- cross-posted to:
- gaming@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
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.”
They get to keep my money forever don’t they?
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
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.
Also, you could use CGo, but if you know golang, then you know why that’s not always a viable option.
A law like this would effectively kill all licensed software that isn’t a full product
What I’m hearing is: this law needs to be a constitutional amendment.
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?
Yes.
I am aware that this would kill SaaS overnight, that’s an intended feature.
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?
I agree with you.
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).
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
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.
I’m fine with that, wanna keep it out of public hands, nut up and sell your stuff
Still difficult in that example. Bossa can’t force the other company to do anything.
I’d tie its length to copyright length. Maybe they would fight Disney when they try to raise it again.
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?”
Or the ability to host community servers like the olden days when a game is sunsetted.
deleted by creator
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.
Blacklight Retribution did this for their console version. Wish they woulda did it for the PC version but whatever.
😭
I miss it so much.
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.
“we lost our license to print this brands logo on our shirts, so you have to give it back now”
Smh
“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.
That’s a terrible 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.
What a weird case of simping
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.
He’s rather critical of the game. He just really hates when games are lost forever.
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.
Don’t forget we have to get comfortable not owning our games guys… This is Ubisoft showing us how that works…
This would be a huge precedent for video-game preservation. IANAL but this would mean one of these two:
- service cannot be shut down without release of server source code
- whole game need to be reclassified as software service
Seems like the latter would be an easy loophole tbh.
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.
Now also make it illegal to sell physical copies of games that need day 0 patches/downloads to make them work.
I still kick on my original nes every now and then. 20 years from now when you dig out your old copy of borderlands 3 and there’s no longer a download available, you think you’ll get to play through the game?
This is why his videos about this issue are great, he dismantles every single argument against it like “just buy physical”, The Crew has physical versions, they won’t work just like the digital one.
True. Though there really are NES games that should’ve received a patch if that were possible.
Now also make it illegal to sell physical copies of games that need day 0 patches/downloads to make them work.
“Sorry customers, we’re no longer selling physical releases. Court mandated that, our hands are tied.”
. 20 years from now when you dig out your old copy of borderlands 3 and there’s no longer a download available, you think you’ll get to play through the game?
Yes, games often come with bugs, but a game that comes out unplayable or unbeatable on disk is extremely rare.
This is, of course, discounting the fact that as part of community preservation efforts, updates are preserved along with the games.
They aren’t extremely rare at all, bro.
There are extremely few games that are not playable or beatable without being patched. You can list the ones you know if you like
Fuck yeah Ross
Stuff like this is always welcome.
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.
This is all well and good, but what of all those MMORPGs that got shut down?
The Crew is a bizarre game to do this kinda treatment for, since the sequel is very similar to the first, less terrible crime syndicate story, more planes and other nonsense. It’s also pretty middling, car handling is really weird, and the lack of rear view mirrors looks pretty weird nowadays.
I’m guessing it’s car licensing that’s causing the shutdown. It’s what happened to Forza Horizon 1 and 2. If that is the case, this game isn’t going to get open sourced ever. Also: why didn’t this guy go after Microsoft to make them playable again?
It’s because MMOs were sold as subscriptions (most of the time) so they’re legally covered in being allowed to end their service. The crew however was sold as a full game with no subscription. They didn’t make it clear that the game could cease to exist even though you paid for it outright.
Sadly, I feel like a lawsuit line this won’t have the benefit we’re all hoping for (open sourcing on closure of services) but will instead just make all subsequent games free-to-play, which would make them more exempt to the same scrutiny. And we’re already seemingly heading that way too, warts and all.
For the future maybe. For games that were sold one day, they would have to either keep supporting it, or release server software.
It is up to the gamers to keep supporting this practice in the future.
I can still play Unreal Tournament '99 and 2004 even though the servers are offline. I can even still play it online with the server ip and even use the server browser with fan mods.
You can’t say the same for the crew when it goes offline.
The reason you can still play UT99 and 2004 is because those games were never hosted by epic on a central server. The game shipped with the server hosting tools, and it was designed to allow you to host your own server (if your connection was fast enough) or to rent your own server from a third party.
They’re also very different types of games from the current crop of live service games that this youtuber is targeting.
I am aware it’s different. All I’m trying to say is either make it single player, release dedicated server software or keep supporting it. You sold it as a product. Don’t remove access to a product.
For the last few years, most MMOs have been, or become, Free to Play, with (a lot of) microtransactions. The only subscription MMOs I can think of off the top of my head are FFXIV, WoW and Eve. Then you have the buy to play, with no sub (or optional sub, but not required to play), games like New World and Elder Scrolls Online. Making the vast majority F2P.
All of those games can become EOL and be removed from sale for any number of reasons, and they’ll have the same terms in the EULA that the crew would have. There is literally nothing different legally between The Crew and something like Elyon. Both were paid for up front, no subscription with some optional microtransactions.
Since legallly there is nothing different between all these live service games, it makes this youtubers campaign all the more odd. Car Licensing is notoriously well enforced, so why is this guy, a Half Life youtuber of all things, thinking he can go after Ubisoft on this when it’s pretty obvious that it’s the license agreements that are the likely cause of the shutdown.
Since it’s free they were never sold to you as product, their asses are covered on this one, you can make an arguement for Elder Scrolls Online, Black Desert Online (I bought this one, I have the receipt to prove it) and Guild Wars 2 since they use the b2p model with an optional subscription. Car licensing can only prevent ubisoft to sell the game, it’s not required for them to shut it down and render your copy unusable.
Horizon can be played offline. When Microsoft bites the dust, I can still pop in a Forza horizon 2 DVD into my 360 and play it.
Realistically, when Microsoft bites the dust, both your FH2 DVD and your 360 will have stopped working decades ago.
You just made it look even worse for Ubisoft since the first 3 Horizon games work offline and everyone that bought them can still play it just fine, you just can’t buy them right now.
Not sure why he’s being recognized by a Half-Life series of his. I discovered and watched him for his deep dives of old crappy PC games.
For sure, Ross’ Game Dungeon is amazing and one of my favorite things to watch!
Ross Scott posts his content on Accursed Farms for anyone interested!
I also recommend Grim Beard and Pushing Up Roses for similar content.
Blessed Ross Scott
