Shack: What has the reaction been like from developers and publishers so far?

Brad Wardell: I've already gotten calls from Microsoft, from Take 2, and other publishers who are interested in moving forward on this. Obviously the first step is we have to really define these items. And I've had other developers and publishers who have come back and said, "No, because it's not flexible enough."

For example, what happens if someone wants to do a policy where there's CD copy protection, but after the first month [consumers] can download a patch that gets rid of it. So obviously that's a perfectly good solution too, but our thing eliminates the ability to do that. So those are things that we'd have to negotiate and figure out, well, that's a good point--is that something that we can compromise on, or find some other way around?

But I think you're actually going to see something come up, either through an independent organization or as part of Games for Windows or something, where there's going to be some standards. I think you may see some of these actually become more industry standard, like being able to return your game. Because that's something we've got data on, we can prove that generates revenue. Or everyone agreeing not to install rootkits. I think that's a pretty straightforward thing. [laughs]

Shack: [laughs] You would hope.

Brad Wardell: Well, I would have a thought. Yeah, don't be installing stuff that doesn't let me burn a CD, good grief. Especially now that I have a Blu-ray burner.

Shack: When the Bill of Rights was announced, there were a few critics who said this was more of a publicity stunt than a realistic set of goals--

Brad Wardell: Well certainly it's a publicity stunt. The idea is to get the word out there. Because at the end of the day, the only ones that are gonna really make this happen are the gamers themselves, if they start to make purchasing decisions based on those who would adhere to some kind of standard.

Because I mean, I've seen on Shacknews plenty of times: "If a game is not finished, don't support them with your buying dollars." But the problem is, nobody knows if a game is adhering to anything until after they've bought it.

Whereas if we can come up with something so that a company or a publisher has fined it.. really it's a publisher. Gas Powered Games is a developer, so they don't have a lot of control. They could be fully behind it and get signed by company XYZ to publish, and they might put a rectal probe as part of the CD copy protection. But still, if gamers know that, okay, this publisher is signed on to this, then I can assume I'm going to get these certain basic..

Shack: More or less trying to put a set of expectations out there for consumers.

Brad Wardell: Right, and what people need to realize is that it's just business. The goal of this is to generate more revenue for our industry. Because in the console market, you can't pull this crap.

For example, and a lot of people don't realize this--I was reading the Shacknews comments extensively, and I was like, "Guys, try pulling this stuff on the Xbox 360." Microsoft certifies not just--it's not like you give your thing to Microsoft and they say, "Okay, thank you," and they certify it. They test for basic performance on these games, they test for quality, they go through a whole bunch of things. They make sure it's truly finished. There's nothing like that on the PC.

Shack: So at this point, do you think Games for Windows needs to be more aggressive? Because they have those 21 rules or however many there are, that they hold publishers to--

Brad Wardell: Yeah, but their rules, I don't like some of them. And I met with [Games for Windows GM] Chris Early and those guys over there to discuss this before PAX, and they're onboard, they like it. I mean, they like this concept. And I talked to the PC Gaming Alliance before I went to the show as well. But the thing is that, you know, some of these things are more technical. What we need is..

Shack: Concepts that average consumers can understand?

Brad Wardell: Well yeah, I want something consumers can tangibly understand. And I want something that they--for example, if I sign a contract with Games for Windows, and it says, "I am going to adhere to these standards, and there is a legal punishment if I don't."

I'd rather have that than to have to wait four weeks after I'm "done" with my game for Games for Windows to certify. Because the ESRB adds an extra month to our game development time, because you have to wait until the end to have them look at it. And then it takes six to eight weeks to manufacture your manuals and stuff.

So I don't want developers to have to go through some extra hurtles to get their game out, but at the same time you want to have something out there that gamers can see on the box, or somewhere, that this game adheres to some basic rights for the consumer.

Turn the page for more.