The Gamer's Bill of Rights 272
Edge Magazine is running a piece by Brad Wardell, CEO of game developer Stardock, in which he presents a "Gamer's Bill of Rights." Stardock teamed up with Gas Powered Games to develop a list of ideals they think all game publishers should follow. Some are rather basic operational guidelines (not requiring a disc to play, minimum requirements that make sense), and some are aimed at repairing the damaged relationship between game companies and customers ("Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers"). Wishful thinking or not, it will be interesting to see if they manage to get other publishers to sign on.
Re:Do as I say, not as I do? (Score:1, Informative)
No shit. I found #4 particularly hilarious:
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.
Has anyone at GPG actually tried using GPGnet? It's easily the worst online experience I've ever had. Trying to use it makes me realize just how much better Steam really is.
I just went through GPG's website to check if you could download updates without the GPGnet client, and unless the page simply doesn't work under Firefox, you can't. It says there are no updates available, but I know for a fact Supreme Commander has been patched quite a few times.
#6 is also somewhat amusing:
Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.
Don't all GPG games come with SecureROM? Because there are several prominent "SecureROM support" links throughout the site.
In short, the list can either be read as "play on consoles" or "use Steam."
On the plus side, I understand Stardock is much better about that list than GPG is. In fact, I'm not really sure GPG is really involved; their website makes no mention of it. Then again, the "upcoming event" on the sidebar is "GDC '07!" Apparently Chris Taylor will be giving a talk on March 7th, 2007. So who knows what's going on with them.
Re:I take issue with this one (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I take issue with this one (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Do as I say, not as I do? (Score:2, Informative)
GPG has already made an absolute mockery of rights #2, 3, 4 and 5.
Supcom and FA both lack even the most basic functionality in critical areas, Patches were obviously not tested at all beyond making sure the game boots up, the recommended requirements are barely capable of running the game, and the only way to really get patches is through the hilariously poorly designed GPGnet.
In short installing Supcom/FA involves creating a GPGnet account, opening it up and not being able to do anything until it finishes loading and checking for updates, and god help you if you dont get your FA and Supcom licenses done properly because they won't let you fix it if you botch it. An update involves using their magnificently bad download and install system and then NOT being able to get back into GPGnet for anywhere from 3 to 30 minutes because their own system doesn't recognize when it logs out during the patching process.
Trying to play a game is also an exercise in futility at times. Ranked is what they decide it is, which I can accept, but it also takes FOREVER to do ANYTHING and the ranking system has a shit-ton of problems and always has.
Non-ranked play is basically ignored, you can't even download a custom map or mod (smaller file than a single CS map usually) off of someone automatically, and the "vault" is disgusting. Even the much better replay vault is barely functional, with no way to differentiate between supcom and FA replays and files automatically saved so that the game is incapable of opening them (you need to repair the filename by hand) in a location completely seperate from the rest of the game files and a damn sight more difficult to navigate to.
Re:I take issue with this one (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Do as I say, not as I do? (Score:5, Informative)
So that's eight passes, one unknown and one late resubmission. They are doing comparatively well.
Re:At the very least ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:At the very least ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:They've Purposely Omitted: The Right to Sell (Score:3, Informative)