Stardock have published a “Bill of Rights” for gamers which is an interesting read and an interesting initative . Could bring some integrity back into the industry as seen from the view of a consumer like me. (Yes, I like to play computer games; it is a good relaxing tool for me)
The list looks like this:
The Gamer’s Bill of Rights:
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 play adequately 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 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.
I do, however, have some response to their list (of course hehe)
1) This should already be covered by consumer laws. Sure some stores try to weasel out of it with "products have been open" and all that – but it is consumer law.
2) In theory I would agree, if it weren't for 2 things.
Gamers themself.
Software is never "done".
Gamers are inherently impatient and want their game now and not later. Just watch game forums when an anticipated game gets delayed. People are ranting up and down demanding release dates.
Secondly – they buy all these unfinished products, so why should developers change their way willingly when the consumers seems to be indeffierent.
Yes, I know we are many who complains about the bugs, but we are also many who still buy the products (although I do avoid some because of bugs myself, I'm speaking generally).
Software is "never" done. Sure it can be more or less finished, but due to the complexity of the software and the machines they run on. Bugs are impossible to weed out. Some players will get hit by more bugs then others which is quite visible. Sure more testing can be done, more quality control etc – but ultimately it comes down to an economical call "can we sell this and will people buy".
And the sorry state is that people buy them 
3) Depends on the game and the "meaningful" content. If a game was completed fully (as per item 2) then demanding additional content for free is perhaps a bit ….. naive and greedy.
4) Completely agree. I should be the one to decide what runs and when on my computer.
5) Very much agree. And the same goes for recommended. It is an annoying thing when companies understate the specs requiered simply to sell more copies. There isn't much worse then playing a game with frames per minute simply because the specs were understated.
6) Agreed. See point 4.
7) Agreed. Would be nice. Would also mean the need for less discs in this day and age of broadband.
Agreed to an extend. The problem is much more complex then this, but I do agree that customers – legal, legit customers – shouldn't be penalized because a large segment of people can't figure out how to behave. This does not mean I do not understand and sympathize with anti-piracy protection. Is should just not be so invasive it causes problems for legit customers.
9) Well – connection to the web could be a means of copy protection, in which case I find the procedure less invasive then many others. A matter of taste, which I see no issue with personally, but then again – I'm on broadband and am always connected anyway 
10) Oh yes yes yes. The most important point on the entire list in my book. I so hate having to have the discs in the drive.
But all in all, I think it is a good initiative and more power to them for it. Lets hope the industry could start living up to some of it again.
It was a very good move from 2 company who seems to stick to PC gamers even though others were leaving already. I could not remember the last time I played a vanilla game without the need of a patch.
I blame all on console gaming .. seriously.
[quote]"I’m on broadband and am always connected anyway"[/quote]
i have to choose: i can’t afford both connection AND games.
in italy you have to subscribe for 12 months at least, to have home DSL, and since i do not have a regular job (like a lot of young people) i’m not going to sign that contract.
so i try to buy games. but since almost every recent pc game has some sort of online ******* registration, i gave up buying pc games. nowadays i buy old, cheap, used games that i can easily run with dosbox, a native win98 pc or a psx or a ps2.
and when i manage to get a connection, i download one out of that trillion freeware indie games.
what’s the point?
well, that game industry have to understand that not everybody wants (or "has the possibility") to have an internet connection. if the game HAS NECESSARILY to be activated etc, then write it out in clear letters on the box.
this also implies that publishers have to deliver games to shops in a playable form, without the need of that lot of patches… ev’ry game i bought last year seemed to have been released in an early beta. [have you ever tried to download a 83Mb patch with a 56k modem? paying for ev'ry minute of connection? when you've already paid for the game?]
i’m not going to say that "i will pirate, ahrrrrr, every game i wanna play". i’m gonna suffer, i will not play the new games i’d like, but i’m gonna freeware and retro. stop.