I'm sorry but your point is moot. Being a gamer that has been on deployments where we had to endure extremely slow shared satellite links (try 1000+ people sharing a 1.5meg satlink its not pretty) to having no internet connection at all you simply cannot complain about 'patching'. Why?

1. You have to download the patch somewhere anyway so what's so bad about only having it on Impulse?

2. If you could even get the patch on a computer gaming magazine cover disc chances are you're in such a remote locality with these substandard internet connections or no connectivity at all then it is highly unlikely you will receive the latest computer gaming magazines at your nearest px store (considering there is even a px store!)

3. Purchasing games online is a double edged coin depending on where you live. For example if you're in Australia then you will easily pay up to A$100 for a new release game where as you can order online from asian delivery firms for US$50 which comes out to about A$55 + delivery with current exchange rates. This is still a hell of a lot cheaper than the uncompetitive retailers in Australia even with the delivery costs attached.

4. Once you patch you can archive/backup your games so next time you install you don't need to patch again! If limited connectivity is available this is a hell of a lot hassle free than having to look for which external you put that patch file in.

Hmmm... Misuse of others resources and stuff you have to pay for and have other inherent costs and even DRM checking to boot. Seems like a very weak position.

I got to agree that it is not fleshed out enough to be treatened as something like law. But it can serve to deliver some guidelines for the gaming industry.

The unavailbility of broadband connections in some regions is more of a technology and development of infrastructure problem.

Also, gamers are expecting the industry to always make better and larger games. You cannot at the same time expect them to make those games work with 56k modems.

How about this one: the right to transfer ownership of your licence to somebody else at a later date.

No other industry gets money when I sell something I own to someone else, why should the games industry be any different? I read a book. I give it to someone else, give it to charity or even sell it on. I buy a car and the warranty service goes with it when I sell it (if it's still in the right time frame of course). I understand that technically I am buying a licence when I buy a game, but why are games licenced in such a harsh way when plenty of other digital media (and of course non-digital media) isn't? Next you'll be telling me that I can only play through the game a limited amount of times before I need to buy another licence.

Note that I have no problem putting the DVD in the drive everytime I want to play - this doesn't bother me at all and I am not a pirate.

It's what I would call a good start.

Right what do I see wrong with this notion of "rights".

1. It's called the Gamers Bill of Rights, why because it's for gamers to producers, then again, how can we as a community in mass, which would include all game genre types, define ourselves, in the Gamers quota?

2. To call it as it is, and have put out there to be seen by other producers, most won't agree, since EA went from being a humble little company of producers to a big ass Corporation, that focuses on multiple fronts. Their big hitters games, such as their sports games, don't seem practical enough to hit this Bill of Rights, at any angle.

3. This sounds great, but it also sounds too bad, since if one were to think on it clearly, they would be required to have Impulse, EA downloader, Activision's little monster nightmare, Gamespy downloader, Steam, and so on and so forth, to just get updates, receive micro downloads, and other add ons to games they own.

4. The word micro transactions, I hate to say sounds criminal on the part of the Producers of games, why simple, I'm in the Stock Market, I understand the placement production of micro transactions, should always be put before a Panel of Scrunity, when it gets too damn aggressive with it's micro transactions. One good example of a micro transactions, would be PORN Sites, you pay for your trial period of one day to one week, then later down the road, you realize, your bank in red, down to negative numbers. You owe the bank, the company you bought the game from, and other peoples, which include third parties, even when you don't agree with the third party rule.

5. To call it the Gamers Bill of Rights, by a producer, seems redundant at best, since it's made by Producers, which in this case must first argue with the consumers such as all of us, over the definition of the word Gamers. They would then have to ask, us the consumers what we want, what we demand, and what we wish to see in all future projects with all corporations. They'll have to put an Convention together to get all gamers, both producers, consumers, modders, and the like to come together, to discuss this, not in forum, but in person, which would take months to put together and orginize.

6. To even discuss this in panel, and delegation would be a long road to follow for both producers and consumers alike, which could sort of stopper all placement products in the future, and take up too much time from us the Gamers, from actually playing the games.

7. To orginize, would mean, each and every forum online ever created, would have to interact with each other, set up times and dates for discussion, delegations would have to be put forward to represent the entire body of gamers, and this whole thing would have to include all, not just, us here in the USA, but all. Which would take too much time.

8. Don't write a Bill of Rights, and not think that there would be thinkers writing against this, which I am. I don't like the idea, since all would disagree with it's idea. Both producers and consumers would be forced to think, but they will not act, and more or less disregard such notions as a Bill of Rights.

9. The idea for a Bill of Rights, would be great, but first and formost the consumers not the producers would have to come forward with a rough draft of the Bill before ever coming up with a true Bill altogether. This is why it's made both difficult and arbitrary to the facts laid down by all in this sort of inconceivable time consuming process.

10. Finally, saying a demand of updates won't always work, I've been on this forum for Sins now since it came out, and all I've seen in any sort of updates is simply not consumer driven. Yes they listened to some of us, but most overall, have been sort of ignored, the same applies to Steam, EA, Activision, and Bioware, all have learned over the years, it's the consumer who is always right, and should be listened to since are idea's are both straightforward, out there, and sometimes mullagan, but worht it to listen.

The idea, for a Bill of Rights, sounds great but to think of it, causes headaches, tears, and blood to seap from the nose. To suggest however a Bill of Rights, makes one dream of a better tommorrow, where it's not the Producers, making demands, but the consumer making such demands as to push forward actions by the Producers.

Traise713

Uhhh... arent they already breaking this by reqireing people to enter their First and last name, zipcode(in some cases), and the key code in order to get updates? Im fine about they key code, however everything else is quite excessive. I have a book of cd's that reqire nothing but the CD key (some dont even reqire one) for any feature of the game.

I think that's used if you're a customer. Not sure if it's mandatory either.

We can't exactly stop you from entering bogus information (lots of people do), but then you can't complain if you don't remember what you put in when it comes to online purchase stuff or last-resort account recovery.

Traise713's post brought up some good points (see points #3, #7, and #10), though I think he overinterpreted the "Gamers Bill of Rights" when he brought up a possible union of delegates that represent the entire body of gamers, among other things.  There is a big difference between a genuine democratic process and "new" industry standards, at least in current society.

Regarding this supposed "Gamers Bill of Rights", it should be obvious to everyone that this is no "Gamers Bill of Rights" at all.  There is nothing revolutionary about it--many other companies have been honouring many of these "rights" for years.  Other "rights", such as the right to a "finished" game, are extremely ambiguous--for instance:

1)  If a game is finished, does an expansion pack "finish" the game even more?

Assuming a game is finished, it should have all the content/etc. already in it--you can't "expand" on something that is "finished".

As a note, Stardock has released many expansion packs to many of its games, including several upcoming expansion packs for SoaSE.

2)  Is there really a big distinction between a download manager being "forced" to run before you can start your game, compared to a download manager being "forced" to run so you can update and THEN play your game?

Obviously there is a difference--being forced all of the time or being forced every once in a while.

3)  The "Gamers Bill of Rights" states that gamers should expect to not have hidden drivers and other potentially harmful software installed without their consent.  But whenever anybody installs ANYTHING, there is always an "Accept" or "Decline" option--aka software always asks for the user's consent.  Thus, wouldn't software companies almost ALWAYS have user consent, whether or not it was actually meant?

This is particularly important because most users don't actually read the agreements they "consent" to.  Thus, companies can sneak whatever malicious stuff they want to into their agreements, get a rubber stamp from the unwary consumers, do bad things, and get away with it because it is "legal".

"The Gamers Bill of Rights" seems like a nice idea.  However, customers should read it for what it really is.  That is, "The Gamers Bill of Rights" is merely propaganda that makes gamers feel good, in turn resulting in increased gamer vulnerability to Stardock's customer lock-in schemes (like Impulse-exclusive "deals").

A teaspoon of sugar helps the "medicine" go down...

I agree with the above following by Venym, and sorry man just was a bit angry that day, with all the political crap on tv, about my State's Governor being attacked by both the media, and the Dems.

I mean seriously, today they started attacking the state as a whole saying our teen pregancy is higher then that of the rest of the country. But, to get into context, it wasn't us that said it was ok for kids to have kids, last I checked, mainstream Hollywood made that clear, that it's the cool thing to do. From Jamie Spears, to Juno, they totally missed the point it wasn't us, it's them. Then again, our Governor made it all better, when she up and targeted everybody from the media, to the Washington Elite, hell she blew everone out of the water yesterday, why do you think Mccain came out half way through her speech to stop her.

Now, back to point, he's right, propaganda it is, mmmmhmmm, sense a disturbance in the force I do. Grave danger we gamers/jedi/sith i guess, are in, the dark side(elitist media, huge corps, and gaming production) of the force clouds everything, makes impossible to see the movements of the evil ones(preferrably Bill Gates aka Darth Sidious).

wow this is cool but are other compenies in on it or just SD and IC

You'll have to contact your provider about that, I successfully downloaded every update prior to 1.05 on a dial-up connection and actually successfully played a game of sins on ICO with a 28.8 kbps dialup connection.

Thankfully I don't have to deal with that connection anymore

EDIT: P.S. The patches are always available on the sins site... I have yet to download a single patch through impulse.

Possibly the best bill of Rights ever for gamers. 

Actually, no.  In the era of digital downloads, this is important.  If I don't have a hard copy of something I pair for, then I better be able to redownload it two years down the road if I decide to play it again.  Other than that, yeah this is sad that it actually has to be laid out for some companies.  Far too many games fail point #2 these days.  I should be able to play a game out of box from start to finish with no major problems.  I can't remember the last time a bought a game that didn't need a major patch within the first month of release.  Blame the publishers though.  Relic used to be a good company, but with the Company of Heroes expansion that game now fails #8-10.  They even took away LAN play for no good reason, other than to presumably reduce piracy.  Hint to THQ: it didn't.

I loled at Chris Talyor supporting this though, considering the original TA and Supreme Commander failed #5 HARD.  I believe TA said it could run an a P100 with 16 MB ram.  Hahaha, oh my.  No.  And SupCom, despite my system exceeding the RECOMMENDED requirements, gave me framerates of around 5 or 6 when battles broke out in a 4 player game.  That's some fine lying on package there boys.