Read by Council Hinder design theft

[Dr. Whammy]

I get what he was saying, in the original post Erth stated adding an option when spawning the BP to have an option of copying it. We could either have the same option when spawning a core. Or because you were spawning a core and thus creating a new ship the option wouldn't even be available as it only limits ships spawned from BPs.

That's why I suggested 3 options. I'm trying to plan around these issues.

What do you think of the options I posted in post #97?

 

[Lecic]

I'm not going to read that wall of text, Lecic, sorry. I'll respond to the first sentence/line in each paragraph.

So let me get this straight. I reply to YOUR wall of text with my own, and you won't even bother reading it?

Which part?

Why don't you read my post?

No idea what isn't true as you haven't quoted specifically.

You'd know if you read the post.

Not seeing the point here.

My point is that even a wealthy faction probably can't afford what you could make if you instead produced the models and sold them to them yourself.

 

[Lukwan]

I beg your pardon? You want DRM so you can share more freely? There's nothing right now to prevent you sharing with anyone and everyone.
I don't fully understand your point here, but if you want more people to have access to your designs, DRM is going to work against your goal

Let me be more plain then. I share my builds because I want build-knowledge to spread in SM. I don't care about the credits I get for my builds, I never did and since credits are are pretty worthless (compared to Mats) no builders I know are motivated by money. I have some builds that are not on the dock for the very reasons we are trying to discuss. I offer up my CC as proof that I am interested in the development of our player-base.

The issue for me is and has always been to protect the credit of the original builder and to have a system that prevents 'photocopy' knock-offs to be made of BPs that anyone sells or shares on the dock unless the designer wishes it so. You see how this has work both in game and on the dock? Your points about arms races and economy are red herrings and have no bearing at all on the Whammy-effect. (That would be people who would share their builds if they could ensure others will not make 2nd gen clones.

Creative people don't need to be managed like cogs in a corporate death-factory. Many players are just Leggo-maniacs who want to build. This is what people who I have played with on MP servers have expressed. It is also my position. I generally consult with people who have a lot of applicable experience.

The single biggest deterrent to sharing BPs is the lack of control over the design once it leaves your catalog not some nonsense about entrepreneurial efforts. If anyone can name a single bigger deterrent, please tell me...I need a good laugh.

 

[HolyCookie]

Jojomo was it sure that people would use the decorative pipes? No, it wasn't but what harm could adding them do? That makes group 1 and 3 invalid (though they might be true yes) as a reason to not add the option. As for 2, innovation isn't a big factor in StarMade, every faction has its building fanatics that just love to build, they create the new ships and just add the new things that were discovered between designing the last ship and designing the new ship. The innovation factor is almost depleted but the little that is left is not influenced by copyright things at all. espionage is used to steal enemy ships and wave them around as a trophy, study their weak points to know where to aim problem is that the enemy doesn't stick to the same ship long enough to actually use that information. A ship has never been stolen for its technology (except for the people that aren't on starmade dock and don't have a decent faction)

also, sorry for putting you on the spot like that, on pages 1-4 I saw a few times people saying something along the lines of "no need to get personal" that means that conversations weren't (and aren't) going as "neutral" as I'd like them to read. I asked you for a response and you got all those bad responses because of that, I take that on me, sorry, I truly am.

I don't see a problem with the suggestion and am going to forward it to the rest of council. All I am trying now is explain you why it won't have any impact on your game play.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Let me more plain then. I share my builds because I want build-knowledge to spread in SM. I don't care about the credits I get for my builds, I never did and since credits are are pretty worthless (compared to Mats) no builders I know are motivated by money. I have some builds that are not on the dock for the very reasons we are trying to discuss. I offer up my CC as proof that I am interested in the development of our player-base.

The issue for me is and has always been to protect the credit of the original builder and to have a system that prevents 'photocopy' knock-offs to be made of BPs that anyone sells or shares on the dock unless the designer wishes it so. You see how this has work both in game and on the dock? You points about arms races and economy are red herrings and have no bearing at all on the Whammy-effect. (That would be people who would share their builds if they could ensure others will not make 2nd gen clones.

Creative people don't need to be managed like cogs in a corporate death-factory. Many players are just Leggo-maniacs who want to build. This is what people who I have played on MP servers have expressed. It is also my position. I generally consult with people who have a lot of applicable experience.

The single biggest deterrent to sharing BPs is the lack of control over the design once it leaves your catalog not some nonsense about entrepreneurial efforts. If anyone can name a single bigger deterrent, please tell me...I need a good laugh.

Bullseye! We are all here for one reason; we love to create. Plagiarism of ideas is a massive deterrent of an artist's willingness to share with the public.

Jojomo you need to get off the business kick. We aren't CEOs, we are artists. We create for the sake of creation itself. Any markets that open up as a result of a wider distribution of our work are simply a bonus.


Also. The Whammy effect? Did I just become a thing?

 

[Lukwan]

Now for the real discussion.

- Create "original blueprint" which allows full repair, copy, editing etc. Basically full ownership of the design.
- Create "blueprint copy"; used for spawning a single entity but does not allow copying or repair. You have to go to the manufacturer for service.
- Create "licensed blueprint" used for spawning a single entity and allowing other shipyards to repair it. Copying is not permitted.

Thanks Dr. Whammy, this is a good start.

1. Introduce "repair only" designs for the shipyard. A ship with a signature could only be used in a shipyard for repairs. If you make a design for it, then that design can only be used to repair that specific ship or ship-type.

Good point Benevolent27. In fact your post had a lot of good, tough questions regarding server resets and such. Ideally I would like to see this planned for so as not to be an issue. Back-ups would need to have access to ownership & copy-status so they need to be woven into the BP itself. Maybe the first person to make a ship from a copy-proof BP will have their ID entered onto the BP as the 'authorized' owner.

______________________________________________
Also. The Whammy effect? Did I just become a thing?

[doublepost=1475179740,1475179582][/doublepost]Yes...now you need theme music and a catch-phrase.:D

 

[Jojomo]

Jojomo, your entire argument hinges on the idea that people currently use your business model of selling a blueprint once and then building another, and would stop doing that if this were implemented. They don't. No one does that. I have to wonder if you actually have every built a real ship. I make bad ships and it can take weeks.

It's not worth it.

I don't think you've read my argument, that business model has nothing to do with it. That was just a suggestion for people asking how to make a profit without DRM.
[doublepost=1475185345,1475185218][/doublepost]

Actually it's not. Calhoun is indeed accurate in saying that our ships are not digital material. They are the culmination of the knowledge and experience of a creative mind as well as its ability to problem solve, and generate aesthetics. These things are neither tangible nor digital. They are represented by a digital image of a ship but understood (even if only subconsciously) as much more than 'just a ship'. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion since everyone would be flying death cubes.

Everything in the game is digital material. Culmination of knowledge, experience, creativity, and problem solving is not mutually exclusive with digital material.

The bottom half of your post I won't reply to: it's about me instead of the issue at hand, again.
[doublepost=1475185883][/doublepost]

Let me more plain then. I share my builds because I want build-knowledge to spread in SM. I don't care about the credits I get for my builds, I never did and since credits are are pretty worthless (compared to Mats) no builders I know are motivated by money. I have some builds that are not on the dock for the very reasons we are trying to discuss. I offer up my CC as proof that I am interested in the development of our player-base.

Credits are materials, and vice versa. I'm not sure but I think you're saying you're not interested in selling for credits or materials. I commend your mind-set, mine is very similar - in my spare time I create things to share with others, and I'm doing the same in SM.

The core of this argument though is about selling ships: people feel they can't have a business doing so unless there's DRM to protect it, which is wrong.

If you want credit for a design, just register it by posting it on the dock. If there's ever any doubt who's responsible for a design you can just point at your upload and its date.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Everything in the game is digital material. Culmination of knowledge, experience, creativity, and problem solving is not mutually exclusive with digital material.

The bottom half of your post I won't reply to: it's about me instead of the issue at hand, again.

My faction; The United Star Axis and their ship/armor/weapon designs were created quite a few years before StarMade even existed and they were created long before I owned a computer or any electronic media beyond audio cassettes. While they are now represented in a digital environment, the ideas themselves cannot be considered digital.

Also, the post you are avoiding does not need your response. The fact that you chose to actively tell me that 'you won't respond' (which is in itself, a response) demonstrates that I've made my point and invalidates any argument you might have had.

 

[Jojomo]

Jojomo was it sure that people would use the decorative pipes? No, it wasn't but what harm could adding them do? That makes group 1 and 3 invalid (though they might be true yes) as a reason to not add the option.

Sections 1 and 3 weren't reasons not to add DRM. They just showed that lack of DRM isn't to blame for people's "problem", and that they can achieve their goals without DRM.

As for 2, innovation isn't a big factor in StarMade, ...<snip>

Well I strongly disagree with that. I think it's a huge factor. The crux of the game in fact.

also, sorry for putting you on the spot like that, on pages 1-4 I saw a few times people saying something along the lines of "no need to get personal" that means that conversations weren't (and aren't) going as "neutral" as I'd like them to read. I asked you for a response and you got all those bad responses because of that, I take that on me, sorry, I truly am.

Yes, I was the person asking others not to get personal!

I don't see a problem with the suggestion and am going to forward it to the rest of council. All I am trying now is explain you why it won't have any impact on your game play.

You're right, it won't have any impact on my gameplay.
It will have a negative impact on innovation in the game as a whole though.

 

[Calhoun]

Dammit Dr. Whammy you bought him back in.

Jojomo we had a good discussion going. This isn't about you, but the reason people are getting personal is because you're adding nothing to the discussion. You basically appear to be trying to turn this into a flame thread. So, please stop.

 

[Jojomo]

Bullseye! We are all here for one reason; we love to create. Plagiarism of ideas is a massive deterrent of an artist's willingness to share with the public.

Depends on the artist. It doesn't deter me for example.

Jojomo

you need to get off the business kick. We aren't CEOs, we are artists. We create for the sake of creation itself. Any markets that open up as a result of a wider distribution of our work are simply a bonus.

I keep getting asked how to make a profit without DRM. That's why I keep saying how.
I didn't introduce business to this argument, I came in talking purely about the effect of DRM on innovation.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Sections 1 and 3 weren't reasons not to add DRM. They just showed that lack of DRM isn't to blame for people's "problem", and that they can achieve their goals without DRM.

...and you haven't explained how.

Well I strongly disagree with that. I think it's a huge factor. The crux of the game in fact.

...and you're the only one who does.

Yes, I was the person asking others not to get personal!

This isn't personal. We don't hate you (at least, I don't). This is a game. You've started an argument and we are countering your argument. I actually find this amusing. It's unfortunate that you don't. Besides, the decision has pretty much been made already; We want this. It doesn't hurt anyone and we are going to work on it until we come up with a finished idea to give to Schine. Lighten up and thicken your skin dude.

You're right, it won't have any impact on my gameplay.
It will have a negative impact on innovation in the game as a whole though.

...and you have no evidence to back this theory of yours up. That's why everyone is giving you a hard time.
[doublepost=1475187145,1475186857][/doublepost]

Dammit Dr. Whammy you bought him back in.

Jojomo we had a good discussion going. This isn't about you, but the reason people are getting personal is because you're adding nothing to the discussion. You basically appear to be trying to turn this into a flame thread. So, please stop.

Well, we could all put him on ignore and have the discussion without any more interruptions.

...but that would be mean. :p

Back on topic. What do you think of my addition to the suggestion? 3 blueprint types and a code entered by the creator to lock or unlock them.

 

[Jojomo]

My faction; The United Star Axis and their ship/armor/weapon designs were created quite a few years before StarMade even existed and they were created long before I owned a computer or any electronic media beyond audio cassettes. While they are now represented in a digital environment, the ideas themselves cannot be considered digital.

Quite right: ideas are not digital. Starmade ships are and always will be though.

I won't reply to the rest of your post as it's about me instead of the topic at hand, again.
[doublepost=1475187997,1475187671][/doublepost]

...and you haven't explained how.

I have repreatedly. See post #86.

This isn't personal. We don't hate you (at least, I don't). This is a game. You've started an argument and we are countering your argument. I actually find this amusing. It's unfortunate that you don't. Besides, the decision has pretty much been made already; We want this. It doesn't hurt anyone and we are going to work on it until we come up with a finished idea to give to Schine. Lighten up and thicken your skin dude.

I enjoy discussions on DRM, and I'm enjoying this one, despite the (sometimes abusive) personal comments
"We" wanting this is not the population as a whole. It's a small segment of it. Obviously this idea is good for designers - it's the game as a whole that will suffer a slowing of innovation.

What do you think of my addition to the suggestion? 3 blueprint types and a code entered by the creator to lock or unlock them.

Complicated, and still DRM.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

Quite right: ideas are not digital. Starmade ships are and always will be though.

I won't reply to the rest of your post as it's about me instead of the topic at hand, again.
[doublepost=1475187997,1475187671][/doublepost]
Do you think I'm not enjoying this? I keep coming back because I am. Just don't expect any replies to posts that aren't on topic.
"We" wanting this is not the population as a whole. It's a small segment of it. Obviously this idea is good for designers - it's the game as a whole that will suffer a slowing of innovation.

Complicated, and still DRM.

Well, now that you put it that way... bye...:p

 

[KillaKrazy]

I think he's referring to builds that aren't spawned in but rather created on a multi-player server. A structure built in this manner could be lost in case of a bug/crash/server reset. I wouldn't mind letting admins have this ability IF they do not abuse it.

How do you guys feel about an access code that you can enter when saving a blueprint, combined with the following options?

You build a ship/station/structure, and when saving the bluprint, at which time you select one of these three options.

- Create "original blueprint" which allows full repair, copy, editing etc. Basically full ownership of the design.
- Create "blueprint copy"; used for spawning a single entity but does not allow copying or repair. You have to go to the manufacturer for service.
- Create "licensed blueprint" used for spawning a single entity and allowing other shipyards to repair it. Copying is not permitted.

If you select 'blueprint copy' or 'licensed blueprint' you will be prompted to enter a code then which saves the blue print with the desired protection level and also applies this protection to the structure you've just saved. The protection will take effect when you exit the structure. Re-entering the core/build block of this same structure then attempting to save a blueprint from it will prompt you to enter the code which will bypass the copy protection for as long as you occupy the structure.

For "blueprint originals", no code is entered. This would be useful for less complex builds that you either don't care about copyrighting or are too tedious to want to encode. Examples; small drones, power armor, point defense turrets, decorative components, etc.

All assigned protection levels persists within the blueprint files themselves so you can give someone a structure and its code so that they can have access to it. ...or to remove protection completely from a structure, re-save your it as an 'original blueprint'.


This system would keep copy protection in the hands of the creator without making it unnecessarily restrictive.


Your thoughts?

I like the ideas, I like where it's headed.

This is an interesting concept. On the one hand, I can see how this would promote blueprint merchants, which would be very good. But on the other hand, I can see a lot of problems here because ships take damage very easily in StarMade. The game might be too arcade style for this to work well. In my experience, almost every time I have an encounter with another player, my ship gets damaged (I don't pick easy targets). If I can't repair it in a shipyard or by breaking it down and respawning it in a blueprint, I'd really rather not buy other people's ships. The time investment to have to bring it back to the person who sold it to me every time it's damaged (or do manual repairs), may very well not be worth it. Also what if the person who sold me the ship is no longer on the server? Will I be doomed to doing manual repairs on that ship? Then there are other considerations involved. What if the server I'm on is having a reset, so they give time to players to "save your blueprints." Then that ship is lost forever to me. Or.. what if the server is going through a reset and is allowing people to save a sector export or their inventory? Upon the new world starting, all the metadata on the ship would become invalid, probably allowing it to be blueprinted.

So, with these questions in mind, perhaps here are a few possible solutions:
1. Introduce "repair only" designs for the shipyard. A ship with a signature could only be used in a shipyard for repairs. If you make a design for it, then that design can only be used to repair that specific ship or ship-type. These designs may be modified by the player, but can only be applied to that class of ship. So, for example, let's say player A sells five "Bomber fighter" designs to player B. Player B then parks one of these bombers in their shipyard and makes some changes to it. Then they save a repair design of it. This player cannot make new ships with their design, but they CAN apply the design to "repair" all the other bombers they purchased to modify them as well or simply for repairs. This design, however, will NOT work with any other ship, except those bombers. If the player buys more bombers from the merchant, they can then modify those as well with the design. These designs, however, would need to be able to survive server resets.

2. Alternatively, allow ships with signatures to be broken down into a design that can only be used to create 1 new ship. So a ship with a signature can still be broken down for it's parts, but only a one-time use design is created. Later on, the player can create a new ship with it, but the design is used up in the process. This ALSO needs to be able to survive world resets, preserving the unique signature, as well as class of ship. So if player's file is kept and they start with the same inventory in a new world, that one-time use design needs to be able to work to produce a ship. Then subsequent repair designs would also still work for the same class ship to do repairs.

Now how the devs would contain this information in a player's file or entity file (where the design might be stored in a storage), I don't know, but I think it'd be doable.

This is exactly the type of constructive criticism and arguments that are needed.

Quite right: ideas are not digital. Starmade ships are and always will be though.

I won't reply to the rest of your post as it's about me instead of the topic at hand, again.
[doublepost=1475187997,1475187671][/doublepost]

I have repreatedly. See post #86.


"We" wanting this is not the population as a whole. It's a small segment of it. Obviously this idea is good for designers - it's the game as a whole that will suffer a slowing of innovation.



Complicated, and still DRM.

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.

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.

 

[Dr. Whammy]

I like the ideas, I like where it's headed.


This is exactly the type of constructive criticism and arguments that are needed.


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.

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.

Hey man,

It was fun for a while but he's just going to keep derailing the thread and taking up space on the page. There's a word for that... Spoiler; it start's with the letter "T".

It's best to just ignore him at this point. I already am. That way, we can focus on the discussion without the silly arguments. We'll perfect this idea without further interruption and he can go pretend he won his little strawman argument only to find out that innovation is alive and well when you guys stop by my shop for some of these...

Advertising paid for by Fairborn Naval Industries; a subsidiary of the United Star Axis.


I'm sure HolyCookie will respond to him if he actually makes a valid point. Until then, let's make this idea Schine!

 

[Madman198237]

I like Dr. Whammy's basic idea. The ability to create ships that can be copied, ships that can't, and ships that can be repaired but not copied would seem to preserve and enhance everything we have. If you want people to be able to steal your designs, well, OK, set your ships to that. You want to sell ships that can be repaired by others but not stolen? Then do that.

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.

My opinion in bullet form:

• 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).
• This idea will add an entirely new dimension of inter-player trading and interaction. Shipwrights will become a thing.
• It still allows for (Why you would want this I don't know, but whatever) the old methods to be used (Config option included for servers that want to restrict these BP types. Otherwise, offer all three at all times) by anyone, at any time.

So why not?

 

[Jojomo]

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.

 

[KillaKrazy]

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.



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)



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.

This will be the last post as arguing with you is like arguing with a monkey, they have no idea what you are saying.

1. When did I state that criticism and arguments had to be in line with the OP? He actually provided a legitimate on a potential problem in the game should this be implemented. Something you have continuously failed to do.

2.

In economics, marginal cost is the change in the total cost that arises when the quantity produced is incremented by one unit, that is, it is the cost of producing one more unit of a good.[1] In general terms, marginal cost at each level of production includes any additional costs required to produce the next unit. For example, if producing additional vehicles requires building a new factory, the marginal cost of the extra vehicles includes the cost of the new factory.

You really need to learn your economics. Both analogies were good due to being similar in what we are facing currently within the game. To point out the PC games, sure you could go to Piratesbay and download any game you want. But, the last time I looked the process of actually running one of the pirated copies, let alone worrying about if they were full of viruses or not, was not worth the time or effort. Again something that you don't have to worry about within the game. There is no time or effort needed when copying the ship and building your own versions instead of purchasing them. Nice try at using the biased analogy, but you are comparing apples to oranges.

3. Who exactly has pointed out the cons? The only one I have seen have been from you. And even you couldn't come up with legitimate concerns outside of the fashion industry and music industry. All that have nothing to with the game. Meanwhile, yet again, we have continuously pointed out how it hurts the game. You may be fine with the game as is, but many of us would like to see the game be something more than mine, build, fight, rinse, repeat. We are offering suggestions to help the game have more than one play style.

4. Since you like to conveniently ignore portions that you are unable to answer or offer a counter argument; I ask you again. Tell me what company would be able to operate or be willing to operate if they had to continuously redesign and develop new goods after every single sale?

At this point it is quite obvious you are just an internet troll and have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Don't bother responding as at this point you will be ignored. I've spent enough tine responding to your frivolous posts.

 

[Jojomo]

1. When did I state that criticism and arguments had to be in line with the OP? He actually provided a legitimate on a potential problem in the game should this be implemented. Something you have continuously failed to do.

How welcome are opinions that don't match your own?

You really need to learn your economics.

Non sequitur.
The marginal cost of a digital product is virtually zero. (The cost require to produce another unit). The cost required to produce another computer is not near zero.

Who exactly has pointed out the cons? The only one I have seen have been from you. And even you couldn't come up with legitimate concerns outside of the fashion industry and music industry. All that have nothing to with the game. Meanwhile, yet again, we have continuously pointed out how it hurts the game. You may be fine with the game as is, but many of us would like to see the game be something more than mine, build, fight, rinse, repeat. We are offering suggestions to help the game have more than one play style.

A working ecomony is the solution to your trading desires. I provided a link to MacThule's suggestion on how to easily fix it above.
EDIT: Here it is again: Fix NPC Shops = Fix The Economy

Since you like to conveniently ignore portions that you are unable to answer or offer a counter argument; I ask you again. Tell me what company would be able to operate or be willing to operate if they had to continuously redesign and develop new goods after every single sale?

The company I work for (an ocean ship design company).
A customer comes to us and tells us what they want a ship to do, and where they want it to do it, then we design it, someone builds it, and it's never used or sold by us again. We have literally thousands of designs on file.

And I haven't advocated SM designers only making a single sale (unless they're selling custom designs). I simply said they should continously innovate and produce new designs to stay ahead of the pack.

At this point it is quite obvious you are just an internet troll and have nothing of value to add to the conversation. Don't bother responding as at this point you will be ignored. I've spent enough tine responding to your frivolous posts.

Third time's the charm