Stardock Announces "The Gamer's Bill of Rights"

[Jain Zar]

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.

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

[UnSub]

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.

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.

[Soln]

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

[schild]

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

[Lantyssa]

I 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.

[Samwise]

I 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.

[Stephen Zepp]

I 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.

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 ;)

[schild]

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.

[tazelbain]

I 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.

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 ;)

Ya, its a conspiracy.

[Triforcer]

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. 

[ezrast]

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

Clarify the distinction for me?

Your con list was a little goddamn nitpicky.

(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?

[schild]

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.

[UnSub]

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.

[Azazel]

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

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

[Ratman_tf]

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.

[schild]

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.

[Stephen Zepp]

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.

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!".

[schild]

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.

it's a tool to make other companies look bad and Stardock look good, in the guise of "we're for the gamers!".

Duh?

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

[Stephen Zepp]

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.

it's a tool to make other companies look bad and Stardock look good, in the guise of "we're for the gamers!".

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.

[schild]

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.

[Mrbloodworth]

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?

I 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.

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.

[Lantyssa]

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.

[Mrbloodworth]

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

[Triforcer]

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.

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. 

[Cyrrex]

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.

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.

[Jain Zar]

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.

[DeathInABottle]

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.

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?

[Triforcer]

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. 

[schild]

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

[tazelbain]

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.

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?

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

[Stephen Zepp]

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.

[Samwise]

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.   

[UnSub]

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.

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?

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.

[UnSub]

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.

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. 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.

[Fordel]

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.