Slashdot Mirror
Stardock Evaluates DRM Complaints, Updates Gamer's Bill of Rights
Earlier this year, we discussed the Gamer's Bill of Rights, a document put forth by Stardock CEO Brad Wardell to address what he felt were the unacceptable characteristics of the gaming industry. ShackNews reports that Wardell has taken feedback from gamers, developers, and publishers, and updated the document accordingly. One particular area on which he focused was DRM. Stardock also published a customer report that examines the issue in greater detail (PDF). MTV's Multiplayer Blog fans the flames of the debate by asking if anyone is embarrassed about pirating video games.
When are they going to add another important point to the bill of rights:
11. Gamers shall have the right to play the game on the platform of their choosing.
Obviously, this whole bill of rights deal is for PC's and not consoles.
Embarrassed? No. I know that I will gladly purchase a game that I feel deserves my money, but I have a great appreciation of piracy for allowing me to preview a product freely in advance. Developers are not losing any money on Piracy from me. I truly wish that were the case for everyone, and we probably wouldn't be in this predicament.
But who can honestly say those who pirate rampantly are going to buy the damn games anyway? Most of them I assume are kids who don't even have an income in the first place.
Regardless, though I'm certainly not embarrassed by that, I am increasingly afraid of losing my job, or suffering some other form of corporate backlash. I WORK in the damn game industry. Pretty much everyone I know downloads games, and buys the ones they like. But in the last few years it's gone from something that "everyone does", to something "everyone does unofficially".
Something that still confuses me are the kids nowadays that come in chanting copyright slogans and poo-pooing on people who bit torrent stuff. That grade-school brainwashing really does work wonders...
But what's keeping all those gamers out there who don't pirate their games from standing up and saying they pay for what they play? From making not being a pirate a point of pride?
I paid for Spore. The DRM crashed my game. The seemingly incomplete game was enjoyable for as much as it accomplished. But I feel like a sucker for having paid money on it. I don't feel pride; I feel a small twinge of something akin to shame. I helped Electronic Arts dumb down a game (so they can piecemeal add-ons to eventually yield a complete game, sometime in the future) and distribute it with DRM (which interfered in my gameplay, which the pirated version would not have done). I helped them because I can't control my addiction to gaming.
That's why the cultural front would be a losing battle. To do the "legal" thing, I have to feel slightly embarrassed and used and out of control.
I can see where you're coming from with this, but that isn't a 'right'. It's a 'demand', and a fairly selfish one at that. Nintendo should be forced to license their IPs out to their arch-nemeses? (I mean, aside from Sega ;) Companies should be forced to release ports even for systems that can't handle the load?
Not a bad idea, but needs a rethink.
Their games require you to run "Impulse", and the "Impulse Dock", which is a browser-like client that only talks to Stardock. It has blogs, downloads, and such, and is required for updates to their games. It's like one of those background services required to run many games, only it's in your face.
This is progress?
It's be fucking nice if they did release source code. What's the harm? Carmack did it.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I love it when Americans make the tipping analogy, because it's so apt. You are aware that the American system of tipping is insane, right? The rest of the world think you're all fuckin' nuts when you go on about this stuff. There's nothing normal about refusing to pay your staff a reasonable rate and then demanding the customer get involved in compensating them.
How we know is more important than what we know.
If I purchase a copy of the game, I *DO* own it. Otherwise, I have the right to get a replacement and or refund if my CD or DVD gets scratched. Does that really happen? I don't think so.
If we gave money and got a CD, it's not a license. It's a sale. Especially when you go to the website and see the words "purchase", "order" and "buy". See Vernor v. Autodesk. A good review of the decision is available at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html
So what DRM is really about, is an attempt at circumventing the first sale doctrine. Therefore, it should be declared illegal.
The parent is correct. Their games do require you to run their Impulse client to download game updates.
A recent update to Impulse did actually install background services without asking the user's permission. This was their solution to slow app launch times, by invisibly launching the service at boot time, rather than actually fixing the problem.
GameRanger - multiplayer gaming service for PC and Mac games
Go read up on copyright, as part of the 'deal' that is copyright, the rights to the item are supposed to become public after copyright runs out (which is getting longer and longer, but that aint the point).
With DRM, how exactly is the public going to get their free access that has been bought and paid for by supplying (through the state..) the protection of the product during its copyright life?
Any copyright holder who uses DRM that does not time out at the end of copyright is reneging on their half of the contract that is copyright, so why should they get any protection through it?
State Copyright OR Private DRM, I say. No state protection for DRM!
I like the tipping system here.
I've been at restaurants where waitresses invade my personal space by touching me or rubbing on me while handing other diners their food, and I just refuse to tip them because of that. Usually they do it because they think it gets them more tips if they make me want to have sex with them. That kind of manipulation really pisses me off. Remember that this is an example of why I like the tipping system.
Another reason why I like the system here is that if I really like the service someone gave me, I can say so by giving them a larger than average tip.
SRSLY.
There's nothing normal about refusing to pay your staff a reasonable rate and then demanding the customer get involved in compensating them.
I can only quote you in the name of truth. The moment the UK government found out that was happening here they started taking steps to make it illegal, as it damn well should be.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
No, being a decent waiter is the waiter's job, and they don't deserve any extra for doing what they're supposed to do. If they don't earn enough then they should go and demand more from their employer.
A tip is not a tip if it's mandatory. A tip is used to reward exceptional service. Simply serving food or mechanically pouring a beer or cup of coffee is not exceptional service. Now, when a taxi driver spent a while figuring out how to fit the large CRT I had bought into the car and helped me carry it up, that was very exceptional service and appropiately rewarded.
You realise if they were getting paid a reasonable wage they wouldn't feel the need to demean themselves like that, right?
1) Right of Free Use: If you limit number of installations, the publisher MUST provide a "revoke" tool.
What it entails for the publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to limit the software's installation to one or more computers based on their hardware configuration and registered online ("Activation"). They must provide a free stand-alone tool, preferably on the same distribution medium, that the User can use to de-authorize previously activated computers. The total number of Activations and De-activations must be unlimited in number, but can be limited as to number of uses in a particular time period.
How It Would Work:
When you install a game, the software must be activated online as is the standard practice today. However, what this Right provides is a method for the User to de-activate an installation so the software can be transferred to another computer, either due to hardware failure, upgrade or resale. This tool needs to be provided free to the user, preferably on the CD/DVD with the game (or downloaded if the game is purchased through digital distribution) and must be stand-alone. De-activation would require proof of ownership (the CD in the drive and the CD-key should be enough), and would display a list of all computers authorized to run that software. The User could then select the computers to be de-activated. Note that this tool does NOT have to be run on the Authorized computer, or require the Authorized software to be installed. In order to prevent misuse of this tool, the Publisher can allow only a certain amount of Authorizations/DeAuthorizations per day/week/month, but cannot limit the TOTAL amount of de-Authorizations.
2) Right of Activation: If the publisher requires Activation, they must provide some assurance of method to bypass this should the method of Activation no longer be available.
What it entails for the Publisher:
The Publisher is allowed to require the User to Activate their software through the method of their choice. But if that method should no longer be available (be it due to technical or financial reasons), they must ensure that the user can continue to use the software they paid for even though the Activation service is no longer running. This assurance can take many forms; a legal promise to release a patch should the Activation Servers be taken down and a waiving of rights to take legal action of any third-party who rights software to allow the same, or a universal "key" that is held in escrow, to be released only should the Activation servers go down, that allows installation and use of the Software without Activation.
How It Would Work:
Basically, the Publisher needs to provide the User with a "back-door" that can bypass the Activation requirement should they chose to no longer allow Activations, either because it is costing them too much money or they are no longer in business. The best way for the User is if the Publisher has a patch or some sort of universal serial number that allows the User to bypass Activation; this patch/key is held in escrow until the Activation Servers go down and is then released to the general public. Of course, this may dramatically compromise the usefulness of the DRM, so other methods can be used, for example: providing source-code and funds that can be released to pay a programming team to successfully develop a patch after the fact. Alternately (but least palatable to the User) the Publisher can simply promise to release code and not prosecute should a third-party (e.g., a "cracker") want to develop some method to bypass the Activation (but, note, they must provide enough code to make this a possibility)
3) Right to P
After purchasing Mass Effect I used a crack to circumvent the activation. I felt...unclean for paying a company to treat me like that. I decided that I would take a moral stand on the issue and so I will not buy any more games with crazy DRM on them (I did the same with Starforce). Now however I am in something of a quandary, should I:
a) Be strong! Not only will I not purchase these products, I will not use them in any way. A total boycott.
b) Be pragmatic! The publisher will label me a lost sale due to piracy anyway so why not see for myself what everyone is talking about?
I intially chose A so as to lend weight to my statement, but my voice goes unheard. Drowned in a sea of corporate propaganda. B appears ever more attractive (and self-serving, admittedly.)
The seriousness of the above post is not guaranteed.
It's funny. Because here tipping is not considered mandatory, there is no *expectation* of a tip, and thus, if I really like the service I got, I can give an average tip.
The tipping system in the US is insane. Waitresses should be paid normal wages, and should get tips only as reward for good service (or physical contact, for those so inclined).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The game crashed, what makes you assume it was the DRM?
The game was stable up until the space stage, then it started crashing on me and caused me to lose many hours of progress. Buried in the crash logs was mention of a particular dll. I went searching for an explanation of what that file was for. Turns out, there was already an article written that explained that dll, SecureROM, and its relation to Spore. http://www.arsgeek.com/2008/09/09/how-to-remove-securom-spore-dasmx86dll-issues-and-some-great-drm-free-alternatives/