Games as a service is fraud

[Daedius]

Someone is mad about Wildstar being shut down.

He has some good points, though.

T'was a sad day.

[HitRefresh]

I wouldn't call it a fraud. Most games wouldn't get regular updates if they didn't have any consistent revenue because that's how they pay employees to continue working on the same game.

[SirCowdog]

.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.

Thia comes down to a matter of presentation and pricing, I think.

When you go to watch a concert you pay admission and gain the "service" of the experience, but not unlimited access to that experience in perpetuity. In fact the very nature of the experience is temporary, and in some cases unique.

Where I think a lot of the confusion comes from with games are all the different business models. For example: WoW charges the price of a full AAA game for each expansion, causing many people to equate it with a full game in their eyes. This idea is further confused by Blizzard presenting it as a product which is separate from the subscription.

And when each other game on the market is presenting their own service, with different pay models and different styles of content....it gets messy real fast.

For instance, Netflix doesn't charge you $50 up front to activate their service. Nor do they charge extra each time a new wave of content is released. They only charge just a subscription. But at any point you could go buy a copy of any show on Netflix, and watch it whenever you please without subbing, or even if Netflix shut down.

Another contrasting example is like buying access to a theme park. You get to go in and experience the park, but once it shuts down you generally can't ever go back. You can't buy a copy of that experience anywhere.


I think that's how we need to view this state of affairs:
"Games-as-a-service" aren't games in the traditional sense They're selling us access to online amusement parks with limited lifespans.

Is that fraud? I don't know. They're advertising and presented like traditional games. I think they could do a better job of being clear about what their product actually is, but as this thread and the video are a testament to, nobody can seem to agree on an exact definition.

Wjat I do know is tjat we, as gamers and consumers, need to be SUPER skeptical and careful about paying for these "services". Especially considering it's nearly impossible to get a refund if that service is lacking in any way.

[Yunru]

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.

Google Stadia should be simply boycotted. And not just stadia, other gogle products to. And same goes for any other video game developer that trys to implent it in same way, as a soon you let them do this, everyone starts to copy it.
We dont want to get this thing normalized like it was with micro-trash.

Not to mention the internet for this in some countrys will get super expensive.
However i am perfectly fine with services (yes services, not games), that allows you to use a pc on other side of the world to play your games smootly. (if your pc is trash) And yes that already exists.

[kenn9530]

The only games that do stop service are ones way past thier time, the costs of operating the server alone dont make keeping an outdated game in operation.

Fact is most of the time a player would have got more than thier moneys worth out of the game, it would be arrogant to assume your entitled to keep playing something that has past its life, if you still want to play a version of that game there are always private servers.

At a certain point every MMO will need to die at some point.

[SirCowdog]

Google Stadia should be simply boycotted. And not just stadia, other gogle products to. And same goes for any other video game developer that trys to implent it in same way, as a soon you let them do this, everyone starts to copy it.
We dont want to get this thing normalized like it was with micro-trash.

Not to mention the internet for this in some countrys will get super expensive.
However i am perfectly fine with services (yes services, not games), that allows you to use a pc on other side of the world to play your games smootly. (if your pc is trash) And yes that already exists.

I don't know about that. A lot depends on what's being offered and how much it costs. So much of what we do is tied to being online anyway, I'm not sure how much it wpuld matter for gaming.

Now...other stuff, such as personal files and storage....thats something a little different. But we already have things lile email and Dropbox and image storing, as well as facebook profiles, online banking, etc.

I don't think it would be as bad as you think. But maybe we can talk about some of the pros and cons.

[KrayZ33]

I wouldn't call it a fraud. Most games wouldn't get regular updates if they didn't have any consistent revenue because that's how they pay employees to continue working on the same game.

Back in the day, we called those "updates" addons.
Updates in forms of patches/bugfixes are also more or less covered with the sold copy. (just like you have guarantees after purchasing something)

Not only has that company to provide a working *product*, it also is bad for their own image if they release a broken game with lots of bugs that won't get adressed in a patch for free.

The most interesting part of this bullshit is that I can't resell my "good" anymore - even though it's legaly my own property.

[Vash The Stampede]

Google Stadia should be simply boycotted. And not just stadia, other gogle products to. And same goes for any other video game developer that trys to implent it in same way, as a soon you let them do this, everyone starts to copy it.
We dont want to get this thing normalized like it was with micro-trash.

I doubt Stadia will ever be a thing besides another failed Google product.

Not to mention the internet for this in some countrys will get super expensive.
However i am perfectly fine with services (yes services, not games), that allows you to use a pc on other side of the world to play your games smootly. (if your pc is trash) And yes that already exists.

I have a problem with that. If your PC is trash then it needs to be replaced and not relocated to some place in the world. The idea of the $2k PC is what perpetuates this Cloud Gaming nonsense. This will only enforce that hardware prices need to go up instead of down.

[mcnally86]

Is that fraud? I don't know. They're advertising and presented like traditional games. I think they could do a better job of being clear about what their product actually is, but as this thread and the video are a testament to, nobody can seem to agree on an exact definition.

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.

[kail]

Back in the day, we called those "updates" addons.
Updates in forms of patches/bugfixes are also more or less covered with the sold copy. (just like you have guarantees after purchasing something)

Not only has that company to provide a working *product*, it also is bad for their own image if they release a broken game with lots of bugs that won't get adressed in a patch for free.

The most interesting part of this bullshit is that I can't resell my "good" anymore - even though it's legaly my own property.

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.

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.

Their main job here is to make sure forum rules are followed. Outside of that they are entitled to their own opinions and post just like anybody else.

[mcnally86]

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

What is click bait and why is it bad? Also, why is it bad to stay on the topic that is the title of the video? Why does the relative strength of words in a title either? I love Popeye's Chicken but I have more experience with chicken then the sensational cartoon Popeye. Is that click bait? What is click bait and why is it bad?



"CLICK BAIT: NOT EVEN ONCE!"

[Mehrunes]

They are, It isn't a 1hr video its a 10sec read....

I mean, all things are relative. 10 seconds may be short in general, but 10 seconds of Kotaku vs 1 hours of not-Kotaku isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be here.

[KrayZ33]

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.

It's not a necessity to design games that require you to register them on some platform. (including steam)
It's what they did to make reselling impossible/much more difficult.

How's selling my disc helping when many modern PC games only have 50% of the required files to install a game on that disc, and you need to register it somewhere to get the next 50% to actually play it.
And when you re-sell it, the buyer can't use it because the key/game is already registered to an account.

It shouldn't be a problem/more than a mousclick to detach my Cd-key from my account, so I can resell that same code.
I mean, I know why they won't make it so, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

But that re-selling stuff is just part of the problem.

[Sliske]

that thumbnail gave me stage 4 cancer

[Edge-]

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.

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.

[Justpassing]

I can't unsee that thumbnail. Thanks OP.

[Edge-]

What is click bait and why is it bad? Also, why is it bad to stay on the topic that is the title of the video? Why does the relative strength of words in a title either? I love Popeye's Chicken but I have more experience with chicken then the sensational cartoon Popeye. Is that click bait? What is click bait and why is it bad?



"CLICK BAIT: NOT EVEN ONCE!"

It's a painfully open ended question that's designed to make folks want to click to see rather than deliver any actual information.

"Did Princess Diana have a secret love child with her butler?!" Obviously fucking not, but the clickbait is there.
"Is mcnally86 really a reptilian alien that's part of a secret cabal running the planet?" Probably not, but it's a question that demands an answer!

This is straight out of the Upworthy garbage tier of headlines. It's legit clickbait, and he could have chosen dozens of other topics that would clearly indicate that his video was his examination of GaaS and what his opinions are.

Because it's god-damn leading and sensationalist as is, leaving itself clearly implying that, at least in part, he views it as a fraud.

[Vash The Stampede]

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.

That's the problem, in that you bought something that isn't yours. It's part a game you own and part a service you don't. Is that because of necessity or by design so that you must pay a monthly fee? Look at Minecraft where you can host your own server and invite friends or you could pay a monthly fee and play on official servers. If Mojang were to go belly up my Minecraft server will still exist and players can still play the game they bought, assuming you can still authenticate the game in some way.

Imagine if buying Windows 10 for $100 and you needing to pay $15 a month for updates for bug fixes, security features, and new features. If you stop paying this fee then you don't have access to your $100 software. Microsoft could totally justify this, but nobody would like it. With games we tend to let this happen because we're too addicted to these games to realize we don't technically own the product, we're just renting it. It isn't until those servers don't exist and the company went under is when this lack of ownership becomes a concern. We should force companies like BLizzard to let consumers have access to that server software as part of the game purchase.

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.

This is why the idea of ownership needs to be made clear since this makes games like Warcraft both something you own and something you don't. You did buy the game, and did buy all those micro-transactions on their store. I think Stadia is going to make this into a bigger issue since Google can in fact delete the game from your hard drive since the game was never installed on your machine to begin with.

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.

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

[Edge-]

In the end, it's a matter of taking sides - you stand with the consumer, or the service vendor?

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.

[gondrin]

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?

As long as you yourself recreate the server(not download or copy it from somewhere else or otherwise known as reverse engineer it), you can recreate, on your own machine for personal use(that means no outside connection) the needed server software to play the games. That also means you can change them into single player games if you so feel to or any other things. Not sure why you would do so as one of the big draws of MMOs is the Multiplayer part but there is nothing there to stop you. The funny part is nearly all parts of an MMO other then graphics and world geometry data is all stored on the servers.

Remember, this only applies if you recreate it from scratch yourself(reverse engineer) AND not allow anyone else to connect to it.