Are consumers of videogames treated as well as those of other media?

A couple of emails arrived in my inbox over Christmas that I'd been meaning to do something about, both from disgruntled gamers hoping for the Games blog spotlight to be shone on their respective plights.

The first highlighted an ongoing row between the community of Football Manager Live and the makers, Sports Interactive. Subscription paying users were told after investing months in their teams that the game was to be 'reset' to make way for an updated version - losing all the experience and progress they'd accumulated along the way.

Earned stadiums and players would be lost, and the existing communities carved up. Doubtless Sports Interactive hope the changes will result in a better gaming experience for all, but it's understandable that current players are upset.

An offer of free subscription until the reset in spring will be of little comfort to those losing out. Players simply wouldn't have bothered had they known all their hard work would be erased after a period of time. Quoting my emailer:

"From the perspective of a consumer, rather than a gamer, I can say that this is absolutely ridiculous."

This got me thinking - do we put up with more as gamers than we do when we purchase other media? The last two Football Manager games for example both insisted I install a Steam client and made me install huge updates to the game before I could play it.

Imagine buying a DVD only to be told that you had to install new software on your DVD player to watch it. Or that some of the scenes needed to be downloaded as it wasn't quite finished yet. Consumers simply wouldn't put up with it.

Now, this is a bit unfair on Sports Interactive who have always listened to their community when developing previous Championship/Football Manager games. They are by no means the first to rush out an unfinished product, or chuck unnecessary software in along with the game you're buying. But when did this become something to simply put up with?

The second email was a rather different gripe, but nevertheless a case of gamers and games developers in conflict. This time, a Games blog reader wanted to draw my attention to counterstrikepetition.com; fives years after Counter-Strike: Source was released an active community still remain and are desperate for an update to be released by Valve.

The emailer felt that Valve were shying away from competing with other FPS heavyweights, but that there was still plenty of demand for such a title. His argument is persuasive:

"Counter-Strike is different to most modern FPS games as it focuses on the player's skill and not the amount of time played and upgrades 'unlocked'. This seems to have left a gap in the current chart FPS scene on PC, and players are demanding a game just like Counter-Strike. "

Now, it would presumptious to expect games developers just to release whatever titles we fancy (after all, who would be accountable if they fail) but still it's indicative of some sense of neglect.

The underlying factor for all these gripes is that gamers are more attached to the products they buy than most other consumers - yet the companies creating that attachment don't always fulfill the accompanying responsibilities.

Loyalty works both ways, and games developers should perhaps take a little more time to think about looking after the communities they've created. As multiplayer and MMORPGS become more ubiquitous, this idea of a developer's 'duty of care' to its consumers is going to become more and more important.

Now, I'm in an unusual position here: a lot of the games I play are hanging around the office anyway, it's difficult to get too annoyed about them. And the only game I play online at the moment is Modern Warfare 2. So I'm curious - what bad experiences have you had on behalf of the games industry? Do you ever feel treated like a second-class citizen?