Topic: Stardock's results to their Survey 2008 and e-mails include a 10% coupon

[MysterD]

This is Stardock's newest Customer Report, in PDF format.

It does have their results to their recent Survey 2008

In your e-mail from Stardock (if you're a member with them), there's a 10% coupon off any game from Stardock. 10% ain't much, but is better than nothing.

[scottws]

Wow, what a cool report.  I love this company!

[Quemaqua]

I read this the other day, and am glancing over it again now.  I've discovered that while I was initially a little peeved at a few of the "illegitimate complaints" when I read them as idol posted them somewhere else a while back, I'm now finding them to be quite reasonable.  Particularly:

 Illegitimate complaint: 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.
 Illegitimate complaint: 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 can still see people being pissed about being able to resell something.  Most things you buy you can later sell (physical stuff... this is why people have garage sales), and not being able to do that may be a big deal to some.  Certainly not not to me as I'm building a library, but that isn't everyone's goal.  If a publisher goes out of their way to make sure products can't be resold, I can still see that as being somewhat underhanded.

But when he says that requiring significant updates to come through a specific source is okay, I think I get it.  He's saying that if you're providing extra content or bonuses to a user, you have the right to distribute that however you see fit, and I can't argue with that.  But if you're just fixing bugs, he makes a differentiation.  He seems to indicate that bugfixes should be available period, but significant updates that include other stuff can be restricted if the distributor desires to restrict it.  I can totally be down with that, though I can't see your average company going to the trouble of distinguishing between the two.  You aren't going to make a bug-fix update, throw that on the net, then make a bug-fix+improvements update and make that available for customers on your download service, right?  But that doesn't negate what he's saying.  I think I see where he's coming from.  It comes back to rewarding customers, and I get that.

[MysterD]

But when he says that requiring significant updates to come through a specific source is okay, I think I get it.  He's saying that if you're providing extra content or bonuses to a user, you have the right to distribute that however you see fit, and I can't argue with that.

I agree with this.

Many times though, a patch includes both extra DLC and bug fixes.

But if you're just fixing bugs, he makes a differentiation.  He seems to indicate that bugfixes should be available period, but significant updates that include other stuff can be restricted if the distributor desires to restrict it.  I can totally be down with that, though I can't see your average company going to the trouble of distinguishing between the two.  You aren't going to make a bug-fix update, throw that on the net, then make a bug-fix+improvements update and make that available for customers on your download service, right?  But that doesn't negate what he's saying.  I think I see where he's coming from.  It comes back to rewarding customers, and I get that.

Here's a thought -- older patches should be made available to the Net (Fileshack, FileFront, GamersHell, etc etc) when say a brand new one comes out exclusively through the actual company.

I dunno, but if Version 1.4 is out, I don't wanna be running 1.3; it's old now. What good would that be? As a game owner, I should feel privledged I bought the game. The pirate should have to go through some trouble to actually be able to find Version 1.4.

[idolminds]

I do see what they mean, Que. And you're right, I don't so much mind that I have to get those content updates (as opposed to just bug fixes) directly from them. I also like that I'm not "tied down" by that, meaning I don't need to have some extra client running or have to be online just to make sure what I've got installed is mine, you know? Basically, I like that they don't force Impulse on you if you don't want it. I can play GalCiv without the updates if I choose to, where Orange Box I have to use Steam no matter what.

This report is really interesting to read. Its not just "Yay us!" either, actually pointing out the flaws and what they are doing to fix them. Cool stuff.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, I like that.  I think that I really do like Wardell, even though the most epic of songs was just a funny spoof.  He's definitely a businessman, but the fact that he still touches code on a lot of products says a lot, and I think he really does intend to spend his life as a businessman by winning customers over through treating them right, and that's the kind of guy I want running a company, not one who believes that sometimes you just have to make compromises.  Because even a total dreamer is going to make some compromises in his career whether he wants to or not, but if you go in thinking that you'll have to make them occasionally, you'll probably find yourself making them all the time.