A special Bill of Rights has been created in an attempt to secure every PC gamer's ten most fundamental privileges.
Gaming_bill_of_rights The Gamer's Bill of Rights: don't expect it to become law any time soon
The bill was created by desktop utility software developer Stardock and games designer Gas Powered Games. It's …
Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
#
I've always felt a little put off by games that give me the message "this serial number _appears_ to be valid" (my emphasis), as if I might somehow have faked the key I've JUST copied from the manual...
This bill of rights makes perfect sense, most (normal) people will agree with most, if not all of them.
No. 10 is my biggest gripe; working with small children, if a game needs the disc every time, it soon gets too badly damaged by little fingers to play, so I end up making or downloading pirate versions of a legally bought game to save the original from damage.
Can I add item 11 to the list though??
11/ Copy protection should not cause physical damage to CD/DVD drives.
I have a copy of "Dora the Explorer - Dance to the Rescue" that has killed THREE drives in the space of 6 months.
If I can find a hacked HD only version of this I will download it, until then the children are not allowed to use this game.
11. Gamers shall have the right to play the GTA series of games and enjoy them without fear of being villified and victimised by the press in an attempt create a scandal where none exists
Offering to sell you a new PC for each game doesn't really count imo. Good on Stardock and GPG - hopefully they will abide by this for their own releases even if no-one else does. I would like to see a lot more titles remove the DVD check once the game has been out for a while, Forged Alliance would be a good one to start with GPG ;)
Games not working on a user's system are not always down to not meeting the specs listed. Some optical drives just don't read discs properly (firmware/design bugs?) and the latest and greatest drivers are hardly bug-free. Sometimes the drivers just don't exist *coughVistacoughCreativecough* allegedly. There are probably other reasons certain systems just won't run certain games but not meeting the minimum specs isn't the only one.
Not mutually exclusive at all, if you consider "meaningful updates" to be more then just bug-fixing patches. More tracks or cars for racing games. More maps for FPS or RTS games. That sort of thing.
"Fair enough, but shouldn’t a PC gamer know their machine’s specifications and then match these up to the system requirements listed on the game’s box?"
you mean like when i bought battlefield 2142? where i made sure that my machine surpassed all recommended specs? including the internet speeds?
game still wouldnt work, due to the crap online drm used by EA. took 3 weeks of arguing to get my cash back, but i guess that was my fault huh?
you spout that crap like the gamer is the one at fault, let me ask you this: when was the last time you saw a pc game released which wasnt broken or unplayable due to multiple bugs? 99% of modern games are rushed so badly that you have to wat 2-3 months after release to get a fully working version after several patches - if - IF - it even works then.
none of which is helped by stupidly ported console games which seem to be the latest fad, heads up game developer peoples - THEY DONT BLOODY WORK.
Related to point seven, perhaps gamers should have the right to install the same as many times as they like on the same computer, instead of simply refusing after two or five or eight installations (as I believe was the case with Bioshock and other games).
While I'm in a creative mood - thank you, Sly Stone - how about "gamers who have achieved a certain level of proficiency in Microsoft Flight Simulator should have the right to fly an actual aeroplane, e.g. an airliner in case of pilot sickness".
"Gamers who play Counterstrike a lot should have the right to be taken seriously by actual military men at NATO when they propose a brand new type of rifle / incredible military strategy for invading Russia, that involves little robot wasps armed with railguns".
I think the authors' definition of 'finished' doesn't mean 'bug-free perfection' but rather 'not riddled with obvious bugs and flaws and pending a series of patches that fix some but create new ones'.
This, as well as the other points, are worthwhile goals and full credit should go StarDock any anyone else for setting them - however, if they think the f*cktards at EA, etc are going to follow them, they're pissing into the wind.
I agree with James that you can have problems running games that aren't covered in the specs listed on the box.
I've had games that won't run because of bugs with certain graphics card drivers. There are usually complaints about it in the manufacturers forums, but they never add the information on the box about unsupported graphics cards (or other hardware) that is still above the minimum or recommended spec. They coulc just stick an extra label on the box to let people know.
In the UK at least, you're already protected by consumer law under the 'of merchantable quality' clause: you can demand a refund from the point of sale if the goods don't deliver the goods, regardless of whose fault it is.
Just when I was beginning to despair, I'm glad to see that there's *somebody* else who's not an utter cretin. No, they're not mutually exclusive at all. Even if it's theoretically to get the bugs out, and also to add more features as you suggest, there's also FUTURE compatibility - patches designed to allow you to use new hardware that wasn't even out when the game was released. Loads of reasons why 2 and 3 aren't mutually incompatible. I really wish people would follow the simple process of think --> speak.
They need not be mutually exclusive. The game can indeed be released in a finished and complete state, and then later on the developers may choose to provide additional content that is not critical to the game--extras, in other words.
As for the ability to re-download games, this kicks in if a player gets tired of a game, uninstalls it to make room for another game, and then changes his/her mind down the road and wants to play the first game again.
If you want an 11th right for gamers, here's a good one: "Gamers shall have the right to be addressed by developers and publishers in a straightforward and completely honest manner. Statements from developers and publishers must be completely and solely truthful."
Especially #5 I still remember when WarCraft 3 came out my computer, at the time, was 2X the recommended system requirements (not the minimum req's), as stated by blizzard, and the game was barely playable with everything set to minimum, and screen resolution set to the lowest supported by my monitor. Now if any mages would cast blizzard or more than 50 units were on the screen at once, my computer would completely freeze for 1 minute and on a lot of occasion lock up from it and require a reboot. I cannot even imagine how unplayable it would be with the minimum system requirements.
And #6,#8-#10 I believe completely in, and are reasons I will not be purchasing Spore when it comes out even though I was really looking forward to it since the day it was announced. I will not install any game that requires SecuROM on the pc and have to beg EA to allow me to play a game I purchased every time I swap a piece of hardware out. And best of all if you uninstall the game SecuROM is not removed and stays silently running in the background causing potential problems with processes and potentially a major security related issues just like other Sony made DRM programs in the past.
Jonathan Keith is very correct when he says there is a significant difference between "finished" and "updated". After all, balancing can sometimes Only be achieved after many more hours of playtesting than can be reasonably done by a developer, especially for small teams.
I also think some people are very unfair when they say gamers should "know their system specs". A lot more people these days are just buying PC's ready made and do not know the exact specs. Also, many boxes will only name one or two components and many folks don't know if a Radeon XT6500 is more or less powerful than an NVIDIA RIVA TNT2.
11. all games that require activation will automatically be de-activated (on the server side) after 12 months of that said activation. (this will help with people who's computers do fail, 5 activation per _year_ should be enough!).
12. all games that require an internet connection to play must be made to use account based activation instead of PC based activation. (this should allow the user to move with his/her game between PCs).
13. digital edition of the games should be sold worldwide and not to selected countries. If there is a localised online shop to the selected country, then it is understandable that user of that country to be forwarded to their localised online shop, but if there is _no_ localised online shop to that country, then the users of that country must be allowed to buy from the any 3rd party online shop (such as steampowered, direct2driver or gamestop).
points 5-8 can't be over emphasized, developers should really remember that honest gamers still exist and that they should be treated as customers and not some criminals.
P.S. set those rules to apply to digital media as well ;-)
Sorry I just read Gass powered games were involved...
They came up with supreme commander that was shockingly bad code and game play on a dual core top spec machine... so they broke their own bill of rights... Nice...
Ea are the biggest and they would never sign up to it
They break nearly all of them with just one game. BF2142, buggy, DRM riddled with spyware (their words) internet connection needed which drops at regular intervals crashing your game (you got out of sync with main server), spec far to high, code quality far too low... and the EA downloader (download your games so you don't need CD's) became the EA shop so that was a waste of time... And don't even consider Steam which seems to be the biggest thing out there for waste of space... I have had entire LAN parties die because Steam needs to be run on 20 PC's through one Virgin Media internet connection which is shite just to play a LAN game.
Stardock have their good idea hat on, sins of the solar empire played after copying the directory from another PC, no disk as it was downloaded from them (no european release for a long time) and no installation required. Sweet..
But gas powered games...
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
I do like this comedy article though... EA committed to gamers... You make funny jokes James...
"Fair enough, but shouldn’t a PC gamer know their machine’s specifications and then match these up to the system requirements listed on the game’s box?"
That depends on whether the "minimum specs" are genuinely based on requirements for the thing to run at all, or merely represent what someone putting together the box art thinks sounds like a likely spec of an average PC within the last 2-3 years.
I run a machine elements of which are on the ancient side (GF3Ti200 and an Athlon 850). I regard even the minimum specs on the box as suspect - my machine chugs along with Doom 3 happily whilst miles below the official specs and handled Prey without issue but won't touch Quake 4 as it specifically needs SSE (which the old Althlon lacks) - the QIV specs don't mention this, they just demand a P4 class or above (even though it would probably run fine on a P3). I understand that companies can't test their software with every feasible hardware combination but the information provided isn't enough to make an informed judgement - its frustrating knowing that on the offchance that your purchase won't work you're potentially out of luck "because you don't meet the published specs".
(I'm not a hardcore gamer and the machine works very well for its main role as a family PC/ PVR - it'll get replaced when it dies)
With hardware purchases its even sillier as you are very unlikely to need a 2GHz+ machine to install a new DVD burner or printer successfully... but it still gives the reatiler a get-out clause should it not work.
These are not contradictory - there's a difference between patching a glitch that only becomes apparent under certain specific conditions and someone like Egosoft releasing X3 in a state where it was literally unplayable because it was unfinished and basic game features that were in the manual were not present until a patch months later.
If the damage to your optical drives was demonstrably caused by the software's copy-protection scheme, then you may have a criminal case against the publisher -- whether under the Misuse of Computers Act 1990, or just good old-fashioned Criminal Damage.
This would be a very interesting test case ..... but somehow, I suspect the CPS might be just a tad reluctant to pursue it.
:: Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund. - OR take it back after installing, grabbing the key and using a crack for no cd?
:: Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state. - define 'finished'? no pc game can guarantee that all h/w will work with it as its impossible to test. maybe they should use a more mainstream process, does it work on nvidia and amd gfx cards, amd and intel chipsets (as others are less well used - especially in gaming pcs)
:: Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release. - erm... if a finished game is released why expect updates?
:: 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. - so they can lend the cd to everyone? surely this is a means of copy protection?
The way they're written 2 & 3 ARE mutually exclusive. Its simply not reasonable to expect a game to be 100% bug free given the almost infinite variety of hardware configurations out there (MS & Sony can't even manage it with single platforms); which means item 2 is impossible to deliver, which makes item 3 impossible to deliver as well (as some updates will only be relevant to some people). I'd also suggest that item 9 is a tolerable price to play for piracy; I know YOU'RE all good little chillun but unfortunately there are an awful lot of naughty boys and girls out there who abuse retail returns processes with a quick diversion to gamecopyworld; checking against an online registration database is the "least worst" piracy solution.
Criminal case against publisher of games that fuck over optical drives: won't work because criminal law requires an element of intent and the manufacturer didn't *intend* to destroy your drive.Remember the old adage "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
Civil claim would work better, but judging from what's said about British law you might be able to go after the retailer rather than the manufacturer.
Warning, Weasel Words. Sounds all a joke to me. All this talk of "right to demand" and "right to expect" rank right up there with "adequately play" and "meaningful update" as just so much shite. Clearly they should add that you have the right to meaningfully expect adequate disappointment. Frankly, number one with a nominal grace period should cover damn near everything. As for updates, that depends on whether you mean a patch or the next release as going from v2.2 to v2.3 is different from going from v2.2 to v3.0.
Finally, why should gamers get any special rights? Why am I subjected to typing or pasting 1/32 into a spreadsheet and having it think I mean January 1932? It's easy enough to fix but try pasting in a few pages of data. Shouldn't I have special rights that allow me to enter data into a cell and not have the software jump through hoops trying to fit it to a date?
>> First up is the right to return games that don’t work with the purchaser's computer for a full refund. Fair enough, but shouldn’t a PC gamer know their machine’s specifications and then match these up to the system requirements listed on the game’s box?
Yes, but you are forgetting the fact that sometimes a game just won't run on a PC. For instance, I can't play SimCity Societies on my Gigabyte MA790X-DS4 with AM2+ 5600 CPU and eVGA 8800GT 512mb. Even though my specs are well beyond their requirements, the game just does not like my vid card and I haven't been able to find a driver that doesn't crash the game.
As to point 2... maybe they should have said 'somewhere resembling finished'.
I know exactly where they are coming from... I mean if you buy a boxed game off the shelf something probably isn't right if you install it and it looks like an alpha version...
Updates should be available, but they shouldn't be required to getting something you paid money for in the shop working properly.
And 'No CDs required'.... amen to that. I've also been in the ludicrous situation where I've bought a boxed copy of a game and had the installer tell me that I'm using a copy... I'm looking at you Bioware!
But to counter your counter, what if you bought your copy brick-and-mortar and have no Internet access to speak of? You've essentially bought a "coaster" and can possibly file a legal claim for not being able to use the product you purchased...and/or for assuming everyone who wants to play the game possesses a usable Internet connection.
The right to use the best defence against what we hold evil: Viruses, spyware, rootkits, etc, especially from the game makers themselves.
Those of you who read what I write know what I mean, but you can take this amendment in whatever direction you want. It should cover all ways we can defend ourselves from abuse.
14) PC Gamers also expect games to exit gracefully to Windows; I'm thinking of Oblivion, which takes down my sound system and leaves a mess on the screen.
If they ran from a non-boot CD (#9), the battlechest version could come with its own external CD drive.
Think of all the crackers and hackers that release patches that actually allow you to play the damn game as it should have been without CP crap! We'd have neighbourhoods full of game crackers hanging around street corners, with signs like "Will patch for food!" or "Spare a protected EXE? Save a soul!".
"I have had entire LAN parties die because Steam needs to be run on 20 PC's through one Virgin Media internet connection which is shite just to play a LAN game."
I think the key phrase there is the 'Virgin Media internet connection'......Goes down more times than a whore on a see-saw (putting it politely), running a LAN party on that connection is just asking for trouble :-)
But....I doubt any game released will ever be bug free so patches are inevitable. If the game is an online one then very often the patch will contain extras like maps/weapons etc (in the case of the Call of Duty series and probably others) so a patch is beneficial in that respect.
you mean ea is trying to go back in time to when it started out?
i will belive it when i see it....
i still remeber when ea started ouit and it was great their mission statemnt was pretty much what the bill of rights states minus the cd/dvd floppy return policy
Steam works fine, theres nothing wrong with it. If you'd bothered to read the instructions you might've discovered that you don't need an internet connection to play any of the games and they can be played offline just fine.
So before you bash a platform, get your facts right.
Great idea, then everything will go the way of Duke Nukem Forever (Is it just me, or is DNF a rather accurate acronym?)
The "right to expect updates" is however an astounding idea, given publishing games^Wsoftware and firmware in a finished state is never going to happen.
I'd like to see a similar list regards hardware which contains firmware:
1) Every effort will be made to ensure the initial version of the firmware is correct before pushing it out the door (this means users won't find obvious flaws in the firmware within 1 hour of installing the product).
2) The manufacturer will supply timely firmware updates when bugs are identified, or when new features are added to the firmware, and will include full release notes detailing these changes with the firmware.
3) The purchaser will be made aware of firmware updates and have the opportunity to install the updates when she/he chooses.
4) Installing firmware updates will either use well known means (such as tftp for network devices) or the manufacturer will publicly document the protocol(s) used.
5) Firmware updates will be published binary image format. (not incorporated inside other formats such as .exe or .dll, shipping inside a tarball containing the update software is also reasonable).
6) It will be possible to reflash the device even if the user brick's it.
If this is not possible then the manufacturer should be responsible for replacing the device (for free, or a negligible fee).
I don't think the above list is asking for very much.
I had issues with GalCiv2 due to a faulty GPU, and after spending a while in IRC with Mike Sama (of Stardock) diagnosing the fault, they offered a full refund.
I said "no", because I'd be replacing the GPU soon anyway.
This doesn't mean the game is perfect and bug-free. It means it isn't rushed out the door in time for Christmas with large sections unimplemented or shoddily done. For example, Oni had 20 levels planned, but only 15 were made, leaving out important plot elements. Fallout 2 was almost unplayable when it came out, still had hundreds of bugs when patched, three areas were left out and a couple more only half-finished.
#3 is questionable, though - some games are finished when they are released, and there isn't any content to add other than bugfixes.
#9 is not "a tolerable price to pay for piracy". Why should I be unable to play a single-player-only game I own just because (a) I'm travelling (on a train, for example) and have no network connection, (b) I'm at an internet cafe or other open access point with a restrictive firewall that only allows common service ports to be used, (c) my ISP is on the fritz, (d) I'm on dialup and don't want to be connected for a 3-hour gaming session, or (d) the server it phones home to is down/crashed/ddos'ed?
Register
PC Gamers get Bill of Rights
A special Bill of Rights has been created in an attempt to secure every PC gamer's ten most fundamental privileges. Gaming_bill_of_rights The Gamer's Bill of Rights: don't expect it to become law any time soon The bill was created by desktop utility software developer Stardock and games designer Gas Powered Games. It's …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Page:
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:03 GMT
Geraint Jones
Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers. #
I've always felt a little put off by games that give me the message "this serial number _appears_ to be valid" (my emphasis), as if I might somehow have faked the key I've JUST copied from the manual...
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:03 GMT
TeeCee
Er, aren't 2 and 3 sort of mutually exclusive? #
If the thing's "finished" (a tad woolly this one, granted), surely it works as intended and, therefore, doesn't need updates?
2 and 3 taken together break the *real* Rule 1: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:03 GMT
Ian Emery
Too Right!! #
This bill of rights makes perfect sense, most (normal) people will agree with most, if not all of them.
No. 10 is my biggest gripe; working with small children, if a game needs the disc every time, it soon gets too badly damaged by little fingers to play, so I end up making or downloading pirate versions of a legally bought game to save the original from damage.
Can I add item 11 to the list though??
11/ Copy protection should not cause physical damage to CD/DVD drives.
I have a copy of "Dora the Explorer - Dance to the Rescue" that has killed THREE drives in the space of 6 months.
If I can find a hacked HD only version of this I will download it, until then the children are not allowed to use this game.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:03 GMT
Martin Gregorie
Just games? #
Much of this should apply to all software products, not just games. In particular, points 1,2 and 5 have general applicability.
Having said that, point 2 is probably covered by 'fitness for purpose' legislation and points 1 and 5 fall foul of misleading advertising laws.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:07 GMT
Steven Foster
EA? #
Pledged have they?
1 word answer to that; Spore.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:07 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Partially paradoxical. #
"Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state."
This does make sense.
But then again, if all games were released in a finished state, why would we need:
a) "meaningful updates after a game's release"
b) "download managers and updaters"
c) "to re-download the latest versions of the games"?
I don't see any call for updates of any sort after purchase if they get rid of all the bugs before release.
In fact, lack of updates means less reliance on registration, hence increased privacy for users
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:07 GMT
jai
1st amendment #
11. Gamers shall have the right to play the GTA series of games and enjoy them without fear of being villified and victimised by the press in an attempt create a scandal where none exists
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:07 GMT
Roy Mudie
Not necessarily PC requirements... #
Many people have had trouble trying to install games due to dodgy copyright protection rather than just a miss understanding of requirements.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:07 GMT
Anonymous Coward
How is EA helping? #
Offering to sell you a new PC for each game doesn't really count imo. Good on Stardock and GPG - hopefully they will abide by this for their own releases even if no-one else does. I would like to see a lot more titles remove the DVD check once the game has been out for a while, Forged Alliance would be a good one to start with GPG ;)
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:07 GMT
James
Specs of own PC #
Games not working on a user's system are not always down to not meeting the specs listed. Some optical drives just don't read discs properly (firmware/design bugs?) and the latest and greatest drivers are hardly bug-free. Sometimes the drivers just don't exist *coughVistacoughCreativecough* allegedly. There are probably other reasons certain systems just won't run certain games but not meeting the minimum specs isn't the only one.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 14:11 GMT
jonathan keith
Points 2 and 3 #
Not mutually exclusive at all, if you consider "meaningful updates" to be more then just bug-fixing patches. More tracks or cars for racing games. More maps for FPS or RTS games. That sort of thing.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:08 GMT
adnim
A couple more #
Gamers should have the right to expect the game play to last for more than 15 hours for a budget game and over 30 hours for a full price game.
Gamers should have the right to install a game on as many machines as they own that are located in the same household.
Gamers should have the right to a complete refund if the game does not meet the hype.
Games should have the right to expect significant differences in content between annual releases of the same game title.
The last one is aimed specifically at EA.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:08 GMT
james
err #
"Fair enough, but shouldn’t a PC gamer know their machine’s specifications and then match these up to the system requirements listed on the game’s box?"
you mean like when i bought battlefield 2142? where i made sure that my machine surpassed all recommended specs? including the internet speeds?
game still wouldnt work, due to the crap online drm used by EA. took 3 weeks of arguing to get my cash back, but i guess that was my fault huh?
you spout that crap like the gamer is the one at fault, let me ask you this: when was the last time you saw a pc game released which wasnt broken or unplayable due to multiple bugs? 99% of modern games are rushed so badly that you have to wat 2-3 months after release to get a fully working version after several patches - if - IF - it even works then.
none of which is helped by stupidly ported console games which seem to be the latest fad, heads up game developer peoples - THEY DONT BLOODY WORK.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Anonymous Coward
It's a family affair / it's a family affair #
Related to point seven, perhaps gamers should have the right to install the same as many times as they like on the same computer, instead of simply refusing after two or five or eight installations (as I believe was the case with Bioshock and other games).
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Timber / all fall down #
While I'm in a creative mood - thank you, Sly Stone - how about "gamers who have achieved a certain level of proficiency in Microsoft Flight Simulator should have the right to fly an actual aeroplane, e.g. an airliner in case of pilot sickness".
"Gamers who play Counterstrike a lot should have the right to be taken seriously by actual military men at NATO when they propose a brand new type of rifle / incredible military strategy for invading Russia, that involves little robot wasps armed with railguns".
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
nbc
Ah the irony #
I'll be looking for a refund for Sins of a Solar Empire then which totally hoses my machine.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Killian
Yep #
"Points 2 and 3... Not mutually exclusive at all"
Quite right.
I think the authors' definition of 'finished' doesn't mean 'bug-free perfection' but rather 'not riddled with obvious bugs and flaws and pending a series of patches that fix some but create new ones'.
This, as well as the other points, are worthwhile goals and full credit should go StarDock any anyone else for setting them - however, if they think the f*cktards at EA, etc are going to follow them, they're pissing into the wind.
Shame really.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Mycho
@Return for full refund #
Let's not forget those games which worked on "Windows 98 or later" and broke on XP/2K.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Spudman
Number 1 #
I agree with James that you can have problems running games that aren't covered in the specs listed on the box.
I've had games that won't run because of bugs with certain graphics card drivers. There are usually complaints about it in the manufacturers forums, but they never add the information on the box about unsupported graphics cards (or other hardware) that is still above the minimum or recommended spec. They coulc just stick an extra label on the box to let people know.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Rights schmights #
In the UK at least, you're already protected by consumer law under the 'of merchantable quality' clause: you can demand a refund from the point of sale if the goods don't deliver the goods, regardless of whose fault it is.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Jason Togneri
@ jonathan keith / Points 2 and 3 #
Just when I was beginning to despair, I'm glad to see that there's *somebody* else who's not an utter cretin. No, they're not mutually exclusive at all. Even if it's theoretically to get the bugs out, and also to add more features as you suggest, there's also FUTURE compatibility - patches designed to allow you to use new hardware that wasn't even out when the game was released. Loads of reasons why 2 and 3 aren't mutually incompatible. I really wish people would follow the simple process of think --> speak.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Charles
@TeeCee #
They need not be mutually exclusive. The game can indeed be released in a finished and complete state, and then later on the developers may choose to provide additional content that is not critical to the game--extras, in other words.
As for the ability to re-download games, this kicks in if a player gets tired of a game, uninstalls it to make room for another game, and then changes his/her mind down the road and wants to play the first game again.
If you want an 11th right for gamers, here's a good one: "Gamers shall have the right to be addressed by developers and publishers in a straightforward and completely honest manner. Statements from developers and publishers must be completely and solely truthful."
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Kevin
Whole heartedly agree with most of the points #
Especially #5 I still remember when WarCraft 3 came out my computer, at the time, was 2X the recommended system requirements (not the minimum req's), as stated by blizzard, and the game was barely playable with everything set to minimum, and screen resolution set to the lowest supported by my monitor. Now if any mages would cast blizzard or more than 50 units were on the screen at once, my computer would completely freeze for 1 minute and on a lot of occasion lock up from it and require a reboot. I cannot even imagine how unplayable it would be with the minimum system requirements.
And #6,#8-#10 I believe completely in, and are reasons I will not be purchasing Spore when it comes out even though I was really looking forward to it since the day it was announced. I will not install any game that requires SecuROM on the pc and have to beg EA to allow me to play a game I purchased every time I swap a piece of hardware out. And best of all if you uninstall the game SecuROM is not removed and stays silently running in the background causing potential problems with processes and potentially a major security related issues just like other Sony made DRM programs in the past.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Xander
<title> #
Jonathan Keith is very correct when he says there is a significant difference between "finished" and "updated". After all, balancing can sometimes Only be achieved after many more hours of playtesting than can be reasonably done by a developer, especially for small teams.
I also think some people are very unfair when they say gamers should "know their system specs". A lot more people these days are just buying PC's ready made and do not know the exact specs. Also, many boxes will only name one or two components and many folks don't know if a Radeon XT6500 is more or less powerful than an NVIDIA RIVA TNT2.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Caspian Prince
Re: 2 & 3 #
Why the hell should it be a *right* to receive *free stuff* for a game you buy?
Tux, for the freetards.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
stranger on the road
nice, here is some more #
11. all games that require activation will automatically be de-activated (on the server side) after 12 months of that said activation. (this will help with people who's computers do fail, 5 activation per _year_ should be enough!).
12. all games that require an internet connection to play must be made to use account based activation instead of PC based activation. (this should allow the user to move with his/her game between PCs).
13. digital edition of the games should be sold worldwide and not to selected countries. If there is a localised online shop to the selected country, then it is understandable that user of that country to be forwarded to their localised online shop, but if there is _no_ localised online shop to that country, then the users of that country must be allowed to buy from the any 3rd party online shop (such as steampowered, direct2driver or gamestop).
points 5-8 can't be over emphasized, developers should really remember that honest gamers still exist and that they should be treated as customers and not some criminals.
P.S. set those rules to apply to digital media as well ;-)
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:18 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Yeh, Right #
Lets see if Stardock and Gas Powered Games live up to the bill and obey 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10.
Nice idea, will never happen and just a publicity stunt.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:19 GMT
alistair millington
HA Ha HA Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA Ha #
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HA Ha
Sorry I just read Gass powered games were involved...
They came up with supreme commander that was shockingly bad code and game play on a dual core top spec machine... so they broke their own bill of rights... Nice...
Ea are the biggest and they would never sign up to it
They break nearly all of them with just one game. BF2142, buggy, DRM riddled with spyware (their words) internet connection needed which drops at regular intervals crashing your game (you got out of sync with main server), spec far to high, code quality far too low... and the EA downloader (download your games so you don't need CD's) became the EA shop so that was a waste of time... And don't even consider Steam which seems to be the biggest thing out there for waste of space... I have had entire LAN parties die because Steam needs to be run on 20 PC's through one Virgin Media internet connection which is shite just to play a LAN game.
Stardock have their good idea hat on, sins of the solar empire played after copying the directory from another PC, no disk as it was downloaded from them (no european release for a long time) and no installation required. Sweet..
But gas powered games...
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
I do like this comedy article though... EA committed to gamers... You make funny jokes James...
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:19 GMT
Mark Lawson
Software specs #
"Fair enough, but shouldn’t a PC gamer know their machine’s specifications and then match these up to the system requirements listed on the game’s box?"
That depends on whether the "minimum specs" are genuinely based on requirements for the thing to run at all, or merely represent what someone putting together the box art thinks sounds like a likely spec of an average PC within the last 2-3 years.
I run a machine elements of which are on the ancient side (GF3Ti200 and an Athlon 850). I regard even the minimum specs on the box as suspect - my machine chugs along with Doom 3 happily whilst miles below the official specs and handled Prey without issue but won't touch Quake 4 as it specifically needs SSE (which the old Althlon lacks) - the QIV specs don't mention this, they just demand a P4 class or above (even though it would probably run fine on a P3). I understand that companies can't test their software with every feasible hardware combination but the information provided isn't enough to make an informed judgement - its frustrating knowing that on the offchance that your purchase won't work you're potentially out of luck "because you don't meet the published specs".
(I'm not a hardcore gamer and the machine works very well for its main role as a family PC/ PVR - it'll get replaced when it dies)
With hardware purchases its even sillier as you are very unlikely to need a 2GHz+ machine to install a new DVD burner or printer successfully... but it still gives the reatiler a get-out clause should it not work.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:19 GMT
Steve
Re: "finished state" and "meaningful updates" #
These are not contradictory - there's a difference between patching a glitch that only becomes apparent under certain specific conditions and someone like Egosoft releasing X3 in a state where it was literally unplayable because it was unfinished and basic game features that were in the manual were not present until a patch months later.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:19 GMT
A J Stiles
@ Ian Emery #
If the damage to your optical drives was demonstrably caused by the software's copy-protection scheme, then you may have a criminal case against the publisher -- whether under the Misuse of Computers Act 1990, or just good old-fashioned Criminal Damage.
This would be a very interesting test case ..... but somehow, I suspect the CPS might be just a tad reluctant to pursue it.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:39 GMT
Liam
hmmmm #
:: Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund. - OR take it back after installing, grabbing the key and using a crack for no cd?
:: Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state. - define 'finished'? no pc game can guarantee that all h/w will work with it as its impossible to test. maybe they should use a more mainstream process, does it work on nvidia and amd gfx cards, amd and intel chipsets (as others are less well used - especially in gaming pcs)
:: Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release. - erm... if a finished game is released why expect updates?
:: 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. - so they can lend the cd to everyone? surely this is a means of copy protection?
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 15:39 GMT
David Evans
Sorry but... #
The way they're written 2 & 3 ARE mutually exclusive. Its simply not reasonable to expect a game to be 100% bug free given the almost infinite variety of hardware configurations out there (MS & Sony can't even manage it with single platforms); which means item 2 is impossible to deliver, which makes item 3 impossible to deliver as well (as some updates will only be relevant to some people). I'd also suggest that item 9 is a tolerable price to play for piracy; I know YOU'RE all good little chillun but unfortunately there are an awful lot of naughty boys and girls out there who abuse retail returns processes with a quick diversion to gamecopyworld; checking against an online registration database is the "least worst" piracy solution.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
RW
@ A J Stiles #
Criminal case against publisher of games that fuck over optical drives: won't work because criminal law requires an element of intent and the manufacturer didn't *intend* to destroy your drive.Remember the old adage "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
Civil claim would work better, but judging from what's said about British law you might be able to go after the retailer rather than the manufacturer.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
Anonymous Coward
www #
Warning, Weasel Words. Sounds all a joke to me. All this talk of "right to demand" and "right to expect" rank right up there with "adequately play" and "meaningful update" as just so much shite. Clearly they should add that you have the right to meaningfully expect adequate disappointment. Frankly, number one with a nominal grace period should cover damn near everything. As for updates, that depends on whether you mean a patch or the next release as going from v2.2 to v2.3 is different from going from v2.2 to v3.0.
Finally, why should gamers get any special rights? Why am I subjected to typing or pasting 1/32 into a spreadsheet and having it think I mean January 1932? It's easy enough to fix but try pasting in a few pages of data. Shouldn't I have special rights that allow me to enter data into a cell and not have the software jump through hoops trying to fit it to a date?
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
Dave Eyraud
Sometimes games just don't work, period. #
>> First up is the right to return games that don’t work with the purchaser's computer for a full refund. Fair enough, but shouldn’t a PC gamer know their machine’s specifications and then match these up to the system requirements listed on the game’s box?
Yes, but you are forgetting the fact that sometimes a game just won't run on a PC. For instance, I can't play SimCity Societies on my Gigabyte MA790X-DS4 with AM2+ 5600 CPU and eVGA 8800GT 512mb. Even though my specs are well beyond their requirements, the game just does not like my vid card and I haven't been able to find a driver that doesn't crash the game.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Nice #
As to point 2... maybe they should have said 'somewhere resembling finished'.
I know exactly where they are coming from... I mean if you buy a boxed game off the shelf something probably isn't right if you install it and it looks like an alpha version...
Updates should be available, but they shouldn't be required to getting something you paid money for in the shop working properly.
And 'No CDs required'.... amen to that. I've also been in the ludicrous situation where I've bought a boxed copy of a game and had the installer tell me that I'm using a copy... I'm looking at you Bioware!
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
Charles
@David Evans #
But to counter your counter, what if you bought your copy brick-and-mortar and have no Internet access to speak of? You've essentially bought a "coaster" and can possibly file a legal claim for not being able to use the product you purchased...and/or for assuming everyone who wants to play the game possesses a usable Internet connection.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
Gordon Fecyk
2nd Amendment: The right to defend ourselves #
The right to use the best defence against what we hold evil: Viruses, spyware, rootkits, etc, especially from the game makers themselves.
Those of you who read what I write know what I mean, but you can take this amendment in whatever direction you want. It should cover all ways we can defend ourselves from abuse.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
Britt Johnston
#14 smooth exit and #9 - CD to run? #
14) PC Gamers also expect games to exit gracefully to Windows; I'm thinking of Oblivion, which takes down my sound system and leaves a mess on the screen.
If they ran from a non-boot CD (#9), the battlechest version could come with its own external CD drive.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
Anonymous Coward
You can't go through with this! #
Think of all the crackers and hackers that release patches that actually allow you to play the damn game as it should have been without CP crap! We'd have neighbourhoods full of game crackers hanging around street corners, with signs like "Will patch for food!" or "Spare a protected EXE? Save a soul!".
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
DodgyLurgy
@ alistair millington #
"I have had entire LAN parties die because Steam needs to be run on 20 PC's through one Virgin Media internet connection which is shite just to play a LAN game."
I think the key phrase there is the 'Virgin Media internet connection'......Goes down more times than a whore on a see-saw (putting it politely), running a LAN party on that connection is just asking for trouble :-)
But....I doubt any game released will ever be bug free so patches are inevitable. If the game is an online one then very often the patch will contain extras like maps/weapons etc (in the case of the Call of Duty series and probably others) so a patch is beneficial in that respect.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 16:21 GMT
Anonymous Coward
ea?! #
you mean ea is trying to go back in time to when it started out?
i will belive it when i see it....
i still remeber when ea started ouit and it was great their mission statemnt was pretty much what the bill of rights states minus the cd/dvd floppy return policy
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 17:51 GMT
Pete
@ alistair millington #
Steam works fine, theres nothing wrong with it. If you'd bothered to read the instructions you might've discovered that you don't need an internet connection to play any of the games and they can be played offline just fine.
So before you bash a platform, get your facts right.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 17:51 GMT
Antony Riley
Published in a finished state. #
Great idea, then everything will go the way of Duke Nukem Forever (Is it just me, or is DNF a rather accurate acronym?)
The "right to expect updates" is however an astounding idea, given publishing games^Wsoftware and firmware in a finished state is never going to happen.
I'd like to see a similar list regards hardware which contains firmware:
1) Every effort will be made to ensure the initial version of the firmware is correct before pushing it out the door (this means users won't find obvious flaws in the firmware within 1 hour of installing the product).
2) The manufacturer will supply timely firmware updates when bugs are identified, or when new features are added to the firmware, and will include full release notes detailing these changes with the firmware.
3) The purchaser will be made aware of firmware updates and have the opportunity to install the updates when she/he chooses.
4) Installing firmware updates will either use well known means (such as tftp for network devices) or the manufacturer will publicly document the protocol(s) used.
5) Firmware updates will be published binary image format. (not incorporated inside other formats such as .exe or .dll, shipping inside a tarball containing the update software is also reasonable).
6) It will be possible to reflash the device even if the user brick's it.
If this is not possible then the manufacturer should be responsible for replacing the device (for free, or a negligible fee).
I don't think the above list is asking for very much.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 17:51 GMT
Wokstation
@NBC #
You'll probably get said refund.
I had issues with GalCiv2 due to a faulty GPU, and after spending a while in IRC with Mike Sama (of Stardock) diagnosing the fault, they offered a full refund.
I said "no", because I'd be replacing the GPU soon anyway.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 17:53 GMT
Anonymous Coward
Not bad, needs work. #
Let me try:
1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that are not satisfactory for a full refund.
2. No game shall be released for sale without complete playtesting nor with defects found in playtesting left uncorrected.
3. Any bugs found after release shall be patched promptly.
4. Applying updates to games shall always be voluntary except as required for compatibility in online play.
5. The minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.
6. No game may install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without the user's express consent.
7. Gamers shall have the right to install games they have paid for on their own computers any number of times.
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
9. An internet connection shall never be required to play a single-player game.
10. Games that install to the hard disk shall not require a CD/DVD in the drive for later play.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 17:55 GMT
Kanhef
re: "finished state" #
This doesn't mean the game is perfect and bug-free. It means it isn't rushed out the door in time for Christmas with large sections unimplemented or shoddily done. For example, Oni had 20 levels planned, but only 15 were made, leaving out important plot elements. Fallout 2 was almost unplayable when it came out, still had hundreds of bugs when patched, three areas were left out and a couple more only half-finished.
#3 is questionable, though - some games are finished when they are released, and there isn't any content to add other than bugfixes.
#9 is not "a tolerable price to pay for piracy". Why should I be unable to play a single-player-only game I own just because (a) I'm travelling (on a train, for example) and have no network connection, (b) I'm at an internet cafe or other open access point with a restrictive firewall that only allows common service ports to be used, (c) my ISP is on the fritz, (d) I'm on dialup and don't want to be connected for a 3-hour gaming session, or (d) the server it phones home to is down/crashed/ddos'ed?
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 20:52 GMT
Wokstation
@Pete re: Steam #
Sure, it's fine and dandy until the unthinkable happens and Valve shut their doors.
What ya gonna do with your games then? And before you say "they'll release DRM-removing patches!"... yeah... sure they will.
Posted Monday 1st September 2008 22:07 GMT
David Barrett
Ill have a 1 and a 10 and a load of free games please Carol #
.. This simply wont work...
Page:
This topic is closed for new posts.