Jump to content
Sonic

C&C4's Net Connection Violates Gamer's Bill of Rights

Recommended Posts

An article on GamePolitics takes a look at the requirement that states you need to be online all the time to play Command & Conquer 4. GamePolitics says this requirement violates one of the basic tenets of the Gamer's Bill of Rights, a document released at PAX 08 by Stardock CEO Brad Wardell and Gas Powered Games CEO Chris Taylor. Electronic Arts is not part of this so called Gamer's Bill of Rights though.

 

Specifically, the C&C4 requirement violates this Gamer's Bill of Rights point:

 

Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.

The response from GamePolitics about this....

 

GP: This smells like backdoor DRM from here. Even if it's not, what if you're on a laptop? What if you're on an airplane? What if your Internet connection is down?

 

As a longtime PC gamer who has owned every version of the C&C and Red Alert games, this just sucks.

 

There is perhaps a glimmer of hope in APOC's comments. We note that he starts off with "As of right now..." Does that mean that this gamer-unfriendly policy is subject to change?

 

It's time for PC gamers to make some noise about this nonsense.

The original article can be found here. There is also further reading in another article at Ars Technica. Since the announcement of Command & Conquer 4 this has become and bigger and bigger issue and it looks like something EA will have to address. I should also add, this is the first time I've ever heard of this Gamer's Bill of Rights. To me it sounds like a buddy deal between to other companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Electronic Arts is not part of this so called Gamer's Bill of Rights though.

Well maybe they should be...

Share this post


Link to post

Yes this is a BIG issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Hah that's exactly what I thought. A backdoor DRM.

Well it's actually EA's choice whether to **** up something or not. They usually do.

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt EA will change this though. From what I read it looks like they have made up their mind.

Share this post


Link to post

Me too, I never heard of this article. But if there's rules such as this, I agree. Maybe someday it'll be updated to allow LAN gameplay, and when that exists and enforces, both EA & Blizzard will violate those. EA can change quickly, but Blizzard might probably not.

 

It is embarrassed, but it's EA that must change or else the "cops" will come to them for questioning. Overall, I agree with the ArsTechnica article, SC2 is on hot water and SC fans (Especially the Koreans) are already very angry. And EA better fix that issue, after all, have they forgotten that certain countries that people do not have internet connection. Poor people don't always intend to have connections at home, some will go to internet cafes instead. And here's a fact, NOT everybody in this world has a connection at home! You have to count on people who lives in the rural villages, jungle homes, etc.. AND coming from poorer countries such as several from the Middle East, Africa & Southeast Asia.

 

EDIT : After reading several of the article's rules, looks like C&C4 not just violate the single-player rule. The related topic is Valve violated "Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release." . When they created Left 4 Dead 2 & putting too little support on L4D1, here we are and I'm sure some of you know, the boycott arrived.

 

Ahh, si! "Gamers shall have the right to expect that games won’t install hidden drivers or other potentially harmful software without their consent." This means you, EA, NO MORE use of DRM or Securom! You got that?! Spore is the main lesson to you, enough with the limited installation, AND to get rid of the harmful Securom disease.

Edited by Silverthorn

Share this post


Link to post

See Silver, there are more than enough reasons why EA WILL NOT join the Gamer's BoR.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't want to join, huh? Well, then EA is truly lost, they are destroying themselves instead of improving, it's more like their own cure is worse than the disease.

Share this post


Link to post

Ahh yes, I remember reading that bill of rights thing a while ago. I have to admit Stardock are pretty good when it comes to dealing with their customers. Of course they aren't nearly as large as EA so probably don't face the same types of issues they do, but whatever.

 

 

The whole online all the time concept doesn't really fly if you are only going to be playing SP. It would be better if the game could simply store your information and then send it off next time you are online. They could put limits in if they wanted, like if you don't go online for a month your computer explodes. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post

Well, Lukus, I think it's best that EA should follow an example here in order to separate between the online & offline world.

 

When I'm purely offline for a long time, I play a character until Level 25. But when I go online for the FIRST TIME, it's considered back to Level 1. If I would to play online and reach to Level 30 instead, and when I go back to offline mode, it's back to Level 25 instead. It's just like you play with 2 different accounts, except it's only 1 account but serves both complete separate online & offline mode. More like you have account A1 & A2 together rather than a complete separate of account A & B.

 

Lastly, if EA has nothing to do with that bill, I wonder do Blizzard & Valve follow?

Edited by Silverthorn

Share this post


Link to post

Man, thats a travesty. I hate it when you require a once off connection in order to play a Single-Player game, let alone every time. There are a million reasons why an internet connection isn't available. Example, right now, Im overseas and have a USB dongle for internet, only problem is it blocks certain ports, and I can't access steam. Luckily steam has an offline mode. Will C&C4?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not overlooking the issue at hand here, but what annoys me with the article from GamePolitics is that it makes it sound like EA have to conform to this Gamer's Bill of Rights bull****. Like its some soft of real law. What other companies are part of this Gamer's Bill of Rights?

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not overlooking the issue at hand here, but what annoys me with the article from GamePolitics is that it makes it sound like EA have to conform to this Gamer's Bill of Rights bull****. Like its some soft of real law. What other companies are part of this Gamer's Bill of Rights?

 

Yeah, I had a giggle at that too. Its not like its written into any countries constitution or international treaty or anything. Its a couple of companies trying to buy some publicity by making gamers feel politically important.

 

They also have some bad wording on some of them as well. Like it is every gamers right to 'expect' meaningful updates after a game’s release.. It kind of leaves a loophole there. Well, sure you can expect it, but it doesnt mean we are going to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Stevie_K

Imo it would be best if it was law! Many of these things are what drives me crazy about game companies. I have several times bought games that simply didn't work and couldn't get my money back.

In Denmark you can't just sue the bastards.

 

This one "Gamers shall have the right to not be treated as potential criminals by developers or publishers" is exactly what those guys at steam should try and follow.

I had an account with more than 15 games on steam that I bought and downloaded, but becouse it got hacked they thought it was me, how stupid is that.

 

 

EDIT: and I have to say that this is so true: As an industry, we need to begin setting some basic, common sense standards that reward PC gamers for purchasing our games

Edited by Stevie_K

Share this post


Link to post
what annoys me with the article from GamePolitics is that it makes it sound like EA have to conform to this Gamer's Bill of Rights bull****. Like its some soft of real law.

I didn't get that from them at all... It sounded more like they were criticizing EA's willingness to make the customer happy. Like a breach of ethics rather than law.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I don't find them as pure political laws either, at least the word "shall" is weaker than "will". But it's best that every company should follow these policies in order to keep the customers happy. If they only want to do things to please themselves rather than pleasing fans & customers, then they are truly lost as they're only looking for losses in their sales or low profit. Like the boxart for instance, will EA follow our demands and use the Soldier's Head, or will they continue to draw their own bad boxarts with the usage of the lazy copy & paste method?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually this Gamer Bill of Rights isn't really a compulsory guideline for EA at all. Most probably EA (the main big ones) will probably ignore this and continue their plans.

 

I'd be happy if they just stick to the old traditional complete serial keys (not one letter less). No whinings about DRM etc etc. End of story. Piracy cannot be stopped, just accept it. Besides I don't think there are any pirated serial keys that will allow you to play online/multiplayer at all.

Edited by Malevolence

Share this post


Link to post

Si, si, Mal. Si!

 

For once, but still, I prefer the final product to have offline gameplay as well, if EA decides not to go for it, then they are truly lost, they are only driving customers away, especially me, if there's no offline mode, bye bye! I'm off to buy a cracked pirated version which has an offline mode.

Share this post


Link to post

The gamer's bill of rights is something that was formed between Stardock & Gas powered games last year. It was created in mind of protecting the consumer and as a roll on effect, the PC gaming market, which (to say the least) has struggled amongst the more lucrative console market.

 

The bill is more of a certification of quality rather than a set of rules. Although both companies believe, that in order to ensure good quality control, and final fully working released product... a gamer should at all times have the rights of the following 10 points:

 

We the Gamers of the world, in order to ensure a more enjoyable experience, establish equality between players and publishers, and promote the general welfare of our industry hereby call for the following:

 

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

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

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

4. Gamers shall have the right to demand that download managers and updaters not force themselves to run or be forced to load in order to play a game.

5. Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will adequately play on that computer.

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

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

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

9. Gamers shall have the right to demand that a single-player game not force them to be connected to the Internet every time they wish to play.

10. Gamers shall have the right that games which are installed to the hard drive shall not require a CD/DVD to remain in the drive to play.

It is a fair call though and I can understand why Stardock and GPG decided to write it up. It's basically a 10 commandments for quality... Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have similar rules for games on their latest consoles... But as it stands, the PC market is rather unchecked when it comes to certification methods. Unless of course they use Windows Live as a multiplayer backend.

 

EDIT: OK, I just pretty much reiterated one of the linked articles... didn't notice that :P

 

But still... there needs to be some form of certification process that all PC games publishers should adhere to. It would then fall in line with the rest of the industry... Then maybe we'll see larger areas dedicated to PC gaming in our stores as consumer and developer faith is regained in PC gaming... This is instead of the stupid little corner somewhere in the back of the shop, which is overshadowed by the space dedicated to the rather failed PSP handheld console!

Edited by Saracen

Share this post


Link to post

Wonder what happens when EA decide to pull down the servers for the game? One hell of a expensive coaster sitting there....

 

Sure its unlikely it will happen the first..year or three, but in five years when the game might be called a classic and EA decide their spending too much money keeping them up versus the number of actual players and they pull the servers down what then?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Stevie_K

They will probably by then have released an offline patch or something to keep people buying it for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not overlooking the issue at hand here, but what annoys me with the article from GamePolitics is that it makes it sound like EA have to conform to this Gamer's Bill of Rights bull****. Like its some soft of real law. What other companies are part of this Gamer's Bill of Rights?

 

Yeah Sonic, definetly a gimmick... but a good one.

Share this post


Link to post

"Rule" 1 and 10 are pretty moronic though- There are many people who don't look out for their PCs, resulting in crashing/faulting games- Why should the devs pay for their mistakes? And not having to have a DVD in the drive is pushing it too far- that's like taking the whole hand when a finger's offered, and that's pretty much what's wrong with today's society. Now that they mentioned it, why do I have to have the DVD in the tray when I want to watch Nip/Tuck?! I'm too lazy! Why should I have to swap discs?! God damn Hollywood forcing me to such unnecessary action!

Give me a break...

 

Apart from that, yeah. Problem is, EA has to protect their IPs somehow, and PC games aren't destined to work flawlessly on every machine. Heck, nowadays even console games need patches!

 

Publix666: You can still play CnC online onwards from at least RA2, an 8 year old game, so I doubt that's going to be the case.

Edited by hagren

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×