Thoughts of Simulations and Breakfast

[swestrup]

Speaking of breakfast, I think I'll make some Bacon and Eggs, and maybe some Hashbrowns if I can get taxlady to clean a couple of taters...

But that is NOT what I wanted to post about here. It just occured to me that there has been feature drift in the Sims project since I first wrote the proposal letter and now. (Actually there has been MASSIVE feature drift, but most of it is completely compatible.)

The sudden sticking point that I just realized is that the giftshop version of the program, that lets you wander though the streets of Montreal at various points in the past, would be an offline version. (Insisting that users have internet access - while not draconic - will increase returns from clueless customers to unacceptable levels). This is fine, except that my current mental model of the template object model requires installation to use an online e-money protocol that reencrpts while branding the objects with the current owner's name and address.  Hmm.

This is not a MAJOR sticking point, since I don't actually need a solution to this until the design is well under way, which won't happen until after any negotiations. Still, for consistency, I would like to solve the issue.  I can think of a few options off the top of my head:

1. Burn a new CD for each customer at the giftshop kiosk. This is just wrong in so many ways I won't even consider it further.
2. Have the version on the CD contain nothing but objects that are marked freely transferable, and have some kludge where they are currently 'owned' by a special null entity. During install an offline version of the protocol is capable of transfering ownership from the null entitiy to a user.
   
3. Create a non-reusable branding of objects that merges them completely into a game program. Then, although based on the same engine, the giftshop game would not be compatible with the rest of the system.
   
4. We combine 2 and 3 by having a way to 'seal' a game object and all of its sub-objects with a key, and again use a special entity key. The game would be usable and copyable but not extensible until unsealed via an online registration process.

All of the viable options seem to be non-trivial, and all of them seem to involve dangerous extenstions to the object encryption and or e-cach model. I have a niggling feeling though that there is a much simpler and easier solution that I'm currently overlooking. Anyone have any ideas?

Comments

[sps.livejournal.com]

Aren't they distribued 'owned' (ie copyright) by the museum, but marked freely distributable? I don't see why such things need re-encrypting at all. But even if they do, it can be done offline, because you can give away the public key of things that are intended to be freebies, can't you?

[tjernobyl.livejournal.com]

1: Print activation key on the CD case. Map activation key to name/address in some external mechanism.

3: Giftshop can be a subset of the game. If transferrance to the greater game is required, a gateway mechanism can be created that 'ports' the objects to the full system.

Re:

[sps.livejournal.com]

These are both disasterous, I'm afraid. The 'activation key' method will promote circulation of activation keys (because people *think* they know what they're for), which will subvert the entire infrastructure of the game. It's vital that each copy have its own key; it's far more important that having mappings back to the real world. And the subset giftshop version defeats the whole purpose of subverting (sorry, 'leveraging') the giftshop business to promote the game.

Or?

Re:

[swestrup]

Remember than 'Owner' and 'Author' are different. When you buy an online template you're registered as the current owner, and its now YOUR bank account that gets trashed if you give away copies.

The Museum may decide that the objects are NOT freely distributable (although I would argue against them doing that) but must be bought. Then the sale of the CD would consistitute a sale, but one not using the e-cash protocol, and therefore a bit of a probelm.

(I'm just making sure I have all of the bases covered here since I know that some people have really weird ideas about protecting their property).

Re:

[swestrup]

Hmm. It just occurred to me that I should simply tell them 'Look, there is NO known offline method of securing a video game from copying. Either we decide its a free game and we're charging a nominal fee for packaging, or we insist that the user have an internet account, and you'll have to handle the inevitable hand-holding for folks who have trouble registering'.

Re:

[swestrup]

The second option isn't so disasterous. So long as I manage to retain rights to the code (so it can be released openly) then we've got a jump-start on a marketable product. If I can get them to release the 'Olde Tyme Mnt.Royal" objects as well, its gravy.

Re:

[sps.livejournal.com]

Oh, ok. In that case you *do* go with the printed 'CD key' approach, but you tell people that the number is their online bank account number, and the purchase of the game includes a $10 gift certificate, deposited to that account.

Re:

[sps.livejournal.com]

Well, maybe. It just seems very lame to me that you'd end up with two copies of the engine on your machine, one old lame one so you can do the museum thing, and one latest and greatest for play.

It just ends up making the museum look bad as the product ages, while missing a great opportunity to suck people in to the wider world.