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.
Or have limited funds and resources, and want to put those funds and recources into games for your biggest market.
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.
Honestly, I'd be embarrassed to admit I'd bought a copy of Spore considering the limitations of the DRM and the fact that it's installed malware like SecureRom. The people who have torrented DRM-free copies are already laughing at the people who have already hit their 5-install limit.
Just like I'd be embarrassed if I had bought music from Microsoft or Yahoo a few years ago, then found out that they're shutting down the license servers so that I have no way of listening to copies of songs I've purchased. People who listen to copies of those same songs downloaded from Kazaa are laughing at them.
Pay attention to the lesson here folks. If you buy something that comes with copy protection, you are being scammed just as surely as if you were to send your life savings to the nice man from Nigeria that sends you so many emails. If there is no legitimate method of buying it that doesn't include DRM, then don't buy it at all.
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 have good news. I found someone who stole one of your games, and he has agreed to mail you back the bits you're missing. I just need a return address.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
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.
Not to nitpick, but I was pirating WAY before I had internet access (actually, more then than now). As to your question: C) No demo=no purchase.
I won't pay for something unless I know I want it. If I buy meat from a butcher and it's not good, I'll get my money back. That option is not available to me as a consumer with software, so I try before I buy.
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.
No, Stardock started as an OS/2 game publisher in 1993, they didn't touch Windows until 1998. See: http://www.stardock.com/stardock/articles/article_sdos2.html
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
There's a significant lack of respect for my work inherent in the statement they make by stealing a game I've worked on. The way it comes across to me is, "I know you spent hours of your life working on the thing that's entertaining me right now, and I think those hours were worth a total of zero dollars."
That is not their statement, that's your assumption.
Most hardcore pirates that I know are very much into promoting cool stuff and sharing it with others because they think it is really cool. They don't waste energy on crap. In part it gives them status in their community when they are able to turn people on to something impressive. This behavior seems to be normal human nature - sharing cool stuff regardless of what it is - is an inherent part of the human social animal.
You can choose to feel insulted by it, but feeling that way won't change anything and it makes you unhappy in the process.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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
When an game is sold $60, it is sold here in Europe for 60 Euro. You do the change back and tada: $100. :(
Now "Hundreds of dollard of games" start with only 1
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
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).