This is a hot of the press passage published on www.gamepolitics.com about Kristen Salvatore, editor-in-chief of PC Gamer, calling the GBR a pubilicity stunt in its most recent edition. She is basically implying it is all talk and no substance.
It is generating a lot of responses already on the site. Methinks it is time for Frogboy to leap into action!
After reading Mizz Kristen Salvatore's fluff-piece, pseudo-review of SPORE, in the November issue of PCG, I would not take anything she writes seriously.
She's the editor-in-chief of a big magazine which desperately needs the advertising revenues & special perks which emanate from big game-publishers such as EA.
Her magazine makes much more money with corporate advertising than with subscriptions coming from gamers. Considering that financial dependence, she's the very last person I would trust in what concerns the rights of gamers.
Well I hope that Frogboy, the Blair brothers and the GPG president all join GP and post to the thread. The spin factor on something like that article is very high and needs to be slammed down hard and fast and GP is the best place to do it initially. I would also follow up with articles on other highly reputable sites for added measure.
It's more of a blurb stuck on a largish quote than an article. I appreciate the intent of the GBR even though I believe (c) for software is wrong. Even more than that, I appreciate good conversations about "constitutional" matters. The quote from Ms. Salvatore included a couple of questions that occurred to me when I read the GBR:
"What constitutes a game's 'finished state,' and who determines it? What makes for a 'meaningful update'?"
p.s. I was really hoping to see a honcho other than Brad call shennanigans on something. Oh well.
"But if the Gamer's Bill of Rights is to transcend publicity-stunt status and become a catalyst for real change, it needs to be the starting point for a tough conversation about which rights PC gamers should really expect to enjoy - and which, as the result of enjoying the freedoms of an essentially open platform, they may need to give up."
Isn't this exactly what it is? Something that is attempting to open up discussion?
I think that is par for the course given Brad is essentially the poster child for gamer rights and has been since the great Usenet days and he happens to own a publishing and development company to boot; accordingly he is the best target to attack.
We're going to be announcing this later today but there has been progress on The gamer's bill of rights.
https://www.stardock.com/media/stardockcustomerreport-2008.pdf
Then she's not very bright. It would be counted a publicity stunt/all talk no substance if Stardock itself didn't follow them. But since they try to (though yes the definition of "finished state" is somewhat ambiguous depending on who you ask), she can hardly make this point.
The way I look at the GBR is more a proposed business model than a PR stunt. It's basically saying to the industry "Here's how Stardock does things, and we get support from our customers for it and we're selling games pretty well." Sure there's publicity there, but Stardock does back it by following it. They can't force the other publishers to do so.. does she expect this or something? Brad's always said ultimately it will be up to the gamers to drive the GBR "movement" because they are the ones who make the market.
I think the article is perfect irony, because it's designed precisely as a PR stunt. When everyone likes something, the one person who trashes it gets a lot of attention
Read through that - some very, very informative stuff in there. I have to say, that your self-described "transperancy" is one of the things that I have liked most about Stardock. I appreciate a no BS approach to business. One point that i'd like to second: Improved documentation. I'm a documentation nut, what can I say.
(I'd really like websites for the various games to have better 'pedias - but that's mainly because i love to read up on stuff when I might not have time to play.)
But, as per always Brad, thanks for respecting us enough to keep us in the loop on internal plans and policies. There's a lot of stuff that you don't have to share, but shows us our opinion matters that you do.
[removed by poster]
I read Frogboy's report that is referenced in this thread and also in the OP's link. I have to say I'm somewhat dismayed by what happened with # 5. The word "minimum" was changed to "recommended." For those of us who don't upgrade our computers regularly (can't afford to), it would be nice if we could use games at the minimum recommendations. There is often a world of difference between minimum and recommended specs.
Argh. Evil teaser is evil.
I wanna be a level 10 knight! Minus the running away part.
I was making a very specific mental point to pretend that the picture in question did not exist. I will acknowledge it sometime closer to pre-order time.
All ready on it. Good stuff to be sure. Comment posted in the thread. Anyway, I hope you do a follow up on GP with the report as an element. Moreover that you publish a retort as a feature story on GP and other outlets for that matter.
I think Stardock is by far one of the best company's using the MoTTo "Customer First, Wallet First, Game First, Shareholders Last" They have a model that works fine and like all models tend to need a little bit of tweaking as they get more and more experience. Keep up the good work Stardock
First, I do not agree with much Ms Salvatore writes in the first place so she is a quak in my opinion. Not because I disagree with what she writes but because what she writes is generally discounted my a majority of readers I know.
Second...so is the new fantasy game based on Monte Python? Will we have bunny rabbits biting peoples heads off?? "run away, run away". Some more suggested quotes: "what is your favorite color?", I shall now throw the holy hand grenade", "Bring out your dead, bring out your dead".
Just kidding of course but how cool would that be??
As long as someone says "Have fun storming the castle!" I'll be good.
all this NOT-MOM thing is getting me hyped, lol
I hope some of you guys go to GP and post to the thread in support of SD. GP is pretty much ground zero for all things political with regards to the industry and lots of insiders are part of it.
That was meant to stay minimum. It'll be back to minimum in the next revision.
I HOPE all of you actually read the whole piece and not that chopped up snippet of what she wrote. She is very much for the GBR. The article itself is about 5 paragraphs long and only one of those, consisting of 4 sentences, calls out these ambiguties. It's not completely off base either. What makes a meaningful update? Poll the intrawebs and I'm sure you'll come across MANY different answers on what and update should include and what it should cost.
I, for one, discount whatever pseudo-review she writes. She should stick to counting the $$$ revenues (and the perks, freebies & parties) "her" magazine receives from rich & powerful game-publishers -- such as EA.
Allow me to give you for your punchy comment.
While you're criticizing the ambiguities of the GBR, let me ask you this: what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?
"Customer First, Wallet First, Game First, Shareholders Last"
Richard Branson has a good method
1) Keep your staff happy
2) If your keep your staff happy, your customers will be happy
3) If your customers are happy, your stockholders will be happy
In my experience 1 and 2 are reversed but I digress.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
