MMO Players Bill of Rights

[JaguarX]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).
   
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.

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.

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.

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

(Proposed and Edited for spelling)

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.
(Edit): I would add that Video Games have the protection of an Art Form, and if an artist sold a painting, and then later decided to ruin it, he would still be arrested for damaging someone's property...


Criteria: I'd like to keep it to 10 Simplistic points, with simple explanation behind it.

I think this is something that should be added to EULAs, or sent in to companies as the counter offer inherent to our accepting they're EULA. If EVERYONE is insistent on stating these are our rights and expectations, Game companies will have to realize that the quality of they're games, especially when called Art by society, comes with it certain inherent responsibilities that not every company has been meeting. I also think a "Gamers Bill of Rights" should be written up to more broadly attack this issue for games and content.

Anyone who wants to help with this it would be more then welcome.

Elvnsword

This is interesting stuff. I think for good customer service this should be it.

Well number one, I see one slight niggle of a point that may be brought up. If a company have to wait until they start losing money to shut down a game, even if it's been going downhill for a while, who will reinburse them for the loss money? I think if that one was to be enacted, then we can say good by to anything that is not a WoW clone or is risky, or a game full of novel and new ideas.

Add on: oh and how long would it have to be unprofitable? A day, a week, a quarter and then they pull plug?

[Liberties]

Anyhow, I think the comparison to Lemon Laws is quite apt. We are simply approaching this from a more aggressive, grass roots stance. Think of it this way, if we put this out to every gamer in the world, and got them ALL to sign on board with this, with a central council deciding when a game or company are in violations. With even a percentage of the playerbase involved we could as a group, ruin the financial prospects of games which violate the BoR. Simply by asking each member to refrain from buying on release day could send the message that it is NOT going to fly anymore.

To continue with the Lemon Law example, lots of people loved the Ford brand, it was one of the oldest running brands of cars, considered reliable and affordable. So when they came out with the Ford Pinto in 1971 as a compact, affordable car people bought into it. Turns out it had a MAJOR issue, one in which it could burn you alive in a minor accident, because the gas tank could rupture easily. As a result lemon laws were passed and people were safer with they're investment.

We are as consumers asking for our personal rights to be addressed in this. We don't want a game that is simply going to vanish in a few years.

You can't tell me companies CAN'T keep games active after they stop being profitable, look to Everquest, the first game is still up and running, they have ended production of new content ages ago, but kept the servers up and running.

Also look at the game Eve Online, when players were dissatisfied with the game designers decisions in that game the held a massive IN GAME protest that shut down commerce in the game. Eve is a kind of unique microcosm, however it should show that passionate players will affect your bottom line.

That's the point of the BoR, We are not your profit margins, we are people who paid for and play the game you create. What we ask is that you respect our wishes and rights granted by consumer protection laws. Frankly put we are in a dark time in the gaming world when we are held to the whims of a company board most of whom have likely never even played the games they are making decisions on.

What this document is meant to convey is, We Are Gamers, and We Stand United. We Vote, We Pay, We Play, without our Pay, or our Play, your product will sink. Your profit margins exist because of us and without us you don't have a profit. Thus, you must adhere to logical reasoning and do what's best for the Player. I am not asking a company to go into debt for us, I am asking for them to communicate effectively months prior to a game cancellation letting us know it is getting close to unprofitable and give us goals to keep our game intact. If we can't meet those goals the game should go into a holding mode like Everquest did, keeping one or two servers online held in place with minimal profits by player subscriptions.

I cannot accept that CoH is in anyway inferior to Everquest (given the higher subscriber rate on CoH I think that's a fair point), so why is Everquest treating it's gamers right, and CoH is (albeit unwillingly on the part of Paragon Studios) being forced to close shop. The reason I think is obvious given the timing. Guild Wars 2 just came out, and Blade and Soul is coming out. NC Soft wants it's subscribers on these two new expensive games and doesn't care if we don't want a Sword and Sorcery game cause the board doesn't see a difference, and don't understand the Player's wishes to not be stuck with another WoW clone.

As to the claims "It would be an unfair practice upon the businesses." I agree that is the same cry heard from automotive manufacturers when lemon laws were instated. I reaffirm, games have been granted the status of Art, so it's time for game makers and publishers to start acting like it.

[Segev]

What you're asking for is good customer service and intelligent company policy. That we're not getting it from NCSoft is not criminal, but it is awful business.

The best response to this is not a manifesto demanding legal action to force company behavior. If you must have a manifesto, use it as the basis for your decisions on which companies with whom to do business, and for any companies you start. Start one that lives by that manifesto, and treats its customers with respect. Drive NCSoft and its ilk out of the market by aggressively being the company with whom people would rather spend their money.

That is how to deal with this sort of thing. Trying to get laws and changes thereto involved invites power for lobbyists. Lobbyists work for established money. Between NCSoft and us, who has more established money right now?

[QuantumHero]

Airline passenger bill of rights ...now written into law because an industry would not do the job voluntarilly....and we aren't even dealing with safety concerns or centuries of "law of the sea/law of the skies".  It was corporate greed/policy ratherthen true captain's law making the problem decisions that made those laws a realty and need...this industry could actually learn from the lesson.

[emu265]

I like this.  I agree with everything you've included.  However, companies aren't going to start changing their policies based a bunch (even if there were more of us) of angry gamers.  They'll only change if there is serious loss of money in the industry, and that's a power the SaveCoH movement doesn't exactly possess. 

I can still see this being effective at gaining sympathy from outsiders to our cause, though. 

[Ponderer]

I disagree emu265, but only in so far as what's considered 'a bunch'.  If this spread enough to become a large swatch of the gaming public expecting these, then ignoring these expectations would lead to a financial loss.  I think what we should focus on now is making each individual point read to be as reasonable, as desirable, and as eloquent as possible.  You may be right though in that today, even a huge uprising may do little, it might be considered a fad and the companies would test the waters ignoring individual points strategically - here and there - to try to break that expectation.

However, if this spreads slow and steady and becomes a common trend in thinking, eventually the bullet points themselves won't be necessary.  People will just stand up together and demand that their games can be enjoyed the way they want.  With the player base using their cards at the table, these simple, reasonable desires will be fulfilled.  Moreover, businesses will eventually stop complaining about them because that kind of customer appreciation will not only become expected, but it will help a good company enjoy a more loyal player base.

Right now, however, we have to fight a common perception in some places that business holds the cards.  That they have what you want and you'd better accept it and go along.  It's been a popular way of viewing things, but it's not based in reason.  Businesses fund these things because they want your money, they're the ones with the desire that predicates their existence.  We just want to have fun.  The ones who need something to exist are NOT in a position of power over the ones who are simply here for sport.  They've just gotten their side spun effectively thanks to help from the 'whiny nerd' stereotype helping people see unhappy consumers in a less favorable light while they can paint themselves as simply 'doing their job' (by screwing consumers) and it's not personal, it's just business.  THEY are, those silly gamers make it personal and they need to be more mature.

In this way some see them as the adults in the room forced to deal with unruly children.  However to look at their behavior (when businesses are acting without regard to their customers, obviously, not at all times), it is clear who the child in the room is.  They want what they want, when they want it, and they'll cajole and lie to get it (Turbine sold an Asheron's Call 2 expansion pack that wouldn't even install to get a burst of funding RIGHT before they shut down the game...then lo and behold, they somehow had the money to pay for the Dungeons and Dragons IP!).  When they have it, if they took it unfairly as above they'll completely ignore people unless forced to give it back.

[Liberties]

TY Ponderer!

This is exactly what we need, to make these read as well as we can so they will naturally spread, and organically come to represent the average gamer.

What we also need is organization, as I am afraid that at least at first there will be massive resistance to any sort of change from the industry. We need to understand and use our power to vote with our wallets.

So, let's make this eloquent and easier on reading point by point; point one

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.

To expand, it has come to the community's attention that CoH was still serving up profits for this last quarter, more then games that did not get cancelled, but fit a style more akin to Guild Wars, or any other two bit WoW clones. In fact, some games hadn't posted profit at all (AION), in North America.

So how do we improve this talking point?

[Ponderer]

Quick diatribe:
People love capitalism.  Capitalism of course is only an engine, it needs purpose to be viable, but as an engine for creativity and drive it does do its job - it's really kind of incredibly awesome.

This is also a large factor in people dismissing these kinds of consumer complaints.  "It's just business" is very much akin to "don't knock capitalism".  Of course the problem with that is that even capitalism as a concept has been usurped in the culture by moneyed interest talking points.  You hear people talking all the time about 'free market principles', and how the market is driven by them, it sounds very nice, all these free market principles.  However, that's not really how it works, as there is a different word that belongs - and used to be - at the end of that phrase.  The market is actually driven by free market COMPETITION.  Working for peoples dollars, if people are forced to buy a product, then you have an enslaved market.  Fortunately that is not the case here, our dollars are spent all in good fun, which means if business principles are defied for the sake of a short term buck, you have...

Bad business.  It is bad business to dump a healthy product, it may provide a very shiny short term gain and allow you to project strength into the market and raise your market share yes yes, it all sounds wonderful to you when you've got your head stuck in the mechanics but...

It's still bad business. 

Which makes our quick-snap talking point very simple:
We need to stop rewarding bad business.

You can then look for interesting visuals to drive the point home, calling those who ignore the basics of good customer service 'Child King CEO's', or something of the like, implying that they have great power but poor understanding of its implications, etc.  Either way, this is all thinking pretty far ahead, we aren't at the point I think where people are going to be picking up phrases from this movement.  So, Diatribe over, let's do point 1, and I'm a bit busy so I may not return here for a bit, I'll try to keep an eye out for what others are adding though.  Sadly right now I don't have time to slim it down, so this one is going to be too long I fear, feel free to snip and chop and refactor and do as you please, everyone!

1.  The foundation of a successful business is profit.  Where a product is profitable, it should remain in the free market to flourish.
    - Where a profitable product is tied to a failing one, all reasonable efforts within profit margin should be made to bolster the failing product or sever the two.  Reinvestment into the product for the purpose of expanding the viability, longevity and market presence is good for both the consumer and the business.  It is fundamental.

Gotta pop off quick!

[emu265]

I disagree emu265, but only in so far as what's considered 'a bunch'.  If this spread enough to become a large swatch of the gaming public expecting these, then ignoring these expectations would lead to a financial loss.  I think what we should focus on now is making each individual point read to be as reasonable, as desirable, and as eloquent as possible.  You may be right though in that today, even a huge uprising may do little, it might be considered a fad and the companies would test the waters ignoring individual points strategically - here and there - to try to break that expectation.

However, if this spreads slow and steady and becomes a common trend in thinking, eventually the bullet points themselves won't be necessary.  People will just stand up together and demand that their games can be enjoyed the way they want.  With the player base using their cards at the table, these simple, reasonable desires will be fulfilled.  Moreover, businesses will eventually stop complaining about them because that kind of customer appreciation will not only become expected, but it will help a good company enjoy a more loyal player base.

Right now, however, we have to fight a common perception in some places that business holds the cards.  That they have what you want and you'd better accept it and go along.  It's been a popular way of viewing things, but it's not based in reason.  Businesses fund these things because they want your money, they're the ones with the desire that predicates their existence.  We just want to have fun.  The ones who need something to exist are NOT in a position of power over the ones who are simply here for sport.  They've just gotten their side spun effectively thanks to help from the 'whiny nerd' stereotype helping people see unhappy consumers in a less favorable light while they can paint themselves as simply 'doing their job' (by screwing consumers) and it's not personal, it's just business.  THEY are, those silly gamers make it personal and they need to be more mature.

In this way some see them as the adults in the room forced to deal with unruly children.  However to look at their behavior (when businesses are acting without regard to their customers, obviously, not at all times), it is clear who the child in the room is.  They want what they want, when they want it, and they'll cajole and lie to get it (Turbine sold an Asheron's Call 2 expansion pack that wouldn't even install to get a burst of funding RIGHT before they shut down the game...then lo and behold, they somehow had the money to pay for the Dungeons and Dragons IP!).  When they have it, if they took it unfairly as above they'll completely ignore people unless forced to give it back.

I definitely agree that, over time, this could have a huge impact.  I was speaking strictly in the sense of what it can do today.  I like your thinking, though.

[Gothica]

The problem I see with any bill of rights as such is that to my lawyerly ear, any time someone mentions the word "right," then that places someone else under a duty. If you're not using the word "right" in a legal sense, but rather in the sense of what companies should do (as opposed to what they must legally do), then the bills of rights have no legal teeth and the companies may safely ignore them (even while paying lip service to them, no doubt.)

So, for instance (and to take an extreme example) if gamers have the legal right to play a game forever, then the game owner has the legal duty to make it available forever, and the owner simply isn't going to agree to have his hands tied like that. Since  corporations are going to chafe at any such legal restrictions on their right to run the game how they want, subject only to what their business model says is good for the company, they're not going to be inclined to grant any rights that they find too restrictive. And if you could somehow force them to accept these rights, at some point at least some companies would decide developing a new game isn't worth the hassle.

I think that what we will actually see is an evolution of IP law that will recognize some legal IP rights in the players. If this develops gradually over time, and slowly becomes a legally-imposed industry standard, the corporations would probably accept it. Part of it would be market-driven; even if most corporations decided not to develop games because the new rules made such development too burdensome, the increased potential market share of potential gamers without games to play would entice other companies to publish games despite the new legal requirements.

I think that we'll eventually see this happen for a couple of reasons. First, EULAs are generally seen as adhesion contracts, which the law sort of dislikes anyway, especially when the terms they impose are inequitable. But more importantly, as just about everyone here can attest, we the players _have_ built a world within Paragon City, which includes characters that are at least somewhat individualized, AE story arcs, and personal relationships (i.e., it isn't NCSoft that's built the community and the friendships, but we the players). Some of this IP input, moreover, has been of extremely high quality, which might have an impact on valuation. (I always get envious whenever I read a character bio that is so much more imaginative and creative than anything I could come up with.) We've also done this not in minutes, hours, or days, but by putting in a great deal of time, hundreds or thousands of hours in the case of some people. I thus think that, ultimately, the Lockean theory of labor-based value and modern psychology and sociology are on our side.

One practical effect of time is that the youngish gamers of today, who really understand the community dynamic of gaming, are currently law students and young attorneys, but thirty years from now they'll be judges and legislators, and they'll shape the law according to their experience. I'm already reading some of the Young Turks' legal analysis, and if these people become judges and legislators--and some of them doubtless will--they're going to be very open to redefining MMO IP rights.

What will the new rights be? Will some of the rights listed in this thread be among them? Your guess is as good as mine, but some games may already be showing us the way. Second Life's EULA expressly recognizes that players have some IP rights. EVE Online has some sort of panel of players' representatives, formally recognized and listened to by the corporation, elected by the players. So I think that we do have some possibilities. But the process will be slow, and it's full of imponderables.

[JaguarX]

The problem I see with any bill of rights as such is that to my lawyerly ear, any time someone mentions the word "right," then that places someone else under a duty. If you're not using the word "right" in a legal sense, but rather in the sense of what companies should do (as opposed to what they must legally do), then the bills of rights have no legal teeth and the companies may safely ignore them (even while paying lip service to them, no doubt.)

So, for instance (and to take an extreme example) if gamers have the legal right to play a game forever, then the game owner has the legal duty to make it available forever, and the owner simply isn't going to agree to have his hands tied like that. Since  corporations are going to chafe at any such legal restrictions on their right to run the game how they want, subject only to what their business model says is good for the company, they're not going to be inclined to grant any rights that they find too restrictive. And if you could somehow force them to accept these rights, at some point at least some companies would decide developing a new game isn't worth the hassle.

I think that what we will actually see is an evolution of IP law that will recognize some legal IP rights in the players. If this develops gradually over time, and slowly becomes a legally-imposed industry standard, the corporations would probably accept it. Part of it would be market-driven; even if most corporations decided not to develop games because the new rules made such development too burdensome, the increased potential market share of potential gamers without games to play would entice other companies to publish games despite the new legal requirements.

I think that we'll eventually see this happen for a couple of reasons. First, EULAs are generally seen as adhesion contracts, which the law sort of dislikes anyway, especially when the terms they impose are inequitable. But more importantly, as just about everyone here can attest, we the players _have_ built a world within Paragon City, which includes characters that are at least somewhat individualized, AE story arcs, and personal relationships (i.e., it isn't NCSoft that's built the community and the friendships, but we the players). Some of this IP input, moreover, has been of extremely high quality, which might have an impact on valuation. (I always get envious whenever I read a character bio that is so much more imaginative and creative than anything I could come up with.) We've also done this not in minutes, hours, or days, but by putting in a great deal of time, hundreds or thousands of hours in the case of some people. I thus think that, ultimately, the Lockean theory of labor-based value and modern psychology and sociology are on our side.

One practical effect of time is that the youngish gamers of today, who really understand the community dynamic of gaming, are currently law students and young attorneys, but thirty years from now they'll be judges and legislators, and they'll shape the law according to their experience. I'm already reading some of the Young Turks' legal analysis, and if these people become judges and legislators--and some of them doubtless will--they're going to be very open to redefining MMO IP rights.

What will the new rights be? Will some of the rights listed in this thread be among them? Your guess is as good as mine, but some games may already be showing us the way. Second Life's EULA expressly recognizes that players have some IP rights. EVE Online has some sort of panel of players' representatives, formally recognized and listened to by the corporation, elected by the players. So I think that we do have some possibilities. But the process will be slow, and it's full of imponderables.

This is good stuff.


New laws with industries can be iffy. And even if IP laws are made up do it only apply to US companies, and or how would these laws be applied to international companies. One one hand, I think there should be more protection to players or better warnings. On the other hand, especially with the friendship and community part, I think that can be taken apart by them saying that those relationships, if real in the first place, can be manifested through any media, and the ending of a game should not have much effect on continuing that personal relationship,like this forum plan on continuing to run even when the game shut down.

I hope that eventually IP and player rights get a look at, but I think it might be better chance of legal reform if worded as more of consumer rights instead of game player rights as any politician that is looking to be re elected probably wont touch a game issue with ten foot pole. Not because they dont care about the plight of gamers but it wouldnt look proper pushing laws through for gamer protection while there is no laws to prevent people from their boss coming into their office and giving them the pinkslip and telling to go home because the company is trying to save money. I'm not saying it's important and me replying means in itself that I find your answer very interesting and valid.

And yeah a player's selected representative group sounds like a good idea on paper, but in practice...meh. I already thought that the COX community was more of a popularity contest to begin with from the forum postings there over the years and many of those that probably would be elected by popular vote dont think would represent this community very well as a whole or have the community's interest at heart and use it more to push their own ideas and try to make the game what they want to play and not always what the community wants to play. Not being negative but just my observation there over the years that certain people get passes for the craziest idea while someone less popular with same concept is flamed and trolled to no end because they are less known and or popular. But that result is not COX specific I think. I think it just tends to happen with many elected groups. First, they seem like they are going to bat for the community then in the end it's a realization that they are only going to bat for what they feel personally is a good idea or want to see implemented.

[Liberties]

So revamped point 1.

1.  The foundation of a successful business is profit.  Where a product is profitable, it should remain in the free market to flourish. When your business flourishes so too does our game, and it's world.
    - Where a profitable product is tied to a failing one, all reasonable efforts within profit margin should be made to bolster the failing product or sever the two.  Reinvestment into the product for the purpose of expanding the viability, longevity and market presence is good for both the consumer and the business.  It is fundamental that profit is good, and as such bolstering profiting enterprise should be the primary goal of any company.

I think this is business-ese version of the same thing I said in the first post, but I like the wording to a degree.

[Ponderer]

Indeed, I think that's important.  Presenting these points in terms of a business mindset.  When you present them as what players should get alone, it's going to be easy to satirize.  When it is presented instead as 'stick to the business practices that are good for both you and your customers', it's more likely to gain traction.

[Olantern]

I just realized that I forgot to post in this thread ...

In general, I agree with everything Gothica said.

Over in Legal Considerations, I argued that player bills of rights are fine, but they're risky for publishers.  If a publisher explicitly agrees to some of these things, they create all sorts of risks for the publisher and may even get invalidated as contract terms if a player sues to enforce them.  (See Legal Considerations for my theories as to why.)

Thus, they ought to be developed by players alone as aspirational goals rather than by players and publishers as terms of service agreements.  (That's what this thread is doing, I think.)  That way, they're essentially out in the popular culture as "do this, or we'll take our business elsewhere" statements.  That kind of general, economic risk is more or less a standard cost of doing business and thus much more legally palatable to a publisher than being legally bound to operate at someone else's will.

[JaguarX]

And if these "rights" thing make into writing or not, we have to be serious about it. I think in a gaming community we can form some type of "player's union" or similar. Buisness come from all over the world, speak different languages, have different values but one thing they all speak is money. And if it do form, remember to keep it platyer rights and not trying to strike because a developer isnt making updates fast enough or something silly like that. And most importantly it CANNOT BE USED AS A TOOL TO ADVANCE THE MOTIVES OF FEW! Even if true "factions" and "groups" do it, we should aim to be the model that other groups would want to and should follow.  If the practices of the buisness dont look up to snuff of what we expect, they may get some money but it shouldnt be any of yours and go somewhere that have a more decent track record.

Now WHO'S WITH ME!! WE MUST TAKE THAT HILL BY NIGHTFALL AND MAKE THE ENEMY MAKE THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE FOR THEIR COUNTRY!!! oh wait sorry, old army coming out. lol.

[Ponderer]

I'll take that first step.  I think having a group of people signing a petition like statement of expectations can be powerful.  It can be good not only for the players, but for the developers who have to fight for a bigger cut of the profits to reinvest into the game.  When you have a bunch of consumers at your back saying that unless you get what you need, they blackout or leave entirely, you might find yourself with even more funding.

[Liberties]

I just realized that I forgot to post in this thread ...

In general, I agree with everything Gothica said.

Over in Legal Considerations, I argued that player bills of rights are fine, but they're risky for publishers.  If a publisher explicitly agrees to some of these things, they create all sorts of risks for the publisher and may even get invalidated as contract terms if a player sues to enforce them.  (See Legal Considerations for my theories as to why.)

Thus, they ought to be developed by players alone as aspirational goals rather than by players and publishers as terms of service agreements.  (That's what this thread is doing, I think.)  That way, they're essentially out in the popular culture as "do this, or we'll take our business elsewhere" statements.  That kind of general, economic risk is more or less a standard cost of doing business and thus much more legally palatable to a publisher than being legally bound to operate at someone else's will.

The problem I foresee doing it this way is the percentage of players who don't sign, or stand with the group when stating those goals. Who get tempted into buying into a game that doesn't meet the aspirations we are shooting for. This shouldn't be voluntary stuff, it's all pretty common, do what's right ideas, so why would the game companies blanch at it... I can tell you, cause doing the wrong thing, is profitable in short term gains. Long term, do the right thing and it is far more profitable, but try explaining that to a group of old short sighted men...

No, a hybrid works best. A Union of Gamers, preferably thousands strong to over a million, who WILL stand with the BoR, is enough to get the gaming companies to make it a Term of Service agreement stipulation. Frankly we have always had our right to take our money elsewhere, this is simply an attempt to organize that right into leverage to get game companies heads out of the clouds, and into the fact that they are mass producing what is considered art now. As such they have the responsibility of an artist to do what is right on certain levels.

And if they don't follow the BoR, the Union of Gamers strikes on that game, ceasing to play it if they already own it, and refusing to buy it or any other products of the producing company till the problem is fixed. This is the way you make change. By stating your leverage, stating your goals, and waiting for the other party to realize they need you, not the other way around.

With that said, game companies need to start addressing these player concerns in a manner other then wall o text EULAs. Frankly put, I would wager that more then 75% of the population doesn't even read them. By having a Gamers BoR we could be sure we aren't agreeing to anything unreasonable in those, and not have to have a lawyer along to sign up for a new game.

[Colette]

"The problem I see with any bill of rights as such is that to my lawyerly ear, any time someone mentions the word "right," then that places someone else under a duty."

A valid point, and I think the time to translate all this into lawyerese will come.

More importantly, I think we need to define certain terms. What we are really talking about here... is a kind of guild. What constitutes this guild? A mutual agreement among a significant portion of the server-based gaming population to not support gaming companies who refuse to conform to our expectations.

Such an organization would provide good word of mouth and free advertising to those games that incorporated our terms into their EULA, while denigrating and advising boycotts against games and even entire consortiums (Nexon) who grievously violate those terms.

I think this would be wonderful, entirely legal, and worthwhile thing, that does not require passage of any new laws or the consent of the gaming companies. We have the nucleus of such an organization right here. Even if we fail to save Paragon City, we could fashion a grander triumph from our loss. That is also what heroes do, is it not?

And speaking frankly, if I was the producer of an MMO, I'd be looking over this particular thread very carefully. It is the first clear warning sign of a revolt. By conforming to these terms early, that producer could ride the oncoming wave rather than be crushed by it.

[Rotten Luck]

There more here then just an MMO.

For example games are moving to a format that are always online.  Getting Patch updates, now content.  This isn't just MMOs games like Mass Effect (franchise), Halo Franchise, and others.  What to keep a business from changing major plot points, endings, gear just on a whim.  Or deliver endings that suck (Mass Effect 3 What color boom you want for example).

Point is now we are entering a time when a board of directors can change content in a game on whim MMO or other.  Any game that gets updated via the web falls under this Fahrenheit 457 possibly.  One where if some new CEO (board of directors) don't like something in a game they can change it.

[JaguarX]

I think the hard part might be getting gamers to actually care as a whole and get on board. I mean within this game to save it and sign a petition didnt even get 50% of rumored low number of players or barely 20% of the rumored high number and less than 16% -14% for the peak number of players. And that's with the people that are not a member of the game, people who signed it more than once and etc.

We need a pretty large amount of participation, and if we are talking about the gaming industry as a whole, we would need a whole lot of people and given that WoW is the giant, that probably means many of those players coming from there. And from what I hear, they are not exactly motivated as here about things like this, and just either quit playing and move on or continue to play and accept the way things are. Didnt they lose over 1.1 million players? without even barely flinching due to the massive size. That number would make any game company have a cow but WoW and Blizzard it's buisness as usual. And or also have participation in a particular game. But in the end lets not start off as a group for a good cause only to devolve into more of a strong-arming virtual terrorist organization side of things.

Maybe before leaping head first into it, we should survey the waters first.