Games as a service is fraud

[chazus]

What it comes down to really is this.

Don't think TOS's/EULA's are legal, feel free to host your own private server, make it public and when Blizzard sends a cease and desist take them to court. Until then Blizzard (and other company's) are well within their legal right.

Want to own what you buy, then buy it physical and if you have to host your own private server that only you have access to.

When it comes to digital content like games on Steam, They can revoke your access at anytime without any reason.

I mean, it's pretty much this. We (the market) have already run through the gauntlet on this kind of stuff.

When you go and buy a DVD of The Avengers... Do you own that DVD? The physical plastic, yes (maybe, I'm not even sure on that). Anything else? No. If you read the TOU when the DVD starts, it literally says this is being licensed to you to watch in your own home, on your own equipment, and cannot be given, sold, or rented to anyone. You TECHNICALLY, aren't even allowed to let a group of people watch it with you. Of course, that will never get enforced, but they could. If they wanted to.

It boils down to what is 'legal' and 'correct' (To be clear, there is a very large divide between 'correct' and 'right'). Who am I going to believe is correct? Some youtuber who is notorious for clickbait, or the people who actually decide the law?

[Jtbrig7390]

I mean, it's pretty much this. We (the market) have already run through the gauntlet on this kind of stuff.

When you go and buy a DVD of The Avengers... Do you own that DVD? The physical plastic, yes (maybe, I'm not even sure on that). Anything else? No. If you read the TOU when the DVD starts, it literally says this is being licensed to you to watch in your own home, on your own equipment, and cannot be given, sold, or rented to anyone. You TECHNICALLY, aren't even allowed to let a group of people watch it with you. Of course, that will never get enforced, but they could. If they wanted to.

It boils down to what is 'legal' and 'correct' (To be clear, there is a very large divide between 'correct' and 'right'). Who am I going to believe is correct? Some youtuber who is notorious for clickbait, or the people who actually decide the law?

I agree.

That's why I say with physical media I can do with it as I wish because there is a 99.99999% chance Rockstar isn't going to come knocking on my door. But in reality you don't own the media you buy.

But when it comes to Physical Vs Digital you own Digital much less because that can be revoked at anytime and quite easy to do as well.

Much harder to grab my copy of GTAIII for PS2. Digital is where they can enforce all the laws with ease and a all digital future is a wet dream for these company's. Physical is much harder to do.

[SirCowdog]

You do realize the vast majority of console games can be played and finished without those updates right? If Rockstar wants to come to my home and get their copy of GTAV then by all means go for it. Until then that copy belongs to me and ill do with it as I see fit.

The same can be said once I've downloaded a copy of a game to my local computer. I can still play it without having to connect to steam once I obtain my purchased copy. Whether that copy is digital or physical, once it's in my possession(disc or downloaded) I no longer need to connect to any service in order to play.

That's the point I was making when you said that PC players gave up on that war.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm 100% behind the idea of having physical copies of a game, and having that game be able to work without being REQUIRED to connect to some service. But you have to recognize that digital games can have bug-fixes and new content added to them via an online connection. Back in the day if the game didn't work after you installed from a floppy....well...too bad. But now a fix is either automatic, or can be gotten at the click of a button.

- - - Updated - - -

It boils down to what is 'legal' and 'correct' (To be clear, there is a very large divide between 'correct' and 'right'). Who am I going to believe is correct? Some youtuber who is notorious for clickbait, or the people who actually decide the law?

That's sort of the point the youtuber was trying to make: The laws aren't very clear at all on the topic.

I mean, it's effectively whatever the large corporations decide, because no individual is going to be able to fight the team of superlawyers a corp can throw at you. And even if you could afford a counter-suit, it would be cheaper and easier to just pay the service fees.

And that kind of sucks for the end-user. Our laws are not keeping up with the technology at all.

[chazus]

That's sort of the point the youtuber was trying to make: The laws aren't very clear at all on the topic.

I mean, it's effectively whatever the large corporations decide, because no individual is going to be able to fight the team of superlawyers a corp can throw at you. And even if you could afford a counter-suit, it would be cheaper and easier to just pay the service fees.

And that kind of sucks for the end-user. Our laws are not keeping up with the technology at all.

I don't feel that way. The laws are very clear. It's exactly as the EULA says... Until someone fights it, and wins. Then the EULA gets changed. Is that a good way to go about things? No, I don't think so... But until a judge says otherwise, a EULA is completely enforceable if they decide to do so.

Fox shut down everything Firefly, even though they have no intention to fire it back up again. Its a control move. It's shitty, and hurts everyone (the owner, the market, the audience), but that's what it is.

[Jtbrig7390]

The same can be said once I've downloaded a copy of a game to my local computer. I can still play it without having to connect to steam once I obtain my purchased copy. Whether that copy is digital or physical, once it's in my possession(disc or downloaded) I no longer need to connect to any service in order to play.

That's the point I was making when you said that PC players gave up on that war.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm 100% behind the idea of having physical copies of a game, and having that game be able to work without being REQUIRED to connect to some service. But you have to recognize that digital games can have bug-fixes and new content added to them via an online connection. Back in the day if the game didn't work after you installed from a floppy....well...too bad. But now a fix is either automatic, or can be gotten at the click of a button.

Oh I know the benefits of Digital, It isn't all negative. But you still give up ownership.

Lets use your example applied to the recent shutdown of the Wii Shop. Yes you could download that content to a system before a shutdown and now that the store is gone you can't legally replace it if something was to happen to your system. You are now at the mercy of your system breaking at some point.

Also back in the day they did fix games but releasing different versions. A disk labled (example) 0001 would be the launch version with bugs. But a later 0002 version could come out with said bug fixed. It was quite common and normally in the "Greatest Hits" versions of games.

[Yunru]

What it comes down to really is this.

Don't think TOS's/EULA's are legal, feel free to host your own private server, make it public and when Blizzard sends a cease and desist take them to court. Until then Blizzard (and other company's) are well within their legal right.

Want to own what you buy, then buy it physical and if you have to host your own private server that only you have access to.

When it comes to digital content like games on Steam, They can revoke your access at anytime without any reason.

If you still have those game files on your pc (since you own them), you can still do a workaraund to make them playeable (cracks in this case).
I have a extra copy of each game i purchased (just files) in case steam goes down in future.
And yes by a law i am totaly allowed to have a extra copy of game.

However there are some games that will stop working in future as they are designed like this. For example, starlink from switch comes only half-installed.
You dont even get a full game on catrige.
If nintendo network goes down, the game is 100% not possible to recover if you want to reinstall it.

[Jtbrig7390]

If you still have those game files on your pc (since you own them), you can still do a workaraund to make them playeable (cracks in this case).
I have a extra copy of each game i purchased (just files) in case steam goes down in future.
And yes by a law i am totaly allowed to have a extra copy of game.

However there are some games that will stop working in future as they are designed like this. For example, starlink from switch comes only half-installed.
You dont even get a full game on catrige.
If nintendo network goes down, the game is 100% not possible to recover if you want to reinstall it.

My point proven thanks.

If you still have those game files on your pc (since you own them)

Kinda hard to prove you own it if where you bought it gets shutdown. Also you can only legally make a copy of a game if you own it and have the source. You can't go to a torrent site and download a copy and say (I bought it on steam so its fine).

[Yunru]

My point proven thanks.



Kinda hard to prove you own it if where you bought it gets shutdown. Also you can only legally make a copy of a game if you own it and have the source. You can't go to a torrent site and download a copy and say (I bought it on steam so its fine).

Well you do have a purchase history logs on steam. But you have to copy paste the text somewhere. Because if steam goes down, so goes your purchase history.
But there is a way to recover those files legaly in eu.
GDPR
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-ultimate-team

[SirCowdog]

I don't feel that way. The laws are very clear. It's exactly as the EULA says... Until someone fights it, and wins. Then the EULA gets changed. Is that a good way to go about things? No, I don't think so... But until a judge says otherwise, a EULA is completely enforceable if they decide to do so.

Fox shut down everything Firefly, even though they have no intention to fire it back up again. Its a control move. It's shitty, and hurts everyone (the owner, the market, the audience), but that's what it is.

They're not stopping anyone from writing fanfiction, or cosplaying, or the like. They're not coming and repoessessing any existing Firefly or Serenity DVDs either, or stopping people from watching the copies that already exist.

This is different from the games-as-a-service issue. And it's why it's a grey area, as the guy in the video covers. Is that going to stop it from EFFECTIVELY being as good as a law? No. As I said, no private party has the resources or the incentive to combat it. Even in the case of the private wow servers, legal action was threatened, but AFAIK never actually enacted. They came to an agreement out of court.

But as far as I understand it(and I could very well be completely wrong here) the only reason a EULA or TOS would hold up in court is because of the amount of money a service provider could throw at any opposition, NOT because it's legally very strong or binding.

But as I said, I'm not a lawyer. Nor would I want to do the job of going up against the AAA corps on this issue without SERIOUS backing from the government or equally powerful entity.

And I completely agree that it's shitty.

[chazus]

But as far as I understand it(and I could very well be completely wrong here) the only reason a EULA or TOS would hold up in court is because of the amount of money a service provider could throw at any opposition, NOT because it's legally very strong or binding.

I think part of the issue is, is that it IS legally binding... BECAUSE they throw money at it. It's not right, and it makes me and most people angry. But that's.. sort of how it is. It's sort of like the whole "The winners of the war are the ones who write the history books". The people with the most money are the ones who draft the law. On occasion something absolutely stupid is written, and someone comes to a judge and the judge goes "Okay yeah thats stupid" and overturns it... But as the EULA's and rules/laws are now, they're legal, and not fraud. Until something truly stupid comes through, or until people get enough evidence, or a judge is convinced.

[Yunru]

I think part of the issue is, is that it IS legally binding... BECAUSE they throw money at it. It's not right, and it makes me and most people angry. But that's.. sort of how it is. It's sort of like the whole "The winners of the war are the ones who write the history books". The people with the most money are the ones who draft the law. On occasion something absolutely stupid is written, and someone comes to a judge and the judge goes "Okay yeah thats stupid" and overturns it... But as the EULA's and rules/laws are now, they're legal, and not fraud. Until something truly stupid comes through, or until people get enough evidence, or a judge is convinced.

And this is why the guy in video wants the law for this. Because money talks in court. The person with more money will win no matter what even when they are totaly illegall. In worst case scenario they will pay a fine, wich is a joke to them.

[Tenjen]

Would never watch a clickbait vid you post, particularly one with a guy that looks like a huge tool like that.

OPs reputation aside, its a solid video and Jim Sterling gave it a shoutout.

Its not a clickbait vid though. Ross puts his points across clearly and concisely. He goes out of his way to cover all the bases.

Ross is the guy behind Freeman's Mind (currently on HL2) and he does reviews of forgotten and obscure pc games. Every month he has a stream chatting with the fans about his thoughts. He also often posts about the permanent loss of video game titles.

He is in no way a clickbait poster. He's part of YouTube and machinima history.

Judging someone on looks, that too in such a shallow manner, is cringeworthy and vapid given how much weight Ross puts into his words, the effort he took, research he did and how beneficial his views would be to both us and the game industry.

Dude has spirit and love for the topic and does the work to back it up...

[Lochton]

I mean, if a company ceases to exist and IP for that game is gone - is it free to run private servers then? Like in case of age of reckoning?

First of all, I am sorry. Seems me trying to post something on a mobile device has included its freedom of not including the whole of the post you answered to, sorry.

Secondly, I would believe it would be legal to run private instances of a game once the games registration of market is expired also.

[Charge me Doctor]

It... is and isn't. It is, until someone of legal authority says it isn't.

If the EULA says "If you play on a private server, you owe us $15 for every calendar month you logged in" and if you get caught, yeah. They can enforce it. Maybe even get you to pay. Maybe even get police involved. HOWEVER, if someone with the right legal mind (yanno, a lawyer), contests it, and gets a judge to rule that that statement isn't allowed then... No, it's not legal.

They can't. Government can, but they would have to take me to court first and judge would have to rule this out. Not a single company can have some hired goons to enforce EULA (in your ridiculous case - ransoming people for money) on people who pressed "accept" button.

Also, different countries, different laws. Some places have less protection for people against corporation fucking them over, some have less of said protection.

[gondrin]

What it seems to me is that the biggest thing people are getting caught up on is whether or not the ToS and EULA deals with private use vs public use. As stated, you legally can modify, change or outright do anything you want to ANY piece of software, book, movie, song or whatever media is in your possession as long as you only do it on your end. On the software side, as long as the files are directly on your PC, you can do with them as you wish(modify, change, delete) EXCEPT not redistribute them to anyone else without permission. That means you can create a private server for any game out there. The moment you connect to, lets say Blizzards servers, they can then disable any account(notice I said account and not program) that has modified said files as they are allowed to restrict access to their property for any reason. You can still use said software on your end, just not the service that goes along with it.

There is a catch though, you cannot allow anyone else to connect to it AND you have to have legally bought the server software to begin with. If you create it from scratch, then the second part doesn't apply. You can also do this for any trademarked or copyrighted material and do it for your own private use. This is called Fair Use and it is one of the things in copyright and trademark law that applies. What you cannot do is recreate something AND publish it in a public manner.

[SirCowdog]

There is a catch though, you cannot allow anyone else to connect to it AND you have to have legally bought the server software to begin with. If you create it from scratch, then the second part doesn't apply. You can also do this for any trademarked or copyrighted material and do it for your own private use. This is called Fair Use and it is one of the things in copyright and trademark law that applies. What you cannot do is recreate something AND publish it in a public manner.

But what about defunct software titles, like City of Heroes, or Wildstar?

At least with the case of WoW, there was an ongoing service. But game titles that are NOT currently having a service provided? Where does that leave "fair use" or EULA/TOS?

[Vash The Stampede]

Uhhh no it's not. It's definitely not. Yes, they had to re-write some things they didn't have access to, but it is definitely not open source.

Where is the source for this information? Why are the Githubs up for MaNGOS and TrinityCore? Someone should let Microsoft know that these guys are copyright infringing if the code is stolen. MaNGOS is a free software re-implementation of the proprietary World of Warcraft networking protocol. As far as I can tell the servers are 100% legally reverse engineered.

I'm one of those people that believe that the original game needs to be preserved in its entirely. I own the CD's or DVD's of World of Warcraft so therefore I should be able to play this version of the game. No server emulator means my game discs might as well be a drink coaster.

[Yunru]

But what about defunct software titles, like City of Heroes, or Wildstar?

At least with the case of WoW, there was an ongoing service. But game titles that are NOT currently having a service provided? Where does that leave "fair use" or EULA/TOS?

They are a category of a discontinued product. Wich means they dont provide any more support for a product.
We could even say they abandoned IP.

[Edge-]

Don't have time to watch, but does he even mention MMO's? Because GaaS are functionally diet coke MMO's, with all the same problems, risks, and issues that come along with them.

Hating on GaaS as a concept seems to be the hip, trendy thing right now, when in reality there's nothing wrong with the concept. The problem is mostly that developers with no experience with these types of games are running into the same kind of struggles that MMO developers working on their first MMO titles did.

It's interesting to see this kind of stuff find traction withing MMO communities thus far (not this specific video, but the hate on GaaS as a concept). They're functionally the same thing yet they're somehow...different because...I dunno.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Don't have time to watch, but does he even mention MMO's? Because GaaS are functionally diet coke MMO's, with all the same problems, risks, and issues that come along with them.

Hating on GaaS as a concept seems to be the hip, trendy thing right now, when in reality there's nothing wrong with the concept. The problem is mostly that developers with no experience with these types of games are running into the same kind of struggles that MMO developers working on their first MMO titles did.

It's interesting to see this kind of stuff find traction withing MMO communities thus far (not this specific video, but the hate on GaaS as a concept). They're functionally the same thing yet they're somehow...different because...I dunno.

They just don't use the term and well technically it would be like if WoW launched in 2004 and Wow 2 launched in 2007(Similarly how Division 1 and 2 released in a few years time). Same goes for Destiny as well, they basically move on after a few years and move on to the next Game as a Service sequel which.....technically are MMOs are MMOs don't really have sequels(At least not in a way where the IP itself doesn't crash and burn).

I always figured Games as a service would be the next MMO but your post pretty much says they are MMOs but....just aren't called that.

Edit: I don't hate games as service as a concept, I never got the hate for them. Only thing I "hate" is the well they tend to not go very bold(Expansions might as well be a decent content patch).