preamble for the gamers constitution

Submitted by dstevens on Sun, 2008-10-26 14:46

We the gamers of the Planet Earth, in Order to enjoy a more perfect gaming experience, establish justice, ensure gamers peace of mind, provide information for the uninformed, promote a general ease of gaming experience, and secure the blessings of games that work and rock to ourselves and not just us filling an executives pockets with cash for crap, do ordain and establish this consitution for the gamers of Planet Earth.

 

wouldnt it be nice if we could have a standard like this that ensured gamers and gaming wouldnt suck?

Im considering writing up various articles to go along with it too.

As gamers we pay for the games and should be entitled to minimum rights and privlidges for what we pay out our cash for.

the only problem with this is that we have one of these in america and you see how well the government follows it, when they feel like it... and how easily they can take away and right you may have at any time, and these days take them away for almost any reason... 

Login or register to post comments

I disagree

Submitted by Shalbatana on Thu, 2008-09-04 08:42

 While I feel it's only a start, it could lead to somthing bigger and better. There is a general consensus (Max PC , if I may humbly speak for them, included) that says the gaming industry must come together and set guides for the PC gaming industry, abandoning poor practices that because of it's closed nature is not very prevalent in the console world, if the future of the PC gaming industry is going to be secure and flourish.

This is a start, a very small one, but a good one. The fact is that these ARE indeed the issues many have complained about since the beginning. And no one until now has BOTHERED to put it in a list. A list that is easily dismissable certainly, but just as easily discussable.

Sometimes the powers that be don't understand the problem until the the masses organize.

Let's not say why it's useless and why it doesn't benefit corporations, etc. Let's instead refine and enhance the list, and put the corporations "counter list" on the table.

It's an opening step, and where is goes is where we as consumers, the
corporations and game makers, and gaming alliances and associations
take it. We should all move together, and perhaps now is the time. The door is open. We can complain, or we can act

My hope would be that the Bill of Rights creators, the gaming alliance, etc. all get to read this thread, and take what's learned here and in discussions  like it and run with it.

 "It is a dream, I have." - Arthur, Excalibur

_______________________________

"There's no time like the future."

Login or register to post comments

I don't like this idea.

Submitted by Cache on Wed, 2008-09-03 17:37

Nothing in that list says anything that protects a company's bottom line.  Game companies are there to make a profit, and returning merchandise, providing for a better customer experience are not part of the equation.  It doesn't help that most of the so-called rights are not specific, measurable terms.  A 'finished state'?  Does that include mods, map-packs, support for new videocards?  What if something is discovered wrong only after the game has been shipped?

I won't go into details (unless someone really wants me to), but I will not support something like this.  I think it is a short-sighted gimmick that does nothing to enhance the value of a game to the customer nor does it provide game companies with any incentive to do better. This is a useless bill of rights, and nothing based on the rules listed above will do anything to benefit gamers, the gaming community, or game developers.

 

 

Login or register to post comments

Amen

Submitted by Devo85x on Wed, 2008-09-03 16:02

Amen

Login or register to post comments

I will not repeat the

Submitted by sdcat on Wed, 2008-09-03 14:43

I will not repeat the question just my response.

 

1. Yes workable but requre details, restrictions and rules.

2. Define what is a finished state

3. meaningful? define it please. 

4. that probably, unless absolutely needed for as a requirement, so deepends on the nature of the game.

5. ok

6. know what you mean but wording is weird.

7. possible but with restriction

8. do not agree, think of why you need a key to your car and your house. 

9. Probably needed for initial activation.

10.  probably needed for initial of each play.

 

These games owned by the publisher and/or developer. Gamers never own them.

Need to think about publisher and developer's right as well. After all they make it we use it.

Login or register to post comments

It seems to me that some of

Submitted by Muerte on Wed, 2008-09-03 13:16

It seems to me that some of these things are only going to be out into effect when the consumers (us) stop buying games from companies that we feel don't practice these things.

But that's just me.  I boycotted EA for more than a couple of years because I thought the screwed their fan base with how they supported BF2.  Unfortunately they pretty much own everything.  It still has to be a pretty amazing game for me to purchase anything dirstributed by them.  Hell they are probably the worst offender and yet we as a community still line their pockets.

As a result I think I've only purchased one game in the past 2 years.  I used to purchase anything that looked good but the gaming industry and music industry have soured me on purchasing anything at all lately. 

Oh well I always have my RC cars. 

Login or register to post comments

It's a nice start, but here's what didn't get addressed...

Submitted by bcweir on Wed, 2008-09-03 12:51

they didn't address what's called "abandonware" -- games that are no longer published.  What happens when you want to run an old favorite of yours on your old (or newer) machine?  What happens when a game is no longer published?

The reason I make this point is that you've got some very old games out on the internet that for whatever reason, COULD be made available to others to enjoy, but the original owners of the copyright will shut those sites down.  Yet they wont' make these games available for gamers to enjoy legitimately!

There are literally thousands of these old titles available, but a gamer for the most part can't download these legitimately without being cast as a software pirate!  It's not right, and it's a subject that's been ignored for years.

Is there any chance MaximumPC can do an article on this -- perhaps even put their own Thomas McDonald on the case?  I'd love to see an article on abandonware games that still enjoy a healthy following!   Anybody for a round of Doom 2?

 

 

 

Login or register to post comments

#10 is a very easy fix but

Submitted by mlee19 on Wed, 2008-09-03 12:06

#10 is a very easy fix but what gets me the most if having to wait 2 months after the concel counterpart has already launched before they release the PC version!!

Login or register to post comments

This is everyone's list

Submitted by Talcum X on Wed, 2008-09-03 11:10

 These are all the things that "we the people (gamers)" have been bitching about for years.  just someone finally compiled it to a single list.  And if you take the Game out of it, and replace it with "software", wouldn't it also apply to all of our apps as well?  Hell, maybe even the OS (ahem, Microsoft?)

***********

Every morning is the dawn of a new error.

"In Ireland, there are more drunks per capita than people."  -  Peter Griffin

Login or register to post comments

First of all, it's amusing

Submitted by Shalbatana on Wed, 2008-09-03 10:34

First of all, it's amusing that they came up with this, and not the PC gaming alliance or whatever it is. Isn't this the kind of stuff they should be setting up?

Second, It's a good start, but what about 10 commandments to go with it?...

1) Thou shal not install any icons that I did not ask for.

2) Thou shal not install any demos, trialware or bloatware that I did not ask for.

3) Thou shal not have demos, trialware, bloatware, toolbars or any non-essential files  checked for installation by default.

4) Thou shal not have thine update check running as an "always on" process.

5) Thou shalt not create an uninstaller that does not uninstall EVERYTHING, with an option to port saved games to a new folder on the desktop.

6) Thou shal not have thy game rely on 3rd party software without providing it.

7) Thou shal not make thyne game, then skimp on thyne instructions.

8) Thou shal provide updates as integratable packages in addition to any other method, so thyne customer can make a slipstreamed installation disc. Add thus, thou shal provide a method of purchasing additional license keys without downloading or buying thyne game off the shelf, so players can install the game from a friend's disc.

9) Thou shal maintain a vigilant and well manored presence on the internet. Thus, thou shal not allow a fan site to be more informative than thyne own site. Add thus, thou shalnot abondon thyne host servers for sacred multiplayer without providing an alternate method of multi-play.

10) Thou shal not use the words "immersive gameplay" nor "revolutionary 3D graphics" to describe thyne game on lo packaging.

 

So sayeth the shepard!

 

P.S.

Keeping a CD in the drive is not that bad, especially if it massively saves drive space. However there should be the option to go either way.

_______________________________

"There's no time like the future."

Login or register to post comments

Good idea, a bit hypocritical

Submitted by PhynaeusClaw on Wed, 2008-09-03 09:59

These are really nice ideas. Now Stardock needs to really vett all of its software to align with them. When I recently installed Impulse (their craptastic online content delivery system) it also installed some kind of launcher application that I had absoultely zero interest in using, without even asking for permission to do so. Furthermore, it is not readilly apparent how to remove this launching dock (which interferes with the windows task bar in the standard location). Eventually I figured out how to make it go away, but as far as I can tell there is no way to uninstall it from my system.

And what's more, Impulse is the slowest piece of crap on the planet.

So, to summarize, lofty ideas, piss poor implementation.

Login or register to post comments

Not a bad idea but....

Submitted by b_boy_69_00 on Wed, 2008-09-03 09:39

Other than Stardock saying this, what is going to come of it?  Are retailers going to start letting people return opened games because of this?  I doubt it.  Are devs going to start putting out games you don't need the cd/dvd for from the start?  Some might, but most wont.  Are games going to be updated after a new version is released, even if the said game is less than a year and a half old?  Once again, I doubt it.  The concept behind this list is great, but there's no practical way to implement any of these except by stardock.  PC's aren't like consoles where one entity, like microsoft or sony, could put requirements in place for publishers and developers to provide certain things like patches and stuff like that.  We as PC gamers always end up getting the short end of the stick when it comes to that stuff.  Just look at Hellgate.

Login or register to post comments

I love it!

Submitted by averageGrod on Wed, 2008-09-03 09:39

I think these guys have some great ideas. Obviously if we want to see them stick around or even adopted by any other companies we need to see a drop in piracy. Hopefully the Comcast bandwidth cap will fix it but if not people need to do the right thing and support the devs who make great products. I hate do sound like your grandma but if a game is worth stealing it is worth buying. There is so much content out there that if you have a little patience you can pick up quality titles for less than half price about six months after release.

Login or register to post comments

I think they have got some

Submitted by Gailim on Wed, 2008-09-03 09:18

I think they have got some very good ideas.

i dont so much mind internet activation as much as some of the other gamers. as long as if the time ever comes where they disable the activation system, that they release a patch to disable the function first.

 

I think what they just described is more or less what you get with a game on steam

 

I esspecially like #2. i think that is one of the biggest problems in the PC game industry. just because you can release a patch later is no reason to put out a buggy game.  whats worse is when a company puts out a buggy game and then refuses to patch it.

Login or register to post comments