MMO Players Bill of Rights

[Ponderer]

Yeah, to try to turn these concepts into something of a binding legal agreement would be a hot mess with a side of eugh.  I hope everyone comes to agree on that!  Though I do think finding a set of principles to agree upon and defend collectively is one hell of a good idea!  If workers can unionize, why can't gamers unite?

[Segev]

If workers can unionize, why can't gamers unite?

Somebody keeps asking the gamers what they want on their pizza. The battles are bloody.

[Rotten Luck]

or in other terms.

This is our Declaration of independence.  Our Declaration of Gamer rights and among those right but not limited to them is the "Right to have quality, Right to have honest answers, and the right to enjoy a product we pay for!"

[Victoria Victrix]

What I think should be reasonable is a "creator's bill of rights."  One that incorporates the same "use it or lose it" language as book contracts.

In a book contract, the publisher is obligated to keep the book in print.  If the publisher does not do so in some form, in X years (varies by publisher, author, and how aggressive the author's agent it), the rights go back to the author to be resold or redistributed as the author sees fit.  The only one of my books to ever go out of print has recently reverted, and the Marion Zimmer Bradley Trust is putting it back in print in e-format.

This would prevent firms like NCSoft from squatting forever on an IP, which I think is only fair.  Given how fast things move in the game industry, I think a 1 or 2 year limit on IP squatting is reasonable.  This would also give firms the incentive to sell while they still can.

[JaguarX]

Back up a few posts.  Maybe that MMO black out deserves its own thread.  We have just under six weeks. Do we think we can get enough support from the greater MMO community to convince a noticeable percentage of our fellow gamers to play no MMOs on Saturday, December 1st?

I doubt it.

To many out there, gaming is like a drug, a habit, they are hooked and some cant function without a day of playing. Many more probably just like playing a game and is meh either way it goes with the corporate side of the house as long as the game they are playing is up and running. Then you have some that like the idea but may feel like it wont make a difference because not enough people (the first hour of the party rule.). Then you have some that like the idea but dont want to bother. Then you have a few spread out that will do it, but one day wont make a notice especially those that pay monthly fees and F2p models that is used to seeing people come and go.

[DrakeGrimm]

or in other terms.

This is our Declaration of independence.  Our Declaration of Gamer rights and among those right but not limited to them is the "Right to have quality, Right to have honest answers, and the right to enjoy a product we pay for!"

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all gamers are spawned equal, that they are endowed by their developers with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Wakies, Breakies, and the Pursuit of Experience.


<.<

[JaguarX]

I think this misses the point of crafting this.  A player's bill of rights should be something that players assert.  It's not about having a company sign on a dotted line, these aren't hard and fast rules that can be quantified moment to moment.  "Good customer service" is subjective, for instance, and what is fine for some may be unacceptable for others.

Someone buying at the VIP level and making unreasonable demands isn't relevant.  They won't be taken seriously because they aren't reasonable.  If we have general ideas that we all agree upon, then we can act in defense of those ideas.  Let's take an example, 'providing good content'.  Let's say everyone generally agrees that providing reasonable and meaningful updates is important.  Then, with the company seeming to make large profits, they cut their development staff in half.

If the players got together and said 'hey, there's no reason to fire these guys, it will slow down our updates and give us less value for our money.  We are asking people to email them and tell them that because of this action we're having a blackout on this day.  If we want to be taken seriously, make sure you observe the blackout.  Letters matter more if you can mail them physically.  If they haven't rehired, we'll discuss letting subscriptions lapse or other possibilities."

The way I see it, the idea here isn't some kind of binding contract, the idea is to have an active community movement to defend the growth and longevity of your gaming experience.

Edit - Just peeked over there, and Olantern seems to agree with me.

Now if we was succeed in say, a black out in a game. What's stop them from firing off a nuke instead? Aka, seeing that they let people go and dont want to rehire, but if they dont rehire, they lose killer money from the blackout so they release official notice of drop in revenue and player base and just kill the game? And are we prepared for that again or a risk willing to take? Me personally, sure, especially if the firing was going to cause me to leave anyways due to stale content because there are not many devs. At the same time I wouldnt want those left over to have to suffer for it. I

And also good content is a little hard to define on a person to person basis. I assume that it will be voted on, like if say 51% say it's good then it's considered good content? Compared to only 49% of the player base disliking it.


I love this idea though. As long as it is not goign to be used to try to strongarm people who choose to not partake in it. I know some people here are passionate about their ideas and acting as one and come off as little strong sometimes in trying to convince. Which is fine with me, I like passion, but some people may be put off and feel like they are being talked down to.

LoL. So how are we going to start this thing?

"We the gamers..."

[Altoholic Monkey]

I just wanted to interject that when crafting a document that seeks to apply to Gamers as a whole, let us remember that Gamers are international.  Sometimes us Americans tend to think in terms of our own country and not the country of others.  We are all united as Gamers,  but it let's make sure the Players Rights' document is not  branded with a title that can be applicable only to American history.

The more Gamers you get to back this document/manifesto/statement  the better and stronger it becomes. To do that we need the help of all Gamers across the globe.  It would be wonderful if the closing of City of Heroes was the beginning of Gamers saying 'NO MORE' and drafting a statement that demands change.

[dwturducken]

I doubt it.

To many out there, gaming is like a drug, a habit, they are hooked and some cant function without a day of playing. Many more probably just like playing a game and is meh either way it goes with the corporate side of the house as long as the game they are playing is up and running. Then you have some that like the idea but may feel like it wont make a difference because not enough people (the first hour of the party rule.). Then you have some that like the idea but dont want to bother. Then you have a few spread out that will do it, but one day wont make a notice especially those that pay monthly fees and F2p models that is used to seeing people come and go.

I don't know about anyone else, here, but I have plenty of things to "get my fix," but we've been very careful not to couch this as an addiction, since they take that sort of thing very seriously in Korea.

What about calling December 1st "Play Your Old Games" day? I have an old P2 Dell laptop that I keep alive, running only Windows 95 and early Microprose games, as well as the old Gold Box AD&D games.

[JaguarX]

I don't know about anyone else, here, but I have plenty of things to "get my fix," but we've been very careful not to couch this as an addiction, since they take that sort of thing very seriously in Korea.

Oops.

What about calling December 1st "Play Your Old Games" day? I have an old P2 Dell laptop that I keep alive, running only Windows 95 and early Microprose games, as well as the old Gold Box AD&D games.

hmmm, I like the sound of that. I bet many people have old laying around that they have missed or went to the dust bin because other things in life came up.

Might pull out the first Mortal Kombat game for PC again. The pesky one where to play you had to type some random generated word out the book. Pity anyone who lost that book.

[Rotten Luck]

I have a lot of games on my Stream.  Hmm Maybe load in Black and White 2 on this system and let my inner Villain torment a population.

[Ponderer]

As for 'firing a nuke', I think it's firstly unlikely.  After all, we have a blackout, they see dead servers.  If they then say 'okay then, fork it we'd rather just take our toys and go home', then they would be abandoning their own business wholesale, because they would have rather kept slightly more of their profit margin.  It simply isn't sensible that they would do so.  Of course I could imagine them claiming they would very clearly and in very unified fashion.  "We're sorry but there's just no money to do that, we realize we may lose some of our beloved players but there's nothing more that can be done about it."

However, after that clear statement, they're going to be watching player activity very carefully.  If the population stays low, they're going to rehire.  Businesses are in this to make money, and the nuclear option would hit them where they live.  With that said, people must be willing to go through with these actions.  If these types of player groups get popular, SOMEONE, somewhere, sometime, is going to risk their game to see if they can't wear down the players conglomeration and retake the kind of unilateral control that it is (occasionally) considered common wisdom that they 'should' have.

As to the how?  I think we should agree on simple bullet points of what we expect, and then agreed upon avenues of action.  (Blackout days, mail campaigns, email campaigns, subscription lapse, etc).  When we have that all in place, we'd need to structure it, we don't need a particular head of an organization, but we do need a way to vote on what's important so that the organization has cohesion and only acts to larger issues.  I.e. pushing to reinvest is good, but organized blackouts in the name of the "Unified Gamers" that are demanding the inclusion of magical ponies will not have the full weight of the group even though that's where it started, and thus will not be taken seriously.

More than that, establishing a community outside of the game can be quite important, so, if we ever are forced to leave a game (or are taking a break from it for a short time to let our voices be heard) we can still find people to play with in other games, as well as finding suggestions for other games, when we can't play the one we'd like.  I think the first step (and pardon being away) would be refining our expectations and establishing a potential set of protest actions.

[Moonfyire101]

Everyone from Youmacon was very interested in this. How do we actually do this? Should we have a lawyer draw it up and then submit it to game companies and ask them if they would like to be registered  with us and follow these guidelines? Then they will get even more subscribers because their money will be safe with the company.

Basically everyone agrees that we paid for the game. We own it. We pay for service for the game. When service is no longer provided by the company we have the right to play the game we paid for. So, if they don't want to sell it to another company who wishes to provide service for it we should have the right to make our own private servers. WE PAID FOR IT DAMMIT!

[Moonfyire101]

i would think so. we'll have to find a way to have that on their too.Most games even if they are free to play still require you to purchase the game its self. So those would definately qualify. Not sure how to word the other one...the ones like shaiya whereit's free to download and play. Maybe make it a seperate bill that the comapnies can advertise they are a part of also?

[Colette]

I concur, Gangrel. While not everyone invested in this game (though I did, more heavily than I ever planned,) everyone is worthy of consideration and respectful treatment.

[Moonfyire101]

[johnrobey]

 I'm late to the table and this thread but I like the OP.  Great idea!!

[Ponderer]

Hey all!  A bit of thread necro here, for Gangrel:  Free To Play models for games still exist to make money.  For the sake of my proposal I don't see a need for a shift in focus, only because this is not about what companies give players, it's about the standards that players intend to hold companies accountable to.

As to your question, at what point do these rights kick in, it's when we hold a company accountable for behavior that is not in the best interests of the game.  As to changing the wording of our expectations, I disagree in whole.  A company should be expected to act in its own interests, and this player action should recognize that.  However, the point of this isn't that those who spend more are more valuable, or that those who spend nothing are not valuable.  Those who play without paying are investing time, and given a reason will also invest money.  Whether or not they have done so at any given time is not relevant to this action.

This is the same thought I have regarding a lack of legal standing.  In my idea, it isn't about trying to make companies sign a contract, it's about unified player action.  If they behave against players will and wishes (firing good employees, forcing fundamental game shifts to try to strong arm money, etc), they will face a strong, unified player base that will organize to respond to their behavior.  You don't need a legal standing to carry out player actions.

[Rotten Luck]