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. Isn't that what the minimum requirements listed on the box are for? Recommended requirements are normally much higher. Also, define "work"? It may work, but you may not like how it performs.
Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state. Define "finished"? Does that mean all advertised features are in and working at launch or does it mean something else? What if hte features are in, but players don't like them and want them changed - does that mean the game isn't "finished"? Is it playable? Is any MMO ever really "complete"?
Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release. Define "meaningful updates"? What if you got what you paid for, plus bug fixes and patches and all new content was released in the form of expansions. Why do you think you deserve to get entirely new content? Yes, games like City of Heroes patch in quite a bit of new content, but do you "deserve" it? Your initial purchase gives you rights to use the license for the game. Your subscription allows you to use their services to play the game.
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. You want to be able to launch a game directly without going through a patcher or launcher? That'd be nice, but upon login if your game version doesn't match that which is on the server, expect your install to not work or possibly be corrupted..
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. "Adequately" is subjective. What's acceptable to me might not be acceptable to you. As such, in order for this to work, you'd have to define standard performance benchmarks. Even then, the point is moot, since there are so many other factors that could negatively affect performance than just the hardware profile.
Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent. I agree with this - I hate progams like GameGuard and yes, they are potentially harmful to your system, as I've personally experienced.
Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time. 1) You don't own games. Ever. You own a revocable license to play a game. 2) Can't you already download full versions for most MMOs now?
Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers. This is so nebulous as to be meaningless... Please cite something specific.
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. Agree - this is ridiculous, IMO.
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. Does that still happen? I haven't had to have a CD/DVD in my drive for years, especially not with a MMO, which is what this website is all about...
~Ripper
Should MMO developers adopt something similar to the Gamer's Bill of rights? Should the gamer's bill of rights be changed for the MMO industry?
Should MMO developers adopt something similar to the Gamer's Bill of rights? Should the gamer's bill of rights be changed for the MMO industry?
It shouldn't exist for any games.
Question: if a game is complete when launched, why does it need updates?
If there is additional content the developers want to add to the game, then the game was not complete when it launched.
basically, the whole idea is kind of stupid, especially considering you will never get the development teams within a given company to agree on them, let alone getting different companies to agree.
Should MMO developers adopt something similar to the Gamer's Bill of rights? Should the gamer's bill of rights be changed for the MMO industry?
It shouldn't exist for any games.
Question: if a game is complete when launched, why does it need updates?
If there is additional content the developers want to add to the game, then the game was not complete when it launched.
basically, the whole idea is kind of stupid, especially considering you will never get the development teams within a given company to agree on them, let alone getting different companies to agree.
Then why would a developer create the Gamer's Bill of Rights and suggest that the industry as a whole adopt it's principles?
What I do know, is that no company will adopt a document that conflicts with itself, as pointed out in my last post. I would wager that even the company that this mysterous game developer of yours works for has not adopted this, let alone any other company.
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. Isn't that what the minimum requirements listed on the box are for? Recommended requirements are normally much higher. Also, define "work"? It may work, but you may not like how it performs.
Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state. Define "finished"? Does that mean all advertised features are in and working at launch or does it mean something else? What if hte features are in, but players don't like them and want them changed - does that mean the game isn't "finished"? Is it playable? Is any MMO ever really "complete"?
Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release. Define "meaningful updates"? What if you got what you paid for, plus bug fixes and patches and all new content was released in the form of expansions. Why do you think you deserve to get entirely new content? Yes, games like City of Heroes patch in quite a bit of new content, but do you "deserve" it? Your initial purchase gives you rights to use the license for the game. Your subscription allows you to use their services to play the game.
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. You want to be able to launch a game directly without going through a patcher or launcher? That'd be nice, but upon login if your game version doesn't match that which is on the server, expect your install to not work or possibly be corrupted..
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. "Adequately" is subjective. What's acceptable to me might not be acceptable to you. As such, in order for this to work, you'd have to define standard performance benchmarks. Even then, the point is moot, since there are so many other factors that could negatively affect performance than just the hardware profile.
Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent. I agree with this - I hate progams like GameGuard and yes, they are potentially harmful to your system, as I've personally experienced.
Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time. 1) You don't own games. Ever. You own a revocable license to play a game. 2) Can't you already download full versions for most MMOs now?
Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers. This is so nebulous as to be meaningless... Please cite something specific.
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. Agree - this is ridiculous, IMO.
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. Does that still happen? I haven't had to have a CD/DVD in my drive for years, especially not with a MMO, which is what this website is all about...
~Ripper
Should MMO developers adopt something similar to the Gamer's Bill of rights? Should the gamer's bill of rights be changed for the MMO industry?
As indicated above, irrespective of the type of game, the Bill of Rights is flawed. The intent of it is good, but it's impossible to adhere to. Also, please note that what you posted is different than the current Gamers' Bill of Rights:
Gamers shall have the right to return games to the publisher that are incompatible or do not function at a reasonable level of performance for a full refund within a reasonable amount of time.
Gamers shall have the right that games they purchase shall function as designed without technical defects that would materially affect the player experience. This determination shall be made by the players.
Gamers shall have the right that games will receive updates that address minor defects as well as improve game play based on player feedback within reason.
Gamers shall have the right to have their games not require a third-party download manager installed in order for the game to function.
Games shall have the right to have their games perform adequately if their hardware meets the posted minimum requirements.
Gamers shall not have their games install hidden drivers onto their computers.
Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest version of the games they purchase.
Gamers have the right to use their games without being inconvenienced due to copy protection or digital rights management
Gamers shall have the right to play single-player games without requiring an internet connection
Gamers shall have the right to sell or transfer the ownership of a physical copy of a game they own to another person.
Even revised, which is better, it's still a flawed document. It's also possible to be easily abused. What if somebody buys a game, pirates it and returns it? What if it's a MMO and somebody buys it, puts a ton of first month hours into it and powerlevels to end game content and then returns it? What's reasonable? Does the developer take a Nordstrom's approach to customer server and just accept every return without question? That's just not possible with games. The potential for abuse is too great.
At best, the Bill of Rights is a good general customer service mission statement for an individual company.
Since Stardock the creator of this document has never come anywhere close to article #2 themselves,look at the launch stat of Sins,Demigod and now Elemental,I find the crediblity of this document shaky heh.
Ridiculous, and it is ridiculous everytime someone tries to do something like this.
A company that invests 50-100 million in a product gets a hell of a lot more say on how/when/where that product is used then the person who spent $60, simple as that. And no that doesn't mean you should get to pirate the game so your friends can have copies either, what kind of stupid thought process is that?
People have this odd thought that they deserve/are entitled to so much stuff just because they exist.
You are entitled to only a few things (in the USA, less in some other countries) and crap like this doesn't even come close. Neither does cheaper TV with less commercials or better movies. Entertainment is always purely an option, one you don't have to get involved in. When it comes to entertainment you are owed nothing, ever.
If a company wants MY money then **** right that I deserve what I want for it. It's called a service, and in service the customer is always right. If a company wants my money then I want a good product for it and if I don't like it I should be able to return it. When you flood the market with product that doesn't mean that we have to give the industry slack for pushing out a lesser product and charge the same price as an already establish product. Yes, it sucks but that's buisness for you. Don't blame the customer for not liking a product.
Ridiculous, and it is ridiculous everytime someone tries to do something like this.
A company that invests 50-100 million in a product gets a hell of a lot more say on how/when/where that product is used then the person who spent $60, simple as that. And no that doesn't mean you should get to pirate the game so your friends can have copies either, what kind of stupid thought process is that?
People have this odd thought that they deserve/are entitled to so much stuff just because they exist.
You are entitled to only a few things (in the USA, less in some other countries) and crap like this doesn't even come close. Neither does cheaper TV with less commercials or better movies. Entertainment is always purely an option, one you don't have to get involved in. When it comes to entertainment you are owed nothing, ever.
If a company wants MY money then **** right that I deserve what I want for it. It's called a service, and in service the customer is always right. If a company wants my money then I want a good product for it and if I don't like it I should be able to return it. When you flood the market with product that doesn't mean that we have to give the industry slack for pushing out a lesser product and charge the same price as an already establish product. Yes, it sucks but that's buisness for you. Don't blame the customer for not liking a product.
Too broad of a statement and there are too many variables. "Don't like a product"? You buy it, you play it, it's a solidly designed and performing game, but you just don't like it? You like it, but your system doesn't meet the minimum requirements? Your system meets the minimum requirements and the game runs, but you're pissed it doesn't run at maximum graphics settings? Is the game truly flawed?
Why don't we just make all games free to download and free to play with optional payment systems. Then, nobody can complain about what they didn't pay for. If they like the game, they can choose to keep paying and possibly support it through some sort of purchase. If not, they can move on.
Stardock has always impressed me as a developer. Their mantra is/was "We are a company of gamers for gamers..." and I believe it.
They put out good products and patch them quickly when there are bugs. The one time I had a problem with one of their products (which did incidentally conflict with one item of their Gamers Bill of RIghts) they made it right with no BS.
They have proved that you don't have to pull all kinds of underhanded stuff, even in this day and age, to be successful and protect your gaming IP at the expense of the customer.
I think they put out the Gamers Bill of Rights, knowing that they were one of the few companies that could live up to it.
Ridiculous, and it is ridiculous everytime someone tries to do something like this.
A company that invests 50-100 million in a product gets a hell of a lot more say on how/when/where that product is used then the person who spent $60, simple as that. And no that doesn't mean you should get to pirate the game so your friends can have copies either, what kind of stupid thought process is that?
People have this odd thought that they deserve/are entitled to so much stuff just because they exist.
You are entitled to only a few things (in the USA, less in some other countries) and crap like this doesn't even come close. Neither does cheaper TV with less commercials or better movies. Entertainment is always purely an option, one you don't have to get involved in. When it comes to entertainment you are owed nothing, ever.
If a company wants MY money then **** right that I deserve what I want for it. It's called a service, and in service the customer is always right. If a company wants my money then I want a good product for it and if I don't like it I should be able to return it. When you flood the market with product that doesn't mean that we have to give the industry slack for pushing out a lesser product and charge the same price as an already establish product. Yes, it sucks but that's buisness for you. Don't blame the customer for not liking a product.
You've made a good point. Why are games treated differently from other consumer products? Why can't you return a game for a full refund? Why don't developers hold themselves to the same standards as durable goods? Just questions. I just think gamers have not realized that they too have power in transactions (Porter's five forces). Maybe it's because most gamers have been 'trained' by gaming companies from a very young age to accept that all sales are final. Although piracy is an issue, should developers treat all customers like pirates (unless your playing Pirates of the Burning Sea, lol).
They put out good products and patch them quickly when there are bugs. The one time I had a problem with one of their products (which did incidentally conflict with one item of their Gamers Bill of RIghts) they made it right with no BS.
why would they need to patch any bugs if there games follow there own bill?
They should have been released finsihed according to the games own developers.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
They put out good products and patch them quickly when there are bugs. The one time I had a problem with one of their products (which did incidentally conflict with one item of their Gamers Bill of RIghts) they made it right with no BS.
why would they need to patch any bugs if there games follow there own bill?
They should have been released finsihed according to the games own developers.
You're right. The Stardock CEO says you are right. Everyone agrees with you. The Bill is an ideal. Does the Bill of rights get followed by everyone?? No it doesn't. But it provides recourse and justice. Stardock's Gamer's Bill of Rights is an attempt to deliver gamers justice when they feel like they have been given the run-around by developers.
A bunch of those don't really apply to an MMO. #9 is even in direct opposition to the second 'M' in an MMO. I'm in favor of the first few talking about returning a game or making sure a game doesn't install harmful or invasive programs, but the rest is a lot of overly dramatic and non-applicable nonsense to me. I'll have to vote "No" until it's revised - and my vote counts twice to offset all the kids that just click yes on polls automatically! Mwha ha ha ha.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
A bunch of those don't really apply to an MMO. #9 is even in direct opposition to the second 'M' in an MMO. I'm in favor of the first few talking about returning a game or making sure a game doesn't install harmful or invasive programs, but the rest is a lot of overly dramatic and non-applicable nonsense to me. I'll have to vote "No" until it's revised - and my vote counts twice to offset all the kids that just click yes on polls automatically! Mwha ha ha ha.
Everything that's common sense and that applies to ALL software is good to keep, the rest is just silly in a capitalistic commercial environment and usually not how the said world works
Originally posted by warmaster670 why would they need to patch any bugs if there games follow there own bill?
They should have been released finsihed according to the games own developers.
All software gets released in the same state, that is just how it's always worked. It's not just games that need post-release updates and patches, it's every single piece of software out there.
In other words players have a silly and unrealistic notion of what "finished" means, when it comes to software.
The only real exception to that is the old console cartridge games, and even then at some point updates started getting released, once consoles had some form of HD's
Ridiculous, and it is ridiculous everytime someone tries to do something like this.
A company that invests 50-100 million in a product gets a hell of a lot more say on how/when/where that product is used then the person who spent $60, simple as that. And no that doesn't mean you should get to pirate the game so your friends can have copies either, what kind of stupid thought process is that?
People have this odd thought that they deserve/are entitled to so much stuff just because they exist.
You are entitled to only a few things (in the USA, less in some other countries) and crap like this doesn't even come close. Neither does cheaper TV with less commercials or better movies. Entertainment is always purely an option, one you don't have to get involved in. When it comes to entertainment you are owed nothing, ever.
The majority of companies have an even more skewed perception of what they deserve, and should be allowed to do.
The irony of it all, is that a good chunk of the "$50-100 million" is being wasted on administration costs tied to ridiculously large bonuses to company executives, as well as being wasted on development and enforcement of DRM that has questionable (if not outright ineffective) results. So because they "have" to pay out more for those "expenses", they need to demand more from the consumer to alleviate the company's "costs" of the game, to ensure that their profit margin is nice and padded so their quarterly sharehodler statement looks nice.
If they just didn't pay their executives ridiculous sums of money in bonuses, or bothered with trying to jam DRM down the throats of consumers, they could charge less money, and still end up with a hefty profit margin.
Originally posted by Ceridith If they just didn't pay their executives ridiculous sums of money in bonuses, or bothered with trying to jam DRM down the throats of consumers, they could charge less money, and still end up with a hefty profit margin.
In other words evil mega-corporations eh? Let us vote with our money, even if they make something pretty interesting, refuse to buy it!
why would they need to patch any bugs if there games follow there own bill?
They should have been released finsihed according to the games own developers.
All software gets released in the same state, that is just how it's always worked. It's not just games that need post-release updates and patches, it's every single piece of software out there.
In other words players have a silly and unrealistic notion of what "finished" means, when it comes to software.
The only real exception to that is the old console cartridge games, and even then at some point updates started getting released, once consoles had some form of HD's
I disagree. Early computer games in the 80's were released in a finished state. I never heard of any sort of patch for Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, or Space Quest. Even Wasteland was released complete.
Your logic is flawed. When the internet was not common developers had no choice but to release complete games. It is not a sign of consumers wanting more, rather it is a sign of consumers wanting what we had nearly 25 years ago that disappeared when the internet became available to virtually everyone.
why would they need to patch any bugs if there games follow there own bill?
They should have been released finsihed according to the games own developers.
All software gets released in the same state, that is just how it's always worked. It's not just games that need post-release updates and patches, it's every single piece of software out there.
In other words players have a silly and unrealistic notion of what "finished" means, when it comes to software.
The only real exception to that is the old console cartridge games, and even then at some point updates started getting released, once consoles had some form of HD's
I disagree. Early computer games in the 80's were released in a finished state. I never heard of any sort of patch for Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, or Space Quest. Even Wasteland was released complete.
Your logic is flawed. When the internet was not common developers had no choice but to release complete games. It is not a sign of consumers wanting more, rather it is a sign of consumers wanting what we had nearly 25 years ago that disappeared when the internet became available to virtually everyone.
your logic is flawed, because a game doesnt get a patch its somehow finished?
So if i bring out a buggy mess right now, and never patch it, its released complete? but if i patch it its not?
They didnt patch those games because they couldnt, or if they could it just wasnt worth it, thats like saying every single console game released up until the 360/ps3 era was released completely finished because they never got patched.
And on topic, gamers dont deserve any of these rights till they learn to act like adults instead of children, anyone whos read a gaming forum should know exactly what i mean.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling" Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Originally posted by CymTyr I disagree. Early computer games in the 80's were released in a finished state. I never heard of any sort of patch for Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, or Space Quest. Even Wasteland was released complete. Your logic is flawed. When the internet was not common developers had no choice but to release complete games. It is not a sign of consumers wanting more, rather it is a sign of consumers wanting what we had nearly 25 years ago that disappeared when the internet became available to virtually everyone.
Yea, I'm sorry but I had software updates on vic20, software updates on c64, software updates on amiga500, plus on the x86 PC's and up, so I don't know what you are talking about.
As a gamer, you only have ONE rights, that is, you have the rights to refuse to buy a game, or anything, from a certain company.
Which is also your rights as a consumer.
I think people are too into themselves that they believe that they are entitled for everything, creating rights where it doesn't exist, or punishing a certain entity in a business deal.
The reason for places like MMORPG.com is to help you be educated on game products before you purchase them. Because once you purchase the product, you agree to ALL of their terms.
As a gamer, you only have ONE rights, that is, you have the rights to refuse to buy a game, or anything, from a certain company.
Which is also your rights as a consumer.
I think people are too into themselves that they believe that they are entitled for everything, creating rights where it doesn't exist, or punishing a certain entity in a business deal.
The reason for places like MMORPG.com is to help you be educated on game products before you purchase them. Because once you purchase the product, you agree to ALL of their terms.
I am going to have to agree with this one, as a gamer beyond your choice of buying a game or not you have no right nor say unless you have a large controlling interest in the company making the game. The company making the game on the other hand has the option to listen to your opinions or to disregard them based on their best interests and not that of the individual gamer, sad but true that games are made just for You or just for me, just give it time and a developer might make a game you like.
We go trough life with many yet there is a time we must walk our path alone.
Comments
Should MMO developers adopt something similar to the Gamer's Bill of rights? Should the gamer's bill of rights be changed for the MMO industry?
It shouldn't exist for any games.
Question: if a game is complete when launched, why does it need updates?
If there is additional content the developers want to add to the game, then the game was not complete when it launched.
basically, the whole idea is kind of stupid, especially considering you will never get the development teams within a given company to agree on them, let alone getting different companies to agree.
Then why would a developer create the Gamer's Bill of Rights and suggest that the industry as a whole adopt it's principles?
Because he wasn't thinking?
Maybe he was drunk at the time, I don't know.
What I do know, is that no company will adopt a document that conflicts with itself, as pointed out in my last post. I would wager that even the company that this mysterous game developer of yours works for has not adopted this, let alone any other company.
As indicated above, irrespective of the type of game, the Bill of Rights is flawed. The intent of it is good, but it's impossible to adhere to. Also, please note that what you posted is different than the current Gamers' Bill of Rights:
Gamers shall have the right to return games to the publisher that are incompatible or do not function at a reasonable level of performance for a full refund within a reasonable amount of time.
Gamers shall have the right that games they purchase shall function as designed without technical defects that would materially affect the player experience. This determination shall be made by the players.
Gamers shall have the right that games will receive updates that address minor defects as well as improve game play based on player feedback within reason.
Gamers shall have the right to have their games not require a third-party download manager installed in order for the game to function.
Games shall have the right to have their games perform adequately if their hardware meets the posted minimum requirements.
Gamers shall not have their games install hidden drivers onto their computers.
Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest version of the games they purchase.
Gamers have the right to use their games without being inconvenienced due to copy protection or digital rights management
Gamers shall have the right to play single-player games without requiring an internet connection
Gamers shall have the right to sell or transfer the ownership of a physical copy of a game they own to another person.
Even revised, which is better, it's still a flawed document. It's also possible to be easily abused. What if somebody buys a game, pirates it and returns it? What if it's a MMO and somebody buys it, puts a ton of first month hours into it and powerlevels to end game content and then returns it? What's reasonable? Does the developer take a Nordstrom's approach to customer server and just accept every return without question? That's just not possible with games. The potential for abuse is too great.
At best, the Bill of Rights is a good general customer service mission statement for an individual company.
~Ripper
Since Stardock the creator of this document has never come anywhere close to article #2 themselves,look at the launch stat of Sins,Demigod and now Elemental,I find the crediblity of this document shaky heh.
If a company wants MY money then **** right that I deserve what I want for it. It's called a service, and in service the customer is always right. If a company wants my money then I want a good product for it and if I don't like it I should be able to return it. When you flood the market with product that doesn't mean that we have to give the industry slack for pushing out a lesser product and charge the same price as an already establish product. Yes, it sucks but that's buisness for you. Don't blame the customer for not liking a product.
This is demonstratibly wrong.
If you and I are purchasing the same game, but we want contradicting features in said game, who is right?
Too broad of a statement and there are too many variables. "Don't like a product"? You buy it, you play it, it's a solidly designed and performing game, but you just don't like it? You like it, but your system doesn't meet the minimum requirements? Your system meets the minimum requirements and the game runs, but you're pissed it doesn't run at maximum graphics settings? Is the game truly flawed?
Why don't we just make all games free to download and free to play with optional payment systems. Then, nobody can complain about what they didn't pay for. If they like the game, they can choose to keep paying and possibly support it through some sort of purchase. If not, they can move on.
~Ripper
Stardock has always impressed me as a developer. Their mantra is/was "We are a company of gamers for gamers..." and I believe it.
They put out good products and patch them quickly when there are bugs. The one time I had a problem with one of their products (which did incidentally conflict with one item of their Gamers Bill of RIghts) they made it right with no BS.
They have proved that you don't have to pull all kinds of underhanded stuff, even in this day and age, to be successful and protect your gaming IP at the expense of the customer.
I think they put out the Gamers Bill of Rights, knowing that they were one of the few companies that could live up to it.
You've made a good point. Why are games treated differently from other consumer products? Why can't you return a game for a full refund? Why don't developers hold themselves to the same standards as durable goods? Just questions. I just think gamers have not realized that they too have power in transactions (Porter's five forces). Maybe it's because most gamers have been 'trained' by gaming companies from a very young age to accept that all sales are final. Although piracy is an issue, should developers treat all customers like pirates (unless your playing Pirates of the Burning Sea, lol).
why would they need to patch any bugs if there games follow there own bill?
They should have been released finsihed according to the games own developers.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
You're right. The Stardock CEO says you are right. Everyone agrees with you. The Bill is an ideal. Does the Bill of rights get followed by everyone?? No it doesn't. But it provides recourse and justice. Stardock's Gamer's Bill of Rights is an attempt to deliver gamers justice when they feel like they have been given the run-around by developers.
A bunch of those don't really apply to an MMO. #9 is even in direct opposition to the second 'M' in an MMO. I'm in favor of the first few talking about returning a game or making sure a game doesn't install harmful or invasive programs, but the rest is a lot of overly dramatic and non-applicable nonsense to me. I'll have to vote "No" until it's revised - and my vote counts twice to offset all the kids that just click yes on polls automatically! Mwha ha ha ha.
The morning sun has vanquished the horrible night.
Should something similar be applicable to MMO's?
Everything that's common sense and that applies to ALL software is good to keep, the rest is just silly in a capitalistic commercial environment and usually not how the said world works
All software gets released in the same state, that is just how it's always worked. It's not just games that need post-release updates and patches, it's every single piece of software out there.
In other words players have a silly and unrealistic notion of what "finished" means, when it comes to software.
The only real exception to that is the old console cartridge games, and even then at some point updates started getting released, once consoles had some form of HD's
The majority of companies have an even more skewed perception of what they deserve, and should be allowed to do.
The irony of it all, is that a good chunk of the "$50-100 million" is being wasted on administration costs tied to ridiculously large bonuses to company executives, as well as being wasted on development and enforcement of DRM that has questionable (if not outright ineffective) results. So because they "have" to pay out more for those "expenses", they need to demand more from the consumer to alleviate the company's "costs" of the game, to ensure that their profit margin is nice and padded so their quarterly sharehodler statement looks nice.
If they just didn't pay their executives ridiculous sums of money in bonuses, or bothered with trying to jam DRM down the throats of consumers, they could charge less money, and still end up with a hefty profit margin.
In other words evil mega-corporations eh? Let us vote with our money, even if they make something pretty interesting, refuse to buy it!
I disagree. Early computer games in the 80's were released in a finished state. I never heard of any sort of patch for Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, or Space Quest. Even Wasteland was released complete.
Your logic is flawed. When the internet was not common developers had no choice but to release complete games. It is not a sign of consumers wanting more, rather it is a sign of consumers wanting what we had nearly 25 years ago that disappeared when the internet became available to virtually everyone.
your logic is flawed, because a game doesnt get a patch its somehow finished?
So if i bring out a buggy mess right now, and never patch it, its released complete? but if i patch it its not?
They didnt patch those games because they couldnt, or if they could it just wasnt worth it, thats like saying every single console game released up until the 360/ps3 era was released completely finished because they never got patched.
And on topic, gamers dont deserve any of these rights till they learn to act like adults instead of children, anyone whos read a gaming forum should know exactly what i mean.
Apparently stating the truth in my sig is "trolling"
Sig typo fixed thanks to an observant stragen001.
Yea, I'm sorry but I had software updates on vic20, software updates on c64, software updates on amiga500, plus on the x86 PC's and up, so I don't know what you are talking about.
The medium was different, but it still happened.
You have the right to spend or not spend your money on a product
You have the right to research the product on the internet, or post your own review of it
You have the right to contact the Better Business Bureau if you feel like you were grossly mislead by the product's advertising
That's it, fellas.
I think this is silly.
As a gamer, you only have ONE rights, that is, you have the rights to refuse to buy a game, or anything, from a certain company.
Which is also your rights as a consumer.
I think people are too into themselves that they believe that they are entitled for everything, creating rights where it doesn't exist, or punishing a certain entity in a business deal.
The reason for places like MMORPG.com is to help you be educated on game products before you purchase them. Because once you purchase the product, you agree to ALL of their terms.
Ready for GW2!!!
I am going to have to agree with this one, as a gamer beyond your choice of buying a game or not you have no right nor say unless you have a large controlling interest in the company making the game. The company making the game on the other hand has the option to listen to your opinions or to disregard them based on their best interests and not that of the individual gamer, sad but true that games are made just for You or just for me, just give it time and a developer might make a game you like.
We go trough life with many yet there is a time we must walk our path alone.