News "Games as a service" is fraud [Accursed Farms]
- Thread starter lashman
- Start date
Meh, just shows we need new legislation for this shit and for the consumer to be made aware up front that at some point the game will not be accessible any more (not that most target consumers don't know this by now but just in case, there are always newcomers). Possibly with a sort of warranty that somehow needs to take in account the possibility the copy will be purchased long after published to avoid cases where it shuts down when you've barely played just because it wasnt very popular right off the bat. But one can't apply physically provided goods and services laws exactly to gaming, we need all new stuff. Unless your goal is for no MMORPG or similar games to ever be made again since at the point the subscriptions/dlc/whatever aren't enough to sustain the game's servers and updates and so on they'd have to return already spent money to buyers and that's plain and simply impossible for a business. Even World of Warcraft won't last forever, so when it eventually goes the way of the dodo they'd have to refund every player since 2004? That'd be an instant filing for bankruptcy for Blizzard or close to that, never mind smaller companies. Not to mention you could apply it for every version of the game. Oh but I bought v0.9 and want to play that as it was when I bought it, not be forced to update to 1.1 so keep servers for every 0.1 version change up please. All kinds of things.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #4
... or give people server tools - so they can run their own!
no ... the solution would be to give out server tools when they're done milking it ... it really is as simple as that
It's a long video, but I recommend you watch at least the first 20 minutes or so, he addresses this point quite clearly. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with classical MMORPGs, since they make clear that you are only ever purchasing a time-limited license. Think about anti-virus software where you usually buy a one-year license. Since the license is the thing you buy and own, and that is clearly bound by a year and this is also clearly communicated, there's nothing wrong.
The issue is with games that are online only services, which absolutely will simply stop one day, but that don't make this clear in the license you buy (perhaps they mention it, but honeslty, it's not good enough if no warranty is provided to you. There should be regulation that requires them to give you a minimum time that the game will be kept running, and if that is not met, then you should have the right to get your money back)
That would be great as well, doubt this could be done for complex stuff like your Overwatches or Destinies
I mean the server tools they have might not even run on your average PC/OS and even in that case not every buyer will be able to get in as no fan server will be able to hold that many players or whatever. So it might be enough for 200 people who want to play when the game inevitably dies but it won't be enough for every single buyer who will remember the game when he gets the chance to get a refund for what he bought 10 years ago and it's in all the news sites. Plus it won't be the game as they bought it still. Performance, simultaneous players handled by the server, etc. And nobody told you "if a kind fan soul is willing to invest in the game then you will be able to play" they told you you can play it. I've played Ultima Online in some of the better fan servers of whatever year that was in, it wasn't the game as I had bought it for sure, fun as it was with a tight community. So unless the game I bought was a game that was explicitly about the experience of playing it on varied servers with varied setups, content, rules, mods, capabilities, etc like say, a p2p customizable game like Minecraft, I'd still have a good case to consider it a "scam" if it devolved to that further down the line. I didn't buy theoretical options that demand a PC beyond what I play it on.
Edit: ok then since it wasn't meant to apply to MMORPGs and other such games. But there are also MMORPGs where it's not quite so clear that it's time limited since they may have the same exact demands and set up but go for different monetization models to sustain them with one-time payments, dlc, micro transactions, etc, nothing that explicitly limits your money with time. So then every MMORPG to avoid a lawsuit would have to be sub based rather than let people play it on their own terms with such options? Like Guild Wars which allowed anyone who bought it to play and was sustained by selling yearly expansions to its fans who needed to do that to access the new content? I mean I guess Guild Wars may still be online but it's all gonna go some day.
I mean I do wish all the FPS (and games of similarly simple set up) out there allowed fan servers (for real, not being limited to renting a still limited in options private server from whatever company the publisher chooses or directly from them, actually get the software and run it on your PC of choice and everything like you can for Counter-Strike and not even need the official master server on to find it, just type in the IP and get in) like in the good old days where it was the norm but I can't apply that to every online game, some do need to be run the way the company/creators wish to provide the experience they're selling.
Edit: ok then since it wasn't meant to apply to MMORPGs and other such games. But there are also MMORPGs where it's not quite so clear that it's time limited since they may have the same exact demands and set up but go for different monetization models to sustain them with one-time payments, dlc, micro transactions, etc, nothing that explicitly limits your money with time. So then every MMORPG to avoid a lawsuit would have to be sub based rather than let people play it on their own terms with such options? Like Guild Wars which allowed anyone who bought it to play and was sustained by selling yearly expansions to its fans who needed to do that to access the new content? I mean I guess Guild Wars may still be online but it's all gonna go some day.
I mean I do wish all the FPS (and games of similarly simple set up) out there allowed fan servers (for real, not being limited to renting a still limited in options private server from whatever company the publisher chooses or directly from them, actually get the software and run it on your PC of choice and everything like you can for Counter-Strike and not even need the official master server on to find it, just type in the IP and get in) like in the good old days where it was the norm but I can't apply that to every online game, some do need to be run the way the company/creators wish to provide the experience they're selling.
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #8
that literally doesn't matter ... if the tools are out there - someone will eventually (probably pretty quick) get it running
and even if they don't - it still doesn't matter because the option is there
compare that to the current situation where:
- once the servers are down you're fucked
- there are no server tools for people to use
- everything is encrypted
- there are 17 layers of DRM on top of it
- even if you, by some miracle, manage to reverse-engineer the server code and get it running - you'd almost definitely get a C&D 5 minutes later, even if it's a 15 year old game (see: the recent City of Heroes story)
it's not about making it able to be run by literally every single person ... it's about making it available for people who DO want to run their own servers and have access to hardware that is needed ... plus, let's face it - most of those don't exactly require quantum computing to run ... do you seriously think that if, for example, EA made server tools for Darkspore available then no one would set up a server? even if they had to spin up an AWS instance etc.?
I just finished watching the entire thing, very informative and compelling arguments!
I do agree the most with the notion than being unable to use something you bought is theft. Sony is especially bad with this since you lose all your games if your account gets banned.
Thanks for sharing
I do agree the most with the notion than being unable to use something you bought is theft. Sony is especially bad with this since you lose all your games if your account gets banned.
Thanks for sharing
OP
The software world is still the Wild West, only now there are some sheriffs here and there, and a lot of the big boys are packing heat.
I really don't think the word of law, no matter how high the authority, has any power whatsoever in situations like this. Judges will choose to interpret the law as the wealthier party interprets it. There are a LOT of software that people have a legal right to but will be denied rights to regularly, and cannot practically pursue their right to (unless someone wants to spend a few tens of millions and decades of their life to actually sort some of this stuff out).
I really don't think the word of law, no matter how high the authority, has any power whatsoever in situations like this. Judges will choose to interpret the law as the wealthier party interprets it. There are a LOT of software that people have a legal right to but will be denied rights to regularly, and cannot practically pursue their right to (unless someone wants to spend a few tens of millions and decades of their life to actually sort some of this stuff out).
yeah games as a service is basically secret code for 'we're gonna nickel and dime you as much as we can'. Whether it's through cut content, cut ideas, it's just all garbage.
In theory it should be good, but in application it just means they sell updates to you.
In theory it should be good, but in application it just means they sell updates to you.
A game being preserved on a lower scale is better than no game.
As a European, I disagree. I have the impression that the US has given up the notion of holding companies to account, but the EU certainly hasn't. That doesn't mean they have always been successful, nor that all their efforts are good (hell, just look at the Copyright mess we are in now). But I believe as time goes on and a larger percentage of the voting population actually know and care about the digital world (and boomers are finally dying off), politicians will get smarter about this (or face the consequences) and we get closer to sensible rules and proper enforcement of them.
The US might have abdicated its regulatory control (certainly under Trump), but that doesn't mean it can't do better in the future, nor that other place can't pick up the slack.
Nobody reads the EULA, but all of this is covered there.
Also, the video addresses MMORPGs.
We have not given up the notion of regulation. Many US citizens just used economics as a veil to cover their xenophobia among other more unsavory beliefs, while others either did not vote because there's no way this buffoon could possibly win or voted 3rd party because they have the luxury of doing so.
We will be correcting that soon. I hope
I didn't imply otherwise. But if it's a scam now then it's still a scam even if it's cut down as you say as it's not how it was when you bought it and you can't arbitarily say hey, doing that is a-ok, but doing this much less than that is not, based on what system, one's own judgement, which differs by individual?
I loathe the turn games as a service have taken. It used to be that MMOs were seen as services not because the business model came first but because the game was trying to simulate a living world that persisted even while you weren't playing. The whole concept was an amazingly massively multiplayer experience whose player counts rose through the thousands, not 4-player instances with a barely functional campaign suffering from this bizarre format.
Anyway, I could go on but I'm very disheartened by the death of the genre of games that hid behind the reductive MMO moniker.
Anyway, I could go on but I'm very disheartened by the death of the genre of games that hid behind the reductive MMO moniker.
Last edited:
Don’t be judgmental based off the source. The reason he used it was because it was a surprisingly amazing write up that sourced every single one of it’s talking points. I think even the video author said “on the Linus tech tips forum of all places” when he introduced the write up because he was well aware that people may find the original ridiculous or random.
The biggest issue with the argument is that it's specifically against online-only games, and there isn't a lot of $60 GaaS games that doesn't have some way to keep playing the game offline.
Heck, Paradox Interactive's entire business model resolves around GaaS, and they're now regularly releasing on GOG.
Heck, Paradox Interactive's entire business model resolves around GaaS, and they're now regularly releasing on GOG.
Given that California's privacy law is getting a bunch of major loopholes added, all driven by Democrats, I'm going to call BS on your claim that it's a Trump issue.
I'm actually not that concerned about internet privacy.
I'm concerned about companies like Amazon paying no taxes on $11 billion profit. The problem is, ok they get taxed. Then what? The money goes into a treasury controlled by the GOP? Pyrric victory, I guess.
I'm not all the way convinced that his legal arguments would hold water in the US, but I absolutely agree with the sentiment.
US Copyright law is in desperate need of an overhaul. Top to bottom it makes very little sense in the era of software and digital goods. Despite that, I think abandoning the political process for the courts is a bit of a missed point. Sure pursue legal strategy, but changing the law is better because you can make the courts follow your laws rather than hope they interpret then the way you want.
Even if the political process is unlikely to yield results in the US any time soon, giving up is a mistake. Make your voice and opinion known. Demand your representative and senator do better. If they won't then vote against them. It's a slow process but capable of much more than a couple lawsuits.
US Copyright law is in desperate need of an overhaul. Top to bottom it makes very little sense in the era of software and digital goods. Despite that, I think abandoning the political process for the courts is a bit of a missed point. Sure pursue legal strategy, but changing the law is better because you can make the courts follow your laws rather than hope they interpret then the way you want.
Even if the political process is unlikely to yield results in the US any time soon, giving up is a mistake. Make your voice and opinion known. Demand your representative and senator do better. If they won't then vote against them. It's a slow process but capable of much more than a couple lawsuits.
As long as lobbying is a thing in the US, very little progress can be made.
Lobbying, Gerrymandering, the Electoral College, the Senate, and networks like FoxNews.
It's going to be quite the uphill skate.
You can thank (Post-Walt) Disney for being the ones that led that push. However, I very much doubt they're going to extend it again when it's taken to court very soon because even the politicians in office consider the current copyright laws to be extremely scummy (95-105 years, after author's death, really?).
You DO realize that there are dozens of laws on the books that are either illegal or unconstitutional, right? And, that the presence of these illegal laws are the reason why things such a mess right now? We don't need more laws, we need less.
I can get behind that because we do need to find a way to overrule the hypocritical organizations like the NRA and the ESA (Owner of the ESRB) since they care more about lining their own pockets rather than protecting the industries and constitutional rights they claim to be fighting for.
Yeah, that's an issue.
You do realize that in every single U.S. election since 1964, the winner of the presidency was always decided by majority of the states, right?
Along with that, it's extremely inadvisable to remove the electoral college because, if you want to go by popular vote, then you end up in a scenario were 3-5 states can decide the fate that happens to the remaining 45-47 states. However, with that being said, you can't go completely in the other direction and have each state only have one vote, because then that's unfair to the more populated states of the country (Basically telling Texas and California that their 30/40 million citizens, respectively, have the same sway as Vermont and Wyoming's 600 thousand citizens). So, the electoral college is a compromise on that to give each state a say on what happens, but also give them the proper amount of attention that they deserve. But, then again, like I said, that hasn't really mattered for the past 55 years since every single president has been agreed upon by majority of the states in the country.
Yeah, they need to yank the 17th amendment.
Why should we care about them? The public's trust in journalism is at an all-time low, and even Fox is suffering a loss in viewership (Despite being on top).
EDIT (Update):
EDIT (Update) 2:
Last edited:
Stream will be starting in half an hour for those interested: Accursed Farms - Games as a Service Interview