Slashdot Mirror
The Gamer's Bill of Rights
Edge Magazine is running a piece by Brad Wardell, CEO of game developer Stardock, in which he presents a "Gamer's Bill of Rights." Stardock teamed up with Gas Powered Games to develop a list of ideals they think all game publishers should follow. Some are rather basic operational guidelines (not requiring a disc to play, minimum requirements that make sense), and some are aimed at repairing the damaged relationship between game companies and customers ("Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers"). Wishful thinking or not, it will be interesting to see if they manage to get other publishers to sign on.
not have to pay fo...wait what?
They do what they preach. Galactic Civilizations I, II and their expansions were always released like that, and they were highly successful.
I really don't see the "wishful thinking" part. Their model actually works. People who pirate aren't gonna be stopped by copy protections. The only effect those protections have is to annoy the hell out of the paying customers.
The Raven
GPG's already in deep shit for their piss-poor handling of both vanilla supreme commander AND forged alliance.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Brad Wardell is also calling for:
* Ponies for everyone
* Sunshine and rainbows, everyday
* World peace out of the power of love
And in his most daring position of them all:
* He's AGAINST kicking puppies
# Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.
Corrected rewording
Gamers shall cover the publisher's costs of returns from noobs with broken computers or who can't read the minimum system requirements box.
Gamers shall have the right to modify their games to alter their singleplayer experience.
Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
...to develop a list of ideals they think all game publishers should follow... minimum requirements that make sense.
WASD :)
something like this becomes standard
Elaborate.
"#9 Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play."
I don't want to EVER have to connect to the Internet to play a game after I buy it. Product activation, DRM, Steam - these are all the reasons why I have stopped buying games. And I used to buy a lot of them.
I'm still curious as hell over whether Half Life 2 is as good as Half Life 1. But I'll never know, because Valve doesn't want to allow me to buy it.
Not locking your customers into proprietary software just to update their game.
Oh wait.
No shit. I found #4 particularly hilarious:
Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
Has anyone at GPG actually tried using GPGnet? It's easily the worst online experience I've ever had. Trying to use it makes me realize just how much better Steam really is.
I just went through GPG's website to check if you could download updates without the GPGnet client, and unless the page simply doesn't work under Firefox, you can't. It says there are no updates available, but I know for a fact Supreme Commander has been patched quite a few times.
#6 is also somewhat amusing:
Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
Don't all GPG games come with SecureROM? Because there are several prominent "SecureROM support" links throughout the site.
In short, the list can either be read as "play on consoles" or "use Steam."
On the plus side, I understand Stardock is much better about that list than GPG is. In fact, I'm not really sure GPG is really involved; their website makes no mention of it. Then again, the "upcoming event" on the sidebar is "GDC '07!" Apparently Chris Taylor will be giving a talk on March 7th, 2007. So who knows what's going on with them.
These are actually more closely related to business ethics than anything else.
More developers are calling for the removal of DRM in their games these days. Publishers don't seem to listen or care and that's part of the problem.
I seriously see EA just not listening to customers. They don't care either. EA believes it doesn't need PC gamers. They believe they can be profitable with console titles alone. And more publishers are believing this every day. LucasArts has decided not to publish for PC due to piracy. EA doesn't give a rat's ass about PC gamers not liking DRM. Ubisoft abandoned PC development in favor of porting their console titles to PC. Every day, PC gamers are getting shafted. The whole Tom Clancy's franchise was arcadified to become insanely profitable. LucasArts leaves PC gamers high and dry on "The Force Unleashed" and has the balls to lie about the reasons. DRM is screwing up legitimate owners. SysReqs are no longer clear and openly published. Certain titles are being released in Beta form just to meet cycle deadlines. And, developers are making horrible uninformed decisions about the design of PC games. They just aren't listening to their customers.
I think all publishers should have a digital method of delivery. I should be able to buy online and play without an Internet connection.
Steam is wildly successful. DUH!
DRM is bad. It hurts legitimate owners and doesn't phase pirates at all. It clogs up my system.
CD/DVD checks are just lame. We've installed the game and now we want to play without inserting a disc. I personally have like 15 games installed right now that I can play at any given time and about 8 require the disc to be inserted. Lame.
I don't buy a game unless I'm going to enjoy it. That may not be the case for less informed customers. They may buy a game not knowing what it is. Let them return it if, it doesn't run on their old and busted machine. Let them return it if there is inappropriate content for their children.
Above all, listen to what your customers want and provide it.
They're using their grammar skills there.
It's nice that they're saying that... but doesn't their Impulse digital distribution platform contain DRM? Their own site doesn't seem to say either way, the Wikipedia article says it's a DRM platform and this post on their forum suggests that Impulse supports DRM but Stardock doesn't take advantage of it in their own products.
You have the right to remain fragged. Anything you say can and will be "powned" against you. If you cannot afford a "n3wb" one will be provided for you.
Awwww riiiight.
Giggidy giggidy.
For the same placement, that's "AOE" for dvorak users. When the bindings are not changed, we have to deal with what would be ",a;h" on a qwerty keyboard. Another words the buttons are all over the map with no logical sense....
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Like I said on GamePolitics, here's one additional "gamer right" that Stardock wouldn't like (their EULA forbids it), but which I think is essential:
"Gamers shall have the right to sell their copy of the game to somebody else, provided they remove any copies of the game from their own systems upon doing so."
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Can I expect that their next release will live up to each and every one of these rights?
If so, I am already interested.
If not, then I have to assume this is all bravado in order to paint their company in a "Holier then thou" image.
As the man said, "Put your money where your mouth is".
0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
is why gamers give a hoot. If you have a problem with the way a publisher operates, DON'T BUY THE FKN GAME! If you don't like DRM, don't buy games with DRM. If you're too addicted or that much of a consumer freak that you "need" to buy the game even though you "don't want to", that's your problem.
If you really really really want to ever make a difference within the industry, you can't support it. Simple as that. You can't pig out on junk/fast food and then complain that the companies producing it are making you fat and unhealthy. It's your choice to make, so stop blaming the outcome on others when you're the one inflicting the damage upon yourself.
Gamers shall have the right to sell in game virtual items for out of game currencies. :)
Most of these cannot pertain to console gamers. Also, I disagree with "7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time." If the game had a subscription fee that stated part of that fee would be used to pay for storage and bandwidth for the transfer of the game, then sure. But, if someone buys a complete game on a media, that should be their copy. I definitely agree with #9. I disagree with #1: KNOW YOUR OWN COMPUTER! #4? Security flaws, possible cheating, etc -- yeah, you've got to update.
For my November 2006 Escapist article "StarForce Must Die," I asked blogger Bill Harris to present a "DRM Bill of Rights" that resembles Brad Wardell's list. Really, in a sensible world that recognized our right to control the information stored on our own computers, this would all be common sense.
It's kind of disturbing when people label something that would otherwise be good to have, but otherwise don't have a real *right* to, a "Bill of Rights", when the original, real "Bill of Rights" were more fundamentals being put in for a "just-in-case" measure, more clarifying what they felt were always being protected, for a safety measure. In fact, some opposed the Bill of Rights' inclusion on the grounds that it would lead us down the route it has today--that they are what prevents the government from passing censorship laws and such, and not actual "Rights".
It seems like nowadays people have no dignity and view the Bill of Rights as something that just prevents the government from doing things, despite, rightly or wrongly, the founders presuming men had "Natural Rights" that transcended anything the government "thought" or did.
To make a "$SOMETHING Bill of Rights", especially when it's nothing like the supposed "Natural Rights" the founders had in mind, that are simply a list of "good to have" things kind of troubles me.
I don't really believe in "Natural Rights" as derived from nature/reason but I think they're excellent to live by.
wasd translates to aoe? you're missing a character surely?
11) Publishers are free to break rules 1-10, but they must clearly state the violation on the box.
Gamers have the right to remain silent (about bad games). They have a right to an attorney.
Anything they do/say can and will be used against them in their moms basement.
11: No publisher should ever be so stupid as to think a server browser isn't a necessary component of an online game. Infinity Ward, are you listening?
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
I'm sorry, I think you mean "In other words". I'm not sure where you got "Another words" from.
What day is it? Could you please tell me?
W = ,
A = A
S = O
D = E
Its much easier to say "AOE" than ",AOE" or "AE,O" or something...
And don't forget the Ten Commandments of gaming.
so what?
This is just another gimmick to market bullshit that people do not need but think they want.
This is capitalism.
Don't swallow this bullshit.
Thou shalt listen to your customers.
If by terrorist you mean any indie game maker that hasnt signed up or follow the rules, then yes.
Another words...
Did you mean, "In other words..."?
GPG has already made an absolute mockery of rights #2, 3, 4 and 5.
Supcom and FA both lack even the most basic functionality in critical areas, Patches were obviously not tested at all beyond making sure the game boots up, the recommended requirements are barely capable of running the game, and the only way to really get patches is through the hilariously poorly designed GPGnet.
In short installing Supcom/FA involves creating a GPGnet account, opening it up and not being able to do anything until it finishes loading and checking for updates, and god help you if you dont get your FA and Supcom licenses done properly because they won't let you fix it if you botch it. An update involves using their magnificently bad download and install system and then NOT being able to get back into GPGnet for anywhere from 3 to 30 minutes because their own system doesn't recognize when it logs out during the patching process.
Trying to play a game is also an exercise in futility at times. Ranked is what they decide it is, which I can accept, but it also takes FOREVER to do ANYTHING and the ranking system has a shit-ton of problems and always has.
Non-ranked play is basically ignored, you can't even download a custom map or mod (smaller file than a single CS map usually) off of someone automatically, and the "vault" is disgusting. Even the much better replay vault is barely functional, with no way to differentiate between supcom and FA replays and files automatically saved so that the game is incapable of opening them (you need to repair the filename by hand) in a location completely seperate from the rest of the game files and a damn sight more difficult to navigate to.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
So that's eight passes, one unknown and one late resubmission. They are doing comparatively well.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
That wouldn't be a perfect world, because like most GPL fanbois, you have failed to notice that no-one would be producing top class games in that environment. The GPL and commercial reality are fundamentally incompatible without some sort of mitigating factor, and high quality games are probably the single best example of this.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Hmnn... This would kill blizzard's bussiness model of releasing a half-complete game while they finish it and finally release the completed work as an expansion.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
I have been buying almost exclusivly from stardock for about 6 months now because frankly the business ethics they follow I strongly agree with. Doesnt mean I dont or wouldnt like other publishers games, but the others shy of a few select few have left a very bad taste in my mouth with regards to DRM, buggy releases, bad support for bad products and lack of any form of customer service.
Im looking at you, everyone who put that shitware starforce on a disk, I hope theres a special circle of hell for the coders of that and anyone who signed off on it being added to a disk.
Stardock has always made sure any game they released was 100% complete, patchs they release are mostly bonus content (GCiv2 was expecially just bonus)
I know I cant be the only one whos sick of vendors releasing things that I wouldnt wipe my ass with let alone pay for.
For "Right to return" - FUCK THAT! I'm a retailer. The amount of games we'd get back without the open-and-its-yours policy is nuts! This is unenforcable from a pirating standpoint.
For "Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state." First someone needs to define finished state. Even a single patch can be construed as correction for an unfinished game. Does this ban patches? Or day-one error correcting? If my hardware doesn't conform to their tests, but still runs the game with errors, is the game finished if there's a patch to adjust for my (previously untested) hardware profile?
"Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release." Conflict with definitions of rule 2
Rule four I agree with. It's called ftp, people, or self-extractors. Get into the nineties for SFM's sake.
Treat 5 "Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer." with the grain of salt law. Minimum requirements are a ballpark for optimum function. Go buy a set of walkie talkies and just TRY to use them at the rated range. See what happens. It's a tenet called "optimum conditions" and it's everywhere, gamers are not alone in this, why expect special treatment?
Six and Eight come to me as the same - clarity and open information is very important, on both sides. If I know what I'm buying, I'm less likely to hack it to make sure it does what you say it does.
Seven. "Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time." Keep your discs. Re-install. It's better for everyone that way.
I've never run into a "single-player game (which forced me) to be connected to the Internet." If it does, I imagine live content updates might be useful. New content on the fly intrigues me.
No-Disc play is a very big issue. Even from a load-time perspective, the option should be there, for the sake of storage space if nothing else. Demanding this unilaterally is like most others - the option would be gold. The demand will not satisfy everyone.
Stuff like this gets my brain knotted. Developers respond to demands from many sources, the customer is one of many voices, and unfortunately, the customer sounds like a gnat against the rush of shareholders - and even other developers. If you believe one way, but the game architect is a righteous ass who thinks his way is best, no customer response line can help you. Forcing industry standards that don't necessarily reflect the state of the consumer is also a bad idea - lots of developers have proprietary processes out of necessity, and others are forced OUT of using some of those processes because others got their first. Do we fix this by abolishing software patents? No. We adjust the market and the provider slowly toward each other. This isn't a "I'm taking my money and buying from not-you" situation. That gets us nowhere. This is more compromise than we'd like to admit. As much as DRM and CD-locking, patching and constant connection annoys us, they're there for a reason. No dev team in their right mind wastes time on something they believe will NOT benefit the experience in some way. Maybe we just don't get it yet. Maybe I'm on crack.
In short: this is an all-or-nothing approach to a very gray problem. Vinegar for flies. We need more honey, less vinegar.
Those things you're doing with that stuff you just bought? That's not what it's for! -
What about the right to play the game under Linux or Mac? Trust me, Game developers hate Linux with a Holy passion.
Its a religious thing.
You just have to add an awkward pause before you say it. :-p
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
The reason GPG is involved is that their next game, Demigod, is being published by Stardock. Stardock has been good about this on all of the games they publish. Their own internally developed games as well as the ones from Ironclad. I'm sure that Demigod will follow this much more than the GPG games that were published by a company other than Stardock.
5# Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.
6# Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
But everything else... no so much.
I'm no fan of security. I bought Halflife 2 only to have the steam account get screwed up and I can't play it. In fact I've never been able to play it because it didn't like my old machine and my bright shiny new one won't work because something it wrong with the account and it won't let me back in. I'd never buy another Steam game. The point is make expensive games dirt cheap or better yet free will never fly. It's always the argument I hear that people should be free to do what they want with the content. I run a CG company and had people pull content off the company site and post it on Youtube without permission. Why? because they could. Companies do spend a great deal of money producing games. Most wouldn't begrudge them a little profit but that's not the way it works because who pays for the games that loose money? Only make hit games? There aren't many companies that pull off a 100% profitable on games or movies. Some companies are making massive profits but others barely get by and more companies go out of business than survive. Sure some are over priced but they are a tiny minority. We're talking a few percent that top $50. The problem is they tend to be the very games everyone wants. It's a market based economy. If people didn't buy them at the price then either they'd drop the price or simply spend less and make cheaper games. The top end games are starting to have budgets equal to top end feature films. It's a lot of risk so they want a return comparable with the risk. It's easy to say the customer is always right but I'll guarantee you that if there was a cap of $20 on game prices all the top end titles wouldn't look like they do. What's a fair price $5 or $10 dollars? They're called casual games and they make up the bulk of the market the under $20 games. People want cheap high end games or better yet free high end games. Who pays? Endless in game commercials? No one wants that I'll pay the bloody money to avoid that. What's the solution. I always hear free or cheap but I have never once heard a plan to cover the cost of production. The cost never bothered me much because I don't even average buying a game a year, I don't have the time for them. What reasonable solution would make gamers happy? Remember that nasty word "reasonable". Free is not realistic. High end titles for casual game prices isn't either. Would you accept a couple of commercials a level if they'd cut the prices to $30 a game? I'll guarantee you everyone would be squawking about that solution. It's really a pointless argument. There's no middle ground because the producers of the games have the right to protect their investment and the gamers wanting dirt cheap or free isn't realistic. My solution to security? I avoid most games. Sadly people keep buying them so nothing will change. I like disk dongles since if I have the disk I can play the game. What pisses me off is paying for a game and not being able to play it because of security. I simply don't buy from those companies again. Will that change anything? No because people are foolish enough to keep dealing with the hassles. Demanding no security ain't gonna happen so these weekly sessions of demanding they see the light and dump the security is a waste of everyones time. Want them to listen? Offer a "reasonable" solution that most gamers will accept. The real problem is even if you give it away people still feel the need to break the rules. Bands have posted free music with only one request that they not be reposted on other sites or P2P services. It usually takes less than an hour for some one to post it on the file share just to thumb their nose at the band and prove rules don't apply to them. So long as that goes on why should the game companies change? I get to deal with rediculous security "because" of the chicken shit that posts on the download sites. Yes that sounds troll but it's true. There's a cold war going on and the paying customers are the ones hurt. The more people that "strike a blow for freedom" the more security I get to deal with. Ten years ago I used to regularl
The problem with Supreme Commander is that the online updater downloads the patches in little teeny-tiny version increments and seems to take a dozen or two to go from release to current.
Ever notice that DVORAK users are just like those that have no tv in that they have to tell every single person they meet about it?
I don't know what version you're playing but it sounds a damn sight nicer than the one in this universe.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Oh damn, this game you downloaded has a disc check, you can go east, west, or Dennis.
EAST
You go East. There is a forum full of pirates.
BITCH FOR NO-CD
You lament the time wasted watching the 3-gigabyte ISO download, for the EXE to fail at runtime. Several forum-goers tell you to STFU or boil the crack yourself if you're in such a hurry.
You can go Shopping, Tits, or GTFO.
GO SHOPPING
You decide to leave your house and purchase the game that will then require you to have the CD in the tray for the next 5 weeks until you get bored and want to watch Superbad. Unfortunately leaving your house exposes you to the sun's rays, and you crumble into dust. Congratulations, you have lost.
GTFO
Too late now.
TITS
Nuh-uh.
DENNIS
Dennis Dyack appears as a glowing valkyrie, and slowly, slowly swoops down to pick up your ashes and carry you back, reconstituted, to the NeoGAF forums.
TITS
You decide to skip the gaming this afternoon and get your fap on.
The first, including rights 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, is because company executives think that the number of pirated copies equals that many copies worth of revenue lost. This grossly overestimated loss of revenue means that they will spend more than the appropriate effort in trying to reduce pirated copies.
The second reason is that the remaining rights expect companies and their investors to be satisfied with some fixed return on their investment. Companies and especially corporations are there for one reason and one reason only, to turn a profit. Profit by definition is the spread between what one can charge for a product and what a product actually costs to make. Rights falling into this second category tie their hands with respect to reducing product costs. Turning out unfinished products saves money. Updates cost money. Lowering hardware requirements increases potential market for a game and therefore directly impacts the bottom line especially if they're desperate to recover fixed engineering costs.
These are all examples of how market forces are at odds with consumer demands. Companies only flock to fill consumer demand when there's money in it. Not only is there no money in these demands but there are risks in undertaking them.
So the answer to the question of how to create a proper incentive for these rights to be adopted is that you can't do that within the present system. You can't get there from here. It's the other side of the coin as lamenting about command economies not producing what citizens want to consume. You might as well be petitioning the ministry of gaming to make games that allow you to ridicule the state.
The one major difference is that in a command economy the barriers to such goals are few and easy to identify. They may be very difficult barriers but there aren't that many of them and they are fairly easy to examine. In a capitalist economy, barriers are nearly invisible and hard to quantify. That is one of the major reasons why capitalist economies resist change so well.
Politicus
Space Siege (a GPG game) has SafeDisc DRM on it and was just released this month. So yeah, do as I say not as I do indeed. Yes SafeDisc is a joke but DRM is DRM folks.
You forget that DRM is often the choice of the publishers and not the developer.
Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
Has anyone at GPG actually tried using GPGnet? It's easily the worst online experience I've ever had.
GPGnet really does need a massive overhaul but they're not violating the rule since you don't need to load it to play the single player campaign.
I just went through GPG's website to check if you could download updates without the GPGnet client, and unless the page simply doesn't work under Firefox, you can't.
The patches and technical support are through the publisher, THQ (I find that's common for the games THQ publishes).
Don't all GPG games come with SecureROM?
They shipped with it but it was patched out of the game. The last time I had the DVD in for SC/FA was when I installed them.
Being commonly on GPGnet (Forums and GPGnet the App) for Supreme Commander(SC) and the expansion Forged Alliances(FA), talking with some of the developers and reading their posts, as well as being in the beta for both SC and FA, plus at times being fairly close to the top, on their ranking, as well as having bought or in some cases caused probably 25 copies of each to be purchased:
GPG kinda got a bad deal on Supreme Commander with THQ. They apparently can't update the game without THQ saying: You'll fix bugs X, Y, and Z. (And apparently only those bugs from what I've read and been able to gather.) Then it must pass through THQ's QA. (Which misses/ignores a few large bugs, and takes about a month, WTF are they testing for in that case, space birds sprouting being born live from plants? I don't think they are in Kansas...) With SC, they got a goahead to release patches often for the first while, then it fizzled out, and I've gotten the impression that it was not GPG's doing, but THQ's.
Another thing was that THQ required secure rom. They'd negotiated with THQ to release a patch for it a month after FA, but due to apparently THQ's QA not doing a good job, had some problems and got it patched out within a week. This made a lot of people at both GPG and the players happy. (Not to mention increasing the speed the game runs almost across the board, as no-cd cracks or similar usually do, fortunately in this case from the developer and/or publisher.)
Additionally, Neither SC or FA are out on Steam. It was announced they'd be, however, it hasn't happened. I got the impression that it was a distribution decision, and therefore THQ's. Reason is unknown to me, and I haven't gotten strong hints.
Some of the performance problems experienced, are not from the user's machine, but from using the Microsoft toolkit, which focuses on Xbox. Unfortunately, that presumes a homogeneous environment, and PCs aren't one, thus it runs at the speed of the slowest. Granted it made porting to Xbox easier, but the Xbox version is a massively cut down one, done by someone else porting their code to Xbox. There's a great example to point console gamers at to show why a PC version is much better. Pretty much the same game, but after months of optimizing for Xbox, it still sucks compared to the full PC version.
It's little surprise to me that GPG initially decided to self-publish a game (Demigod) then later decided to work with Stardock after their experience with THQ. I'm not sure why THQ apparently turned hostile to SC/GPG, maybe it didn't sell enough after the first release, but from what I've heard, it did better than was expected.
the more vista makes consumers, developers, studios, oems, and vendors mad, the more we'll see developers acknowledging mac and linux (we hope). if linux support is touted, instead of waiting a year or two to buy the game, i may buy it at release. heck, i'd even send them a letter of thanks!
Or it's just a bullshit excuse.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Yep, there's no money in Open Source. Red Hat and Canonical are figments of the imagination, as are the over $100 I've sent each way to support my Linux usage. So maybe it's a question of bizplan rather than impracticality.
The reason you should pay attention is because it'll let your industry have fun again.
We operating system geeks used to live in the shadow of operating system vendor concentration as well, especially with respect to Microsoft. and had to sign away our souls and belong to a big institution to play with operating systems. It was getting harder and harder to innovate or have fun. Then one day a man named Linux Torvalds came along with a release of some interest. And FreeBSD was released. And we were all free to have fun and innovate. Yeah, Open Source work's less profitable because it's more efficient and more competitive, but much more fun because billg can't call the tune on it and we can start any new startup any time we choose.
You're where we were. Spore, a great innovation, will be terrible when released because it's under the EA cloud. All the surviving companies are getting bigger and more bureaucratic.
And it's not just OSs with serious free alternatives, but also databases, web caches, languages, office software, and other serious work apps. You have nothing to lose but your chains! ;-)
Supreme Commander would have been the first game I would have bought in years. I would even have installed Wine for it. It is one of maybe three franchises I care enough about so I would accept closed-source applications. Several of my friends and relatives were looking forward to the day they could buy the game.
But, and this is a huge problem, the game is so totally and utterly unbalanced on all levels that playing it is a valley of pain. You spend 20 minutes & a gazillion resources on a metal maker that creates about double the amount a normal one produces? You spend relatively few resources on a tier 3 bot and simply walk through several times its worth of tier 1 units? And that makes it into the wild? A real pity. On the plus side, TA spring is GPL'ed and has many nice mods available, most of which are under active development.
Supreme Commander was stable and polished out of the box, it had a couple of balance issues and bugs like anything, but was generally fairly good.
Yes, and there are 'a couple of balance issues' between a stick with a stone on it and tier 3 bots ;)
:)
Honestly, the balance in SupCom was, literally, the worst I have seen in any game, ever. If that has significantly changed by now, please reply to this post & tell me
For reference, see http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=948535&cid=24807987 , btw.
11. Gamers shall have the right to be free of treatment as second-class citizens for their hobby or profession.
Sure, gaming's more mainstream than 20 years ago, but the media still loves to paint gamers as young men who are so obsessed that they don't go out and work for a living. There are those who still believe D&D is the gateway to hell, rather than a more modern and complex version of poker night.
12. Gamers shall have the right to be free from the influence of propaganda spread by people on self-styled "crusades".
Thank goodness the most obnoxious man on a crusade is facing near-certain disbarment for his conduct. His claims were outlandish, and his antics in the courtroom and elsewhere would've made him more suited as a guest on Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. But no, he gets appearances on Fox News, so hypnotized viewers think he's telling the truth. The damage he's done to young gamers is far more than the supposed good he thought he was doing, and now we'll have activist parents claiming their kids were corrupted by Tetris, and people claiming that Super Mario Brothers was the impetus for someone's murder spree. We'd laugh them out of the courtroom, until they convince enough politicians to crack down on gaming violence and sex. I can only hope that most parents today have more sense than to believe the ravings of a deluded man trying to prove his faith isn't insincere or malicious.
I bet the first shrink who examined Thompson only used a polygraph, thinking he was sent to analyze a liar. Thompson exhibits severe sociopathic behavior to my untrained eye, but surely the real doctors are better judges than I am.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
Gamer's Manifesto
Video Game 7 Commandments
The Scratchware Manifesto
All good reads, if you haven't checked them out... and all very valid complaints!
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Ever notice that DVORAK users are just like those that have no tv in that they have to tell every single person they meet about it?
Bry ann ru gov C y.be yr ,acy gbycn orm.rb. ypc.o yr go. mf t.fxrapew abe yd.f ,rbe.p ,df yd.cp t.fxrape otcnno dak. ygpb.e cbyr icxx.pcod i.b.paycrbv
Not all of us. I tend to wait until someone tries to use my keyboard, and they wonder why their keyboard skills have turned into gibberish generation.
Some points are good, but the majority is bullshit:
Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
Meaningless, since anyone has the right to demand anything anyway.
Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
Meaningless, since anyone already has the right to expect anything.
Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
As before, meaningless bullshit. Yes, people have the right to demand things.
amers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.
As before, bullshit.
Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
Sure, sure. Give them the right to expect something.
Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
Now that's a special one. Thing is, people already have that right in most countries, although this might be hard to swallow for some people in the gaming or music industry.
Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
I demand that everyone now gives me 100000 dollars, and I have the right to do so.
He's got redudant points (not having to connect is a given if assuming you're not being treated like a criminal), and the list does not cover having to be online every time you wish to install a game.
One would think that would be covered by the "not treated like criminal" point, but apparently it's not, since StarDock forces you online to install unless you bought a physical copy of the game.
That is the only issue I have with both Steam and SDC/Impulse. I can create local backups easily, but I cannot restore them unless I've installed SDC/Impulse/Steam and been online with it.
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
---
Anyone smell a double standard? (Smells like cheese.)
I agree with 2, but 3 is going too far. Completeness doesn't preclude updates, but it does strictly make them unnecessary... demanding updates is too much.
You should've seen when they first added the new units to vanilla supcom. UEF gets a t2 bomber unit that is literally a straight double of their t1 bomber unit. Cybrans get something somewhat like that but it's more of an aerial missile platform and it's quite decent.
Then the Aeon... they get a cheap superfast flying bomb that when it gets within a certain distance of your target will turn into a bunch of homing energy bits that do so much damage that as a unit it's the single most effective thing in the game, making building virtually anything else worthless for them after that.
That's GPG's idea of a patch. They test it to make sure the game boots up, most of the time, and then they say that's good enough and release it.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
6. SupCom installed SecureRom at launch but removed it in v3223.
10. SupCom can be played without a DVD.
Except in Poland, China, Brazil and Russia. I am unfortunate enough to live in one of those barbaric parts of the world. This is also the reason I did not buy this game though I really liked it. There's an item missing from the Bill:
11. Gamers shall have the right not to be discriminated against by the publisher based on their nationality, race or religion
Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
Gamers have the right to play a game without sitting through 20 minutes of intro screens, displaying the animated logos of video card and sound card manufacturers, the logos of any company that the development team borrowed the engine from as well as the logos of the the team that the development team played in company softball, Lupe's Office Cleaning Service, Redbull, and a logo that the intro designer thought 'just looked cool' and really had nothing to do with the game.
GPG has already made an absolute mockery of rights #2, 3, 4 and 5.
"2) Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state."
Well, SupCom and FA had bugs, and balance issues, and stuff.. but so does everything. I can't say the problems seemed severe enough to me to consider them "unfinished".
"3) Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a games release."
Which GPG provided; frequent patches, new units, improved balance, new features, rapid DRM removal, improved performance. They made a mockery of this? WTF do you expect, extra 10 hour single-player campaigns every month?
"4) Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game"
Yes, GPGNet is rubbish, but you can download patches yourself if you want to, and you don't need to run or even install GPGnet to run SupCom. Unless it's required for online play? That's something I never bothered with.
"5) Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer."
Depends what you mean by "adequate"; some SupCom maps (i.e. the biggest it supports) leave me playing at something like 1/4th real time on a 2.6GHz dual core Opteron, but I think it's reasonable that a game like it scale up to levels that are painful for even very high end systems.
Uhm... I'm confused. Where is the button to mod up the post itself???
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
When I played SC, the patches available on THQ's website were always several versions behind. If you wanted to download current patches manually, you had to guess the url or search their forum for someone else's url guess.
The forum had some scattered official information of download url's but this information was not updated consistently and was often several versions behind too.
If you don't have to log in, the patches don't have to come from the log in server.
If you don't mind pirates being able to patch their games, you can reduce your costs by releasing the patches and seeding torrents.
Now would this ease of patching a pirated game turn one of your customers into a pirate? If not, then there's no risk and plenty reward.
Let's face it the game developers aren't the only ones who need to do a little changing. I would like to see console makers improve their shit as well. How about making consoles that don't have major issues, like the red ring, or the original Playstation having to be turned upside down in order to read the disc. Let's also not forget the classic NES, where blowing into a cartridge was the norm for trying to get a game to play. If that didn't work, then put the game in, but not all the way, the press down so that it kind of snaps.
Sure other industries have issues as well, but the level of fan dedication isn't the same as it is in the gaming market.
Can I bum a sig?
we are not joe average, clueless in the middle of idaho or arizona. we are gamers, we are technologically affluent, socially aware and have wits.
we give boon to those who respect it, we give the shaft to those who dont. and i assure you, we have given the shaft to many companies before.
Read radical news here
Not only that, some DVDs disable the fast forward so that you have to look at up to 10 minutes of trash before you can view the movie. It gets even worse, the movie that they were hyping often is a bomb and no longer available but you have to sit through the previews nonetheless. Disney is a BIG offender in this and add to that they specialize in kids movies. Try to explain to a crying kid that just wants to view his favorite movie that he has to wait until the trash is done showing.
Standardize keyboard layouts so players don't have to customize their keys every time. On First person shooters every game has forward, backward, left, right, etc. Put these on the same keys every time.
GPG's next game is Demigod, which Stardock is publishing. Stardock is one of (if not THE) most consistently friendly developers/publishers when dealing with their customers. Stardock has consistently made their games easy to access and they've been well rewarded with very strong sales. Even so they've had trouble being heard. I'm not especially optimistic about the success of this, but I do support it fully, and I have no reason to expect they won't continue to do the same. Even if GPG hasn't satisfied every one of the conditions in the past they mean to in the future.
Well, not really. Supreme Commander isn't actually available on steam. But even if it was, you would have to re-buy it on steam in order to download it on steam.
There's a default awkward pause after the word dvorak in my mind, so he's good.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Because if you are a console gamer, most of those don't apply to you.
The cake is a pie
Should be for all software... Should even include media such as videos and audios.. :)
I don't see how a privacy program can make a mockery of anyone, well maybe except for this...
How immature can you get? This passes as news? I wish every hammer was made as well as a Craftsman and came with that lifetime guarantee but most toolmakers don't have the resources, brand-name, or prices to compete with that. So they make cheap hammers for people who don't particularly need the latest and greatest and would rather save a couple bucks. Games are the same way. They're a product, and they might suck. In fact, most do. After a game has been out for 6 months or so the market usually values it pretty accurately. Just because you're a dumbass uninformed consumer doesn't mean your rights are being tampered with.
If we're going to introduce new human rights then I propose that every man who has to work in front of a computer, such as myself, has the RIGHT to have a midget live beneath that computer desk to suck our dicks while we work. Working in front of a computer any other way. . .it would just be cruel.
2. Supreme Commander was stable and polished out of the box, it had a couple of balance issues and bugs like anything, but was generally fairly good.
I disagree. I was in the beta for SupCom (not the expansion) and the game was shipped while the beta was still in progress. Several more patches were made to the beta before the game hit stores, so moving from the beta to the actual game was a step *backwards*. They promised that a patch would be released to fix this on the day of release, but we ended up waiting weeks before they actually released it.
Oddly enough Brad Wardell of Stardock was a keen TA player. When Cavedog had the Galactic War running I was in the same Clan. He was Frogboy.
My fav units are dead Mavs
What does it matter if anything has changed? You cited post was completely wrong to begin with.
It sounds like you're just citing the balance issues of Total Annihilation (overpowered low level units, resource generation too cheap) and reversing them to bitch about Supreme Commander not being exactly the same. Or possibly constructed your mass fabricator under nanostall (short on resources) and wondered why everything you built after too so much less time to construct.
All figures cited from: http://supcomdb.com/db/
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
I don't know if Gas Powered Games or THQ think I'm a criminal. A lot of people think I might be because of the way I dress.
I told you that bright orange jumpsuit was a bad idea!
Ninjas use italics.
No unskippable cutscenes!
Of course, your perfect world has a crushing undersupply of videogames in it. The ones that do exist are inferior, in almost all respects other than "freedom", to commercial games (which they are often shamelessly derivative copies of -- OpenInsertNameOfGameHere, anyone?)
Bona fides: I have contributor access to MegaMek, a clone of the Battletech rules that you can play over the Internets. That game wouldn't exist without FASA actually doing the hard work of game design. I am pretty proud of our project for keeping the game vital even after the corporate sponsor went under and then moved in a different direction under new management, but take it from somebody who knows, our production values are a joke compared to anything you've paid for in the last 5 years, the core attraction to our game is the fun and unfree ruleset (and nostalgia value), and by the stats we're one of the best game projects on SF.
I love commercial entertainment. May they be around and healthy, forever, even if that means RMS has a coronary about it.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I still can't figure why developers decide to use DirectX when there are cross-platform equivalents. I refuse to buy a game that uses DirectX because of the policies of the Microsoft. I can't believe they are going to force users to upgrade to Vista to use DirectX 10. I'm glad I don't use their products.
So you are basically saying that they took a very hard look and did a rebalance. I played the game the day it was out and it was horrible. Also, I don't know why you think I could confuse a TA with SC. And walking through 1.5-2 times their cost in resources = no problem. But walking through more than that and it is yet another inbalance. I am glad they changed some things, though. Who knows, I might even give it another chance.
I recall similar complaints by Relic about THQ's handling of patches.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I only purchased SupCom after this patch was released. An added advantage from my point of view was that by that time I could get SupCom and the add-on pack for less than the cost of the original game. What's my point? They would have made more money from me if the game had not had SecureRom at all.
On a related note, I'd love to play GT Legends, but as it's infected with StarForce they don't get a penny from me.
That "right" is the only one that I'm not too sure on. It seems to be suggesting that game developers have to continue improving a game after they've made a commercial release out of it.
I agree with supporting a game in terms of ironing out balance issues, bugs and so forth, but I'm not sure I like something which says that people should expect me as a developer to make their game better and add more stuff to it over time.
If I had a big title that I was selling nicely for US$40+ a pop then sure, adding a bit of extra worthwhile content for the userbase as a "thank-you" for allowing me to live well makes sense. That said, developer time is a limited resource; I may have any number of other games and projects making demands on my time.
Perhaps this is something that gamers have more "right" to expect from established development houses than from independent publishers?
They should get a certifiable logo. When you go to the store and see the game box, it should have a logo associated with these principles so that the customer that doesn't know might be inclined to find out what it means; and the customer that does know can have further incentive to make the purchase.
Clothing is returned to stores all the frakkin' time. Why can't I return software? Because it's easy to copy? So what if it is, that doesn't make mean that I'm a copyright violating criminal!
I remember my failed attempt to get a refund for Lord of the Rings Online. *sigh*
I have been preordering every Stardock game since Gal Civ (the first one) due to their very pro gamer stance and refusal to be ingrates to me as a paying customer (which is exactly what most publishers are).
I have already ordered Demigod (Gas Powered game) online, if you go to stardock.com there's a banner on the front page, buy it. Support these guys, you don't have to buy their Windows tools, but do buy their games. And they do mean it, the Stardock Control Center lets you download all your online purchases or any retail game that you choose (note the choice) to register with them. You can backup all these files, they are so much better than Steam ethically, this is an online service worth using.
Again, if you believe in these principles and you have the cash for holiday games, preorder Demigod today (out in January I think). No I don't work for them, I just really really like these guys.
Stardock is to be congratulated for their Gamers Bill of Rights though incomplete, its a good start and excellent to see a game developer recognizing the inadequacies of DRM. The most important item missing in the list is the right to easily move the game to a new PC, a 2nd PC or to lend it to a friend. It is also key to recognize that developers being asked to fulfill these gamers rights, need to protect their own rights at the same time i.e. to prevent theft and lost revenue. To fulfill all of the Bill of Rights is readily possible but requires the strongest of protection mechanisms; otherwise the crackers task just became much easier. At ByteShield we offer gamer and developer friendly protection that fulfills all these Rights and many more, while exceedingly difficult to crack - see our latest whitepaper, Is Anti-Piracy/DRM the Cure or the Disease for PC Games? at http://byteshield.net/byteshield_whitepaper_0005.pdf.
Going through this Bill of Rights point by point:
1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that do not work with their computers for a full refund. >> we agree and ByteShield enables this because any installation can be disabled and refunded with no fear of theft
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state. >> we agree but this is a developer decision
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a games release. >> we agree but this is a developer decision
4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.>> we agree but with respect to the game this is a developer decision. However, in certain circumstances (e.g. bug fix versions, virus protection) this should happen automatically to minimize support issues (for users and developers) but with full information of what is happening supplied to the gamer
5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer. >> we agree but this is a developer decision
6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games wont install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent >> ByteShield already makes this promise â" see our whitepaper http://byteshield.net/byteshield_whitepaper_0005.pdf.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time. >> we agree and ByteShield enables this because any installation can be deactivated in combination with permitting a re-download
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers. >> ByteShield already makes this point - see our whitepaper http://byteshield.net/byteshield_whitepaper_0005.pdf.
9. Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.>> ByteShield offers this but its implemented at discretion of game developer
10. 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. >> ByteShield already makes this promise - see our whitepaper http://byteshield.net/byteshield_whitepaper_0005.pdf.
Oddly enough Brad Wardell of Stardock was a keen TA player. When Cavedog had the Galactic War running I was in the same Clan. He was Frogboy.
No idea what TA is, but Brad goes by the name of Frogboy of various forums. Or at least he did a few years ago.