Richard
29-Aug-2008, 19:38
Gas Powered Games (http://www.gaspowered.com/) have published their Gamer's Bill of Rights, a set of rights all gamers ought to enjoy.
We the Gamers of the world, in order to ensure a more enjoyable experience, establish equality between players and publishers, and promote the general welfare of our industry hereby call for the following:
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 adequately play on that computer.
Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express 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.
Apparently all GPS games moving forward will support these though you wouldn't know it since there's nothing on GPS or Stardock's website about it.
-- Analysis
These are well intentioned but ultimately vague and wide open to abuse. A couple are IMHO not practical in a capitalist-driven society such as ours. Finally, until they are adopted by at least a major publisher their impact on gamer lives will be diminute. After all this is all about improving how people play games and not a publicity stunt to help sell Space Siege, right? From the top:
1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.
That's excellent and actually in place already over here. As long as the game is still shrinkwraped you can return it to the store for either another item or, if you push hard enough, a full refund. I'm left scratching my head why this is a gamer's right when this deals with a customer returning an unusable item to a store. For other countries where this isn't yet possible, how will publishers adhering to these rights allow for this one to happen without the cooperation of the stores?
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
We have a right to demand this but we don't have a right to expect this. All software is imperfect, there is no bug-free software. And what exactly is a "finished state". If you take a literal interpretation then this right is somewhat contradictory to the third right.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
Again with the semantics, right to expect does not mean right to have delivered. Also, what is a "meaningful update"? For some it's extra maps, for others it might be extra game modes. Who gets to decide. Also, notice how there's no mention of price for these updates.
I've wanted a formal comittment to deliver patches (at least) from developers/publishers for some time now but this right says nothing and suggests nothing. A more reasonable requirement would be to support all games for at least a year and multiplayer games for at least 3 years. But even so, what kind of support? A developer that releases a single patch exactly 12 months after the game's release that only changes the version number is technically fulfilling the requirement even if their soul will rot in hell.
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.
Finally a right that is a little more specific. Basically this right says the game has to be separate from whichever delivery medium the game comes in. I agree with this one and I think it's specific enough to be useful. This can actually subsume rights 9 and 10 but I guess GPG/Stardock wanted a round number.
5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.
Again a reasonable right and one many people have wished to be standardised. But again this right is too vague. What exactly is a game that "plays adequately"? Is it 30fps? At what resolution? Does it matter that you can run a 2008 game at 30fps if you have to turn the quality back to 1995?
6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
Agreed but again a bit vague and open to interpretation. What is a driver? Does that include OGL ICDs? What if a game will only run if you install the latest driver version? Are games going to have a gazillion Accept/Cancel screens? One for the game, another for the GameSpy Arcade stuff, another for Punkbuster and another for God knows what else? Anyway, this one is doable but seems overly picky to me.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
Again agreed and again vague. Is this for all games or only for the ones you've bought a digital version? From where can we re-download it? Publisher's website? Usernet?
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
War is hell, children must not be molested, while pets mustn't ever starve. Yes, yes. HOW? Ditch DRM? Be specific.
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.
This is the other more specific right even though it is a superset of right 4. Also notice the wording: a right to demand does not equal a right to expect or a right to have this capability. I know they were going for flavour when they wrote this but how about: Games can only require an internet connection for checking for updates or playing multiplayer. There, much clearer.
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.
AKA the No-CD crack. No snarky comments here.
Anyway, this could have probably be reduced to three or four requirements that games to fulfil to gain the "Gamer Friendly" award.
We the Gamers of the world, in order to ensure a more enjoyable experience, establish equality between players and publishers, and promote the general welfare of our industry hereby call for the following:
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 adequately play on that computer.
Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express 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.
Apparently all GPS games moving forward will support these though you wouldn't know it since there's nothing on GPS or Stardock's website about it.
-- Analysis
These are well intentioned but ultimately vague and wide open to abuse. A couple are IMHO not practical in a capitalist-driven society such as ours. Finally, until they are adopted by at least a major publisher their impact on gamer lives will be diminute. After all this is all about improving how people play games and not a publicity stunt to help sell Space Siege, right? From the top:
1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.
That's excellent and actually in place already over here. As long as the game is still shrinkwraped you can return it to the store for either another item or, if you push hard enough, a full refund. I'm left scratching my head why this is a gamer's right when this deals with a customer returning an unusable item to a store. For other countries where this isn't yet possible, how will publishers adhering to these rights allow for this one to happen without the cooperation of the stores?
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
We have a right to demand this but we don't have a right to expect this. All software is imperfect, there is no bug-free software. And what exactly is a "finished state". If you take a literal interpretation then this right is somewhat contradictory to the third right.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.
Again with the semantics, right to expect does not mean right to have delivered. Also, what is a "meaningful update"? For some it's extra maps, for others it might be extra game modes. Who gets to decide. Also, notice how there's no mention of price for these updates.
I've wanted a formal comittment to deliver patches (at least) from developers/publishers for some time now but this right says nothing and suggests nothing. A more reasonable requirement would be to support all games for at least a year and multiplayer games for at least 3 years. But even so, what kind of support? A developer that releases a single patch exactly 12 months after the game's release that only changes the version number is technically fulfilling the requirement even if their soul will rot in hell.
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.
Finally a right that is a little more specific. Basically this right says the game has to be separate from whichever delivery medium the game comes in. I agree with this one and I think it's specific enough to be useful. This can actually subsume rights 9 and 10 but I guess GPG/Stardock wanted a round number.
5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.
Again a reasonable right and one many people have wished to be standardised. But again this right is too vague. What exactly is a game that "plays adequately"? Is it 30fps? At what resolution? Does it matter that you can run a 2008 game at 30fps if you have to turn the quality back to 1995?
6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
Agreed but again a bit vague and open to interpretation. What is a driver? Does that include OGL ICDs? What if a game will only run if you install the latest driver version? Are games going to have a gazillion Accept/Cancel screens? One for the game, another for the GameSpy Arcade stuff, another for Punkbuster and another for God knows what else? Anyway, this one is doable but seems overly picky to me.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.
Again agreed and again vague. Is this for all games or only for the ones you've bought a digital version? From where can we re-download it? Publisher's website? Usernet?
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.
War is hell, children must not be molested, while pets mustn't ever starve. Yes, yes. HOW? Ditch DRM? Be specific.
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.
This is the other more specific right even though it is a superset of right 4. Also notice the wording: a right to demand does not equal a right to expect or a right to have this capability. I know they were going for flavour when they wrote this but how about: Games can only require an internet connection for checking for updates or playing multiplayer. There, much clearer.
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.
AKA the No-CD crack. No snarky comments here.
Anyway, this could have probably be reduced to three or four requirements that games to fulfil to gain the "Gamer Friendly" award.