Stardock CEO Boycotts UPS Over Fox News

[Satori]

UPS decides to drama lama, and the Stardock CEO follows suit.

My objection is more of the "adding flames to the fire doesn't help" line.

Though honestly, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? if you like stardock games, buy from stardock, otherwise don't. one CEO's drama shouldn't matter.

[Samuel]

UPS decides to drama lama, and the Stardock CEO follows suit.

My objection is more of the "adding flames to the fire doesn't help" line.

Though honestly, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? if you like stardock games, buy from stardock, otherwise don't. one CEO's drama shouldn't matter.

Stardock is Brad's private company. If he likes to engage in political activity you are opposed to... well, look at the bright side of the extreme similarity of modern computer games.

[bobalot]

Whatever Stardock. Those assholes haven't made a good game since GalCiv II anyway. If they're going to unviel themselves as easily butt hurt conservative retards then fuck em. These are the same people who laugh at the "silliness" of protest and boycotts when them damned liberals is doin it.

GalCiv II sucks balls. I bought it, tried playing it for two days and gave up. All of Stardock's games are over-rated pieces of crap.

So a guy shows his opposition to a company taking a "public stance" by taking a public stance? What a douchebag.

[Ohma]

Ha ha ha, wow, I guess I never paid Brad much attention outside of the games section of the Quarter to Three forums. He had a big tantrum in the politics forum there (his posts start on page 15) and in a thread about this on Penny Arcade's forums too.

Look, I don't want to be harsh here but I don't really care whether people buy our stuff or not. I own Stardock as in 100% of it. I'm the shareholder. As you can imagine, I don't need the company at this point financially. If people boycotted Stardock to the point where it became financially unprofitable to continue making products and services then that would be the end of it and I'd do something else instead.
...
If people want to boycott my company as a result, that’s certainly their right. Of course, I suspect they assume that if their boycott were successful and I had to lay people off that I wouldn’t do so based on the ideology of the employee.
...
I could care less about UPS or anyone else boycotting Glenn Beck. I do, however, don't like the slippery slope of companies trying to bully others on political grounds.

I don't care what UPS's politics are. I do care that they are trying to force their ideology on another.

Classy.

[Nephtys]

Look, I don't want to be harsh here but I don't really care whether people buy our stuff or not. I own Stardock as in 100% of it. I'm the shareholder. As you can imagine, I don't need the company at this point financially. If people boycotted Stardock to the point where it became financially unprofitable to continue making products and services then that would be the end of it and I'd do something else instead.tldr: fuck you, I have money, hahahaha

I could care less about UPS or anyone else boycotting Glenn Beck. I do, however, don't like the slippery slope of companies trying to bully people I agree with

I don't care what UPS's politics are. I do care that they have a different opinion than me.

[Stark]

Man this is awesome. He's changed his public perception from 'developer obsessed with his fanfiction' to 'pompous conservatard' in a day.

[Narkis]

Not to mention that he's managed to evaporate much of the goodwill he'd painstakingly garnered with his DRM policies and the like. And he also succeeded in having his entire customer base learn what a douche he really is! Brilliant!

[Stark]

I'm just eager to see how far the meltdown goes. I like Stardock games, but I won't miss them.

[Samuel]

Man this is awesome. He's changed his public perception from 'developer obsessed with his fanfiction' to 'pompous conservatard' in a day.

I liked the first image better. Sure it sucked, but sheer luck and the bell curve implies there will be something good eventually.

[GuppyShark]

If people want to boycott my company as a result, that’s certainly their right. Of course, I suspect they assume that if their boycott were successful and I had to lay people off that I wouldn’t do so based on the ideology of the employee.

This one will go down beautifully in the wrongful dismissal hearings.

[Oskuro]

So this guy is kinda like Richard Garriot, but without the funny crazyness?

[Samuel]

So this guy is kinda like Richard Garriot, but without the funny crazyness?

No, I don't care whether you care or not. If you want to boycott Stardock products then knock yourself out.

Look, I don't want to be harsh here but I don't really care whether people buy our stuff or not. I own Stardock as in 100% of it. I'm the shareholder. As you can imagine, I don't need the company at this point financially. If people boycotted Stardock to the point where it became financially unprofitable to continue making products and services then that would be the end of it and I'd do something else instead.

[Zixinus]

Yeah, way to handle a business, now isn't it?

"If you want to boycot me, go ahead, I certainly don't care about the livelihood of my employees as well as the work they put their heart and soul in. My political ideals take precedence over that."

[The Yosemite Bear]

add on that he explicitly stated that he would fire his employees based on their political alliegences.....

something that hte employee free choice act would have made illegal....

[General Zod]

More hissyfits from the Stardock CEO, LOL. http://kotaku.com/5373331/stardock-boss ... ndows-live

A recent full-throated defense of Glenn Beck hasn't left Stardock CEO Brad Wardell with a shortage of vehemence. He lashed out at Games for Windows Live, its certification process and the payments it requires to keep games patched and running.

In an interview with Shacknews, Wardell was asked if he knew why Microsoft wasn't "showing more leadership" on the PC. Wardell - well, just let the man speak for himself. He's quite comfortable with doing so, after all.

"I started out as a big Games for Windows Live advocate. I intended for Elemental to be on Games for Windows Live, but then as we got closer, the Xbox group took it over more and more. And they have things where, oh, if you want to use Games for Windows Live to update your game, you have to go through [their] certification. And if you do it more than X number of times, you have to pay money. It's like, "My friends, you can't do that on the PC."

On the console, I don't have to update my game because an anti-virus program got an update and is now identifying my VB scripts as viruses and I have to apply an emergency patch. That would just add insult to injury. We've had to upgrade our games plenty of times over the years, not because we found some bug, but because some third-party program, or driver, or whatever screwed it up. If Games for Windows Live maintains that strategy and they take over, I'm done. I'm not making PC games. I would be done."

[Darth Wong]

Why couldn't he just release emergency patches that are not certified under Windows Live, and allow the user to choose whether that matters to him?

[Nephtys]

We've had to upgrade our games plenty of times over the years, not because we found some bug, but because some third-party program, or driver, or whatever screwed it up. If Games for Windows Live maintains that strategy and they take over, I'm done. I'm not making PC games. I would be done."

He doesn't really seem to get the idea of being a business owner. 'I'm Done?'. For policy conflicts with someone else's service? Well excuse me if Microsoft doesn't bend over THEIR business practices to satisfy YOU.

[Zixinus]

I somehow get the impression that he was born rich and didn't bother to go to school or didn't bother to do much in school because he believed in doing business by the gut and missed the point that if you do it that way, you need to be very clever and adaptive, rather than just rich and stubborn.

[General Zod]

Why couldn't he just release emergency patches that are not certified under Windows Live, and allow the user to choose whether that matters to him?

GFWL probably wants to make sure that any patches released won't interfere with other aspects of Live before a developer puts them out.

[Stark]

Off-topic, that's actually very interesting. GFWL needs to be more like XBL in functionality, but it's utility is directly tied to the number of games that use it (that number is currently 'twelve'). Charging people to use it is not a good idea, especially when it's XBL 0.7 at the moment.

[Oskuro]

It's not like you can't release games without the "Games for Windows" tag on the PC, I actually noticed recently Tomb Raider Underworld boxes released both with the GFW tag and without it, so MS's contract regarding GFW must'nt be binding regarding non-GFW releases.

The again, he is probably complaining because he doesn't get to use the Live part of GFW without paying MS, wich is stupid. I don't like GFWL at all, but the alternative is to not use it, rather than cry for MS to offer it for free. But whining sure beats developing your own online protocols and user base.

And no, this guy is nothing like Richard Garriot. Lord Brisith was amusingly crazy, and you could laugh at his antics. This guy is simply an idiot.

[Stark]

Yeah, the implication that you can't use Live for 'community' without paying for the patch-hosting side is strange to me. But hey, if MS had a clue GFWL wouldn't suck so bad.