I would add: Don't charge full prince for a game who's ending you'll release as DLC a year after launch.

Electronic Arts has done this a few too many times in recent years. Does anyone else miss expansion packs?

Then there's also: Let me own the game, and play it how I want to, without fear of permanently loosing access to it, due to "errors"

Again, it's something EA's been doing for a while. But Steam also has that power, with the all bans are definitive, unquestionable and so forth.

 Oh and: Don't treat me like a thief after I buy a game.

This is more the Ubisoft method of needing to constantly prove you haven't stolen the game by being permanently connected to the internet. Otherwise they can't tell if you've stolen the game from one minute to the next. Although, they have resorted to on launch activation lately.

Oh, and lastly 60$ != 60€. Also known as the reason people opt for piracy in countries where income is low, but prices aren't region adjusted, like they are in Russia.

when they threaten to release cursed merchandise,  'this game sure is looking sweet, but if we play it we'll get a disease' kinda thing

it's like traveling all day hackin/slashin your way through the 1st-3rd lvls of a beholder's liar wearin rusty chainmail & happen across a brilliant set of +5 Full Plate Mail, only wearing said armor would result in a change of gender

Cheevos plastered all through a game.  If you must have some kind of achievement system, please let's not have one for silly things that are not really achievements at all.  Unless silly is part of the genre.

How is this detrimental?  Instead of playing the game for the fun of it, you get scores of players playing to nail achievements.

Humbly, I disagree with this. This is not something the gamer should be able to demand. Rather, I think the developer should clearly display, when selling pre-order DLC, whether it will be included or sold in the future or not. That way, we can decide for ourselves if the preorder is really worth extra money, or if I can wait and still not miss out later on.

Another one:
If a game contains a scripted singleplayer campaign, it should clearly state approximately how much time the player can expect to spend on that singleplayer campaign. If the singleplayer campaign branches with major choices, or is contained within an open world, that should be stated after the approximation. Sandbox modes, or multiplayer modes (excluding coop in single player campaign) are not to be included in this approximation.

Edit: I also support the idea of selling a special version, a "complete" version, with current and future DLC included. The price would be higher than the non-dlc release, but it would still save the consumer money in total (complete version costs less than non-dlc version plus all dlc). The developer should price it from the start according to what they estimate to release in the future as DLC, and if they later on decide to produce more DLC that could up the current "complete" version cost, but those who bought it before should get it for free.

Edit2: I realize there may be some conflict between pre-order bonuses, and a "complete" version. In that case, the "complete" version should include all the pre-order bonuses. It c-ould be quite a bit more expensive, say 10-15 or maybe even 20 dollars. But it should be an option. If the plan is to limit pre order bonuses to only prepurchasers forever, then no complete version should be sold (as it is not complete).

I also agree. I think this would help sell dlc to people who don't like purchasing stuff online as well. So what if the complete dlc package ends up being  a really good deal eventually, it would be a horrible deal to start....

I don't think the GBOR is dated at all. It is fine as it is, but I guess there are some things on DLC that could be added. One thing I might want to add is related to inconvenience of downloaded songs from Singstar (PS3):

"Gamers should have the right to access and re-activate previously purchased downloadable content with ease."

Also, a more general one related to DLC:

"Gamers who buy a product advertised as a full game should receive a full game experience without additional purchases."

All these complaints about protection, DLC's, cookie cutter crap, ect.

WHAT ABOUT CONTENT!

Oh, so I have flashy graphics and real to life physics....

Who gives a dam if the gameplay lags, story is crap, and the balance is off?  Studios need to put more into their conception and beta testing budgets, and FAR less into their fancy engine and marketing departments. 

I'll say it again... CONTENT, CONTENT, and CONTENT! 

Lets have more strategy, story and intrigue - and less twitchy finger, over intensified action.  I play games for fun, not a workout/powertrip.

/rant

Sorry, got a little carried away

• Very admirable of you indeed.
  
  
  If you are truly wishing to go as far as it's needed for our civilization to continue to progress I would suggest these measures:
  
  Never, ever let yourselves be sued like EA is in various places of Europe now over invasive tools that scan harddrives and look for newely installed products or driver updates. Ask for people to fill in charts or ask for volounteers to submit these informations according to strict rules. There are peple out there who want to help the good guys and will do this if asked. I might to.

• I understand that you need to protect your software from piracy but intodays world for games that aren't multiplayer based it is nearly impossible anyway. But if necessary include all the protection that you need as long as installs aren't limited for personal use by legitimate buyers and as long as the game isn't invasive.

• We gamers are pretty weak and have gone from owning games to owning liscences to games to owning merely the rights to play some games. The later I would never pay for. But I would like to see the liscences include the rights to modify (although not necessarily take out and re-use) any part of the game that is not in conflict with the point above. The idea of forcing customers to DLC when we can build it ourselves and you professionals can concentrate on developing the difficult parts that take games and programs into the new frontier is deplorable.

• Release the sourcecode/engine after 10 years or make the games free after 10 years if you've earned at least more than their budgets (including all salaries, expenses for rent during that period, electricity, the christmas party and what not). It's not fair in my opinion to earn money on non-productive work for years or even generations, time and time again. You can if you want keep the rights (renew them indefinetly) to the lore and the name as long as non-commercial use is allowed.  Hell imagine if Orcs and Elves and all the ancient myths of our time were copyrighted by a corporation for ever? What would we have as a culture at all?

Those are my four most important parts.
Thanks for listening.

The main problem I have is with Ubisoft and Blizzard's decision to try and force people to play online in order to reduce piracy. 

Diablo 3 should have a fully functional single player offline experience, even if it I can never move those offline characters to Battle.net. This means that mods and save game editing will not be possible, which is a huge disappointment for me. Borderlands and Diablo 2 are both games that were much more fun when you can create your own items to play around with.

Might and Magic: Heroes 6 introduced lots of cool perks and a progression system that you only get if you play online. Maybe this would be forgivable if they had reliable servers, but they don't and users complain of having to start over missions from scratch because they got disconnected.   

Ubisoft has also been putting online only DRM into many of their other games as well.

I understand that if you are making an MMO then it makes sense to put always online restrictions. The problem is that these games aren't MMOs and they are games in a franchise that has a history of being single player games with optional online capability. 

I have no idea how to condense that into a bullet point though. 

I want to own the game and install it when I want.

The game's advertised features should work upon release and if there are problems they should be repaired within the month.

Developers are alienating fans by releasing crap and hoping for the best.

I'm done pre-ordering anything once my Rebellion order is done.

I think the update is a good idea. What it needs now is popular support in the form of all gamers agreeing not to buy a product until the company agrees to follow the bill. A Gamers Guild would go a long ways towards solving some of the capitalistic evils in letting corporations make our videogames. 

I've always viewed it as a tool designed to get publishers and developers to agree on certain standards for their own self interest.

Back when we first did this, I *know* most publishers were totally unaware of how much their own practices were damaging their own sales and leading people to become pirates.

So anything we adopt has to be something that makes business sense. It's not the Gamers Bill of Wishes.

Ah, so Chris Taylor and his studio, Gas Powered Games, were involved with this too. I knew there was something else I liked about them after I got Supreme Commander Gold recently.

The "always online" aspect for Blizzard games as of late is really scaring me, because it wasn't like that before. Battle.net was always just the icing on the cake to Blizzard games, not the entire Blizzard experience, except for World of Warcraft, for obvious reasons.