it.

    Uh.. no, not really. I can't agree with this. To demonstrate this point, you would have to show:

    1. That it was possible for customers to move platforms in the absence of DRM;
    2. That the addition of DRM specifically prohibited this capability.
    1. Sure. Do you want to talk about Trainz or do you want to talk about other platforms? Let's talk about both:
    a. Trainz - Non-authorized installers won't work post-SP1 e.g. Maria's Pass-X (just tested this.) It did pre-SP1.
    b. non-Trainz - MP3, WAV, FLAC etc. are but a few examples of non-DRMed formats that can be played on any platform for which decoders exist.

    2. I'd be glad to:
    a. Trainz - Current DLC system locks out other installers.
    b. non-Trainz - Microsoft PlaysForSure is only usable on Microsoft-approved platforms.

    I'm have no need to justify DRM. I'm just pointing out that your anti-DRM argument is flawed.
    Yet you've been doing just that for the last 5 posts.

    Disagree.
    You think there's a chance that Apple will relinquish their DRM controls to others? Uh, alrighty then...

    I'm not "starting to understand" anything here. This is a very well-understood concept. Apple's walled garden approach does this very deliberately, and in many ways it's a good thing, and in some ways it's a bad thing. We all know this. It's up to personal opinion as whether you'd like to be inside of outside that garden. None of this is directly relevant to DRM. Case in point: Trainz does not implement a walled garden.
    There is nothing good about Apple's approach as far as the consumer goes.

    As for Trainz & N3V, and I choose not to be inside that garden. Which is why I never bought Railworks. And why I choose to nip in the bud the walls that N3V is building, by no longer supporting the product financially or and why I'm winding down making of new content for the DLS.

    Nope. If we were in Apple's position, we might adopt their strategies. Maybe. I can certainly sympathise with why they do. But we're not in Apple's position, so to imply that N3V will act the way they do is disingenuous.
    Perhaps you shouldn't have brought up the comparisons with Apple, let alone continued them over several posts. You pointed to Apple glowingly as to how effective DRM is as a component of marketing.

    To backpedal now after making these glowing comparisons is what is disingenuous.
    Last edited by RRSignal; June 6th, 2013 at 07:31 PM. Reason: clarified some points

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,561
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Good Morning All...

    I feel the forums really gone downhill recently. You've got people whinging about the product, then the mods are saying "I think you will find our product is fault free and amazing" and doing the corporate thing by constantly arguing against others viewpoints, and then those people are arguing against those and it just becomes a circular argument.


    First, this really needs to be clarified. We're not saying it's perfect, but we are defending our actions. Considering we own these forums, and develop the software being attacked/'whined' about, this is quite a reasonable action. Yes, in many ways it will be a circular argument. But, at the same time, we really don't think it appropriate that just one side be shown...


    @RRSignal
    Do too much of that here and you will be on the receiving end of a ban. We're all for free discussion, but we're not at all for people deliberately attacking our customer-base for the sole purpose of hurting us or our customers.


    Great! I suggest you do just that. That'll help raise awareness about this issue and to irritate your customers further. Thanks in advance for the publicity, and also for showing N3V's true colors!
    On this, please read that again. You've specifically stated you'll "also encourage other community members to stop supporting N3V as well"; this is not something we will tolerate on the forums. We haven't previously, and we won't in the future.

    That's not saying we won't allow discussion. But when you are specifically working to make sure we go out of business (that's what you are saying after all), well we really won't tolerate that.

    It should be noted that Trainz itself has had a form of DRM since day at least Trainz 1.0. Specifically, it's had a serial number; which in turn requires you to register online to gain access to downloads. If you lose the serial number before you register, or your login details, or the business closes, you lose access to the online functions (including multiplayer, iTrainz/chat, DLS, etc). Granted, it's not an 'always online' function, but then we haven't implemented any 'always online' DRM into Trainz. The DLC system may require you to be online to verify your purchases every so often (I have yet to test this out myself), but it's still not an always online function. That's not to say it won't change in future, but at this stage there is no requirement to be always online.

    We do expect it, and have done so for quite some time. However, it's not a requirement for Trainz itself.

    Regards
    Zec Murphy

    Customer Support Rep
    N3V Games (Auran)

    *Please do not use Private Messages for support. Support can only be provided via the helpdesk, or via the forums.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Floatin' Along the Delaware River
    Posts
    5,900
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZecMurphy View Post
    It should be noted that Trainz itself has had a form of DRM since day at least Trainz 1.0. Specifically, it's had a serial number; which in turn requires you to register online to gain access to downloads. If you lose the serial number before you register, or your login details, or the business closes, you lose access to the online functions (including multiplayer, iTrainz/chat, DLS, etc). Granted, it's not an 'always online' function, but then we haven't implemented any 'always online' DRM into Trainz. The DLC system may require you to be online to verify your purchases every so often (I have yet to test this out myself), but it's still not an always online function. That's not to say it won't change in future, but at this stage there is no requirement to be always online.
    The serial number, as far as the game goes, really does not fit within most modern definitions of DRM, and it's dubious, to say the least, whether it fits in historical definitions. It requires no involvement after purchase, which is the hallmark of modern DRM. Nor does lock the user into a particular use or distribution system, like the App Store, or N3V's "DLC Store" now does.

    As for DLC, yes, it's never been an "always online" or even "sometimes online" situation, until the new DLC system was implemented. I've been running the Blue Comet on my offline Trainz installation since the day I bought it over two years ago without needing to go online - not even to install it. Ditto for Murchison2.

    Now we need to maintain an internet connection just to use what we paid for, if only periodically. And all the performance problems related to that.

    That's all the more reason not to buy DLC, future versions of Trainz itself or to patch TS12 to SP1.
    Last edited by RRSignal; June 6th, 2013 at 08:39 PM. Reason: clarified and toned down

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,476
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I uh, like Trainz and I'll uh, keep buying it and the DLC that interests me. Sue me RRSignal

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    United States of America, Floatin' Along the Delaware River
    Posts
    5,900
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H222 View Post
    I uh, like Trainz and I'll uh, keep buying it and the DLC that interests me. Sue me RRSignal
    Why would I sue you? Even if I had grounds to do so, I wouldn't.

    I'd rather laugh when the products you (or probably your parents) paid so much money for are rendered worthless either because N3V went out of business, because they changed their marketing strategy, or because they decided to ban your account like Steam or EA does.

    Laughter is worth more than any amount of money.
    Last edited by RRSignal; June 6th, 2013 at 09:57 PM. Reason: Decided to be more...diplomatic, lol!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •