The Gamer's Bill of Rights

[Moatilliatta]

Which means that you're part of the gradual eventual change that I was talking about. Systems that screw over the consumer aren't stable long term.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Because using a system created by angels for angelic pruposes isn't something that dark nasty beings of deceit do. Also they're bigger than Valve and want to be able to decide what is important for them instead of relying on Valve.

 

It is quite simple really.

They could just buy Valve.

[Moatilliatta]

Not if they want to look like they're reformed and "good" now. EA has realized that an extremely ****ty PR is extremely bad and they're trying to balance between being darkness incarnate and someone who makes good games that people want to buy.

[samm]

Also because on principle, it assumes the gamer is a criminal. Because it ASSUMES you are guilty of copying.

That's the main point imo: It assumes you, the paying customer, are guilty. Only the paying customer is subject to the DRM. Those who do play it illegaly have removed the DRM and are free to play it the way they like without continuously being watched, having your system checked each time you start the game, having to stay online during play, having to fear for your hardware, having to uninstall virtual drives, cd burning software or whatnot. It actually pays in more than one way to steal a game BECAUSE of the DRM.

 

However I think some of the Stardock "rights" are unneccessary, like this

Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

which is only a minor convenience issue, or can be an asset: remember the option to install Tombraider using only 30MB of HD-Space, because most things were loaded from CD? I liked to have that option.

This here:

Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.

isn't too good either. Only patches to issues are to be expected, content updates are a bonus, and nothing else. Because imo, when you buy a game, you buy it as it is, unless updates are promised in some way.

With the other points though I wholehearteldy agree.

Edited August 31, 2008 by samm

[Killian Kalthorne]

Not if they want to look like they're reformed and "good" now. EA has realized that an extremely ****ty PR is extremely bad and they're trying to balance between being darkness incarnate and someone who makes good games that people want to buy.

 

its not stopping them from trying to take over Take2.

[Moatilliatta]

@ Killian "I ought to have picked a shorter name" Kalthorne

Not the same. If they would take over Valve they would either have to accept less DRM (because Steam has less) or they would have to change the way Steam does things which would mean bad PR.

Edited August 31, 2008 by Moatilliatta

[Morgoth]

Because using a system created by angels for angelic pruposes isn't something that dark nasty beings of deceit do. Also they're bigger than Valve and want to be able to decide what is important for them instead of relying on Valve.

 

It is quite simple really.

They could just buy Valve.

More like Valve could simply buy EA instead.

[Volourn]

"i guess you could either welcome it or act like some little corporate weenie's lapdog."

 

Actually, I have another option - don't buy products from companies I don't like and don't buy products I have no interest in. It tends to work for the most part. But, yeah, I do fail at some of the gamer obligiation. That's because I am a gamer, and by definition all gamers are selfish, greedy, all about me me me, act like immature brats, and are the most evil human beings on the planet.

[Killian Kalthorne]

More like Valve could simply buy EA instead.

 

Either way, the coin lands.

[Dark_Raven]

"i guess you could either welcome it or act like some little corporate weenie's lapdog."

 

Actually, I have another option - don't buy products from companies I don't like and don't buy products I have no interest in. It tends to work for the most part. But, yeah, I do fail at some of the gamer obligiation. That's because I am a gamer, and by definition all gamers are selfish, greedy, all about me me me, act like immature brats, and are the most evil human beings on the planet.

Oh please speak for yourself.

 

I tend to stay loyal to companies that produce good product. Interplay, BIS, Troika were good companies that ceae to exist, Bioware was good until the evil empire took over EA. Now I have one company that I am loyal to and that is Obsidian. My list is getting short.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Maybe you should broaden your horizons, Dark Raven. It may make you a happier person and gamer. EA is just another publisher and business and the point of business is to make money. EA will do what it does because it makes money. They will only stop when it no longer makes money. You can either buy the games they have to offer and have fun with them, or be an oldie but a moldie stating "Back in my day..." or "Get off my lawn!" while waving a cheap metal cane being ignored.

Edited September 1, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[Dark_Raven]

Old games rule. Majority of these 3D games out there suck.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Majority of these 3D games out there suck.

 

Corrected...

[Gorth]

Old games rule. Majority of these 3D games out there suck.

I will not say that 3D games suck in general, but I can't think of any game franchise that I love(d), which made a successful transition from 2D to 3D.

 

I like Stardocks attitude, even if I think they are putting it on a bit thick here and there (like Samm said). Sadly, I have yet to buy one of their games (I did buy their Windows gimmicks, first Windowblinds and later the entire suite though).

[mr insomniac]

I will not say that 3D games suck in general, but I can't think of any game franchise that I love(d), which made a successful transition from 2D to 3D.

Duke Nuk'em did, from Duke Nuk'em II to Duke Nik'em 3D, heh. Although maybe you didn't like that franchise.

And I have to say that although I do love the artwork in the IE games, I was thinking the other day about Irenicus' Dungeon, and it'd be kinda cool to play that as a module in NWN2. I think it'd look great.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Old games rule. Majority of these 3D games out there suck.

Sure thing, grandma.

[Meshugger]

"i guess you could either welcome it or act like some little corporate weenie's lapdog."

 

Actually, I have another option - don't buy products from companies I don't like and don't buy products I have no interest in. It tends to work for the most part. But, yeah, I do fail at some of the gamer obligiation. That's because I am a gamer, and by definition all gamers are selfish, greedy, all about me me me, act like immature brats, and are the most evil human beings on the planet.

 

Stop hating yourself and try some loving instead

 

I do not see anything wrong with Stardock's "manifest" in general. Like samm pointed out, some points may be up to imprementation, but on the whole, i really like it. Kudos to them.

[SteveThaiBinh]

DRM exists because software companies believe it helps combat piracy, rightly or wrongly. I get that. I also get the feeling that some of the DRM/download restrictions on games are nothing at all to do with combating piracy. A group of execs have sat down and calculated that by imposing restriction X (maximum no. of downloads, limited re-download period etc.), Y perentage of consumers will find themselves paying a second time for the game, and this will increase profits. I'd like to see gamers as consumers start to put real pressure on the industry to regularise good practise in this area.

[Moatilliatta]

I'd like to see gamers as consumers start to put real pressure on the industry to regularise good practise in this area.

So... did you buy ME from the EA store?

 

And yes, there is a reason why I'm asking that question.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I did. Several Sims expansion packs, too. Go ahead...

[Killian Kalthorne]

EA's addendum to the Gamer's Bill of Rights...

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/v...-of-Limitations

[Gorgon]

Well the serial stardock gave me for online play doesn't work, but I don't really care, Sins is more of a strategy game than the kind of RTS you would enjoy playing online. On the other hand, the game doesn't require me to have the CD in the drive, big plus. I welcome this kind of move from an industry that is ripe with really poor conditions for buying games through downloads. Instead of just getting a contract between you and the company that says you payed for the game, they make all kinds of restrictions on how many computers you can use it on, and how many times you can install and activate it.

 

Battling online piracy requires that it is easier, not a lot harder, to get a game the legit way.

[Xard]

in b4 Volourn

[Volourn]

If EA is so horrible, and their games supposedly suck why do people still buy their games? *shrug*

[Moatilliatta]

I did. Several Sims expansion packs, too. Go ahead...

With what? I think I already made my point.

 

While the GBoR is interesting in pointing out the flaws in the industry I also think we tend to blow things out of proportion since we're a relatively young industry that is used to things happening fast. Thing is, things will change if it actually means enough to the consumer because video games is a market and it will regulate itself over time.

 

I'm no economist, but I've seen stuff like this before and even EA has seen the effect of completely squandering your customer goodwill, which is why they changed themselves somewhat.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Moatilliatta