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

[colonel_mortis]

This is not news - it's missing the "new" part. It is a topic discussing a video.

As such, it has been moved to General Discussion.

 

In addition, this topic is already bordering on non-constructive discussion. Please try to keep in mind that there are different ways of looking at the same issue, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are misguided or stupid, they are just taking a different perspective on the matter. The topic will have to be locked if it turns into a flame war, and nobody wants that.

[HXRT900]

3 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

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

Yes I agree, such a shame, modding is a brilliant way of actually learning something nowdays. 

 

In the future, sooner than you think, everything will be streamed as a service.

[minus47]

7 hours ago, duncannah said:

Is this news?

What is news and isn't is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't know what you know and don't know. So the contents of the video may or may not be "news" to you.

In my opinion, the video contains both information & uploader's opinion.

I think the uploader has provided a lot of evidence(legal, philosophical & ethical) to back up his opinions.

I would recommend everybody watch the video. If the video is too slow, speed it up to 1.5x . Speeding it to 2x might be a bit excessive because some of the slides need a slower explanation(obviously YMMV) and some of the humor(what little of it there is) needs a slower speed.

As Ross Scott(the uploader) himself admits in his description -

"WARNING: This is more boring than my usual videos.
This was created as the beginning of an effort to get law authorities to examine this practice."

[jagdtigger]

On 4/27/2019 at 9:43 AM, mr moose said:

, but for new games letting anyone control the servers on your game is leaving the quality of the product in the hands of anyone

Which can be resolved by a simple official/unofficial flag in the server software and in turn the game will show it in the server browser....

[mr moose]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

Which can be resolved by a simple official/unofficial flag in the server software and in turn the game will sow it in the server browser....

New game comes out but only a quarter of all players use the official server, company can't afford to keep it running so users are now left with only the unofficial servers.  Back to square one.  

 

Why would any company allow their revenue to diminished with alternatives that have the potential to ruin the game experience and thus their reputation?

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Why would any company allow their revenue to diminished with alternatives that have the potential to ruin the game experience and thus their reputation?

Why would anyone blame the dev for a poorly run unofficial server? And exactly what kind of revenue would they loose by releasing the server? (excluding f2p and the garbage using lootboxes)

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Why would anyone blame the dev for a poorly run unofficial server? And exactly what kind of revenue would they loose by releasing the server? (excluding f2p and the garbage using lootboxes)

Because they would, because when the game sucks they blame the dev, when the game doesn't work on your highly modified computer lacking all the updates they blame the dev.  EDIT, I don't know how many threads around here you;ve read but they blame the dev for everything.

 

 

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because they would, because when the game sucks they blame the dev, when the game doesn't work on your highly modified computer lacking all the updates they blame the dev. 

 

 

Except for a few idiot they wouldnt, best example is minecraft. It has a ton of unofficial servers but for some reason its still here and didnt got killed by them......

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Except for a few idiot they wouldnt, best example is minecraft. It has a ton of unofficial servers but for some reason its still here and didnt got killed by them......

MS nor Majongg ever charged or needed to charge for the servers.  Some games make their money through server subs and some through the initial game.  some even make their money through a combination of both while others rely solely on donations.  I believe minecraft was founded on the idea that if you like the game you can buy it or make a donation (many of the private servers take donations).  

 

I'm not sure how you worked out that people not paying or using something makes it more viable?

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not sure how you worked out that people not paying or using something makes it more viable?

Its way more viable to release the server SW than get a whole lot of blame making games unusable when you decide to pull the plug...

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Its way more viable to release the server SW than get a whole lot of blame making games unusable when you decide to pull the plug...

and?  that's just your opinion.  I am not sure what the compelling argument is for any company to release their server software and change thee way they wish to do business because of some opinions.

[jagdtigger]

Just now, mr moose said:

and?  that's just your opinion.  I am not sure what the compelling argument is for any company to release their server software and change thee way they wish to do business because of some opinions.

Sou you think we just have to wing it and let game devs decide when we no longer entitled to play the games we payed for? Now that is a bright idea.... /s  (Obviously not and im not the only one vo thinks this way BTW.)

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Sou you think we just have to wing it and let game devs decide when we no longer entitled to play the games we payed for?

No, read my posts.

 

1 minute ago, jagdtigger said:

Now that is a bright idea.... /s  (Obviously not and im not the only one vo thinks this way BTW.)

Not that this sentence even warrants a response, but if you look at the number of people who have agreed with my posts compared to any other in this thread I think you will find my opinion is more inline with the community.

[jagdtigger]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, read my posts.

 

Not that this sentence even warrants a response, but if you look at the number of people who have agreed with my posts compared to any other in this thread I think you will find my opinion is more inline with the this community.

FIFY.  Most of the communities in Hungary is on my opinion. Its a bad joke that we are at the devs mercy when or how we loose the ability to play games we purchased. They wont even release the serverSW  for EOL games which they do not profit from anyway. (Not to mention when a company goes down).

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

FIFY.  Most of the communities in Hungary is on my opinion. Its a bad joke that we are at the devs mercy when or how we loose the ability to play games we purchased. They wont even release the serverSW  for EOL games which they do not profit from anyway. (Not to mention when a company goes down).

Ahh,  so the opinion of the people only count if they are agreeing with you, got it.   

 

 

[jagdtigger]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Ahh,  so the opinion of the people only count if they are agreeing with you, got it.   

 

 

OFC not . Just highlighted that maybe your opinion is popular here but on other places it could be the opposite. In my country ppl like dedicated servers because then they can play with their friends without getting disturbed by others.

 

Back on topic this needs to be sorted out because good games are disappearing into oblivion just for the sake of corporate greed.....

[mr moose]

Just now, jagdtigger said:

OFC not . Just highlighted that maybe your opinion is popular here but on other places it could be the opposite.

 

Just now, jagdtigger said:

In my country ppl like dedicated servers because then they can play with their friends without getting disturbed by others.

 

Back on topic this needs to be sorted out because good games are disappearing into oblivion just for the sake of corporate greed.....

The world is a richer place, we all have more money than we did a decade ago, things cost more to make, companies have to have more in the bank to avoid bankruptcy, it's just par for the course, market forces will come into their own, when games get to expensive people will stop buying and indie games will become popular etc etc.

[straight_stewie]

There is actually big money involved in fighting this fight.

John Deere and equipment purchasers have been in a decade long fight over something called the "right to repair". In the John Deere case that includes quite a few things, but the centerpoint of the argument is that John Deere claims that they maintain complete ownership of the software that runs the machines. The owners/operators claim that this removes their ability to repair their machines because you simply cannot repair modern heavy equipment without access to the software for diagnosis, and then sensor re-calibration after the repair, and by buying the machine they are implicitly purchasing the software loaded on it.

Recently, in September 2018, John Deere won the fight in one state, California, where they employed lobbyists to sway legislators to sign a bill that allows equipment manufacturers to require that owners buy parts through company approved dealerships and vendors only, among other things.

The argument has not made it to the supreme court yet, but I am hopeful that when it does, the common man will win and it will end things like software as a service once and for all. Software as a service is only possibly applicable to websites, where it's not feasible or safe to distribute the server side applications to end users.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, straight_stewie said:

There is actually big money involved in fighting this fight.

John Deere and equipment purchasers have been in a decade long fight over something called the "right to repair". In the John Deere case that includes quite a few things, but the centerpoint of the argument is that John Deere claims that they maintain complete ownership of the software that runs the machines. The owners/operators claim that this removes their ability to repair their machines because you simply cannot repair modern heavy equipment without access to the software for diagnosis, and then sensor re-calibration after the repair, and by buying the machine they are implicitly purchasing the software loaded on it.

Recently, in September 2018, John Deere won the fight in one state, California, where they employed lobbyists to sway legislators to sign a bill that allows equipment manufacturers to require that owners buy parts through company approved dealerships and vendors only, among other things.

The argument has not made it to the supreme court yet, but I am hopeful that when it does, the common man will win and it will end things like software as a service once and for all. Software as a service is only possibly applicable to websites, where it's not feasible or safe to distribute the server side applications to end users.

It looks like the California John Deere case applies to firmware, rather than physical parts:

 

https://www.wired.com/story/john-deere-farmers-right-to-repair/

 

 

I wonder why this Supreme Court verdict wouldn't also apply to the John Deere situation:

Impression Products, Inc. V. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.

Quote

A patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose. As a result, even if the restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with its customers were clear and enforceable under contract law, they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell. Pp. 5–13. (a) The Patent Act grants patentees the “right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling [their] invention.” 35 U. S. C. §154(a). For over 160 years, the doctrine of patent exhaustion has imposed a limit on that right to exclude: When a patentee sells an item, that product “is no longer within the limits of the [patent] monopoly” and instead becomes the “private, individual property” of the purchaser.

 

...

 

Once a patentee sells an item, it has secured that reward, and the patent laws provide no basis for restraining the use and enjoyment of the product.

 

Anything that a state court rules that is in contradiction of a US Supreme Court ruling is invalid.

[straight_stewie]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

I wonder why this Supreme Court verdict wouldn't also apply to the John Deere situation:

Software is copyrighted, not patented. The difference is astronomical when it comes to situations like this.

[Delicieuxz]

6 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Software is copyrighted, not patented. The difference is astronomical when it comes to situations like this.

Then I wonder why the 2013 USSC verdict that the first-sale doctrine applies to all copyrighted goods, making owners of them not require any permission from the copyright-holder, wouldn't apply:

 

https://wired.com/2013/03/scotus-first-sale-decision/

[straight_stewie]

13 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Then I wonder why the 2013 USSC verdict that the first-sale doctrine applies to all copyrighted goods, making owners of them not require any permission from the copyright-holder, wouldn't apply: 

Yet EULAs and usage restrictions still apply for every application that reaches end users...

[Delicieuxz]

17 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Yet EULAs and usage restrictions still apply for every application that reaches end users...

I don't think they do. That's what the USSC ruling says: That copyrighted works may be resold without needing the copyright-holder's permission. That means any EULA claim that a license is non-transferable is invalid.

 

That's also what other courts have ruled:

 

EU Top Court: When You Buy Software You Own It

EU CoJ Court Says, Yes, You Can Resell Your Software, Even If The Software Company Says You Can't

 

"Each of Valve’s challenges to the applicability of the Australian Consumer Law fails. ... Valve supplied goods (which are defined as including computer software)." - Australia's High Court

 

And software is defined as a good in all of these countries (and also Canada):

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

 

And a good, by definition, is an item that undergoes transfer of ownership upon its point of sale, giving all property rights over that thing to the purchaser. So, any EULA claim that contradicts property rights would be invalid, just as the USSC affirmed when it ruled in support of the first-sale doctrine applying to all copyrighted works.

[kpluck]

I guess I am not understanding this.

 

If I purchase a MMO, I know that if the company shuts down the servers I can no longer play. That means the money I spent to get the software and any money I spent on microtransactions is gone…and I know this going in. I don't see any problem with this as long as these conditions are known before I make the first purchase.

 

As a consumer, it is my job to understand the pros and cons of what I am purchasing and to make an informed decision either way.

 

But the argument here is that companies should not be able to operate this way even if the consumer is fully aware of what they are getting into? That just doesn't make sense to me.

 

-kp

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, kpluck said:

As a consumer, it is my job to understand the pros and cons of what I am purchasing and to make an informed decision either way.

 

But the argument here is that companies should not be able to operate this way even if the consumer is fully aware of what they are getting into? That just doesn't make sense to me.

Unfortunately it seems like many people need to be spoon fed, or would like to be spoon fed, everything. And when something bite them in the ass, they act surprised.

 

In a Discord channel I'm in, there's a ranting section. One source of ranting comes from someone who works at a customer service center. The blatant ignorance of the people the person rants about is staggering.

 

Is it a problem companies may prey on the ignorance of others? Sure. But you'd figure customers would do their part as well.