I like the complete list, expecially Nr.10, it's annoying as hell to keep your CD/DVD in your DVD-ROM just to check for the original. 

No-cd patches are still not allowed to use, but i use them nowadays anyway because without them

- it hurts the CD/DVDs in the long term (CD/DVDs should be only needed if you want to install the game)

- and it's just super annoying to switch the discs, expecially if you have like 20+ games installed.

Well stated.  I try to avoid games that violate some of these statements so I hope publishers that conform to them get better sales, but so far, it's only Stardock.  I've been screwed by #1 a couple times, that's a biggie for me.

Well, that makes the purchasing process that much easier then, doesn't it? 

GD this site is slow as hell lately. This page is STILL loading after I finished typing all of this. It's trying to download a ton of little images.  It's really stupid design.  And once I hit stop to kill the wait and scores of images DID finally show up, my post got reformatted and obliterated and I had to reformat it.

How about we add the first amendment to this:  companies will use simple, effective, and commonly used forum software that doesn't suck instead of creating their own forum software that does suck.

Anyways

I like it except maybe #3, because I even though I like getting free extas after the fact I don't think you can count on it. I'd ammend it to say that although games SHOULD be finished and relatively bug free at release, that players should be able to expect games to be patched to completion and have bugs fixed after release (since this doesn't always happen).

#7 is somewhat unrealistic too. Some companies can't even maintain a simple website for themselves - expecting them to facilitate or pay someone else to facilitate multi gig downloads is unreasonable.

Unfortunately, the big companies that could pull off most of this don't care to - especially the parts about treating paying customers like criminals. Smaller companies have little hope of doing most of it unless they're already mostly doing digital distro.

If the industry at large conformed to that list, I would be a happy man indeed. The only other publisher I can think of that sticks to this consistently is Valve.

...it's no coicidence, then, that the majority of my purchases are either through Stardock or Steam these days.

Well, it's nice to see that StarDock's marketing people are out in full force. It's not all marketing drivel, but there's far more of that than necessary.

You... you're kidding, right? Considering the state of GalCiv2's initial release, you guys have some nerve. But I guess it's easier to tell others what to do than to do it yourselves...

Then again, I notice that it is "have the right to demand...", not that "Gamers shall have the right to expect..." So yes, you can ask for things, but don't get your hopes up

Um, why? If the game was perfect to begin with, what would we need with "meaningful updates?"

Are filmmakers expected to provide "meaningful updates" to their movies? Are musicians expected to provide "meaningful updates" to their songs?

The very concept that game developers should have to keep providing content for a game is errant nonsense. I mean, it's fine if they want, but they shouldn't have to, nor should gamers expect them to (unless the developer said they would and reneged).

Nope. Doing that doesn't benefit StarDock, or needlessly take a swing at the competition, therefore it doesn't go in the bill of rights.

How about some real rights? Like:

- Gamers have the right to a UI and colorscheme that colorblind people can still play effectively.

- Gamers have the right to closed-captioning: that is, anything that delivers an audio cue must also have a visual cue or some form of text.

Things that will actually improve the player experience.

Erm... I'm sorry, but GC2 was most certainly "finished" on release! It was feature complete, as well as more stable and bug free than the majority of releases. I think that part of the bill of rights is more in reference ot the games that come out feeling like they're still in alpha, and need a patch to even be playable!

As for updates, comparing games to movies isn't really useful. Aside from the fact that NOTHING comes out "perfect", movies are recordings of predefined events, not interactive software. Software these days is essentially a service these days, as much as we'd like it to be otherwise. Besides, a movie or piece of music never has a bug in it, whatever else it's failing might be, while software (game or not) is guaranteed to have bugs as it becomes more and more complicated... it's simply the nature of the beast. And let me tell you, having a developer never touch their product again despite significant gameplay or technical flaws is incredibly infuriating, since you feel like you've just lost $60 and/or an experience that you were otherwise very happy with.

Now, that's not to say that there aren't other things they should add to the list. The "right to accessability" you mention is an excellent idea, if perhaps a bit impractical for many game designs.

And yes, Stardock's list there DOES contain things that improve the experience. Digging around for a CD that you've lost for a game you legitimately own is an incredibly unpleasant experience... I recently wanted to replay Freelancer, but the damned thing has apparently grown legs and taken its chances with the wild....

Maybe you could add a #11: Gamers shall not be forced to configure their routers to play an online game!

Now if only Stardock could get the rights to Spore, DCS Black Shark and a few other games I want to play in between GalCiv sessions without infecting my system with burdensome DRM

Why is it that no other publishers "get it" ?

Now, THAT's what i call innovative customer support.

7a... Piece-of-mind; steady & fullproof operation of bought software is much more than things such as archives, backups and original CDs - it means that the distributor is protecting someone's investment by allowing the product to be *continually* available & in *solid* condition under whatever tragic circumstances enforced to a PC into total chaos even if by accidental events (Virus, flawed OS, etc).

8a... Thieves should be punished by Justice, that's a social responsability. Honesty is something precious and exactly where_how most people claim to own any software - legally. The distinction stands in the wording of **potential** which, in fact, is a form of trust. A reasonable and intelligent way of thinking. If this world is to become fair to all - something certainly HAS to be done in that direction.

I'm quite impressed by the formula; A Bill of Rights for gamers might feel like a joke (to some) but when you seriously try to foresee some of the consequences of such principle(s) - you can only conclude that products quality is mostly above & beyond any profit. I truly respect that in others.

I could issue some analogy to better illustrate; MS "Genuine Advantage" gimmicks!

Kudos for having the guts, Stardock!

I wouldn't say Stardock is doing this because they're nice folks, but because they believe that this is the way to maximize long-term profitability.  It works, at least in my case.

As for GC2, I'd say that was released complete, but buggy- with the bugs eventually fixed.  I don't think it's possible to get a game 100% right now on the first try.  95% isn't impossible though, and GC2 met that standard.  That said, not having MP made discovery of bugs and glitches a lot slower, I expect not-MoM to appear buggier then GCII did, even if the coding is better.

This is pretty ironic to me because a Stardock game was the only game I haven't been able to play right "out of the box" so to speak due entirely to DRM, and ignorance about Stardock's DRM policies on my part. I bought Gal Civ 2 the gold edition a while back, and while I was on an extended trip I noticed that the expansion pack Twilight of the Arnor just came out, great! And it is a digital download, awesome, I can kill a long weekend with it! Right? Wrong. Turns out I couldn't install it because I'd never registered my original games with Stardock Central, although I tried, it was a confusing process that I never quite got through. And I didn't have the original numbers with me to register them right then since I was away from home. Even though I already had the full game and the first expansion installed on my computer, I couldn't install the expansion because I hadn't completed an optional step in the installation process. Basically, I was a legitimate customer stuck with a worthless pile of bits because Stardock was trying to prevent piracy, and I had no recourse that would allow me to play the game that I bought. Very not good.

The good news is Stardock customer service was really great and provided helpful replies explaining the policy, how it worked, and giving me a full refund when I asked for it. So I left pretty happy and I know for sure this company is dedicated to its customers. They're really great despite my complaints. But still, they could go a ways towards living up to their own goals. Even now I've been too busy to go searching for the original CDs so I can buy the expansion, the moment has passed, and they lost $30. For now at least, but I'll probably cave in eventually when I've got the time again. It sounds really fun!

1. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.
2. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release.

Non sequitur.

(should be #'s 2 and 3, but the way this site allows for copying and pasting messes things up, it seems.)

If it is released in its finished state there would be no need for updates.

GalCiv2 DL is currently at 1.5 - after 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4. And we DL 1.5 users are expecting a 2.0 release, as per what certain devs have said in that regard. So to say that we should expect a finished game on its initial release is, really, stupid - to say the least.

Other than that - I fully agree.

Really, just delete #2 and everything is fine. (unless 9 rights are somehow less perfect than 10?)

You have to look at this from another perspective - the point about releasing games in a finished state, means you have to release a generally bug-free game that works as intended, e.g., a version 1.0, not a 0.7 beta renamed to final.

If that point is fulfilled, number three is NOT redundant. It does say updates, not bugfixes. An update should be regarded as a minor expansion, adding new, subtle things, that enrich the gaming experience, like a new race, or command, or tech branch. Thats when the numbers 1.1 etc have a meaning - It is a full 1.0 version, bug free, with the addons that the 1.1 update (Not Patch, mind this) introduce.

Again, the third point does NOT cover Patches and bugfixes - it regards Updates, and there lies the core difference and reason why Numbers 2 and 3 are valid.

Everyone seems to be getting upset about the "finished state / future updates" thing but it's just wording.

"Finished" is an awkward word and was probably chosen to avoid an over-long clause.  Something like:

"complete as per the advertised features and fully playable without further update"

Something can be finished as per the above statement and still be improved upon.  You buy a new house and still decorate it, buy a new car and get the furry dice ...

I would split the updates clause:

"Gamers have the right to expect readily available timely patches to fix identified bugs"

and, since I dont think all games could or necessarily should be updated w.r.t. content (it doesnt really fit to add content to a heavily plot-driven game):

... actually I am struggling to come up with a clause that covers this.  Where do you draw the line - when do "meaningful updates" become "expansion packs".  Tricky.

I think what you are aiming for here is that gamers should be able to assume that a developer is not going to dump the game on the market and run away and should continue to actively support their product.  It gets very difficult when you talk about additional content - it's a commercial decision which will be influenced by how well the game does too.