"Gamers shall have the right to return games that don’t work with their computers for a full refund."
I'd guess this calls for a literal translation. It may seem unfair to be having people return software because it's their computer's fault, but there are drawbacks to a fair system. First, proof is impossible. You would have to send a godlike tech support guru out to their house and inspect their computer inside and out before you could even presume that the problem was on their end. Unless they want to spend billions on the task, that's just not going to happen. Second, people aren't rational. Even if you proved it was their own fault the game didn't work, many would still hate you for "screwing" them anyway.
The only plausible alternative to a no hassle return policy is what we have now. You buy a game, it doesn't work/runs like shit. You try to take it back, they tell you to fuck off. You don't buy anymore games. I don't buy anything from EA, Ubisoft or Lucas Arts before it's been through the works. I just don't trust them anymore, I'm going to have proof the game was finished and properly supported before I buy it. If returns were no hassle instead of all hassle, I'd be a little more willing to offer myself up as a sacrifice for the latest beta test from EA that may or may not run to completion.
"Gamers shall have the right to demand that games be released in a finished state."
I would assume this refers to rushed releases. KOTOR2 anyone? It's fairly obvious when a game flat wasn'tt finished. I'd go with reasonable doubt. If it's reasonable to doubt the incomplete status of the game, then it's finished. 
"Gamers shall have the right to expect meaningful updates after a game’s release."
Doesn't really belong in a bill of rights. It is however a key hook to get people to actually buy the product. It's more of a common sense thing than something the customer has a right to. It's like having ketchup and mustard at a hotdog stand. Your customers don't have a right to condiments unless you're actually selling them, but you'll sell a hell of a lot more hotdogs if they get them anyway.
If you provide updates beyond bug fixes, and that's what they mean by meaningful updates, and it's at least semi difficult to get them through third parties with an illegal copy, people are more inclined to buy it. The content packs Bioware is doing with Mass Effect are a good example. They're sorta like miniature expansions, pre planned and with a nasty barb in the mix since EA went with SR7 and online activation, but an excellent method of selling copies to people that are capable of buying your product and on the fence about pirating it.
"Gamers shall have the right to expect that the minimum requirements for a game will mean that the game will play adequately on that computer."
30 fps, 1024x768, low settings. I'd consider that a nice baseline to work off. There, defined aqequate.
8,9 and 10, yeah... kinda repetative. The first does cover the other two. They are irritating enough that I don't mind their getting special mention though. Would be nice to have mandatory activation in the list too though.
Also, for 4, the key word there is play. Impulse doesn't have to run to play the game. It really doesn't change anything at all, it's just one patcher instead of another. Even when downloading stand alone patches, they still require software to operate, even if it's winzip. One of the more recent fads in DRM on the other hand is having a patcher type program that also servers as your own personal nanny, making sure that you're behaving. They start up with the program, connect to a server, prevent you from running various types of software, all kinds of wonderful things.
