Stardock Announces "The Gamer's Bill of Rights"

[Azazel]

No, we can also pirate the games.

[Fordel]

No, we can also pirate the games.

How is that not voting with your wallet?

[Ratman_tf]

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.

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

Good for them. Twist the knife, guys.   

[MahrinSkel]

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.

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

[Azazel]

No, we can also pirate the games.

How is that not voting with your wallet?

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."

[UnSub]

Vaguely related to thread - a multi-part YouTube rant on Game Stop's practices.

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

EDIT: Found the f13 thread on the same set of videos.

[Righ]

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.

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.

[UnSub]

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.

[Ratman_tf]

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?

[kildorn]

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.

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!

[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.

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.

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.

[Ratman_tf]

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.

Wait! They did what now?

*Scampers off to check this shit out.*

[Stephen Zepp]

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.

Wait! They did what now?

*Scampers off to check this shit out.*

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

[Ratman_tf]

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.

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.

[Jain Zar]

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.  :(

[Azazel]

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.

[Jain Zar]

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.

[Ratman_tf]

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.

[Merusk]

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.

[Lantyssa]

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.

[Samwise]

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

[Signe]

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

[UnSub]

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

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?

[Samwise]

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.

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.  ;)

[Lantyssa]

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.

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.

[Margalis]

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.

[UnSub]

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.

[Samwise]

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).

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.   

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

[Lantyssa]

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

[Samwise]

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.

[Prospero]

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.

[UnSub]

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

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

[Taonas]

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.

[Prospero]

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.

[Lantyssa]

1) Developers should work no more than 60 hours a week
4) Developers should work no more than 60 hours a week
8) Developers should work no more than 60 hours a week

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

9) Plan develop so there is no crunch time.