Games as a service is fraud

[Unlimited Power]

Knowing Ross and having followed him for quite a while, he has made it blatantly obvious that he has a burning passion for the preservation of games. It's without question the 1 thing he cares most about, so when he claims that GaaS (or at least his very specific definition of what GaaS is) are fraud due to misleading marketing, he 100% believes that statement.

This video is simply him laying out his arguments as for why he believes there's a case to be made that most GaaS are products and not services and should thus be treated as such by the law. The reason he's exempting MMOs like WoW is because they operate off of a subscription model and can thus fairly be described as services rather than simply products.

As for the legal basis of it? It definitely differs by country and I don't know enough to comment on it, but I personally agree that players should be able to continue playing their games when companies decide to shut down servers, whether that's through privately run servers or patched offline modes.

[Yunru]

I can't disagree enough with this. This isn't a black or white issue.

GaaS are games that are designed to need centralized servers, just as MMO's do. Unless you're going to argue that the concept of MMO's as a whole are anti-consumer as well.

GaaS as a concept is neutral, it's neither a boon nor a downside. It all matters on how the game is developed and supported, and ultimately if it finds success. If it sells well and folks like it, it'll have a long life. If it sells poorly and struggles, it'll have a very short lifespan. Just the same as MMO's.

It's on consumers to inform themselves about the games they buy. If they're alright with the risk of an online only game, cool. If they don't like online only games, they should stay away.

This is functionally no different than any other service provided by tech companies that folks pay for and only stay active for as long as the company is alive (or until they kill the product). Players aren't entitled to codebase for the servers etc., they only purchased a license to play the game. Everything under the hood, all the technology, is wholly owned by the developer/publisher.

By the law, your product must work flawlessly.

To make it a real life example. A company sells you a vacuum cleaner. However in this cleaner there is online feature and it will stop working if the feature is cut off (after 24 hours).
On the end of feature is secondary program that lets you run the cleaner (it updates the chip inside every 24h so it continues to work). Then the company shuts down the server that allows you to run a cleaner.
You take the vacuum cleaner to a fix service and they cant help you. They lack a important code to run it.

Also you lost all the music you downloaded, as it auto-cleaned itself after 24 hours from a chip. This is the micro-trash.

This is why companys need to provide all the data for your product to work after they expire.

There realy needs to be a purchase protection even on digital services, like its on real ones. (when you buy a couch you get a 2 year warranty, when you buy digital you get shit)

[Edge-]

By the law, your product must work flawlessly.

What law? Please cite what you are referring to.

To make it a real life example. A company sells you a vacuum cleaner. However in this cleaner there is online feature and it will stop working if the feature is cut off (after 24 hours).

On the end of feature is secondary program that lets you run the cleaner (it updates the chip inside every 24h so it continues to work). Then the company shuts down the server that allows you to run a cleaner.
You take the vacuum cleaner to a fix service and they cant help you. They lack a important code to run it.

As long as this "smart vacuum" is clearly sold as such, including the requirements that it be connected to the internet to work and that if the service shuts down the vacuum will no longer operate, this is perfectly legal. There's already devices like this on the market. It's scummy, but it's legal.

Great example: Juicero. It no longer works because the company went belly up and their product, which required an internet connection, no longer works. We can laugh about how pointless and how much of a disaster it was, but it's legal.

As for needing a code so that it can't be repaired at normal shops, that too is becoming disappointingly common to boot.

Also you lost all the music you downloaded, as it auto-cleaned itself after 24 hours from a chip. This is the micro-trash.

What?

This is why companys need to provide all the data for your product to work after they expire.

No, they don't. It's their code. It's their IP/patented materials. I'm all for legislation granting more protections to consumers in this area, but as it stands this isn't the case and consumers have no right to this data.

There realy needs to be a purchase protection even on digital services, like its on real ones. (when you buy a couch you get a 2 year warranty, when you buy digital you get shit)

I'm all for that, as I said. But it's not how things work now, which is what we're talking about.

[Yunru]

What law? Please cite what you are referring to.

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizen...s/index_en.htm

Free of charge, 2-year guarantee for all goods

You always have the right to a minimum 2-year guarantee at no cost, regardless of whether you bought your goods online, in a shop or by mail order.

This 2-year guarantee is your minimum right, however national rules in your country may give you extra protection.

If goods you bought anywhere in the EU turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised, the seller must repair or replace them free of charge or give you a price reduction or a full refund.

You can usually only ask for a partial or full refund when it is not possible to repair or replace the goods.

I have seen some mmos returning money back when they shut-down up to half a year. But not more than this. This is for online purchases only.
Not sure if they were needed to do by a law or there was something else:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...wn-in-november

[Edge-]

https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizen...s/index_en.htm

Free of charge, 2-year guarantee for all goods

You always have the right to a minimum 2-year guarantee at no cost, regardless of whether you bought your goods online, in a shop or by mail order.

This 2-year guarantee is your minimum right, however national rules in your country may give you extra protection.

Yes, but that's for refunds/repairs. That's not about products working "100%" by law. Nor does that specifically reference online services that close down.

If goods you bought anywhere in the EU turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised, the seller must repair or replace them free of charge or give you a price reduction or a full refund.

You can usually only ask for a partial or full refund when it is not possible to repair or replace the goods.

Yes, but that doesn't include the ending of services for a product.

I have seen some mmos returning money back when they shut-down up to half a year. But not more than this. This is for online purchases only.
Not sure if they were needed to do by a law or there was something else:
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...wn-in-november

It's not required by law as far as I'm aware of, but it's a nice thing that some games do when they're closing up shop.

[KrayZ33]

Yes, but that's for refunds/repairs. That's not about products working "100%" by law. Nor does that specifically reference online services that close down.

It doesn't have to specifically reference online services, because it's covering that too.
If a product is advertised with online services, they have to provide these services for at least 2 years after *you* bought it or you can ask for a refund.

It literally says "If you bought a product or a service" - not being able to play multiplayer after purchase and between 2 years, even though it was advertised, is a service not provided, thus eligible for a refund.

It does also include the ending of services for a product... because, it doesn't freaking say it does not (that's how it works, not the other way around)

It's not required by law as far as I'm aware of, but it's a nice thing that some games do when they're closing up shop.

It is. At least in Germany and probably most/all european countries as seen in the link.
In fact they were required to do more but no one cares. And I wouldn't either tbh. 50€ or whatever spend is not worth the trouble.

[Edge-]

If a product is advertised with online services, they have to provide these services for at least 2 years after *you* bought it or you can ask for a refund.

Assuming they are still in operation or that the product is still active. This law doesn't require that companies somehow find a way to stay operational if they declare bankruptcy. I'd be curious as to if it in some way requires them to continue to support other services they close down for that 2 year period, because that seems like an extremely grey area of the law.

it is. At least in Germany and probably most/all european countries.

How is this enforced if the company closes down? How is a company with no employees left and no funding supposed to continue supporting these services?

[KrayZ33]

Assuming they are still in operation or that the product is still active. This law doesn't require that companies somehow find a way to stay operational if they declare bankruptcy. I'd be curious as to if it in some way requires them to continue to support other services they close down for that 2 year period, because that seems like an extremely grey area of the law.
How is this enforced if the company closes down? How is a company with no employees left and no funding supposed to continue supporting these services?

But that is completely different from a situation where EA would stop online services for FIFA19 now or in 1 1/2 years, even though they are still operational and sold me their copy yesterday. If they have to provide that service with a loss, they either have to provide it, or give me a refund.

Bankrupcy: The consumer is fucked..I believe? Unless... I bought the game not from EA but from a store/different site.
The store has to provide me the money back, I don't care (and I don't have to care) about how *they* get it back. (everything is meant to be inside the 2 year warranty btw.)

It's the same with flight tickets (Airberlin comes to mind).
You get your ticket money back if you made the purchase inside a travel agency, you won't get any additional stuff like "recovery of damages" etc. If you made the purchase directly, you get a back some kind of quota.


edit:

You could argue however, that the warranty of 2 years is not "enough" here, because when you buy a game, your intend is that you *own* the game(copy) and can play as long as you fulfill all the necessary requirements on your side.
Games aren't sold as a service (at least nothing suggest it when I buy it in a store - not the box I buy at least), they are goods - I get a license that is meant only for *me*, License agreements after purchase do *not* apply and thus it's questionable (to me) if they can legally stop the service without having to refund.

Just like you buy a toaster to toast toast - and thus it has to give you toasted toast. A toaster that is sold as a "service" is misleading. So, I'd say, is a game that is sold as a "service".

False advertising comes to mind here. No game I know specifically says that it becomes "unplayable" after service is stopped, though WoW for example mentions having to own a paid account to be able to play, so it's obvious that if I can't pay anymore (whether it's my own fault or theirs), I can also not play anymore.
They all talk about "online services", but playing a singleplayer game that requires online connection doesn't really communicate that it can't be played anymore once "service ended" - you don't even know that it is part of the "service".

I looked onto my retail boxes, most of them don't mention anything about what is available as an "online service" and what is not.
It also doesn't provide any point in time or situation where/when this could happen... so I'm supposedly okay with "whenever"? No.. I don't think that this is how it works.
That's withholding information from me I require to make an educated guess when and wether I want to buy games... or so I could argue.

That edited-part is basically part of what the video is about, I think.

What this video really shows however is how lackluster the lawenforcement is in that regard. No one cares, no one looks into it. No real controls
Courts are unsure how to handle it and companies exploit it (which is...expected tbh.)

[Vash The Stampede]

I can't disagree enough with this. This isn't a black or white issue.

GaaS are games that are designed to need centralized servers, just as MMO's do. Unless you're going to argue that the concept of MMO's as a whole are anti-consumer as well.

GaaS as a concept is neutral, it's neither a boon nor a downside. It all matters on how the game is developed and supported, and ultimately if it finds success. If it sells well and folks like it, it'll have a long life. If it sells poorly and struggles, it'll have a very short lifespan. Just the same as MMO's.

It's on consumers to inform themselves about the games they buy. If they're alright with the risk of an online only game, cool. If they don't like online only games, they should stay away.

This is functionally no different than any other service provided by tech companies that folks pay for and only stay active for as long as the company is alive (or until they kill the product). Players aren't entitled to codebase for the servers etc., they only purchased a license to play the game. Everything under the hood, all the technology, is wholly owned by the developer/publisher.

Then we need to force companies to give those who bought the game a copy of the server code since that's what completes the purchase. Buying World of Warcraft is only getting you half the game, cause without the server software the game is useless. We could use the same rules for the "right to repair" with video games since the game is broken if the company stops supporting it or just goes bankrupt. For example in some states auto manufacturers are required to give consumers the software they use to repair their cars. So if auto consumers are entitled to software to diagnose their cars then consumers who bought a game that needs the server software should also be given that software.

It's not about if a game sells well or not but consumer rights, and consumers should have the right to run their own server, for none profit use. Lots of games give you the server software, so why not force everyone to do this? If I decide to play my game on Bob's server who lives in his mothers basement instead of Blizzard's official servers, why should Blizzard care?

[SirCowdog]

I'm kind of here too. I defiantly think more games should have an end of life plan. If you are not planning to keep your games going as a producer, then do you really stand behind the quality of your product? It's a little sad and it makes companies seemed embarrassed of what they are making.

The other side of the equation is that the games industry itself is going through an incredibly rapid transformation. First from physical media(Disks -> CD -> DVD) to digital, and now we have an upcoming possibility to transfer from Digital to purely streaming programs. The business models are having a hard time keeping up with that.

Add to the mix unfettered capitalism....I think it's understandable that it's a mess. I don't like where it's going, but I understand how it happened.

- - - Updated - - -

You could sell your disc/cartridge...

Are you complaining that you can't sell installed games that you bought in a digital platform? GL in making that work.

You could sell your entire Steam Library on ebay, I guess. :/

[Halicia]

If I decide to play my game on Bob's server who lives in his mothers basement instead of Blizzard's official servers, why should Blizzard care?

The argument commonly used successfully is that of "lost profits", of those people who would otherwise be customers.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with all instances of this, just that's how it goes.

But that's simply because when you said Blizzard, I thought WoW. If you're referring to buy2play titles, then I think most companies *wouldn't* care if someone finds a way to play on private servers only open to officially purchased copies.

[SirCowdog]

Renting time? In a subscription based MMO sure, but that's unrelated to knowing when servers will shut down. It's literally no different - both are online games that will only live for as long as they're financially sustainable/profitable.

If you're not paying attention and buying online-only games without realizing it, that's an issue with the consumer not informing themselves about the product they buy. It's no different than something like Lawbringers (which I think I referenced earlier), but we don't see anyone calling games like that a fraud despite it being the same core concept - not enough revenue/players? Game closes permanently.

It's on consumers to inform themselves about the games they buy. If they're alright with the risk of an online only game, cool. If they don't like online only games, they should stay away.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote my description of GaaS as being more like a theme park than an actual purchased game. And it also touches on what I meant when I said about consumers needing to be very careful about what they spend their money on when buying modern games. We, as gamers, need to completely re-assess what we feel is an acceptable cost vs what's being provided.

I look at something like WoW, for example. I used to not even think twice about what the game cost to play. But now that I take a second, in-depth look at it:

Full price for the "box" each and every expansion.
Cash shop items.
MTX services.
Subscription or you lose access to all of it.

Whether or not an individual finds that acceptable, it has to be compared against something like Path of Exile which provides the entire game completely free, and only sells conveniences and cosmetics. Or any number of indy titles that not only sell the game for a one-time fee, but then continue to update and release content for free(Hollow Knight or Deadcells, for example).

The market will adjust to demand. Again, as players, we need to make sure we're demanding consumer friendly business models and pricing.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think we'll ever see Cloud Gaming as the future.

That's highly dependent upon the technology, the pricing, and the convenience.

Right now it's not so great because greedy internet companies like Comcast don't want to upgrade their infrastructure, and actively fight to suppress innovations and upgrades so they can keep a stranglehold on the market. But if a giant like Google wants to push this technology, they'll have to increase funding and service levels for
connections with more bandwidth and less latency. That, in turn, will require companies like Comcast to keep up with advances or get slowly pushed out of the market.

Whether or not that can be successfully done, however....who knows?

[Clone]

I hope you guys have 1h and 15 min to watch this.

No. Make your point in a paragraph and stop wasting people's time. Jesus Christ man, somebody out there actually thought their rant is worth one hour and fifteen minutes.

[Edge-]

This is exactly what I was thinking when I wrote my description of GaaS as being more like a theme park than an actual purchased game.

This is a pretty perfect analogy. The developer creates all the rides and attractions, you're just buying a ticket to ride them for as long as the theme park is open. You don't own any of the rides, those were all created by the theme park who retain ownership of them, but you're free to ride them.

[Yunru]

No. Make your point in a paragraph and stop wasting people's time. Jesus Christ man, somebody out there actually thought their rant is worth one hour and fifteen minutes.

My paragraph would be a 2h long read.

[SirCowdog]

The argument commonly used successfully is that of "lost profits", of those people who would otherwise be customers.

The "lost profits" argument pops up a lot when people talk about piracy(I know I know, forbidden topic, I won't go there). The problem with the argument is that there's no way to prove that someone who's getting software that way would absolutely be buying it if they had no other choice. Chances are just as good they wouldn't buy it at all, or go with a competitor.

This is similar to the arguments about the private WoW servers, and why many people claim that the official "Classic" servers for WoW won't be as well received as people think. One of the biggest draws of the private servers was that there was no fee to play. People can argue up and down til their blue in the face for either side of the argument, but there's no way to PROVE that there would be profit from players who were playing for free up until then.

You'll note that the reason why Blizzard went with making their own vanilla servers wasn't because they thought it would be profitable, but because their IP was under threat. In other words: They weren't worried about losing the profit of people who MIGHT play, but instead had to address the threat of losing rights to their IP.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a pretty perfect analogy. The developer creates all the rides and attractions, you're just buying a ticket to ride them for as long as the theme park is open. You don't own any of the rides, those were all created by the theme park who retain ownership of them, but you're free to ride them.

Well, depending on the business model, there very likely might be additional fees once you're inside the park. Like food, or other vendors(MTX).

So I don't think there needs to be laws telling game companies what products to create. But I do think they need to be required to VERY clearly define what they're actually selling in order to avoid confusion or misleading sales pitches. This could also apply to things like hyped up game trailers "Actual game footage(not in engine)", etc.

But you nailed it when you said "It's on consumers to inform themselves about the games they buy." This has ALWAYS been the case. Be smart. Be responsible. Do your homework.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Make your point in a paragraph and stop wasting people's time. Jesus Christ man, somebody out there actually thought their rant is worth one hour and fifteen minutes.

Or maybe it's because it's an extremely complex issue without a simple and short answer?

I'm not going to say the guy's video is the best I've ever seen, but trying to oversimplify this topic is a mistake.

[Clone]

My paragraph would be a 2h long read.

By all means then. I bet you are real proud of it too.

[Vash The Stampede]

The argument commonly used successfully is that of "lost profits", of those people who would otherwise be customers.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with all instances of this, just that's how it goes.

But that's simply because when you said Blizzard, I thought WoW. If you're referring to buy2play titles, then I think most companies *wouldn't* care if someone finds a way to play on private servers only open to officially purchased copies.

This applies to just about any game that requires access to a server for anything. Unless it's free2play then yes I don't own the game, but if I bought the game then I own it. Also, if this is about "lost profits" then it doesn't require Blizzard or anyone $15/month to manage these servers. It's just for profit. I must have given Blizzard like $3k just for WoW since original WoW, and that's nuts. That's nuts, and nobody should get that kind of money for a game I no longer have access to. I stopped playing after WoD cause it sucked hard, personally. Minecraft still requires authentication to play on anyone's server, and I don't have a problem with this so long as the company releases a patch that removes it when they go bankrupt.

- - - Updated - - -

That's highly dependent upon the technology, the pricing, and the convenience.

Right now it's not so great because greedy internet companies like Comcast don't want to upgrade their infrastructure, and actively fight to suppress innovations and upgrades so they can keep a stranglehold on the market. But if a giant like Google wants to push this technology, they'll have to increase funding and service levels for
connections with more bandwidth and less latency. That, in turn, will require companies like Comcast to keep up with advances or get slowly pushed out of the market.

Whether or not that can be successfully done, however....who knows?

It'll never work because of physics, not a lack of technology. Though yes, the average home internet can't handle Cloud Gaming either way. If not due to a lack of bandwidth then because of data caps. Cox Cable Testing a Form of ‘Fast Lane’ Internet For Gamers, which basically means ISP's are already abusing the lack of a net neutrality. Typically if someone throws money at ISP's to increase their infrastructure the ISP's will just pocket the money. What we needed is something like a Google internet to compete with cable providers, something like a Google Fiber. That sounds familiar.

But mostly because you can't solve the latency problem. You can't break the law of physics. A lot of pro cloud gaming people will say that nobody will notice the latency, but they will. They will play Sekiro Shadows Die Twice and Rage quit so often and blame it on the latency. This is not an ignoreable issue, and if you think it is then "you don't play games". I already have an issue going to my 4k TV with wireless keyboard and mouse vs my gaming PC with a Asus monitor and wired mouse and keyboard. If that latency difference will annoy me, the one from Stadia will seem broken.

[SirCowdog]

It'll never work because of physics, not a lack of technology. Though yes, the average home internet can't handle Cloud Gaming either way. If not due to a lack of bandwidth then because of data caps. Cox Cable Testing a Form of ‘Fast Lane’ Internet For Gamers, which basically means ISP's are already abusing the lack of a net neutrality. Typically if someone throws money at ISP's to increase their infrastructure the ISP's will just pocket the money. What we needed is something like a Google internet to compete with cable providers, something like a Google Fiber. That sounds familiar.

But mostly because you can't solve the latency problem. You can't break the law of physics. A lot of pro cloud gaming people will say that nobody will notice the latency, but they will. They will play Sekiro Shadows Die Twice and Rage quit so often and blame it on the latency. This is not an ignoreable issue, and if you think it is then "you don't play games". I already have an issue going to my 4k TV with wireless keyboard and mouse vs my gaming PC with a Asus monitor and wired mouse and keyboard. If that latency difference will annoy me, the one from Stadia will seem broken.

And yet people already play at a pro level on their home computers using their standard high-speed internet, using only today's technology.

I agree that games that require super-high levels of reaction speed and timing will always be an issue, but I also think you're overstating the issue. This type of service wouldn't be targeted at those super-high level players, because they only make up a small percentage of gamers playing a small subset of all games. In the larger scope of ALL internet activity, there's plenty of business to be had.

I also think it's very possible to get the latency down to a point of similar levels that you see from input lag and screen latency. A matter of milliseconds. Maybe not with commonly available technology under suppressive businesses like Comcast, but potentially in the future if the idea takes hold in the market and become popular and convenient.

We've already seen how popular the Nintendo Switch is, largely due to being able to pick it up and use it wherever you are. Now extend that functionality to everything a PC can do! There is a LOT of potential there beyond just gaming to push the tech forward. In many ways it seems like a natural progression of the mobile phone as well. And we all know how massive THAT market is.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's failure isn't nearly as much of a foregone conclusion as you seem to be implying.

[Halicia]

This applies to just about any game that requires access to a server for anything. Unless it's free2play then yes I don't own the game, but if I bought the game then I own it. Also, if this is about "lost profits" then it doesn't require Blizzard or anyone $15/month to manage these servers. It's just for profit. I must have given Blizzard like $3k just for WoW since original WoW, and that's nuts. That's nuts, and nobody should get that kind of money for a game I no longer have access to. I stopped playing after WoD cause it sucked hard, personally.

I mean, I was largely remembering the whole Music industry argument against Napster, etc... and the crazy amounts of damages they claimed on the presumption that people randomly listening to a song on the internet would have instead shelled out $15-20 for a CD instead.

But to bring it around to games, I'd love if most purchased games had the option for private servers... with a couple fears that may not apply to all games and genres...

#1. A verification portal/lobby that could easily be disabled by the developer if/when support for the game is discontinued
#2. Hacking concerns. If you're playing with your buddies, you're probably modifying the game the way you want to play it. If its a game where strangers are playing, modifications become a concern, especially if the only options are private servers that might not disclose the ways the game has been modified to benefit the host.
#3. Additional development costs for private server support might be higher than the estimated costs for public server support over the projected lifespan of the game.
#4. I believe #s costs, and losses due to potential piracy, would likely be outweighed by a delayed rollout of public server support. Most game sales are in the first month, now, anyways... so planning on a feature like this after 1-6 months could be used as a way to retain and energize 'hardcore' players, and attract additional purchase from their friends, or people who had a 'wait and see' approach

In regards to WoW,

Subscription MMOs are a different beast entirely from buy2play games. Ostensibly, the cost for the subscription is a 'live service' fee, and used to fund additional 'content' (how I loathe that word when people bandy it around). Excluding the microtransactions from this debate, I would be content paying retail in addition to the subscription, if the retail cost subsidized development of new content & features, and the subscription fees were used to pay for maintenance and improvement of existing features. After several expansions of playing WoW, I realized that whatever internal politics there were in the company, it allowed them to pay to "Build bridges and roads" for new expansions that would sell copies... but when it comes to maintaining and improving those roads, the funds were never there, and often ended in features that *could* have been an enjoyable part of the game, getting ignored and later cut entirely. And I tried to avoid it, but the service transactions basically incentivize Blizzard to create a substandard experience and then charge people to improve it. This is par for course for a game that would otherwise be free, but its !@#$ing awful in a game I paid for twice already.