Intellectual Property Ingame

[Shynras]

Disclaimer: everything I'll write here, will be based on the information we have now. Since I (we) don't know specifics on this matter, I may be wrong, and NQ could have a solution. Anyway i think is a good argument to discuss, so here it is:

 

As far as we know (I may have missed something, feel free to correct me), and as far i can imagine:

- We can create a blueprint from any construct we own

- We can sell our blueprints (probably you're not able to sell a blueprint that you bought from someone else, unless there's a specific option where the original creator lets you do that). 

- A construct created from a blueprint is not decomposable ( you can't remove blocks from it), but you can add stuff to it. This feature serves to prevents or to slow down reverse engineering.

- A construct created from a blueprint will probably mantain its inability to be deconstructed

 

My concerns : A construct can be destroyed by weapons. We know how weapon works, they target and destroy a specific area of a construct, so we can actually partially damage them. A construct created from a blueprint is not invulnerable in combat of course, so it would get damage itself anyway. So why do we have a a lock from a blueprint that don't let us deconstruct a ship, when we can shoot it anyway, and look inside to reverse engineer it? Yes, if you shoot at it, you don't get back the materials, but do we really care about some resources when we get back priceless informations? I personally think that:

- This gameplay mechanic will actually benefit more large group/organizations that have enough resources to waste some for informations, while small groups and solo player can't.

- A blueprint lock is already annoying enough, it must be worth adding it. If you can destroy small bits of a ship, and look inside anyway, then it's an inefficient, useless and frustrating feature. Why its annoying? When someone wants to modify a ship, most of the time he wants to replace stuff, not to add more on it. 

-Most people will not even buy a ship they can't modify, this actually reduces a lot constructs trading. 

 

In summary, the blueprint protection doesn't add anything good (because you can still reverse engineer), but add a lot of limits. And limits are not good in a sandbox. At least there should be an option for the original creator to sell an "open source construct" that people can modify and deconstruct freely. Keep in mind that most people are not good at building stuff from zero, but everyone wants and knows how to personalize a constructs to meet their needs. 

 

I don't usually play and specialize on a single aspect when I play games, but i'm quite good at building, scripting and in creating complex and competitive stuff, so i'm giving here my objective opinion, i'm not saying this because I want to steal other people ideas, i just think it's a useless features that doesn't bring any good to the game. 

If I want to make a ship hard to reverse engineer, I'd make it hard to read. I'd create unnecessary complex scripts hard to understand. I'd sell it only to trusted people and add a self destruct feature to it, in case it get stolen. I don't need a blueprint protection for sure, it doesn't serves any purpose, that construct will still be reverse engineered. 

[Kurosawa]

if they made it optional to lock the BP they would cater to both people that wants to hid there design and those that do not mind sharing or want to show others how to do it.

[Atmosph3rik]

I definitely agree about people wanting to be able to customize things that they purchase.

 

They ran into a lot of these issues in Landmark.  And tried to solve some of them.  So hopefully NQ can learn from some of that trial and error.

 

Originally if you purchased someone else's voxel design or "template" in Landmark it was immutable (You couldn't make any changes to it or copy any part of it).

 

The main problem was simply that most people don't want to buy a totally uneditable construct.  People want to be able to customize things in a building game.  So eventually they changed it so you could paint and delete parts of a purchased design, which was definitely a good thing.

 

The funny part is that even before the change it was already possible to easily take ownership of someone else's design.  

 

The issue was that you could use a Blueprint in a sort of "delete mode" like a cookie cutter to create a mold.  Which you could then use to stamp out your own version that you had complete ownership of.  So for starters hopefully NQ doesn't allow that.

 

I think we definitely need to be able to edit a construct that we own that was created with someone else's Blueprint.  But you definitely shouldn't be able to create your own Blueprint from any part of it.

 

I remember reading in the dev blog somewhere that they plan to give us another way of saving creations.  One that was only for voxels and didn't include elements.

 

So that might be a way of trading things like ship hull designs or other voxel shapes more freely.

[Anaximander]

In the interview JC gave to the DUExplorers podcast, he did speak of Master Blueprints. Only if somone gets those they can build a copy of your blueprint.

So, even if someone tries to copy a ship you've sold them, they won't cause the Core Unit is not letting them to do so via the RDMS.

If somone destroys the Core Unit and try to copy the ship that way, by placing their own, the new construct will be the same as yours only in appearence. Scripts will be purged.

If somone was to hack a ship you've built, they would only change ownership of the ship, not the RDMS. Thus, they won't be aable to make copies off of it.

It's that simple.

[Velenka]

I would like to see the ability to allow which rights transfer to blueprint-built constructs. The builder should choose whether or not it's possible. It would allow for competition between ships which buyers could modify, but it would be far more expensive than the stock model that isn't modifiable. You would essentially be selling the blueprint of the ship since it would be possible to modify it and reverse engineer it. And if a certain builder isn't interested in that risk, he can just let the default no-modify rights be in the blueprint-built ships.

[Daphne Jones]

Disclaimer: everything I'll write here, will be based on the information we have now. Since I (we) don't know specifics on this matter, I may be wrong, and NQ could have a solution. Anyway i think is a good argument to discuss, so here it is:

 

As far as we know (I may have missed something, feel free to correct me), and as far i can imagine:

- We can create a blueprint from any construct we own

- We can sell our blueprints (probably you're not able to sell a blueprint that you bought from someone else, unless there's a specific option where the original creator lets you do that). 

- A construct created from a blueprint is not decomposable ( you can't remove blocks from it), but you can add stuff to it. This feature serves to prevents or to slow down reverse engineering.

- A construct created from a blueprint will probably mantain its inability to be deconstructed

 

My concerns : A construct can be destroyed by weapons. We know how weapon works, they target and destroy a specific area of a construct, so we can actually partially damage them. A construct created from a blueprint is not invulnerable in combat of course, so it would get damage itself anyway. So why do we have a a lock from a blueprint that don't let us deconstruct a ship, when we can shoot it anyway, and look inside to reverse engineer it? Yes, if you shoot at it, you don't get back the materials, but do we really care about some resources when we get back priceless informations? I personally think that:

- This gameplay mechanic will actually benefit more large group/organizations that have enough resources to waste some for informations, while small groups and solo player can't.

- A blueprint lock is already annoying enough, it must be worth adding it. If you can destroy small bits of a ship, and look inside anyway, then it's an inefficient, useless and frustrating feature. Why its annoying? When someone wants to modify a ship, most of the time he wants to replace stuff, not to add more on it. 

-Most people will not even buy a ship they can't modify, this actually reduces a lot constructs trading. 

 

In summary, the blueprint protection doesn't add anything good (because you can still reverse engineer), but add a lot of limits. And limits are not good in a sandbox. At least there should be an option for the original creator to sell an "open source construct" that people can modify and deconstruct freely. Keep in mind that most people are not good at building stuff from zero, but everyone wants and knows how to personalize a constructs to meet their needs. 

 

I don't usually play and specialize on a single aspect when I play games, but i'm quite good at building, scripting and in creating complex and competitive stuff, so i'm giving here my objective opinion, i'm not saying this because I want to steal other people ideas, i just think it's a useless features that doesn't bring any good to the game. 

If I want to make a ship hard to reverse engineer, I'd make it hard to read. I'd create unnecessary complex scripts hard to understand. I'd sell it only to trusted people and add a self destruct feature to it, in case it get stolen. I don't need a blueprint protection for sure, it doesn't serves any purpose, that construct will still be reverse engineered. 

Locks don't add anything either since someone could pick the lock or break down the door... but we still have them and, for the most part, they work.

 

People will buy locked constructs, because they want the item. Same reason you buy a car rather than build one. 

 

Without blueprint and construct locking, builders won't build things except for our personal use and you will have to build stuff for yourself. (And builders will go play some other game where there is reasonably good IP protection.)

[HiredGun]

I have a thought on this. you can only get a master blueprint from something that you create in the Virtual Simulator. Something you own or are in control of (ships and such) you could only make a blueprint copy (that you can't sell or trade) with a single build available. So, you could build more of them to sell, but could not flood the market with those blueprints. 

[Dhara]

I think they should do it like Second Life does it.  You have a permission system built in and the creator can decided what can and cannot be done with that item after it is sold.  It was a simple check box.  That way I can build pieces of a construct to sell to other builders with full permissions to use it how they like.  For instance I used to buy a lot of stuff like a "window pack" that I could use in the buildings I designed.  I purchased more items like that in that game than anything else.  But if I can't edit the windows I just bought and put them in my build and then resell my new build with them included, then I wouldn't buy them.  I'd just spend the time to make them myself.  So you cut a big part of the market out by not allowing builders to sell their items with full permissions like that.

[Volkier]

Well, in the grand scheme of things, legally speaking, everything we make would become the intellectual property of Novaquark. It's a part of every single EULA of every single game for a reason - else you open up opportunities for a clever lawyer to sue the company if someone's "intellectual property" gets copied, stolen or even destroyed. 

 

So anyway, I would say give players options to do what they will with their blueprints and live and let live. Of course stuff will be reverse engineered and copied - but I think all of us here want to play a space sim game, rather than virtual IP and bureaucracy simulator. 

[HiredGun]

Thing is, that for the people that are not so much there for the space sim game, but for the cool space building game, will be using their IP as a primary source of income. It is a build game as much as it is a PVP game. If IP in not protected (in the game) then being a builder is less viable.