"Games as a service" is fraud - An informative and hard-hitting video about software ownership rights and need for advocacy

[Delicieuxz]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Why bother responding to my posts if you are not going to respond to my posts.

Righto, believe what you want.

 

 

Sure sign you don't understand, instead of actually providing something to back up your claims you just derail into a long list of insults and accusations of ignorance.  The best way to show everyone you don't know what you are arguing is to just start insulting instead.

 

Sure sign you've finally experienced a faint realization of how inapplicable your obtuse-for-obtuse's-sake arguments have been is that you pretend all the information that checks and corrects your claims isn't there, while feigning that the astonished remarks earned by your vapid arguments indicate the invalidation of the information that rather invalidated your own posts.

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Consumer law is not the simple thing you think it is.

The parts of it I've commented on are actually remarkably like I've stated it to be, because I've directly referenced it.

 

You, though, clearly haven't a clue what it is or what I think it is. Just out for an argument, I see.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

Sure sign you've finally experienced a faint realization of how inapplicable your obtuse-for-obtuse's-sake arguments have been is that you pretend all the information that checks and corrects your claims isn't there, while feigning that the astonished remarks earned by your vapid arguments indicate the invalidation of the information that rather invalidated your own posts.

 

The parts of it I've commented on are actually remarkably like I've stated it to be, because I've directly referenced it.

 

You, though, clearly haven't a clue what it is or what I think it is. Just out for an argument, I see.

What are you even trying to say now?  What has that to do with anything I have claimed? 

 

Consumer law says when you purchase a software product that you are covered under consumer law because consumer law considers that a product.  Consumer law did this because Steam was trying to call all themselves a service to avoid their legal obligations under consumer law. 

 

What you fail to understand here is that there is still a difference between a product and a service as defined by consumer law, a game you buy and play is a product, an online subscription required to play multiplayer is a service,  they can and do both coexist.  Windows the software is a product, windows as a service is the service MS provide to keep the product not only upto date security wise but update to the newer versions as well.  This is not disingenuous to the definition of a service nor to the definition of a product versus a service under consumer law.

 

You have still failed to answer my very first question.

[williamcll]

So would this mean long running MMOs like WoW, runescape and EvE online would be in trouble?

[Delicieuxz]

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What are you even trying to say now?  What has that to do with anything I have claimed? 

 

Consumer law says when you purchase a software product that you are covered under consumer law because consumer law considers that a product.  Consumer law did this because Steam was trying to call all themselves a service to avoid their legal obligations under consumer law.

So, consumer law deals with software as a product because software is a product. Thanks for the great insight. Consumer law in Western countries held software as a product long before Steam's case in Australia.

 

Quote

What you fail to understand here is that there is still a difference between a product and a service as defined by consumer law, a game you buy and play is a product, an online subscription required to play multiplayer is a service,  they can and do both coexist.

Serious question: Have you been drinking heavily tonight?

 

Another serious question: Why are you repeating what I've written many times over, including in the second post in this thread, all long before you opined on the matter, and pretending as though it's me who has struggled to grasp this?

 

Astonishingly, you're regurgitating what I wrote in this thread, and pretending as though it is your own insight:

8 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

For added clarification: A subscription-based game service (like many MMOs) for which you also had to purchase the initial software to run the game (such as in the case of WoW), involves two licenses to play online: A perpetual license for the game software that was purchased, and then a separate subscription license to engage the 3rd-party-hosted game servers to use the purchased game software with.

 

In these cases, a person owns the base software they purchased, but they don't own the game servers the software runs on and which they pay for a subscription license to use. So, when the online servers stop being hosted, this can prevent people from playing their game apart from exceptional cases and some which involve extreme workarounds.

 

Or, you know, what I wrote in my other thread about software ownership:

On 7/29/2018 at 9:38 PM, Delicieuxz said:

Software licenses and purchasing and owning software 101:

 

• There are perpetual software licenses and there are subscription software licenses. A perpetual license is non-exhaustive, meaning that the right it grants is eternal, forever-lasting, and never expires. A subscription license is a duration-limited right to access a software or service. All the most common software including games, OSes, and programs are perpetual licenses. Some games that are sold via perpetual licenses, like MMOs, require an additional service subscription to use the base software with a publisher's own servers, with the software not being functional on its own due to the servers handling the game world's AI, and other systems. Steam itself is a subscription service, but the games sold through Steam are perpetual licensed software.

 

Why don't you at least read the OP? Because, you know, if sort of spells this out for you:

8 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

By the way, as this can help understand the video's topic as well as the rest of what I've written in this thread, here are the basic differences between a good and a service: Difference Between Goods and Services

 

 

Quote

Windows the software is a product, windows as a service is the service MS provide to keep the product not only upto date security wise but update to the newer versions as well.  This is not disingenuous to the definition of a service nor to the definition of a product versus a service under consumer law.

Correct: Windows is a product.

 

There isn't a service called "Windows", or a service called "Windows as a service". Windows Update is the service that keeps the Windows product up to date. Windows Update is called "Windows Update", not "Windows".

 

The Windows OS, which Microsoft has disingenuously tried to frame as a service, is a product, your mental gymnastics notwithstanding.

 

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You have still failed to answer my very first question.

Uh, no I addressed your first question, which was:

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

How long should a company be expected to support something at their own cost after sales?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  It doesn't matter how you try to resolve the expense of it, running servers for games and updating OS's costs money and it can't be done for free.  Someone has to pay or it won't happen.

 

And I did so in my first response to you:

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

In his video, Ross doesn't claim that companies should have to support an online game service for any particular amount of time, and affirms they should be able to stop supporting them at any time. What he argues is that they should be required to do so in a responsible manner that doesn't infringe on consumer rights.

 

Towards the end of his video, he fields a bunch of common and anticipated arguments against what he's advocating for. Two of the arguments and answers he gives that relate directly to what you've brought up are these:

 

Your failure to read the OP or to pay any attention to your own posts or mine while mindlessly continuing to rant, is astonishing.

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Yes, some do, Personally I don't play them and no one is forced to pay for a service that is like that, But some companies actually work hard to make their games not like that at all. ESO was really good at getting on top of the bots and gold spammers very early in the game.   However if a company just hands over the control of the servers straight out of the gate then they have Zero control over it.   I am not in favor of fighting to force a specific changes just because a few companies are bad at their job.

those problems were figured out decades ago, bf2 for example had a site run by the community where you would rate servers, so that if a server was doing something bad just right a review, and dont use it anymore, other people would then be able to know that that server is not good and avoid it, and if it was bad enough EA would step in.

and with today's tech this could be made even better, and in that case bf2 is by far the game that has lasted the most in terms of player retention, newer bf games can't get close because creating a community in bf2 was easy to do, where you cant on the newer ones 

here is a video about it 

Spoiler

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

So, consumer law deals with software as a product because software is a product. Thanks for the great insight. Consumer law in Western countries held software as a product long before Steam's case in Australia.

 

Serious question: Have you been drinking heavily tonight?

 

Another serious question: Why are you repeating what I've written many times over, including in the second post in this thread, all long before you ever opined on the matter, and pretending as though it's me who has struggled to identify this?

 

Astonishingly, you're regurgitating what I wrote in this thread and pretending as though it is your own words:

 

Why don't you at least read the OP? Because, you know, if sort of spells this out for you:

 

 

So you quote, me and refuse to answer my question, then you get into a debate about what I said even though you can't provide anything to counter it.   You are still making many accusations and insults instead of actually discussing the topic.

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

Correct: Windows is a product. There isn't a service called "Windows". Windows Update is the service that keeps the product up to date. Windows Update is called Windows Update, not Windows. Windows is a product, your mental gymnastics notwithstanding.

 

That's because MS call it "windows as a service"  they do not sell it as a service like they would a product. 

C'mon, surely you understand that?  Again with the insults.  It's not my fault you missed the part where "windows as a service" is a description of a process, not a legally binding purchase agreement.

 

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

 

Uh, no I addressed your first question, which was:

 

 

And I did so in my first response to you:

 

Your failure to read the OP or to pay any attention to your own posts or mine while mindlessly continuing to rant, is astonishing.

So, how long?  You keep saying you've answered, but you haven't. How long should any company support a  product or maintain a service?

 

 

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

 

18 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you quote, me and refuse to answer my question, then you get into a debate about what I said even though you can't provide anything to counter it.

Questions aren't countered, they're addressed and answered. In this case, I presented you the information from the OP video that's relevant to the question you asked. It's you who turned the simple service I did for you into an argument. Why? Who knows?

 

Quote

  You are still making many accusations and insults instead of actually discussing the topic.

Considering the pointlessly-argumentative nonsense you've been posting, what I asked contains a reasonable speculation as to the cause of said nonsense.

 

Quote

That's because MS call it "windows as a service"

Microsoft call what, exactly, "Windows as a service"? The Windows in "Windows as a service" refers to the Windows product. Microsoft are saying they are providing it as a service, which is a disingenuous claim. The bi-annual Windows version updates is a part of trying to frame Windows as a service instead of a product, for the longer-term goal of reducing consumer rights over their owned copies of Windows.

 

Regardless of the bi-annual updates, Windows is not a service.

 

Quote

they do not sell it as a service like they would a product.

Huh? Not sure what you meant to write, but Microsoft sell Windows as a product.

 

Quote

C'mon, surely you understand that?  Again with the insults.  It's not my fault you missed the part where "windows as a service" is a description of a process, not a legally binding purchase agreement.

Correct: It's not a legally-binding claim - which is a part of the point of me stating that "Windows as a service" is disingenuous propaganda.

 

There are different consumer and legal rights involved in a product compared to a service. Surely, you understand that. Microsoft trying to frame Windows "as a service" is not benign, but conditions people to hold a different set of consumer rights expectations, and so serves as propaganda.

 

Quote

So, how long?  You keep saying you've answered, but you haven't. How long should any company support a  product or maintain a service?

I'm not the creator of the video in the OP, and you didn't ask that question directly to me.

 

As a service, I presented you with the information from the OP video that pertains to your question and point. It is not for me to answer you on behalf of the OP video. The OP video directly, head-on, answers the "how long" question, and I gave you the exact time for when it does.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

 

Questions aren't countered, they're addressed and answered. In this case, I presented you the information from the OP video that's relevant to the question you asked. It's you who turned the simple service I did for you into an argument. Why? Who knows?

 

Considering the pointlessly-argumentative nonsense you've been posting, what I asked contains a reasonable speculation as to the cause of said nonsense.

 

Microsoft call what, exactly, "Windows as a service"? The Windows in "Windows as a service" refers to the Windows product. Microsoft is saying they are providing it as a service, which is a disingenuous claim.

 

Huh? Not sure what you meant to write, but Microsoft sell Windows as a product.

 

Correct: It's not a legally-binding claim. However, there are different consumer and legal rights involved in a product compared to a service. Surely, you understand that. Microsoft trying to frame Windows "as a service" is not benign, but conditions people to hold a different set of consumer rights expectations, and so serves as propaganda.

 

I'm not the creator of the video in the OP, and you didn't ask that question directly to me.

 

As a service, I presented you with the information from the OP video that pertains to your question and point. It is not for me to answer you on behalf of the OP video.

Are you for real?  If you don't want to answer my question then stop quoting me.

 

As for the rest, if you type "windows as a service" into google this is literally the top response:

 

Quote

Windows as a service is the approach Microsoft introduced with Windows 10 to deploy, update and service the operating system.

It kinda worries me that you as someone who claims to be a tech enthusiast does not know this.

 

 

 

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

Just now, mr moose said:

Are you for real?  If you don't want to answer my question then stop quoting me.

What awkward kind of playing your way out of the hole you dug is this? You asked something, to no-one in particular, I presented you the information that addressed your query, you proceeded to argue all kinds of neither-here-nor-there nonsense about anything as though you'd been challenged and had to defend some supposed honour.

 

Just now, mr moose said:

As for the rest, if you type "windows as a service" into google this is literally the top response:

 

It kinda worries me that you as someone who claims to be a tech enthusiast does not know this.

I think I should be more worried that that's the kind of thing that supposedly worries you.

 

By the way, have you seen Microsoft's own document on that topic? You probably have, considering I've posted it before to make the point that "Windows as a service" doesn't refer to the OS, but to the update cycle:

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/waas-overview

 

It doesn't, and it legally can't. That's a huge part of me saying that Windows isn't a service. However, Microsoft's use of "Windows as a service" in ads targeted towards Windows owners is meant to condition people to think of Windows as a service, so that consumer entitlements over the software can be whittled away over time. Well, could be, if the propaganda didn't fail because other were pointing out the law of the matter and what the apparent intentions of Microsoft's "Windows as a service" are.

 

And, yet, this has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

"Games as a service", like "Windows as a service", is a disingenuous term because it's not actual. So, it's definitively disingenuous. Windows doesn't become a service because it receives regular large updates, and receiving updates isn't what makes something a service.

[mr moose]

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

What awkward kind of playing your way out of the hole you dug is this? You asked something, to no-one in particular, I presented you the information that addressed your query, you proceeded to argue all kinds of neither-here-nor-there nonsense about anything as though you'd been challenged and had to defend some supposed honour.

You still haven't answered.  Don't want to or don't understand the question?  

 

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

I think I should be more worried that that's the kind of thing that supposedly worries you.

 

By the way, have you seen Microsoft's own document on that topic? You probably have, considering I've posted it before to make the point that "Windows as a service" doesn't refer to the OS, but to the update cycle:

 

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/waas-overview

 

Hang on, what did I say earlier:

 

57 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 windows as a service is the service MS provide to keep the product not only upto date security wise but update to the newer versions as well. 

 

and

 

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

 "windows as a service" is a description of a process, not a legally binding purchase agreement.
 

 

AND:

Quote

Windows as a service is the approach Microsoft introduced with Windows 10 to deploy, update and service the operating system.

 

I think the issue is you have an idea of what you want all this to mean, but sadly it doesn't.  And the fact you refuse to enter into any discussion about how long a company should support a product or service is sufficient enough evidence you probably do understand the nature of it but that it doesn't support your narrative.

 

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

Microsoft's use of "Windows as a service" in ads targeted towards Windows owners is meant to condition people to think of Windows as a service, so that consumer entitlements over the software can be whittled away over time. Well, could be, if the propaganda didn't fail because other were pointing out the law of the matter and what the apparent intentions of Microsoft's "Windows as a service" are.

You know none of that is actually a thing outside of your head right?

 

Just now, Delicieuxz said:

And, yet, this has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

"Games as a service", like "Windows as a service", is a disingenuous term because it's not actual. So, it's definitively disingenuous. Windows doesn't become a service because it receives regular large updates, and receiving updates isn't what makes something a service.

And again we are back to conflating terms and definitions to prove a non extent point.  some games are services, some games are products.  Get used to it because it's not going away. 

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You still haven't answered.  Don't want to or don't understand the question?

 

You're not very good with English today, are you?

 

Quote

Hang on, what did I say earlier:

 

and

 

AND:

The display that you're putting on is something crazy. It's like your mind is caving in on itself into a black hole.

 

Why would you think that I was suggesting you hadn't said those things? I was responding to your saying those things and to you suggesting them as though that information was some revelation for me.

 

As has been clear since you first posts on the previous thread, you are currently visibly unable to maintain any information in your mind for longer than a couple of seconds, and so you aren't understanding what's been said, why it's been said, and where the discussion has been.

 

Quote

I think the issue is you have an idea of what you want all this to mean, but sadly it doesn't.  And the fact you refuse to enter into any discussion about how long a company should support a product or service is sufficient enough evidence you probably do understand the nature of it but that it doesn't support your narrative.

Why would I discuss how long a company should support a product or service - as if there's a magic number? The very suggestion is silly. You asked about it in the context of the thread's topic, and I presented you with what the OP video says about that point. That's the resolution of that.

 

Your being adamant about asking me for a "how long" answer answer just because I helped you in regards to the OP video, is strange.

 

Quote

And again we are back to conflating terms and definitions to prove a non extent point.  some games are services, some games are products.

Uh, no. Game software is always a product. Remember this?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classification_of_Goods_and_Services

https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/20190101/hierarchy/class-9/

 

A game service, which isn't the same thing as the game software, is a service.

 

Game software, which is a good and product, can require a game service in order to be used. This is pointed out by me in the second post in this thread, and in the OP of my other thread about software ownership.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

You're not very good with English today, are you?

 

The display that you're putting on is something crazy. It's like your mind is caving in on itself into a black hole.

 

Why would you think that I was suggesting you hadn't said those things? I was responding to your saying those things and to you suggesting them as though that information was some revelation for me.

 

As has been clear since you first posts on the previous thread, you are currently visibly unable to maintain any information in your mind for longer than a couple of seconds, and so you aren't understanding what's been said, why it's been said, and where the discussion has been.

Wow, look at all those insults,  try to keep to the discussion.

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Why would I discuss how long a company should support a product or service - as if there's a magic number? The very suggestion is silly. You asked about it in the context of the thread's topic, and I presented you with what the OP video says about that point. That's the resolution of that.

Because how long a company should be held responsible for supporting it's products and maintain services is a key underpinning to this whole discussion.

 

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Your asking me for a "how long" answer answer just because I helped you in regards to the OP video, is strange.

Again what are you talking about? I simply asked  how long should? how long does anyone think it should? There was no specific to the video, it was an open question to everyone. But you don't want to answer it, you just want to argue about it. 

 

Basically if you are not interested in actually entertaining the idea that a company should be responsible for a given length of time or that a company should be entitled to charge for any services it provides, then you aren't willing to deal with the underlying issues of providing games as products and providing games as services. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Uh, no. Game software is always a product. Remember this?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classification_of_Goods_and_Services

https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/20190101/hierarchy/class-9/

 

A game service, which isn't the same thing as the game software, is a service.

huh?  You made that response to this post:

 

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And again we are back to conflating terms and definitions to prove a non extent point.  some games are services, some games are products.  Get used to it because it's not going away.

And you have the audacity to accuse me of comprehension problems.

 

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Game software, which is a good and product, can require a game service in order to be used. This is pointed out by me in the second post in this thread, and in the OP of my other thread about software ownership.

And yet you still carry on as if everything is a products secretly disguised as a service for nefarious gain.

[Thaldor]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Yes, some do, Personally I don't play them and no one is forced to pay for a service that is like that, But some companies actually work hard to make their games not like that at all. ESO was really good at getting on top of the bots and gold spammers very early in the game.   However if a company just hands over the control of the servers straight out of the gate then they have Zero control over it.   I am not in favor of fighting to force a specific changes just because a few companies are bad at their job.

Giving players ability to host their own servers doesn't affect the official servers in anyway except if the developers are total idiots and even incompetent in that ("giving" game feature where client tells servers what player has or which level player is already opens such a big pandoras chest for hacking). Private servers have been a thing for a long time and mostly they are illegal copies of the official servers because developers are asshats who don't want to sell server packs (there has been at least couple MMOs that sold server packs and couple who gave them away for those wanting at the EoL) and this has already caused games to never work as intented ever again (see Matrix Online, Warhammer Online, Hellgate: London (which all have private server projects going with varying results)). Luckly the MADE was able to get through exception to the whole DMCA for dead online games for people to recreate and host online games that the developers have abandoned, so basicly running private servers for games that don't have official servers anymore is legal.

 

And spare me for hte crap of "lost sales". You know, I know, everybody knows that WB, EA and others have no intentions to revive MMOs that have been dead for years and selling them is pointless because there's no "legal" way to play them in the first place so there is no chance for lost sales or lost revenue.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Thaldor said:

Giving players ability to host their own servers doesn't affect the official servers in anyway except if the developers are total idiots and even incompetent in that ("giving" game feature where client tells servers what player has or which level player is already opens such a big pandoras chest for hacking).

 I was talking specifically about latest release with regard to maintaining the quality of the product.  Despite how shit some games are on release, the devs don't actually want their game to be shit to play.  Controlling the server is the first and best way to ensure a dev can control the experience a user has.

 

1 minute ago, Thaldor said:

Private servers have been a thing for a long time and mostly they are illegal copies of the official servers because developers are asshats who don't want to sell server packs (there has been at least couple MMOs that sold server packs and couple who gave them away for those wanting at the EoL) and this has already caused games to never work as intented ever again (see Matrix Online, Warhammer Online, Hellgate: London (which all have private server projects going with varying results)). Luckly the MADE was able to get through exception to the whole DMCA for dead online games for people to recreate and host online games that the developers have abandoned, so basicly running private servers for games that don't have official servers anymore is legal.

 

And spare me for hte crap of "lost sales". You know, I know, everybody knows that WB, EA and others have no intentions to revive MMOs that have been dead for years and selling them is pointless because there's no "legal" way to play them in the first place so there is no chance for lost sales or lost revenue.

I guess to have this discussion it needs to be on a case by case basis, because I have a feeling our opinions aren't that different for the most part.

 

 

Except the MADE bit, I thought they failed to get through the crucial bit for everyday internet users, I thought any dead server was permitted to be re-created etc but it had to be in a museum or educational setting.  Simply running those servers online was still a nono?

[duncannah]

Is this news?

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, duncannah said:

Is this news?

barely, its a video made from information that was posted in another sub because it was largely opinion and not news.

[yian88]

Bullshit video/topic, you can do whatever you want with your product, as long as the license/disclaimer/privacy policy is done right and it will be it will cover game streaming very well.

Just butthurt people about the upcoming game streaming services that will takeover gaming as we know it, due to the pain in the butt people try to make legal claims and nonsense videos/articles.

 

You dont own your game anymore anyway, games sold on DVD are dying fast, so anything you bought online on steam,origin or any other type of online store is game as a service, you onnly own it as long as you have internet access and you are not banned from the platform.

 

The faster the traditional gaming dies the better, hopefully new game streaming services will force companies to make new unlimited 4g/5g plans else it wont work.

[Thaldor]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 I was talking specifically about latest release with regard to maintaining the quality of the product.  Despite how shit some games are on release, the devs don't actually want their game to be shit to play.  Controlling the server is the first and best way to ensure a dev can control the experience a user has.

I don't see there being any loss of quality if developer offers unofficial server support as long as developer makes it visible which server players are connecting. Yeah, people will change droprates and stuff on their servers to mitigate the problems of not having as many players as official servers and mostly making the game more for their liking and probably don't go after hackers and "goldsellers", but it's their server and with competent design those hackers and others roaming in the unofficial servers don't affect the official servers. I don't really have problem with still living games not having unofficial servers, my problems begin when those official servers are shutdown basicly making the product defunct because consumers can't connect to the "service" part of the game anymore (if there isn't alternative "services" to make that game functional).

 

Quote

I guess to have this discussion it needs to be on a case by case basis, because I have a feeling our opinions aren't that different for the most part.

 

Except the MADE bit, I thought they failed to get through the crucial bit for everyday internet users, I thought any dead server was permitted to be re-created etc but it had to be in a museum or educational setting.  Simply running those servers online was still a nono?

I might remember that wrong. Eitherway doesn't really matter when the developers are still asshats and don't release server packs even for museums and whatelse.

[Delicieuxz]

49 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because how long a company should be held responsible for supporting it's products and maintain services is a key underpinning to this whole discussion.

There isn't a magic number, there is no length that companies must support a product or service in effect, and the OP video doesn't argue that companies should have to support products or services for a given amount of time.

 

How could companies be forced to support products and services they don't have funds or means to support?

 

Quote

Again what are you talking about? I simply asked  how long should? how long does anyone think it should? There was no specific to the video, it was an open question to everyone. But you don't want to answer it, you just want to argue about it.

No.

 

You question was commenting on the cost of ongoing support for a game:

 

"How long should a company be expected to support something at their own cost after sales?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  It doesn't matter how you try to resolve the expense of it, running servers for games and updating OS's costs money and it can't be done for free.  Someone has to pay or it won't happen."

 

The OP video and the timestamps I gave you specifically address that point:

Quote

"What you're proposing would require businesses to support their games forever. That's unreasonable."

 

"No, it wouldn't. In fact, I'm in favour of companies ending support for a game any time they want. That's why an EoL plan is essential. If you're a company and you end support for your game, but then the customer still has a reasonable chance to play it after that, that's it, you're done. You don't have to support anything. What needs to stop is support being a requirement to play the game - that's what "Games as a service" is."

 

And Ross describes his view of the minimum reasonable EoL effort by a developer as:

 

 

 

 

Ross mentions that this minimum amount of EoL preparation work should take companies somewhere between under and hour to a few days, depending on their documentation and orderliness of their software.

 

 

Quote

huh?  You made that response to this post:

 

And you have the audacity to accuse me of comprehension problems.

 

 

Yes, as you've yet again demonstrated.

 

You said, "some games are services, some games are products". I responded by saying that, no, all game software are products, reminding you of the link which lists the countries whose goods and services classifications are administered by treaty by the World Intellectual Property Organization, and by also again giving you the link to the WIPO classification page for software for all those countries, which classifies all these forms of software as goods:

 

090590 - computer peripheral devices

090591 - computer software, recorded

090658 - computer programs, downloadable

090670 - computer game software, recorded

090717 - computer software applications, downloadable

090791 - computer software platforms, recorded or downloadable

090802 - computer screen saver software, recorded or downloadable

090829 - computer game software, downloadable

 

Software isn't a good and product because of any technical purpose under consumer law, as if it's a technicality while software can be in-effect a service. Software can't in-effect be a service - delivery of software can be, but not software itself. Software is a good under law because software is by its nature and identification a good, and so it's legally classified as a good, regardless of the type of software and regardless of the medium it's purchased through or delivered by.

 

Services which software engages and depends on are not themselves software items, even though they may run on software items.

 

Maybe you've had a stressful day, but regardless of the reason you're not with it at all right now, and you haven't been since your first posts in this thread. Maybe you need a long sleep or something.

[Delicieuxz]

14 minutes ago, yian88 said:

Bullshit video/topic, you can do whatever you want with your product, as long as the license/disclaimer/privacy policy is done right and it will be it will cover game streaming very well.

Just butthurt people about the upcoming game streaming services that will takeover gaming as we know it, due to the pain in the butt people try to make legal claims and nonsense videos/articles.

The OP video doesn't say that game streaming services violate anything pertaining to software ownership. It points out that game streaming services are approaching and that when people use them they'll be paying for the streaming service, and not a game.

 

Quote

You dont own your game anymore anyway, games sold on DVD are dying fast, so anything you bought online on steam,origin or any other type of online store is game as a service, you onnly own it as long as you have internet access and you are not banned from the platform.

Not so. You do own your games, by law. The medium games are sold on or delivered by has nothing to do with that fact.

 

There's a huge OP about it here: Understanding software licenses and EULAs: You own the software that you purchase

[Delicieuxz]

Jim Sterling has given a shout-out to Ross' video, imploring people to watch it:

 

 

The shout-out at the very start of this video.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

You question was commenting on the cost of ongoing support for a game:

 

"How long should a company be expected to support something at their own cost after sales?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  It doesn't matter how you try to resolve the expense of it, running servers for games and updating OS's costs money and it can't be done for free.  Someone has to pay or it won't happen."

 

I give up ...

[ARikozuM]

3 hours ago, williamcll said:

So would this mean long running MMOs like WoW, runescape and EvE online would be in trouble?

No. They would be protected under consumer law so long as the servers are still active. Once the servers hit EoL the obligation should be to release the servers to users who will pay for the upkeep and archiving of the system.

[HXRT900]

Gone will be the days of modding, it will be a sad time, you will be treated like cattle.

[TetraSky]

13 minutes ago, HXRT900 said:

Gone will be the days of modding, it will be a sad time, you will be treated like cattle.

I'd argue that's already the case with the majority of games and has been for years now.