Why the changes, Stardock?
Submitted
by
M1rth
M1rth writes "Glide Underground has a great article up deconstructing the changes Stardock recently made to their Gamers' Bill of Rights and all the complaints about DRM that they were pooh-poohing as illegitimate. It looks like they're trying to make their wording confusing to have it both ways, because a lot of the "legitimate" and "illegitimate" complaints are pretty close to the same argument just reworded. A nice response to the idea of activation servers just to install a single-player game too.
"If you have an activation server setup, you go back to the point we had earlier about installing requiring an internet connection, and what happens when the company dies or drops their server. If you "promise" to release a patch that allows the game to install when your server goes away... we are counting on (a) your honesty to do so and (b) your ability to somehow provide a download server (or persistent availability of the patch, somewhere) after your company/activation server's demise. While I trust Brad Wardell to honestly mean to deliver these things... I don't know that I honestly can trust most of the industry, nor can I trust whatever company might pick up a bankrupt company's assets to honor these prior commitments." "
"If you have an activation server setup, you go back to the point we had earlier about installing requiring an internet connection, and what happens when the company dies or drops their server. If you "promise" to release a patch that allows the game to install when your server goes away... we are counting on (a) your honesty to do so and (b) your ability to somehow provide a download server (or persistent availability of the patch, somewhere) after your company/activation server's demise. While I trust Brad Wardell to honestly mean to deliver these things... I don't know that I honestly can trust most of the industry, nor can I trust whatever company might pick up a bankrupt company's assets to honor these prior commitments." "