No encrypted for me.

Design Anvil - Razor42

In most cases an acceptable level of inconvenience, is considered okay to protect property or life, whether it be your own or others.

Maybe to you the encryption is an unacceptable level of inconvenience. But to many it's a justified inconvenience, as it does seek to protect property whose theft does have impact on the industry. 

If you're polarised against it, the likelihood of myself or others convincing you otherwise is slim. Perhaps similarily to your own chances of convincing others that it is only a waste of time and effort and will only end in it's failure to achieve its objectives. 

 

acanthis

Design Anvil - Razor42 said:

In most cases an acceptable level of inconvenience, is okay to protect property or life, whether it be your own or others.

Maybe to you the encryption is an unacceptable level of inconvenience. But to many it's a justified inconvenience, as it does seek to protect property whose theft does have impact on the industry. 

If your polarised against it, the likelihood of myself or others convincing you otherwise is slim. Perhaps similarily to your own chances of convincing others that it is only a waste of time and effort and will only end in failure to achieve its objectives. 

 

Exactly. I cannot be convinced, nor do I want to speculate about being convinced. I am not even having the argument as to whether the chosen mitigation is effective or not, that is a speculation for DAZ to make. It's not my responsibility to help DAZ make a profit and protect their sales, that is up to them. That is why I don't care whether this DRM works or not. I am only considering what I as a customer am prepared to accept. As long as I abide by the EULA that's where my responsibility to DAZ ends. It's a slightly different argument to the one that you are quoting.

lx_2807502

tl155180 said:

Design Anvil - Razor42 said:

tl155180 said:

Design Anvil - Razor42 said:

tl155180 said:

SnowSultan said:

So the solution is to do nothing and continue to let pirates give away (or even charge in some site membership cases) products that some people DO download rather than buying? This argument is getting old.

Sorry SnowSultan but I really dislike this argument. Lets say my car was stolen one day by thieves... I buy a new one and as a precaution I shoot everyone dead who comes within 20 metres of the new car, regardless of how innocent they might be. Now, would you say that my solution was a good idea because its better than doing nothing?

 

No, what I would do is insure the car, lock the doors and install a security system. None of these are 100% guaranteed all the time. They do mitigate the risk though.

The one thing I wouldn't do is, leave the keys in the ignition and the doors open while I went to the movies.

Exactly, so you are admitting then that just because I came up with a solution that was "better than doing nothing" it doesn't mean that it was the right one. Other solutions were available that didn't hurt/inconvenience anyone else and they were better than the one I proposed.

Right, well mostly, except these are all inconveniences associated with the other solution I proposed, most would say acceptable inconveniences:

Even if I need to remember to unlock it, Carry around my key, pay my insurance and make sure the alarm doesn't consistantly wake my neighbours at all hours.

Your really comparing Daz Encryption to cold blooded murder over a new Prius? ... 

I was merely illustrating that doing something is not always better than doing nothing. An extreme example was the easiest way to illustrate that point with the greatest impact. Obviously I'm not equating DRM to murder.

And as I pointed out above... you're not remembering to carry around a key. You're having to call the dealership every time you want to use your car and asking them to unlock it for you.

First, Priuses are horrible environment destroying monstrosities.

Second, there are cars with security systems that break and people call you up telling you your car's been stolen when you're in it and demand your password or they'll remotely immobilise it. People tend to sell them for being annoying to live with (this is an actual story of a certain former owner of a Ford GT~)

But okay. Let's put aside all talk of whether it's right to DRM something or not. It doesn't really matter.

 

As a customer speaking only for yourself, is the current Daz product worth buying if it is encrypted?

For me, if it offers nothing that I can't do any other (legal!) way, that I actually need, then no, I won't buy it. Almost all my Daz purchases are just for fun because things look cool. I also often buy things because I like a PA or they did or said something nice. Would I buy their thing if it was encrypted? I shan't speculate.

tl155180

lx said:

As a customer speaking only for yourself, is the current Daz product worth buying if it is encrypted?
 

I don't know if you meant that as a personal question to me, but I'll answer it anyway to be polite.

Personally, I'm not upgrading to 4.9 for a variety of reasons (don't want a DS version that has online access for any reason, don't want my content folders dictated to me, don't want encrypted content that might potentially become inaccessible in future... etc). I, therefore, won't be buying any Connect-only content. I may or may not continue to purchase DIM-downloadable content depending on how good the sales are, but I won't be renewing my PC+ membership as I'm concerned that all future content will eventually become Connect-only (whether Daz admit it or not), so the amount I spend is likely to fall dramatically.

If Daz can make up in sales to former pirates what they lose in sales to me, then good luck to em as far as I'm concerned. Ain't my problem. Its only gonna save me money

ColemanRugh

Why doesn't Disney encrypt their movies to stop piracy? They probably do. If they do - it isn't stopping piracy. DAZ knows encryption isn't going to stop piracy. This is about economics... not piracy.

lx_2807502

It was meant for everyone: it doesn't really matter if DRM is right or wrong or what the reasons are.

Right now we're telling them we're upset with what they're doing because we like what they were doing before and were buying because of it.

At the end of the day, Daz and/or the PAs have to convince us we want to buy their things. We don't have to convince them we don't want to.

SnowSultan

And once again, this discussion becomes ridiculous. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people saying they will never buy encrypted content would also not be inconvienced by it if they did. 

 

Also, bear in mind that Daz isn't encrypting their content because we're all worried it might get stolen from us by thieves - they're encrypting it because they believe that any one of us could be a potential thief

Just a few posts ago, you said that pirates usually do purchase items and then redistribute them. We ARE the potential thieves - perhaps not you and I personally, but some customers are.

 

Like DesignAnvil said, some protection is better than none at all. Would you rather risk DAZ feeling the need to put truly draconian limitations on content (like encrypted textures and no export options) or eliminating their 30-day return policy to fight potential piracy or loss of sales? You can talk about speculation all you want, but we do not work here and we do not have the available information that DAZ does. Thinking that we know better than DAZ is like saying you know more about my personal finances than I do.

tl155180

SnowSultan said:

Just a few posts ago, you said that pirates usually do purchase items and then redistribute them. We ARE the potential thieves - perhaps not you and I personally, but some customers are.
 

No I didn't. You've got the wrong guy

lx_2807502

SnowSultan said:

And once again, this discussion becomes ridiculous. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people saying they will never buy encrypted content would also not be inconvienced by it if they did. 

 

Also, bear in mind that Daz isn't encrypting their content because we're all worried it might get stolen from us by thieves - they're encrypting it because they believe that any one of us could be a potential thief

Just a few posts ago, you said that pirates usually do purchase items and then redistribute them. We ARE the potential thieves - perhaps not you and I personally, but some customers are.

 

Like DesignAnvil said, some protection is better than none at all. Would you rather risk DAZ feeling the need to put truly draconian limitations on content (like encrypted textures and no export options) or eliminating their 30-day return policy to fight potential piracy or loss of sales? You can talk about speculation all you want, but we do not work here and we do not have the available information that DAZ does. Thinking that we know better than DAZ is like saying you know more about my personal finances than I do.

I think there's a reason people are using the word speculate a whole lot, but I wouldn't want to speculate on that.

Also I was the one that said that pirates usually do purchase items and then redistribute them - which was immediately taken out of context as me making some sort of defence for them for some bizarre reason. I didn't say the thing you quoted though. 

SnowSultan

No I didn't. You've got the wrong guy

I was directing that at whoever said it. Forum discussions can get messy sometimes.  :)

 

 which was immediately taken out of context as me making some sort of defence for them for some bizarre reason. I didn't say the thing you quoted though. 

Who made your comment out to be in defense of pirates? And yeah, you said "Actually, most of the ones who make the content available for free did buy it themselves (this does not make it okay.) "

lx_2807502

SnowSultan said:

No I didn't. You've got the wrong guy

I was directing that at whoever said it. Forum discussions can get messy sometimes.  :)

 

 which was immediately taken out of context as me making some sort of defence for them for some bizarre reason. I didn't say the thing you quoted though. 

Who made your comment out to be in defense of pirates? And yeah, you said "Actually, most of the ones who make the content available for free did buy it themselves (this does not make it okay.) "

Yeah, I said that the small timers buy things and then share them and that it wasn't okay. (Which DesignAnvil replied to saying it was small comfort, when I hadn't said it was meant to be anything of the sort. I also said the same thing earlier in the thread and had it deleted because I was "possibly being too kind to pirates" whatever that means.)

I didn't say "Also, bear in mind that Daz isn't encrypting their content because we're all worried it might get stolen from us by thieves - they're encrypting it because they believe that any one of us could be a potential thief" nor do I endorse that statement. It belongs to whoever said it.

Really though none of it matters.

 

SnowSultan

To be honest, this thread really should be left for actual questions and answers about encrypted content. We're just spinning our wheels at this point; those of you who oppose DRM are not going to change your minds unless you hear facts that put your minds at ease, and those of us who don't mind the idea of encrypted products are not going to abandon DAZ over potential and hypothetical situations where we temporarily may not be able to access our content.

acanthis

SnowSultan said:

*SNIP* those of you who oppose DRM are not going to change your minds unless you hear facts that put your minds at ease *SNIP*

Forgive me, but that's speculating as to the mindset of others. Speaking personally, and with no speculation whatsoever, there are no facts that will "put my mind at ease" because, as I have said, I just don't want encrypted content. It's up to DAZ to offer a product that I want to buy. If they don't then I won't buy; and I won't buy DRM.

lx_2807502

SnowSultan said:

To be honest, this thread really should be left for actual questions and answers about encrypted content. We're just spinning our wheels at this point; those of you who oppose DRM are not going to change your minds unless you hear facts that put your minds at ease, and those of us who don't mind the idea of encrypted products are not going to abandon DAZ over potential and hypothetical situations where we temporarily may not be able to access our content.

I'm not abandoning Daz, nor advocating for anyone else to do so. Neither have I seen anyone else telling others to also leave.

I also have no interest in telling people posting in the thread what they're allowed to discuss on the topic, though the person who made it might have recommendations.

Headwax

It's obvious to me that encryption is good. Daz will sell more content because there will be less piracy. Daz will then pass the savings on you you, the customer, as a reward for trusting them. It's a win win situation ..

 

.. Unless of course no one trusts them and the pirates who pirate their software wouldn't buy it anyway if they couldn't get it for free,

 

Then it's a lose lose situation ;) except for those of us who are saving money by not buying it. 

 

 

Design Anvil - Razor42

head wax said:

It's obvious to me that encryption is good. Daz will sell more content because there will be less piracy. Daz will then pass the savings on you you, the customer, as a reward for trusting them. It's a win win situation ..

 

.. Unless of course no one trusts them and the pirates who pirate their software wouldn't buy it anyway if they couldn't get it for free,

 

Then it's a lose lose situation ;) except for those of us who are saving money by not buying it. 

 

 

On a more serious note, I do hope the impact of encryption is being looked at by Daz for Carrara users. As from what I have read it is something that is not just idle speculation. And has a very real potential to impact on user workflows.   

IceEmpress

kyoto kid said:

lx said:

Peter Fulford said:

dbdigital2 said:

 Sure your DRM scheme is less restrictive than it could be, but that is another thing I have I seen that before from companies too.  Start small and it only gets worse as time goes on.  DRM ONLY gets worse not better.

 

+1, as the youngsters type.

At the moment it's presented as all about combating piracy. I'll bet money that within a couple of years some aspect of DAZ output will be subscription based, which is what this process enables. The most obvious candidate is a variation on the Platinum Club, where content is "free" so long as you continue to pay the annual subsciption.

Sadly, rent seeking is a natural human behaviour.

This has been mentioned several times, and every time it has been pointed out how little sense a subscription model would make for Daz, how PC+ is basically one anyway (if you buy products here at least once a month, you should probably be in it) and how insanely logistically difficult that would be to organise for a company that mainly operates via hundreds of vendors.

...Autodesk is heading that route with 3DS Max

 

Autodesk has actual incentive to do this since 3DS Max is THE most pirated 3D software program in the world.  Though the idea still disgusts me.

jpb06t

One day I read a life inspiring quote: "Don't get mad, get even".

In the spirit of that quote I advise anybody "uneasy" <MUHAHAHA> with DAZ "encryption" not to "speculate" any further but to have a look at Manuel Bastioni ManuelLab, a mindboggling (and free as speech...) plugin/resource kit for Blender.

No speculations, just the facts, Ma'am.

cherpenbeck

In effect the same a DAZ giving us the three basic Genesis versions for free, but with added free morph ressources.

And I doubt DAZ had bad business with this free versions (and would neither be in bad business with giving the morph sliders for these basic figures for free)- most people bought dresses and props just to play with the free stuff. I know, because I did.

IceEmpress

Superdog said:

timmins.william said:

Wizards of the Coast had some interesting BS about piracy.

 

So with D&D 3rd edition, they embraced the Open Game License -- anyone could copy and include D&D material in their work (with a few guidelines, one of which was copying the license and requiring some of the new work to ALSO be freely usable).

With 4th edition (and different people in charge) they decided (fitfully and with a great lack of clarity) to no longer have OGL, along with eliminating PDF sales of older work. At least one excuse was piracy (but also brand dilution).

Amusingly, 4e was pirated almost immediately... from a printer copy. In other words, none of what WOTC had done eliminated piracy at all. Instead, if you wanted older work you had to either do without, find a used copy, or resort to piracy.

They then created their worst enemy. Paizo was a company that was primarily focused on publishing adventures for 3rd edition. Both the uncertainties about rights in 4e and some lack of enthusiasm with how the system was shaping up inspired them to come up with, essentially, a new version of 3rd edition... which, given OGL, they had a perfect right to do.

Pathfinder is hugely successful and I know a fair number of WotC employees were a bit bitter at their success, saw it as draining some of 4e's market. 'See? This is why OGL is bad!'

Eeexcept PF would almost certainly never have come about if 4e had been OGL.

 

WotC eventually re-issued PDFs, and with 5e there is (limited) OGL stuff again.

That's a very good example of what happens when you open the box - it's very difficult to close it again. Since DAZ has been unrestricted for so long, trying to restrict it will be very difficult.

 

It would be ridiculous to blame it all on that.  IMO it was entirely the fault of WotC's marketing practices during 4E, thus not even remotely comparable to DAZ's situation. 

 

First off, they decided to end PDF sales.  This means that you could only purchase the products in book form.  This took place starting in 2007, BTW.  Core rule books are heavy, and you can't just Ctrl + F whatever you need.  Plus, physical hardback books cost far more than a PDF *they were EXPENSIVE* -- not to mention that PDFs don't wear out or tear.  The only other option was a cloud-like subscription service where you could read the errata'd rule books online along with some other goodies-- and you lose access as soon as you either lose your subscription or WotC decides to retire the service.  Said service as I recall had some exclusive goodies, including the latest version of the errata (corrected rules/typos/etc.) 

 

This is basically a summary of all the mind-blowingly bad decisions they made:

--Wizards of the Coast decides to release 4E.  They upset 3E fans (and fans of the 1E~3E story setting) by making the rules system completely different in addition to dumping the storyline and world that they had built up for 20 years, retconning the characters/gods/etc. into a different storyline.  IMO this would have been mostly if not completely salvagable were it not for their other decisions (combined with bad timing-- see my last bullet point)

--They go splatbook crazy to a level that would make the librarians of 2E and 3E blush. 

--A year prior to releasing 4E, WotC decides to fight piracy by ending PDF sales.  Only physical books are available.  They pull peoples' downloadable purchases with only 24 hours warning (Paizo and other P&P stores are forced to do this)  The books were expensive-- they were on sale during the holidays of the first year of the system, but the regular price for the core books (Monster Manual + Player's Handbook + Dungeon Master's Handbook) was over 100 bucks.  (Paizo made Pathfinder OGL, and those who did want to buy the core rulebooks could get the PDFs for far cheaper than the 4E core hardcover books)

--Decide to create a '4E Basic' version like what TSR did with AD&D/D&D during the 2E era.  Only instead, the two versions were labelled "D&D" and "D&D Essentials".  Much confusion resulted.  Also, eventually, they started to blend the two rule systems together.

--1 year later, (or was it a year and a half?) they decide that they will only sell their books to "book and mortar" hobbyist stores, meaning that the books cannot be purchased at Barnes & Noble etc.  I can't remember if they were available via 3rd party vendors on Amazon or not.  This was the final nail to the coffin

--All of this happened in 2008, so you have the recession piled on top of this.  4E as I recall only lasted 2 and a half years or something like that before dying.  It was just such a huge mess and everything was so confusing.  

--In the end, 4E is dead by... what, 2011?  They basically drove their 3E customers away with 4E, and drove new customers away with their poor/confusing marketing (and then finally killed the system by only allowing mom & pop hobbyist stores to sell their books)  Those who liked 3E were driven to Paizo/Pathfinder.  Those who did not like 3E were driven to GURPS and Dark Wolf's game systems.

lx_2807502

IceEmpress said:

Superdog said:

timmins.william said:

Wizards of the Coast had some interesting BS about piracy.

 

So with D&D 3rd edition, they embraced the Open Game License -- anyone could copy and include D&D material in their work (with a few guidelines, one of which was copying the license and requiring some of the new work to ALSO be freely usable).

With 4th edition (and different people in charge) they decided (fitfully and with a great lack of clarity) to no longer have OGL, along with eliminating PDF sales of older work. At least one excuse was piracy (but also brand dilution).

Amusingly, 4e was pirated almost immediately... from a printer copy. In other words, none of what WOTC had done eliminated piracy at all. Instead, if you wanted older work you had to either do without, find a used copy, or resort to piracy.

They then created their worst enemy. Paizo was a company that was primarily focused on publishing adventures for 3rd edition. Both the uncertainties about rights in 4e and some lack of enthusiasm with how the system was shaping up inspired them to come up with, essentially, a new version of 3rd edition... which, given OGL, they had a perfect right to do.

Pathfinder is hugely successful and I know a fair number of WotC employees were a bit bitter at their success, saw it as draining some of 4e's market. 'See? This is why OGL is bad!'

Eeexcept PF would almost certainly never have come about if 4e had been OGL.

 

WotC eventually re-issued PDFs, and with 5e there is (limited) OGL stuff again.

That's a very good example of what happens when you open the box - it's very difficult to close it again. Since DAZ has been unrestricted for so long, trying to restrict it will be very difficult.

 

It would be ridiculous to blame it all on that.  IMO it was entirely the fault of WotC's marketing practices during 4E. 

First off, they decided to end PDF sales.  This means that you could only purchase the products in book form.  This took place starting in 2007, BTW.  Core rule books are heavy, and you can't just Ctrl + F whatever you need.  Plus, physical hardback books cost far more than a PDF *they were EXPENSIVE* -- not to mention that PDFs don't wear out or tear.  The only other option was a cloud-like subscription service where you could read the errata'd rule books online along with some other goodies-- and you lose access as soon as you either lose your subscription or WotC decides to retire the service.  Said service as I recall had some exclusive goodies, including the latest version of the errata (corrected rules/typos/etc.) 

 

This is basically a summary of all the mind-blowingly bad decisions they made:

--Wizards of the Coast decides to release 4E.  They upset 3E fans (and fans of the 1E~3E story setting) by making the rules system completely different in addition to dumping the storyline and world that they had built up for 20 years, retconning the characters/gods/etc. into a different storyline.  IMO this would have been mostly if not completely salvagable were it not for their other decisions (combined with bad timing-- see my last bullet point)

--They go splatbook crazy to a level that would make the librarians of 2E and 3E blush. 

--A year prior to releasing 4E, WotC decides to fight piracy by ending PDF sales.  Only physical books are available.  They pull peoples' downloadable purchases with only 24 hours warning (Paizo and other P&P stores are forced to do this)

--Decide to create a '4E Basic' version like what TSR did with AD&D/D&D during the 2E era.  Only instead, the two versions were labelled "D&D" and "D&D Essentials".  Much confusion resulted.  Also, eventually, they started to blend the two rule systems together.

--1 year later, (or was it a year and a half?) they decide that they will only sell their books to "book and mortar" hobbyist stores, meaning that the books cannot be purchased at Barnes & Noble etc.  I can't remember if they were available via 3rd party vendors on Amazon or not.  This was the final nail to the coffin

--All of this happened in 2008, so you have the recession piled on top of this.  4E as I recall only lasted 2 and a half years or something like that before dying.  It was just such a huge mess and everything was so confusing.  

While I know absolutely nothing about D&D, that's an absolutely fascinating look into a company imploding thanks to poor decision making.

frogimus

lx said:

IceEmpress said:

Superdog said:

timmins.william said:

Wizards of the Coast had some interesting BS about piracy.

 

So with D&D 3rd edition, they embraced the Open Game License -- anyone could copy and include D&D material in their work (with a few guidelines, one of which was copying the license and requiring some of the new work to ALSO be freely usable).

With 4th edition (and different people in charge) they decided (fitfully and with a great lack of clarity) to no longer have OGL, along with eliminating PDF sales of older work. At least one excuse was piracy (but also brand dilution).

Amusingly, 4e was pirated almost immediately... from a printer copy. In other words, none of what WOTC had done eliminated piracy at all. Instead, if you wanted older work you had to either do without, find a used copy, or resort to piracy.

They then created their worst enemy. Paizo was a company that was primarily focused on publishing adventures for 3rd edition. Both the uncertainties about rights in 4e and some lack of enthusiasm with how the system was shaping up inspired them to come up with, essentially, a new version of 3rd edition... which, given OGL, they had a perfect right to do.

Pathfinder is hugely successful and I know a fair number of WotC employees were a bit bitter at their success, saw it as draining some of 4e's market. 'See? This is why OGL is bad!'

Eeexcept PF would almost certainly never have come about if 4e had been OGL.

 

WotC eventually re-issued PDFs, and with 5e there is (limited) OGL stuff again.

That's a very good example of what happens when you open the box - it's very difficult to close it again. Since DAZ has been unrestricted for so long, trying to restrict it will be very difficult.

 

It would be ridiculous to blame it all on that.  IMO it was entirely the fault of WotC's marketing practices during 4E. 

First off, they decided to end PDF sales.  This means that you could only purchase the products in book form.  This took place starting in 2007, BTW.  Core rule books are heavy, and you can't just Ctrl + F whatever you need.  Plus, physical hardback books cost far more than a PDF *they were EXPENSIVE* -- not to mention that PDFs don't wear out or tear.  The only other option was a cloud-like subscription service where you could read the errata'd rule books online along with some other goodies-- and you lose access as soon as you either lose your subscription or WotC decides to retire the service.  Said service as I recall had some exclusive goodies, including the latest version of the errata (corrected rules/typos/etc.) 

 

This is basically a summary of all the mind-blowingly bad decisions they made:

--Wizards of the Coast decides to release 4E.  They upset 3E fans (and fans of the 1E~3E story setting) by making the rules system completely different in addition to dumping the storyline and world that they had built up for 20 years, retconning the characters/gods/etc. into a different storyline.  IMO this would have been mostly if not completely salvagable were it not for their other decisions (combined with bad timing-- see my last bullet point)

--They go splatbook crazy to a level that would make the librarians of 2E and 3E blush. 

--A year prior to releasing 4E, WotC decides to fight piracy by ending PDF sales.  Only physical books are available.  They pull peoples' downloadable purchases with only 24 hours warning (Paizo and other P&P stores are forced to do this)

--Decide to create a '4E Basic' version like what TSR did with AD&D/D&D during the 2E era.  Only instead, the two versions were labelled "D&D" and "D&D Essentials".  Much confusion resulted.  Also, eventually, they started to blend the two rule systems together.

--1 year later, (or was it a year and a half?) they decide that they will only sell their books to "book and mortar" hobbyist stores, meaning that the books cannot be purchased at Barnes & Noble etc.  I can't remember if they were available via 3rd party vendors on Amazon or not.  This was the final nail to the coffin

--All of this happened in 2008, so you have the recession piled on top of this.  4E as I recall only lasted 2 and a half years or something like that before dying.  It was just such a huge mess and everything was so confusing.  

While I know absolutely nothing about D&D, that's an absolutely fascinating look into a company imploding thanks to poor decision making.

The end result was that a "content creator" (Paizo) made a competing game based on WotC's previous version that very effectively replaced D&D as the market leader.

lx_2807502

frogimus said:

lx said:

IceEmpress said:

Superdog said:

timmins.william said:

Wizards of the Coast had some interesting BS about piracy.

 

So with D&D 3rd edition, they embraced the Open Game License -- anyone could copy and include D&D material in their work (with a few guidelines, one of which was copying the license and requiring some of the new work to ALSO be freely usable).

With 4th edition (and different people in charge) they decided (fitfully and with a great lack of clarity) to no longer have OGL, along with eliminating PDF sales of older work. At least one excuse was piracy (but also brand dilution).

Amusingly, 4e was pirated almost immediately... from a printer copy. In other words, none of what WOTC had done eliminated piracy at all. Instead, if you wanted older work you had to either do without, find a used copy, or resort to piracy.

They then created their worst enemy. Paizo was a company that was primarily focused on publishing adventures for 3rd edition. Both the uncertainties about rights in 4e and some lack of enthusiasm with how the system was shaping up inspired them to come up with, essentially, a new version of 3rd edition... which, given OGL, they had a perfect right to do.

Pathfinder is hugely successful and I know a fair number of WotC employees were a bit bitter at their success, saw it as draining some of 4e's market. 'See? This is why OGL is bad!'

Eeexcept PF would almost certainly never have come about if 4e had been OGL.

 

WotC eventually re-issued PDFs, and with 5e there is (limited) OGL stuff again.

That's a very good example of what happens when you open the box - it's very difficult to close it again. Since DAZ has been unrestricted for so long, trying to restrict it will be very difficult.

 

It would be ridiculous to blame it all on that.  IMO it was entirely the fault of WotC's marketing practices during 4E. 

First off, they decided to end PDF sales.  This means that you could only purchase the products in book form.  This took place starting in 2007, BTW.  Core rule books are heavy, and you can't just Ctrl + F whatever you need.  Plus, physical hardback books cost far more than a PDF *they were EXPENSIVE* -- not to mention that PDFs don't wear out or tear.  The only other option was a cloud-like subscription service where you could read the errata'd rule books online along with some other goodies-- and you lose access as soon as you either lose your subscription or WotC decides to retire the service.  Said service as I recall had some exclusive goodies, including the latest version of the errata (corrected rules/typos/etc.) 

 

This is basically a summary of all the mind-blowingly bad decisions they made:

--Wizards of the Coast decides to release 4E.  They upset 3E fans (and fans of the 1E~3E story setting) by making the rules system completely different in addition to dumping the storyline and world that they had built up for 20 years, retconning the characters/gods/etc. into a different storyline.  IMO this would have been mostly if not completely salvagable were it not for their other decisions (combined with bad timing-- see my last bullet point)

--They go splatbook crazy to a level that would make the librarians of 2E and 3E blush. 

--A year prior to releasing 4E, WotC decides to fight piracy by ending PDF sales.  Only physical books are available.  They pull peoples' downloadable purchases with only 24 hours warning (Paizo and other P&P stores are forced to do this)

--Decide to create a '4E Basic' version like what TSR did with AD&D/D&D during the 2E era.  Only instead, the two versions were labelled "D&D" and "D&D Essentials".  Much confusion resulted.  Also, eventually, they started to blend the two rule systems together.

--1 year later, (or was it a year and a half?) they decide that they will only sell their books to "book and mortar" hobbyist stores, meaning that the books cannot be purchased at Barnes & Noble etc.  I can't remember if they were available via 3rd party vendors on Amazon or not.  This was the final nail to the coffin

--All of this happened in 2008, so you have the recession piled on top of this.  4E as I recall only lasted 2 and a half years or something like that before dying.  It was just such a huge mess and everything was so confusing.  

While I know absolutely nothing about D&D, that's an absolutely fascinating look into a company imploding thanks to poor decision making.

The end result was that a "content creator" (Paizo) made a competing game based on WotC's previous version that very effectively replaced D&D as the market leader.

I'm reading about it now - it seems like WotC are still going though? Just less popular I assume. Did their choice to go completely offline stop piracy of the 5th edition?

frogimus

5E went to a freely downloadable "basic" set of rules with the 3 core rulebooks being physical. They have a coordinated play system used by game stores where everyone plays the current storyline, which has a rulebook-sized hardcover guide. Or, people like me just buy the 3 core books and run a custom campaign at home.

WotC makes their money on Magic: the Gathering (card game). IMO, D&D is owned mostly for licensing since it is the iconic name in RPG's. They are doing a lot to bring it back to relevance so the name has value again.

DaWaterRat

lx said:

frogimus said:

lx said:

IceEmpress said:

Superdog said:

timmins.william said:

Wizards of the Coast had some interesting BS about piracy.

 

So with D&D 3rd edition, they embraced the Open Game License -- anyone could copy and include D&D material in their work (with a few guidelines, one of which was copying the license and requiring some of the new work to ALSO be freely usable).

With 4th edition (and different people in charge) they decided (fitfully and with a great lack of clarity) to no longer have OGL, along with eliminating PDF sales of older work. At least one excuse was piracy (but also brand dilution).

Amusingly, 4e was pirated almost immediately... from a printer copy. In other words, none of what WOTC had done eliminated piracy at all. Instead, if you wanted older work you had to either do without, find a used copy, or resort to piracy.

They then created their worst enemy. Paizo was a company that was primarily focused on publishing adventures for 3rd edition. Both the uncertainties about rights in 4e and some lack of enthusiasm with how the system was shaping up inspired them to come up with, essentially, a new version of 3rd edition... which, given OGL, they had a perfect right to do.

Pathfinder is hugely successful and I know a fair number of WotC employees were a bit bitter at their success, saw it as draining some of 4e's market. 'See? This is why OGL is bad!'

Eeexcept PF would almost certainly never have come about if 4e had been OGL.

 

WotC eventually re-issued PDFs, and with 5e there is (limited) OGL stuff again.

That's a very good example of what happens when you open the box - it's very difficult to close it again. Since DAZ has been unrestricted for so long, trying to restrict it will be very difficult.

 

It would be ridiculous to blame it all on that.  IMO it was entirely the fault of WotC's marketing practices during 4E. 

First off, they decided to end PDF sales.  This means that you could only purchase the products in book form.  This took place starting in 2007, BTW.  Core rule books are heavy, and you can't just Ctrl + F whatever you need.  Plus, physical hardback books cost far more than a PDF *they were EXPENSIVE* -- not to mention that PDFs don't wear out or tear.  The only other option was a cloud-like subscription service where you could read the errata'd rule books online along with some other goodies-- and you lose access as soon as you either lose your subscription or WotC decides to retire the service.  Said service as I recall had some exclusive goodies, including the latest version of the errata (corrected rules/typos/etc.) 

 

This is basically a summary of all the mind-blowingly bad decisions they made:

--Wizards of the Coast decides to release 4E.  They upset 3E fans (and fans of the 1E~3E story setting) by making the rules system completely different in addition to dumping the storyline and world that they had built up for 20 years, retconning the characters/gods/etc. into a different storyline.  IMO this would have been mostly if not completely salvagable were it not for their other decisions (combined with bad timing-- see my last bullet point)

--They go splatbook crazy to a level that would make the librarians of 2E and 3E blush. 

--A year prior to releasing 4E, WotC decides to fight piracy by ending PDF sales.  Only physical books are available.  They pull peoples' downloadable purchases with only 24 hours warning (Paizo and other P&P stores are forced to do this)

--Decide to create a '4E Basic' version like what TSR did with AD&D/D&D during the 2E era.  Only instead, the two versions were labelled "D&D" and "D&D Essentials".  Much confusion resulted.  Also, eventually, they started to blend the two rule systems together.

--1 year later, (or was it a year and a half?) they decide that they will only sell their books to "book and mortar" hobbyist stores, meaning that the books cannot be purchased at Barnes & Noble etc.  I can't remember if they were available via 3rd party vendors on Amazon or not.  This was the final nail to the coffin

--All of this happened in 2008, so you have the recession piled on top of this.  4E as I recall only lasted 2 and a half years or something like that before dying.  It was just such a huge mess and everything was so confusing.  

While I know absolutely nothing about D&D, that's an absolutely fascinating look into a company imploding thanks to poor decision making.

The end result was that a "content creator" (Paizo) made a competing game based on WotC's previous version that very effectively replaced D&D as the market leader.

I'm reading about it now - it seems like WotC are still going though? Just less popular I assume. Did their choice to go completely offline stop piracy of the 5th edition?

By 5th ed (or so I heard, I stopped caring about the time 3rd ed came out, since that's about when I realized I vastly prefer point systems over classes) they'd realized they messed up.  4th ed is now available at DrivethruRPG (one of the larger, if not the largest, digital RPG sites) along with a lot of suppliments for 5th ed. 

DaWaterRat

On the topic at hand...

My husband pays more attention to the ups and downs of DRM than I do.  When the beta threads started and they announced that there was going to be DRM'ed content, I asked him if I should worry.  He said that as long as DAZ did the DRM "right" I shouldn't have any problem.

As of yet, I haven't bought any Encrypted Only content.  Primarily because everything I've wanted has been more than what's available in my Mad Money.

Now it's my turn to speculate - and I think it sounds like DAZ is doing DRM "right."  Which means I'm not going to worry about it.  I have other reasons to be annoyed with there being stuff I can only download through Daz Connect, but the DRM isn't one of them.

nicstt

kyoto kid said:

diomede said:

There is an issue that I am still confused about.  Is it true that some previous purchases will be converted to encryption through DIM updates?  At the moment, encrypted content will not work in Carrara.  So if this is true, then I have to avoid updates to previously purchased content if I want it it to continue working in Carrara.  This might be a misconception.  I certainly hope so!   During this period of confusion, I have to be very careful about product updates.

 

 

...crikey, I just installed updates for Josie7

May be shader updates?

No idea as I reverted to 4.8; I've got a seperate folder now and am careful about updates. I wish though, it was easier (or even possible) to find out what an update fixes.

nicstt

Fixmypcmike said:

Havos said:

DustRider said:

Havos said:

I am always amazed at how many Carrara users posts in the forums, given we have been led to believe they are a small and decreasing band

We are small in numbers compared to DS users, but there are quite a few of us. Many Carrara users are big DS/Poser content. One of the big problems is that people believe that we just purchase Carrara related items. I'm sure some of that possibly comes from reduced sales of Carrara specific shaders for DS/Poser content. Unfortunately I don't think this is an accurate measure of how many people use the DS/Poser versions of the same products. I know I seldom purchase Carrara specific shaders because I'm quite used to fixing shaders to my taste imported from DS or Poser products. In fact, for the few items that I do have Carrara shaders for, I always tweak those as well, so there usually is no real advantage for me to purchase Carrara shaders in addition to the original product.

Interesting, I have also wondered how people can jump to conclusions by using sales to determine which application that item will be used in, as there is only a handful of items specifically aimed at just one app. It works both ways as well, since strong V4 sales may make people think the buyer is getting that to use on V4 in poser, where as I suspect many (including me) is buying it to use on G2F/G3F in Daz Studio.

I remember when all the base figures were released along with separate products for Carrara specific shaders, and it did seem quite an extra cost to those users. That seems to have stopped now.

They can tell if the person who bought a product buys Carrara-only content as well, whether they've bought successive versions of Carrara, whether they buy DS-only shaders and lights.  It's not foolproof, but they can certainly get an idea.  If someone has never purchased any version of Carrara or any Carrara-only products they can be pretty certain it isn't being used in Carrara.

True, but that's the difference between data and information.

Data is the raw 'product' - in otherwords they collected the data.

Information is what happens to that data when it is processed in some way; it relies on the correct and appopriate question(s) being asked of those processing or arrange the processing of the data.

Richard Haseltine

The definition of theft is a side issue and potentially confusing the main topic. The posst have been removed, as will any further posts on the subject.

nicstt

Petercat said:

Let me see...

Piracy only affects a company's income if the people engaging in the theft would otherwise have purchased the product.

I would suspect that pirates and their customers hate DRM even more than the customers here on the forum do.

I doubt if many pirates or their customers are buying encrypted products now.

So are enough thieves purchasing the new encrypted products to make up for the loss of sales to regular customers? Somehow I doubt it.

Lets find out.

Daz, take a popular, high demand product like the trenchcoat... sell it as encrypted through the normal new product high sales period, say a month.

Then offer it as unencrypted, for the same price, and see how many regular customers snap it up.

That's how many sales you've lost due to the product being encrypted.

Now tell us if you believe that you gained enough sales to thieves to make up for that loss.

DRM isn't about the bottom line- it's about ego. "Someone's stealing our stuff! We have to stop it! Even if it costs us total sales."

Only it's not going to stop piracy. They don't even have to unencrypt the individual items. All the pirates have to do is figure out the one-time key. Or the Poisoned Pill. Which they will do!

There have been several existing customers here who have claimed that they will never purchase encrypted content. I am one of them.

Even though a moderator has told me that making absolute statements would be foolish, I guess I am a fool, because here it is:

I will never purchase encrypted products fot Daz, except by mistake, as others have already done.

If the trenchcoat is offered DRM-free, I will purchase it.

Is there a thief out there who bought the encrypted trenchcoat to make up for the loss of the sale to me? I doubt it. They're waiting for someone to crack the encryption. Which will happen.

So, Daz, DRM is costing you money and customers, and slightly inconveniencing the pirates. I suppose it's worth it, right? Right?

+1

SnowSultan said:

So the solution is to do nothing and continue to let pirates give away (or even charge in some site membership cases) products that some people DO download rather than buying? This argument is getting old.

Doing nothing can be positive when the alternative has a detrimental effect.

I find it hard to believe that whoever had the DRM idea investigated the potential pitfalls sufficiently, or those who had more experience failed to offer constructive feedback on the actions considered.

A little research would have yielded masses of evidence of the problems with DRM systems; whilst they can work well (Netflix: that delivery system isn't what Daz is currently about); at best there is no real change to the bottom line is pretty much the norm. So if there is little change in the bottom line, the cost of implementing such a system must result in a net loss? I certainly think so.

Failing that, DRM is a precursor of something else. Which I've no clue about and is mere speculation on my part.

- And Snowsultan if you think it is getting old, the argument, why are you responding?