Great article.  My favourite parts are:

-"Fact is that in many cases, it's because developers and publishers are screwing up."

-"Some games were released just plain broken as a result of bad development. Vanguard and Tabula Rasa's launches were just befuddled messes."

-"However, in transitioning, both of these games hemorrhaged customers and the population plummeted like dinosaurs after the asteroid struck."

-"We made the mistake of introducing a mechanic that changed our game, rather than enhancing what was already special about it…"
 

I've seen all of these things as well, and they all seemed to really hurt the games in question. 

I'd add that games are really over-hyped.  It's a real downer when you're told that a game is going to have really spectacular features, and then when it goes live, they simply aren't there, or they're there but they don't work.  Sometimes they're never fixed and just axed.  Then players get the company line that says, "well they were there, but we couldn't get them working, and we have the right to change our game as we see fit."  Heh, maybe so, but then customers are going to exercise their right to hit the cancel button, and publishers can watch their investment go down the toilet.  It's a lose/lose situation for sure.

Originally posted by Gyrus

Originally posted by Scot

I am afraid when you start talking about ‘rights’ an "overwhelming law above all others" is exactly what people infer....

Okay... so you think up another title and go and suggest it to Stardock.

 

"Overwhelming law above all others" is one definition for a charter of rights.  It sounds like a very legal and literal interpretation.  I think the confusion is that one term can have more than one meaning.  It depends on the way you interpret it, based on your own world-view and experience. 

I use the term metaphorically.  What I mean in a literal sense is, "a list of good business practices that demonstrate respect for MMO gamers."  I might also mean, "a list of standards for consumer-friendly MMOs."  Put more simply I'd say, "yo if you want people to actually play your games, you might want to try this."

Stardock seems to be using the term as a policy that they will follow above all others in their delivery of games.  In that sense, it fits the overwhelming law above all others theme, but refers not to law, but company policy.  That's what it seems like to me, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Beatnik59

I still think that if they implementedthe CURB, the game would not only reach parity with WoW, but surpass it.

WoW has very narrow appeal.  Basically (with a few exceptions) the playerbase consists primarily of adolecent and young adult males who enjoy shooters, sports, and console games.

SWG had a broad appeal.  It appealed to not only the above groups, but also, women, professionals, middle aged adults, and the elderly.  People who never even played games regularly played Galaxies, because it was far more than a mere "game," it was a means of expression and recreation.

The problem wasn't the design, but bugs, and imbalances that simply weren't attended to.

Yup, they thought the problem was the "vision" of the game, and ignored all of the feedback about bugs and imbalances.  I'm referring to head office btw.  Some of the devs were doing an admirable job of trying to fix a mess that should have never released when it did.
 

Smed seems to miss the obvious and come to some bizarre conclusions at times.  (e.g. what we need is a level system, 9 iconic professions, less depth, an xp bar at the bottom of the screen, fps combat, the addition of RMT etc.)  No Smed, you just need to make your games work properly and stop giving your players (and devs) a hard time.

Originally posted by Cyborg99

The Big Gaming Company Bill of Rights: (This does not apply to indie devs/companies)

Freedom to.......

1. Ignore the haters of "Big Greedy Corporations" and the abililty to brag about how much money we make.

2. Release a game "as is" without having to support the game for 9 millions years.

3. Ignore the haters of our customer support. It is not a magical system and customers will need to use some of thier brainpower to do basic steps to play a game.

4. Release generic theme park based games because that is what dominates the market and will make us the most money.

5. Use RMT to make more profit.

6. Use DRM to help fight piracy.

 

The common man complains to much about "big scary corporations" being to greedy. Well maybe you poor people should have worked harder then you've been able to make the big bucks. I'm like Robin Hood's arch enemy, steal from the poor and buy services/products from the rich, man I love Capitalism. Someone need to stand up for whats right, I guess I'll do it.

 

But at the end of the day the "common man" still has the upper hand. If they don't like the product/service then they won't buy it.

Actually, I think a big problem is that some MMO publishers give the very message your bill of rights does.  Essentially the message seems to be, "give us your cash in advance, and we'll do whatever we like with it.  If the game doesn't work, too bad.  If the features we advertised don't exist, too bad.  If you pay to play something and then we delete it without warning, too bad."

I'm suggesting that the "common man" has indeed given many game companies a response to this approach.  The result appears to be game closures, server closures, viral marketting campaigns to try to lure unsuspecting gamers into a bad situation etc..  Tbh, I'd like to see the industry turn a corner not just for gamers, but for publishers as well.  Right now, there are a lot of people who seem to see MMOs as some kind of get rich quick enterprise.  They don't seem to value quality games or good customer service.  The games and gamers are nothing more than a means to an end.  Devs just get caught in the middle between investors who don't get the big picture and disgruntled customers. 

I think good games are made by people who value good games.  I also think that gamers have a better experience if they are respected by the game provider.  You know, a company that actually wants people to have a good time with the service they provide.  I know there are people like this in the industry; I keep in touch with them.  They're responsible for some really quality work, and they really do want people to have a good experience.  They also want to make money in the process of course, but this is not their one and only motivation for being in the business.  I think that's what sets them apart from mediocrity and outright junk.

Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Originally posted by Cyborg99

Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi

Bad companies go away. All we need to do is let it happen. It's also very easy to sway the opinions of the very same gamers they target to speed that up. No need for the government. My bill of rights is free speech.

 

This guy understands the fundamentals of capitalism.

Please note the recent, global financial crisis that was directly caused by poor regulation of the banking industry in the U.S..  Some authority needs to ensure fairness in a free market economy.  Without regulation, greed and fraud would run rampant and the economy would collapse, as it nearly just did.

Capitalism was never designed to function without regulation.  This is one of the lessons of the Great Depression.  We have such short memories.

Having said all of that though, free speech certainly plays a role.  This is one reason I vote with my wallet, and share my comments with friends on forums like this when it comes to MMOs.

P.S. for Fikus: Ironically your right to free speech is guaranteed by....a Bill of Rights.  Let's not forget what so many people had to go through to make that a reality. 

I would argue it was government involvment that let the market get to the point of gobal crisis, and prolonged it's severity just to argue if I was in the mood.  I'm not educated enough in economics to make a truely informed opinion though. And yes, that was my point about free speech being my bill of rights. Those rights give us all the power we need in my opinion. I dont trust regulators to be any more honest, than those that would plot and scheme to defraud their customers. Again, like I said im not any kind of scholar here nor am I pretending to be. But regulation, is a foot in the door. And online gaming is a new media that ideologues would love to dominate. Games can influence people, the same as TV or radio. In my opinion. Probably wayyyy off here lol.
 

I do completely understand your point, nor am I opposed to regulation. My only point was, we have the power to do so much more and be so much more effective, than a gamer's bill of rights. It would only be used as pacifier for those that would protest. Or as a marketing/ extortion tool. I really doubt it would be enforced or change the way a few do business. However, if all else fails, then fuck em. Let uncle sam empty thier wallets like they do ours. Looking at where the industry is heading, I cant say that I really care anymore either.

What we need is for the gaming media to DO THEIR JOBS!! They should be the ones keeping these companies honest. Sell outs for the most part in my opinion.

How did that sound? I just made it all up as I typed lol.

Lol it sounded pretty good.  Thing is, free speech, imo, does have an important place in keeping companies accountable to the consumer.  We do agree on that ^_^. 

Before I pay money to play a game, I read about it online.  I check out the features, terms of use and reviews.  I do this because I don't want to get sucked into a money pit, or invest time and energy into something that's going to be pulled out from under me when I least expect it.

Personally, I just think publishers should develop user-friendly policies.  You know, give people what they said they would, make sure it actually works, don't yank features or delete progress on people out of the blue.   If they do have to make changes, give people lots of notice and give them options about continuing to play or not, without financial penalty if the game they paid for no longer exists.

Really, most other entertainment (and other) services I subscribe to funciton this way.  If MMOs want to go mainstream and grow large populations, I just think that they're going to have to take a look at these issues.

Originally posted by Lansid

The only winning move is not to play.

Heh, I loved that movie ^_^.  Of course consumers have the right not to play.  Game companies also have the right to stop driving away their customers with unfair practices.  Government also has the right to pass legislation that governs contracts between MMO service providers and consumers.
 

Everyone's got rights and choices to make.  I hope that some of the choices change, in light of how poorly so many are doing in this industry.  Look at the profit losses, job losses, game closures, server closures, population declines, increasing fees for less service and I think you'll see where I'm coming from.

If someone says this has to do with the global economy.  You're back to pointing to a need for better regulation, btw...just so you know.

Originally posted by Gyrus

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Hey Gyrus, what you think of my findings in post number 44?  I'd love to hear your thoughts.  I was very pleased to come across this company's terms of use.

...

Certainly worth reading.

Germany apparently has strong consumer laws too?

 

I think more than anything this shows that it is possible for a games company to do business in a fair way with consumers.

According to what some people would have you believe this company should have been driven out of business by now for offering terms like these, as pirates and gold farmers run riot?  Apparently not?

As a side issue I looked up Frogster too (also German).  Not quite as good but also not written in the draconian style we are used to seeing U.S. terms written.

Hey Gyrus, I have a follow up for you on Pirate Galaxy.  I said earlier that I liked the terms of use, but had to see yet how things like polish and customer support stacked up.

Well, I logged out of the game in a very bad place, at a very bad time and got myself stuck somewhere I shouldn't have been able to get to lol.

So I emailed the development team, on the weekend.  Last night in fact.  This morning, I'm fixed, and got a email from the game's lead dev.  That's pretty darn good support I'd say.

I remember waiting for months in another game, after sending a ticket and a bug report on a broken quest that I really wanted to complete.  They never responded.  About six months after I sent the ticket, they deleted the entire quest line lol.  Fixed! :P

Originally posted by Cyborg99

Originally posted by FikusOfAhazi

Bad companies go away. All we need to do is let it happen. It's also very easy to sway the opinions of the very same gamers they target to speed that up. No need for the government. My bill of rights is free speech.

 

This guy understands the fundamentals of capitalism.

Please note the recent, global financial crisis that was directly caused by poor regulation of the banking industry in the U.S..  Some authority needs to ensure fairness in a free market economy.  Without regulation, greed and fraud would run rampant and the economy would collapse, as it nearly just did.

Capitalism was never designed to function without regulation.  This is one of the lessons of the Great Depression.  We have such short memories.

Having said all of that though, free speech certainly plays a role.  This is one reason I vote with my wallet, and share my comments with friends on forums like this when it comes to MMOs.

P.S. for Fikus: Ironically your right to free speech is guaranteed by....a Bill of Rights.  Let's not forget what so many people had to go through to make that a reality. 

Originally posted by aesperus

This entire thread, while good hearted, is entirely misdirected.

 

You cannot have a bill of rights for consumers, when the product is non essential to life. You can organize, and try to get people to support this company or that, and that can be effective. However, unless gaming somehow becomes essential to life, you cannot force companies to respect their customers.

What you should be talking about, is a bill of rights for developers. These problems brought upon by publishers are allowed to happen the way they do, because developers often have little to no choice in the matter. Getting funding for a game is crucial to it's existence, and many games these days (and MMOs especially) cost a TON of money to make. Because of this, it's harder to find funding than it would be for other genres / other industries, especially given how much of a gamble some of these games can be. So often developers are left with a choice; either be strangle held by their investors, or disregard them and hope the money keeps flowing in.

Where this gets complicated, is where one can draw the line, when telling someone how they can and can't spend their money. It may seem straight forward to some, but the creative industry is probably one of the most convoluted industries to navigate. Throw in business politics and it can make these issues all the more difficult.

What needs to happen, at the very least, is some contractual protection to prevent publishers / investors from signing on to one type of deal, and then holding checks mid-project to try and force companies to make changes they want. Differing from the original contract.

I agree that there needs to be contractual protection for developers.  I think you're right on the money.  What I also think is that there needs to be better contractual protection for consumers. 

Gamers who click "I accept" to a user agreement are entering into a contractual agreement with the service provider.  In many places this contract is extremely lopsided.  In some MMOs, customers agree to do the following:

-pay cash up front

-accept whatever they get for the cash they paid, even if it doesn't work or include what was advertised

-have what they paid for changed at any time or completely removed

-waive the right to a refund if they never get what they actually paid for, or if what they paid for is changed entirely, completely broken or simply ceases to exist.

Is this a fair contract?  Don't forget that the service providers for some MMOs claim the right to even change the terms of the contract any time they see fit, and that the players on the other side of the contract have no voice whatsoever in the process.

Now, you've said that contracts only need to be fair if the service provided is necessary or essential for life.  Does that mean people can be ripped off on anything that they don't need to simply survive?  No.  Most of the things we rent, lease, purchase that are governed by contract law have very little to do with survival.  What they have to do with is protection against financial abuse. 

Originally posted by Gyrus

Originally posted by ArcAngel3

Hey Gyrus, what you think of my findings in post number 44?  I'd love to hear your thoughts.  I was very pleased to come across this company's terms of use.

...

Certainly worth reading.

Germany apparently has strong consumer laws too?

 

I think more than anything this shows that it is possible for a games company to do business in a fair way with consumers.

According to what some people would have you believe this company should have been driven out of business by now for offering terms like these, as pirates and gold farmers run riot?  Apparently not?

As a side issue I looked up Frogster too (also German).  Not quite as good but also not written in the draconian style we are used to seeing U.S. terms written.

Well the game is a recent release, so I'm not sure how it's going to do tbh.  I think in order for a game to be successful in this market, it has to have user-friendly terms, be very polished, be enjoyable, and have good customer service.  At least this company has got the user-friendly terms.  That's a good start.

I'm going to give it a try to see how things stack up.

Hey Gyrus, what you think of my findings in post number 44?  I'd love to hear your thoughts.  I was very pleased to come across this company's terms of use.

Many, many of the problems that have driven customers away from the MMO market simply would not have happened if companies had followed these principles.

Again, this isn't simply about gamers having a good time; it's also about companies realizing that they have other options besides driving their customers away with practices that appear to be extremely unfriendly.

Good games, run respectfully, are a win/win scenario for MMO publishers, developers and players.  The games that don't follow these principles not only have disgruntled players, they seem to be doing poorly and/or shutting down.  I think it's time for the companies responsible for unhealthy trends to pause and reflect.  Hopefully they'll have a moment of clarity. 

And here we have, fellow gamers, an MMO company that actually gets it right. 

-If they change the EULA you have 4 weeks before the changes take effect.  If you don't like the new EULA, you cancel and get your money back for any time paid beyond the duration of the current contract.

-If they make game changes that you don't like, they only keep the money you paid up until the revamp goes live.  All other fees you have paid are refunded because what you paid for is no longer available. 

-If you purchase the use of RMT items, and they delete them, change them, or make them available for free, you get your money back for any time you've paid for following the changes.  They keep the cash that you paid while you were making use of the RMT item before the changes, of course.

This is very simply, good business.  The game company gets money for services that you agreed to pay for, period.  If they stop providing what you agreed to pay for, if they change the terms of the agreement, if they nerf or remove items you paid to use for a certain period of time, you get ample notice of all game and EULA changes, and have the option of continuing to play, or cancelling and collecting a refund on time you did not use.

A big tip of the hat to the game company for providing one of the most user friendly mmo gaming experiences I have seen to date.  Two thumbs up.

This puts many other MMO service providers to shame imo.  Hopefully they'll take note of this example and follow it.

Here's a link to the terms btw:

http://pirate-galaxy.gamigo.com/agb/  They are in accordance with relevant consumer protection legislation in that jurisdiction.  Hats off to the legislators and all my gaming friends (devs, MMO execs and players) who helped make these principles a reality.

Originally posted by Gyrus

And what do you know.... hot off the press:

http://www.stardock.com/about/newsitem.asp?id=1446

 

and this

http://www.gamersbillofrights.org/

I had trouble with the adobe document on link number one, but it's at my end I think.  The second link was an excellent read, especially the case studies.  Thanks a lot for the links.

In response to this from Torik:

"I fully believe that the industry has to stop with the rampant false advertising and MMO companies should be refunding unused subscription money when they ban an account"

This would be a fantastic step in the right direction.  I also like what Pirate Galaxy is doing with virtual items.  Gamers buy a licence to use the items for a set period of time.  If the item is removed or devalued before the time is expired, the customer gets a refund on the remaining time.  They get a refund because what they have paid for is no longer available to them.  This is a great principle imo.  Do gamers own the virtual items?  No.  Do they have a right to use and enjoy them for an agreed upon amount of time?  Yes. 

In contrast, companies like SOE reserve the right to delete or devalue a virtual item that you have just paid for any time they please, at their sole discretion.  This is much less customer friendly.

The same should apply to subscriptions imo.  People should know what they are getting and for how long.  If they pay to enjoy something for a month, they should get to enjoy what they paid for, for the month.  Take the Trials of Obi Wan expansion in Star Wars Galaxies.  People paid for the expansion, and many then bought an additional 30 days to be able to actually play it.

Now, SOE had two dev chats about the upcoming expansion, and in not one of those did they ever mention the upcoming game revamp (the infamous NGE).  This revamp would go live 15 days after the expansion went live, and it would remove many of the features that led people to buy the expansion in the first place.

Did people get a refund on the expansion?  Yes.  Did they get a refund on their subscription time?  In isolated cases, yes; but in general no refund was offered.  People would have felt far less burned by SOE, if they had been told, "hey you paid for a game that no longer exists, and we failed to give you fair warning that we were deleting it.  You can have sub fees back that you have paid beyond the release of the revamp."

An alternative to this would simply be that SOE gave people fair warning of the upcoming radical change to the core game systems; specifically, they should have done this in the dev chats, but they chose not to.

Fair warning of upcoming changes, and simply giving people what they have agreed to pay for are two principles that would go a long way in making this genre more mainstream imo.  Fair refund policies where people cannot use what they paid for would also be excellent.  This is part of the Australian legislation, and is also available in some states.  The bold print in many EULAs that tells gamers that they are entitled to no implied warranty is simply invalid in some states.  If you buy a game in these states, and it is not fit for its intended use, you really are still entitled to a refund.  Wikipedia will tell you what states this applies to.  They just have better laws for consumers there.

Most entertainment services are regulated.  I think this one will be as well, especially if things continue as they have been.  Meanwhile I still think MMO companies should simply exercise better judgment.  Just because you can legally piss off most of your customers, doesn't mean it's good for your game or your business to do so.

In response to this:

"I think the point that I was trying to make, isn't that soe spoiled my game or that I'm some sad gamer who's desperately addicted to mmorpgs and will fight tooth and nail to have a game my way. It's that they treated me (and quite a few others), as a paying customer, as completely irrelevant. And then they attempt to spin some story in the markets whenever they get the chance.

Don't get me wrong, it's not the game(s), it's the company, or rather the management of the company and their attitude, behind the games that ticks me off."
 

/QFE  My thoughts exactly.

Also, in response to the suggestion that people are blinded by hate re. SOE:  Has SOE done anything right?  Well of course they have.  They did bring some form of creature handling back to the game in response to player input, and they did give entertainers a role to play in the game again.  Is this good?  To me, it is.  They also restored at least some form of auto-attack for those that weren't FPS fans.  Can people see this?  Sure.

At the same time, does this earn the trust they broke via things like the way they handled broken quests in the original game (working as intended), the way they shafted numerous professions and gave us an unwanted level system with the CU, the way they never mentioned the NGE in the stratics chats about the future of the game, the way they rendered core systems of a live game completely unplayable with an unwanted revamp, the way they removed most of the games professions, the way they stripped a brand new expansion of its features, the way they introduced an RMT loot gamble into a subscription based game, etc. etc. etc.? 

Well, lol, no.  It doesn't even come close.  Am I blinded by hate?  I don't think so.  I don't feel hate or even anger at this point.  At the same time, when I read yet another interview where Smed spreads it thick to try to promote his company, I'm not going to hesitate to call a spade a spade.

When he said he'd never ruin a game just for cash, that's a load of horse manure, and I think everyone knows it.  When he boasted about how well Free Realms is doing right at the time they have decided they need to change their business model to subscriptions beyond level 5, he's really pushing the bounds of credibility for me, again.

So, when I reflect on how Smed has handled SWG, Matrix, EQ, and when I read his latest interview, I'm not very excited about yet another MMO from SOE.  Also, regarding Vanguard, people seem to forget that SOE did take an active role in development, and that SOE did set the release date for the game knowing it was in a disastrous state.  Then when it tanked, they took over completely.  Some see SOE as saving this game by taking over.  If they really wanted the game to do well, they should not have insisted that it released in such a horrendous state in the first place.  They did though, and of course the players were disappointed.  Par for the course, which I think is my main point.

Originally posted by BullseyeArc1

Originally posted by hipiap

Speaking as a 2004 vet with an active SW:G account...

 

Move on.

 

Bet you thought this was a good idea too?

I bet if they didn't give us back the original coke, we'd still remember the day they pulled it from the shelves and replaced it with pig swill.

Originally posted by Wraithone

Remember, remember the 15th of November, the NGE treason and plot. I see no reason the NGE treason should *ever* be forgot.

Here, here.  And, to echo Fisher's comments a little earlier, moving on certainly does not mean forgetting.  I'm afraid Nov. 15 is going to be a date long remembered in the community of MMO gamers.  It should serve as a reminder of what is likely to happen if a game company decides to completely disregard the interests of their current customers in the hope of obtaining a new, hopefully larger playerbase instead.

Unexpectedly wipe out people's professions, pets, progress, communities, and remove features they just purchased in a new expansion and what do you get?  SWG, an object lesson on how not to manage an MMO.

Originally posted by Reklaw

Shame we keep seeing replies like this every time something is said about Smed or SOE.
 

Anyway as a gamer I look forward to seeing more and new games and I don't care who is making them aslong they turn out to be fun (which can be a reason to play) or perhaps don't turn out to be fun (which would be normaly be a reason for a gamer to not play) is all that matters.

Shame that after all these years all we keep seeing is the same old same old SOE bashing, if SOE or Smed where even half the things people say on forums like this SOE or Smed would not longer excist or have a job. But geuss what Smed is still where he has been for years, must be saying  someting regardless our feelings.

But I geuss aslong people are not able to be honost they will indeed feel other people are not honst aswell.

 

If Smed wasn't shoveling from the same old manure pile in his interviews, and if SOE had stopped with controversial changes to their live games I would strongly agree with you.

However, since the unbelievable comments (quoted in my first comment, right above yours, post #27) continue, and since the game changes to live games continue (RMT, loot lotteries, Free Realms no longer F2P after level 5 etc.), I'm quite sure people are going to have negative things to say.  Smed keeps providing new material.  He could do things differently afterall, and give us all something nice to say.  Imo, the comments fit the behaviour.  If you want the comments to change, SOE is going to have to change the way they do business. 

This comment from Smed has to be one of the most ironic things I've ever heard in my life:

"To this day, we're really very careful that game balance is the first priority - while it's to make money, sure, we can't ruin the game in the process." 

No, no John, you'd never completely ruin a game in a desperate attempt to draw in a larger target audience and more money.  Lol, who do does this guy think he's kidding?

This comment also has me scratching my head:

"Eurogamer: How profitable has Free Realms turned out to be?
John Smedley: As you'd expect, we don't discuss numbers, but I assure you we're very happy with the results; pleasantly surprised, in fact."

Really John?  Is that why you just changed the business model in Free Realms?  I think the latest announcement said that it's shifting to a fee model beginning at level 5.  Only the first few levels will be free to play, more like a free trial than a free to play game.  If the business model was bringing in so much revenue, why are you suddenly changing it?

Usually comments about an upcoming title have me feeling a mixture of curiosity and anticipation.  Comments like Smed's, along with SOE's track record, leave me feeling more a mixture of dread and indifference.  Dread because of what they might unleash next.  Indifference because I don't see myself playing it.

Originally posted by Death1942

Originally posted by gandales

 Not to break the fantasy, but aren't Bill of Rights things that are law for everybody and have to be obey even by force. Benchmarks, standards or criteria might be better terms for what you are proposing. 

 

If i was to pick one i would say Industry standards enforced by an international gaming society that is supported by both Developers and Players (But must be neutral)

 

I honestly can see such a society being set up in the future and as a soon to be developer...i welcome it

/applaud
 

In my experience, it's the devs and players that get maneuvered into nasty situations by some business person way up the food-chain looking only at revenue charts and not given a rat's hind-end about the game, the genre, the developer's work, or the player's actual enjoyment of the service.

I checked out some of the links provided earlier in the thread.  There's some good stuff in the works.  There's also an international working group looking at MMO and other online EULAs.  I agree that anything should be neutral.  I believe in win/win outcomes for publishers, devs and players.

As I've highlighted, the status quo isn't just bad for developers and players, it's resulting (I believe) in the failure of games and lost investment capital.  I've often heard publishers point to their EULAs and defend their legal "right" to screw their customers.  My response to that is, "Just because nothing is stopping you from driving away your customers, doesn't mean it's a good idea guys."

Also, truth be told, there are some legal parameters for MMO companies.  The trouble is that the rules change from country to country, state to state etc..  Part of a EULA may be enforceable in San Diego, for example, but not in Boston.  I think more consistency would help, and that people should be able to easily find out about their consumer rights when it comes to MMOs.  Right now, even just knowing your rights as a customer is complex.

I think some publishers exploit the inconsistencies and ambiguities.  I also think they count on players being uninformed.  When I think I see a company like that, I avoid them and share my perceptions with other gamers.