This is exactly the type of constructive criticism and arguments that are needed.
Contructive criticism and arguments shouldn't be limited only to points of view you (KK) agree with. They should include points of view from both sides of an argument.
This thread isn't just intended to be a love-fest for the suggestion in the OP. It's meant to be an breakdown and analysis that includes both the pros and the cons of the suggestion.
I'm providing one side of that, in a calm, polite, and rational manner.
Again, you completely fail to see what everyone is getting to. You seem fixated on the real world and the game universe being one in the same. As I stated previously, they are not. There are very real constraints within the real world that are not present in the game. This is why the real world operates the way it does. There is no way Microsoft would have continued to develop and sell Xbox consoles if they could only get 1 sale. If you don't like consoles the same could be stated about computer companies. If ASUS had to design and create a brand new computer after every single sale there is no way they would be able to stay profitable and in business. I feel damn well comfortable stating there is not a single company on the planet that could stay in business if they had to redesign and build new models after every single sale.
The computer analogy isn't very good because the marginal cost isn't close to zero.
The Xbox one isn't bad, software is cheap to reproduce even if you put it on a CD and distribute it physically. But Xbox is a closed ecosystem, there's nothing to learn there - instead look at PC games:
You can find virtually any game you want online to download illegally, and play without paying, without any fear of punishment. And yet companies like Steam selling PC games manage to make huge profits, and sustain massive growth every year, even though they compete with free illegal copies. They do this by including in their business models incentives to choose them instead (e.g. in their case they provide a community, convenience, simplicity, etc)
This is why everyone is arguing against you so much and why you are taking it personal. Not once have you been able to provide a single logical reason within the context of the game on how this would hurt the game. Meanwhile we have several times over shown and prove how the current set up hurts the game.
Many people have pointed out the drawbacks of the current system for designers specifically (although none that can't be gotten around), but no-one has said why the current lack of DRM hurts the game as a whole.
[doublepost=1475205438,1475204233][/doublepost]
If anyone disagrees with this point of view, a solid set of arguments giving exact reasons why this won't work just fine is a very welcome addition. I can't think of anything wrong with it (I'd love it). It adds a much-needed aspect to SM's inter-player gameplay.
It will work fine, from a designer's point of view (and I include myself in that set), but it has drawbacks in other areas.
Arms races will slow, and for-profit designers will have an easier time sustaining income, and so have less incentive to produce new designs.
As aresult, total innovation will slow. I think that would be a pity.
- This idea adds protection to those who, like modern car designers, want to sell their wares without fear of being copied (And immediately losing all or most subsequent revenue).
Consider the number of car-buying customers in the world.
And the number of car manufacturers.
The ration of manufacturers to buyers is tiny. Does any for-profit designer want the number of for-profit designers in SM to be limited to a ratio like that? I don't think so.
Secondly, have a look at (for example) a Mazda 3, a Hyundai i30, a Toyota Corolla, and a Kia Cerato. If you took the badges off them no-one but car aficianados would know which is which. They all look extremely similar, they all have very similar machinery. And car models usually change only very slightly each year.
In other words, the car industry is generally a terrible example of innovation. That may not be the case if they were forced to innovate to stay ahead of the pack.
- This idea will add an entirely new dimension of inter-player trading and interaction. Shipwrights will become a thing.
Unfortunately there will only be part-time shipwrights. Server populations need to be very large to sustain more than that.
The problem with player trading and the economy (and solutions for it) are discussed specifically in this thread:
Fix NPC Shops = Fix The Economy
MacThule really seems to know what he's talking about.