Thread: Gamers Rights Bill

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Stardock Announces "The Gamers Bill of Rights"* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 8.29.2008* 3:20:26 PM* * * * * * * Stardock announced today the Gamer?s Bill of Rights: a statement of principles that it hopes will encourage the PC game industry to adopt standards that are more supportive of PC gamers. The document contains 10 specific ?rights? that video game enthusiasts can expect from Stardock as an independent developer and publisher that it hopes that other publishers will embrace. The Bill of Rights is featured on Stardock?s website (www.stardock.com) and is on prominent display in Stardock?s booth (1142) at the Penny Arcade Expo.
?As an industry, we need to begin setting some basic, common sense standards that reward PC gamers for purchasing our games,? stated Brad Wardell, president and CEO of Stardock Corporation. ?The console market effectively already has something like this in that its games have to go through the platform maker such as Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony. But on the PC, publishers can release games that are scarcely completed, poorly supported, and full of intrusive copy protection and then be stuck on it.?
Chris Taylor, CEO and founder of Gas Powered Games stated, ?This is an awesome framework for the industry to aspire to, and ultimately so that we can provide our customers with the gaming experience that they have wanted for years, and really deserve.?
As an example of The Gamer?s Bill of Rights in action, Stardock instituted a policy of allowing users to return copies of The Political Machine purchased at retail to Stardock for a full refund if they found that their PC wasn?t sufficient to run the game adequately.
?The PC market loses out on a lot of sales because a significant percentage of our market has PCs that may or may not be adequate to run our games. Without the ability to return games to the publisher for a refund, many potential buyers simply pass on games they might otherwise have bought due to the risk of not being certain a game will work on their PC. The average consumer doesn?t know what ?pixel shader 2.0 support? means, for instance,? said Wardell.
According to Stardock, the objective of the Gamer?s Bill of Rights is to increase the confidence of consumers of the quality of PC games which in turn will lead to more sales and a better gaming experience.
The Gamer?s Bill of Rights: [list type=decimal][*]Gamers shall have the right to return games that don?t work with their computers for a full refund.[*]Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.[*]Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game?s release.[*]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.[*]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. [*]Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won?t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent.[*]Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.[*]Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.[*]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.[*]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.[/list]* * *
Just thought you'd like to see this... Think of Crysis

I think Crysis does quite well out of that actually, Crytek managed to tick most of the boxes. The only ones they fall down on are the downloaded version (which was done by EA) and requiring the DVD to be in the drive - which is no big deal.

I disagree with the one about returning games which don't work with a PC - you can't blame a developer for your faulty hardware. Remember they're having to develop for many different configurations and powers; it's not their fault if you've built yourself a PC which doesn't work properly. That said, I agree that we should expect "minimum system requirements" to mean "minimum *playable* requirements"...

I also disagree with not being able to force the player to connect to the internet; although an off-line mode would be *nice*, so long as "always on DSL-equivalent internet connection" is listed on the minimum specs, it's reasonable. It prevents piracy, allows for essential updates, allows for server-based content (it's feasible that certain parts of the game could be changed by the developer for whatever reason at a given point in time), stats tracking, and usage data. The main point there is it being anti-piracy; by forcing players to log into unique accounts, you reduce piracy massively. Also, it means you can dispose with having the disk in the drive. That said, players need to be able to still play their game if the developer ends support; so players *should* be able to create full backups of all their game content at any point, and there should be a system in place for allowing players to use an offline mode in event of a lack of internet, or the developer cutting support. But feasably, it could be a slightly limited version of the game.

I quite like the idea of being able to return games.. I mostly use a laptop which matchs playable specs but doesn't work... World In Conflict, I'm looking at you!

Also being able to play offline since I don't always have internet (travelling) and its a real pain (I think) having to connect everytime I want to have a game and downloading updates without my permission seriously stuffs up my useage. *End Rant*

That's the hardware companies fault not the games. Most games have a warning on the back saying laptop version of cards don't work. I agree though you shouldn't have to connect to the internet to play (and yes I am talking about steam!)

Steam actually (always used to) has an offline mode... I used to find the forcing of updates very helpful; at least for multiplayer games - avoids all those "why are there no servers?" moments, as well as the low player counts while only about half of people have got round to downloading...* Admittedly you might not want it for singleplayer games, but they're getting less numerous these days anyway... The best compromise would be an opt-out auto downloader I guess; you can turn it off in he options, but for most users it would keep you up-to-date, no hassle.