Brad, do you still support the Gamer's Bill of Rights? If so, morally you can't require any of your software not bought from Steam to require Steamworks.

I'm not really sure this needed a new thread, or that this dog needed further beating, but here goes:

Supporting something is separate from following it. I support Alcoholics Anonymous, but that does not mean that I don't drink! The Gamer's Bill of Rights is a set of ideals. If Stardock, as a publisher, finds it in their interest to release on Steam, then they have to play by Steam's rules. You can play by the rules and still lobby against them. Brad is one of the first people to jump up and rant about the monopolistic platform system we have developing.

Also..I would also suggest not making demands of people/calling them out in their own space, its just rude.

I hardly think the OP is rude. Certainly though, if Brad was going to respond, he would have done so in that other thread.
I'd say his silence is answer enough Steven, at least i have taken it that way.

It's a shame SD has seen fit to follow the crowd...i guess the old saying rings more true now than ever. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!"

...meh

Can I borrow a stick from someone? Beating dead horses is fun!

Sure...

Sins of a solar empire is made by ironclad. Stardock may be the publisher but they're not really in charge.

Actually, Stardock is doing the majority of the work on Rebellion, with Ironclad fulfilling more of an advisory role, because Ironclad is developing another game, Sins of a Dark Age, see http://www.sinsofadarkage.com.

Quoting Sarudak,

reply 6

Sins of a solar empire is made by ironclad. Stardock may be the publisher but they're not really in charge.

Availability decisions are usually made by the publisher, and for this expansion Stardock is doing a lot of the work, especially with the support side like multiplayer features.

Maybe they are doing it AI Wars way - using Steam for achievements and matchmaking but not protection.

Quoting FutileEmotion,

reply 1

I'm not really sure this needed a new thread, or that this dog needed further beating, but here goes:

Supporting something is separate from following it. I support Alcoholics Anonymous, but that does not mean that I don't drink! The Gamer's Bill of Rights is a set of ideals. If Stardock, as a publisher, finds it in their interest to release on Steam, then they have to play by Steam's rules.

Steam does not mandate Steamworks.

Also..I would also suggest not making demands of people/calling them out in their own space, its just rude.

Stardock would be a lot less likely to see it if it was elsewhere. I'd say that talking shit behind Stardock's back would be very rude, while bringing up a legitimate concern such as this one is, in fact, not rude.

EDIT: The forums are fucking my quotes up again, split to two posts.

Quoting MikusR,

reply 9

Maybe they are doing it AI Wars way - using Steam for achievements and matchmaking but not protection.

That would certainly be acceptable.

Quoting Neilo,

reply 2

I hardly think the OP is rude. Certainly though, if Brad was going to respond, he would have done so in that other thread.
I'd say his silence is answer enough Steven, at least i have taken it that way.

He did do so in the other thread. Perhaps you should revisit it? There's not much to say beyond what he already said.

Indeed. The reason why there is little response on this topic is that the devs have already told us the situation.

"Yes we know its a bit of a sellout and it will cause a number of our older clients to see red and bleed a little out of their ears... but... but... money, mmmm money."

Which is fair enough, most would do the same in their position. But I also understand why they wouldn't want to participate in too many of the threads about it.

Quoting Cruxador,

reply 11

He did do so in the other thread. Perhaps you should revisit it?

I'm referencing the fact that Brad has been quite since.

When you see someone posting as 'Darth Draginol' you'll have your answer.

Quoting Neilo,

reply 5

Sure...

But if I use that my hands will get all covered in dead horse goop. That's less fun.

If Brad is quiet on this thread, I think it's because this thread appears like one of those where someone's trying to make a name for themselves by tangling with the CEO. It's not unusual, actually--college football players get this problem all the time when they go bar-hopping. Macho guys everywhere trying to pick fights with them. If a football player gets in a bar brawl, sure, he'll win handily--but he's off the team. His hands are tied.

Don't get me wrong, the point's valid: what's going on with doing a reversal and requiring DRM when you just got done saying your customers have a right to be DRM-free. I mean, you did that to get customers. And now they're here, and...???

I'm going to lock this thread but I will respond to it.

Have you ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?

Since Stardock/GPG published the Gamers Bill of Rights, it has been used, as a blunt instrument against us thousands of times. No issue was too trivial or too small for someone to try to use the GBOR as a blunt instrument to attack us with -- regardless of the validity.

At some point, playing the GBOR card loses its impact. Especially when it has been played so cynically over the years.

The reason for the GBOR was pretty straight forward: PC games inconvenienced legitimate users and rewarded those who pirated games. Everyone, at the time, knew exactly what was trying to be accomplished.

At the time, games were installing root kits. Games required players to keep their DVD in the drive. Games were checking what software they had installed (remember Star Force?). Games would come out, buggy and have no recourse for the paying customer who couldn't get it to work (no refunds).

The state of affairs of the PC gaming industry today are vastly better. If a game is buggy, the user gets refunds. Games don't install root kits. DVDs in the drive? Laughable. Having your game crash because you have a DVD copying program? Nonsense. Are things perfect? Not by a long shot. But it's a night and day difference from the pre-GBOR days.

And while I am sympathetic to the perspective that using a game SDK shouldn't require the developer to have to bundle the SDK developer's digital store, the fact is, that's the deal. They provide the world's most advanced, battle tested and featured game SDK -- for free -- in exchange for bundling their digital store client. And we have decided that this is a good deal for us and our customers.

But the days of screaming about the GBOR in an attempt to "shame us" into doing what they want have long since passed.

In the meantime, Stardock will continue to operate in the open, honest, and ethical way that we always have. Users who don't think that it's "good enough" are welcome, even encouraged, to vote with their feet.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Brad, do you still support the Gamer's Bill of Rights? If so, morally you can't require any of your software not bought from Steam to require Steamworks.