Games as a service is fraud

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Guys.. my life is so busy.. and I am so important.. no way I have an hour.

Well.. truth.. I just don't want to.. but its funny watching people play it off like that as they tip tac away at an internet forum.

[Calfredd]

Guys.. my life is so busy.. and I am so important.. no way I have an hour.

Well.. truth.. I just don't want to.. but its funny watching people play it off like that as they tip tac away at an internet forum.

Typing a reply doesn't take an hour though. Not normally anyway.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

Typing a reply doesn't take an hour though. Not normally anyway.

I bet if we added up your time here in a week...

So this is one of those you like went ultra radical one direction and made a point.. to only find reality... kind of laughing at you in the face.

[mcnally86]

Technically, legally, it opens that door. That's one of the many reasons they don't allow it.

Also, no, you don't 'own' the software. I saw that part too, and the guy in the video gracefully ignored all the legal precedents against it.

Like you gracefully ignored all the legal precedents that support ownership?

[tru]

Don't care to watch. Can we have back Warhammer online?

[chazus]

I've always wondered why some of the owners of these IP didn't sell a limited license to the larger kickstarter groups, or more professional private parties, to take over the running of the servers and service the game provided.

Nintendo is a good example of this, and why they're so "If we know it exists, it dies" legal mentality. Ownership of IP. It's not that "some sales will escape" or even "people will pirate". It's a case of control. It sets legal precedents that are difficult to quash down the road. A zero tolerance (or close to it) is needed. Either you own and control the IP (even if nobody else can have/use/play it), or you don't.

[mcnally86]

Someone is mad about Wildstar being shut down.

He has some good points, though.

Oh so you saw his Wildstar video? He's not mad about games being shut down. He's mad about games being shut down and not dumping their map files and artwork to the players.

[kail]

Yea basically his own ass pull definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service Literally any game that receives content updates after launch classifies as one. This guy is just looking for cheap likes on a subject that is mostly preaching to the choir but GAAS does not inherently mean predatory practices and he should stop trying to use a broad term as such.

Funny, he pulled that wiki page up as well and simply scratched all over its definition. His definition of GAAS really only makes sense in his own world.

[Yunru]

Nintendo is a good example of this, and why they're so "If we know it exists, it dies" legal mentality. Ownership of IP. It's not that "some sales will escape" or even "people will pirate". It's a case of control. It sets legal precedents that are difficult to quash down the road. A zero tolerance (or close to it) is needed. Either you own and control the IP (even if nobody else can have/use/play it), or you don't.

Well the video does mention that part pretty well. Us is problematic in this part, while other countrys have a different definition. Also you dont control the IP, you own the game you purchased and digital items. Its different.
When they shut down a service you lose everything and you arent able to re-run the game. As you lack the server code.
Also its not illegall to fix you copy of the game to be able to run it on another software.

[SirCowdog]

Nintendo is a good example of this, and why they're so "If we know it exists, it dies" legal mentality. Ownership of IP. It's not that "some sales will escape" or even "people will pirate". It's a case of control. It sets legal precedents that are difficult to quash down the road. A zero tolerance (or close to it) is needed. Either you own and control the IP (even if nobody else can have/use/play it), or you don't.

What is that based on, though? Are there actual legal issue created about ownership by selling a limited use license?

[gondrin]

What is that based on, though? Are there actual legal issue created about ownership by selling a limited use license?

When it comes to stuff like limited use licenses, that would be based on whatever company would do it. Nintendo, Square Enix and a few other companies most definitely wont do a limited use license because they like to have full control over who or what their IPs are in. As far as I know though, no, if a company does a limited use license, it is generally with the express knowledge that the company that owns the IP would still retain any say over how it is presented, kind of like how the Tolkien estate does with LOTR or Disney did with their stuff in Kingdom Hearts and with Star Wars. If you want to see a company go after someone quickly, watch Disney and the Mickey Ears logo. Those companies would also have a say if they don't want it to be sold anymore also, kind of like what happened with Sony and Star Wars Galaxies.

I think chazus is bringing up homebrew and unofficial Nintendo stuff that they don't expressly allow. Same with Blizzard and private servers. Here is the catch though on all IPs. You can recreate them, copy them, modify them and even do whatever you want with them for your own private use. It is when anyone else can see it or use it in any way that it becomes an issue. If they don't go after those types of things, then they could easily lose any future case that they would pursue.

[chazus]

What is that based on, though? Are there actual legal issue created about ownership by selling a limited use license?

Ask the multibillion dollar companies. They're the ones with the lawyers and people hired specifically to determine that. Considering how hard many companies are on this, and that it's been a decade's long debate and legal battle... I would say yes, there is.

Whenever there's a sign that says "Please don't throw rocks and the angry monkey", it's because someone at some point threw rocks at the angry monkey, not because they just wanted to make sure people don't.

[Vash The Stampede]

This is why I feel the private WoW servers are within their legal right. Even with Blizzards upcoming Classic WoW, it still isn't 100% what the game was like originally. Some compromises have been made.

[Jtbrig7390]

This is why I feel the private WoW servers are within their legal right. Even with Blizzards upcoming Classic WoW, it still isn't 100% what the game was like originally. Some compromises have been made.

But they are not within their legal right, That's why Blizzard can have them shutdown at anytime.

[mcnally86]

Ask the multibillion dollar companies. They're the ones with the lawyers and people hired specifically to determine that. Considering how hard many companies are on this, and that it's been a decade's long debate and legal battle... I would say yes, there is.

Whenever there's a sign that says "Please don't throw rocks and the angry monkey", it's because someone at some point threw rocks at the angry monkey, not because they just wanted to make sure people don't.

Decades, DECADES, MERELY DECADES? Evidence shows the written language was invented because humans wanted to prove they own things, and we still don't have ownership rights completely figured out.

Ross (the guy in the video) has been railing against games being sold as software licenses for years. For the most part, you find that out after you buy the product. While there are laws regulating this, they are not often applied. I really believe games should be labeled more honestly. "Buyer beware" and "the purchaser should have known" are crap policies for companies that make most of their money selling to children. If you game is "E" for everyone, why the hell is there a legal document after you purchased the game. Are you telling me that A document that is written at a high reading level is read and understood by all the children who click agree? I stopped reading Wow's Ula 13 years ago and I understand what "party of the first part" means.

Ross is also right when he says a lot of games are only pretending to be sold as software. When you buy a software license like WOW, adobe, word, they tell you how long you get access. The is a legal requirement for a good faith sale. Games that don't know how long they will last without a sunset plan are not making a good faith sale. When are they going to make the plan to sunset the game? After they run out of money? They are making products that they know will crash and burn at some random point in the future, then selling them to children without a great concept of the future. They do this with no plan to compensate people when their game authentication servers go offline bricking everyone's purchase.

- - - Updated - - -

But they are not within their legal right, That's why Blizzard can have them shutdown at anytime.

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.

[Malikath]

farm is right, the intended sale of a faulty product if in fact fraud, it's just that the games industry has gotten away with it due to media collusion to deceive the consumers.
this includes the licence that most ALWAYS-ON games that is by the law supposed to be perpetual being ended with the shutdown of servers, if you paid for the licence and they fail to hold their end they're robbing you of your product and infringing your right of ownership.

but the pinko neo-commies will defend this as a means of furthering their agenda of disintegrating the individual's economic rights as a means of bringing about crisis through accelerating the US into corporatism by removing the legal defenses that an individual needs to deal with a multi-national corporation which is necessary for a free-market to exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone is mad about Wildstar being shut down.

He has some good points, though.

it wasn't all bad, just the parts they clearly didn't develop at all that weren't featured in any promotional material.
at least they were in the game, where's that dance studio bliz?

[Yunru]

This is why I feel the private WoW servers are within their legal right. Even with Blizzards upcoming Classic WoW, it still isn't 100% what the game was like originally. Some compromises have been made.

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.

[SirBeef]

Not watching that video but just gonna say games as a service is a broad term that describes many things.

MMOs have literally always been GAAS, any game that gets post launch support free or paid is technically GAAS, and any game part of a subscription service like PS+, PSNow, Gamepass, EA/Origin Access, Stadia etc is also GAAS.

With that said trying to generalize such a broad fucking term as "fraud" automatically makes me think the guy who made the video is an idiot. Doing this is basically classifying Witcher 3 and Battlefront 2 as the same since they where both technically GAAS.

Not the free non cash shop ones like say D2/WC3. GAAS, is intended to have a revenue source. Now if the game that receives free updates has a cash shop, then it is a GAAS. PoE is a GAAS, free updates + cash shop.

[chazus]

Decades, DECADES, MERELY DECADES?

Yeah. Digital content and software hasn't existed for more than a number of decades. That's what we're talking about here.. But yeah, I get your point. People are bad at legal stuff.

Are you telling me that A document that is written at a high reading level is read and understood by all the children who click agree?

Legally? Yes. Part of the reason they put it there, is because the whole "Click if you agree" basically allows them to do shady stuff or cover their asses in a legal situation. Did you read it? No. That's your fault. It's been a precedent for a while now. Not only that, but it isn't unheard of to specifically hide shady stuff, just to see what they can get away with.

They do this with no plan to compensate people when their game authentication servers go offline bricking everyone's purchase.

Legally, why should they? It's not theirs. It's the company's. Again, you aren't (which is, yanno, the point), buying a game, or a product, You're paying for the right and ability to use a service. When the servers go offline, their stuff (that you used) goes away with it.

While I think that should be made clear, somehow, maybe... Its not their responsibility to ensure you understand that.

[mcnally86]

Not watching that video but just gonna say games as a service is a broad term that describes many things.

MMOs have literally always been GAAS, any game that gets post launch support free or paid is technically GAAS, and any game part of a subscription service like PS+, PSNow, Gamepass, EA/Origin Access, Stadia etc is also GAAS.

With that said trying to generalize such a broad fucking term as "fraud" automatically makes me think the guy who made the video is an idiot. Doing this is basically classifying Witcher 3 and Battlefront 2 as the same since they where both technically GAAS.

When you criticize someone for being dumb without watching them, you run the risk of making yourself sound like an idiot. In case you are wondering, you did. It probably would have helped if you read other people's comments decrying Ross's strict definition of GAAS. The way he defines them, they are fraud. Now you could argue that his definition is wrong, but you don't know what his definition is. You didn't put one up yourself either. I'm going to side with Ross, because he at least has a stance.

Ross argues that 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.

This means wow is not really fraud because you are leasing the license for a month at a time. It can be fraud when it sells mounts though, they are not telling you how long their game will last, eventually you will lose your sparkle pony and that is against the law in some jurisdictions.

Witcher 3 is not GAAS- it includes not DRM
Battlefront 2- I'm pretty sure that is not GAAS either. I think there is an offline mode and you can set up your own LAN. This would allow you to still play it even after EA's servers go down.