Topic: Gamer's Bill of Rights

[Dracho]

Has anyone else seen this from Stardock?

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:

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.

[Vipre]

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

Good, though I think that's up to the retailer unless they're talking manufacturer/publisher refund.

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

They already demand this, so now they have the right to do it? Don't see it making a difference.

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

They can expect whatever they like, means nothing unless the operative word is changed to "receive".
 
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.

As with item 2 they can demand whatever they like, this one need a complete rewording to mean anything

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.

My favorite, "minimum requirements" should mean "will play normally at the default settings" not "will play at at 1/32 a frame per second" As with number 3 the word "expect" means little.

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

More expecting

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

An actual definitive action, I like.

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

At least they didn't say "expect to not be treated"

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.

I demand pizza....hmm no pizza.
 
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.

Needs a rewording badly but I get the idea and agree.

[Nemesis]

Now if only that can be adopted as "Software Purchasers" not gamers.

Link to Stardocks announcement of the "Bill of Rights".

[Nemesis]

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

Good, though I think that's up to the retailer unless they're talking manufacturer/publisher refund.

From their site:  (as linked to in my prior posting).

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.

Needs a rewording badly but I get the idea and agree.

We could discuss it, come up with a reworking of the text and E-Mail it to them.  Who knows they might adopt the revisions. 

Combine:

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

With 1. and they do work out as you can exercise your right to a game in the finished state by returning for a full refund those that are incomplete or non functional. 

They do seem to intend that there should be positive commitments by the game publishers to backing up those rights.  When they say "expect" I suspect that they mean it with some teeth in the expectation in that the gamer can take some action to get satisfaction, at the least a refund from the publisher.

I wonder if that they need is what I did (long ago) when I ran a BBS.  I set up TWO versions of the Ten Commandments for the board, one for the users and another for myself to follow.  It let people know both what I expected from them and what they could expect from me.  The expectations of the gamers should be matched to the requirements of the publisher in fulfilling those expectations.

[Don Karnage]

the part i like is: not required to have the cd/dvd in the com to play the game.

sure you can find some no cd crack on the net for that but still that would be simpler.

also the single player's option to some games would be good, and also the you don't have to pay a monthly fees to play the game online would be good.

[Nemesis]

the part i like is: not required to have the cd/dvd in the com to play the game.

I don't think it goes far enough.  Nothing should ever block a legitimate purchaser from using the software they bought.  That means no remote activation required.  Imagine if SFC required activation, how many people here could still play it without hacking the activation (which is illegal in the U.S.)?

[Corbomite]

There is a very simple way for software companies to avoid all these pitfalls that this "Bill of Rights" would make them face: Stop making games for the PC. They've already started in that direction and all this does is give them a better reason to try and sell you consols.

[Nemesis]

There is a very simple way for software companies to avoid all these pitfalls that this "Bill of Rights" would make them face: Stop making games for the PC. They've already started in that direction and all this does is give them a better reason to try and sell you consols.

This was started by Stardock, a game company (at least partially) so I don't think they all will and those that do will be forfeiting a market to those that don't (including Microsoft).  Some people such as myself are unlikely to buy a console even if Windows games were no longer being produced so to abandon that portion of the market is to shrink the overall market.  It also leaves them having to support multiple games platforms and ceding part of the control to the console makers. 

The primary "pitfalls" in this Bill of Rights are 1/ Deliver functioning software (thats RIghts 1, 2, 3, 5) and 2/ Don't screw with the customers legitimate uses of the program (Right 4,6, 8,9 and 10).  Only right 7 is something that game companies should really have a beef with in any way. 

[Corbomite]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for working software out of the box. A single, universal operating system/hardware set-up would make this an easy thing to accomplish. Game companies have to do extensive beta tests and fixes to make sure that their product works over as many possible computer set-ups as possible before public release and that costs time and money. With all the after market products and tweaking (especially by hardcore gamers) options available this is a daunting prospect. To expect them to believe and respond to every minor performance complaint by blindly giving away profits (and spending more money to do so as they have to process those returns) is a bit unreasonable. I believe, except in some extreme cases, that developers try as hard as they can to make sure things run as well as possible over a wide range of machines, but these guys are saying that developers are supposed to be responsible for poor performance on a low end machine that barely meets specs and may have viruses, spyware or just poor maintenance problems (hasn't defragmented or run an error check in a year) on it that have nothing to do with the new application.

[Nemesis]

On the other hand how can they expect you and I to blindly give away OUR profits when they don't make commitments to ensure that their programs run on machines they claim it will run on.  Or if it does run does so with critical flaws (Pool of Radience that deleted EVERYTHING when you tried to remove it for example). 

Here are some I have had:  Sim Earth wouldn't install in the lower 64k of memory so if you had optimized your machine by putting things in high memory (above 640k) to allow programs more space it didn't work while claiming the game disk was corrupted.  Command and Conquer wouldn't run with the DEFAULT Microsoft mouse driver while reporting an error with the sound card instead.   Other types of copy protection that just blocked your installation or game play.  All with no recourse according to the EULA.  (I had to get a pirated Sim Earth and find out from 3rd parties online about the C&C mouse driver issue).  Of course there is the good old CD shuffle to make the game work by putting the CD in the drive each time with steps taken to block the use of simulated CDs.  (The games above were non refundable by store policies).

Right now the typical software EULA (not just games) essentially says "If it doesn't perform as we claimed tough luck to you" and gives not real recourse.  That is the type of problem this committment tries to address. 

Stardock is not (at this time at least) pushing this as mandatory.  But wouldn't it be nice if companies began to adopt it voluntarily?  Then at least you could point to the policy while complaining about nonsense screwups like those I mentioned while trying to get redress.  As companies gained reputations for following such a Bill of Rights they could be trusted more and thereby may sell more. 

Companies have lost sales to me because I refused to buy a lot of software until I KNEW that it was working right and people were not having issues like these. 

A single, universal operating system/hardware set-up would make this an easy thing to accomplish

So who do we give the monopoly to?  How often do you refresh the standard?  How do you ensure the monopolist is trust worthy?

Alternately make a standardized Game OS that machines can be configured to dual boot into.  So long as the Game OS is compatible with your hardware you would be fine.  The Game OS could also be made to run inside a virtual machine.  It could even come with testing software to make sure your machine was rated to run the software you wanted to buy.  Of course the games companies would all have to agree. 

[Don Karnage]

a game a buy last year, i got all the requirement but when i install it it did a graphic card test and i discover that the geforce card are not supported by the game, nothing on the box says so, i check the web site but since the game is a few years old there no info and you will not get a reply from them, so you are stuck with the game since it was open or you can change you're graphic card to get a ati card, but the game got a but that you can't play with it.

so its just crap, the bill of right see good and it would force them to make games that are bugless and will stop making patch over patch over patch to fix they're mistake.

when you pay 60$ to 80$ for a game, you think twice before pay for it, mostly when the graphic is a bit cheap.

[Nemesis]

I think that SimCity 4 had the same problem with not runing on ATi Radeons.  Not working on one of the most popular video card lines of the time and not mentioning it is not good. 

[FPF-DieHard]

Guys, we're going to be lucky if we see any PC game in 5-10 years.  it sucks but its the way we're heading with everything being developed for consoles.

[Corbomite]

On the other hand how can they expect you and I to blindly give away OUR profits when they don't make commitments to ensure that their programs run on machines they claim it will run on.  Or if it does run does so with critical flaws (Pool of Radience that deleted EVERYTHING when you tried to remove it for example). 

Here are some I have had:  Sim Earth wouldn't install in the lower 64k of memory so if you had optimized your machine by putting things in high memory (above 640k) to allow programs more space it didn't work while claiming the game disk was corrupted.  Command and Conquer wouldn't run with the DEFAULT Microsoft mouse driver while reporting an error with the sound card instead.   Other types of copy protection that just blocked your installation or game play.  All with no recourse according to the EULA.  (I had to get a pirated Sim Earth and find out from 3rd parties online about the C&C mouse driver issue).  Of course there is the good old CD shuffle to make the game work by putting the CD in the drive each time with steps taken to block the use of simulated CDs.  (The games above were non refundable by store policies).

Those sound like things that need to be addressed in a class action lawsuit.

Right now the typical software EULA (not just games) essentially says "If it doesn't perform as we claimed tough luck to you" and gives not real recourse.  That is the type of problem this committment tries to address.

The EULA format could use an update, but the reasons for eligible return must be plainly spelled out to prevent people from playing the game and returning it when they are done or pirating a copy and getting their money back just by complaining that "It don't work right!". And what do you do about gifts that may have been bought months in advance? I really can't think of a way to insure this won't be abused so the "tough luck to you" clause is the only way they can protect themselves from this.

A single, universal operating system/hardware set-up would make this an easy thing to accomplish

So who do we give the monopoly to?  How often do you refresh the standard?  How do you ensure the monopolist is trust worthy?

Why me of course! I know I'm trustworthy so there's no problem there! 

Actually I was thinking the OS should belong to the public, like the World Wide Web software that the inventor gave away free to facilitate business and growth. And boy did it work! Not the source code mind you, that would need a good guardian to oversee new development and issue updates. Some body or council would have to be created to handle that as I see it as another public utility.

You refresh the standard only when hardware has progressed beyond the ability of the OS to use it properly. From what I've seen that's about every ten years or so. I don't count these forced OS changes by MS and Apple as necessary. They are designed simply for one thing: To make money.

Alternately make a standardized Game OS that machines can be configured to dual boot into.  So long as the Game OS is compatible with your hardware you would be fine.  The Game OS could also be made to run inside a virtual machine.  It could even come with testing software to make sure your machine was rated to run the software you wanted to buy.  Of course the games companies would all have to agree. 

That really isn't such a bad idea. Of course a more homogenized programing environment makes hacking that much easier. Mandatory demos might be a better course.

[Dracho]

Guys, we're going to be lucky if we see any PC game in 5-10 years.  it sucks but its the way we're heading with everything being developed for consoles.

You'll see them, but you'll buy them off the web instead of in stores.

[Nemesis]

You'll see them, but you'll buy them off the web instead of in stores.

Stardock is already doing that (among others).

[Nemesis]

Those sound like things that need to be addressed in a class action lawsuit.

If they could have been returned for refund there would be no need for such a lawsuit.  Why is it that software unlike anything else (even things that can be copied like music CDs and movie DVDs) can't be returned for refund in most areas?

The EULA format could use an update,

How about just reverting to copyright law rather than allowing software companies to write their own laws on the fly?

but the reasons for eligible return must be plainly spelled out to prevent people from playing the game and returning it when they are done or pirating a copy and getting their money back just by complaining that "It don't work right!". And what do you do about gifts that may have been bought months in advance? I really can't think of a way to insure this won't be abused so the "tough luck to you" clause is the only way they can protect themselves from this.

Why not just follow the same rules as other copyrighted materials?  Again why is software different?

Actually I was thinking the OS should belong to the public, like the World Wide Web software that the inventor gave away free to facilitate business and growth. And boy did it work! Not the source code mind you, that would need a good guardian to oversee new development and issue updates. Some body or council would have to be created to handle that as I see it as another public utility.

It wasn't the software the Tim Berners-Lee gave us it was the concept and a specificaton for doing it.  These laid the groundwork on which others built.   

Similarly the POSIX specification helps create standards for Unix to adhere to so programs can move between Unix variants.  The Linux Standards Base is doing the same now for Linux.

A set of standards for the OS so that games can be compatible across broad ranges of hardware is what is needed. 

You refresh the standard only when hardware has progressed beyond the ability of the OS to use it properly. From what I've seen that's about every ten years or so. I don't count these forced OS changes by MS and Apple as necessary. They are designed simply for one thing: To make money.

Incremental adjustments can be made so long as they add features without changing those already present. 

When a break happens the old edition software should still be kept available so that people can keep running old software.

Alternately make a standardized Game OS that machines can be configured to dual boot into.  So long as the Game OS is compatible with your hardware you would be fine.  The Game OS could also be made to run inside a virtual machine.  It could even come with testing software to make sure your machine was rated to run the software you wanted to buy.  Of course the games companies would all have to agree.

That really isn't such a bad idea. Of course a more homogenized programing environment makes hacking that much easier. Mandatory demos might be a better course.

A more homogenzied environment?  Like the current Windows monoculture for example?

It could be designed to run off of media that it and programs under it are blocked from writing to. 

Imagine a dual boot system.  The game OS and games installed on an SD card (or some future equivalent) running from there in an SD slot that has the ability to write to the SD card deleted and saving to another card in a standard SD slot.  To install a game you boot another OS (Windows. Mac, Linux or a specialist system) that reads a text file from the game media and follows standard rules to copy the game to the SD card (which is moved to the rewritable SD slot for this then moved back to the OS SD slot to boot from it and play the game).  (Alternately you could have a button that enables/disables the write feature on the drive and design the Game OS not to boot or operate with the rewrite function turned on).

You could have separate SD cards for each person using the system or for each game ($$ available of course).  As the cards get cheaper this becomes more practical.  You could even have the BIOS disable hard drives when the Game OS is booted from so the Game OS can't be used to attack the HD if it is breached.

This way breaching the Game OS does little for you as only the Game save SD card can be infected and it would be used to store data only. 

Now imagine if Sony or Nintendo were to make a computer that performed all the basic features of a home computer but could also hook to a TV and boot off a Game OS as discussed here.   Two SD card readers a DVD (optionally bluray)  player and room for an optional HD if people want to install Windows.  Have it delivered with OS (Linux) and software for E-Mail, Web Browsing and an office suite on one card and the Game OS on another.  With backups on a CD for installing on new cards as needed or desired.  In Europe at least they might avoid the taxes they now pay on game console as it would be marketed and sold as being both equally.  Without the HD or Windows license it should be possible to build such a system for prices comparable to current consoles.  Ideally the Game OS would have an open specification so others could clone it and do the same.  A customized Linux Kernel with a "Game environment" mounted on top would reduce development costs.

Have you seen anythig about the eeeBox from Asus?  I imagine something like it could be adapted to use a Game OS in the manner I described above.   Even some of the eeePC netbooks (and clones) should be adaptable to such an idea for a version that is both a portable and hooked to a TV, a games console or computer as desired in either portable or hard connected modes.

[Corbomite]

You really need to pitch that to someone with money.


I don't know why software is treated differently than other copywritten material, but I would assume that it has to do with its portability and ease of reproduction. If I wanted to buy a book and copy and reprint it I would need considerable resources just to get one viable copy (or at least the willingness to stand at a copier all day).

[Nemesis]

You really need to pitch that to someone with money.

I wouldn't even know where to begin. 

So long as you are not after making money off an idea there is way that can work even for someone like myself who wouldn't know where to begin promoting an idea to a company, get it online, if its good someone will pick it up and run with it.  Maybe I should do so with this?

I have seen one thing I brought up online that way have it happen though I can't be sure that the idea wasn't independently created.  The idea of a standardized document format for office suites.  About 2 years after I first started mentioning it online I saw an article about it.  Now there is an ISO standard for ODF (Open Document Format) and some worldwide momentum to get it used by governments.

I don't know why software is treated differently than other copywritten material, but I would assume that it has to do with its portability and ease of reproduction. If I wanted to buy a book and copy and reprint it I would need considerable resources just to get one viable copy (or at least the willingness to stand at a copier all day).

CDs and DVDs have the same ease of copying yet they don't use EULAs.  Game cartridges are not easily copied do they use Eulas?  (I don't have a console so I can't easily check).  If they do then it can't be ease of copying.

So again why should software be different?

[Julin Eurthyr]

I don't know why software is treated differently than other copywritten material, but I would assume that it has to do with its portability and ease of reproduction. If I wanted to buy a book and copy and reprint it I would need considerable resources just to get one viable copy (or at least the willingness to stand at a copier all day).

CDs and DVDs have the same ease of copying yet they don't use EULAs.  Game cartridges are not easily copied do they use Eulas?  (I don't have a console so I can't easily check).  If they do then it can't be ease of copying.

So again why should software be different?

It's a "history" thing...

Back in the '80s, music/movies/cartridges all required that the delivery media (tape/CD/cartridge) all be physically present to enjoy the "product".  It was quickly realized that installable media (software) did not suffer from that limitation, in that once the software was installed from the delivery media said software could be executed without the original media present.

So, the EULA was devised to protect the manufacturer.  I remember a day when all an EULA really did was prevent (occasionally restrict) multiple installs and mandated the destruction / transfer of the original media, backups, and manuals/paperwork made when you were done with the software...

Heck, I remember a MS Office EULA that allowed it to be installed on all of an owner's machines (office comp, home comp and laptop), as long as only one machine was using it at a time (ie, if I was at work typing documents wifey couldn't be at home storing recipies...)

Also, remember that "back then", pirates had to copy to a blank media in order to create their pirate copies, it was only in the past couple of years that being able to rip/pirate movies over the net became common...