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.

Or use an activation system like in GC2 since version 1.1 . Why isn't it implemented in SoaSE?

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.

No, this is not a good idea. It is just a slower form of piracy, with a financial incentive.

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?

Recycling and reusing play a large part of my life and I encourage both these wholeheartedy. The major difference with digital commodities is the original buyer maintain full benefit for the product AFTER he/she has parted with it. Being a liscense that it is, our customer is really selling our property. Customer becomes Competitor, and we end paying to support the product. It wouldnt be a problem if the original installed/copied game could magically disappear after sale. The reality is, the game could be sold an infinite number of times and we have to provide support for each one. If our sales are not tied to our support budget we are defintely going to be in trouble. Make sense?

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 also head about game resale shops making something like 400% profit per title, none of which I'm sure doesn't get shared with the game makers.

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.

We're gamers too. It's not just a "here's out policies" thing; these are points we'd like other companies to abide as well when we're buying their games.

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

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't think this is too big of a deal as long as the platform has an "offline mode" that doesn't expire.  Beyond that, it's basically equating to "Gamers shall have the right to reasonable loading times" which is obviously highly subjective.

"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? 

And you don't think customers would be happier if they can sell their games to recoup some cash if they get tired of it?

As indicated. It was this opposition to resale that brought this home to me. Stardock is opposed to resale, so there is no right of resale in your "Gamers Bill of Rights".

Your "gamers bill of rights" is essentially a list of Stardock practices. They may be largely good practices and they represent a good starting point, but they are not a gamers bill of rights.

Where a right that gamer would like conflicts with what stardock agrees with, stardock doesn't include it. Thus this clearly is not a "Gamers Bill of Rights". It is a renaming of Stardock policies.

The fundemental conflict of interest is obvious.

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...