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!
Yes - but this is Richard Branson we are talking about. You know - Billionaire!!!
Lol... all those pages and all I really cared about was that little picture of not-MOM. Well...and the words about the picture. Oh ok...the survey was interesting.
95% male. Big Lols. Expected yes, but still slightly confounding. I blame the space theme.
I think Stardock is onto something here. The GBR is anti-piracy in its purest form. How? GBR aims to oblige software companies to do something which they haven't been doing for far too long now: conduct reasonable business ethics. A milk company isn't excused when its milk product is safe in "99.8%" of users and fatal in "a mere two tenths of a percent."
It's about time.
Games without bugs are a little harder to make than milk without lethal bacteria. At least until someone invents code pasteurization.
I thought the Gamers' Bill of Rights was just a publicity stunt at first, I have been convinced otherwise by the negotiations with other companies to make it into a sort of badge of quality.
Pretty easy to accomplish when you're not publically traded...
Well, having 3 things first is a neat trick regardless of whether you play on Wall Street or stay in your own yard.
More to the point, I'm not sure what material difference there is between private shareholders and public shareholders. Just because you can't get the SEC involved doesn't mean you can't vex management, does it? Don't some privately held companies have fights amongst the family members who own shares?
Awesome. I have said all along it was little more than a publicity stunt. Nice to see I'm not alone.
I'm not denying Stardock themselves abide by it, and a few smaller publishers might, but EA, Ubi etc... NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. That is why it's a publicity stunt, as nobody can possibly believe the biggest publishers in the world are going to give a flying shit. EA make money hand over first without going along with pretty much any part of it. Why would they change? Seriously, why would the 800 pound gorillas ever listen to a little monkey chirping at them?
I'm sure the thread will devolve over there as a bunch of Stardock fanboys descend on it like the hordes of Satan and tell the naughty PCG writer how wrong they are.
That must be some damn fine Kool Aid! Did it come with a Limited Edition of GC or Sins that wasn't released here or something?
Simply put, the market is changing, the customers are becoming educated; little by little - that will take the thunder out of the 800lbs gorilla. Then are nearly half a dozen law suits in the works and those will be heard loud and clear when finished. So we shall see...
I am sure there is some marketing incentive behind the GBR but that does not mean Stardock does not actually strive to accomplish it. As to the large publishers out there...who can say for sure? It is very popular to bash "the man" for not caring for the little people but obvisously many people like the games made by EA, Ubi, et al. I have to admit, I purchased Spore...I don't care for it but my 8 year old loves it. I say all of this to make the point that gamers in the Stardock market do not need the big companies to agree or subscribe to the GBR because the big companies do not really try to accomodate us anyway by virtue of the games they publish. They do not cater to nich markets and many of the games we all like fall in the nich market category. This is a generalization but by in large I think it is true. So, I submit that the GBR is actually meant for the smaller publishers who already have our attention anyway. The GBR can only strengthen our commitment to the small publishers that actually try to meet the goals stated and thus insure the creation of more of the stategy games we all love.
Did I drink the Cool Aid??? Perhaps but if that means more games like Sins, Gal Civ and the like, pour me another glass!
I also agree that it's a publicity stunt, as I mentioned in another thread http://forums.demigodthegame.com/326561/page/2
Before people start screaming that Stardock actually makes good games and tries to follow the bill - keep in mind we never said Stardock makes bad games. We're just calling a spade a spade and the bill of rights was clearly made for the sole purpose of grabbing the attention of PC gamers. Basically, it's Stardock waving a huge flag saying "OVER HERE GUYS!!!"
I like a lot of the games Stardock puts out. I also like their policies on some things (not pre-orders, that's for damn sure...). However, all they did is take their regular operating policies and instead of calling it "Stardock's guarantee" or "Stardock's policies", they made it into a spectacle and labelled it "GAMER'S BILL OF RIGHTS". Sensationalism at its best.
If they were truly serious about creating a "GBR", they'd arrange or create some sort of third party system like the GNU which would be in charge of creating the document. The GNU would take input from other companies as well as consumers and find a good middleground. Then publishers/developers would say "this product conforms to GBR version x.x", with a small summary of what that means.
Because none of that is the case, it's clearly Stardock beating its chest about its own policies.
One has to start somewhere.
I think we've seen SD already try to put the policies to other developers - that's why they're being revised. Sure, nothing wrong with getting publicity for treating customers like people instead of pirates, but for every development studio they convince to sign on, we as consumers win too.
Even if they only get one other good studio attached, we as consumers have come out better. What's not to like?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
