Kristen Salvatore, editor-in-chief of PC Gamer, writes in the December issue (available now) that she is suspicious of the Gamer's Bill of Rights issued at PAX 2008 by Stardock CEO Brad Wardell (Sins of a Solar Empire) and Gas-Powered Games CEO Chris Taylor (Total Annihilation).
I am 100 percent committed to the belief that, as consumers... PC gamers deserve to feel confident in their purchase... But the Gamer's Bill of Rights is riddled with ambiguities, which is why I and others are eyeing it with some suspicion.
What constitutes a game's "finished state," and who determines it? What makes for a "meaningful update"? And is it really my right to play a game without the disc in the drive - even if it increases the possibility that the game can be pirated?
I applaud Brad Wardell of Stardock and Chris Taylor of GPG... But if the Gamer's Bill of Rights is to transcend publicity-stunt status and become a catalyst for real change, it needs to be the starting point for a tough conversation about which rights PC gamers should really expect to enjoy - and which, as the result of enjoying the freedoms of an essentially open platform, they may need to give up.
GP: What do you think, GamePolitics readers?