Topic: Gamers Bill of Rights updated

[idolminds]

Linky

They also go over what they see as legitimate and illegitimate DRM complaints.

I just want to point out a few things. Go to the site for a full list.

Legitimate Complaints
Activation-based DRM means that if the publisher goes out of business or simply stops supporting their content that the customer can no longer use their legally purchased item.

Illegitimate Complaints
Requires people to get updates through a specific source (Steam, Impulse, publisher secure website, etc.). This is one of our biggest pet peeves. If a game ships and there's some bug found that materially affects gameplay, then sure, put out a patch wherever. However, we've had users complain loudly that Sins of a Solar Empire v1.1 (essentially a free expansion pack) requires Impulse to download. Publishers have every right to make sure the people downloading updates are legitimate customers.

Is it me, or do these contradict each other? I'm totally cool with having to go to the company to get the update, but if you think about it doesn't that mean if they go away then you can't update your game? I'm pretty sure Stardock would release the patches into the wild if that were to ever happen, I'm just pointing out how it seems a little odd.

Illegitimate Complaints
    * Keeps people from installing the program on as many PCs as they own. I own an office full of PCs. I don't think Microsoft would be happy if I installed Office on all of them.
    * Keeps people from easily having LAN parties with their game. We allow this but demonizing publishers who frown on this seems unreasonable.

That's because MS sells business licenses for just such an occasion. Games aren't office apps, though. You probably won't install Bioshock on 30 computers for 30 people to play simultaneously. You might do that for a multiplayer game to LAN with, but is that so bad?

I cant find the article now, but it was from a Civ4 dev. They had a CD check, but it only checked the CD when the game launched. They knew that gamers could install it on multiple PC and launch them one by one and hand the disc around to play on LAN. It was their unofficial stance to leave it that way. The way they saw it, the people might like the game enough to then go buy it themselves. If they really wanted to pirate it they would have and avoided the problem entirely.

Illegitimate Complaints
DRM is just wrong in principle, you buy something, you own it and should be able to do whatever you want. This is a view held by some but the person who makes the thing has the right to distribute it how they want. If I spend $5 million making a game, someone paying $50 doesn't "own" it. There has to be some middle ground on serving customers and protecting IP holders.

Wait, what? They *DO* have the right to distribute it how they want. But once I've bought my copy of it they are done distributing to me and get no further say in what I do with my property. I'm not making copies and selling it to others, thats your job. I just want to play it the way I want without a bunch of hoops and hassles.

[Cobra951]

Seems like they're backpedaling, which is a shame.  That last point in particular is a disappointment.  We're back again to the fiction that what you buy isn't really yours.  Bullshit, of course.

[Xessive]

I agree with your points.

I don't get this:

Makes it harder for people to resell programs. (Not saying reselling programs is right or wrong, only that it is not the function of DRM to make it hard or easy to do this, it's a separate issue.)

I understand that the resale effect/value of the item is not the primary function of DRM nor is it meant to address it. What I don't understand is their statement "it is not the function of DRM to make it hard or easy" when it does in fact make it harder to resell anything if it is wrapped in DRM. Does that basically translate to "We don't care if DRM makes reselling it hard or easy" ?

[MysterD]

Legitimate Complaints
Activation-based DRM means that if the publisher goes out of business or simply stops supporting their content that the customer can no longer use their legally purchased item.

Illegitimate Complaints
Requires people to get updates through a specific source (Steam, Impulse, publisher secure website, etc.). This is one of our biggest pet peeves. If a game ships and there's some bug found that materially affects gameplay, then sure, put out a patch wherever. However, we've had users complain loudly that Sins of a Solar Empire v1.1 (essentially a free expansion pack) requires Impulse to download. Publishers have every right to make sure the people downloading updates are legitimate customers.

Is it me, or do these contradict each other? I'm totally cool with having to go to the company to get the update, but if you think about it doesn't that mean if they go away then you can't update your game? I'm pretty sure Stardock would release the patches into the wild if that were to ever happen, I'm just pointing out how it seems a little odd.

Yes, they do -- b/c if a company goes out of business and their patch is NOT available anywhere else, then you are stuck with Version 1.0 of the game.

I have no problem if for a limited time only, say Patch 1.1 for a game can be downloaded DIRECTLY from Stardock. Then later on, when say patch 1.2 is out ONLY from Stardock, they make Patch 1.1 is made public to ALL servers to host into the wild. I mean, who the hell wants an outdated copy of the game? If you want say newest Patch 1.2, dammit -- go get it from Stardock now.

About automatic patching a la Steam or Impulse (which is what they do), there's only one solution so you don't get stuck with disc version 1.0. You know what that is? Right - There's ONE solution to that -- and that is what Steam does. Steam allows you to make and BACK-UP the entire copy of the game as much as you like. You know what? Fine by me.


EDIT: OF course if Patch 1.2 is the LAST version of the game, then when Stardock's done patching the game for good, way later on and all, it should be made available into the wild to be mirrored anywhere.