MMO Players Bill of Rights

[B_L_Angel]

I feel this is a defeatist attitude. The only way to institute change is to stand up and say no more. By accurately standing behind a Bill of Rights, gamers can institute change. What you have said about Piracy is true, however, Piracy exists whether or not they are working with us, and if they are working with us I would think that happy gamers are active gamers. I certainly know I am unhappy with a couple gaming companies and have boycotted them myself for years in at least one case. I simply don't buy they're products.

I think your problem with the AP rally is simple to explain, this is a new ground we are treading, some people while sympathetic to the cause are unsure of how much impact we can as a group have. Frankly put no one protests unless they see protests being successful.

I do agree that we might have to forgo playing games that we love simply because we HAVE to get they're agreement to this bill of rights. Once it becomes clear a significant population of gamers are all for it, to the point of CANCELLING ACCOUNTS, then we will have success. That's the inherent issue. Just as with the Declaration of Independence, it can only carry weight if you are willing to fight for it, and on that we I think agree...

This isn't defeatism. These are issues that have to be overcome if you want to make progress.

How do you get gamers to care about what happens to games they don't play ? Once you do, how do you communicate to publishers that they will hurt themselves by ignoring the issue. People will protest if they care. I remember the anti war protests all too well. You had people protesting the war because they were scared out of their wits they would be drafted, what's our equivalent ? Always connected to the net DRM ?

[Liberties]

Our

This isn't defeatism. These are issues that have to be overcome if you want to make progress.

How do you get gamers to care about what happens to games they don't play ? Once you do, how do you communicate to publishers that they will hurt themselves by ignoring the issue. People will protest if they care. I remember the anti war protests all too well. You had people protesting the war because they were scared out of their wits they would be drafted, what's our equivalent ? Always connected to the net DRM ?

The equivalent is that they aren't meeting the Bill. Frankly put the BoR would be our manifesto so to speak, people who read it no matter the game should agree with it, and be willing to fight for the ideas behind it. People didn't JUST protest the war because they were scared of the draft if that were the case it would have been an all male protest against the draft. They protested because they thought it was wrong, or because they thought it was poor decision making by our leadership, in this case that leadership is what we're asking of Game Companies.

"Be examples," we say "Follow this bill of rights and we will buy your games, don't and unfortunately we will have to pass because we are smart informed consumers not some cash cows for you to milk." 

If we follow that Games are Art, then I hold to the euphemism that cancelling a game that is still profitable, without any way to play it after years, and money invested in it, is akin to an artist coming into your home and splashing paint all over they're work they have sold you.

I agree almost entirely with Quantum Hero, it's more like a car that the dealer doesn't make parts for anymore, then a case of the Mom and Pop store closing down. Especially since, to use the Mom and Pop example, what we're going through with CoH is akin to the Mom and Pop store closing, remodeling into a food restaurant you find abysmally bland, and then EXPECTING you to come eat there cause you have no other choice.

[Piledriver]

I don't expect nearly all that. Content updates? Really? No. I realize that servers, housing, bandwidth and basic customer service (up to and including software maintenance/bug-fixing issues) cost. The rest is gravy; benefits of the company attempting to attract more players, to maintain more of the fickle end of the subscriber pool, or generate additional revenue from monetization.

A good faith assumption that a publisher will show interest in the preservation of a serviceable product by any means would be nice. The law, with narrow exception, does not require that publishers not dictate all terms of their relationship with consumers, though.

With this being brought up in reference to a product for which the primary audience is in the US, I wouldn't expect consumer advocates to look twice. Perhaps if the consumers being abused were mostly in Europe someone might stand up, but not here in the land of corporate idolatry. Even Ralph Nader picked only battles where he could scent blood.

Yes, call it defeatist. This avenue, put forth with such excessive demands, looks capable of nothing more than stirring up more enmity with not only NCSoft but gamers and game publishers at large who otherwise might support our cause.

[Mister Bison]

If we follow that Games are Art, then I hold to the euphemism that cancelling a game that is still profitable, without any way to play it after years, and money invested in it, is akin to an artist coming into your home and splashing paint all over they're work they have sold you.

I agree almost entirely with Quantum Hero, it's more like a car that the dealer doesn't make parts for anymore, then a case of the Mom and Pop store closing down. Especially since, to use the Mom and Pop example, what we're going through with CoH is akin to the Mom and Pop store closing, remodeling into a food restaurant you find abysmally bland, and then EXPECTING you to come eat there cause you have no other choice.

In fact, it's more like closing your neighbouring loop circuit when you have a sports car only allowed to run there. You still have the car, but you can't drive it anywhere. And they closed the circuit because they decided to make love boats, even if the circuit was still profitable to maintain. And they own the patent to make loop circuits.

[Kaiser Tarantula]

FAIR WARNING: Potential wall of text incoming!  Brace yourself!

I have seen this mentioned in a couple places, and I thought it would be a good idea to actually get a master document going on it.

Feel free to reply and add, or argue for subtraction from this. I think that a Bill of Rights is needed for MMOs as a counter that gaming companies have to acknowledge they are expected to live up to.

I agree wholeheartedly, but honestly I think your proposed Bill of Right is just a little too restricting.  Let me toss some ideas your way, and let me know what you think.

1. We, as consumers of your product, have a right to expect that product to be there so long as it is profitable.
   - This means that it shouldn't be cancelled because it doesn't fit your vision, or you don't like it. It HAS to be non-profitable BEFORE a cancellation can be made, and you should communicate with the community when this sort of thing is becoming a likelihood.

This is a bit unfair to developers and publishers.  I mean, sure, one game might be profitable, but it might not be profitable to save the companies involved due to mismanagement of other games and such.  I know CoH is not that case - NCSoft is blatantly closing us down despite the fact that it's solvent and CoH is still profitable, but let's be a little circumspect of the developer/publisher situation.  I have a proposed edit later on that will eliminate the need for this item.

2. We are entitled to frank, and honest communication with the businesses we deal with.
     - Don't Lie to Your Customer Base. I think that's pretty self explanatory.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Transparency is important, both with shareholders and with customers.  A lot of companies think that they only need to satisfy their shareholders and can let the customers rot, but without customers you have no means of paying your shareholders, and that will quickly lead to you, y'know, not having shareholders and either going bankrupt or being bought out.  I'm not saying that customers should be invited to listen in on shareholder meetings, but regular communication and "state of the game" addresses should be the norm.  This item should stay untouched.

3. We are entitled to good customer service, cause our patronage should be important to you.
    - Response times from a GM should be less, and frankly while they shouldn't play the game for you, bugs and such are game killers in some cases.

The presence and activity of GMs on a game directly reflects how much care and attention the publisher & developers care about their customers.  Like above, a company that doesn't show some interest in keeping its customer base around will quickly cease to have a customer base.  Further, any game, and MMOs in particular, due to the amount of content one has to put out to make a good one, will have bugs.  It's important to have someone on hand, with the powers necessary to address the bugs, in the event they become a problem for your players.  Frustrated players stop playing, and players that stop playing, stop paying.  It's just good business sense.

4. We are entitled to good content for our money. If it is a subscription based game we are entitled to regular updates of content.

This might be going a bit far.  I agree that we should be entitled to good content for our money.  But I'd disagree on the term "regular" - if a game doesn't have enough content to satisfy its subscribing playerbase, and the company refuses to add more, the game will flop on its own, or players will start creating private servers to implement the changes that they want to see.

Look at Ragnarok Online, another Korean-owned MMO.  Due to mismanagement in how they handled International RO's updates (Gravity America had to purchase updates from its Korean branch in order to provide them to American players), many updates were horrendously delayed for a very long time.  This led to the creation of tons upon tons of private servers based upon Korean RO, because players were fed up with waiting for Gravity.  These players basically re-localized the Korean version of the game themselves - no small effort.

In short, I don't feel this item is really necessary.  If the developer and publisher refuses to update content regularly, or the content they do push out isn't quality, they're eventually going to kill their own game.  Future items in the MMO bill of rights will have provisions for handling that.

5.  Our money is valued as money. Should a game be cancelled MONEY shall be returned to the player. Not E-Transaction credit to another game.
    - This is to bring ALL MMO publishers into compliance with the laws protecting citizens in the United States (which are the only ones I know).

I agree wholeheartedly with this one.  Ideally, no MMO should have to refund any money for subscriptions or microtransactions, but in the event that they do, it should be provided as money.  For example, a check, cash, Paypal payment, or wire transfer to the account of you (the player's) choice.  Not credit for other games.

Publishers, realize - sometimes, the customer you're offering a refund to does not have the ability or interest to play any of your other games.  That customer is just as entitled to a refund as all of the others who are.  You stiff those customers, and that's going to make for bad word-of-mouth for you.  Everyone likes money (well, except Freakshow), so giving back money when you need to do refunds is good business practice.
   

6. Listen To Us. We are your target audience no matter what your investors or demographic data says.
     - If we say there is a bug, it's likely there if you look.

I also agree with this one.  Publishers and devs take note: you ignore your customers at your own peril.  Sure, the bulk of the crowd's gonna be dumb as rocks, but you owe it to them and yourself to sift through that  pile of rocks for the diamonds.  Who knows, you might score yourself some prime GM or development talent among the community, or at least find yourself someone really good at hunting and pinning down bugs.

7. We have a right to try before we buy. MMOs are a huge investment of time and money, and we should be able to have a tour, so to speak.
    -Most games do this already, but I think it's important to make this nod.

Yep.  No MMO I can remember has ever sold well without a demo or trial period.  MMOs, even the most casual of MMOs, tends to be a big timesink, and that's a significant thing for a customer to invest.  No customer's going to take a chance on you sight-unseen unless they really have a lot of money to burn and nothing else to spend it on.  Even then, they ain't gonna stay; the same flightiness that lead them to you in the first place will eventually lead them on to the next thing.  You can't rely on players like that for revenue.  Again, good business sense strikes again.

8. Gamers are a family, and should be treated as such. We are inviting you into our homes, as a part of our lives and have the right to expect good behavior from a house guest.

Publishers, devs, it's important to note here that just as customers can invite your game into their home, they can just as easily kick it out if you mistreat them.  If I can submit an anecdote, I played Mabinogi all of 1 day.  Why?  Because at the end of an essential tutorial quest to get the skills required for my chosen Destiny (the closest thing Mabinogi has to character classes), I felt so cheated and insulted that I quit the game out of sheer frustration.  I don't wanna play a game that insults me (and involves me in a little girl's attempt to start a pedophile relationship with an older man.  Ew.)

9. No one demographic is more important then the other, please treat everyone equally.

The minute you step into the International Market, all of your customers are going to be comparing their experiences to the experiences of customers in other branches of your MMO.  If you don't treat them all equally, you're going to get complaints.  Scroll back up a little to the example I gave with Ragnarok Online, and you'll see why.

10. Paying customers should have the right to play the game they own, even if the publisher doesn't want to continue developing the game.
    - Video games are culture, an MMO publisher closing down an MMORPG effectively prevents past, present and future gamers to play this game in its functioning state, destroying culture. That doesn't oblige the publisher to have developers or community manager maintaining the game or making it compatible with new generations of software, emulation on the client part shall do that. The publisher does the only thing he can do.

Here we go, the main point I wanted to address here.

There are two sides to every story.  There's the publishers and developers, and the playerbase.  Now, the playerbase does not want to see their favorite games closed down.  But for one reason or another, sometimes companies have to.  CoH's not one of those cases (surprise closedown + lack of communication + baldfaced lies = no right to any benefit of the doubt), but for any MMO, a closedown is eventually going to happen.  It's the nature of any service provided - eventually, the people providing that service are going to be unable to provide that service.  The problem here is that MMO video games, as a service, are unique.  You can call any plumber, and expect them to be able to fix a leaky pipe.  You can only call one company, and expect them to provide City of Heroes.

That's the heart of the problem here.

Rather than saying "we have a right to play a game we've spent money on, even if the developer or publisher doesn't want to continue it" is pretty restricting.  If we (meaning MMO players as a whole) start insisting that this be fact, companies are just going to move out of the MMO biz entirely and just make ordinary singleplayer/multiplayer games.  MMO, as we know it, will be dead.

What I'd instead suggest is that we, as players, have a right to a responsible shutdown, and be given alternatives options to enjoy the game after the publisher or developer has ceased interest in continuing it themselves.  Let me explain what I mean by that.

When a game shuts down, a company has a lot of options of what to do with it.   Let me give you a few examples.

• The NCSoft Approach: Kill the game, squat on the IP like a vulture defending a carcass, refuse to allow anyone else to ever play the game again.  This is unacceptable to the community.  Examples: Auto Assault, Exteel, Dungeon Runners, potentially City of Heroes.
• The SEGA Approach: Kill the game, but have a built-in single-player/offline mode that will allow your playerbase to continue enjoying the game to some degree, even after the multiplayer servers have gone dark.  Examples: Phantasy Star Online, Phantasy Star Universe
• The "Blind Eye" Approach: Kill the game, but turn a blind eye to players developing their own private servers of it.  I can't give examples here, as I don't want to run the risk of getting into legal trouble, but rest assured this happens.  This is risky for the IP-holder, because the private server developers may be able to challenge the IP-holder's right to keep it due to lack of defense.
• The Public Domain: Kill the game, but then release the server software to the public domain and allow players to download it freely.  After a few months of distributing it, stop, and let players do with it as they please.  I can't give any examples of this because I've never seen any examples: I guess IPs are just too valuable to just wholly let go of like this.  Still, it's an option.
• Server Licensing: Rather than kill the game, simply stop development and server support, and offer licenses at a reasonable price, allowing players or companies to pick up and run the game in your place, in return for an upfront fee and a portion of profits.  All profit for the company, with no outlay required; you can even stipulate that you owe the new distributor no support.  Examples: Ragnarok Online - Gravity America is actually just a sublicensor of RO operating the International server.  That's why they have to pay the home company to get updates.
• Selling the IP: If you can't, or don't want to continue running the game, sell it to someone who does.  It keeps the game running and makes you a quick buck in the process.  That IP isn't earning you any money in the meantime, so why not?  Example: City of Heroes (when Cryptic sold the rights to NCSoft).

Now, none of these options are anything new to anyone who reads these boards, most likely.  Now, option 1 is unacceptable.  That's killing the game, and it's not a responsible shutdown.  Option 2 would be better but it's unfeasible - it would require some radical alterations to make CoH an entirely single-player game.

So, with those out of the way, let's consider options 3-6.  ALL of these options have one thing in common: they allow the player to continue playing the game, in its current incarnation, with little to no interruption.  They all have their benefits and drawbacks, but one thing's for certain - the game is preserved in a playable state, and its playerbase is not left homeless.  This is the big thing here, and what we're all desperately wanting for CoH, right?

Option 3 would be good, but extremely legally-gray.  All it would take for a fiasco to happen is for someone to use the "blind eye" policy to go to court and say "Hey, they're not defending their IP, I want it moved to the public domain!" and then there's trouble.  No longer could the company turn a blind eye, and there'd be C&D letters and shutdowns all over.  Legal proceedings would be a mess.

Option 4 would be ideal, honestly.  Heck, if that happened, we could run our own server right here on Titan, and keep our closeknit community intact.  But it's also the most unrealistic - corporations, simply, are not going to give up a potential source of revenue or assets that easily, and honestly I think it's a bit unfair to ask them to.

Option 5, honestly, is what I'd consider the most ideal approach within the bounds of reason.  All NCSoft would have to do is set the price for licensing low enough that a community member, or group of community members, could reasonably hope to acquire it.  NCSoft doesn't have to owe any sort of support, and they'd get a portion of whatever profits are made by their licensee.  They'd also keep the IP.  Profits would doubtless be lower than what they would be if NC was running the game themselves, but if THAT'S a problem, then they should just continue running the game themselves in the first place.  It's the best option I can see that kills their involvement with the game while also making them a profit AND keeping the game open to players.

Option 6 would be a good secondary to Option 5.  It allows NCSoft to totally wash their hands of CoH and anything to do with it.  NC will no longer hold the IP and won't be making any more profit off of it, but at least their customer base is happy and they're no longer hemorrhaging bad publicity from disgruntled players.  If they want to continue making a profit off CoH and keep the IP, I'd suggest that they scroll up and reread option 5.

Options 3-6, and especially 4-6, are what I'd consider responsible ways to close an MMO.  Release the game to the players, or otherwise ensure that it continues to be playable despite your lack of involvement.  This is what, I feel, we should be demanding as our right.

[TimtheEnchanter]

I feel like this all could be summarized into a general message to any business. And that statement would simply be this.

"We are people. Not numbers."

And even something that simple will never fly, because too many companies want to think without a moral conscience.

I also feel like this might be better off being done in the form of a manifesto, and given some poetic flair, like you're writing a Declaration of Independence and want the whole world to not just read what you're saying, but feel it.

[Victoria Victrix]

I feel like this all could be summarized into a general message to any business. And that statement would simply be this.

"We are people. Not numbers."

And even something that simple will never fly, because too many companies want to think without a moral conscience.

I also feel like this might be better off being done in the form of a manifesto, and given some poetic flair, like you're writing a Declaration of Independence and want the whole world to not just read what you're saying, but feel it.

I like the idea of this being a Manifesto rather than a Bill of Rights.  The Manifesto always comes first, and you expect to lose some things during the negotiation with the Powers that Be that leads to a Bill of Rights.

[houtex]

Hm.  Ok, I'll participate in this... but from a company standpoint.  I've skimmed the thread, so If I repeat something, ah well.  Great minds and all that.  And as I'm comin' from the company's side, it's not going to be pretty.  You are all fairly warned here.  Passion is NOT a company's bottom line... tactics and profits are.  Everything else is detrimental to a company's existence.  Oh, it's nice if it can be done, the whole passion thing, but not important to a company's running.  Xs and Os, if you wll.

And with that... Bill of Rights for MMO players?  Really?  You think that a *company* is going to agree to some arbitrary, player decided, bill of rights?  That company will go *broke fast*, and they will just NOT offer the product up.  So... this is a non-starter for that reason.  Period.  However, be that as it may...  Wall-o-text powers, activate!

1. We, as consumers of your product, have a right to expect that product to be there so long as it is profitable.
   - This means that it shouldn't be cancelled because it doesn't fit your vision, or you don't like it. It HAS to be non-profitable BEFORE a cancellation can be made, and you should communicate with the community when this sort of thing is becoming a likelihood.

You, as a Consumer, have a right to buy or not buy a product.  We, as a Company, can decide to pull that product.  Regardless of any reason.  And we do not have to tell you, and we can weather the storm of the few passionate people who would rather the product continue.  Because it is likely it was on its way to being a dead product anyway.  Why let it linger, suffer, fester?  Cut it off clean is always best for company's bottom lines, and corporate visions.

2. We are entitled to frank, and honest communication with the businesses we deal with.
     - Don't Lie to Your Customer Base. I think that's pretty self explanatory.

You are entitled to enjoy the product.  And you may communicate with us.  However, we do not have to say anything back if we so choose.  If you do not like this policy, you can find another product.  We will miss you, but there are other users upon which our company will survive.

3. We are entitled to good customer service, cause our patronage should be important to you.
    - Response times from a GM should be less, and frankly while they shouldn't play the game for you, bugs and such are game killers in some cases.

One incident in one million is not a bug, necessarily, but can be quite annoying to the person(s) involved, we grant this.  And long wait times are not something we as a company strive for.  But there must be some sort of balance of Game Masters and Players.  What balance would you like?  1 per 100?  1 per 1000?  That is a lot of salary/wages.  We will do this, 24/7, in three rotating 8 hour shifts, but the game will now be subscription per month, forever, and all transactions, including adding items to your content, will cost more. 
 
We do not wish anyone to spend $10,000 per month on the game, because nobody will do so, first, and secondly, it is simply too much to ask to have that many staffed for occasional issues.  So a lesser ratio is required, and that is based on average amount of users, as well as average amount of incidents.  This is the best, most reasonable approach to the problem, anything else costs more, and will require more payment.

4. We are entitled to good content for our money. If it is a subscription based game we are entitled to regular updates of content.

Of course, but without the 'entitled' part.  Other than this one issue, we agree that expanding the product as much as can be done, regularly, is a good thing.  The product can grow, new experiences can happen.  But there is always going to be some irregularity with the schedule, and for that we apologize.  Like a fine wine, time is something that should be spent wisely on expansion of the product.  Releasing it on a definitive schedule, instead of simply 'soon(tm)', may not be the best course.  But we will expand as we can and get it ready.

5.  Our money is valued as money. Should a game be cancelled MONEY shall be returned to the player. Not E-Transaction credit to another game.
    - This is to bring ALL MMO publishers into compliance with the laws protecting citizens in the United States (which are the only ones I know).

To enjoy our product, you will sign an Agreement.  That Agreement will contain stipulations that refunds OR credits as decided by The Company will be acceptable in the event you are required to be refunded/credited for whatever the reason might be.  As you must agree to the stipulations to enjoy the product, you like either a refund or a credit as decided by us... or you do not want to enjoy our product.  In the case of the latter, we are sorry that you will not be enjoying the product, but there are certain things we simply cannot do, and not everyone can be satisfied.  We urge you to read and click Accept, but we cannot force you to do so.  This is wholly your choice.

   
6. Listen To Us. We are your target audience no matter what your investors or demographic data says.
     - If we say there is a bug, it's likely there if you look.

This seems to be a slight repeat of an earlier demand, in regards to 'bugs', but the Customer is NOT always right, no matter what the adage might lead you to believe.  And further, you do not know what "our target audience" might be.  We happen to be looking to get only Millionaires from Ireland, for example, to enjoy our product, and anyone else who also enjoys it is a complete and utter bonus for The Company.  Also, what one person might consider to be a bug, may actually not be economically desireable to 'chase', if you will, if it is a singular issue, and never happens again.  Further, the code may require changes that, in the grand scheme of the overall product, as well as the number of incidents and level of acceptance, may not be desirable to even investigate in any short order.

7. We have a right to try before we buy. MMOs are a huge investment of time and money, and we should be able to have a tour, so to speak.
    -Most games do this already, but I think it's important to make this nod.

No.  You do not.  You can buy it for one month, and if you do not like it, you may not continue as you see fit.  It is only one month, and any product that was free for any length of time upon release will simply not exist, as there is no way to pay for the investment.  Even 'free' at launch does have other means of revenue.  Or the product may be, for the lack of a better term, byproduct of a company's research or magnanamous gesture.  Quake Live comes to mind.  Regardless of special cases, at some point, to draw in others who were 'on the fence', we may at our sole discretion, allow a trial date, and then maybe turn it free to play with microtransactions or such.  But there will be NO freebies at the outset, short of a contest or such promotion.  Further, we will use whatever means possible and desired to promote the game and give you a tour in that manner, in the hopes that you will see something you like, and perhaps try our product.

8. Gamers are a family, and should be treated as such. We are inviting you into our homes, as a part of our lives and have the right to expect good behavior from a house guest.

Gamers are much like a person ordering a meal at a fast food restaraunt: You want food, you will pay for it.  Such it is with our product.  You want to use it, you should pay for it.  Any 'family' is a byproduct amongst yourselves, and it clearly stipluates in the Agreement that any emotional or realism issues you might have before, during, or after using our product are your own affairs, and will not be attached or blamed or otherwise involved with the use of our product.  You are not inviting us into your homes, you are paying to use a product.  We are a company.  We are not family.  We thank you for using our product, sincerely, and for paying.  If you think, however, that we are bad 'guests', then please do what you feel must be done, and stop using our product.  We understand, and we will strive to perhaps win you back in the future.

9. No one demographic is more important then the other, please treat everyone equally.

This is categorically, and scientifically, proven to be quite a mistaken thought process, but there is no quest to treat anyone any differently in the first place.  There may, however, be some process whereby certain demographics (and might we refer to the Irish Millionare demographic?) are targeted to increase their use of the product, through advertising or other mechanism, but it will go no further than this, and is not in any way a bias, nor preference, but a simple... well, balancing, let us say, of the use of our product amongst as many potential users as possible.

10. Paying customers should have the right to play the game they own, even if the publisher doesn't want to continue developing the game.
    - Video games are culture, an MMO publisher closing down an MMORPG effectively prevents past, present and future gamers to play this game in its functioning state, destroying culture. That doesn't oblige the publisher to have developers or community manager maintaining the game or making it compatible with new generations of software, emulation on the client part shall do that. The publisher does the only thing he can do.

We would like to point out that the product is licenced to you, the user, and you do not own it.  As such, if the decision is to shut down the product, you do not own any rights to that product, as they are still retained by The Company.  As such, if the product is no longer viable, The Company can and will shut it down if it sees this to be the best option.  It is possible that it could be released or sold or resurrected or defended as required in the future.  Any other discussion on this matter is moot based on this known business law on software.  Your passion regarding the product is noted, and commendable, but ultimately not a part of the picture. 

Thank you for your concerns.  We look forward to your future business with us.  Please try our new product, it's 20% more shiny, has much improved graphics, and is brand new.  You WILL love it, or your money ba--- er, credit towards another of our fine products will be given.

A High Mucky-Muck.
The Company
 
---
 
I applaud the passion and desire in these 'rights', but simply put... not gonna happen.  It would be an unfair practice upon the businesses.  Put these on other businesses, and you'll see why.  I suggest cars, restauraunts, and... oh... MTV, yeah, that's a good one.  It's not MTV anymore, is it?  Should they go back to just videos?  Of course not, they are doing just fine NOT showing videos.  But this 'bill' would force them to go back to the video only format, in effect, because of the viewers, like me, who don't care for their new stuff.  The music videos *were* City of Heroes for them.  They make more money doing what they're doing now, even if the videos were doing well.  I do miss the VJs and waiting for the next new dang videos though... ah well.
 
Let us not pursue this, for it is the howling of the hurt, and not the discussion of reasonableness.  No company would go with this, and no person should honestly expect it to be done.  It is silly, business wise.
 
Mike
 
/prepares asbestos undies...

[Victoria Victrix]

And this is one reason why sales of video games are dropping across the board.  Because players are getting tired of being *censored.*

[Burnt Toast]

I agree with houtex. Nuff said.

[Victoria Victrix]

Well it is worth pointing out that at every single point in the history of Consumer Rights and Consumer Protection, businessmen have screamed and cried and wept saying that protecting the consumer in any way would bankrupt them.

Funny thing, it seldom happened.  Someone in that same business (often even them) went on making money.  Sometimes by charging the consumer a little more.  Sometimes by just biting the bullet and dealing with it by making such a superior product or giving so much consumer support that they were never called on to ante up.  Sometimes they even found that giving the consumer protection and rights made more money for them.

Do I expect everything in this posting to happen?  Of course not.  Obviously, we do not have crash proof cars.  But we do have cars that we can reasonably expect will not murder us when the operator is fully in control of the vehicle and himself, which was not always the case even as little as forty years ago.  For that matter, there are "lemon laws" that require a manufacturer to refund someone whose brand new car is seeing the shop more than it is seeing the owner's garage.  And if there is a factory defect, manufacturers are required to issue a recall and give full refunds or appropriate repairs for free--all of which were decried when they were first proposed.

I see no reason why Consumer Protection will not eventually be applied to software--and yes, games. 

[Ponderer]

And as I'm comin' from the company's side, it's not going to be pretty.  You are all fairly warned here.  Passion is NOT a company's bottom line... tactics and profits are.

Exactly, passion is not a company's bottom line, but passion is what drives consumers to remain with the product, which is why active community engagement and unified action can hold a company to a higher standard.

Bill of Rights for MMO players?  Really?

I'd like to offer my thoughts for consideration.  I'm gonna do this 'in character' and 'out of character' just because I started writing in character and it seems so confrontational.  I welcome impassioned conversation, but the points brought up here deserve a fulsome consideration that I hope - for my part- to give.  It's also going to make this very long and for that I do apologize ahead of time.  I intend to write this is from the standpoint of an active and engaged consumer base and why I feel it is important.  As such I will be taking the role of a unified consumer front that will hold a corporation to a standard of quality, since that's the point of having customer standards - going below them means that your product will not be purchased.  I will take that role as juxtaposed to the 'not pretty' company.

You, as a Consumer, have a right to buy or not buy a product.  We, as a Company, can decide to pull that product.  Regardless of any reason.  And we do not have to tell you, and we can weather the storm of the few passionate people who would rather the product continue.  Because it is likely it was on its way to being a dead product anyway.  Why let it linger, suffer, fester?  Cut it off clean is always best for company's bottom lines, and corporate visions.You are entitled to enjoy the product.  And you may communicate with us.  However, we do not have to say anything back if we so choose.  If you do not like this policy, you can find another product.

We have chosen to  exercise that power.  We will not offer our money in exchange for unilateral control over the creators we enjoy the work of, or over our knowledge of the game.  You are free to assume that we do not matter, and that there are other users to fill the gaps in our leaving, however to defy an active and engaged consumer base is far more dangerous than defying a passive one.  You risk a large evacuation from your product which can snowball.  If you wish to continue to do so you are welcome, as there are other products on the market for us to interest ourselves in.  We, as you pointed out, are not required to continue buying your product, however, our buying the product is why you have created it in the first place.

We do not wish anyone to spend $10,000 per month on the game, because nobody will do so, first, and secondly, it is simply too much to ask to have that many staffed for occasional issues.  So a lesser ratio is required, and that is based on average amount of users, as well as average amount of incidents.

Dear Muck, we the consumers invite this is a distraction from our stated goals.  We did not ask nor expect to pay 10,000 dollars per month per user, as that expense is not necessary to maintain a smooth play experience.  Your statement dismisses offhand an expectation for good customer service.  Continuing to deny that imperils your own profits, what you ideally would like to spend is the minimum needed to maintain revenue.  You are in this to make money and all money reinvested into the game is not profit.  However, we are invested in this for enjoyment, and intend to hold you to a standard of quality that you do not want to live up to because it can slim profit margins in the short term - at least before good reputation might inevitably expand your player base.

To enjoy our product, you will sign an Agreement.  That Agreement will contain stipulations that refunds OR credits as decided by The Company will be acceptable in the event you are required to be refunded/credited for whatever the reason might be.  As you must agree to the stipulations to enjoy the product, you like either a refund or a credit as decided by us... or you do not want to enjoy our product.

This is incorrect.  You can try to enforce the terms of your agreement upon the player base, but there are places in which those agreements clash with local or federal laws in various nations.  In such instances you will be required to behave within those laws regardless of your insistence that we must not buy your product and still expect rights.  Moreover, your exercising of those rights is not a gavel-slam finality.  It is an exercise of power.  Should we disagree with your use of that power, we will use our own collective efforts to hold you accountable until we feel you have adequately redressed our grievances.

If you do not like that, that is irrelevant.  This is business, Mr. Muck, and though your business may be our pleasure, you are woefully misinformed to speak as if that makes us irrelevant.

This seems to be a slight repeat of an earlier demand, in regards to 'bugs', but the Customer is NOT always right, no matter what the adage might lead you to believe.

That adage refers to a simple truism that it is now becoming easy to see that you don't understand, Mr. Muck.  The phrase 'the customer is always right' is stated so because the customer is the one purchasing the product.  You can say the customer is wrong not to like the product, but in the end if he chooses not to purchase the product, it is YOU that must change the product.  In this way the phrase is not put 'every customer' is always right because 'the customer' as a whole refers to the majority of your customers.  Therefore your talk of ignoring your current players as your target demographic  is perilous, because should you in any way alter the product that your current player base enjoys in pursuit of your irish millionaire demographic, we reserve every right to leave and render your product no longer financially viable.

To say we don't know what your target audience might be is irrelevant, we're the ones purchasing the product right now, ignore us at your peril.

No.  You do not.  You can buy it for one month, and if you do not like it, you may not continue as you see fit.

I don't think you understand the nature of this, Mr. Muck.  I may be able to buy it for one month, but I'm telling you that without a reasonable way to test the product to ensure that it is enjoyable, I and my compatriots simply will not make that purchase.  You will arrange for us to play it, or you will find yourself without customers.  Since we are unified in this, you are going to find a way, because having a three to seven day trial is far preferable than having a meager few popping in to try it and then leaving because the large majority of your consumer base has written you off as unwilling to provide for them.

We fund your work, and when we are unified in our desires, historically you most certainly can and do provide.

Gamers are much like a person ordering a meal at a fast food restaraunt: You want food, you will pay for it.  Such it is with our product.  You want to use it, you should pay for it.  Any 'family' is a byproduct amongst yourselves, and it clearly stipluates in the Agreement that any emotional or realism issues you might have before, during, or after using our product are your own affairs, and will not be attached or blamed or otherwise involved with the use of our product.

We are uninterested in your disavowing our community.  We are simply informing you that as we grow accustomed to your product, we will become even more tight knit and unified.  As that continues, we will expect you treat us with proper and respectful and welcoming service.  If you choose to ignore that component and act with dispassion or indifference toward us, you risk losing your player base as we seek out a more inviting experience.

I feel the need to remind you that you are in the BUSINESS of ENTERTAINING people.  You seem - from your statements - to misunderstand that.  It is heartily naive for you to believe that simply because you control the product, you can then expect total and unilateral control over the players experiences, regardless of their desires, without suffering financial losses.  That would happen even with a relatively passive player base, but with an active group of consumers, you may as well close up shop before you even dictate your first unpopular fiat. 

This is categorically, and scientifically, proven to be quite a mistaken thought process, but there is no quest to treat anyone any differently in the first place.  There may, however, be some process whereby certain demographics (and might we refer to the Irish Millionare demographic?) are targeted to increase their use of the product, through advertising or other mechanism, but it will go no further than this, and is not in any way a bias, nor preference, but a simple... well, balancing, let us say, of the use of our product amongst as many potential users as possible.

On the one hand, you say there is no quest to treat anyone differently, on the other hand, you say that there can be a quest to treat others differently, and you summate that thought by saying 'but we don't really treat them differently'.

I'm not saying that in character I'm just wondering what you mean, I have a few guesses as to the intent (businesses seek out new demographics not to injure people) but if so it may actually be best to say 'yes businesses do sometimes treat people differently, but that doesn't mean they intend to be injurious'.  Once again though, not sure on that, but I'm not trying to poke at you, when you have a lot of thoughts at once sometimes it doesn't come across as you mean, heck maybe I even misread, just let me know! 

Now, as to the original statement about treating everyone equally, I feel it is far too vague.  I believe that City of Heroes should cater first and foremost to comic book readers and those who enjoy superhero fantasy.  So treating your intended player base with elevated interest is a good thing, in my opinion.  One thing I will say is that I would expect a business, after releasing a product, to worry first and foremost about the demographics they have earned and how to expand their user base among those people.  Only after they have done so and with careful consideration on the impact of their current customers should they consider trying to expand the appeal of the product.  Otherwise, they risk alienating their current user base and damaging their own business.  Okay, back into my unified consumer persona:

We would like to point out that the product is licenced to you, the user, and you do not own it.  As such, if the decision is to shut down the product, you do not own any rights to that product, as they are still retained by The Company. ... Any other discussion on this matter is moot based on this known business law on software.

That is irrelevant, Mr. Muck.  Our statement is to clarify that we expect you to take some measures with regards to letting us continue the experience when commercial viability has become suspect.  As with all of these points we are in a transactional relationship and if you assure us that you are trying your best in some way, you will likely suffer no ill will from your former player base even if you cannot succeed.  However should you be seen as acting in bad faith, we the unified players will take our negative word of mouth to the streets and it can and will hurt your business.  Since at this point the player base should have shrunk down to a smaller size, you may finally be in a position where ignoring us is a possible option, but as always...you do so at a peril to your business. 

[Ponderer]

You WILL love it, or your money ba--- er, credit towards another of our fine products will be given.

Those of us that live in areas where refunds are legally required will get them regardless of your desires.  Assuming you have business sense, you will not risk a class action suit simply because it feels good to try to put your thumb on the heads of your former customers.  The others?  You ignore their demands at peril to your future business, Mr. Muck.

I applaud the passion and desire in these 'rights', but simply put... not gonna happen.  It would be an unfair practice upon the businesses.  Put these on other businesses, and you'll see why.  I suggest cars, restauraunts, and... oh... MTV, yeah, that's a good one.  It's not MTV anymore, is it?  Should they go back to just videos?  Of course not, they are doing just fine NOT showing videos.  But this 'bill' would force them to go back to the video only format, in effect, because of the viewers, like me, who don't care for their new stuff.

Yes!  They'd have to cater to the larger active consumer base, regardless of wanting to water their product down to get as many people as possible regardless of the value to the consumer.  Active consumerism is about forcing a company that wants to act purely in amoral business interests, to act instead in the interests of those that will withhold profits from them lest they concede. 

Businesses are not all-powerful gods, and this is not the first time I've seen one of these long 'you do as you're told, mr. consumer' statements.  Of course my response turns that conceit simply to the flip axis, let us be clear.  There is no one completely unified player base, but players who remain even GENERALLY unified in their demands (Koreans got refunds for Diablo 3 regardless of Blizzard's no refund policy) will get what they want.  Oh, the Diablo 3 example involved (though was not wholly consisting of) violence so that's a bit tangential in that regard, just making it clear that wasn't my point. 

Let us not pursue this, for it is the howling of the hurt, and not the discussion of reasonableness.  No company would go with this, and no person should honestly expect it to be done.  It is silly, business wise.

This, I offer, is actually the prime flaw of your argument to my mind.  The demands I spoke on here were:

1. Don't trash a viable product.

That is not silly, that is wise.  A business shouldn't be doing this in the first place, and though you add the caveat that it may be dying, informing consumers and giving them time to prepare for the end of their entertainment is good customer service, which is not silly either.

2. Be honest with consumers.

This can get sticky at times, the adage is something like 'everyone likes sausage but no one likes to see how it's made'?  I think.  But even though I offer you that small point in that I don't think players should absolutely know everything, I do not think it is 'silly' to expect a generally straightforward transactional relationship with the people you want money from.

3. Offer good customer service.

You then took the meaning of 'good' as 'absolutely without flaw and funded to a point of 24 hour redundancy', when THAT seems a silly leap.  Offering good customer service is good business, even though what provides the perception of 'good' can be more costly than what a business may prefer to offer - if it is impossible to achieve and still maintain profits then you have a problem with your business, not your customers.

4. Being entitled to good content for the money.

The argument here is the meaning of 'entitled', I offer it means that a company should try its reasonable best to provide this, which seemed to be the whole of your point, so for me that's a distinction without a difference.  However I'm sitting here thinking about what you may mean, and if you're saying it shouldn't be a lock-solid, dead set thing that any delays in the delivery of that content should damn the business, I totally agree.  I read it differently but if that is what you meant - that entitled made the statement too absolute, I can agree with the sentiment even if I don't feel that sentiment from the statement.

5. Offer a refund for e-transaction money that is not spent.

Even NCSoft (eventually) agreed with this.  If you think it's silly, you may want to take it up with actual High Mucky Mucks.

6. Listen to your customers.

That allows you to provide a better service, that doesn't seem silly either.

7. Give players a chance to sample the product.

That's a very hefty demand, because then your product must be best-face-forward, and cannot be released early to make your financial statements look good in an ideal spot.  However, if customers all grow to expect that, businesses will provide.  That's not silly, it's simple transaction, many games offer a demo or trial period before purchase.

8. Treat your gaming community with respect.

This, boiled down, is very much like points 3 and 6, with an implied intent to maintain a place for interested players to converge.  That's not silly, as long as it can be done without too much expense, it is actually good for the longevity of your product as it encourages a bonding which lasts beyond the limitations of your hardware.  Encouraging community can very well help a product.

9. Treat everyone equally.

I disagree with this one as well, and would instead prefer it to be 'treat your current customer demographic with utmost preference before considering expanding to other kinds of players'.

10.  Make efforts to allow for MMO's to be playable in some form even when it is no longer financially viable for you.

Another tough one, especially considering that how one may do so can be near impossible.  However, instead of a 'right' to that playability, a 'reasonable expectation of best effort' could be expected for sake of good will and maintaining a good consumer relationship.  In this way, I am definitely understanding of your thinking.  After all, should every product be made thinking forward with how to cope with possible failure?  Planning to blunt the effects of a possible failure can be helpful of course, but I don't think it should be mandated.


A final point I want to make here is that the nature of the transaction in all of this business worship talk is invariably backward.  On day one, it is the consumer that has what the BUSINESS desires, income.  IT IS NOT the other way around.  Though the nature of a well run business invariably assures that all its power is unified toward a single goal, an active consumer base really does hold all the cards.  It may be one individual card at a time, but they are the ones with the desired item, money. 

It is up to the business to earn that item, it has NEVER been elsewise.  When they provide something the player wants, it is COMPLETELY reasonable to expect that an active consumer base will withhold their money if their desires are not met, and if they do so, they will get what they desire so long as it can be provided for them while still maintaining a profit for the business.  Businesses have an amoral approach, but just because making people happy is not their ultimate goal (profit is), they STILL NEED to make their customers happy enough to earn that money.  The more unified consumers are in their expectations, the more they will get from the businesses that seek to gain their money.

Where are we?  Well in many cultures, consumers are less passionate advocates.  Seeing how 'Kickstarter' is reviving genres long dismissed as dead by publishers, we are certainly not so passive as to be flippantly dismissed.  However, nor are we to a point that MY extreme example is viable either.  But I didn't make this statement to be contrarian.

I made this statement because I feel someone standing up and saying 'we should all expect this, who's with me', should NOT be mocked or shouted down or dismissed.  Every journey begins with a single step, and it is not foolish to want to hold businesses accountable for what you WANT from them, regardless of the fact that all they want is money.  They need to earn it, that's the point.

[Segev]

Well it is worth pointing out that at every single point in the history of Consumer Rights and Consumer Protection, businessmen have screamed and cried and wept saying that protecting the consumer in any way would bankrupt them.

Funny thing, it seldom happened.  Someone in that same business (often even them) went on making money.  Sometimes by charging the consumer a little more.  Sometimes by just biting the bullet and dealing with it by making such a superior product or giving so much consumer support that they were never called on to ante up.  Sometimes they even found that giving the consumer protection and rights made more money for them.

Do I expect everything in this posting to happen?  Of course not.  Obviously, we do not have crash proof cars.  But we do have cars that we can reasonably expect will not murder us when the operator is fully in control of the vehicle and himself, which was not always the case even as little as forty years ago.  For that matter, there are "lemon laws" that require a manufacturer to refund someone whose brand new car is seeing the shop more than it is seeing the owner's garage.  And if there is a factory defect, manufacturers are required to issue a recall and give full refunds or appropriate repairs for free--all of which were decried when they were first proposed.

I see no reason why Consumer Protection will not eventually be applied to software--and yes, games.

Generally speaking, consumer protection works best when it is done on an "educated consumer" level. The efforts of this forum at spreading the word is the first step, and I actually think we're having a big wider impact in the "silent majority" of the MMO audience than we might think. Remember that people will vote with their wallets by simply choosing another product without saying a word in far more numbers than they will actually post reviews or protests.

I'm not saying we're some sort of huge movement that is going to change the world, but NCSoft is going to feel the sting...if they ever want to do business in the West again. (That could be part of our problem; they may simply not care to do business over here. This begs certain questions about their working with Nexon, but...)

The problem with most "consumer protection" is that, yes, the Big Guys do go on to make money. They actually support the so-called "protection" for "consumers," and lobby for it in governmental halls of power. This is often because they can afford the hit to their bottom line that meeting new standards will cost. And then they'll go on to make that hit back...not because consumers "trust" them more due to good PR, but because the Little Guys can't afford the new regulations. Whether it's standards for how you have to pack your meat into cans or new laws forcing you to risk law suits or hemorrhaging money when a product fails to return the way you'd hoped, the big guy can afford to weather the storm and slowly kill off the product by making it so boring and annoying that the players give up. The little guy becomes on the hook to provide services he literally cannot afford. And the potential cost of that will force him to never build the product and take the risk in the first place.

So now, these "consumer protections" have helped create de facto semi-monopolies by making cost-of-entry into the industry so prohibitively high.

I'm not advocating for total "hands off." Protecting everybody from dishonest business practice is essential to a free market. But the best response to what NCSoft is doing right now, should the worst come to pass and they squat on their IP in some miserly fashion, is supporting anything Formerly Paragon tries to do and/or Plan Z. Those are both valid approaches.

Honestly, Titan's reverse-engineering project is an excellent one. Once they have it working, they need to make sure to file off all the serial numbers. "Archfoe" might be a clockwork mastermind whose staff is a much-sought-after bit of gear; the Black Pentagram might engage in some thorny mysticism, perhaps involving circles; the Forsaken are strangely mutated humans that you discover are experiments performed by aliens known as the Kitri, and Doctor Lockenstien leads the Lockenstein villain group who create hideous mutants and Frankensteinien horrors.

How hard you file off the serial numbers is up to you, but you just have to change things enough that you're doing a "shameless knock-off" rather than using any of their IP. None of their proprietary art, names, etc.

VV, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I were to take one of your Valdemar novels and rewrite it in my own words, changing all of the names and setting it in a Sci-fi Space Opera setting, you couldn't stop me from publishing it due to copyright violations, could you? (It would be a stupid and shameful thing to do, particularly if that was my elbow-nudging "totally unintentional" result, but...) I mean, consider the number of direct-to-video movies came out around the time of each major Disney release in the 90s that were really cheap imitations.

...I seem to have wandered off of my point, here.

My point is, the way to combat this is to provide a service and product that suits better than what the so-called juggernaut is doing, and do it according to the standards in which you believe. This will generally result in doing better than the bad business practices of those you're defying, and the best revenge IS living well.

[Moonfyire101]

If you purchase a game and the company no longer wishes to host it you should have the right to host it yourself. You as the people who supported the game and purchased it have the right to play the game when they no longer wish to host it. GameS which are not sold and hosted by a company should be open source for the people who PAID FOR IT. It angers me to no end i bought CoX and the expansion and paid 15 a month for several years and i can't play it just becuase they no longer wish to host it. i paid for it dammit!

[Mister Bison]

If you purchase a game and the company no longer wishes to host it you should have the right to host it yourself. You as the people who supported the game and purchased it have the right to play the game when they no longer wish to host it. GameS which are not sold and hosted by a company should be open source for the people who PAID FOR IT. It angers me to no end i bought CoX and the expansion and paid 15 a month for several years and i can't play it just becuase they no longer wish to host it. i paid for it dammit!

Moreover, some of us still want to pay, blimey !

[Moonfyire101]

Moreover, some of us still want to pay, blimey !

Exactly!

[eabrace]

[Ponderer]

So now, these "consumer protections" have helped create de facto semi-monopolies by making cost-of-entry into the industry so prohibitively high.

Considering my breakdown of player demands above, there are only a few I'd modify or remove.  For those, let's remove them from the equation for now.  For the others: listen to your customers, provide good customer service, be honest, don't abandon the project if it is still viable...

These are historically much easier to provide when a business is smaller.  They wouldn't hurt a small business that is focused on growing its consumer base and attracting the most dollars.  However it DOES prevent selling off an IP early to write off losses and maximize gains in an otherwise tough financial quarterly (for example), the kinds of things that are good for short-term profit and bad for the consumer they serve.  Maximizing profits by minimizing developer presence, etc.  You won't find big name companies clamoring to get these kinds of thing in a bill.

For my part I think consumer demand, and not legal threat, should do the heavy lifting here.  But a world where businesses can't wait to pass ACTUAL legislation to slim down their own profit margins because it might ALSO hurt other businesses, that's not really what we get.  I'm not saying that businesses don't push advantageous legislation via lobbyists under the GUISE of consumer protection, but that's different from them actually wanting consumer protection because it might hurt their competition and them at the same time.

In example, can you name the legislation and the de facto monopoly it has created?  I think as you look through them, you'll find the 'protections' were never even vaguely about providing a better service to the consumer.

[Victoria Victrix]

I can certainly tell you (having lived through that period) that the auto industry HATED the "lemon laws" and fought against them tooth and nail...but smaller "specialist" auto builders had no problem with them, because they had stringent quality control in the first place (the folks that build Catterham Lotus cars, for instance).