Comments on: Stardock: Gamer’s Bill Of Rights

By: draxynnic

draxynnic — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:24:41 +0000

Something of a latecomer here, but…

@jetsetlemming:

“6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.”

I’d add something along the lines of “and should be informed of its presence before purchase”. It’s a nasty trick to not be informed until after you’ve paid your money. An emblazon on the box – something along the lines of “Use of this product requires the installation of the following programs (list)” – would probably suffice. (Similar to how a lot of games require, and will usually install for you, DirectX.)

In a similar vein, EULAs should also be reasonably easy to review before purchase – I doubt there are many people who’ve actually checked “Do Not Accept” after reading one, but for those who might, it’s not reasonable to have to pay for the privilege of doing so.

By: cuprohastes

cuprohastes — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:36:21 +0000

Actually Ubisoft released Splinter Cell : Double agent in such a poor state that it was mostly unplayable for a long time for most users. Also, Stalker: Shadow of Chernobyl and Stalker: Clear Sky were released in such shambolic state that Clear Sky needed major patching twice within 7 days of release.

Both companies knew they had unfinished code but they sent it out anyway to generate cash on the grounds that “We’ll patch it later” and also because many stores don’t offer a return policy, that the games couldn’t be returned.

By: Vexor

Vexor — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:18:32 +0000

This list is a step in the right direction. A few tweaks (mostly mentioned already) and this is golden.

By: LionsPhil

LionsPhil — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:31:12 +0000

Erm. This might start mattering the day people actually care about being regularly bent over by publishers, then paying for the priviledge.

As long as you keep buying badly-engineered, DRM-laden crap, I’m sure EA, Ubisoft, Valve, et. al. can just drown out the Internet bitching by going for a swim in their basement full of money.

By: Bobsy

Bobsy — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:53:46 +0000

I wonder how reactions would differ if it wasn’t released under the name of an industry dev? Say, what if Kieron or someone had come up with the list? Or Byron?

Problem is just having the Stardock name associated with what is a pleasant and idealistic list of goals (apart from #3, which is a bit weird) makes it seem more sneery and cynical. And it makes it less likely that other devs and publishers will be so keen to follow the advice, since it’s coming from a competitor, and a niche competitor at that.

By: Gnarf

Gnarf — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:30:43 +0000

Like maybe if they wrote it on a napkin instead and called it “You know, whatever works for you and we’re not saying everyone should be going about it this way or anything, not at all, but these are some things we are doing and maybe someone thinks it’s a bit nice?”.

By: kadayi

kadayi — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:34:55 +0000

Given they appear to have written it themselves, without recourse or consultation with any other game developers it seems pretty patronizing to declare it ‘The Gamer’s Bill Of Rights’, surely better to be a bit more modest and label it ‘Stardocks Bill of Rights’ which would be a bit more accurate. It will be interesting to see whether there are any critical responses from other developers or maybe publishers over this. I agree with the sentiment, but the manner in which they’ve done it seems a little presumptuous and therefore reeks more of self promotion though (free advertising across the worlds gaming sites), than genuine belief in the principles they propose.

By: Al3xand3r

Al3xand3r — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 07:35:17 +0000

@PJ:
Uh, I don’t see Steam mentioned at all in the article while he does state he agrees with the NO DRM policies which would be something Steam is not doing. What are you on about RPG favoring Steam as if it can do no wrong?

By: Dorian Cornelius Jasper

Dorian Cornelius Jasper — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 05:00:41 +0000

Right on.

Heck, make that the new No. 1.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:26:09 +0000

Yeah, that right there is the stuff all right.

Now all they need to do is release a game I want to buy so I can give them my hard earned money. (Not-MoM ftw!)

By: mpk

mpk — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 03:11:32 +0000

8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.

This.

By: slaine

slaine — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:48:59 +0000

All the comments talking about whether the 10 points are applicable to publishers or developers only are MISSING THE POINT.

It’s a GAMER’s bill of rights. These are supposed to be things a GAMER has a right to expect from the industry. How you split the responsibility along the publishing/distributing/development chain is IRRELEVANT.

It is the industry as a whole that should be responding to these issues. That’s why it’s called a Gamer’s Bill of Rights, and not the Bill of the Rights a Gamer Should Expect of a Developer.

Steam may be a necessary evil as far as digital distribution goes, but that doesn’t mean that their model is perfect, especially their DRM policies.