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:
Because (even reputable) third party sites then proceed to mirror the updates for all, completely defeating that method. Using something like Impulse is the only way to ensure that doesn't happen.
Or use an activation system like in GC2 since version 1.1 . Why isn't it implemented in SoaSE?
Being able to return games that don't work on you're computer is nice. I just bought Neverwinter Nights, and I spent 4 hours trying to get it to work, but I failed. It was only 20$, but still.
No, this is not a good idea. It is just a slower form of piracy, with a financial incentive.
That is a very interesting perspective. One I can honestly say I have never considered. You see I look at thing the say way you guys do to the best of my knowledge and that is that you are selling an experience, hence the license and not the game argument that the entire industry as well as all the other entertainment industries claim. I fully concur with that fundamental position. However considering second hand sales as a "slower forum of piracy with financial incentive" seems to fly smack in the face of centuries of free trade practices and fundamental commerce in general as well as tossing the right of first sale right out the window. People buy other types of products, use them, then resale them for whatever reason and it is permitted. This is especially so when it comes to antiques, housing, works of art (which is what many think gaming is by the way) clothing, literature, machines and vehicles. So why is it that digital products are so special that they should be treated differently then nearly all other commodities in the market place especially when the reproduction costs are almost nil in comparison with all other products? Moreover the implications for this notion would have a profound impact on the rental business, usage of products by family members and so on... Where does it all end?
Recycling and reusing play a large part of my life and I encourage both these wholeheartedy. The major difference with digital commodities is the original buyer maintain full benefit for the product AFTER he/she has parted with it. Being a liscense that it is, our customer is really selling our property. Customer becomes Competitor, and we end paying to support the product. It wouldnt be a problem if the original installed/copied game could magically disappear after sale. The reality is, the game could be sold an infinite number of times and we have to provide support for each one. If our sales are not tied to our support budget we are defintely going to be in trouble. Make sense?
That is a rationalization of why your company wishes to remove rights from the consumer that exist from First Sale doctrine exception to copyright. It is at this juncture that I realize the flaw with a "Gamers Bill of Rights" written by the anyone in game selling industry. They will always be more concerned with producers rights, than consumer rights.
A "Gamers Bill of rights" that is is written by the publisher, is clearly not what it claims. It is essentially a list of Stardock practices (many of them very good).
A real Gamers Bill of rights would be written by Gamers.
Or at least by a party representing their interests and not conflicting with them (IOW not game publishers).
Examples:
1: The right to pull my game from my shelf 5 to 10,years from now and have install/play without an internet connection (IE no server dependencies)
2: Proper First Sale Doctrine recognition. I can sell my physical purchased goods to another. Facilities could easily exist for Serial Key transfer. Support can be time limited per key if you are talking about call in support and not merely access to a web page.
I realize publishers hate the used market, but I can sell my used CD,DVD,Books. Games are an exception why? Again a gamers bill of rights that only include rights that the publisher likes has nothing to do with gamers.
A real gamers bill of rights could be codified today and we could get review sites to score games on gamers rights out of ten.
Loss of resale rights: Minus 3 points.
Remote Server activation required: Minus 5 points.
It is good of Stardock to bring up the idea. But the definition belongs in the consumers hands, not the producers. Having a producer write the "Gamers Bill of Rights" is putting the fox in charge of the Hen House. Monitoring can be checked with review sites to give consumers a quick number to know how consumer friendly this product is. Stardock would score high, but not perfect. EA would score very low.
I also head about game resale shops making something like 400% profit per title, none of which I'm sure doesn't get shared with the game makers.
I just realized this is exactly why I object to this "bill of rights", and am quite cynical about it. It could be construed to be an advertisement for Stardock games, considering that Stardock wrote it and their practices match up with it. Of course, the practices are great, and in my opinion should be included in the bill of rights, but this should be defined by gamers, not a given company, no matter how much I happen to support the company in question.
We're gamers too. It's not just a "here's out policies" thing; these are points we'd like other companies to abide as well when we're buying their games.
And you can easily do both with a retail disk. The key is not needed to play.
In essense, Stardock is not restricting the used sale itself, it's only making sure that they don't provide support for more copies than they sold. In other words, one account per game gets support - which by itself is not unusual in the least when talking about second-hand goods.
After all, they don't see any income from your used sale, so why should they spend money to support it? It has nothing to do with them being developers/publishers either. Unless you make a habit of handing out lots of money for no reason at all and not getting anything out of it
Maybe it's just me, but I really don't think this is too big of a deal as long as the platform has an "offline mode" that doesn't expire. Beyond that, it's basically equating to "Gamers shall have the right to reasonable loading times" which is obviously highly subjective.
"It is at this juncture that I realize the flaw with a "Gamers Bill of Rights" written by the anyone in game selling industry. They will always be more concerned with producers rights, than consumer rights."
If our customers are happier than we should be too - it is good for business. I don't understand this false barrier you are creating. Its not a matter of gamer vs publisher/developer, its about improving the industry for everyone. Even if you felt there was something missing in the Bill of Rights, explain to me how this can somehow detract from all the positive that is already there? Are you saying you would you rather no Bill of Rights more than an incomplete Bill of Rights?
And you don't think customers would be happier if they can sell their games to recoup some cash if they get tired of it?
As indicated. It was this opposition to resale that brought this home to me. Stardock is opposed to resale, so there is no right of resale in your "Gamers Bill of Rights".
Your "gamers bill of rights" is essentially a list of Stardock practices. They may be largely good practices and they represent a good starting point, but they are not a gamers bill of rights.
Where a right that gamer would like conflicts with what stardock agrees with, stardock doesn't include it. Thus this clearly is not a "Gamers Bill of Rights". It is a renaming of Stardock policies.
The fundemental conflict of interest is obvious.
Apologies for appearing aggressive (especially in agreeing with MysticRhythms), but my (personal) point is that a Bill of Rights is a good thing, and the philosophies in this one I support, but I don't think that you guys should be the guys to write it. Because, as MysticRhythms says, it is a renaming of Stardock policies, and may not be entirely objective, regardless of how good the policies themselves are.
Actually, no, you're right. The success of this bill of rights depends on whether or not consumers as a whole accept it - regardless of your company policies. If the bill of rights reflected bad policies, then gamers would not accept it. Therefore, we need to see if this works out.
Hmm...
As a gamer, I am glad that someone took the initiative at all. Call me crazy, but isn't it a GOOD thing that a publisher is fighting for your rights? How often do you see this?
I haven't seen Stardock fighting for my right of resale, in fact I have seen them speak against it. So clearly they are not fighting for my rights.
Sorry Craig, but I don't know everyone here. Your previous post made it sound like you were part of the company "our customers", now you seem to be indicating this has nothing to do with you and you are happy someone else did it. Could you clear that up?
I acknowledged in my posting above that Stardock practices, as far as they go, are good ones. Indeed they are better than most.
But there is a clear conflict of interest limiting how far they go with the "Gamers Bill of Rights", that really isn't. It is a list of Stardock policy.
If the Auto/Petrol industry wrote regulation for themselves we would still be burning leaded gas and belching clouds of smoke. I for one am very happy we don't have the Exxon/GM clean air act.
The conflict of interest in the Stardock "Gamers Bill of Rights" is just as evident as it would be in the Exxon/GM "clean air act".
I am a gamer, a developer, and a supporter of Stardock's Bill of Rights Initiative.
Saying you are a gamer in this context is irrelevant. That is about as relevant as the Authors of the above mentioned Exxon/GM clean air act saying, "you can trust us, we breathe air too".
What matters, in this context, is that you are a producer of goods and you agree with another producer/distributor(your distributor in fact) about a set of policies. That is hardly surprising, to the contrary it is entirely expected.
OTOH, I am a consumer, on the other side of the fence in this equation. Understandably, my viewpoint is different and I am looking for more rights than what Stardock would suggest I deserve. In fact the main one seems to be a right I am legally entitled to: You know that pesky little thing known as the right to resell my copy of a copyrighted work. I am sure you have heard of the first sale doctrine:
The first sale doctrine states that once a copyright owner sells a copy of his work to another, the copyright owner relinquishes all further rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy. The Supreme Court first adopted the first sale doctrine in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the exclusive right to sell copyrighted works only applied to the first sale of a copyrighted work. 210 U.S. 339, 349-350. While the copyright owner retained the underlying copyright to the expression fixed in the work, the copyright owner gave up his ability to control the fate of the work once it had been sold.
While you join EA in the fight against lawful resale, there is no way that Stardocks "Gamers Bill of Rights" is anything of the kind. It is just a transparent renaming of Stardock policy. That may sound harsh, but frankly I feel insulted by the repeated assertions that there is no conflict of interest in the content producer/distributor defining the rights of the consumer. Wake me when you include the right of resale or anything beneficial to the consumer that is not already Stardock policy.
You seem to have a general mistrust of corporations, and in a way I can't blame you. However, there are good companies out there that do want to make a difference. It is a true shame you can't recognize a friend when you are surrounded by enemies. Your so busy swinging we're all bound to get hit.
Stardocks fight against the right of resale speaks for itself. They are not on the gamers side. They are on the same side as EA here.
I have zero interests in game "rentals" that involve any activations servers at EA, or Steam, or Impulse. They all present a the same future point of failure issues. Company failure, company disinterest in maintenance (see Yahoo,Walmart, Microsoft DRM music servers). Also the effects of acquisitions and consolidations in the industry. EA could purchase Stardock. Any remote server dependencies means you just paid for a rental of unknown term.
Stardocks boxed games I will consider when they hit the bargain bin. Because I won't pay full price for games with limited or no resale. From what I have read so far, patches are limited to the first owner, this drastically reduces the resale value to a second owner.
If publishers reduce or remove resale value, that lowers the overall value of the product to the consumer. When the price falls to what I consider fair for a product with no resale value, then I will consider it. If there is actually a game I am interested in playing.
But gog.com will be something I support with my money. 100% free and clear of DRM/Activations etc and they have some old classics I want play.
A lot of your argument comes from inaccurate information.
This isn't true. EA puts DRM on the games themselves and says you can only install it on 3 (well, now 5) different PCs. Stardock puts no DRM on the games and basically allows you sell your disk and the buyer won't need to jump through any hoops or worry about any activation limits when installing it. He can then re-sell it again, and the third user won't need to worry about anything either. You can't even reasonably compare the two.
None of this is true with Stardock. If you buy a disc, you never need to activate it to play. There's absolutely no protection on it of any kind. You can install it from the disc on a permanently offline PC and never have to worry about any activations.
"Company disinterest" is not a valid scenario because this is all that Stardock does. Unlike Yahoo which tried to dabble in the music distribution business and decided to drop it, this is all that Stardock does, so they can't just decide one day that they're not going to do it anymore.
EA can't buy Stardock. Stardock is a private company.
As I wrote in a post above, do you typically spend money without getting anything in return? Do you keep MMO subscriptions for games you never, ever play? Do you pay any membership fees to places/sites you never, ever go to?
Patches and constant post-release support costs a lot of money. Is it not natural for them to want to get something back from spending it? They don't see a penny from your re-sale, but now all the support they paid to give you they now have to pay to give another user who they got nothing from. How does this work?
If us ordinary customers frown on spending money without any returns on the investment, how can we reasonably expect otherwise from any company? And again, the difference is they're not saying hey we won't allow you to sell your disk by making it not work, we just want to make sure that our spending is proportionate to how many copies we sell. There's nothing sinister about it.
Furthermore, Stardock is the only company I know that allows you to go to a store, buy a disc, and then be allowed access to the digital download of that game forever. I am not sure if Valve/Steam treat boxed versions of their Source-based games this way, but if they do then that's two companies. That's a huge plus to the buyer and one of the major reason why the serial is non-transferrable - its use is quite different from a common cd key to install the game. Many of us are far less concerned with resale than we are with security of purchase. With Stardock, losing the disc is nothing because you can always re-download. With other companies, we'd have to go and buy it again.
They're free and clear of everything *because* they are old classics. They are no longer supported by their developers and publishers. I love GOG, and I already got several games from them. But be realistic here, you can't compare the two. GOG is a simple distributor, they don't provide tech support for these games (aside from making sure their own installer works and only getting games that they can run on Vista), they don't make patches for these games - and neither do the original publishers and developers. For all parties, it's pretty much pure profit.
--
Ultimately, if you don't agree with Stardock's stance then you don't agree and nobody can convince you otherwise. But I'm a big proponent of basing arguments on valid and accurate facts without twisting their meaning to suit your needs
When I refer to servers and activations WRT Stardock, it should be obvioius I am referring to Impulse downloaded games. All the remote server issues apply to Impulse purchases rentals.
Stardock being private doesn't mean EA can't buy, it means it is easier for EA to buy them, since they don't have to deal with shareholders. They just have to convince the major equity holders.
The fight aganst resale is just further attempt to control a product after it is already sold. That right is lost after the copy is sold. So not only is this anti-gamer, it isn't even lawful.
The argument about support/patches is specious. I have been gaming for over 20 years and so have a lot of my friends. I never heard of anyone I know even calling support in all that time, so please. As far as patches. What differences does it make if a few games change hands and a few more patches are downloaded. It would be zero issue if the patches were free to download and not held to prevent resale. This is completely circular reasoning.
I am not twisting anything here. I am just arguing against the specious claim that Stardock policies renamed equals a gamers bill of rights. It doesn't. They are gaping holes that make that clear.
It makes it quite a bit harder because they'd have to deal with Brad. And he's made it very clear that he will not sell the company and let someone else tell him how he's going to run it.
We're not fighting anything. We know we can't stop people from reselling the disc, and we don't try. But given that ongoing support is an ongoing expense and done entirely at our option, we've got every right to distribute it on our own terms.
The product should be solid out of the box. But as with any used product, if someone's going to pay less than full price for it why should they expect to get it in exactly the same condition and with all benefits of a new one? You don't buy a used car with 60,000 miles on it and expect to get a warranty from the manufacturer for the next 60k just because the first owner had one. Getting the full warranty (or one at all) is an added value of buying new.
Sort of true. But then, if you're willing to go with a Digital Download, then it shouldn't be a big stretch that you have no issue with activation.
But if you're not, then you're given the option of getting the box (which includes digital download rights too) and you remain worry free about any re-activation upon installation.
As it stands at the moment, if you re-install from an archive of a digital download, you do have to log in to Impulse. But as it also stands, Stardock is actually looking at ways to remove this necessity, and if they can make a system that will sufficiently please the other publishers selling through Impulse, even their digital downloads will be immune from the "what if" possibility.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
