Stardock Announces "The Gamer's Bill of Rights"

[Falwell]

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?

[Stephen Zepp]

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.

[Signe]

Is there some way to just get the dope?

[DeathInABottle]

You read that without much generosity.

   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.

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.

   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.

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.

   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.

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.

   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.

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.

   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.

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.

[MahrinSkel]

I'm going to have to SirBruce this to make the case that many of these are good business.

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.

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?

   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.

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.

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.

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?

   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.

If it's abandoned, with no official way to get it, then what does it matter if I download it from an abandonware site?

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.

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

[Merusk]

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.

[lamaros]

lol.

[Jimbo]

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.

[ajax34i]

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.

[ezrast]

They really should have put some more thought into these.

   2.  Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.

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."

   3.  Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.

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.

   7.  Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.

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.

   8.  Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.

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.

[UnSub]

They also don't give a rats ass about pirating.  Their philosophy has been "release a good niche game that doesn't have asinine system reqs and tons of folks interested in that niche will buy it."  It's worked well so far. 

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.

[DeathInABottle]

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.

[Hutch]

   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.

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.

[Furiously]

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

[Azazel]

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

[Stephen Zepp]

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.).

[Merusk]

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.

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.

[Ratman_tf]

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.

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.

[Ratman_tf]

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.).

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?

[UnSub]

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

The video games industry needs AAA titles as well as niche titles. I know it's 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.

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.

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.

[Fabricated]

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:

A gamer has the right to return a game that does not work with his hardware/software if the game's packaging claims that it is compatible with their set up.

[schild]

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.

[Kitsune]

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.

[Furiously]

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.).

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.

[Morfiend]

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.

[ezrast]

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.

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?

[Ratman_tf]

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.

[Azazel]

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.

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.

[Azazel]

Also, THIS.

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.

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

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.

[Furiously]

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

[UnSub]

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

Why's that?

[schild]

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

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.

[Kitsune]

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.

[UnwashedMasses]

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?

[UnSub]

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

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.

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.)