Slashdot Mirror


Is It Time To Enforce a Gamers' Bill of Rights?

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."

13 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. Better off enforcing an EA boycott by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, as long as you keep buying from them, do you think they give a shit about your "gamers bill of rights"? Here is how EA looks at rights: "We've got a right to your money, you've got a right to give us your money and STFU." And as long as you keep playing that game, they're going to keep screwing you.

    Why should they care if the game actually works? They got your money and they know that no matter how much you bitch, you'll be standing right there in line for the next one--begging to be butt-raped by EA *yet again*.

    Oh, and my favorite quote from the article:

    This was loosely based on the Gamers' Bill of Rights website, which hasn't been updated in three years

    Yeah, fight the power. Such a powerful and organized movement must be giving EA nightmares, while they sleep on a big pile of your money.

    1. Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is true, but there's no way to tell a company that they haven't got your money for a specific reason. A game flops when people don't buy DRM stuff(or more accurately the informed audience doesn't and the game does slightly worse than average), and EA just says "oh, no one wants complex city-builders anymore, let's just put that money back into the sports and shovelware departments."

      There needs to be some way of specifically telling companies: We don't want to be abused.

    2. Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott by Bardez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and "multiplayer servers shall remain active for at least 3 years".

      I have a problem with this guideline. I really do. There should, in all cases of multiplayer networked capability, be a direct connection ability and/or a server program that you can download and install. This was pretty standard not too long ago, where you could set up a private server if you wanted to. It should be standard again. If you buy something, the product should not have a lifespan the ends with no usability. It should end with no further support, where the user can install and tweak and run in 20+ years.

      --
      Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
    3. Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott by amicusNYCL · · 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.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If anything, we just need a more organized boycott method.

      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?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It doesn't matter. Companies won't hear that. If their numbers don't suck, abusing the customers is vindicated. If the numbers do suck, they'll trot out their usual bogeymen and blame piracy, with healthy manure-carts full of (synthesized) market evidence.

      I wouldn't predicate any action of mine on the expectation of some desirable outcome from another, especially any other which has proven to be so amoral and abusive. Instead, for your own sanity and self-satisfaction, just break it off and let them sink or swim in their own sewage. Find a game publisher that isn't abusing you--maybe a good indy, for instance--and make them a success.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:Better off enforcing an EA boycott by nschubach · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stop buying games that end in a number too!

      Hah, we will fool them and publish "2014 Madden" next year instead of "Madden 2014"!

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  2. How about.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have the right not to buy horrible shitty games. Is that so hard?

  3. What do you mean "we"? by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We had the forced online and similarly unplayable launch of Diablo III.

    We? We had no such thing. We had the option to not purchase the game. Many of us took that option.

    You can only complain if such requirements aren't publicized. In most cases, these requirements were made clear not only prior to sale, but prior to the game's release. If you didn't want it, why did you buy it?

  4. Just stop spending your money... by drcagn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop spending your money on this garbage.

    There are plenty of great indie/homebrew games out there. I know it's a long shot that these titles will ever be "mainstream," but the biggest problem is that although I hear gamers whine and bitch about DRM and the like, none of them have the self-control to stop buying these titles. Stop. It. I know it's hard, for example, for a Final Fantasy fan to NOT buy the latest FF title, but realize that as long as you do so, you will keep this going forever.

    --
    Scorta futuere amo!
  5. Is It Time To Enforce a Gamers' Bill of Rights? by realityimpaired · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.

    If you feel they're giving you the short stick, don't buy their product. There are plenty of games and devs out there who do not enforce this kind of stupid crap, and the quality of indy games coming out these days is huge. The case for buying AAA titles, which are the only ones that try to pull this kind of crap, is quite weak.

    The reason they try this shit is that people will still buy the product if they do. If they do it, and nobody buys it, then the issue will solve itself.

  6. Ridiculous by Chryana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The idea of a Bill of Rights for gamers seems to me ridiculous (and also very US-centric). How about a Bill of Rights to clean laundry? I mean, there would be new Bills of Rights being written every five minutes if this was a reasonable solution. What you may need is stronger consumer protection laws. I think I read the other day that people in England are entitled to a refund on game purchases, which turned out to be useful in the wake of the recent Sim City fiasco.

  7. Re:You've already got a Gamer's Bill of Rights by Endo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about the right to no bait-and-switch in the form of "updates" after purchase?

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.