Is It Time To Enforce a Gamers' Bill of Rights? 469
adeelarshad82 writes "The SimCity launch debacle is only the latest in an increasingly frustrating string of affronts to gamers' rights as customers. Before SimCity, we had Ubisoft's always-on DRM (that the company only ended quietly after massive outcry from gamers). We had the forced online and similarly unplayable launch of Diablo III. We had games like Asura's Wrath and Final Fantasy: All the Bravest that required you to pay more money just to complete them after you purchase them. And let us never forget the utter infamy of StarForce, SecuROM, and Sony's copy protection, which installed rootkits on computers without users' knowledge. As one recently published article argues, maybe it's time for gamers to demand adoption of a Bill of Rights."
You already have the most important right of all.. (Score:2, Interesting)
...the right to not purchase a product.
All else is just a bunch of whining; if you want change, STOP BUYING THE GAMES that have this sort of offensive DRM.
If you're not willing to go without Call of Honor: Modern Ops 6 in spite of its ultra-heinous requires-a-credit-card-on-file DRM, then you have no power to assert any other demands on the companies requiring such things to play the games they're selling.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
But....but....it is a Bill of Rights! How could you possibly say what you are saying, this is a Bill of Rights! We have the right to have companies provide us with video games on our terms that we agree to! That is a God given right and we all need to stand up for our rights as individuals.
The above was sarcasm. I point this out for the sarcasm impaired.
What we really need to do, which is part of what you said, is stop cheapening the right we actually have by using Bill of Rights as a buzz word and make everyone think they are entitiled to this because it is a right! If we need new consumer protection laws, fight for them. If we have unenforced consumer protection laws, the fight for them to be enforced.
Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott (Score:5, Interesting)
SimCity (Score:5, Interesting)
A compromise? (Score:5, Interesting)
There seems to be multiple problems here:
1. Game can't handle intake of people at launch.
Ok, the issue here is that the game company has to shell out a lot of resources to support all the people who want to play it at launch. These resources will need to be reallocated later since chances are that the usage will never peak that high again, or even that close.
Solution:
A single player "demo/tutorial" of the game at launch that players must progress though in order to access the online version. Since players play at different rates, this should reduce the load peak that games experience.
2. Gamers want a guarantee that they will be able to play the game indefinably, even if servers go offline.
Solution:
The game company puts in a reasonable minimum support timeline when you buy the game that they will support it for. E.g. If they guarantee to support the game for a year, you buy it 1 year after it is released and they cancel it 6 months later, then you get your money back, but everyone who bought it at launch doesn't.
3. Gamers don't want bandwidth to interfere with their gaming experience, and don't want maintenance down time.
Solution:
None really. This is simply one of those items a game is judged by. If latency on their end is bad, then gamers may have a case that they are receiving poor service, and perhaps a standard contract of compensation could be drawn up addressing this issue.
4. Gamers want to modify the game they are playing, or simply create their own cheats.
Solution:
None. It is too a lesser extent a good thing as it makes cheating in an online game harder.
5. Gamers want to pirate the game.
Solution:
Shoo... go away pirates.
Re:What do you mean "we"? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the kind of thing that is legally almost certainly true, but to actually verify it you would literally have to take them to court over it. At best you could document your attempts to return it and the reasons why and then dispute the charges on your credit card. Consumer protection laws in the US have very few, very dull teeth.
Honest reviews (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't we start with honest reviews that focus on the DRM that the game will use as a playability issue just as they would framerates or any other issue? If all of the major review sites started reviewing games with a DRM section saying:
Requires
( ) Serial Number
( ) Registration
( ) Activation
( ) Online connection to play
( ) Replaces DVD driver
( ) Wont work if you have installed ______
( ) Works only on one computer
( ) etc
Let people know what their actually buying and let the market make informed choices. When game reviews start reflecting and scoring the playability of DRM and sales start trending accordingly than publishers will start to review their practices.
Unfortunately most review sites would be blacklisted if they tried by themselves, so you would have to do it en mass like the cable companies did with 6 strikes. Band together and they wouldn't be able to blacklist the few sites that started reflecting the playability of DRM.
This problem could be fixed by the review sites, if they gave a damn.
Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott (Score:5, Interesting)
There needs to be some way of specifically telling companies: We don't want to be abused.
The current favored method appears to be reviews on Amazon.
Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott (Score:5, Interesting)
Strategic consumption is the grassroots political movement of the future.
Nothing else makes any sense. Nothing else will have any impact.
But it has to happen before we go much farther down the road of corporate consumption. What are we, down to 3 national airlines now? Every time a company gains what they call "pricing power" it means they can exercise their will on consumers more freely.
It's going to require a big company or two getting a consumer-initiated "death penalty" before they get the message. A national company is going to have to go tits up after a concerted and publicized boycott, and then you'll see things change.
Any suggestions on who should be first?
Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott (Score:5, Interesting)
Ahhh... the piracy argument. Which has hit the game industry hard since the early 80ies. I have magazines here from 1981 where the publishers whine about piracy and how it will make sure that there will be no computer games in the future.
And it's the same, every year. The business just grows and grows, people spend more and more money on computer games. But no, the piracy will kill the industry, look at the evil pirates, forcing us to make half-finished games with mandatory DLC.
Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott (Score:5, Interesting)
Stop buying games that end in a number too!
IIRC, there are, what, 6 Xcom games, not one of which has a number. Also, Civ III was (IMHO) the best iteration of the game, should I really still only play the original? I mean, yeah, I played it when it was new (and I loved it!), but it's a 22 year old game. Fallout also comes to mind. Just because a game is a sequel, doesn't mean it sucks.
But yeah, EA sucks & always-online DRM needs to go.
Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott (Score:4, Interesting)
In this case, probably the best way is to back Civitas [kickstarter.com] on Kickstarter: It appears to be SimCity the way EA should have done it. If they succeed widely while SimCity flops, then it's fairly clear that it was EA's approach to that was the killer, not the type of game.
Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott (Score:5, Interesting)