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:
Ironhandx, my main thing is that they said 1.1 is available only via Impulse and not on the website. Oh and I am worried that they're going to sell the expansions only through Impulse. Does anyone have answers on that?
Shipmaster: My understanding is any updates going forward will only be available though Impulse. If games are sold through digital download, they'll also only be available through Impulse, but I believe the expansion planned for next summer will also be available on disc through retailers.
I did a lengthy inteview with Shacknews last week and they asked what my beef was with single player games that need to call home and I used the example of people working in the armed forces who may not have access to the Internet.
In related news....
From the Edge community, Tom Ohle, VP of PR and Marketing CD Projekt says "The Gamer's Bill of Rights" is a step in the right Direction. FOr more information please go here.
yes, I agree with you 100% on this, and am glad that someone is taking an initiative with consumer rights on computer games. I see some publishers and developers embracing this such as Blizzard, but others like Micro$oft who are so wrapped up in their own DRM will probably fight it tooth and nail
yes, I agree with you 100% on this, and am glad that someone is taking an initiative with consumer rights on computer games. I see some publishers and developers embracing this such as Blizzard, but others like Micro$oft who are so wrapped up in their own DRM and rushing products to market will probably fight it tooth and nail
Idealistic it may be, but nonetheless great stuff Stardock, your the best dev team out there
On an unrelated note, does anybody else see a purple squirrel in a tanktop when they look at frogboy's avatar?
OctopusRex, there are slight differences.
Aside from the whole "selling something that doesn't work" problem, software is just like anything else. Unfortunately, patches are a necessity, because people are morons and designing complex software that doesn't need fixed is almost impossible. I say almost because it is technically possible. If everyone were a genius with a photographic memory and a work ethic that put swedes to shame, then they might be able to avoid patching things.
On the reverse, no one else is allowed to sell you broken shit to start with... The joys of an imperfect world.
In Stardock's case, it makes perfect sense for them to not transfer licenses. They already fixed the product they sold. Why should they fix it for someone else? Of course, it's also illogical in the sense that they already allow the original owner to download the entire program off their servers any time they want. They aren't saving much. Pirates using tech support isn't a problem though.
If you took piracy out of the equation, I'd say patches should make their way out to the general public, and people could get them off other servers hosted by ad whores or philanthropists, and not have access to Stardock resources directly, thus cost them nothing. Unfortunately, that not only leaves the original license holder with full rights to a product they just sold, but gives everyone that didn't buy any copy at all easy access to the patches.
Using a carrot approach instead of a carrot and stick approach really doesn't work if you give away the carrots. Although it would still work better than a stick approach, which is chasing people away from the industry leaders.
Wow! I have always been a stardock fan for treating me like a customer, and not a criminal. This makes might make me into a full blown fan boy! Do you all sell shirts?
In all seriousness, it's companies like stardock that will keep PC gaming around.
DRM doesn't stop pirating, Spore has a lame DRM SecuROm bs on it and gamers are pissed about it. Even with DRM the game still got pirated and rather quickly too, so DRM in games is pointless.
I support no DRM, but don't bother trying to single out Spore. Gamers are pissed about Spore's DRM, but they're also pissed about every other game that has DRM, in the same way. I've got used to it, so I'm not even pissed. Besides, your point about piracy has been made thoroughly, by Stardock.
Man I hope this will get looked at by, well, anyone who make decisions within the industry. Nothing beats a "sales pitch" like "free", but I'm sick and tired of jumping through hoop after hoop whenever I buy a game, sometimes even forced through an invisible hoop without knowing it beforehand. In the meantime someone who aquired it illegally is actually having an easier time getting around to just playing.
Anyway, I'd just like to voice my support and appreciation for this incentive to move forward, and perhaps we'll even see more mutual respect between developers, retailers and customers in the future.
Rather quickly? It was on most major p2p sites a week in advance of the official release and on some private sites even longer.
Down with DRM!!! Everyone should A-bomb the reviews of Spore (Sorry Wil; you should have stood up to EA or at least let the public know your feelings on DRM prior to the release).
I move that an ammendment be added,
11. Gamers have the right to resale their license for a fair price.
-Gabe, MI gamer
A common misconception with buying software is the belief that you "own" it. In truth, the developer maintains ownership of said software. You buy the license (permission) to use it. Now, if you buy the disc, the physical disc is your property and you can resell that and the game will still work fine. But the serial is your license to updates and re-download and you don't own that, so it's not yours to re-sell.
And besides, for Stardock, the serial numbers can be equated to warranty on conventional products. It entitles you to support and re-downloads. How many manufacturer's warranties transfer to second-hand users? I doubt you'll find many.
One should beable to sell their license to another, just like companies can transfer licenses between themselves.
-Gabe
What about those people who can not connect their gaming computers to the internet (for whatever reason) but still need to patch their games due to a release bug?
Like someone above mentioned, they are looking into a way to make patches transferrable to offline PCs.
Warranties frequently trasnfer over, though occasionally you need to get the original proof of purchase with it and/or warranty certificate. If I but a car with three years warranty and sell it after two years there's still two years warranty on it.
I think this pairs off well.
http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_7-commandments-all-video-games-should-obey.html
They haven't said anything about it not being available on the web site that I've read. Personally I hate all these download managers that various companies try to push on you. The one thats getting to be the least of a pain in the ass to run is steam, just because theres so much content available on it. Of course, that being said, I do own a copy of object desktop and whatnot... and impulse is good for redownloading/installing that stuff after I've formatted . Personally however I always prefer a well-designed web page to any download manager.
Oh, forgot to mention. 1.1 is in BETA mode. Hence it is only available through impulse. Once released they'll post it on the web site, same as they've done with every other patch.
This is false. Patches will only be available through Impulse, they will not be released as stand-alone downloads.
As for the expansions, the minis will be Impulse only, but they will box all of them up for retail once they're all done.
Why though? I had to use my serial key to register to download from the website so it can't be for piracy issues. I know Stardock's incentive for not pirating is to have the CD key be the only way to download patches but if you make people register like you've done originally, I don't see why you can't continue the current system too.
It's to the point that, while Sins is an amazing game, I would not have bought it if I had known this was how patches were going to be handled. Stardock may claim to lead Anti-SecuRom but from what's happening now, Sins downloading is just as annoying as Spore. I think that changing your download policy now is a bad idea. At least EA had the guts to tell from the beginning.
Exactly my point.
I imagine its lazyness more then anything else (Not wanting to spend 5 seconds telling the offline patcher to recompile). They have your money now, what do they care.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
