Appalled and Dismayed

Hi all,

The new DLC system tries to strike a balance between several ideals:

* We don't want people to easily pirate payware content. That hurts our content creators, and by extension, it hurts N3V.
* We don't want compatibility issues to be accidentally introduced by our end users. Since Trainz content is heavily intertwined, changes to one piece of content can result in problem for other content. This can, and often does, reflect poorly on N3V and our content creators through no direct fault of our own.
* We do want it to be in a position where our end-users can download content- both payware and DLS- and have it "just work."
* We do want to provide maximum flexibility for our users. The ability to customise and build entire railways has always been a strength of the Trainz product line and we don't plan to back away from areas where we are strongest.

That said, this is a very new system and it will most likely take us a little bit of tweaking to get the balance right. We do have to make compromises- give too much in one area and it can start to hurt the other areas- but overall I think we're pretty close and we should be able to resolve any remaining niggles pretty quickly. As others in this thread have already pointed out, while things might not always work identically to how they have in the past, there are often ways (and in many cases: better ways) to achieve what you want.

Somebody was throwing around comments along the lines of "a majority of content has been broken" earlier in this thread. As it stands right now, less than 4% of content on the DLS is flagged as faulty by TS12 SP1 standards. We expect this number to continue to drop over the next few months; we're seeing over a thousand new uploads to the DLS each week. I can't speak for any third-party content distribution sites- they don't answer to us in any way, and the relative quality of content on their sites is something that they would have to answer.

kind regards,

chris
 
Somebody was throwing around comments along the lines of "a majority of content has been broken" earlier in this thread. As it stands right now, less than 4% of content on the DLS is flagged as faulty by TS12 SP1 standards. We expect this number to continue to drop over the next few months; we're seeing over a thousand new uploads to the DLS each week.

We see that "majority' thing used in many cases here. Things like "the majority of people are having problems with SP1", or "most people refuse to install it" or whatever. Even if an accurate polling were given, the people who visit a game's forum aree usually too small a sample of the overall player base to really prove anything. As they say "88% of all statistics on the internet are made up."

These changes are difficult, even painful for some, and could have been implemented better. They may cause some users to abandon the game, but I think they will, with some ironing out, be for the benefit of Trainz moving forward.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

The new DLC system tries to strike a balance between several ideals:

* We don't want people to easily pirate payware content. That hurts our content creators, and by extension, it hurts N3V.

Which also means users cannot protect their investment. What happens if/when N3V goes under, or just decides to change marketing strategies. (Please, I have a lot of respect for you, and please show me the same: don't even try to hand me lines like, "it'll never happen" or "we'll just issue a patch before we go under." I can fill pages as to how wrong that is, both historically and legally.)

* We don't want compatibility issues to be accidentally introduced by our end users. Since Trainz content is heavily intertwined, changes to one piece of content can result in problem for other content. This can, and often does, reflect poorly on N3V and our content creators through no direct fault of our own.

I can see where this is a concern, but, at the same time, most users know if they've modded content. The Revert to Original feature fixes any problems introduced in a specific piece of DLC or built-in content.

* We do want it to be in a position where our end-users can download content- both payware and DLS- and have it "just work."

It works just as well using the old method.

* We do want to provide maximum flexibility for our users. The ability to customise and build entire railways has always been a strength of the Trainz product line and we don't plan to back away from areas where we are strongest.

Which is the feature that Trainzers have relied upon for years, which has now been taken away as far as paid DLC content goes. Note that this point is exclusive of the previous two points.


I note with interest that, the second and third points are largely exclusive of the first. If broken/sketchy DLC is such a concern, let the pirates share broken DLC. That's an extremely effective anti-piracy measure in itself; nothing discourages pirates more than warez that doesn't even work. Considering that one of the motivations to pirate is to exchange modded content, this is a problem that (partially) fixes itself.
 
All a bit moot anyway as many of us are staying with 49922 or TS2010 - with no disrespect to the builders, putting out a 12 mile obscure secondary route around the back of Stoke on Trent (no matter how detailed or nicely done) as payware is not nearly enough to convince me to upgrade. Something like the recent WLOS or WCML North for TS2013 then we might be talking!
Note to the Rail-sim team... Next time do a route that's 50 miles long through open country with just a few cows here and there - be a hell of a sight easier than Stoke. Oh, hang on, we did that last time.

Paul
 
Paul - I was most careful to note "with no disrespect" and obviously while full details and pricing are awaited I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering exactly what the route has to offer that would make it worth both investing in financially and subjecting one's TS12 installation to the rigours of SP1+.

If referring to the comment about the TS2013/RW routes I mentioned, neither are entirely 50 miles of open country. WCML was so stuffed with assets between Motherwell and Glasgow it killed the PC's of half of those who tried to run it. WLOS probably has 12 miles of built up scenery around Carlisle alone given what Keith has done with it.

In any event I'm sure this particular discussion will be more appropriate in a Stoke on Trent dedicated thread, when the route and any rolling stock included is officially announced.
 
Which also means users cannot protect their investment. What happens if/when N3V goes under, or just decides to change marketing strategies. (Please, I have a lot of respect for you, and please show me the same: don't even try to hand me lines like, "it'll never happen" or "we'll just issue a patch before we go under." I can fill pages as to how wrong that is, both historically and legally.)

To be blunt, if the company maintaining any game goes under, then "historically" the game will be dead within a year or two. There are definitely a few exceptions to this, but not many, so let's just all try and avoid that happening, hey? :)


I can see where this is a concern, but, at the same time, most users know if they've modded content. The Revert to Original feature fixes any problems introduced in a specific piece of DLC or built-in content.

The problem here is that modifications to a piece of content can break "unrelated" content elsewhere. The "unrelated" content cops the blame in this scenario. While there are certainly people here on the forums who are capable of diagnosing this kind of thing, there are also plenty of people here (and lots more who are not here) that have difficulties. Just take a look around at the calls of "broken content" to get a feel for how people react to this kind of thing.


It works just as well using the old method.

Couldn't disagree more.


Which is the feature that Trainzers have relied upon for years, which has now been taken away as far as paid DLC content goes.

No, not really. We are definitely reducing the options that are available here, but we're not taking the capability away. As I noted in my post above, we're still working on getting the balance exactly right, so there may be some things that need to be further tweaked over time, but we're not aiming to lock anybody out of making their own customisations.

If your idea of customisation is "take an existing piece of content and rework half of it so that it's actually something else" then yeah, I can see you might have some problems. In that kind of case, you might be better off contacting and working with the original content creator.


I note with interest that, the second and third points are largely exclusive of the first.

I disagree. They certainly tug in different directions to some extent, but to say that they are "exclusive" implies that it's a black-or-white decision with no opportunity for shades of grey. There are many shades of grey.


kind regards,

chris
 
To be blunt, if the company maintaining any game goes under, then "historically" the game will be dead within a year or two. There are definitely a few exceptions to this, but not many, so let's just all try and avoid that happening, hey? :)

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.

As for going under, unfortunately, I won't purchase additional DLC in the future if there is no way to back it up. Seeing as there are quite a lot on here who are as anti-DRM as I, N3V should think long and hard about this position.

I disagree. They certainly tug in different directions to some extent, but to say that they are "exclusive" implies that it's a black-or-white decision with no opportunity for shades of grey. There are many shades of grey.

Exclusive = counteracts. The case for DRM is, at best, a shoddy one, fraught with risk of losing customers. When you understand the nature of piracy - especially, that of Trainz piracy, which is remarkably different than that of any other product - you'll find there is little or no benefit, but plenty of antipathy likely to be generated.

Good luck to N3V with their decisions, but you can count out my financial support, at least for the time being.
 
Not having 2006 and not being a New South Welshmen you would have no idea on how wonderful a bit of kit the Silver City Comet is :) :) :) it set new standards and its held back by one silly texture issue

Good Morning NSWGR_46Class
You may wish to take a look here ;) https://www.auran.com/planetauran/dls_cleanup_list.php?CurrentPage=3&Mine=0&Search=NSW&NoClaimed=0

About half of the assets shown on that page are the Silver City Comet vehicles. They aren't built-in/locked, they're actually now available for the community to repair, so that you can use them. There is literally nothing stopping you from repairing these, and then releasing the repaired version via the DLS clean up system, so that everyone can use it.

Same applies to any other assets on the DLS that are currently showing as 'faulty' in TS12 SP1, where the creator has decided not to repair their content.

So far, apart from the uniform texture error, all errors are due to either incorrectly created models or config.txt files. In the case of models (e.g. missing a texture), this model is purely and simply faulty. It's looking for a nonexistant file, which impacts performance. This doesn't mean it was intentional, but it was incorrectly made.

In the case of config.txt files, we have provided the CCG and TrainzDev Wiki, which outline what is permitted/required. We also provide CCP to assist with creating error free content, and have done since TRS2006. Most of the errors that TS12 SP1 now shows are due to the creators referencing non existent files (thumbnails, menu images, etc). Again, this wasn't necessarily intentional, but it is still a fault, albeit one that we simply couldn't detect in earlier versions. Had the content been built to the guidelines (if you reference a file, include the file...), it won't be faulty...

Regards
 
Don't tell that to those of us who still play Starcraft, SimCity 2000/3000,

I don't remember Blizzard going out of business? When did that happen? I'd better cancel my WoW subscription.. ;p


..and all the great MAME, INTV, Atari 2600 and Nintendo stuff, to name a few.

.. and it's a fair bet that this is illegal. It also took a lot of effort by a lot of very talented people.

Heck, if the TS2012 content is so well loved that people in 20 years time are cracking our DRM and writing full-system emulators just to play it, I'll take that as a complement.


As for going under, unfortunately, I won't purchase additional DLC in the future if there is no way to back it up. Seeing as there are quite a lot on here who are as anti-DRM as I, N3V should think long and hard about this position.

We did that before we committed to this path.


The case for DRM is, at best, a shoddy one, fraught with risk of losing customers.

Indeed. It's worked so poorly for Apple, it's a shame they went out of business after basing their entire business model around DRM. They were such an awesome company. :)

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that there are both potential and real downsides to every approach. Some people (ubisoft?) have done some really dumb things under the banner of "DRM." But to dismiss an approach completely based on predicted worst-case outcomes is perhaps a little over-the-top.


kind regards,

chris
 
I don't remember Blizzard going out of business? When did that happen? I'd better cancel my WoW subscription.. ;p

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.

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.

.. and it's a fair bet that this is illegal. It also took a lot of effort by a lot of very talented people.

And a lot of it is not...and a lot abandoned, mostly by companies that have been out of business for years.

We did that before we committed to this path.

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. Oh, well, at least I have a DLS-full version of TS2010 content and a pretty-full version of TS12 pre-SP1.

Indeed. It's worked so poorly for Apple, it's a shame they went out of business after basing their entire business model around DRM. They were such an awesome company. :)

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. Thank you for your honesty here: It's rare for companies to openly admit that this is their long-term goal.

The next logical step is the Trustworthy Computing goal of denying competing services to run at all on the same platform. The entire state of the software industry is pretty much what many, including myself, were predicting a decade ago, and that's the next logical step. And we're already part way there: Apps have to be approved before they can even be listed on the App and Windows Stores...

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree that there are both potential and real downsides to every approach. Some people (ubisoft?) have done some really dumb things under the banner of "DRM." But to dismiss an approach completely based on predicted worst-case outcomes is perhaps a little over-the-top.

Because the worst-case scenarios usually are what pan out, soooner or later. Your own comment above pretty well demostrates N3V's own goals and intentions.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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:
.. 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? :D

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:
Taken in context

[h=4]Limited install activations[/h] 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.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP] 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.[SUP][25][/SUP]
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top