Games as a service is fraud

[lollerlaban]

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.

You can't say it's an abandoned IP because they only abandoned that SPECIFIC game, they still have every right to the IP.

[chazus]

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

One of four things.
1) It is still owned by Carbine. Even if the game went under, and the company itself dissolved, it is still a legal entity. The company itself didn't poof, it just liquidated all its assets.
2) It is still owned by Carbine, even if carbine DID completely poof. The IP remains not in public domain.
3) It's ownership is transferred to NCSoft
4) It's ownership is transferred to another company, likely an asset liquidation company which will either hold onto it, or sell it to another company.

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.

There ARE portions that are free (as you mentioned, the network protocol). But there is a LOT more than just hat that is not open source (The majority of the server, and client stuff)

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.

Theoretically, you're right. You can run the client, at home, all you want, legally. However that doesn't do much good without a server to connect to, and running a server from home, even just privately with no internet, is a no-no. The literally act of -getting- the server stuff is not allowed. Let alone running it. You bought the game client, not the server.

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.

Abandoned IP does not mean public domain.

[Cracked]

Theoretically, you're right. You can run the client, at home, all you want, legally. However that doesn't do much good without a server to connect to, and running a server from home, even just privately with no internet, is a no-no. The literally act of -getting- the server stuff is not allowed. Let alone running it. You bought the game client, not the server.

I'm not so sure. You bought a functioning product that, as it so happened, required a connection to a server to properly operate. Now you also had to pay a subscription for a license to access that server which stored your data. The server also happened to include certain IP in the form of game data. The protocol itself is not IP. So basically then the debate is when does it stop being Blizzard IP? What if you replaced every single numerical / string value, clearly that's not Blizzard's IP, that's your IP, only accessible through the client which people bought from Blizzard. And since the original server no longer exists (at least not in the form at the time of purchase), I'm not certain Blizzard has the sole legal privilege to provide a substitute service (ie current retail server / classic servers).

I admit that recreating the game in it's entirety infringes on IP, although this is also gray, because the IP was never publicly available to begin with, all the values are either inferred or estimated, but altering it sufficiently could and should constitute fair use.

[Projectmars]

The question here is not just "what is their legal right," but "what should be their legal right". Books fall out of copy right. I could publish a book with Frankenstein or Sherlock Holmes. There properties have become open to everyone to use over time. Why cant software be the same way. Why do we let them make their books with self destructs in them? As of now the old code is not completely abandoned but it could be. Plenty of game companies have tanked and taken their literary and artistic worlds with them. It's kind of a shame.

You can because Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes were created by someone who died long ago enough that the rights to those characters have expired. Blizzard owns the rights to the characters and settings in WoW and the company's rights to them have not yet expired.

They have a legal right to run the servers. But they arent allowed to profit of them. They own the copy of the game. But they dont own the IP of the game.

Its the same as running a multiplayer game shooter servers.

They are also allowed to fix their copy of the game if it stops working. Or modifly it. Or emulate it. Or whatever.

Comparing something like CS and TF2 to WoW is definite Apples and Oranges given that the former games are set up for individuals to run the servers, while WoW is meant to be run specifically by Blizzard.

And the whole "not allowed to profit" thing isn't an actual legal defense. It helps out in some cases for sure, especially if you aren't trying to make a profit on it in the first place (vs failing to make a profit), and companies will likely not care unless your free work is or has the potential to hurt sales (i.e. Classic WoW vs Private Vanilla Servers) at which point it won't save you from legal action.

[Mister Cheese]

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.

He brings up WoW multiple times in the video but doesn't attack it directly because there's two different types of licenses when you buy a game. Subscription based, where you pay monthly to access to something. And there's a perpetual license. Where you buy something and you become the sole owner of it. It's the hip trendy thing to do right now because it's been pushed for the past 5 years by major companies and they have done nothing but screw people over with them. But he's not arguing about that. He's wondering what's gonna happen in about 10 years when EA and Activision decide to shut the servers down for these games.

Which is why people in this thread really need to watch at least the legal part of this video. I see posts in this thread saying "WELL I DIDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO I CAN'T STAND HIS VOICE HE SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER WHINER!!!"

[Edge-]

He brings up WoW multiple times in the video but doesn't attack it directly because there's two different types of licenses when you buy a game. Subscription based, where you pay monthly to access to something. And there's a perpetual license. Where you buy something and you become the sole owner of it. It's the hip trendy thing to do right now because it's been pushed for the past 5 years by major companies and they have done nothing but screw people over with them. But he's not arguing about that. He's wondering what's gonna happen in about 10 years when EA and Activision decide to shut the servers down for these games.

Are you talking about digital licenses? Because if so, that's older than 5 years and not directly related to GaaS.

What happens in 10 years if servers go dark? Obviously, as with any MMO or online only game, the games close down. This isn't new in the slightest. Lawbrings shut down as an online only game within the past few years so we have a recent example, so I'm confused as to why these are even "questions".

[kail]

He brings up WoW multiple times in the video but doesn't attack it directly because there's two different types of licenses when you buy a game. Subscription based, where you pay monthly to access to something. And there's a perpetual license. Where you buy something and you become the sole owner of it. It's the hip trendy thing to do right now because it's been pushed for the past 5 years by major companies and they have done nothing but screw people over with them. But he's not arguing about that. He's wondering what's gonna happen in about 10 years when EA and Activision decide to shut the servers down for these games.

Which is why people in this thread really need to watch at least the legal part of this video. I see posts in this thread saying "WELL I DIDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO I CAN'T STAND HIS VOICE HE SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER WHINER!!!"

WoW also charges for expansions as well, he didn't attack Blizz on not being able to play those expansions without online access? What about other MMOs?

If you want to time stamp his legal issues with GAAS then I'd gladly watch the part. The first 10 minutes of his video was an elongated waste of time as he tries to even define GAAS.

[Lurker1]

Love GaaS games, bout the only style of games I play. MMO's, looter shooters, arpgs, etc. Anything will multiple years of support and is multiplayer, get bored otherwise.

Same here man.

[Mister Cheese]

WoW also charges for expansions as well, he didn't attack Blizz on not being able to play those expansions without online access? What about other MMOs?

If you want to time stamp his legal issues with GAAS then I'd gladly watch the part. The first 10 minutes of his video was an elongated waste of time as he tries to even define GAAS.

He time stamps it himself in the description...

[chazus]

I'm not so sure. You bought a functioning product that

Right there is where you hit the roadblock. You didn't 'buy a product'. You bought access to a service (I'm not getting into the GaaS definition), of which part of what is required is the client side access software. You didn't 'buy a thing', or 'buy the server' or 'Buy World Of Warcraft And Everything Needed To Run It'. You paid for (I use 'paid for' instead of 'bought' because 'buy' sort of could be implied as 'i give you money, you give me thing'). You are paying for access to something, of which the company assists in accessing, of which they also have and retain full control over at their discretion.

If Blizzard had a way to remove the game client from your computer without your permission if you ever get permabanned, they probably would. I think that violates some aspect of "What they have access to on your computer"... But if there was some kind of virtual environment that could be made to sandbox the client without accessing your drive, they could legally do that. The game client, and files, are not yours. And no, Blizzard allowing you to do "client-side character model alteration" does not mean that those are yours. They are simply allowing that.

[mcnally86]

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.

Eventually, it takes him a while. He does not like the idea of anything he purchased going away but he does not find MMO's that fraudulent. When you play an MMO, you are renting time, you know exactly when your access will run out. When you buy a game that turns out to be a GAAS you do not know when your access to your game will disappear.

- - - Updated - - -

You can because Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes were created by someone who died long ago enough that the rights to those characters have expired. Blizzard owns the rights to the characters and settings in WoW and the company's rights to them have not yet expired.

I am talking about the future. Some companies have set up a system where their IP will disappear with them. Marry Shelly did not take all copies of Frankenstein to the grave with her. In the video Ross talks about a project that is using a Government Professional cryptographer to open access to some lost game worlds.

- - - Updated - - -

I have reason to believe that people paid more, and spend more time on the matter (lets call them legal experts) who have already weighed in on the matter, are right. Not some youtuber. Not some people on a forum discussing it. The people who actually are experts in the field, and at the end of the day, the people who actually determine that.

You have been getting so angry in this thread and I don't even know what you are arguing anymore except that you have to be right at all times.

Are you arguing GAAS are not fraud because the law supports its legality?
First off, not true in all jurisdictions. Even if it was, something can be fraud even if it is legal. There are multiple definitions of fraud. "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities," and, "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." Neither of these definitions require something to be legaly suspect to be fraud.

Are you trying to argue GAAS are legal software leases?
Not true in a lot of the world. GAAS are often sold as products. Leases have an end date.

Are you trying to argue anything that is currently legal will continue to be legal?
That is not how society advances. No, homosexuality was not broadly legal in the USA until 2003.
Ross is trying to rile up consumers to take their rights in the US back. He might win, but we do not know yet. He makes some compelling legal arguments.

[chazus]

You have been getting so angry in this thread and I don't even know what you are arguing anymore except that you have to be right at all times. .

That's sort of the thing I've been trying to point out. My opinion doesn't matter. However we're talking about legality here, and regardless of what I think, the law says that these statements are wrong.

Are you arguing GAAS are not fraud because the law supports its legality?

First, lets not use the term "GaaS" because its clear that there is no clear, supported definition of it. It's like trying to debate Soda and Pop. Nothing useful comes of it.

First off, not true in all jurisdictions. Even if it was, something can be fraud even if it is legal. There are multiple definitions of fraud. "a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities," and, "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." Neither of these definitions require something to be legaly suspect to be fraud.

Yes and no. He pretty clearly mentions stuff like lawsuits, so were talking about Fraud in the sense of Law. In which case, it's legal.

Are you trying to argue GAAS are legal software leases?
Not true in a lot of the world. GAAS are often sold as products. Leases have an end date.

And it depends on those places, where they have that.

Are you trying to argue anything that is currently legal will continue to be legal?

Oh hell no. As I've stated, a lot of these practices I'm not a fan of, and some of them maybe shouldn't be legal. I wholeheartedly endorse the idea that server-based stuff should have some kind of continuation system. Laws may change, and they definitely do. But until they do, they're still the law (Like the whole illegal-to-be-gay thing. It was still illegal at that time, like it or not).

Several groups are working towards being able to "archive" server based games, at least for historical purposes (like a games museum). That's at least a step in the direction. I imagine at some point, a wealthy fellow(s) and legal peoples will get together and establish some kind of great online archive that this stuff can be legally handed over to.

[mcnally86]

That's sort of the thing I've been trying to point out. My opinion doesn't matter. However we're talking about legality here, and regardless of what I think, the law says that these statements are wrong.

Several groups are working towards being able to "archive" server based games, at least for historical purposes (like a games museum). That's at least a step in the direction. I imagine at some point, a wealthy fellow(s) and legal peoples will get together and establish some kind of great online archive that this stuff can be legally handed over to.

I still do not understand your point? You have made so, so many posts in this thread and you do not have a stance. Here are my stances.

1) Ross defined GAAS, I like his definition. When I talk about GAAS, I will use his definition:
GAAS are games, not games services, that are online ONLY (live services), the license is sold and not leased. GAAS is the business practice of players not having control of whether they can play a game due to a company withholding that function.
2) In the vein of that definition of GAAS, a person selling a game as a product and treating it as a service in bad faith is acting fraudulently.
3) In some cases the fraud can also be illegal.
4) You have power in the US system you dork. So do I. This is why I have been spreading Ross's message and telling people. We can work together to change people's minds. We can post about it, make more videos, we can talk to politicians, we can talk to game creators. We can vote with out words and not only our wallets.
5) From my side it looks like you are trying to make people think they don't have the power to change things and that is incredibly frustrating. You are a mod, shouldn't you moderate things and not just try and kill discussion with your negativity?
Edit: I forgot my biggest point, 6) Watch some of Ross's videos!

[chazus]

1) Ross defined GAAS, I like his definition. When I talk about GAAS, I will use his definition:
GAAS are games, not games services, that are online ONLY (live services), the license is sold and not leased. GAAS is the business practice of players not having control of whether they can play a game due to a company withholding that function.

That's part of the issue too. He has a definition of GaaS, which is great. But that definition doesn't... technically matter? I mean, outside of discussion purposes. It's different to different people, and more importantly, it's different to different companies.

2) In the vein of that definition of GAAS, a person selling a game as a product and treating it as a service in bad faith is acting fraudulently.

Howso? Bad Faith is a very specific thing, regarding misleading. Servers going offline if/when a company closes is not by any means bad faith.

3) In some cases the fraud can also be illegal

Fraud is... pretty much always illegal. When is it not? That's like saying theft is legal, as long as you don't get caught.

4) You have power in the US system you dork. So do I. This is why I have been spreading Ross's message and telling people. We can work together to change people's minds. We can post about it, make more videos, we can talk to politicians, we can talk to game creators. We can vote with out words and not only our wallets.

I don't disagree on that part. People do make noise about it, and that's a good thing. I'm a big fan of Anthem, but it's a prime example of the crappy situation both Devs, Studios, and Players are in.

5) From my side it looks like you are trying to make people think they don't have the power to change things and that is incredibly frustrating. You are a mod, shouldn't you moderate things and not just try and kill discussion with your negativity?

When did I say they don't? I was merely pointing out that saying something is illegal because you don't like it, then do something. And if you DO do something (or people do something) and it doesn't pan out... That doesn't just make it 'honorifically illegal' or something. The law states what it is, until the law is changed. People definitely have the ability to help change that, and it will, in time. But until then, that doesn't give people to just ignore or violate it.

As far as the mod thing, that's sort of unrelated. Discussion is going on. It's not my obligation to agree with discussion just because I'm a moderator. That said, I'm an advocate of truth. Being "Correct" is more important that being "Right", and even if Ross is advocating good things somehow (pushing to change law on games), doing so by being confusing, making false statements, and contradicting himself in favor of his idea (even if its an idea I agree with) is something I personally don't advocate.

In theory, I'd advocate a person I don't agree with who speaks truth, than a person I agree with that lies to get their point across.

That and he's obnoxious as a youtuber, but that has no relevance to his statement, message, or validity.

[SirCowdog]

.. But if there was some kind of virtual environment that could be made to sandbox the client without accessing your drive, they could legally do that. The game client, and files, are not yours. And no, Blizzard allowing you to do "client-side character model alteration" does not mean that those are yours. They are simply allowing that.

This is actually a really interesting point, as something like Google Stadia does exactly that. In the future it absolutely will be more clean cut, since 100% of the Game or Service will be run from the server, with you only accessing it from outside; no client software needed.

[mcnally86]

That's part of the issue too. He has a definition of GaaS, which is great. But that definition doesn't... technically matter? I mean, outside of discussion purposes. It's different to different people, and more importantly, it's different to different companies.

We are having a discussion. We have been having a discussion all over. The fact that you don't think we are having one makes me think you are not even considering my words. But if that were true why would you be replying to me consistently? If you don't think GaaS matters why in the flying foxes are you even posting in this thread.

I have given you my definition, you give me yours. You have been telling me GaaS is not fraud. So what is GaaS to you? I stand behind Ross' definition. You seem to not have one. If you don't have a definition, why the heck do you have such strong opinions on them? Why does it matter? It matters because Ross' video is the thread title. His definition matters the most. You can argue against it, but we are sure as squirrels all here because he made one.

Howso? Bad Faith is a very specific thing, regarding misleading. Servers going offline if/when a company closes is not by any means bad faith.

In the video Ross talks about this quite a bit. If you are making a game and requiring server authentication, you have to know that server will not be up forever. If you don't plan for after this eventuality you are acting in bad faith. You are selling games that you know will be bricked. In some cases this is hurting consumers and adding no functionality.

Fraud is... pretty much always illegal. When is it not? That's like saying theft is legal, as long as you don't get caught.

Not true, I have linked you the definition many times and you have made the choice to ignore it, so here is the legal definition.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/
Companies are damaging purchased products after the fact. That is legally fraud. Show me a case where this is not true. You keep telling me there are cases but you have not linked any.

I don't disagree on that part. People do make noise about it, and that's a good thing. I'm a big fan of Anthem, but it's a prime example of the crappy situation both Devs, Studios, and Players are in.

If you do not disagree with me why do you keep arguing with me? Why are you using language that makes people feel shouted down. Why are you trying to end the conversation?

When did I say they don't? I was merely pointing out that saying something is illegal because you don't like it, then do something. And if you DO do something (or people do something) and it doesn't pan out... That doesn't just make it 'honorifically illegal' or something. The law states what it is, until the law is changed. People definitely have the ability to help change that, and it will, in time. But until then, that doesn't give people to just ignore or violate it.

I was making my point clear, not everything is about you.

As far as the mod thing, that's sort of unrelated. Discussion is going on. It's not my obligation to agree with discussion just because I'm a moderator. That said, I'm an advocate of truth. Being "Correct" is more important that being "Right", and even if Ross is advocating good things somehow (pushing to change law on games),

A mod is defined as: an arbitrator or mediator. Your tone is very negative and brings the discussion down. You keep telling people they are wrong when they say what they stand for, I still don't know what you believe. You mediate nothing. You antagonize. You are acting as a BAD MODERATOR. Random forum members should not have to tell the Mods to calm down. Chill bro, we all love video games here.

doing so by being confusing, making false statements, and contradicting himself in favor of his idea (even if its an idea I agree with) is something I personally don't advocate.

In theory, I'd advocate a person I don't agree with who speaks truth, than a person I agree with that lies to get their point across.

That and he's obnoxious as a youtuber, but that has no relevance to his statement, message, or validity.

I guess that's one thing you believe in. Ross lies and is a bad faith actor. I totally disagree. Ross believes in what he is saying. Since you don't even believe his definition of GaaS matters then how could he be wrong? If GaaS is not real, how could they be fraud?

If him being obnoxious does not matter, why do you bring it up? That little dig there makes your whole comment seem petty. You are an official here, please do not debase yourself with such low-bro insults to win your arguments.

[Tech614]

Chill bro, we all love video games here.

Ironic statement coming from a guy defending a clickbait youtuber trying to preach to the gamer outrage bubble about "bad practices". Pretty sure people that get a kick out of videos like this don't actually play games, they watch youtube videos to find out what they should be mad about.

[mcnally86]

Ironic statement coming from a guy defending a clickbait youtuber trying to preach to the gamer outrage bubble about "bad practices". Pretty sure people that get a kick out of videos like this don't actually play games, they watch youtube videos to find out what they should be mad about.

Check your data. Ross makes half life videos, and videos documenting old games. He makes maps of ancient shareware racing games. I can't think of something more nerdy and less click baity.

[Mister Cheese]

Ironic statement coming from a guy defending a clickbait youtuber trying to preach to the gamer outrage bubble about "bad practices". Pretty sure people that get a kick out of videos like this don't actually play games, they watch youtube videos to find out what they should be mad about.

Ross is a clickbait youtuber... jesus christ.

[Tech614]

Check your data. Ross makes half life videos, and videos documenting old games. He makes maps of ancient shareware racing games. I can't think of something more nerdy and less click baity.

The literal title of this video is in fact click bait.

Other posters have already commented about how he picks and choose when and where he can use the term, aka typical click bait "my point is the only one" strat youtubers use.

Even if I'm wrong and this video is literally a one off for him guess what? It's still click bait, it's still trying to get cheap likes from the "gamers rise up!" crowd. So do I need to check any data? Nope. Title of the video uses a broad term to generalize, then generalizes them with a sensational word such as "fraud" that is clickbait 101. Check your own data before defending this shit. No one asked for this to be posted here, but it was and the video is rightfully getting roasted for the garbage it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Ross is a clickbait youtuber... jesus christ.

As I said above "Title of the video uses a broad term to generalize, then generalizes them with a sensational word such as "fraud" that is clicbait 101. "

Do you really think I'm gonna go and research or give a fuck about this guy just because you want to defend him? If you don't want me calling him click bait, maybe he shouldn't have made one of the most click bait video titles I have seen all year. The title and idea of the video is stupid, sorry I don't care that you have followed him for 20 years and where best buds in high school. Imagine being such a fan boy for someone you think people should research their history as if they give any shits.