Also NAL, but it seems like they aren’t arguing for server functionality but rather just the ability to play offline at all, which opens up the third option of requiring games to be patched to remove sever requirements if being shut down, in any case this will be a fascinating case to follow, and I hope they go through with the lawsuit.
True though that’s a bit of a potato/potatoh probpem as the easiest way to patch-in offline would be to run server locally rather than have 2 different architectures of offline and online plays. That’s already how many games work today actually - singleplayer is just a server with only you on it.
The Crew’s servers, scheduled for Sunday March 31, represents a “gray area” in videogame consumer law that he would like to challenge.
…
I think the argument to make is that The Crew was sold under a perpetual license, not a subscription, so we were being sold a good, not a service
…
the seller rendered the game unusable and deprived it of all value after the point of sale.
Goddam right, that’s not a grey area IMO, that shit ought to be illegal. Maybe there should be a term, like let’s say 90 years maybe?
My personal favorite is the “companies are obligated to support it forever, or open source the server software hosted by a third party, hosting paid for up front for at least a year.”
While I love the spirit of this idea, it gets complicated fast. Worlds adrift is a great example. The game’s server was created using some closed source libraries with a paid license. So when the owning company (Bossa Studios?) went under, they were unable to open source it.
A law like this would effectively kill all licensed software that isn’t a full product. I do agree though; we need a solution
IIRC Bossa tried to open source it but they used a license for Spatial OS, which provided the backbone of their game. They were unable to make a stable game without it and opted to not open source it. But they were also in an early access that would probably provide an exception for a game closing down.
Bossa did leave the island creator active and has spun up Lost Skies on the same engine, which wouldn’t be possible if they open sourced WA.
Ultimately the issue should be GaaS and MMOs are offerings service while other games are goods which have an artificial expiry date. This is a good test of software judication.
The subscription model makes plenty of sense. But there are loads of games that rely on server side components. That includes basically every multiplayer game that isn’t peer-to-peer. Any very many of them aren’t on a subscription.
I would love to require all that to be open source. But I still don’t see how to do it practically.
When the initially licensed the library, they should’ve included distributed binary copies. That may have allowed them to release the source for their game alongside the binary of the library.
An interesting idea but it’s not possible with all languages. E.g. golang. But probably not the case with worlds adrift. I’m guessing it’s more of an incentive problem for the other company. No more revenue = why bother?
I think it’s like when a tv show doesn’t bother to negotiate the music rights for syndication and then they can’t air it anymore if the audio can’t be removed.
“What happens in 10 years?” Isn’t always a priority. Also, I’m sure that makes the price go up.
Hmm I may be confused. Do you believe that software companies shouldn’t be allowed to build and sell libraries? I.e. They should only be allowed to sell full products, ready for an end user?
Not the person you’re responding to but I definitely think that Library should be able to be made, however I don’t believe that they should be able to prevent a project from going open source in the case of company using the library going under, or if they wanted to keep it closed Source they should have to do something similar to what class action lawsuits do where anyone that is affected by it and opts into the agreement get some sort of compensation. Because it really is like a rug pull you buy a product and then the company makes the product unusable
Except that isn’t how it works, and could lead people to buy a library for a day, then opensource it.
Open source means any code used is widely available to anyone. Having a library you pay for means it cannot be widely available, or nobody would buy it. No more licensing game engines, paid libraries cease to exist since there is no incentive to make them, everything goes the “open source way” which means hard to use, opinionated, unintuitive software that is maintained by random people who rarely know what they are doing. No online banking, since you can’t certify that easily and it wouldn’t be profitable. No card with points and goodies in your supermarket for the exact same reason (points have a calculable value in real money). No online healthcare, etc etc
Fair enough regarding sass, though I disagree with the opinion.
But I’m asking about builders of partial software. For example, consider a single developer that builds a really great library for handling tables. It displays a grid, displays text in cells, maybe performs some operations between cells, etc. On its own, this software is useless but is very useful for other people to build other products. Should it be illegal to sell this software?
Though I would say that the grid software on its own IS useful. It’s useful to developers, otherwise they wouldn’t use it. Saying it’s useless is like saying a hammer is useless because it’s not a house, it’s only good for building a house (among other things).
Or, maybe don’t force online requirement, and allow p2p. Or, better yet, open source the server now that it’s shut down and release a patch to specify where to connect.
Imagine buying a T-shirt, and the manufacturer, without your prior knowledge or consent, could somehow render your shirt unwearable – that’s effectively what’s happening here. The only “gray area” might be that ultimately you don’t own a copy of the game anyway (since digital copies are effectively leased – a whole other issue unto itself), but regardless: more power to this lawsuit. Seriously shady shit getting tacitly accepted lately.
“Imagine everyone moves to electric vehicles, gas stations close down, and people start sueing Ford for releasing a gas car 30 years ago” is the better analogy.
It’s more like, imagine Fords required a connect to a server to run and they turned that server off, stopping a perfectly functional car you purchased from working.
Then you sued them to force them to make the car work without the server.
I just expect a popup in the game which says something like “Could not connect to server, some multiplayer features will be unavailable. Continue offline?”
I got the game for free, and I’ve been playing it since every three months for a few days, just driving around. I bought the sequel, but it sucked.
I never used the multiplayer component, I treated it like a single player game. And now it’s going to vanish? This whole world? They can’t be serious. This isn’t a multiplayer only title, it’s single player with an optional mp stacked upon it. At least put an offline patch out… Assholes!
But that’s the crux with only buying licenses. Or games with always online requirements. I hope fans find a way to crack the online code!!
Yeah, no one is arguing games shouldn’t have online, just that they continue to work after the devs are done with them, have an End of Life plan like the late Avengers game, or the gacha Megaman X Dive that got an offline version sold on steam and consoles.
I’m all for improving consumer rights in the videogame industry, but I’m more than a little amazed anyone’s willing to put up a fight for The Crew of all things.
Seems more to do with the way things line up–it’s a perfect example of a physical and digital game getting permanently shut down without any sort of refund or compensation to the buyers of the game. It sounds like it’s about setting precedent so people will have a better idea of how this kinda stuff is going to work in the future.
He just likes driving around and nothing more, it’s his podcast/tourism game, but also the perfect one since it happened after he started this fight for preservation and it’s not sold as service but as a product, unlike MMOs.
That aldo happened to Bomberman. To play locally, it needs to connect to a server. The servers are no longer active, and as a result, the game isn’t playable.
I came across this video yesterday, and I'm 100% on board with Ross and his stance toward games as a service, but this isn't a plan for a lawsuit; it's asking for help in creating the plan. I hope he can make something happen, because games as a service is going to leave a wake of destruction in the history of video games, but temper your expectations.
“I think the argument to make is that The Crew was sold under a perpetual license, not a subscription, so we were being sold a good, not a service,” Ross says in his latest video. “Then the seller rendered the game unusable and deprived it of all value after the point of sale. It’s possible that argument won’t hold up either, in which case I think there’s no possible way to stop this practice, at least in the United States. But to the best of my knowledge, this angle has never been tested in court and might actually have some teeth."
It’s a good point. Interested to see how this unfolds.
The thing is that this guy is not the head of a public company where shareholders demand massive and continually growing profits. So he acts in the interests of the consumer, the customer, the gamer. But if this was a public company, shareholders would buy shares and then demand he do something to grow that share price, so they can sell the shares later for profit.
When that happens we see that CEOs do everything they can to maximize profits, like promising release dates in earnings calls.
The difference between private and public companies is the single biggest threat to us all because as soon as the company acts in the exclusive interest of profit, everything else gets fucked. And most do.
That means employees, customers, everyone. Only the 1% benefit from the gutting of everyone else.
Those top level folks are sometimes “incentived” by bottom line targets and other end targets. So sure, you do get greedy people inside private companies.
I don’t think shareholders driving for infinite profit is easily disregarded.
It’s clear from context that he was discussing publicly-traded companies because, like you said, there basically are no public companies in the US. Your post is unnecessary and pedantic.
Technically public still means you act in the interests of the owners, aka shareholders (at least in germany anything else is illegal), it’s just that naturally that will always be profit for the majority.
Maybe turn the AAA stock into a meme stock, have gamers buy that shit up and give reduced game prices to stock holders to incentivise gamers to buy them. Et voila, No demand for profit that costs quality in the gaming experience.
The difference between private and public companies is the single biggest threat to us all
Nah. One does not build a company to provide a service but to earn money. “Well-being of the company” only matters if you are sure you can sell it for more if you grow it more
There are a hundred different reasons to start a company other than to make profit. Don’t be fooled by the lies of market capitalism. Some people want to create a legacy that generates income for themselves and their employees, maybe even their children. Not everyone is looking to sell to the highest bidder. With that said, the bigger the company, especially if they plan to go, or already are, publicly traded, or are owned by private equity firms whose sole focus is profit and value of the entity the more likely the assumption is true.
pcgamesn.com
Aktywne