Awesome. I have said all along it was little more than a publicity stunt. Nice to see I'm not alone.
I'm not denying Stardock themselves abide by it, and a few smaller publishers might, but EA, Ubi etc... NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. That is why it's a publicity stunt, as nobody can possibly believe the biggest publishers in the world are going to give a flying shit. EA make money hand over first without going along with pretty much any part of it. Why would they change? Seriously, why would the 800 pound gorillas ever listen to a little monkey chirping at them?
I'm sure the thread will devolve over there as a bunch of Stardock fanboys descend on it like the hordes of Satan and tell the naughty PCG writer how wrong they are.
That must be some damn fine Kool Aid! Did it come with a Limited Edition of GC or Sins that wasn't released here or something?
I also agree that it's a publicity stunt, as I mentioned in another thread http://forums.demigodthegame.com/326561/page/2
Before people start screaming that Stardock actually makes good games and tries to follow the bill - keep in mind we never said Stardock makes bad games. We're just calling a spade a spade and the bill of rights was clearly made for the sole purpose of grabbing the attention of PC gamers. Basically, it's Stardock waving a huge flag saying "OVER HERE GUYS!!!"
I like a lot of the games Stardock puts out. I also like their policies on some things (not pre-orders, that's for damn sure...). However, all they did is take their regular operating policies and instead of calling it "Stardock's guarantee" or "Stardock's policies", they made it into a spectacle and labelled it "GAMER'S BILL OF RIGHTS". Sensationalism at its best.
If they were truly serious about creating a "GBR", they'd arrange or create some sort of third party system like the GNU which would be in charge of creating the document. The GNU would take input from other companies as well as consumers and find a good middleground. Then publishers/developers would say "this product conforms to GBR version x.x", with a small summary of what that means.
Because none of that is the case, it's clearly Stardock beating its chest about its own policies.