appdb rating inflation

Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex at
Wed Jan 3 10:17:36 CST 2007

Onsdag 03 januar 2007 04:00, skrev Dan Kegel:
> As Chris Morgan pointed out,
> might need clarification.  It now says
> -- snip --
> Platinum
> An application can be rated as Platinum if it installs and runs "out
> of the box" No changes required to winecfg.
> Gold
> Application works flawlessly with some DLL overrides or other
> settings, crack etc.
> Silver
> Application works excellently for 'normal' use; a game works fine in
> single-player but not in multi-player, Windows Media Player works fine
> as a plug-in and stand-alone player, but can't handle DRM etc.
> -- snip --
> I'd like to change this to make it clear that cracks are a no-no for
> anything Silver and above, and make Platinum and Gold rather
> more rigorous:
> -- snip --
> Platinum
> Platinum applications install normally and run flawlessly.
> No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no
> third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Platinum
> rating.
> Gold
> Gold applications install normally and run well.
> Some cosmetic problems may be present, but they should not be noticable
> to the average user.
> No manual editing of files, no winecfg settings, no native DLLs, no
> third-party install scripts, and no cracks are allowed for a Gold
> rating.
> Silver
> Application installs and works well for 'normal' use, but some features may
> be broken.  For instance, a game that works fine in single-player but
> not in multi-player,
> or a media player that works fine for mp3 files but not for DRM-protected
> files. No manual editing of files or cracks are allowed for Silver ratings,
> but winecfg settings, native DLLs, or third-party install scripts may be
> required.
> -- snip --
> What do people think?
> - Dan

The ratings should indeed be specified more clearly, but I don't like all of 
your suggestions for changing the definitions.

If you disallow cracks even in the Silver rating, then games that run 
virutally flawlessly will be rated the same as those that run with severe 
speed problems, missing text etc.  For most users, downloading a crack is not 
a problem, at least not if the HOWTO gives a link to it.
Besides, it is not any more difficult to copy a crack than it is to copy a 
dll: the only difference is the file extension.

Currently, the only difference between Gold and Platinum is that the Gold 
rating allows all sorts of changes to the program or Wine's settings.

If we are indeed to make further changes, I suggest that we allow a few 
cosmetic errors in the Gold and Platinum ratings, but leave them otherwise 
unchanged, then add a new 'ultimate' rating that allows no changes or flaws.
We could call it 'Titanium', for example (or why not 'Roentgenium' :) ), or 
perhaps Diamond.  In that case we should rename Platinum to Emerald or Ruby.

That way users not fearing a few extra settings can look for anything rated 
Gold and above, while the out-of-the-box lovers can look for Platinum and 
above.  It should satisfy most people.  The thing is, if adding single DLL 
override or crack is all that keeps a user from having a Windows copy around, 
he is likely to enter that dll override or copy the crack.


Alexander N. Sørnes

More information about the wine-devel mailing list