A Gamer's Bill of Rights

I've been ranting and raving against DRM, Microtransactions, and DLC the past few weeks, and just came across this article. I wanted to share it and see what my fellow gamers think. Overall, i agree with all the points made.

After SimCity Debacle, a Gamers' Bill of Rights | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

credit to the author will greenwald

Preamble
Gamers are customers who pay publishers, developers, and retailers in exchange for software.
They have the right to expect that the software they purchase will be functional and remain accessible to them in perpetuity.
They have the right to be treated like customers and not potential criminals.
They have the right to all methods of addressing grievances accessible by other consumer.
They have the right to the game they paid for, with no strings attached beyond the game and nothing missing from the game.
Gamers' Bill of Rights
I. Gamers shall receive a full and complete game for their purchase, with no major omissions in its features or scope.
II. Gamers shall retain the ability to use any software they purchase in perpetuity unless the license specifically and explicitly determines a finite length of time for use.
III. Any efforts to prevent unauthorized distribution of software shall be noninvasive, nonpersistent, and limited to that specific software.
IV. No company may search the contents of a user's local storage without specific, limited, explicit, and game-justified purpose.
V. No company shall limit the number of instances a customer may install and use software on any compatible hardware they own.
VI. Online and multiplayer features shall be optional except in genre-specific situtations where the game's fundamental structure requires multiplayer functionality due to the necessary presence of an active opponent of similar abilities and limitations to the player.
VII. All software not requiring a subscription fee shall remain available to gamers who purchase it in perpetuity. If software has an online component and requires a server connection, a company shall provide server software to gamers at no additional cost if it ceases to support those servers.
VIII. All gamers have the right to a full refund if the software they purchased is unsatisfactory due to hardware requirements, connectivity requirements, feature set, or general quality.
IX. No paid downloadable content shall be required to experience a game's story to completion of the narrative presented by the game itself.
X. No paid downloadable content shall affect multiplayer balance unless equivalent options are available to gamers who purchased only the game.
​

 

Well, I don't want to go off some socialism vs. capitalism tangent, but this whole thing is dancing on that line. I say the market needs to decide, let these companies continue their drm trial and error crap, or how they sell it crap, they've already shown signs of learning. I still haven't bought a UbiSoft game since they started their always online, I was going to buy FC3 since they came to their senses, but I got a free copy here.

The biggest statement a gamer (whom wants to continue gaming) can make now is Stop PreOrdering. I'm guilty myself on rare titles, but only titles I know to be good. The companies (fill in ____________,__________,_________ etc) that continually launch unfinished games need to have their preorder numbers disappear. The ones making it impossible or difficult to enjoy your game down the road need to have sales disappear.

I just don't see gaming to be like food or energy (aka things not to be screwed with) and figure they can run their industry however they see fit (they're spending the money to make it), and I'll see fit whether I run their game (helping them recoup their investment). The whole world is Buyer Beware, there is no reason to expect some gov agency to impose ethics or fairness in the gaming industry. It's up to the consumer to punish.

 

The thing is, even if you do pre-order (at least from a retail store and not Steam, Origin, etc), you can always either cancel or return the game and get your money back as long as you've not opened the package. It's up to the consumer to do his or her due diligence. If you're concerned about DRM, but pre-order/buy then install without checking beforehand, that's on you.

 

I agree to a point. But it doesn't excuse companies for doing what they're doing. It's like blaming someone because their house got ransacked while they were away because they left the doors unlocked. Sure it was stupid not to lock the doors, but it doesn't excuse the thief that stole the merchandise.

 

Hope you see the irony in that statement.

 

No, it's kind've a weird metaphor. I think the customer is the homeowner and preordering the game is leaving your doors open. Being disappointed by a shoddy release is the game company stealing your stuff.

I think the irony he's suggesting is that a lot of the problems are due to DRM that is added as a reaction to high piracy rates for PC games, so gamers, as a collective, could somewhat be considered thieves.

I reserve the right to be incorrect about all of the above, because, as I said, it's a weird metaphor.

My opinion: if it sucks, don't buy it. If you can't live without a certain computer game, your life is headed in the wrong direction anyway. You can't necessarily be certain whether or not a game you preorder is going to suck, so you're choosing to gamble in the first place by preordering. If you get burned, it's because you lost the bet that the game + preorder bonuses would be worth the preorder price. If you're not willing to get burned, don't gamble on preorders.

 

Sorry the metaphor was lost in all this, the point was brought up that it's the consumer's fault for pre-ordering.

My point was that it's no different than blaming a consumer for a crime committed against them, even if they did something harmless but not so smart, like leaving their door unlocked, is all I was getting at. It had nothing to do with piracy.

 

preorder is a non-rational way of thinking (committing without basis), even with titles you crave to play, can you just not wait for the day on its release to download (internet speed is kickass pretty much everywhere nowadays)?

I unfortunately preordered Aliens Colonial Marines as a result of super hype they created around it for 3 years. Now all I get is the stupid game in my library. We should all stop this (btw if you pay attention, preorder bonuses are going nuts nowadays, I think there is a serious shortage of preorders, maybe us gamers are learning from disasters like d3 / colonial marines / simcity )

 

I remember when we had a freedom fighter who was in PSO on the game cube until he declared war on Sega. They were giving the Japan servers way more items and what not. and even fixed the cause of the fsodx that would wipe all your date in your game save.But for the US players they just gave us the finger. I remember coming back to P@ after this guy would come in and leave and there would be a ton of 12 star red items lol. Then he went on the sega forums declared war and bombed the japan servers all day long. Got to the point non English speaking Japaneses players would see him come in and turn off their systems on the spot lol.

Not saying i approve of this but they pushed him. Funny thing is after PSO EP 1,2 on the GC his named in any form was blocked on the games lol. And it seems on other games they were a little more fair and faster with getting the us players the updates. Wounder whatever happen to him i know they could not ban him because he had about 90 player cards that i knew about. There was a big topic of anti dupe and hack people who would get the player card and report it but by the time got it he already changed it. Moral of the story some times people only respond to one thing and that is force.


But we do need some governing body to step in and smack the hands of some game devs and say no. Then just curb stomp EA. Best way to get results is to just not give them money and let them eat the cost of the game dev. They will change if you do that they will have no choice.

 

If people had the sense not to purchase games that abuse them, you wouldn't need to have a governing body for this. In light of the outrage I've seen online with DRM and other garbage like always-connected games (a la the current SimCity, Diablo III) as well as their sales figures, I can't take the complaints of the majority of gamers anymore. Someone punches you in the face and you... come back for more? Why? Why not withhold your money until the main violators change their policy? Or, failing that, why don't you invest your money into a different time-waster? That story about the gamer attacking Japanese games servers because he couldn't get a few pieces of insignificant code is a sad story; sad as in "Really...?"

Buy games from a developer who doesn't force this stuff on you. Period. At least in America (and most Western nations), you're in a capitalistic market. Vote with your dollar. If a company like EA goes out of business because of this, tough for them. This argument is still pointless in my eyes.

 

I agree with the points made about this not being a government issue; it certainly is not. It is something that would have to be implemented by the developers/publishers, and it would most likely have to be forced upon them by the consumer. I've edited my original post to include the suggested rights as I am curious to see which ones are the most important to us, the gamers.

 

it is the opposite. games are treated as the exception. there are laws to protect consumers from disfuctional products, etc. laws to help consumers to get a refund. games are the exceptions to consumer protection laws.

 

So why not use the existing Lemon Laws? So far, it seems that we're proposing laws just for the sake of it.

Furthermore, there's always the option to order a chargeback if the game doesn't work (assuming you pay via credit card).

 

I'm a believer of caveat emptor; if a buyer doesn't do their research and spends money on a product that doesn't meet their requirements, tough for them too. We don't make excuses for "Why did you vote for Politician X when they believe and practice Y policies??", so why make excuses for buying a bad game? Wait a few weeks for reviews to come out, then decide on whether to buy or not then, *don't* pre-order the game, and don't buy on release day (seriously, what's up with that? I never understood why people would line up for first-day sales).

----------------------

Also, for SimCity players who still want to play, there's a way around the always-online requirement:

http://games.slashdot.org/story/13/03/14/1414257/hacker-skips-simcity-full-time-network-requirement

 

Eh, more money for those smart enough not to buy, less money for those mindlessly spending on bad stuff.

 

I agree with those who have said that a large part of the issue is blindly pre-buying based on hype, and buying in spite of opposition to Sim City-esque DRM. How many of the people making a big brouhaha out of this have bought the game? Probably quite a few. And probably quite a few of them also bought Diablo III, Assassin's Creed 2, and other DRM-infamous titles.

While I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in the OP, I dislike the formalization of it. Personally, I'd rather have common sense than a hard-and-fast policy, and most companies are doing a good job of common sense most of the time. It's not that difficult to simply not buy games with oppressive DRM - there's still plenty of good games.

I do object to some of the sentiments, mainly because they are too subjective. For 1, how do you decide what is a major omission, and what's not but can still be billed as a major feature in an expansion pack? For 8, "general quality" is way vague - sounds like a great opportunity to play the game for 2 days, decide it's not your cup of tea, and claim the quality is subpar. 9 is also subjective in many cases. And for 10, you could almost always argue that DLC throws off multiplayer balance in some way... that's an onerous requirement. See also, why I prefer common sense to formalized requirements.

 

Wouldn't that be nice. I don't know why, not a lawyer, but doesn't seem to work like that. All I know is, EVERYTHING I've bought on Amazon, NewEgg and other online stores, including shoes, and clothing, have a return and refund policy. The computer I'm using has a refund and return policy. But none of games do.

Not only that, on most products I've bought, it's a no questions asked return policy. I don't have to justify my return or refund. With games I have to justify why I believe publishers/developers should be held accountable for their product and justify why I deserve a refund if it doesn't work?

So I do not think this is about treating games special. It seems to me retailers and publishers treat games special, not the customer. I think customers just want the same guarantee with games and return/refund policy, the same treatment, as with ANY other commodity.

That is really really stupid. REALLY REALLY REALLY STUPID. If I want to buy a shoe, I can try on the shoe before buying. Amazon and other shoe retailers even allow me to run around a few blocks in the shoe and return it. I can go to a clothing store and try on the pants to see if I like it. But buy it from an online outlet for less, same model and size. But for some reason something went wrong in manufacturing. I can return it. Heck if I change my mind, I can return it. I am not stuck with whatever I buy just because I didn't do enough research, but even when I do, I still have a recourse if I change my mind.

And why do I have to depend on another person's opinion and experience with the game? You are on NBR and know very well even with the same model laptop, countless people have different setups and different issues that conflict with game and applications. And we all know even after reading and watching dozens and dozens of reviews, that once we play for ourselves, we discover the controls are just terrible for us. There is no guarantee even with the research. That is why Amazon and all other retailers provide you with a return policy. I could go to Jordan's furniture and buy a couch and later in the week it develops a bump or whatever, I can return it. Games should be no different.

Plus you make it seem as if this is a special case. It's not. In Korea you can already return a piece of software, even on your phone. And I know in Europe they have laws to protect consumers also.

 

Amazon asks for reason for refund, period.

There is no way to compare a video game to a physical good. A physical good has a well-known description which customer has a good enough opinion if he/she will use it or not prior to the order. Not the same thing with the game. How can the developers develop a game fitting the "taste" of consumer? I hated D3 as much as anybody has hated. But Blizzard didn't have my input developing the game, how can Blizzard "guess" my likes and dislikes to come up with a game (that I am no part of the development), so that after the purchase, I will be satisfied with it and keep it according to my bloody standards?

We should be logical in our purchases, read more reviews, don't buy the games that doesn't fit our taste (even that I am a die hard Simcity fan, I didn't buy it after reading so many bad things about it, wish I had the same resolve with D3 and damn Colonial Marines).

 

People buy clothes all the time and return them because of "taste" and they even have a chance to try the clothes on beforehand.

It gets back to consumer protection and for whatever reason, there is NONE when it comes to software, games in particular. Regardless the reason for return, there is no refund option, period. It could flat out not work and you'd be stuck with it, period. No recourse.

 

A lot of non-gaming software offers a trial period where you can use the software before deciding whether you want to pay for it. This is the case because people aren't going to buy a lot of that software otherwise, especially specialty software like file converters that offer limited, but perhaps indispensible, usefulness to the end-user. I suspect that, with a lot of small-developer applications and utilities, trial periods raise the bottom line rather than lowering it.

If games offered a trial period; say something small - 2 hours of in-game time before your purchase becomes unrefundable - they would garner the goodwill of their customers, but that's not something they really need as those customers are buying anyway. If they put out a shoddy release, they would get hammered refunding preorders. If they put out a good release, they would still have to refund people who decided the game wasn't their cup of tea, or those who had buyer's remorse for spending $60 on a video game. I can see a future path where a 2-hour refund grace period would potentially benefit gaming companies in the end, but in the short term it means losing money, and in the long term it's more work and costs more in beta testing to make sure the game releases well.

 

Nobody is responsible of producing "the games you like". If you don't like it, then don't buy it, period. There is a ton of gameplay videos on Youtube, heck, even they come out a day earlier in most cases (theRadBrad youtube channel). Take your time, cool off, watch it, then decide on buying the game, otherwise you are a bit too addicted to pc gaming, which you should find a way to recover from, period.

We cannot compare software to video games, where one of them takes a good amount of usage to come up with something that will be useful. While the other can be finished within 2 hours (single player wise). However I think a 2-hour multiplayer trial can be possible. Also this is precisely why the trial version of most software comes with limits (where you cannot actually use it to solve some real problem, it is basically to experiment).

 

If you ask me (just my opinion), but downloading a game in less-than-legal ways to try it out is a good idea. Don't like it, then uninstall, and if you like then buy it officially.

Typing this on my phone however, so ill post a longer, more well-thought-out comment later tonight.

 

Most of this I agree with, but a satisfaction guarantee for all games? Come on. You don't get that with music, books, movies, food, etc.

Sent from my Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 2.

 

The problem is that free weekends are typically a profit and multiplayer bump for titles that have been through the first round of buyers, they offer no insight into the new titles that most gaming buyer's remorse comes from. Yes, the consumers are at least as responsible for this problem (buyer's remorse) as the developers and publishers.

The other issue is that a free weekend is time-sensitive. A reasonable trial process doesn't force me to tie my trial to somebody else's schedule.

 

You don't? What country do you live in? I've returned books and food without hassle. Movies and music are entirely different too. You can hear music on the radio or on the web for free, and decide to buy. You can watch a movie on TV or even have seen it in the movie theater before. I've returned partially eaten food at a restaurant because it's crap, but that's consumable goods anyhow, a completely different product. You don't eat software, and can't trial it (usually) in any way, shape, or form, except for the rare demo prior to release. Heck I've even returned fruit to a supermarket because it tasted rank. They took it back without question. Why wouldn't they?

It gets back to the point of zero customer rights. None. Notta. Zippo. You can't argue against that at all. It's the only product you can't trial ahead of time and if you do you're stuck paying for it unless you pirate it. But piracy aside, since that's not a legitimate mans to acquire games, it's not possible. Very few companies, Microsoft is actually one of the few exceptions, that offers refunds. I returned FSX when it was released because it ran like sludge on my top end desktop at the time, despite exceeding their recommended specs. They refunded 100% + $8 shipping.

Problem is we can argue this until blue in the face because it is what it is, and there's no way to get REAL data how it affects the bottom line because no or few companies offer any kind of consumer guarantee. It's 100% speculation. Again, sure customers should use a little bit of sense before buying a game, but that doesn't make it right that you can't return a game either.

 

I'll also put some of the blame on the media. While they will mention stuff like always on DRM, they don't seem to penalize that aspect too much. On a 10 point scale, make restrictive copy protection a 4 point deduction or more. Hammer the Metacritic score because publishers take that stuff rather seriously.

 

Watch out, you're going to bring all of the "industry-controlled media" folks out of their hiding places with comments like that. The standard argument will be, "But the publishers are paying off the reviewers, so there! Nanner nanner boo boo!" However, there is legitimacy in the fact that the major review sites are for-profit companies that make most of their revenue off of ads for the games they're reviewing, so getting too raw in reviews is kind've biting the hand.

 

Returning food at a restaurant is a PRIVILEGE offered to you by the restaurant owner at that owner's discretion. It is not your RIGHT.

Returning an opened CD or opened DVD is almost unheard of, even as a privilege offered to customers. You open it, it's yours. Books are once again up to the seller. It's not a RIGHT of the buyer to return a book he/she doesn't like. Listening on the radio is not the same as buying a CD, opening it, and then asking to return it...and what's proposed here is comparable to the latter.

 

ROFL, there are far harsher consequences for restaurants if the food they serve you is as bad as the games that are being released. Shut down, and likely to be sued if especially bad.

And no, what is being asked is nothing like listening to the radio. If you opened a CD and it was defective, you most certainly can return that. That is the equivalent of what is being asked here. If you bought a book and it was missing pages, yes you can return it. That is the equivalent of what is being asked here. ROFLMAO.

And as you have noted, there are some things that are done common courtesy. Treating the customer right. In this case, publishers are treating customers like criminals. There is no law or regulation for this, but for what I have posted previously? Yeah there are.

 

The problem with an argument like the one bolded above is that it's based on an emotional response, not a factual assessment. DRM protects their intellectual property. Do you complain that Target treats you like a criminal by putting theft alarms in their stores? What about the local library when they do the same thing? There is not difference between these anti-theft measures and DRM in how they regard the customer (as a criminal, as you say). The only difference is that DRM isn't always very well-implemented, so it sometimes gets in the way of the consumer experience, while the little magnetic stickers are less likely to cause problems for consumers.

I also disagree with elemein's opinion that reviewers should leave DRM out of their assessments of games. Excessive DRM is problematic for consumers, and that should be an element that informs our purchases if we aren't willing to roll with draconic requirements to play a game. If the best bar in your town is only open while your friend is at work, would you recommend it to him? The bar (game) is great, but the requirement to go to the bar - going during work (DRM) - is going to make it hard for him to enjoy the bar. That's not a perfect analogy, but it'll do for now.

The restaurant thing is off base as well. I know of no place where it's the customer's right to return food they don't like. Restaurants allow food returns to retain their customers' goodwill - if they screw up your food, you're less likely to go back (so why do gamers keep going back to publishers who have let them down?). If the food is a health hazard for some reason, then yes, there are significant potential consequences, but there's no real analogue between salmonella in your Huevos Rancheros and video games. The biggest risk you take with a video game is boredom because it's not fun or because your system can't run it; that's not tantamount to a hospital visit.

 

One could argue that more invasive DRM schemes are more like a cake with nails baked into it - they don't make the cake any less delicious, but the certainly make it harder to enjoy.

The fact of the market is that there are good DRM schemes and bad DRM schemes out there. A game with a less-invasive DRM scheme - say tying the game to a Steam account - shouldn't be penalized for it, but a game with overbearing DRM - such as the always-online systems of Diablo III and SimCity 5 - should absolutely lose points for it. The more sources that are pushing for change - consumers voting with their wallets, reviewers voting with their reviews - the more motivation publishers have to improve their practices.

 

To me it's not about DRM at all. Yes DRM sucks, but the likes of Steam offer features for the customers. I do not like always-on DRM like Ubisofts crap. But that's a different topic entirely.

My whole point is consumer protection. Anyone who advocates it's ok for software companies to sell you anything without being held accountable needs to go live in North Korea. So if it's ok for software companies to not be held accountable, then let's say everything now is non-refundable. I guess that's ok too then, right? You buy it, you're stuck with it. Now imagine that you can't even resell that item to recover some costs. Well, that's ok too then I guess.

 

Disagree. With a DRM is always there, it's treating you as a criminal. You know what criminals have for house arrest? Oh right, monitors. That's what DRM is, it's always monitoring your use of your game.

When I go to Target and it has security measures to prevent theft, they remove it at checkout. Their cameras stay in the store, it doesn't come home with me. There is no device on my product that allows the company to know whether I let a friend borrow it, or if I used it in more 1 one location, or monitor if I sell it on Craigslist.

And the biggest risk to video games is not boredom. It's Sony installing software that steals all your personal information. It's theft, stealing your money. It's limiting your rights to do with something. It's being told what you buy, you don't own, the company still owns it. Apple thought so too, and the courts disagreed. But games are special right?

Xbox 360/PS3 owners can take their game to gamestop and sell it. They can lend their game to a friend to play. Play their game on more than one console.
- But once the game has online DRM (Steam, Origin, countless others), oh now you're not just a gamer, you're a criminal. Why are PC games in particular are so special that they operate differently than even Windows OS, or any piece of software? I bought Windows 8 for less than most 4 hour crappy games, and I know you can try it during a trial period.

Would it really be that terrible if publishers showed some respect to you? Or do you enjoy playing roulette?

 

I do view Steam a bit differently. Full disclosure, I have liked Valve for quite some time. However, I view Steam as more of a service instead of DRM, and looking at the Bill of Rights that was posted, I don't see any that Valve violates with Steam.
I am allowed to download Steam to as many computers as I want. I can delete and reinstall games at my pleasure.
There is an Offline mode so I can play my games without an internet connection (the game has to be programmed that way).
And they give refunds.

Anything beyond that is out of their control and due to the games programming, but perhaps I am missing something. Just my 2 cents on Steam.

 

If it's got bacteria and hospitalizes or kills people, this happens. If your soup is cold and your steak is overdone, you have no right to a different meal or your money back. None whatsoever. And while Colonial Marines and SimCity have really sucked, come on...it's not like kids dying from salmonella after eating at a restaurant. Let's keep some perspective in these analogies.

You're talking about defects with particular copies where they fall outside of the manufacturing process. If you buy a boxed copy of SimCity and the CD is cracked or blank, that's comparable to a book with missing pages.

I once bought the novel Hyperion. It abruptly stopped halfway through. WHAT?! It never said it was the first half of a story and I had to go buy another book to find out how it ends. Did I get my money back? Did I get the second book free? OF COURSE NOT.

Every convenience store that says "no more than two teenagers inside at a time" does the same. Every car dealership that needs to know where I live and take the keys to my own car before I go on a test drive of one of their cars does the same. When I collect a retainer from a client up front instead of trusting they'll pay me after the work is done, it's the same. It's just a business protecting its interests. It's not illegal and it's not all that rare.

Asking for courtesies at a publisher's discretion is not asking for legal rights against a publisher. A "bill of rights" is the latter.

Godwin?

10 characters

 

Yes, Steam is one of the few services that tries to protect their customers as much as possible (Lets remember the difference again, Steam is a Distributor, DRM is Publisher based service. For example, EA is Publisher, Origin is Distributor)

What we should really talk is not DRM, but obvious evil facts like the EULA of Origin, which basically let it scan your computer for intelligence and data. Let me get a bit deeper into this, Origin can easily scan cookies and figure out your email correspondence (I am not sure if it does this, but it may have as you agree to the scan prior to install). This is a violation of many rights. But DRM is NOT, period.

 

I'm seeing another issue being practiced by the publishers, it doesn't affect me so much as I don't have bandwidth limits and plenty of HDD space. But Sleeping Dogs and now Most Wanted 2013 have their DLC auto d/l'd to your HDD whether you buy it or not. These d/l's are in the GB range and people with bandwidth limits and no interest in purchasing the DLC are getting unduly hosed.

Guess it's pause updating time.

2c

 

I noticed that too, and I don't think you can play on Steam unless you allow it to finish updating?

 

You can't play the game until it's done updating, but you can play any other game, but it stops updating while playing.

You can always turn off automatic updating for each specific game.

 

HT has you covered.

Thanks HT, that's a potential solution, however, that should keep you from getting patches or anything else too. What I see on Origin though seems to be an improvement to Steam's limited pause only or disable updates choice, I can right click on a game and choose "cancel update". It did get rid of the 23% that already d/l'd with verbiage that it won't try to d/l that again and still leaving the client open for other updates.

So unless I'm missing something with Steam's handling of this growing issue, Origin finally has one up on Steam.

 

Yeah it does need some work. I swear I remember seeing a popup though saying DLC blah blah blah was available and I could choose which to download. But maybe not.

 

Somewhat relevant news: EA's CEO gets fired due to the SimCity screw-up:

Electronics Arts CEO Ousted In Wake of SimCity Launch Disaster - Slashdot

 

indeed HOORAY!!! (love the cats in the pic ) Hope new boss will make better decisions than scrapping Generals 2 and replacing it with awful pay to unlock type games

 

That ticks me off about EA more than anything else so far. Only game I really liked from EA in awhile.

 

See, that's what I meant by publishers "learning" or this is the "punishing" part . Like me in life, they too just learn the hard way.

 

Well, technically he 'resigned'. Wonder why? I started a seperate thread for it, who would be a good replacement?

 

CEOs and other senior officers rarely get fired. Most often, they are strongly "persuaded" to resign, and usually do, because why would you want to be fired?

 

Every single board member wanted him out. So either he gracefully resigned or he would get fired.

 

The resignation will probably get him a nice golden parachute in the process.