Because (even reputable) third party sites then proceed to mirror the updates for all, completely defeating that method. Using something like Impulse is the only way to ensure that doesn't happen.

Being able to return games that don't work on you're computer is nice. I just bought Neverwinter Nights, and I spent 4 hours trying to get it to work, but I failed. It was only 20$, but still.

That is a very interesting perspective. One I can honestly say I have never considered. You see I look at thing the say way you guys do to the best of my knowledge and that is that you are selling an experience, hence the license and not the game argument that the entire industry as well as all the other entertainment industries claim. I fully concur with that fundamental position. However considering second hand sales as a "slower forum of piracy with financial incentive" seems to fly smack in the face of centuries of free trade practices and fundamental commerce in general as well as tossing the right of first sale right out the window.

People buy other types of products, use them, then resale them for whatever reason and it is permitted. This is especially so when it comes to antiques, housing, works of art (which is what many think gaming is by the way) clothing, literature, machines and vehicles. So why is it that digital products are so special that they should be treated differently then nearly all other commodities in the market place especially when the reproduction costs are almost nil in comparison with all other products?    Moreover the implications for this notion would have a profound impact on the rental business, usage of products by family members and so on... Where does it all end?

That is a rationalization of why your company wishes to remove rights from the consumer that exist from First Sale doctrine exception to copyright. It is at this juncture that I realize the flaw with a "Gamers Bill of Rights" written by the anyone in game selling industry. They will always be more concerned with producers rights, than consumer rights.

A "Gamers Bill of rights" that is is written by the publisher, is clearly not what it claims. It is essentially a list of Stardock practices (many of them very good).

A real Gamers Bill of rights would be written by Gamers.

Or at least by a party representing their interests and not conflicting with them (IOW not game publishers).

Examples:

1: The right to pull my game from my shelf 5 to 10,years from now and have install/play without an internet connection (IE no server dependencies)

2: Proper First Sale Doctrine recognition. I can sell my physical purchased goods to another. Facilities could easily exist for Serial Key transfer. Support can be time limited per key if you are talking about call in support and not merely access to a web page.

I realize publishers hate the used market, but I can sell my used CD,DVD,Books. Games are an exception why? Again a gamers bill of rights that only include rights that the publisher likes has nothing to do with gamers.

A real gamers bill of rights could be codified today and we could get review sites to score games on gamers rights out of ten.

Loss of resale rights: Minus 3 points.

Remote Server activation required: Minus 5 points.

It is good of Stardock to bring up the idea. But the definition belongs in the consumers hands, not the producers. Having a producer write the "Gamers Bill of Rights" is putting the fox in charge of the Hen House.  Monitoring can be checked with review sites to give consumers a quick number to know how consumer friendly this product is. Stardock would score high, but not perfect. EA would score very low.

I just realized this is exactly why I object to this "bill of rights", and am quite cynical about it. It could be construed to be an advertisement for Stardock games, considering that Stardock wrote it and their practices match up with it. Of course, the practices are great, and in my opinion should be included in the bill of rights, but this should be defined by gamers, not a given company, no matter how much I happen to support the company in question.

And you can easily do both with a retail disk. The key is not needed to play.

In essense, Stardock is not restricting the used sale itself, it's only making sure that they don't provide support for more copies than they sold. In other words, one account per game gets support - which by itself is not unusual in the least when talking about second-hand goods.

After all, they don't see any income from your used sale, so why should they spend money to support it? It has nothing to do with them being developers/publishers either. Unless you make a habit of handing out lots of money for no reason at all and not getting anything out of it

"It is at this juncture that I realize the flaw with a "Gamers Bill of Rights" written by the anyone in game selling industry. They will always be more concerned with producers rights, than consumer rights."

If our customers are happier than we should be too - it is good for business. I don't understand this false barrier you are creating. Its not a matter of gamer vs publisher/developer, its about improving the industry for everyone. Even if you felt there was something missing in the Bill of Rights, explain to me how this can somehow detract from all the positive that is already there? Are you saying you would you rather no Bill of Rights more than an incomplete Bill of Rights? 

Apologies for appearing aggressive (especially in agreeing with MysticRhythms), but my (personal) point is that a Bill of Rights is a good thing, and the philosophies in this one I support, but I don't think that you guys should be the guys to write it. Because, as MysticRhythms says, it is a renaming of Stardock policies, and may not be entirely objective, regardless of how good the policies themselves are.

Actually, no, you're right. The success of this bill of rights depends on whether or not consumers as a whole accept it - regardless of your company policies. If the bill of rights reflected bad policies, then gamers would not accept it. Therefore, we need to see if this works out.

Hmm...

I haven't seen Stardock fighting for my right of resale, in fact I have seen them speak against it. So clearly they are not fighting for my rights.

Sorry Craig, but I don't know everyone here. Your previous post made it sound like you were part of the company "our customers", now you seem to be indicating this has nothing to do with you and you are happy someone else did it. Could you clear that up?

I acknowledged in my posting above that Stardock practices, as far as they go, are good ones. Indeed they are better than most.

But there is a clear conflict of interest limiting how far they go with the "Gamers Bill of Rights", that really isn't. It is a list of Stardock policy.

If the Auto/Petrol industry wrote regulation for themselves we would still be burning leaded gas and belching clouds of smoke. I for one am very happy we don't have the Exxon/GM clean air act.

The conflict of interest in the Stardock "Gamers Bill of Rights" is just as evident as it would be in the Exxon/GM "clean air act".

Saying you are a gamer in this context is irrelevant. That is about as relevant as the Authors of the above mentioned Exxon/GM clean air act saying, "you can trust us, we breathe air too".

What matters, in this context, is that you are a producer of goods and you agree with another producer/distributor(your distributor in fact) about a set of policies. That is hardly surprising, to the contrary it is entirely expected.

OTOH, I am a consumer, on the other side of the fence in this equation. Understandably, my viewpoint is different and I am looking for more rights than what Stardock would suggest I deserve. In fact the main one seems to be a right I am legally entitled to: You know that pesky little thing known as the right to resell my copy of a copyrighted work. I am sure you have heard of the first sale doctrine:

The first sale doctrine states that once a copyright owner sells a copy of his work to another, the copyright owner relinquishes all further rights to sell or otherwise dispose of that copy. The Supreme Court first adopted the first sale doctrine in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the exclusive right to sell copyrighted works only applied to the first sale of a copyrighted work. 210 U.S. 339, 349-350. While the copyright owner retained the underlying copyright to the expression fixed in the work, the copyright owner gave up his ability to control the fate of the work once it had been sold.

While you join EA in the fight against lawful resale, there is no way that Stardocks "Gamers Bill of Rights" is anything of the kind. It is just a transparent renaming of Stardock policy. That may sound harsh, but frankly I feel insulted by the repeated assertions that there is no conflict of interest in the content producer/distributor defining the rights of the consumer. Wake me when you include the right of resale or anything beneficial to the consumer that is not already Stardock policy.

Stardocks fight against the right of resale speaks for itself. They are not on the gamers side. They are on the same side as EA here.

I have zero interests in game "rentals" that involve any activations servers at EA, or Steam, or Impulse. They all present a the same future point of failure issues. Company failure, company disinterest in maintenance (see Yahoo,Walmart, Microsoft DRM music servers). Also the effects of acquisitions and consolidations in the industry. EA could purchase Stardock. Any remote server dependencies means you just paid for a rental of unknown term.

Stardocks boxed games I will consider when they hit the bargain bin. Because I won't pay full price for games with limited or no resale. From what I have read so far, patches are limited to the first owner, this drastically reduces the resale value to a second owner.

If publishers reduce or remove resale value, that lowers the overall value of the product to the consumer. When the price falls to what I consider fair for a product with no resale value, then I will consider it. If there is actually a game I am interested in playing.

But gog.com will be something I support with my money. 100% free and clear of DRM/Activations etc and they have some old classics I want play.

When I refer to servers and activations WRT Stardock, it should be obvioius I am referring to Impulse downloaded games. All the remote server issues apply to Impulse purchases rentals.

Stardock being private doesn't mean EA can't buy, it means it is easier for EA to buy them, since they don't have to deal with shareholders. They just have to convince the major equity holders.

The fight aganst resale is just further attempt to control a product after it is already sold. That right is lost after the copy is sold. So not only is this anti-gamer, it isn't even lawful.

The argument about support/patches is specious. I have been gaming for over 20 years and so have a lot of my friends. I never heard of anyone I know even calling support in all that time, so please. As far as patches. What differences does it make if a few games change hands and a few more patches are downloaded. It would be zero issue if the patches were free to download and not held to prevent resale. This is completely circular reasoning.

I am not twisting anything here. I am just arguing against the specious claim that Stardock policies renamed equals a gamers bill of rights. It doesn't. They are gaping holes that make that clear.

Sort of true. But then, if you're willing to go with a Digital Download, then it shouldn't be a big stretch that you have no issue with activation.

But if you're not, then you're given the option of getting the box (which includes digital download rights too) and you remain worry free about any re-activation upon installation.

As it stands at the moment, if you re-install from an archive of a digital download, you do have to log in to Impulse. But as it also stands, Stardock is actually looking at ways to remove this necessity, and if they can make a system that will sufficiently please the other publishers selling through Impulse, even their digital downloads will be immune from the "what if" possibility.