The Gamer's Bill of Rights

[Asmodean]

Stardock have announced the Gamer's Bill of Rights, which they intend to adhere to, and expect to set industry standards.

The Gamer’s Bill of Rights:

1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund.
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.
4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.
5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer.
6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
9. Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.
10. Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

Pretty good move, IMHO. It's no secret that I like Stardock and Brad Wardell, but if they can make this catch on, I will love them

Asmodean

[Maniac]

Re: The Gamer's Bill of Rights

2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.

Why would 3. be necessary if 2. were true? Anything, these two rights sound a little too vague to me. "Finished state"? "Meaningful update"?

[Skanky Burns]

For multiplayer games, rebalancing. Even Starcraft, which set the standard for well-balanced sides, required rebalancing of various units due to unforseen player usage or various units being overpowered.

For singleplayer games, new content so that the game has a longer shelf life and doesn't become stale as quickly.

Neither are negated by the original game being released in a finished state. The new content is Stardock's answer to preventing piracy. Sure, new games will be pirated, but piracy will be less attractive when games constantly get updated and the pirate version is left behind or needing to be cracked after every new version is released. Unlike current industry standard, the legal version is more convenient than the pirate version.

[snoopy369]

I'd also say that "finished state" is not equivalent to "bug free". That's just impossible, unfortunately, given the complexity of games. "Finished state" means "very playable and without any showstopper bugs;" there can still be numerous small bugs and balancing issues (especially in RTS/TBS, you will inevitably find significant imbalances when the game goes from the hands of 50 testers/developers to 500,000 players who have different ideas of how to play the game).

[DarkCloud]

Stardock's idea of updates on their site is added features that didn't have time to get into the original game... also rebalancing. They don't just do bugfixes.

[LotC]

Re: Re: The Gamer's Bill of Rights

Originally posted by Maniac


Why would 3. be necessary if 2. were true? Anything, these two rights sound a little too vague to me. "Finished state"? "Meaningful update"?

If you've played any SD games you will know what they mean. All of their games are released in a state that most games don't reach until a couple of patches. Their patches rebalance and add new features, a lot of which come from community input. I've never played an SD game that had more than quite minor bugs on release.

Stardock

[EternalSpark]

If this is what gamers feel is their rights, we're boned.

1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund.

In a perfect world that'd make sense, but given that this opens up a whole mess of "people who buy a game, copy it, and return it", I don't see it happening.

2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.

What defines 'finished state'?

3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.

Agreed.

4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.

How is this an issue? Practical, sourced examples of how it could be would be ideal.

5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer.

I agree in principle, but too many times I've heard the following situation: computer met minimum system requirements, but user didn't want to run at a minimum setting.

6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.

Agreed, as long as the "potentially harmful software" and "hidden drivers" are determined by the publisher. Show me an example of Securom supposedly causing damage to a system, and I'll show you a ton of other reasons why something isn't working.

7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.

Agreed.

8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.

Gamers lost that right the minute everyone and their mother started to pirate games.

9. Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.

Sorry, the internet is a common thing, now.

10. Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

I think having the CD/DVD is not a overly demanding thing.

[Jon Miller]

I really think that everyone should move to steam or steam-like functionality.

JM

[EternalSpark]

Btw, the OP change his post so that it's just normal text? It's the reason why the page is wider than it needs to be...

[Whoha]

Re: The Gamer's Bill of Rights

Originally posted by Asmodean
4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that
download managers and updaters not force
themselves to run or be forced to load in order
to play a game.
10. Gamers shall have the right that games which
are installed to the hard drive shall not require a
CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

As long as both are eventually patched out of said
game I have no problem with the requirement. Tribes 2
being an example of this, it had both, now it has
neither.

Show me an example of Securom supposedly causing
damage to a system, and I'll show you a ton of other
reasons why something isn't working.

It screws with some older 16 bit games, and you have
to delete the dlls it puts in your temp folder to make
them work. Other then that it is fairly good.

Alcohol has already cracked it though so its pointless.
Also Alcohol managed to recover a horridly scratched
up CD iso for a game that I have which is awesome.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by EternalSpark


In a perfect world that'd make sense, but given that this opens up a whole mess of "people who buy a game, copy it, and return it", I don't see it happening.

For too long time, we gamers have been suffering under appalling "rights" when it comes to demanding refunds. It is only right that steps are being taken to remedy that situation. When I buy almost any other product, I have the right to a refund, if that product somehow fails to meet requirements. Why should games be any different?

How is this an issue? Practical, sourced examples of how it could be would be ideal.

Take steam for instance. To run a steam game, steam needs to run too. Why should that be necessary?

I agree in principle, but too many times I've heard the following situation: computer met minimum system requirements, but user didn't want to run at a minimum setting.

True, but that is then the users problem, not the developers. I have heard about games, where the game would not run adequately on minimum settings on computers that met the minimum requirements.

Gamers lost that right the minute everyone and their mother started to pirate games.

Which is exactly the wrong direction for things to be heading. In this day and age, it seems to me that the response to crime is to diminish the rights of the average citizen/consumer, so as better to control those who would become criminals. Bull****. I am not a criminal, nor do I intend to become one. Why should I then suffer just because my neighbour is or intends to become one.

Sorry, the internet is a common thing, now.

It sure is. But to demand of me that I allow software on my computer to connect to the internet, just because some idiot is worried that I might steal his software is horrendous. With the internet being as potentially harmful as it is, I want to be in control of what connects to the internet, and when.

I think having the CD/DVD is not a overly demanding thing.

Speak for yourself there. Millions of gamers disagree with you, as I am sure you are aware.

Asmodean

[DrSpike]

All those look sensible to me, but I can't see most developers complying.

[El_Cid]

I posted a link to the gamasutra aricle in the "PC games are doomed 2008" thread, some of the comments on that article are worth a look.

My 2 pence on this is that ok it's a good thing to highlight some of the current problems with PC gaming, but as is I find the definitions proposed too broad, or undefined to be workable for most devs.

Still I get the impression from the article that Brad Wardell sees this is a starting place to go from - something to get devs talking and getting involved with and come up with more workable solutions. imho this is something vital to PC gaming, something devs need to support but more importantly for publishers also(and I personaly don't think mainstream publishers will).

But remember the Gamers Alliance(I think it was called?), they proposed something like this ages ago didn't they?

[DarkCloud]

For too long time, we gamers have been suffering under appalling "rights" when it comes to demanding refunds. It is only right that steps are being taken to remedy that situation. When I buy almost any other product, I have the right to a refund, if that product somehow fails to meet requirements. Why should games be any different?

...one reason why I don't buy new games... I'm pretty certain most won't run since I refuse to purchase a video card. I sat on Neverwinter Nights I for 3 1/2 years before I ended up with a computer that could 'sort of' play it... the original NWN wouldn't run on my 2000 computer, it wouldn't run on my 2004 computer... the only computer it would run on is the computer I finally purchased in 2007- which incidentally was the first laptop out of the series (!) [And while I don't buy gaming computers or state of the art, I purchase the highest end commercial model in each year- if there's a range from 400 euros/dollars to 1200 euros/dollars for a computer, I'll pick up the 900-1000 model- it's worth the investment.]

And steam... blarg. Connecting to the net should not be a requirment. You don't always have the net where you are, and you can't always or don't always WANT to connect to the net.

Good post Asmodean.

[EternalSpark]

When I buy almost any other product, I have the right to a refund, if that product somehow fails to meet requirements. Why should games be any different?

Because, with almost any other product, it's not possible to simultaneously return something and retain a complete duplicate of it for personal use. With games and software, you can.

Take steam for instance. To run a steam game, steam needs to run too. Why should that be necessary?

Because it's a Steam game. You don't want Steam to run when you play the game? Don't buy it off Steam. Can't buy it from a non-Steam source? Use the only right a gamer has - the right to not pay for something you don't want - and don't buy it. You can't decide what programs are needed for your game to run, and you have no right to demand that it change. All you do is choose to buy it or not. And given the way things are, it's obvious that most people don't care.

Bull****. I am not a criminal, nor do I intend to become one. Why should I then suffer just because my neighbour is or intends to become one.

Every rule, social more, taboo, or law is based on the principle that Someone Did This Bad Thing, So We're Not Letting You Do It Because of Him. The world is not a case-by-case basis reality. You're a gamer. Gamers pirate instead of paying. Thanks to the pirates, you're now considered a criminal. Don't like it? Don't buy the game. But we all know how little that'll put a dent in their sales.

But to demand of me that I allow software on my computer to connect to the internet, just because some idiot is worried that I might steal his software is horrendous.

Don't like it? Don't buy the game. But we all know how little that'll put a dent in their sales.

With the internet being as potentially harmful as it is, I want to be in control of what connects to the internet, and when.

Then do so. Nobody is stopping you. If the game doesn't work, however, it's your own fault.

But remember the Gamers Alliance(I think it was called?), they proposed something like this ages ago didn't they?

it's because gamers, when it comes to games, don't have rights. The only right they have is to not buy a product they don't want. The thing is, for those types of gamers... most of us don't care enough to not buy things.