Gamer's Bill of Rights

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Stardock, the game company behind Galactic Civilizations, Political Machine, and publisher for Sins of a Solar Empire has released this today, in an attempt to inject some sanity into the PC gaming market.  The full link is here, but here is the actual 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.

[tommyboy]

Interesting. I don't quite agree with all of it, but a lot makes sense:

 
 1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.
Yes, within reason. Gamers also have a responsibility to only buy games that will work on their computers. A retailer shouldn't lose money because I didn't know my own Pc's specs.

   2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
You can demand all you want, but humans are fallible, and software is prone to having bugs, so few games will be truly 'finished'. If you think a product unfinished, buy no further product from that company, or pursue your consumer rights for an unsatisfactory product.

   3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
I don't understand this one at all. If condition 2 is met, and the game is finished, is this basically a demand for free content? When does that stop? What is the definition of 'meaningful'?

   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.
Yes, this I can agree with.

   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.
Fair enough, until you start to think what 'adequately' might actually mean. I've happily played games at 10fps in the past, others might balk at that. You need a universally agreed definition of 'adequate' for this one. And that ain't happening.

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

   7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
I don't understand this. In the event of the gamer losing/damaging their cd? If so, fair enough.

   8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
I  suppose so, and as useless as I think 'copy protection' is, they do need to recognize that those who want to will steal the game whatever happens, and everyone else is being needlessly inconvenienced.

   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.
Yes.

  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.
Yes.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

It helps if you understand the company and read the full article.

Yes, within reason. Gamers also have a responsibility to only buy games that will work on their computers. A retailer shouldn't lose money because I didn't know my own Pc's specs.

This is addressed in the article.  The point they are making is that your average joe not computer expert person won't have a clue what Pixel Shader 2.0 and similar terms means.  In fact, just reading the specifications will often result in them getting confused because they don't really know if their computer meets the specifications or not.  So they buy counsel instead, because they know what that is.

You can demand all you want, but humans are fallible, and software is prone to having bugs, so few games will be truly 'finished'. If you think a product unfinished, buy no further product from that company, or pursue your consumer rights for an unsatisfactory product.

Here they are addressing, not bugs, but the habit of PC gaming companies to put out a very buggy and barely working product where they won't do the same thing with a counsel game.

I don't understand this one at all. If condition 2 is met, and the game is finished, is this basically a demand for free content? When does that stop? What is the definition of 'meaningful'?

Here it helps if you know the company.  Stardock never considers a game finished.  One of their patches actually contained WHOLE NEW GRAPHICS ENGINE because they game up with something more efficient while working on another game.  Their updates add more features as often as they fix bugs or balance things, and suggestions on the forum often make it into a future patch.  The catch is that they require, for most of their games, that players register a game with a unique serial code before they can download any updates.  It's their way of having some form of copy protection.

I don't understand this. In the event of the gamer losing/damaging their cd? If so, fair enough.

Another Stardock thing.  Any game you buy from them, whether it is in the store or online, can be downloaded and installed from the internet whenever you please, as often as you please, so even if you lose or damage the original disk, you can still install the game.

[TheMarvell]

Do you mean "Console" game? not counsel?

anyways, I agree with just about everything in that list, but I can see some discrepancies, as has been already pointed out.

But that's a damn good list. Think other companies will agree?

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Yes console.  Can't spell that word. Always had trouble with it.

[detourne_me]

Shall I counsel you on the difference of console and counsel, or shall I console you on your indifference of knowing?
Let's ask the council!
:D

On topic, I'm not too sure about a Gamer's Bill of Rights, and the legal implications of it. However if it were touted as more of a generally agreed upon principle, that different software developers would subscribe to and try to uphold, then I could see it making a lot more sense.
I know in different industries there are some agreed upon standards that different companies can become members of, for instance FirstThingsFirst in design or, umm, some health standards in the food industry for specialty health foods.

For example, once finalized and agreed upon by different companies a logo could be designed and stamped onto games or websites from participating developers. Gamers would recognize this and come to expect a higher level of service because of it.  It also helps with marketing lesser known developers as they could be paired with Stardock or Telltale.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

However if it were touted as more of a generally agreed upon principle, that different software developers would subscribe to and try to uphold, then I could see it making a lot more sense.

That IS what they are talking about.  It's a creed they are pledging to uphold, and they want other companies to join them.  There's no law associated with this, nor is there any plans for there ever to be.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

There's a new interview where the guy who came up with this explains it.  It's rather interesting.

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=994

[stumpy]

I'm not against any of this in concept and I think it's a good idea as part of a company's development and support goals that they could emphasize in marketing so that a consumer has some confidence in what he is buying. But, it's a little vague at points and I'm glad they aren't thinking in terms of some sort of legal standard, because that would be an unmitigated disaster.

It's a good idea as something a company can adhere to and have as a "GBoR" stamp on the box. Within limits, of course. There is a reason it's tough to get a game that will work on every PC but not as tough to get one that wull work on every console.

Ultimately, I think it works best as something that game reviewers use to evaluate games. I mean, really, that's where the most effective consumer protection is often best done - via independent reviews and word of mouth. If I go to a game review and there is a mention that it uses Starforce or other intrusive punishment-ware, then I'm not buying it. Ditto for a single-player game that wants to phone home every time I start it up. It would be useful if reviewers knew common issues with games and company support policies and posted those in the review.

The goal of having games for PCs be as foolproof as games for consoles isn't going to happen because PCs accommodate so much variety. But this is a good checklist that will be helpful to PC game purchasers. And, Wardell has the right approach in emphasizing that this will increase sales of games, not just be headache for developers and publishers.

As an aside, I worry a little bit when I see things like

Remember the old business plan argument that, if I can get 1% of such-and-such market I'm doing great? 1% of 15 million is 100,000 people.

Close enough for government work, I guess... :lol:

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

There's a video of Brad talking about this at PAX.  I like what he said about piracy, basically that it's not his job to get rid of all the people who pirate his games, it's his job to increase his sales, and that those aren't the same thing.

http://politicalmachine.com/article/325237/G4TV_Stardock_Introduces_the_Gamers_Bill_of_Rights

[Kommando]

I don't understand this one at all. If condition 2 is met, and the game is finished, is this basically a demand for free content? When does that stop? What is the definition of 'meaningful'?

Here it helps if you know the company.  Stardock never considers a game finished.  One of their patches actually contained WHOLE NEW GRAPHICS ENGINE because they game up with something more efficient while working on another game.  Their updates add more features as often as they fix bugs or balance things, and suggestions on the forum often make it into a future patch.  The catch is that they require, for most of their games, that players register a game with a unique serial code before they can download any updates.  It's their way of having some form of copy protection.

This is kind of circular then, making #2 an impossible condition to meet.  How can a gamer have the right to get a game in a finished state if the maker of the game never considers the game to be finished? 

[stumpy]

There is some equivocation going on here. My read was that #2 meant that the game was "finished" in the sense that it is fully playable out of the box where a player with the minimum system specs can complete the missions, use the promised features, etc. without having to wait for a patch. If that translates into "We won't ship a game if we have reason to think users with the specs won't be able to play it without waiting for a patch." then I think that's a great operating goal for quality. But, it's a fact of life that you can't test on every possible machine and someone will have a problem, so treating it as an absolute 100% won't always be reasonable.

If the developer considers its games "never finished" (if that's the phrase they used), I assume it means that it doesn't formally close the doors on a game when it is shipped and there is a possibility of new features or content after it ships and they get feedback online, or some feature from other development is reasonably easy to add to the shipped game. I think it might be better to phrase it that "the possibility of improving a shipped game doesn't go away just because the game works at ship date."

With that in mind, I would agree that #3 implies that there will be new features or content after release. I think it's great when companies do that and I think Wardell is correct in his underlying premise that features released after the shipped version provide a good incentive for people to buy the game and not feel like they are being treated as criminals when asked to supply a unique key or whatever for the extra goodies. However, I do not think that is a model that all companies can follow or that is really even appropriate for all games.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Stumpy's correct.  The phrase they never consider a game finished was my own, by the way, not theirs.  What I meant, is they don't stop adding features just because it's released.  Their released games are finished in that everything is working with few bugs out of the box.

For example, the game Galactic Civilizations II is getting a new patch update, that adds more features than most commerical expansions do.  In addition, they are nearly all features that users asked for on the forums.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I am reading Stardock's annual company report, which they decided to release publicly, and it includes an updates Bill of Rights.

1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that are incompatible or do not function at a reasonable level of performance for a full refund within a reasonable amount of time.
2. Gamers shall have the right that games they purchase shall function as designed without defects that would materially affect the player experience.
3. Gamers shall have the right that games will receive updates that address minor defects as well as improves gameplay based on player feedback within reason.
4. Gamers shall have the right to have their games not require a third-party download manager installed in order for the game to function.
5. Gamers shall have the right to have their games perform adequately if their hardware meets the posted recommended requirements.
6. Gamers shall have the right not to have any of their games install hidden drivers.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest version of the games they purchase.
8. Gamers whose computers meet the posted minimum requirements shall have the right to use their games without being materially inconvenienced due to copy protection or digital rights management.
9. Gamers shall have the right to play single player games without having to have an Internet connection.
10. Gamers shall have the right to sell or transfer the ownership of a physical copy of a game they own to another person.

[steamteck]

I liked the 1st #10 better. That alone got my attention. Any company that regularly does not include a CD check in their games gets my priority business. This version has too much wiggle room. Could be just same old, same old.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Any company that regularly does not include a CD check in their games gets my priority business. This version has too much wiggle room.

Stardock's company policy remains the same.  They don't have CD checks for anything they publish or sell on Impulse.  The Bill of Rights is, however, intended to be for other companies as well and they do want some more wiggle room there.