Gamer's Bill of Rights
I know it's been floating around the internet for some time now, but my increased PC gaming of late as well as a recent republication of The Gamer's Bill of Rights make them worthy of mention. A lot of them make sense while some raise a few concerns. I figure instead of cherry picking, I'd just post the list and include my comments with each item. Note that several items are specifically targeted at computer game(r)s, some include the newer consoles, and others are more universal.
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:
1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund. I have personal experience in support of this one. I purchased Deus Ex: Invisible War way back when during a time when the only graphics cards I had were of the PCI (not PCIe) variety. The systems requirements listed certain video card requirements that my card at the time did support. It wasn't until after I installed the game and had it toss a few errors before closing while starting that I read through the fine print in the instruction manual. There was a footnote stating that my specific card was unsupported (and, it would turn out, would never be supported). I couldn't even return the game since it was opened. I did eventually get a newer video card that the game did support. Now, it doesn't support the newer cards like my current one. Now problem with this first right is what to do about downloaded games. They would need some sort of tool to verify that the game is completely removed and that, we will soon see, violates later rights.
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state. Sweet zombie Jeebus, yes! With added pressure of making the target release date and the ability to release patches later in the lifecycle, quality assurance isn't what it used to be. All manner of bugs and glitches can be found in newly released software. There are times when games will actually cease to work beyond a certain point due to some errors (the dog statue in Oblivion comes to mind). Other times, a game has functionality removed with some evidencing remains, a sign that it was removed to save time. While gamers are an impatient lot, they'd rather see a complete and functional game than a neutered or mangled mess.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release. A good example is Crysis getting patched to better support multi-GPU configurations. On the other hand, Crysis also provides an example in the other direction. That aforementioned patch was the last one. Ever. Support ended even though the game still has plenty of known bugs. I still haven't beaten the last level since when I don't fall through the floor, the final boss does.
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. Certain EA and Steam-based titles as well as many MMO titles require the latest version in order to play. Before launching the main game, an update manager runs and verifies that the version present is current.
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. Have you ever tried running a game on a computer that just barely meets the the minimum requirements? I have (my Rose laptop was great for that). While some ran fine, more or less, some were so unbearable that even closing every other process before starting would still result in watching my display struggle to render individual frames let alone enough per second to allow something resembling smooth gameplay. Console games aren't immune from this either as we saw with Two Worlds that even with setting turned down as much as they could failed to maintain a stable framerate.
6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent. Remember rootkit? Same idea. Bad in all regards.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time. I'm not so sure what the scope of this is supposed to be. It won't include sequels, I'm sure. Do they mean a purchase for Counter-Strike way back when means a Counter-Strike: Source game later? Or maybe it is a reference to games that have expansions that later are released along with the main game (Oblivion: Game of the Year included the two expansion sets). Not sure here.
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers. EA has been using intrusive DRM (digital rights management, think evil copy protection) for some time as a manner of combating piracy. They can hinder PC performance, cause errors with other programs (I usually see it in firewalls or virus protection utilities), or require an active internet connection just to start the game.
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. Continuing from the previous point, games such as Mass Effect have a launcher that requires an internet connection to authenticate the user's copy of the game before starting it. No internet, no game.
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. Even with massive hard-drive installs (many are now around 6-8GB, some stretching to over 10GB) most games that come on a CD or DVD still require it present to run. It's all about copy protection, see (8). With all the space the installs require, if any data had been left on the disc necessary to run the game, needing a little extra for that last few files shouldn't make a difference. Now there are NoCD-cracks out there for many games that allows one to run these games while fooling it into thinking that the disc is present. Unfortunately, this is still considered piracy. Now there have been some interesting cases where a game has compatibility issues that may prevent the disc from being read properly (the Crysis DVD doesn't run in DVD burners) and the publisher's fix is to use a NoCD-crack they fished off of the internet. A specific example escapes me. One more downside is if this right does come to fruition, how would it work with (1). To be fair to publishers and retailers, there would need to be some way to make sure that someone doesn't take advantage of a return policy by installing a game then collecting a refund claiming that it didn't run on their computer. I suppose doing that would violate (8), but it's still something that will likely be considered in adopting these rights.
I certainly agree with the logic surrounding this Bill of Rights, but there are still some questions to be answered. Combining (1) and (10) presents a highly exploitable opportunity for the small portion of gamers that don't deserve said rights. The GBoR would essentially require gamers to adopt an honor code of sorts that when broken will all but ensure an even worse situation for gamers than the current becomes standard practice. It would prove the publishers right all along that that would be truly... horrible.
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:
1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund. I have personal experience in support of this one. I purchased Deus Ex: Invisible War way back when during a time when the only graphics cards I had were of the PCI (not PCIe) variety. The systems requirements listed certain video card requirements that my card at the time did support. It wasn't until after I installed the game and had it toss a few errors before closing while starting that I read through the fine print in the instruction manual. There was a footnote stating that my specific card was unsupported (and, it would turn out, would never be supported). I couldn't even return the game since it was opened. I did eventually get a newer video card that the game did support. Now, it doesn't support the newer cards like my current one. Now problem with this first right is what to do about downloaded games. They would need some sort of tool to verify that the game is completely removed and that, we will soon see, violates later rights.
2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state. Sweet zombie Jeebus, yes! With added pressure of making the target release date and the ability to release patches later in the lifecycle, quality assurance isn't what it used to be. All manner of bugs and glitches can be found in newly released software. There are times when games will actually cease to work beyond a certain point due to some errors (the dog statue in Oblivion comes to mind). Other times, a game has functionality removed with some evidencing remains, a sign that it was removed to save time. While gamers are an impatient lot, they'd rather see a complete and functional game than a neutered or mangled mess.
3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release. A good example is Crysis getting patched to better support multi-GPU configurations. On the other hand, Crysis also provides an example in the other direction. That aforementioned patch was the last one. Ever. Support ended even though the game still has plenty of known bugs. I still haven't beaten the last level since when I don't fall through the floor, the final boss does.
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. Certain EA and Steam-based titles as well as many MMO titles require the latest version in order to play. Before launching the main game, an update manager runs and verifies that the version present is current.
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. Have you ever tried running a game on a computer that just barely meets the the minimum requirements? I have (my Rose laptop was great for that). While some ran fine, more or less, some were so unbearable that even closing every other process before starting would still result in watching my display struggle to render individual frames let alone enough per second to allow something resembling smooth gameplay. Console games aren't immune from this either as we saw with Two Worlds that even with setting turned down as much as they could failed to maintain a stable framerate.
6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent. Remember rootkit? Same idea. Bad in all regards.
7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time. I'm not so sure what the scope of this is supposed to be. It won't include sequels, I'm sure. Do they mean a purchase for Counter-Strike way back when means a Counter-Strike: Source game later? Or maybe it is a reference to games that have expansions that later are released along with the main game (Oblivion: Game of the Year included the two expansion sets). Not sure here.
8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers. EA has been using intrusive DRM (digital rights management, think evil copy protection) for some time as a manner of combating piracy. They can hinder PC performance, cause errors with other programs (I usually see it in firewalls or virus protection utilities), or require an active internet connection just to start the game.
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. Continuing from the previous point, games such as Mass Effect have a launcher that requires an internet connection to authenticate the user's copy of the game before starting it. No internet, no game.
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. Even with massive hard-drive installs (many are now around 6-8GB, some stretching to over 10GB) most games that come on a CD or DVD still require it present to run. It's all about copy protection, see (8). With all the space the installs require, if any data had been left on the disc necessary to run the game, needing a little extra for that last few files shouldn't make a difference. Now there are NoCD-cracks out there for many games that allows one to run these games while fooling it into thinking that the disc is present. Unfortunately, this is still considered piracy. Now there have been some interesting cases where a game has compatibility issues that may prevent the disc from being read properly (the Crysis DVD doesn't run in DVD burners) and the publisher's fix is to use a NoCD-crack they fished off of the internet. A specific example escapes me. One more downside is if this right does come to fruition, how would it work with (1). To be fair to publishers and retailers, there would need to be some way to make sure that someone doesn't take advantage of a return policy by installing a game then collecting a refund claiming that it didn't run on their computer. I suppose doing that would violate (8), but it's still something that will likely be considered in adopting these rights.
I certainly agree with the logic surrounding this Bill of Rights, but there are still some questions to be answered. Combining (1) and (10) presents a highly exploitable opportunity for the small portion of gamers that don't deserve said rights. The GBoR would essentially require gamers to adopt an honor code of sorts that when broken will all but ensure an even worse situation for gamers than the current becomes standard practice. It would prove the publishers right all along that that would be truly... horrible.