My Thoughts on the PC Gamer's Bill of Rights

So if you haven't heard by now, those crazy folks up there at Stardock and Gas Powered games came up with a PC gamer's bill of rights.

1. Gamers shall have the right to return games that don't work with their computers for a full refund.


2. Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state.


3. Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game's release.


4. 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.


5. 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.


6. Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won't install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their express consent.


7. Gamers shall have the right to re-download the latest versions of the games they own at any time.


8. Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers.


9. 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.


10. 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.

Now, as a gesture, I can appreciate this. However, it's lacking the necessary details to make this immediately applicable.

Additionally, some of these list items sound more like demands than an actual bill of rights. Notably, 1 and 3.

The first one, the return for a refund one, sounds a little harsh. Granted, it's never fun to buy a game and realize it doesn't work. However, does that really need to be prevented by offering a refund? Why not just make a free program that will test to see if the game will run?

The third one, the meaningful update one, also gets me. So long as the game works, why should the consumer be entitled to more content? Making that content also distracts from other potential games or sequels that the company might be making. The consumer knew what they were getting when they bought the game, right?

Well, maybe that didn't. Having looked at the backs of many PC games, they're all somewhat misleading as to how much fun you'll have while playing the game. Perhaps instead of the demand for more content, the consumer should be protected against false advertising?

The fifth one, the minimum system requirements one, could be modified. It could require companies to post the absolute minimum to run the program, like they've been doing, along with the so called for adequate requirements. That way, there's no loss of important information, and one no longer has to guess whether it's a minimum or a suggested.

Again, while I appreciate the gesture of this, I think it needs a lot more refinement before it's finalized.

Link Chain;
Edge Online -> CRAVE -> Me