Some years ago, Stardock and Gas Powered Games announced the Gamers Bill of Rights.
Chris Taylor and I were very concerned with some of the practices of game developers and publishers that we believed were driving consumers away from purchasing games (or at least not pirating them).
We maintain the site: www.gamersbillofrights.org.
Stardock has tried to adhere to the GBoR and has not always been able to live up to the spirit of the document.
Moreover, as the years pass, the GBoR is becoming increasingly dated (does anything still make you put a DVD in the drive to play it? Are there any copy protection schemes still installing root kits?).
To that end, we invite you to post your own list of things you think developers and publishers do (not just PC but in general) that you believe are counter productive or even harmful to those developers and publishers in the long run.
I have a few:
1. Gamer's have the right to be informed.If a game requires a constant, uninterrupted internet connection, this information must be made unmistakeably clear. If a game requires an Account with a particular Digital Distribution Client to actually play the game, this information must be made unmistakeably clear. If advertised content requires activation, additional downloading or additional purchases, this must be made unmistakeably clear.An informed gamer is a happy gamer.2. Gamer's have the right to play their games.If a gamer legally pays the asking price for a game in a store and brings it home, they have the right to play their game. If the store has sold the game to the gamer early, the issue is then with the store - not the paying customer.3. Gamer's have the right to a fair deal.Legally buying a game in a world where piracy is as easy as searching "[Game Title] + torrent" should be rewarded. Asking a customer from one part of the world to pay twice as much than someone else in another part of the world for the same download does not reward paying customers.4. Gamer's have the right to access their games regardless of their opinions.Banning a gamer from the game's forums should not remove their ability to play that, or any other, game. Someone being rude doesn't justify denying them access to a full priced title that they've legally paid for. Forum access isn't a right, however Game access is - it's granted to them with their purchase.5. Gamer's have the right to be talked to.If gamer's are requesting official feedback or information on a technical or game breaking issue that is preventing any number of paying gamers from using their game, they have the right to be addressed. Asking someone to not only pay for something that doesn't function, but seemingly ignoring them when they request information is unethical. Even if your statement is merely "we aware of the issue, and it is currently being addressed." Issues of this magnitude should be addressed by people with authority within the game developer or publisher themselves on the main page of the website, not a Community Manager in a 400 page thread.See: Demigod's launch and Stardock's handling of the connectivity issues. This is how you handle your customers when the shit hits the fan.
I would also say that DLC is the most annoying aspect of games nowadays. I would probably go for an approach like this:
All DLC must be provided free of charge. If the company wishes to release enough content to make it infeasible for the company to release DLC for free, then they must create an expansion pack and make it a separate release.
After all, DLCs were first made to be bonus content, not expansions. These days companies like EA charge a fortune for them, and some of them feel like either expansions (like the Arrival/Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC for Mass Effect 2) or content that was supposed to be in the game to begin with (like the Firewalker DLC, characters, skin packs, armour additions for Mass Effect 2).
Of course, if your game is modular, then you can have paid DLC, but then it's not really DLC anymore.
Most AAA DLC these days are largely a trojan horse for increased price of games, by holding content back instead of having it additional content.
Some smaller companies do this as well, Paradox is guilty of this in my eyes, though usually it's just $1 or $2.
This is a big reason why the only console games I buy are fighters- they're the only games with sufficient replay value to make the DLC worth it.
It's also a big reason why I shun AAA PC games. I said no sale to Civ V, and it wasn't just because of Steam, it was the nickel-and-dime DLC.
Does the bill say anything about making sure your game doesn't freeze all the time? I understand it is hard for PC games to work on all the different configurations, but console gaming is getting worse at every release. Mortal Kombat is a prime example of a great game that is just never going to be playable for more than 30min due to constant freezing. A game that works is just so much more valuable than a game that that freezes.
Maybe there should be a continuity rating on games so that the companies can use this as a selling point for purchase. I would buy DLC for games that doesn't have any content besides stability. I would pay twice the sticker price in Mortal Kombat's case. Also, Fallout: New Vegas.
And how about something to the tune of each sequel needs to have the number somewhere on the box. Either it is a continuation of the title, or it is a new game. Make up your minds.
I can't deal with Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 3: Spetznaz 17: Nicaraguan Assault: Red Flag 2: Extended Play: Game of the Year edition. It's confusing and just plain bad marketing.
Simply that I own the game and am not prevented from playing it on my own computer(s) or lan because an internet connection is forcibly required.
That it not modify my computer or update without my notification and consent.
That the company insures I have a way to be permanently registered with them for correction of any problems and recovery of the software if needed.
...and I want my own space pony.
I am very sorry to hear that Stardock is allowing their games to be sold on Steam.
I bought one game that, as they all do on Steam, manditorally required that Steam be used, installed and running on my PC.
It was such a horrid experience I actually went back to the store and begged the manager to let me return the game for a different one although it had already been opened.
Since then I have not, and I will not, ever, buy a game that is Steam affiliated.
Steam is an over reaching, resource consuming, near virus level aggressively intrusive piece of software that ultimately, doesn’t even accomplish its purpose.
Ive adhered my loyalty to Impulse, a vastly better method of selling games digitally. (Which sadly, is cooperating and selling games on Steam, its like a damn cancer.)
As for the Gamers Bill of Rights ...
Game Corps will admit that iron fisted levels of protection for their software is more abusive to their consumers than it is effective against their enemies.
Game Corps will admit that forcing a user to be continually connected to the internet is an "iron fisted" method of software protection.
Game Corps will admit that forcing a user to install, run or use software other than the software specifically desired to be purchased is an "iron fisted" method of software protection.
Lastly, this whole "You dont own the game you only bought a licence for it" has got to stop.
The EULA needs to be abolished and replaced with the below.
1. You can not in any way make money off of this software title or derivatives of this software without a written request and permission givin in writing.
1a. Exceptions...
2. You can not in any way replicate or copy all or any portion of this software title or derivatives of this software without a written request and permission givin in writing.
2a. Exceptions...
3. You can not in any way distribute all or any portion of this software title or derivatives of this software to any other international location.
3a. Exceptions...
4. The above three items will be applied to any derivatives, changes, alterations, updates or additions to this software title made by the by the owner of the software title, and any derivatives, changes, alterations, updates or additions to this software title made by any other source indefinitely.
The exceptions are to be used by the company to allow limited permissions for the modding community, or not for profit organizations if they choose to do so. Thats it. Because that's all the game cos are really trying to do anyways, protect their power to make money off of their software, so that's all that it needs to say.
Unfortunately, I fear the die is cast and it is to late. Blizzard is adding to the problem with Star Craft 2 (which I threw out), and Diablo 3 with the same foolishness.
Will you people please wake up!?
This isint limited to a few "ranting" forum posters like me. A vast community of gammers, if not expressed the same way, feel the same way.
MeVII
I do not appreciate having to go through your download client in order to run your own games, where they can track it. When you download, it should have an option to put an icon on your desktop, you should be able to run it entirely locally on your machine, and it's none of anyone's #$!#$##!! business when or how often you run it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
