f13.net

I tripped over this while reading RPS ....

http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1095

Stardock Announces “The Gamer’s Bill of Rights”
Plymouth, MI – August 29, 2008 – Stardock announced today the Gamer’s Bill of Rights: a statement of principles that it hopes will encourage the PC game industry to adopt standards that are more supportive of PC gamers. The document contains 10 specific “rights” that video game enthusiasts can expect from Stardock as an independent developer and publisher that it hopes that other publishers will embrace. The Bill of Rights is featured on Stardock’s website (www.stardock.com) and is on prominent display in Stardock’s booth (1142) at the Penny Arcade Expo.

“As an industry, we need to begin setting some basic, common sense standards that reward PC gamers for purchasing our games,” stated Brad Wardell, president and CEO of Stardock Corporation. “The console market effectively already has something like this in that its games have to go through the platform maker such as Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony. But on the PC, publishers can release games that are scarcely completed, poorly supported, and full of intrusive copy protection and then be stuck on it.”

Chris Taylor, CEO and founder of Gas Powered Games stated, “This is an awesome framework for the industry to aspire to, and ultimately so that we can provide our customers with the gaming experience that they have wanted for years, and really deserve.”

As an example of The Gamer’s Bill of Rights in action, Stardock instituted a policy of allowing users to return copies of The Political Machine purchased at retail to Stardock for a full refund if they found that their PC wasn’t sufficient to run the game adequately.

“The PC market loses out on a lot of sales because a significant percentage of our market has PCs that may or may not be adequate to run our games. Without the ability to return games to the publisher for a refund, many potential buyers simply pass on games they might otherwise have bought due to the risk of not being certain a game will work on their PC. The average consumer doesn’t know what ‘pixel shader 2.0 support’ means, for instance,” said Wardell.

According to Stardock, the objective of the Gamer’s Bill of Rights is to increase the confidence of consumers of the quality of PC games which in turn will lead to more sales and a better gaming experience.

The Gamer’s Bill of Rights:

   1.  Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund.
   2.  Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
   3.  Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.
   4.  Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
   5.  Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer.
   6.  Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.
   7.  Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
   8.  Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
   9.  Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
  10.  Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

For more information about Stardock’s games and software, please visit www.stardock.com.


Now, I applaud their initiative and thinking here, but does it strike anyone else as extremely sad that a list like this has to be made?

As a gamer, I'm like "eh, ok, whatever...some nice stuff in there".

As a game developer, I'm like "several of these are ok, several are simply not going to happen", because the consumers won't accept (at least not in this day and age, maybe the future) what is required to make it fair for both parties.

1.  Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund.

--only going to happen if that means online "phone home" authentication. Most users as far as I am aware don't like/won't accept this.


   2.  Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
   3.  Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.



Make up your mind. If the game is finished, then there should be zero expectation of meaningful updates. If a developer feels it's interesting financially, artistically, or strategically to update their game, that's their choice, not a "right of a gamer". I call total bullshit on this one.

4.  Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.

Huh? For a single player game, maybe. Multiplayer? You've got to be able to guarantee that two people on the internet wanting to play together have the right version. By definition, that means "forcing an updater to run". Anything else, I want some of what they were smoking.

   7.  Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time. Again, a pipe dream. Does anyone seriously think that a "perpetual download, forever" clause makes sense to anyone? Think it through before you knee-jerk react...there are 30 year old games out there now.

9.  Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
   10.  Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.


Put these together with #1, and it's an invitation for even the average consumer to steal games. No CD required, no internet access (for authentication), and no questions asked return policy? Not going to happen, period.

I work for a company that believes in being honest and ethical with both gamers and developers...and I'm on the side of commercially feasible "protections" for gamers, and consumers in general, for sure.

I also absolutely think these guys were smokin' dope when they came up with this list.

Is there some way to just get the dope?

You read that without much generosity.

You're probably right, but it's intensely frustrating that this is how the market works.  If I buy a console game, and I keep the receipt, I can return the game.  If I buy a PC game, and I keep the receipt, I absolutely cannot return the game if I've cracked the package.  That, among so, so many other factors, drives people away from PC gaming.

People are going to pirate your games.  This is never, ever going to stop.  Just let them, and find a way to make money from the honest people out there that will buy them.

How about this: if updates are expected - regular additions of content to a persistent world, for instance - they should be "meaningful".  This is vague, but I think it speaks to the quality of updates.  If no updates are expected because the game is static single player, then there should be no reasons for updating.  Clearly this doesn't mean that bug fixes wouldn't be released; it's just a standard to aspire to.  Points 2 and 3 aren't incompatible if you allow for different sorts of games.

Clearly they're talking about single player games, and I agree with them entirely: a game should give me the option of updating with a button in the interface; it shouldn't do it automatically when loading.  At the minimum, there should be the option to turn off that kind of updating.

It makes sense to me.  Fine, there are a lot of companies that go out of business; we don't want it codified in law that they have to provide perpetual downloads.  What we want are some advantages to purchasing PC games over console ones.  A commitment to provide downloads of downloadable games for as long as the company shall exist constitutes that kind of advantage.

You're right, given a negative view of your customer base.  What they're suggesting is that developers should start to take a positive view of their customer base.  I'm not sure that it is or isn't realistic, but it's a commendable principle.

I'm going to have to SirBruce this to make the case that many of these are good business.
Why?  Because our games are so short they could take them home, play them through over a weekend, and then return them on Monday.  Hell, most of them are so short they could return them Saturday morning after picking them up Friday night.  Maybe there's not a lot of entertainment value in our $50-60 product, and that's our real problem?
If I guy a game, I should be able to be confident that it will run.  If MicroSoft has released a new point release of DirectX, or my video card has new drivers, and that broke the game between the time they shipped it and the time I bought it, it doesn't seem unreasonable for me to expect a patch to fix it.  Especially given that you are arguing against any kind of returns for being non-functional.
Why?  What if me and the people I want to play with don't *want* to play the new version?  Maybe the developers changed balance, or the new version has stability problems or hardware incompatibilities.  Shouldn't I be able to decide what code executes on my system?
If it's abandoned, with no official way to get it, then what does it matter if I download it from an abandonware site?
Why not?  There's not the slightest bit of evidence that our DRM efforts have ever sold a single additional box, and plenty of it that they have fueled the development and distribution of anti-DRM, and cost us sales.

I've bought many games in the last year that were either DRM-free, or required only an authentication key that was not "phoned home".  I've also bought quite a few from Steam, which is the most permissive of the download services that does require the updater to be running (having an Offline mode that doesn't phone home, and allowing me to move my games without having to uninstall them from other systems).  I do, however, have concerns for what happens to my game if Steam changes their policies or becomes non-functional.

Why is it such a stretch to believe that the biggest problem a game developer faces is not that people will play games without paying for them, but that they won't play them at all?

--Dave

This is how Stardock runs their studio.  I bought Sins of a Solar Empire not because I wanted to play the game (I'm horrible at RTS) but because I like Stardock that much.  Gal Civ 1&2 were fantastic.

As to #2 and #3, they're very clear.  Gal Civ2 was complete when I bought it and had no major crashes, bugs or flaws.  They released several content updates - for free- that expanded on some concepts a bit, and introduced a different campaign. Then there was the x-pack which added some new features and a whole new story.  (I can't speak for Sins because I haven't played it. I'm still FFH2's bitch when I'm not WoW's)  Sounds like following that plan quite well.

They also don't give a rats ass about pirating.  Their philosophy has been "release a good game that doesn't have asinine system reqs and tons of folks will buy it."  It's worked well so far.  They're not going to be EA or Blizzard, but then too many people try to do that and turn out crap.

lol.

Wow, from hearing about Stardock and how they operate, I'm going to pick up Gal Civ and Sins, heck the Demigod looks good too (the one on the coming soon bit).

The rights sound pretty decent to me.

Here's what I want for a Bill of Rights:

1.  The game's box should disclose the details for any DRM, internet activation, phone home, or whatever other kinds of junk are deemed neccessary to prevent piracy, in big bold letters.  "Warning, this software contains e-herpes and could be harmful to your computer.  Visit http://whatever for details."

That's all.  There's enough information and there are enough reviews on the Internet that I can make an informed decision about whether a game is any good, and the only things that could take me by surprise are the damn rootkits everyone likes to include nowadays.

They really should have put some more thought into these.
Seems kind of extraneous. I mean, obviously everybody wants their games to work properly; whether they do or not is usually more a matter of developer or publisher ineptitude than of some conscious attempt by publishers to screw over customers. Might as well say "Gamers have the right to demand that games are fun."
What Zepp said. I infinitely prefer a good game that I can play out of the box to one where I have to find and download four content updates and three incremental patches before the thing is any good.
This could be clarified. Publishers shouldn't have to make their games available online, but it also shouldn't be illegal to download a game you've purchased if your CD broke, or something.
Again, this is kind of meaningless. Everyone is a potential criminal. I'm not even sure what they're trying to say here.

Also, maybe this is just English pedantry, but given that they're trying to make a statement I think it's important: these are terribly, terribly worded. For one thing, everyone already has the right to "expect" or "demand" whatever they want. For another, it's not necessary to put "should have the right" in every entry after it's already been established that the whole document is a list of rights. I'm not sure 10 is even proper English; it would read much better as "Gamers shall not be required to retain a CD/DVD in the optical drive to play a game installed to the hard drive." or something.

Stardock develop niche titles for a niche audience. They make their games cheap so don't have to shift as many units in order to be profitable than pretty much any title you see advertised on Gamespot. The number of pirates they have attracted to those titles is minimal compared to the AAA titles. Also, afaik, they do a lot of direct sales (i.e. digital download) not box sales, so don't have to pay off publishers at quite the same level as some other titles.

It's a nice PR stunt, but it is a Bill of Rights that would open the doors to the good old buy, burn, return process that led to PC games not being returnable in the first place.

I'm going to (mis-)read this as your making an argument for niche titles and against "AAA" titles.  I'm 100% behind that.

Argument from analogy: musicians distribute their songs online, digitally, attracting a niche audience and making less potential money than under a publisher.  The publisher withers and dies, but the good musician attracts a fanbase.  Fans don't need to deal with the fantastic amount of bullshit attendant with promotion.  If this can happen with music, why can't it happen with games?  I'm fine with more ATitD and less WoW, and the general philosophy behind Stardock's Bill gets us there.

Number 2, yes. Finish your game before you start selling boxes. This is a basic business practice, and too many developers get this one wrong.
Number 3, no. Gamers don't have a right to free expansions and content updates. Which is what I think of when I read the word "meaningful".

For that matter, we don't have a right to any meaningful updates, free or otherwise.

We do have a right for free bug fixes. But, bug fixes and the like are not meaningful. They're what the customer should expect if the developer failed at 2.

I'd much rather have the software phone home and verify the key then put in a CD.

I'd prefer to put in a CD/DVD than have to connect to the internet to verify my copy is legit.

Honest question---would both of you (at length, please!) clarify your thought process behind these two statements?

Obvious answers are:

CD in drive: I don't have an always on internet connection (does anyone actually have this, and is also a gamer?)

No CD in drive: I play a lot of games, don't make me swap back and forth.

I'd really, -really- be interested in other opinions/reasons for each side (stipulate please that some form of authentication is necessary, I'm not looking to convert those that think information should be totally free, etc.).

Agreed.  Yes, they're niche titles.  If you want to stay solvent and not have to sell your soul to publishers, this is what you need to do. Otherwise, say hello to EA's new production schedule for version <your game here> MCMXLVI if it's a successful title.  If it's not, say hello to the unemployment line. This isn't hyperbole, we've seen it time and again over the last several years and clueless game shops keep making the same mistake as they blow huge wads of cash on "AAA" titles that suck ass.

 Not to mention the catering to ever-escalating system reqs. As the economy gets worse and worse you're going to see more and more "craptastic" computers out there and an ever-shrinking market for your "Must have a vid card/ processor no older than 6 months" games.

So how about I purchase games from "the competition" that aren't crippleware? Most everything on that list are bulletin points that I consider when purchasing a game.

When I visit my parents, they have a crappy modem dialup and doing anything online takes time. The kind of time where I'd rather put in an older game that doesn't require external authentication.

And swapping CDs sucks when you know the only reason you have to do it is because your software has been intentionally made that way to punish you for making a legitimate purchase. (Hyperbole to illustrate consumer annoyance.)

And both are really easy to bypass with cracks available online the day after game X hits the shelves.

So what is either of these actually accomplishing to make consumers happy and prevent piracy again?

The video games industry needs AAA titles as well as niche titles. I know it's :awesome_for_real: to bash the AAA titles - and some definitely deserve it - but they are what drives a lot of sales, both of games and of platforms. Niche titles serve other purposes.


Video games aren't like music, or books, because every 3 - 6 years a new OS or platform comes out and some of the existing material becomes unplayable. It's not like the language changes every few years so we can't understand what Elvis was saying. That's the flaw in "indefinitely available copies of titles I paid for" because even though you might be able to find a title you once bought, it isn't guaranteed to work. SP2 screwed up Freedom Force, so, several years after Freedom Force was released, is it Irrational Games' (who now no longer exist) job to fix the problem because you bought the game on launch day? Because, if it doesn't work, shouldn't I be allowed to get a full refund under that Bill of Rights?

Stardock's Gamers' Bill of Rights is self-serving, sometimes confusing, sometimes meaningless and sometimes contradictory. While I can see what it is aiming at achieving, it's off target by a good long way. But I'm sure all those people who love to think that the big publishers love to screw players around for the hell of it will eat it up and Stardock will shift a few more units thanks to the attention.

The right to "demand games be released in a finished state" is horsecrap. It's like saying gamers also have the right to demand that every single game released be "fun" for them. If we're talking like a real "bill of rights" legally I'd make it something like this:

I actually like them. But in my perfect bill of rights, the sale of used games in a retail environment would be outlawed. You could sell to friends, etc. But EBStop would have to, well, stop.

If I were a developer, I'd rather people steal the game than buy a used copy.

Given that Stardock follows each of the rules that they listed, it's not really that unfeasible.  As an example of 'meaningful updates', they updated the graphics engine of Gal Civ 2 about a year after release, and put the new engine out as a free update.  They didn't have to do so, the game was running just dandy without it, but they did it anyways.  (They were building the engine for an upcoming game and ported it over, for those curious enough to ask.  It was a side-benefit of their pre-existing development rather than them going and making a project solely to update an older game.)

I buy my games, but even if I were the evul pir8, I've been amply enough impressed by Stardock's business ethics to pay them for their stuff.  Their games run well and are fun.  Being reasonably-priced and easily downloaded doesn't hurt, either.

If I was a publisher my thought is, piracy is hurting the software industry. Personally, I think some form of copy protection if fine. It really seems like dvd protection gets broken in 5 days.  I also hate swapping in DVDs that will get scratched in 3 months. I also agree with Schild that the reselling is hurting the industry.

Now rootkits are evil just something simple like a hardware survey and see if it matches the last hardware scan for that serial number. If it doesn't make them call, allow for a couple hardware upgrades like changing a video card or sound card, but when the motherboard changes, make them call and say, I bought a new motherboard. When it changes a week later again to a completely different setup, you might have a pirate. So for me, Steam is a pretty darn good solution.

I never knew it was _that_ Stardock that made Sins. I enjoy ObjectDock, and WindowBlinds is kind of cool, even if I ended up ditching it.

Safedisc isn't the only kind of copy protection that gets broken. What you describe would get cracked just as quickly, and is a pain in the ass to publishers who would then have to deal with gamers wanting their installs verified, and also a pain in the ass to gamers who have to deal with publishers in order to verify their installs. Anyway, being able to say "if you have more than X hardware changes in Y days, you might be a pirate" isn't enough; anybody might be a pirate. There'd have to be a line in the sand drawn for how many hardware changes are allowable before a serial gets denoted as pirated. And no matter where that line is, there will always be legitimate customers who fall on the wrong side of it.

This is just personal opinion, but I don't want to buy any game that requires me to have any sort of communication with the publisher in order to play it (in single player. MMOs and the like are obvious exceptions; don't get all nitpicky on me here). I want to buy a product, not a service, and after the nuclear holocaust when I am the only person left alive on the face of the earth (but still have electricity somehow) I want to be able to play Diablo 7 as I subsist on cockroaches and slime. Again, just my opinion. Not trying to start a copy protection holy war.

One middle of the road solution I swear I've seen somewhere (I want to say in Quake IV, but I could be wrong) is software that phones home to check the CD key IF the computer has an active internet connection, but otherwise just lets you play. Given that most gamers are always connected anymore, and nobody wants to disconnect their DSL line juts to start up a game, this is almost as effective as a mandatory phone home while still satisfying my play-it-after-the-end-of-the-world criterion. Thoughts?

Yeah. Hardware checks bug the shit out of me because I have swapped out lots of parts from time to time. Hard Drives, Motherboards, RAM, etc...

My computer would probably fail a hardware check by a legitimatley purchased piece of software eventually.

ok, it's like this. I play a lot of games. Swapping discs is annoying. However, I've been doing it for many years. I also play console games, and it's hard to play without putting the disc into my 360. It's not hard to do.

However, my ISP very occasionally drops out. Usually it's only for an hour or two, (it probably happens more often, but if I'm at work or asleep, I'd never know.) Sometimes it's gone down for an entire evening though, usually when a storm has knoked a pole down somewhere, or an exchange goes out, etc. Regardless, if my internet connection drops out, or I move houses and don't have the internet for a few days or a couple of weeks while they get their shit together, or I no longer have the internet for whatever reason, I've still bought and paid for the game. Along the same line, if <game company> goes out of business tomorrow. I've still bought and paid for the game. Not likely? It happens (Thief/2) and not all companies really give enough of a damn about 2 or 4 or 6 year old games they may have just inherited the IP of enough to bother grandfathering in verification check mechanisms for these old games.

With a CD instead of an online verification, none of that bullshit matters. You go out of business? Shame, but I can still play my game. My internet goes down for a day/week/forever? Shame, but I can still play my game.

Hope this is helpful.

Also, THIS.


I'm not willing to have to telephone Electronic Arts if I want to have a fourth install of my legitimately-purchased copy of Spore or Mass Effect. I'm not willing to dance around the bullshit needed to run Bioshock (I'd have bought it if they allowed Steam to use it's system instead of their stupid DRM). I'll pirate all three before I buy them. To date, I've done neither with any of the three, but I have absolutely no qualms about doing so if I ever bother to care.

If and when I buy myself an entire new fucking computer (every 2 years, approx), I'm not willing to contact anyone to ask them if they will allow me to please kidnly install their game which I still play and like onto my new machine.

Really the best solution is making some aspect of the game - online.

Why's that?

Because I wouldn't see a dollar of the used sale and it would totally cripple EBStops entire infrastructure. If the sales of used shit in a retail outlet like EB were killed, we'd see stores closing overnight. CDs are one thing, DVDs even. But games, EB (which is really the only outlet for used games) treats their used stuff like shit and undercuts new games just enough to make it palatable to people who can't afford a new copy. Even $5-$10 is a meal. But since EB sees 100% of that, it's not exactly "good." As such, I'd rather people save $44.99 or $54.99 and Gamestop sees $0, I still see $0 and the dude gets to eat more. It's an extreme example, but fuck, I hate their Used game setup.

To expound a bit on Schild's statement, a used game sale denies the creator any money (as the seller certainly isn't sending them a cut) just as surely as piracy, while lining the profit margins of the used seller.  EBGames has a pretty big racket going; while the kid spreading around a pirated game is doing so for free, EB is making money off of it, to the same net result for the software's creators.  And, as I've heard from some of their employees, EB is... skeezy about the whole thing, putting immense pressure on employees to push their used stock at all costs.

I don't think "gamer's rights" is a meaningful concept.  To what authority do we appeal?  What happens if the "right" is violated?  It just seems like a list of stuff that consumers would like to have in their products... without increasing the price point.

If Stardock or some other company wants to sell games with a pro-consumer business model, good for them.  Isn't that all we can say about this list?

I thought it might be along those lines, but wanted to check. I don't think more piracy = game devs gets to eat more is that valid an idea, but I see where you are coming from with regards to second hand sales undercutting the primary market. However, I think it's valid - a hell of a lot more valid than piracy, anyway.

Are you anti-video game rental too? (Not a snark, just a question.)

Which is probably why their PC game section is getting smaller and smaller.  Can't sell the same product twice most of the time.

That and y'know, the widespread piracy.

the sad thing is I had a perfectly working PC with XP that I installed GalCiv2 on to and it borked.  Their bullshit installer portal at launch was really poorly built (at least 2 memory leaks on scan) and it was badly incompatible with most everythign SP2 was doing.  I fixed things myself, played GalCiv2, and it was pretty much like the first.   I think these guys are ridiculous.  This only proves it.

Just because you're small/indy doesn't mean you should get away with everything.  /dismiss

Ironically, I had a badly working PC with XPSP2 and it installed fine.

I :heart: Stardock.

Why?  Because they're not worried about the details of why these are poor business decisions which send other developers into a tizzy.  They're worried about treating their customers right and putting out a solid product.

They get it.

You want the terroristspirates to win, don't you.

I'm honestly not sure how you expect that to be taken. Either they are mocking all gamers by the ridiculousness of their list, or they are intentionally trying to gain PR points by laying out these ridiculous statements, and plan on people to make statements like yours, with the negative connotation that "oh, Stardock does it right, see--they say so!".

Interesting that the second tactic, when used by politicians and politics forums posters, is always immediately viewed as such a bad thing, yet here it's ok ;)

Just because their list is largely unreasonable, it's not ridiculous really.

Your con list was a little goddamn nitpicky.

And of course it was a PR stunt. We're not retarded, but we can dream.

Ya, its a conspiracy.

I wonder if they ran any of this past a lawyer.  Some plaintiff's firm is going to scream "assumption of a heightened standard of care" and ream them good. 

Clarify the distinction for me?
(I know that wasn't directed at me, but) Stardock's PR announcement was a little goddamn pretentious. They claim they've come up with an AWESOME FRAMEWORK FOR THE INDUSTRY TO ASPIRE TO and you don't think that deserves just a bit of scrutiny?

I don't understand what need clarification about that sentence. Something can be unreasonable and at the same time not be ridiculous. For example, I want $20 for my Super Mario NES cart. You don't want to pay $20, but it's not like I asked for a $1,000. $20 is unreasonable. $1,000 is ridiculous. Most of the stuff on that list of rights is merely unreasonable.

For example, Zepp picked on 2 and 3, when he knows damn well those are 2 different things. Complete at Ship and Meaningful Updates aren't even in the same realm as what he's talking about. It was really a terrible point to make. But whatever, let's throw it out of the ring as a possible complaint. Say you're shipping a fighting game. Hell, say you're shipping Street Fighter IV. In the arcade version someone just found an infinite combo with El Fuerte. Is it unfair or ridiculous to expect a patch that fixes things that unfortunately made it through QA? it's not really a bug, so I can't blame QA. It was merely  one of those infinite permutation that only a OCD fighter fan would find, but it's still there. Even after releaes of a complete game, I'd expect updates to that sort of thing, especially with online play. Asking for things that are only found out after ship, Yea, I'd want continued support. Complete in the Bill of Rights didn't mean PERFECT WILL NEVER NEED PATCH HUR HUR. It meant exactly what it said. Finished state. As in, they've polished it, made sure there's no game breaking or noticeable bugs - a working, complete game exprience from start to finish for the target audience.

Numer 1, honestly, is the only truly unreasonable one. You can change the distribution paradigm all you want, open software should not get returned. Exchanged, ok. But returned, no.

In fact, I see nothing wrong with those other 9.

Finally, I wasn't aware I had to worry about things like pretentiousness in PR. The guy wants to raise the standard in the industry. I bought Sims of a Solar Empire simply to support his ideas and stance on piracy, I ended up not liking it, but because o fthose dude, I didn't mind just eating the $50.. They largely delivered on what, 7 of those 10 things. I'd say their batting average eis pretty much better in the industry.

Honestly, 4-10 are no brainers. Any controversey would come out for only the first few. But even then, it's all good in theory.

The theory is fine. It's the execution that is lacking, especially if Stardock wants to take the moral high ground by creating a Bill of Rights.

Yes, Zepp is pointing out niggling things, but that's what happens when you release something as pompous as a Bill of Rights. A game can be complete at launch, but it can be a soulless endeavour. Patching can really improve games and I'm unaware of many studios that put out meaningless patches for people to download. Plus if Stardock ever violates one of these 'rights'... well, probably not a lot of people will car, because not that many know Stardock. But it will sting.

Then again, I might be biased by the fact I can walk into any video game store in Australia with a game I purchased from them with a receipt and demand a refund if the game doesn't work on my machine. Section 54 of the Trade Practises Act and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission protect my rights if a product is "not fit for purpose". EB store policy doesn't trump Federal laws.

I replied to that the other day - awaiting feedback of some kind.  :grin:

Calling this list a "Bill of rights" is pretentious. Almost as pretentious as "The WoW killer!", or "The Halo killer!" or "Will Wright comes over to your house and does your laundry with every purchase of Spore!"

It's still a good list.

Johnathan Blow is Pretentious. Brad called this list a Bill of Rights so people would fucking notice.

I really didn't think I'd have to point that out.

It's pretty obvious that you've never written any contracts schild ;)

This is a "contract" (or call it a pact if you like). Legally or no, if it gains momentum, gamers will try to hold companies to it, and point at Stardock and say, "See, they do it" (even when they don't, as was pointed out by others).

On you specifically picking on my nitpicking: that's the problem--they are two, mutually exclusive things. There was no disclaimer clause like, "update, if needed". There was no extension like "game is done, except for refinements". They made it black and white--game is done, but you'll get updates anyway, because it's your "right".

The problem with this list, from my perspective (a developer) is that there are so many loopholes that you cannot successfully meet it regardless of actual intent, yet you can give the appearance of meeting it with proper PR (as Stardock is doing).

It was even posted here already by someone earlier: "Stardock put their new graphics engine in for free!!!". That was on a "complete" game, and the tone of the poster indicated that this was an expected thing--all game companies should do something similar if the opportunity arises, because that's what "meaningful updates" are.

The list is so rife with inconsistencies and phrases subject to interpretation that it's worse than useless--it's a tool to make other companies look bad and Stardock look good, in the guise of "we're for the gamers!".

You would have to be one dumb motherfucker to consider this a contract. Credos or Manifestos are not contracts. They are in fact, wishlists or GEE IN A PERFECT WORLD diary entries. This is that. Not some mythical contract between gamers and a governing body. It was a brilliant PR move and the only cereal that should be shat in is every other good developer's cereal as they didn't come up with it first.


Duh?

Taking the lawer-scope to it is just too goddamn extreme, even to me.

It's already happened--in this thread. Stardock is a cool company and all, but people are already making the comparisons I outline.

Blame those people, not Stardock. It doesn't help that you put that line of conversation into everyones head by making a post outlining that entire 'theoretical' conversation.

Just saying, I can turn a thread from one thing into another with a single sentence. Not necessarily derailing it but changing the tone for the rest of the thread.

Well its already working. Posters are running around posting it like it’s the 10 commandments. All this seemed to do was fuel trolls. I look at it, and see fluff, no substance.

Did someone else do this already, for like Virtual worlds or something?


Uh, did you play sins of a solar empire? The shiny wears of quick and you start to see how shoddy the game is after a while. Neet, but shoddy, they break their own rules. lol.

Nope, I wasn't interested in it being an RTS and mostly PvP.  I did play Gal Civ 2 since I love 4X games.

Their list isn't saying how to make the most fun games, that's subjective even if there is a general consensus about any given title, it's about how to treat customers with respect.  It is, as Schild said, something to aspire towards.  Even the best of companies won't be perfect.

That is where Zepp's stance fails in my eyes.  It assumes I'm a thief and cheat, so it treats me like one from the outset, and anyone who takes a different position is the enemy.  If you're not with him, you're against him.  No thanks.  I play games for fun, not headaches and nanny states.

I wasn't talking about subjective fun. I was talking about quality.  :grin:

While "contract" is too strong a word, look up the terms "intentional misrepresentation" and "negligent misrepresentation."  Trust me, what they did is a bad bad bad idea and someone will attempt to ream them in court.  When you have no duty to say something, saying it is usually a bad idea. 

I'll go out on a limb and call you wrong.  Someone may attempt to ream them in court, but then, Someone will lose badly.  In court.  It was brilliant, and even most of the cynical types around here seem to think so.

It boggles my mind that ANYONE could call a "Gamer's Bill of Rights" which is basically a philosophy of how gaming SHOULD be (but probably never will..) done a contract.

Its like saying anything with the word LAWS in it, is actually a law.

Some people need to stop being dumbshits in this thread.

Sweet God, seriously?  The substance is in their fucking games.  Jesus CHRIST, people, it's an IDEALISTIC STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES, not a CONTRACT.  What the hell is wrong with all of you?  Why are you so legalistic and realistic about everything?

You don't need a contract to be liable for negligent and/or intentional misrepresentation.  Sure, there is a distinction in the law between advertising fluff ("Our product is the best ever!") and actionable statements.  I'm not saying a plaintiff would be guaranteed to win, I'm just saying that it would make some sort of misrepresentation/false advertising case much more risky for the company.

So please, people saying "THATS DUMB NO CONTRACT HAR HAR"--- unless you are a lawyer, kindly close your pie-consuming receptacle.  The only thing that impresses me about the creators of this Bill of Rights is that they managed to find the right keys on their computer to post this information after all the dangerously pure crack they smoked. 

Your pointing out the flaws in the judicial system. Not the flaws in what the guy said.

So this is legal advice. Let me jot this down...

I'm not even talking legalese myself--I simply know how internet communities work, and how viral marketing works.

This "bill of rights" has all positive connotation with no negative stickiness whatsoever for Stardock, and all negative for just about anyone else. It puts Stardock on a pedestal for "being the first to say it", and "gee, look at their games", while dodging all of the factual issues surrounding how they are marketing it as a "bill of rights for gamers", which associates a connotation of "we, as gamers, deserve this from every developer.

As marketing, it is literally pure genius.

As something useful for the gaming industry, it's pure fluff, and will cause much more harm and frustration from all sides than any positive benefit it possibly could have...and the sad thing is, I'm almost certain the marketing dudes that wordsmithed it not only know that, but are cackling gleefully about it.

They've turned themselves into the robot velociraptor jesus of game dev studios against EA's anti-christ, and will hold that position for probably years to come, without lifting another finger to meet any of their own recommended responsibilities.

Any other developer could very easily position themselves on the side of Raptor Jesus simply by saying "yes, we generally agree with that" and then not being cocks.  Shit, if EA picked this thing up and reposted it or linked to it, nobody would remember it was Stardock that started it.

Of course, asking other developers not to be cocks is just unfair.   :awesome_for_real:

Because people get funny when you put 'bill' and 'rights' next to each other in a title.

If Stardock had called it "In a Perfect World..." then yeah, no issue. But "Bill of Rights" is a loaded title and Stardock knew it.

Actually Zepp's point is he wants a fair system for both player and developer. He has to earn a living off this system, so having players go, "It's my RIGHT to return this and get full refund... (even though I've played it through in the way intended)" completely ignores Zepp's rights as the creator. You played through his creation. Why shouldn't he receive payment for it?

Stardock's main business isn't in games, but in desktop enhancements (http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512). They accept having only 1 million subscribers on a product with 14 million downloads. The funding of their gaming titles comes from that business. They release titles on a small budget to a niche audience and it works for them.

However, it isn't a model that is expandable across the rest of the industry. A 7% conversion rate of ownership to paying customer is appalling. Very few development studios have other lines of income and low-budget development doesn't produce games that many people get excited about (yeah, yeah, Braid is the exception). As much as we like to pretend we are high class, discerning players who are on the look out quality game play, people still slobber over the next installment of Fallout, Halo, DAOC or Diablo - games with multi-million dollar development budgets.

If gamers get a bill of rights, surely game developers should get one too? And top of that list has to be "Gamers will pay the developer for the game they developed if the gamer chooses to obtain the full version of the game". As Zepp said earlier, a lot of players object to even the most basic developer right to ensure that the version they have is a legitimate copy. Some of the methods used to date haven't been good, I know, but even the concept of dialling home is seen as a massive invasion of gamer 'rights'.

Gamers want it all one way and shut their eyes to what goes on in order to pin all their blame on the big bad developer. However, they do have to realise that things should flow both ways and that gamers aren't exactly free of sin in this area.

Or Gamers realize the developers have all the control to begin with. The only thing a gamer can do is vote with his wallet... and that gets written off by the dev's for a plethora of reasons and has done little to nothing to change ANYTHING, let alone to a positive.

No, we can also pirate the games.

How is that not voting with your wallet?

So they're capitalizing on already existing poor consumer relations that other companies have dug for themselves.

Good for them. Twist the knife, guys.   :grin:

Because the worst thing that could happen to the industry is being held to a higher standard.  Or any standard except "IT CLICKS THE EULA AND PUTS THE MONEY IN THE BASKET!"

--Dave

Well it is in a sense, but it's also teh great ebil that the game companies phear. As opposed to saying "fuck you and your game, I'll skip it."

Vaguely related to thread - a multi-part YouTube rant on Game Stop's practices. (http://www.destructoid.com/former-gamestop-employee-rants-yahtzee-style-102954.phtml)

I can't believe I watched the whole thing in one sitting.

EDIT: Found the f13 thread on the same set of videos. (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=14385.0)

So what you are saying is that your company would expect to be able ship games which cannot be returned and for which there is no expectation of updates should a Windows security fix render them inoperable? Excellent, you've helped narrow future purchasing decisions for this consumer.

If a Windows security fix comes out 18 months after the game is released that means it is no longer playable on your PC, should you be eligible for that refund?

If a player says, "It doesn't work" and demands a refund on a digital download that they can still play because there is no DRM / call-home authentication, should you automatically trust them and give them that refund?

A lot of this "don't treat players like criminals" would be more meaningful if a significant sub-section of players didn't actually behave like criminals i.e. pirate games, buy / burn / return.

Well, the current answer is to treat the legitimate consumers like criminals. How is that helping?

If a security fix breaks applications outside of gaming, most companies demand a fix from whoever is really responsible (MS if it was a change that didn't need to happen, the vendor if it was MS fixing an issue the vendor should not have been doing). Failure to fix that means I can't use your application anymore, and will likely never ever buy your products again.

I don't see why customers should be vastly different from corporate customers in the level of service received. 18 months is not a stupid amount of time to expect your application to function unless you fired the entire dev staff and closed the shop immediately after release.

As for trusting customers, up to you. It's a tricky question, but I would be far more likely to allow for "haha no refunds" if games had more decent length demos, and their ads weren't almost entirely some random out of engine CG with no bearing on the gameplay. And if I'm returning it because it's buggy as shit and you fall through the world every 15 minutes, I kinda expect a refund of some amount. We could always go with lemon laws for software. If the software is demonstratively buggy as sin and the developer is not fixing it after a month, full refunds all around!

Bug fixes are not "meaningful updates", they are bug fixes.

Taken out of context I can see what you mean, but one example of what Stardock means when they say "meaningful updates" is how they decided to include the new render engine being written for Sins of a Solar Empire into GalCiv 2 free of charge.

It was certainly an awesome choice for them to do so, and I commend them for it. However, implying that all companies should do the same thing for all products (provide free, new content/technology as a right to the consumer when the product is complete at release) is ludicrous.

Wait! They did what now?

*Scampers off to check this shit out.*

This happened quite a while ago (6+ months?).

I played the shit out of GalCiv 2 when I got it, and then took a long break so I'm not up on the latest updates and whatnot.

I would play Galciv 2 but I care more about making ships go pew pew than in the Civ part.  And they haven't done that yet I don't think.  :(

I bought Galciv2, installed it. Installed the crazy Stardock whateverthefuck updater thing. Ran the game. Looked at the game. Then turned it off and never got back to it.

pew pew indeed.

All I want is Moo2 only better.  Turn based ship combat, quick and easy civ part so I can get back to massive spacewars and holding off entire armadas with a tricked out starbase and planetary defense system.

Is that too much to ask?

I don't mind the empire part, but I want more war, less management.   Basically HOMM in space with ship design.  (Or Warlords 2/3)  I loves me making spaceships and endlessly updating them with new toys and more shooty.

My big complaint is that GalCiv 2 goes the Space Empires route with massive dogpiles of starships. At about 1000,0000,0,000,0 ships to micromanage my eyes start to glaze over.

That and research seems to take forever.

I never had this problem.  Of course I make a habit of building only 20-40 uberships and saying "fuck the small ships."   The only ships I build a ton of are Constructors, and those I just aim directly at whatever starbases I'm building-up at the time.  Starbases >> fleets.

I want Spore's space game merged with the best parts of MoO1 and MoO2.  Their galactic map needs to be reused for a 4X game.

Necroing because I needed to post this flowchart somewhere and this is my favorite DRM thread.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/steal_this_comic.png)

That should be posted in every gaming forum on the interstrip.

I'd agree, except I remember when I re-bought things on CD that I'd owned on tape. And re-bought things on DVD I had on VHS.

If new tech comes along it doesn't give me the right to steal it because I might have previously owned a copy. Or because the technology didn't exist when I bought the original.

And the "pirated copies will always work!" is wrong too. That assumes things stay the same for your pirated copy, but allows for future changes for the DRM copy.

EDIT: And doesn't iTunes allow for file conversion anyway (http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1550?viewlocale=en_US)?

The difference is that you had the legal option to copy your tapes to discs, because that copying did not involve circumventing copy protection, and making copies of purchased media for your own use has historically been legal.  Modern copy protection and laws set up to protect copy protection itself remove that option.

I've actually still got a fair number of tapes and LPs that I don't want to rebuy copies of, but still play on occasion (and would probably convert myself rather than rebuy if having them in a more modern format were necessary).

Pirated copies are guaranteed to work forever insofar as 1) it's usually easy to convert non-protected files to newer formats and 2) you can always re-pirate them (history has shown that piracy has only gotten easier over time as storage and bandwidth have gotten cheaper, so it's pretty safe to assume that if you can pirate it now you'll be able to pirate it 100 years from now) and you'll be in no more trouble than you were in before.  ;)

(edit) Last I checked, iTunes only allows you to convert files that were not purchased from the iTunes store (i.e. songs that you have ripped from CD or acquired through less savory means).  This means that you can actually strip copy protection off iTunes store files by burning them to CD (which is allowed 5 times per song ever IIRC) and re-ripping them as if from a purchased CD, but it's a pain in the ass.  Easier to pirate the song in the first place and then buy it from the store after the fact to assuage your conscience, if you've got one of those handy.  ;)

Legally you could have done as Sam said.  You chose to buy them either out of convenience, a desire for improved quality, or not knowing any better.

I have CDs that I've owned for 12 years. I have games that I've owned for longer than that. I know that as long as I keep the hardware around or find compatible hardware they will always work. Buying some digital thing that works with one player and one DRM scheme that can be discontinued at any time? No thanks.

For about the same price as an album on iTunes I can get the disc, burn it at a higher bit rate, and listen to it as many times as I want, wherever I want, however I want, forever.

My understanding of iTunes is that you can now choose the option to dl the titles you get from it in MP3 (or other formats).

I'm not saying that modern DRM / copyright laws do consumers any favours, but the xkcd strips bugs me incredibly. If you want to look at it rationally, there are lots of good reasons to pirate / steal things online. Long-term, however, it's a sucker bet.

Correct, although there's something like a 60% markup for doing so -- at that point you're spending more than than you would on the CD to get the same content, except without any physical media or delivery, and you still don't have the option of re-downloading.  It's a pretty good racket for Apple, I'll give 'em that.   :why_so_serious:

UnSub, am I correct in assuming you have no firsthand experience whatsoever with any of these services?

It's cheaper if you only want a couple of songs instead of an entire album.

This is true.  I always buy by the album, on the theory that if I only want to hear a band's most popular song(s) I'll just listen to the radio.

FWIW, the DRM free tracks on iTunes are the same price as the regular tracks, but there are a finite number of publishers that are willing to sell them DRM free through the iTunes store.

I don't buy through iTunes because I don't have an iPod. Mostly I'm still happy just buying the odd CD.

Hey, Long time lurker, first time poster.

Its all good and well supplying the gamers with a bill of rights, but where is the developers version? Why should we the gamer be forced to accept draconian DRM and broken games?

I will always buy games from companies i respect, example, I'll never pirate a Blizzard or Valve game, they produce games that are finished, great fun to play and designed by gamers for gamers, but I'll always pirate from companies (Like EA) that mass produce games that come out half finished, needing 20 patches and 4 install limits, its not fair for me to spend my money on a game that essentially is only half finished.

Perfect example of this was Oblivion, i was expecting a great story, great graphics, huge depth and so on, but what i got was a buggy pile of crap with shocking LOD, broken AI, 3 hours of main story game play and a UI fresh of a console port.

Its about time developers where held to a much higher standard and not allowed to release games broken.

Umm, that's what the Gamer's Bill of Rights says. I'm pretty sure the Developer Bill of Rights is something along the lines of:

1) Developers should work no more than 60 hours a week
2) Don't start crunch time 5 weeks in production
3) Don't let marketing decide what goes in the game
4) Developers should work no more than 60 hours a week
5) Don't plan a game that will take 10 years to produce when we have 2 years worth of money
6) Don't use the A6 engine. Ever.
7) Developers should get lots of free beer.
8) Developers should work no more than 60 hours a week

At least that is my rough understanding.

... during crunch time.  No more than 40 hours a week during their normal schedule.

9) Plan develop so there is no crunch time.

Out of curiosity, what kind of money does a, erm, code monkey make in a gaming software environment where they're expected to work these endless 60 hour workweeks only to be laid off with no warning at the end of the project?

I don't have a hard number, but I can say that people who program games do so because they love games and the industry.

They do a helluva lot better than the artists. I think the last salary survey that Gamasutra did had entry coders at 50-60k and senior developers at 100k. Artists started at 30k I think and maxed at 60-70. The one nice thing was since burnout is pretty high, you become senior pretty quickly. Or at least that is what the graph showed. I'll try to track it down later.