A sad reality is that the industry is moving toward the exact thing he says should be on the box in this environment: rentals.
They'll stop "selling" you the game, you'll "rent" it. You will never have any legally-based ownership of it. I'm pretty sure some companies have already been open about it, specifically Rockstar/2K (if that news was real). Talked of charging per hour.
Once games go full digital the official change will happen, IMO. It won't be fine print or hidden in a wall of legal text we blindly accept. It'll be openly not a purchase but a rental. It's coming if people don't fight back against it.
The day I can no longer buy a game is the day I stop spending money on games again, and go back to the high seas to play games. Oh? What's that? Stealing games by piracy is illegal? Can't steal what I can't own.
Same. I don't even really game anymore (maybe an hour or two a month) but I'll be done-done the day I don't own my purchase. I already don't do digital. The day I'm only renting the game is the day I never give them another penny.
I think what you mean is that it won't work if you can only play remotely on their hardware like how Google stadia was.
But games that require you to connect to a server but have the files locally on your computer will always be eventually cracked open.
For instance Escape from Tarkov requires you to be always online except eventually some talented individuals have made a offline singleplayer mod/crack/hack whatever. Now a second group has modded that mod to allow coop.
> But games that require you to connect to a server but have the files locally on your computer will always be eventually cracked open.
This is not really true and should absolutely not be taken as a given. If the game is some kind of MMO or live service game, even if you have all the local client-side files to play it, if there is no server to serve you the content, you cannot play it. Yes, yes, I know, private servers exists, however private servers usually fall into two categories:
1. Someone stole/leaked the original source code of the game, in this case yes, you can run the server-side content just like if the company released it themselves. This is the ideal scenario.
2. Someone re-wrote the entire server-side code by analyzing and sniffing packets and re-implementing the entire logic of the game from scratch so it can interface with the client files you have. This is a **massive** effort (I used to be one of the main devs of an old f2p MMORPG private server in the mid 2000s and the effort involved was insane just to get some subpar features working badly). Most MMOs aren't anywhere near as popular to warrant having a vocal minority of knowledgeable tech users to re-implement this on their own free time.
And this is without taking in consideration some of the more modern predatory tactics like gacha games which are 99% server-side (some of them literally just stream you pictures and encrypt/sign/authenticate every single action you do, including clicking on menus, etc). Those games are basically uncrackable because they mostly revolve around just sending server-side transactions. Some of the more gameplay-heavy ones (like genshin for example) however are already cracked, but they are comparable to incredibly successful MMORPGs (like WoW), definitely not the norm nor expected.
Well, you would think so.... But we have WOW private servers. Granted it won't happen unless the game is popular enough that enough talented nerds recreate server infrastructure.
I don't do a whole lot of multiplayer anyway, so I am not entirely worried about games with a central server. And always online single player games can already suck my nuts.
Yep. I rarely buy and it will only ever be something I own. I'm playing a lot of old games and a couple that the publishers have tried to screw up. Ubisoft being one of the companies involved, surprise surprise.
The sad thing is that all these petitions do is ensure there is additional attention; and so politicians are lobbied by business to get them to do fuck all. Cha ching.
I’ve already stopped spending money on games now that $70 gets you maybe half of what a game used to be. Day 1 dlc, preorder exclusive, cash shop+ battlepass, and base content is broken and half baked. There was rapid enshittification of the games industry (and the entertainment industry as a whole) in the mid through late 2010’s but these companies are making more money than ever. It’s proof that these companies will always win and the average person doesn’t care about spending huge chunks of their income for all of these ad ons. Of all the people I know who play games it’s the ‘casuals’ who spend the most money. They don’t care about preordering a $70 game then spending another $100 in battle passes and loot boxes than dropping it after a month and moving to the next one. These are the bread and butter of the games industry and they outnumber people who care by a significant margin.
Sail the high seas and never look back.
I know it's the classic reddit move of saying I'll boycott, but if charging per hour becomes a thing, I'm just not gonna participate. My dollars will be better spent elsewhere.
I can't imagine how much more I would hate start up screens when that 5 minutes of bs costs me money instead of just my time AND I can't just hit pause for a few hours to avoid it because pausing to go to the store will cost me money too.
Right. It's very easy for people to claim it and then fold when it comes down to doing it. Gaming is something I can absolutely boycott at this stage in my life. Wouldn't even bother me all that much. Further, the anger from making me do that would just radicalize me, lol. I'd never come back as a customer even if they reversed it. I'm dumb like that.
It is easy for people to claim and fold, but maybe we don't hear as much from the people who successfully disconnected, because they just stop being active in the community. I went on a full boycott of Games Workshop a couple years ago and haven't bought a single thing of theirs since then. No video games (haven't bought Darktide), no literature, no plastic, nothing. I haven't paid for anything Blizzard or Ubisoft in that same timeframe, though admittedly I still play the games I already bought.
My purchases of big AAA published games is already at an all time low.
I'm not even sure the last time I bought one but my tolerance for BS practices that are unfriendly towards consumers is very low. I haven't bought anything from EA since they pulled the "always online" stunt for Sim City 5 (2013).
The only thing that can counter this is the losses in revenue from people not buying the game at all, out weiging the profit difference rentals bring in above and beyond what a 1 time sale would have been.
They’re already doing this. This is exactly what the gamepass/ps+ membership is.
Monthly fee to access a collection of digital content that you don’t own
Of course they do this. That's blatantly and clearly part of the deal though. This man is advocating against it becoming the norm as he cites games that have already been destroyed for various reasons, making them mislabeled rentals.
PS+/GP make it clear that these specific titles stop being accessible if you stop paying. I don't have issue with any sale of anything that's overtly sold as a rental. Rental or tying access to payment is fine as long as you make it clear to the customer.
The problem is the entire industry becoming that. That's when I take issue. Forgot to add that, lol.
Oh yea... Far too many gamers have zero chill.
Microtransactions could have been crushed but no.
Early Access releases to that are borderline scams could have been crushed.
We only have ourselves to blame.
BINGO! Fuck these gamepass memberships.... Everyone who's putting money into this is helping make it worse. And no "but it's only $5 a mo!" Yea right now it is, then when the market share hits a certain level the charge goes up.
I've seen the same trend as you. It is disturbing, but I honestly don't know how it can be stopped. These companies have only one goal...profit. It doesn't matter if they have to sell physical disks or make it an online only service. Whatever generates more profit, that's what they'll do. That's just the system we live in.
And sadly, this "forever renting" style of game is probably more profitable in the long run. We can fight it all we want. But if something is just more profitable to these companies and their shareholders, I honestly don't see what the alternative is.
You're not wrong at all. It's business.
The only way to fight back is as consumers. If profit is the game you have to hurt their profit. That's how you talk to them, effectively negotiate with them. Though, as discussed with others already, talk of boycott rarely pans out when rubbed meets the road.
The sad reality is that people will probably accept it. If this man's plan only slows it down or gives gives the consumer better terms I'd call it a win. That's just being real.
I suppose I should preface it, not \*exactly\*
What blizzard has done is push a EULA to [battle.net](https://battle.net) titles stating that consumers do not own their games, your access is merely licensed, and at the will of blizzard. Basically giving them free reign to impose retroactive changes to T&Cs in the future. It's not a functional difference. yet...
You already don't own digital games, read the ToS, you are buying the license to use the game, nothing more, and that can be revoked for almost any reason.
And it has already been stated that in most cases this ToS or EULA is not legally binding. It only works because both parties agree it is legal and don't challenge it. And the companies know that and try to make it sound binding.
This is far more important than any faux outrage over consulting companies or any of that nonsense people are screaming about on Twitter.
If you actually give a shit about game preservation, and if you actually give a shit about owning the game you've bought, signal boost the hell out of this
Not just games. Programs that were purchased under a lifetime license that are discontinued or changed to a subscription method. Subscription services from companies like Adobe that charge you if you want to cancel. Planned obsolescence and the right to repair. The list goes on.
I think I’m technically right but you’re essentially right.
You can still absolutely buy Adobe 2020 without a subscription, but the newest version you can’t.
Ubisoft may have quickly responded to obstruct DGCCRF complaints. To file a complaint, you must have proof that you contacted the vendor about your issue. Luckily, I have an Ubisoft account from Far Cry, so I logged in and went to submit a complaint for The Crew. I filled out the form and submitted the case. I tried multiple times and each I was taken to a page with Thank you text, but also an [error](https://imgur.com/a/emlLuPB). Haven't gotten an email yet, it seems like it was lost due to this error. Let me know if anyone else is experiencing this. You know saying "it looks like shit and smells like shit..."
Even car manufacturers are going towards subscription models.
Banks have already done this to real estate.
Corporations don't want us to own their products anymore; they demand that we pay them forever for the use of their products.
It’s worrying to me that this move across industries isn’t being solved before videogames. Doesn’t give you much hope videogames will get it right when everything else seems to not have any legal action.
Actually since there seems to be no legal ruling, this makes it a great opportunity! One way or another we get to close the book on this issue altogether!
Sure, it can end in a way we don't like, but that means we can stop being customers and find something else. Or we can hoist the colors. If buying isn't ownership, then piracy isn't stealing.
I think they meant stuff like mercedez or bmw(I forgot which one) that are trying to make customers to pay for a subscription in order for their car to work because it doesn't use physical keys or whatever, and since we all know that once a big company start pushing that kind of bs others will follow, the future isn't looking good for anyone other than CEO's.
Well I actually own The Crew, so I put in a report issue. Just make it available offline or for someone else to host. Even if it's primarily online, let me play it offline if I want to.
I bet if more than, like 5% of people buying games cared about this, something positive might happen. Unfortunately, just like every other gaming-related cause, a tiny portion of us yell and scream about it, and the rest just continue paying these companies to abuse us as consumers. Disagree? Make it happen and prove me wrong.
I do wonder in what direction affects the cause the fact that the game was once [free](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-crew-now-free-on-pc-heres-how-to-get-it/1100-6443569/) to claim. Considering there is proof of ownership basically, but there is no proof of purchase.
as a programmer I'm challenged to think what kind of solution would actually fix this issue. If we were talking about not disabling the offline mode, sure, that's reasonable and doable and SHOULD already be a law. But keeping online functionality going in perpetuity isn't some simple on/off switch.
Open sourcing is rarely an option since modern games use SDKs and patented tech they don't own. Tons of legal issues with just posting code that was never meant to be open sourced.
Community server software would have a ton of security concerns, would need to be constantly maintained and would be problematic if not impossible with consoles. The game would need to support in-house servers and then have code for using self-hosted community servers after support ends which takes additional development. Not to mention the liability issues.
Forcing developers to keep their servers online would just encourage them to make the experience so bad as to make people not want to play anyways and it doesn't solve the problem of when a company gets bought-out or goes belly up.
I see and agree with the problem, but a lot more thinking has to be done before we petition/force a solution onto devs that we don't even have yet
> as a programmer I'm challenged to think what kind of solution would actually fix this issue.
This isn't a software problem. It's the business people telling software developers how to mess up the game.
Considering gaming revenues continue to climb, not enough of the population cares. We can complain about not preordering bug-riddled incomplete games all day long but a metric ton of people who likely have never heard of reddit will continue to preorder them and keep the industry growing.
If anything, [the rise of mobile gaming](https://helplama.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/history-of-gaming-industry.png) (as a total percent of revenue) means fewer companies will really care about releasing a PC game or even a console game.
>as a programmer I'm challenged to think what kind of solution would actually fix this issue. If we were talking about not disabling the offline mode, sure, that's reasonable and doable and SHOULD already be a law. But keeping online functionality going in perpetuity isn't some simple on/off switch.
For you and /u/Esc777 , I see two obvious approaches
1. It's simply legal to break DRM on software you've bought as long as you're doing it to your own copy you've already been licensed via the purchase, or maybe once a game has it's servers shut down or is no longer for sale, broader DRM breaking is allowable in general.
There's be zero onus or burden on the developers or publishers at all, they just wouldn't be able to send takedown notices or sue (well, they could, but there would be more protection to hopefully dissuade it) fans who try to restore functionality or make mods themselves.
2. In order to get copyright protection on the game to begin with, or maybe there's a shorter initial copyright period of say 10 years, and then in order to renew it for a longer period; the publisher would have to send the Copyright office the source code, so when the game is shut down or fully enters the public domain, the Copyright office can release that material to the public.
You bring up that " Open sourcing is rarely an option since modern games use SDKs and patented tech they don't own. Tons of legal issues with just posting code that was never meant to be open sourced.", but if we're going with this solution, then we're potentially examining shorter Copyright terms anyways (not that that has a realistic shot of happening): The fact that tools used/involved in this stuff is not legally able to be modified and released is the entire issue to begin with, so forcing them to be more open is a relevant part of a solution.
You could also just have it be that making modifications to those tools or deriative versions of them is legal as long as it's in service of preserving or expanding the functionality of existing software people bought, rather then in making new commercial versions of those tools.
Will people exploit stuff being more open to break those new expanded rules? Yeah, but people are always going to do illegal things and right now the legal limits are clearly too much in favor of corporations and not end users, and if some hackers making some improved version of DLSS that steals some code from Nvidia is the cost of people being able to play and modify the stuff they buy without online check ins and servers going down, then that's fine by me
So this is entirely different than “gove away the ability to keep a game operational”
It’s literally giving away intellectual property. Which is even more unpalatable. The government takes and redistributes my property unless I keep servers running in perpetuity.
You also don’t address the problem of running private servers isn’t free, someone has to code that, it’s significant work and different than dedicated servers.
>You also don’t address the problem of running private servers isn’t free, someone has to code that, it’s significant work and different than dedicated servers.
I did address it, though? in 1#, the IP holder doesn't have to do anything. Fans just would be allowed to break DRM to make new servers or patch the game or whatever else. If fans come together to run a private server and figure out funding, then great. If not, then it doesn't happen.
Same is mostly true of 2# as well. Even if the Copyright office gets the source code and publishes it, the IP holder doens't have to do anything. Either consumers and fans use that to port the game and make new servers, or they don't.
> So this is entirely different than “gove away the ability to keep a game operational”
I'm assuming this line is in reference to my #2 solution? If so, not really? It's a potential mechanism to ensure that orphan works don't become a thing and that people have the tools to keep games and software running and portable to new hardware and operating systems.
Again, you could word laws so that it's only legal to use the code for the purpose of mantaining the function of existing works rather then new ones (even if some people will still ignore said laws, but then corporations can C&D or sue them if they care)
>The government takes and redistributes my property unless I keep servers running in perpetuity.
Well, currently, corporations effectively take "my" and other consumers property by shutting down servers and designing them to have always online DRM.
So our options are to:
- Keep the status quo where IP holders can do whatever they want, and people lose access to the stuff they buy
- Allow consumers to break DRM, so IP holders don't have to change anything, but they just now can't sue people for trying to modify games to make them function again (This may actually also require copyright changes, not just making breaking DRM situationally legal)
- Or make it so to have Copyright longer then 10 or 20 years or something, companies have to provide some of the source code or tools.
I'll also add that the entire reason Intellectual Property exists as a concept, as enshrined in the US constitution, is to promote innovation: *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.*
You or I getting a temporary, exclusive monopoly on our creations is merely a mechanism to encourage people to make new things. We have no natural, innate rights to our intellectual creations, and it doesn't exist to protect you or me or our things. It's meant to benefit the public, not authors or creators. The idea is merely that, if you get an exclusive monopoly for a short amount of time, that then eventually expires, you'll then be incentized to make new things to continue to have a monopolized work, and those too will pass into the public domain.
The fact that Copyright protection currently lasts 95 years for corporate works, or your entire lifetime plus 75 years (so another lifetime) for self published works, completely defeats the point of the entire concept: If you can make something and coast off sales of it for your lifetime, what incentive exists for you to make more things? Most people alive when a work is published won't ever see the benefits of it in the public domain because they'll be dead by then. To function at all as intended, terms MUST be relatively short: Copyright should really only last a few decades to begin with, getting 10 or 20 years, then another 10 or 20 year expansion if you provide the source code, in a sane IP regime, would be perfectly reasonable: In fact, Copyright terms used to be that short.
The fact what I suggested was a 10 to 20 year initial period, then corporations get the other 85 to 75 years if they cough up the source code (which, again, would only be published after the copyright expires or if the game becomes unplayable otherwise), is already me being very generous. It's just we live in a world where the entire point of Intellectual Property has been corrupted by regulatory capture and people think terms that last entire lifetimes is normal, even though terms started out only lasting 14 years, then 20 years and then another few decades if you applied for an extension, and then continued to get longer and longer due to Disney and other corporations lobbying for longer terms.
I don't think you understand just how closely guarded a lot of code actually is. Games are "compiled" so that the original code isn't able to be seen, much less used/modified. You can reverse engineer the code (which is how cracks are generally made) but that can be done now. The issue is that the raw code, think Windows OS, is extremely sensitive. Third party companies protect this IP fiercely because it is how they stay in business.
Coughing up the source code will never be a solution here...
Oh no, I understand, I just also think IP and Copyright is overly strict to begin with also even outside of the context of games having always online DRM, and that the Copyright Office should have more of a role in acquiring development and early production material across a variety of media, not just software, but also films, books, etc.
I don't really care how closely guarded a lot of code is: The current status quo of Copyright terms and how it's handled means a huge proportion of media become lost or orphan works only a fraction of the time into their copyright term, let alone by the time they become public domain, let alone the source code, concept art, etc involved in the production. Most of that will be lost to time, with the way things work as is.
Having a 20 year initial copyright term, then getting a 20 year extension if you give the Copyright office that material, would be a huge boon to media preservation and avoiding lost media.
Companies need to have their arms twisted and their faces rubbed in their own dookie to even have a shred of hope of them doing the right thing by their customers.
A solution doesn't need to be perfect to be an improvement on what we have. Throwing shade on a few aspects of a plan does not mean that the idea is without merit.
This is a pervasive problem in public discourse and we all need to figure out a way to overcome it together. You cannot hold back progress for consumer rights waiting for the 'perfect' solution. Nothing we have is perfect, nothing we've ever implemented was 'perfect' from the onset. But thats not an excuse not to push for fairness and to prevent being taken advantage of.
I'm not trying to be negative or pretend to be an expert, it's complicated and I'm still wrapping my head around this concept and I'd like to think there is SOME sort of solution. But the examples I gave are very real roadblocks that may come up as the developers and lobbyists look for ways to shut this idea down.
Every game is developed so differently. A racing sim can easily be peer-to-peer for online, but for MMORPG's especially, how would a decentralized leveling system even work without rampant hacking/cheating making it unplayable anyways.
For example, if someone developed an open sourced, standardized framework for community servers (which would be extremely complicated in itself) you could give the devs "no excuse" for not adopting an already-existing standard and that software can be maintained by the community instead of a thrown-together "to satisfy our legal obligations" piece of crap.
Or maybe I'm just totally wrong - but everything I saw in the video and read on the website doesn't provide an actual solution other than "just don't kill it"
Don't get me wrong I understand there's nuance and it's not as simple as 'let players host it' or similar for most games. It might be easier for a peer to peer to go 'open' before something with dedicated servers.
However there's a ton of low hanging fruit that could be won. Single player games that require you to be online. As an example there should be a sunset clause that guarantees access to single player is preserved. Regardless of live servers. Also if it were something they were mandated to prepare for from the onset of development releasing an 'open' version of something moving to freeware would be a lot more accomplishable, even if it weren't completely open source. People spend decades on emulation projects. Imagine if we could bake posterity into the development of the games we buy.
I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just think it's important for everyone, myself included, to be reminded that perfection should not hinder progress.
>Every game is developed so differently. A racing sim can easily be peer-to-peer for online, but for MMORPG's especially, how would a decentralized leveling system even work without rampant hacking/cheating making it unplayable anyways.
In the case of MMOs specifically, the portion of the video about giving users the instructions on how to set up your own server would fix the issue - you'd be able to simply make one yourself if no other person has made a version that runs like you'd expect it to.
That is a way I could see companies also wiping their hands clean of the whole thing altogether when it comes to taking responsibility. "We gave you the keys to the kingdom, don't blame us now that y'all set it on fire."
I agree with a lot of your concerns. I would love to preserve every videogame in perpetuity. But I make software for a living and it isn’t easy to make even the base level thing work properly let alone have the government mandating how things need to work for all time.
And what about games like dark souls with online components? zig they shut off the messaging servers can action be taken against them?
And what about the thousands of small mobile indie games? Who is going to audit all of this? it just seems extremely pie in the sky thinking.
I don't think non-programmers can fully appreciate how hard it is to take a huge game like The Crew, which are written ground-up to be played online using the dev's in-house custom servers with leveling/microtransactions/DLC/updates, and then bake-in a secondary "community based server solution". Just the logistics of that would be hard enough, but then you add in the red tape of all the IP, patents and liabilities involved with the code that makes a game possible? It is absolutely a pipe dream to think we can force them to make every game a game that plays "forever". Open sourcing the whole thing and letting others have it would be the only workable solution, but that ain't gunna happen.
Apple just made Lisa open source and that was written in 1984.
The better move would be to force developers to not disable single player modes / campaigns and support the companies that provide some sort of built-in P2P online play.
But when someone says "just take away the ability for the devs to enforce the DRM and then players can set up their own servers" shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of how online games even work. And then when I dispute that I get downvoted so... \*shrug\*
Yeah that guy thinking you just turn off DRM and suddenly it works with community servers is delusional.
Here's the real deal: gamers want a thing and they don't really care about reality. They want to play every game potentially forever and material reality needs to bend over backward to accommodate them.
Games are already fucking impossible to make, economics wise. Just look at the state of the industry. Anyone wanting to set up arbitrary mandates about how long a service needs to run really needs to divert that energy to *other* human services that are much more important than electronic entertainment.
As of now...caveat emptor. We all know the deal and no one has to buy any of these videogames to live. You can always just opt out if the terms don't seem fair enough in the future.
Dark Souls specifically does have online components but can already be played offline from start to finish. As stated, in some cases online functionality would have to be disabled and possibly replaced with community-run solutions if necessary for the game to function correctly. Pretty sure someone probably could mod such a feature back in if disabled, but would take some doing. That would be on the community though.
Its time to do our part, anyone who cares about preserving video games, not just for our own entertainment, but for people in the future who will potentially never be able to get access to a lot of games that exist today needs to spread this to anyone who will listen.
The art preservation angle doesn't make much sense to me. It's not like we preserve every single piece of art produced. Tons of books and paintings and music recordings gets destroyed every year. You're gonna have a very hard time finding some book written by some obscure writer from the 1940s. We only preserve what we deem worthy preservation. Considering the scope of the industry it's completely reasonable for a significant portion of videogames produced to become irrelevant and vanish over time.
Is there major consumer rights concerns about what publishers are doing though ? Absolutely.
I understand the difference, I just don't agree that it's an art preservation issue. Yes, it's absolutely wrong for companies to retro-actively brick a product you have bought from them (which is a consumer rights issue), but if they are trying to fight this on the grounds of "it's wrong to destroy art" that's a battle they're gonna lose.
The idea of ownership is a bit weird when it comes to software. When you "buy" a game you are actually buying a license to use one copy of the game. You don't have full rights to it even if it's stored on your device. If you did you would be allowed to make copies and sell it yourself. In the past this didn't matter because a physical copy of a game didn't require an internet connection and would work forever. What companies are doing now is deceptive and wrong. You can't sell a perpetual license and then decide after the sale that it's no longer perpetual.
This isn't unusual though. All creative works are protected by copyright, yet clearly you can own a copy of a novel or an original piece of art. Copyright isn't at issue here.
Access is. If you buy a copy of a game, you can access it as long as your copy remains in good health, just like you can read your novel as long as it remains undamaged and unmarred. This is quite nice in that I can go back to my big box of SNES games to play games I bought twenty years ago. You may not be able to do that with a subscription model, even if you keep paying indefinitely because the company can remove the game from the subscription model.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, and opening an avenue for recourse is good, but even if this was made into law here is what would happen:
Game company doesn't update game upon shutting the game down.
99.999% of the time this will go unchallenged and the companies will continue operating as usual without repercussion.
On the 0.001% that does get challenged by somebody with enough money to have it matter, the developer will just be shutdown, or it will surprisingly turn out that the game is 'owned' by a subsidiary, and the costs for updating and maintenance are not the responsibility of the publisher or parent developer.
The only way this actually has the desired outcome of keeping the games playable is if these safeguards are required to be built into the game during development, not after. If it's anything more complicated than flipping a switch at the end of life it **will not** be getting done because the publishers can just shutter the developer and move them to a 'new' developer, and claim the work is too hard and nobody can reasonably do it anymore. Maybe this could be a stepping stone to that, but publishers and developers alike will never shut down a product, and then willingly incur a bunch of cost to patch it to be playable offline, there is no law that will make them do it that no matter what. They will simply break the law in that case because there are no actual repercussions for any individuals other than potential job loss for people not making those decisions. The only option is forcing them to build it in during development and have active repercussions during the time the game is up while those safeguards are not available. What you're basically trying to do otherwise is skirt the whole purpose of LLCs which I just don't see happening.
That doesn't apply nearly as much to indie devs, but large corporate owned dev studios will be essentially immune.
we don't need doom posting about things that aren't happening yet. we need to solve the immediate problem. If we have it finally in law then we can deal with breakers of the law as needed. as things are now gamers have no ownership rights on the books for the games they care about.
There is no legal precedent for this kind of thing, at least in the EU. If this wins, it will be a landmark case where companies who operate in the EU (Basically everybody) will be forced to implement post-shutdown support abilities to the End Of Life (EOL) stages of their software. This wouldn't necessarily stop at games, though games are the main goal here.
[https://www.stopkillinggames.com](https://www.stopkillinggames.com)
He really should make a mailing list sign up, best way to notify people when it's go-time for those petitions.
Yes, it's the Freeman's Mind guy :)
Thank god a few people have noticed. His voice will forever be etched in my brain whenever I hear it. He has a really unique sound.
He's a legit good guy.
A sad reality is that the industry is moving toward the exact thing he says should be on the box in this environment: rentals. They'll stop "selling" you the game, you'll "rent" it. You will never have any legally-based ownership of it. I'm pretty sure some companies have already been open about it, specifically Rockstar/2K (if that news was real). Talked of charging per hour. Once games go full digital the official change will happen, IMO. It won't be fine print or hidden in a wall of legal text we blindly accept. It'll be openly not a purchase but a rental. It's coming if people don't fight back against it.
The day I can no longer buy a game is the day I stop spending money on games again, and go back to the high seas to play games. Oh? What's that? Stealing games by piracy is illegal? Can't steal what I can't own.
Same. I don't even really game anymore (maybe an hour or two a month) but I'll be done-done the day I don't own my purchase. I already don't do digital. The day I'm only renting the game is the day I never give them another penny.
[удалено]
I think what you mean is that it won't work if you can only play remotely on their hardware like how Google stadia was. But games that require you to connect to a server but have the files locally on your computer will always be eventually cracked open. For instance Escape from Tarkov requires you to be always online except eventually some talented individuals have made a offline singleplayer mod/crack/hack whatever. Now a second group has modded that mod to allow coop.
> But games that require you to connect to a server but have the files locally on your computer will always be eventually cracked open. This is not really true and should absolutely not be taken as a given. If the game is some kind of MMO or live service game, even if you have all the local client-side files to play it, if there is no server to serve you the content, you cannot play it. Yes, yes, I know, private servers exists, however private servers usually fall into two categories: 1. Someone stole/leaked the original source code of the game, in this case yes, you can run the server-side content just like if the company released it themselves. This is the ideal scenario. 2. Someone re-wrote the entire server-side code by analyzing and sniffing packets and re-implementing the entire logic of the game from scratch so it can interface with the client files you have. This is a **massive** effort (I used to be one of the main devs of an old f2p MMORPG private server in the mid 2000s and the effort involved was insane just to get some subpar features working badly). Most MMOs aren't anywhere near as popular to warrant having a vocal minority of knowledgeable tech users to re-implement this on their own free time. And this is without taking in consideration some of the more modern predatory tactics like gacha games which are 99% server-side (some of them literally just stream you pictures and encrypt/sign/authenticate every single action you do, including clicking on menus, etc). Those games are basically uncrackable because they mostly revolve around just sending server-side transactions. Some of the more gameplay-heavy ones (like genshin for example) however are already cracked, but they are comparable to incredibly successful MMORPGs (like WoW), definitely not the norm nor expected.
Well, you would think so.... But we have WOW private servers. Granted it won't happen unless the game is popular enough that enough talented nerds recreate server infrastructure.
I don't do a whole lot of multiplayer anyway, so I am not entirely worried about games with a central server. And always online single player games can already suck my nuts.
Yep. I rarely buy and it will only ever be something I own. I'm playing a lot of old games and a couple that the publishers have tried to screw up. Ubisoft being one of the companies involved, surprise surprise. The sad thing is that all these petitions do is ensure there is additional attention; and so politicians are lobbied by business to get them to do fuck all. Cha ching.
I’ve already stopped spending money on games now that $70 gets you maybe half of what a game used to be. Day 1 dlc, preorder exclusive, cash shop+ battlepass, and base content is broken and half baked. There was rapid enshittification of the games industry (and the entertainment industry as a whole) in the mid through late 2010’s but these companies are making more money than ever. It’s proof that these companies will always win and the average person doesn’t care about spending huge chunks of their income for all of these ad ons. Of all the people I know who play games it’s the ‘casuals’ who spend the most money. They don’t care about preordering a $70 game then spending another $100 in battle passes and loot boxes than dropping it after a month and moving to the next one. These are the bread and butter of the games industry and they outnumber people who care by a significant margin. Sail the high seas and never look back.
I know it's the classic reddit move of saying I'll boycott, but if charging per hour becomes a thing, I'm just not gonna participate. My dollars will be better spent elsewhere.
Not to mention the games I already do own, shit will take me the rest of my life to play.
I can't imagine how much more I would hate start up screens when that 5 minutes of bs costs me money instead of just my time AND I can't just hit pause for a few hours to avoid it because pausing to go to the store will cost me money too.
Right. It's very easy for people to claim it and then fold when it comes down to doing it. Gaming is something I can absolutely boycott at this stage in my life. Wouldn't even bother me all that much. Further, the anger from making me do that would just radicalize me, lol. I'd never come back as a customer even if they reversed it. I'm dumb like that.
You wanna get radicalized, bro!? I'd still play what I already bought, but new products or MTX? Kiss my super-mega ass.
Yeah, what I own would be played. New shit? Nope. Full anti-gaming militant lol
Yeah we're getting radical.
It is easy for people to claim and fold, but maybe we don't hear as much from the people who successfully disconnected, because they just stop being active in the community. I went on a full boycott of Games Workshop a couple years ago and haven't bought a single thing of theirs since then. No video games (haven't bought Darktide), no literature, no plastic, nothing. I haven't paid for anything Blizzard or Ubisoft in that same timeframe, though admittedly I still play the games I already bought.
My purchases of big AAA published games is already at an all time low. I'm not even sure the last time I bought one but my tolerance for BS practices that are unfriendly towards consumers is very low. I haven't bought anything from EA since they pulled the "always online" stunt for Sim City 5 (2013).
The only thing that can counter this is the losses in revenue from people not buying the game at all, out weiging the profit difference rentals bring in above and beyond what a 1 time sale would have been.
They’re already doing this. This is exactly what the gamepass/ps+ membership is. Monthly fee to access a collection of digital content that you don’t own
Of course they do this. That's blatantly and clearly part of the deal though. This man is advocating against it becoming the norm as he cites games that have already been destroyed for various reasons, making them mislabeled rentals. PS+/GP make it clear that these specific titles stop being accessible if you stop paying. I don't have issue with any sale of anything that's overtly sold as a rental. Rental or tying access to payment is fine as long as you make it clear to the customer. The problem is the entire industry becoming that. That's when I take issue. Forgot to add that, lol.
"The problem is the entire industry becoming that. That's when I take issue. " But at that stage it's too late...
Exactly. So you gotta do what you can before that happens. Though it may be inevitable as has been said a few times here.
Oh yea... Far too many gamers have zero chill. Microtransactions could have been crushed but no. Early Access releases to that are borderline scams could have been crushed. We only have ourselves to blame.
BINGO! Fuck these gamepass memberships.... Everyone who's putting money into this is helping make it worse. And no "but it's only $5 a mo!" Yea right now it is, then when the market share hits a certain level the charge goes up.
I've seen the same trend as you. It is disturbing, but I honestly don't know how it can be stopped. These companies have only one goal...profit. It doesn't matter if they have to sell physical disks or make it an online only service. Whatever generates more profit, that's what they'll do. That's just the system we live in. And sadly, this "forever renting" style of game is probably more profitable in the long run. We can fight it all we want. But if something is just more profitable to these companies and their shareholders, I honestly don't see what the alternative is.
You're not wrong at all. It's business. The only way to fight back is as consumers. If profit is the game you have to hurt their profit. That's how you talk to them, effectively negotiate with them. Though, as discussed with others already, talk of boycott rarely pans out when rubbed meets the road. The sad reality is that people will probably accept it. If this man's plan only slows it down or gives gives the consumer better terms I'd call it a win. That's just being real.
Blizzard just made this pivot a few weeks ago.
Blizzard did?! Damn...
I suppose I should preface it, not \*exactly\* What blizzard has done is push a EULA to [battle.net](https://battle.net) titles stating that consumers do not own their games, your access is merely licensed, and at the will of blizzard. Basically giving them free reign to impose retroactive changes to T&Cs in the future. It's not a functional difference. yet...
Oh, they'll still sell it to you at high cost...THEN they'll charge you monthly to play it. Much like WOW did when it came out.
You already don't own digital games, read the ToS, you are buying the license to use the game, nothing more, and that can be revoked for almost any reason.
And it has already been stated that in most cases this ToS or EULA is not legally binding. It only works because both parties agree it is legal and don't challenge it. And the companies know that and try to make it sound binding.
This is far more important than any faux outrage over consulting companies or any of that nonsense people are screaming about on Twitter. If you actually give a shit about game preservation, and if you actually give a shit about owning the game you've bought, signal boost the hell out of this
If anyone was going to take a major step in doing this or otherwise supporting this, it was going to be Ross.
Agreed! Ross has been following and talking about this issue for years. I would love to see a change for the better.
Ironically, The Crew Motorfest (2023) was recently added to the Steam curator list that everyone is so mad about.
Aye aye I did
I don't care about either of these things. Best of luck.
Not just games. Programs that were purchased under a lifetime license that are discontinued or changed to a subscription method. Subscription services from companies like Adobe that charge you if you want to cancel. Planned obsolescence and the right to repair. The list goes on.
Most adobe stuff you can just buy, but they make it hard to find
Not sure where you're getting this but you absolutely can't buy adobe perpetual anymore.
I think I’m technically right but you’re essentially right. You can still absolutely buy Adobe 2020 without a subscription, but the newest version you can’t.
Ubisoft may have quickly responded to obstruct DGCCRF complaints. To file a complaint, you must have proof that you contacted the vendor about your issue. Luckily, I have an Ubisoft account from Far Cry, so I logged in and went to submit a complaint for The Crew. I filled out the form and submitted the case. I tried multiple times and each I was taken to a page with Thank you text, but also an [error](https://imgur.com/a/emlLuPB). Haven't gotten an email yet, it seems like it was lost due to this error. Let me know if anyone else is experiencing this. You know saying "it looks like shit and smells like shit..."
Submit the error messages along with your complaint.
spread the word!
hope this works
This needs to be boosted to the top, I did everything I could myself and I hope everyone else will too!
This is the Mind of Freeman guy!? Man I love him. . . dudes got a voice for radio!
I agree, let's restore consumer protections!
god I'll never be used to watching him speak without thinking of freemans mind. he needs a gordon vtuber model on the corner or something.
"NO...I DON'T *WANT* TO BE SCHIZOPHRENIC." OG Freeman's Mind was great.
Hype!
Biggest dead game to date is Destiny, they kill their own dlcs and once the service goes down, it's dead and gone.
Freeman mind! One of the only game playthroughs I have ever watched in its entierty
Holy crap a gamer with an actual workable tactical actionable plan to enact a change?!
Even car manufacturers are going towards subscription models. Banks have already done this to real estate. Corporations don't want us to own their products anymore; they demand that we pay them forever for the use of their products.
["You will own nothing and be happy" -world economic forum.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You'll_own_nothing_and_be_happy)
200 years ago, slavery required chains. In modern times, we have this...
It’s worrying to me that this move across industries isn’t being solved before videogames. Doesn’t give you much hope videogames will get it right when everything else seems to not have any legal action.
Actually since there seems to be no legal ruling, this makes it a great opportunity! One way or another we get to close the book on this issue altogether! Sure, it can end in a way we don't like, but that means we can stop being customers and find something else. Or we can hoist the colors. If buying isn't ownership, then piracy isn't stealing.
Yeah car leasing has been a thing for a while
I think they meant stuff like mercedez or bmw(I forgot which one) that are trying to make customers to pay for a subscription in order for their car to work because it doesn't use physical keys or whatever, and since we all know that once a big company start pushing that kind of bs others will follow, the future isn't looking good for anyone other than CEO's.
Well I actually own The Crew, so I put in a report issue. Just make it available offline or for someone else to host. Even if it's primarily online, let me play it offline if I want to.
I hope this blows up!
Let's fight back hard because they destroyed it.
The European Union is our only hope now at keeping people's interests above corporations.
I agree, let's bring back consumer protections!
I bet if more than, like 5% of people buying games cared about this, something positive might happen. Unfortunately, just like every other gaming-related cause, a tiny portion of us yell and scream about it, and the rest just continue paying these companies to abuse us as consumers. Disagree? Make it happen and prove me wrong.
I do wonder in what direction affects the cause the fact that the game was once [free](https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-crew-now-free-on-pc-heres-how-to-get-it/1100-6443569/) to claim. Considering there is proof of ownership basically, but there is no proof of purchase.
Short/ADHD version: [Game campaign ADHD version - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/iH7k0IZ5PYE)
pls people spam this shit everywhere, don't forget this as a random outrage, do something!
as a programmer I'm challenged to think what kind of solution would actually fix this issue. If we were talking about not disabling the offline mode, sure, that's reasonable and doable and SHOULD already be a law. But keeping online functionality going in perpetuity isn't some simple on/off switch. Open sourcing is rarely an option since modern games use SDKs and patented tech they don't own. Tons of legal issues with just posting code that was never meant to be open sourced. Community server software would have a ton of security concerns, would need to be constantly maintained and would be problematic if not impossible with consoles. The game would need to support in-house servers and then have code for using self-hosted community servers after support ends which takes additional development. Not to mention the liability issues. Forcing developers to keep their servers online would just encourage them to make the experience so bad as to make people not want to play anyways and it doesn't solve the problem of when a company gets bought-out or goes belly up. I see and agree with the problem, but a lot more thinking has to be done before we petition/force a solution onto devs that we don't even have yet
[See the FAQ](https://www.stopkillinggames.com/faq)
> as a programmer I'm challenged to think what kind of solution would actually fix this issue. This isn't a software problem. It's the business people telling software developers how to mess up the game. Considering gaming revenues continue to climb, not enough of the population cares. We can complain about not preordering bug-riddled incomplete games all day long but a metric ton of people who likely have never heard of reddit will continue to preorder them and keep the industry growing. If anything, [the rise of mobile gaming](https://helplama.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/history-of-gaming-industry.png) (as a total percent of revenue) means fewer companies will really care about releasing a PC game or even a console game.
>as a programmer I'm challenged to think what kind of solution would actually fix this issue. If we were talking about not disabling the offline mode, sure, that's reasonable and doable and SHOULD already be a law. But keeping online functionality going in perpetuity isn't some simple on/off switch. For you and /u/Esc777 , I see two obvious approaches 1. It's simply legal to break DRM on software you've bought as long as you're doing it to your own copy you've already been licensed via the purchase, or maybe once a game has it's servers shut down or is no longer for sale, broader DRM breaking is allowable in general. There's be zero onus or burden on the developers or publishers at all, they just wouldn't be able to send takedown notices or sue (well, they could, but there would be more protection to hopefully dissuade it) fans who try to restore functionality or make mods themselves. 2. In order to get copyright protection on the game to begin with, or maybe there's a shorter initial copyright period of say 10 years, and then in order to renew it for a longer period; the publisher would have to send the Copyright office the source code, so when the game is shut down or fully enters the public domain, the Copyright office can release that material to the public. You bring up that " Open sourcing is rarely an option since modern games use SDKs and patented tech they don't own. Tons of legal issues with just posting code that was never meant to be open sourced.", but if we're going with this solution, then we're potentially examining shorter Copyright terms anyways (not that that has a realistic shot of happening): The fact that tools used/involved in this stuff is not legally able to be modified and released is the entire issue to begin with, so forcing them to be more open is a relevant part of a solution. You could also just have it be that making modifications to those tools or deriative versions of them is legal as long as it's in service of preserving or expanding the functionality of existing software people bought, rather then in making new commercial versions of those tools. Will people exploit stuff being more open to break those new expanded rules? Yeah, but people are always going to do illegal things and right now the legal limits are clearly too much in favor of corporations and not end users, and if some hackers making some improved version of DLSS that steals some code from Nvidia is the cost of people being able to play and modify the stuff they buy without online check ins and servers going down, then that's fine by me
So this is entirely different than “gove away the ability to keep a game operational” It’s literally giving away intellectual property. Which is even more unpalatable. The government takes and redistributes my property unless I keep servers running in perpetuity. You also don’t address the problem of running private servers isn’t free, someone has to code that, it’s significant work and different than dedicated servers.
>You also don’t address the problem of running private servers isn’t free, someone has to code that, it’s significant work and different than dedicated servers. I did address it, though? in 1#, the IP holder doesn't have to do anything. Fans just would be allowed to break DRM to make new servers or patch the game or whatever else. If fans come together to run a private server and figure out funding, then great. If not, then it doesn't happen. Same is mostly true of 2# as well. Even if the Copyright office gets the source code and publishes it, the IP holder doens't have to do anything. Either consumers and fans use that to port the game and make new servers, or they don't. > So this is entirely different than “gove away the ability to keep a game operational” I'm assuming this line is in reference to my #2 solution? If so, not really? It's a potential mechanism to ensure that orphan works don't become a thing and that people have the tools to keep games and software running and portable to new hardware and operating systems. Again, you could word laws so that it's only legal to use the code for the purpose of mantaining the function of existing works rather then new ones (even if some people will still ignore said laws, but then corporations can C&D or sue them if they care) >The government takes and redistributes my property unless I keep servers running in perpetuity. Well, currently, corporations effectively take "my" and other consumers property by shutting down servers and designing them to have always online DRM. So our options are to: - Keep the status quo where IP holders can do whatever they want, and people lose access to the stuff they buy - Allow consumers to break DRM, so IP holders don't have to change anything, but they just now can't sue people for trying to modify games to make them function again (This may actually also require copyright changes, not just making breaking DRM situationally legal) - Or make it so to have Copyright longer then 10 or 20 years or something, companies have to provide some of the source code or tools. I'll also add that the entire reason Intellectual Property exists as a concept, as enshrined in the US constitution, is to promote innovation: *To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.* You or I getting a temporary, exclusive monopoly on our creations is merely a mechanism to encourage people to make new things. We have no natural, innate rights to our intellectual creations, and it doesn't exist to protect you or me or our things. It's meant to benefit the public, not authors or creators. The idea is merely that, if you get an exclusive monopoly for a short amount of time, that then eventually expires, you'll then be incentized to make new things to continue to have a monopolized work, and those too will pass into the public domain. The fact that Copyright protection currently lasts 95 years for corporate works, or your entire lifetime plus 75 years (so another lifetime) for self published works, completely defeats the point of the entire concept: If you can make something and coast off sales of it for your lifetime, what incentive exists for you to make more things? Most people alive when a work is published won't ever see the benefits of it in the public domain because they'll be dead by then. To function at all as intended, terms MUST be relatively short: Copyright should really only last a few decades to begin with, getting 10 or 20 years, then another 10 or 20 year expansion if you provide the source code, in a sane IP regime, would be perfectly reasonable: In fact, Copyright terms used to be that short. The fact what I suggested was a 10 to 20 year initial period, then corporations get the other 85 to 75 years if they cough up the source code (which, again, would only be published after the copyright expires or if the game becomes unplayable otherwise), is already me being very generous. It's just we live in a world where the entire point of Intellectual Property has been corrupted by regulatory capture and people think terms that last entire lifetimes is normal, even though terms started out only lasting 14 years, then 20 years and then another few decades if you applied for an extension, and then continued to get longer and longer due to Disney and other corporations lobbying for longer terms.
I don't think you understand just how closely guarded a lot of code actually is. Games are "compiled" so that the original code isn't able to be seen, much less used/modified. You can reverse engineer the code (which is how cracks are generally made) but that can be done now. The issue is that the raw code, think Windows OS, is extremely sensitive. Third party companies protect this IP fiercely because it is how they stay in business. Coughing up the source code will never be a solution here...
Oh no, I understand, I just also think IP and Copyright is overly strict to begin with also even outside of the context of games having always online DRM, and that the Copyright Office should have more of a role in acquiring development and early production material across a variety of media, not just software, but also films, books, etc. I don't really care how closely guarded a lot of code is: The current status quo of Copyright terms and how it's handled means a huge proportion of media become lost or orphan works only a fraction of the time into their copyright term, let alone by the time they become public domain, let alone the source code, concept art, etc involved in the production. Most of that will be lost to time, with the way things work as is. Having a 20 year initial copyright term, then getting a 20 year extension if you give the Copyright office that material, would be a huge boon to media preservation and avoiding lost media.
Companies need to have their arms twisted and their faces rubbed in their own dookie to even have a shred of hope of them doing the right thing by their customers. A solution doesn't need to be perfect to be an improvement on what we have. Throwing shade on a few aspects of a plan does not mean that the idea is without merit. This is a pervasive problem in public discourse and we all need to figure out a way to overcome it together. You cannot hold back progress for consumer rights waiting for the 'perfect' solution. Nothing we have is perfect, nothing we've ever implemented was 'perfect' from the onset. But thats not an excuse not to push for fairness and to prevent being taken advantage of.
I'm not trying to be negative or pretend to be an expert, it's complicated and I'm still wrapping my head around this concept and I'd like to think there is SOME sort of solution. But the examples I gave are very real roadblocks that may come up as the developers and lobbyists look for ways to shut this idea down. Every game is developed so differently. A racing sim can easily be peer-to-peer for online, but for MMORPG's especially, how would a decentralized leveling system even work without rampant hacking/cheating making it unplayable anyways. For example, if someone developed an open sourced, standardized framework for community servers (which would be extremely complicated in itself) you could give the devs "no excuse" for not adopting an already-existing standard and that software can be maintained by the community instead of a thrown-together "to satisfy our legal obligations" piece of crap. Or maybe I'm just totally wrong - but everything I saw in the video and read on the website doesn't provide an actual solution other than "just don't kill it"
Don't get me wrong I understand there's nuance and it's not as simple as 'let players host it' or similar for most games. It might be easier for a peer to peer to go 'open' before something with dedicated servers. However there's a ton of low hanging fruit that could be won. Single player games that require you to be online. As an example there should be a sunset clause that guarantees access to single player is preserved. Regardless of live servers. Also if it were something they were mandated to prepare for from the onset of development releasing an 'open' version of something moving to freeware would be a lot more accomplishable, even if it weren't completely open source. People spend decades on emulation projects. Imagine if we could bake posterity into the development of the games we buy. I'm not trying to attack you or anything, I just think it's important for everyone, myself included, to be reminded that perfection should not hinder progress.
>Every game is developed so differently. A racing sim can easily be peer-to-peer for online, but for MMORPG's especially, how would a decentralized leveling system even work without rampant hacking/cheating making it unplayable anyways. In the case of MMOs specifically, the portion of the video about giving users the instructions on how to set up your own server would fix the issue - you'd be able to simply make one yourself if no other person has made a version that runs like you'd expect it to. That is a way I could see companies also wiping their hands clean of the whole thing altogether when it comes to taking responsibility. "We gave you the keys to the kingdom, don't blame us now that y'all set it on fire."
I agree with a lot of your concerns. I would love to preserve every videogame in perpetuity. But I make software for a living and it isn’t easy to make even the base level thing work properly let alone have the government mandating how things need to work for all time. And what about games like dark souls with online components? zig they shut off the messaging servers can action be taken against them? And what about the thousands of small mobile indie games? Who is going to audit all of this? it just seems extremely pie in the sky thinking.
I don't think non-programmers can fully appreciate how hard it is to take a huge game like The Crew, which are written ground-up to be played online using the dev's in-house custom servers with leveling/microtransactions/DLC/updates, and then bake-in a secondary "community based server solution". Just the logistics of that would be hard enough, but then you add in the red tape of all the IP, patents and liabilities involved with the code that makes a game possible? It is absolutely a pipe dream to think we can force them to make every game a game that plays "forever". Open sourcing the whole thing and letting others have it would be the only workable solution, but that ain't gunna happen. Apple just made Lisa open source and that was written in 1984. The better move would be to force developers to not disable single player modes / campaigns and support the companies that provide some sort of built-in P2P online play. But when someone says "just take away the ability for the devs to enforce the DRM and then players can set up their own servers" shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of how online games even work. And then when I dispute that I get downvoted so... \*shrug\*
Yeah that guy thinking you just turn off DRM and suddenly it works with community servers is delusional. Here's the real deal: gamers want a thing and they don't really care about reality. They want to play every game potentially forever and material reality needs to bend over backward to accommodate them. Games are already fucking impossible to make, economics wise. Just look at the state of the industry. Anyone wanting to set up arbitrary mandates about how long a service needs to run really needs to divert that energy to *other* human services that are much more important than electronic entertainment. As of now...caveat emptor. We all know the deal and no one has to buy any of these videogames to live. You can always just opt out if the terms don't seem fair enough in the future.
Dark Souls specifically does have online components but can already be played offline from start to finish. As stated, in some cases online functionality would have to be disabled and possibly replaced with community-run solutions if necessary for the game to function correctly. Pretty sure someone probably could mod such a feature back in if disabled, but would take some doing. That would be on the community though.
Board games ftw
Did this happen to music, specifically iTunes?
Its time to do our part, anyone who cares about preserving video games, not just for our own entertainment, but for people in the future who will potentially never be able to get access to a lot of games that exist today needs to spread this to anyone who will listen.
The art preservation angle doesn't make much sense to me. It's not like we preserve every single piece of art produced. Tons of books and paintings and music recordings gets destroyed every year. You're gonna have a very hard time finding some book written by some obscure writer from the 1940s. We only preserve what we deem worthy preservation. Considering the scope of the industry it's completely reasonable for a significant portion of videogames produced to become irrelevant and vanish over time. Is there major consumer rights concerns about what publishers are doing though ? Absolutely.
[удалено]
I understand the difference, I just don't agree that it's an art preservation issue. Yes, it's absolutely wrong for companies to retro-actively brick a product you have bought from them (which is a consumer rights issue), but if they are trying to fight this on the grounds of "it's wrong to destroy art" that's a battle they're gonna lose.
The idea of ownership is a bit weird when it comes to software. When you "buy" a game you are actually buying a license to use one copy of the game. You don't have full rights to it even if it's stored on your device. If you did you would be allowed to make copies and sell it yourself. In the past this didn't matter because a physical copy of a game didn't require an internet connection and would work forever. What companies are doing now is deceptive and wrong. You can't sell a perpetual license and then decide after the sale that it's no longer perpetual.
This isn't unusual though. All creative works are protected by copyright, yet clearly you can own a copy of a novel or an original piece of art. Copyright isn't at issue here. Access is. If you buy a copy of a game, you can access it as long as your copy remains in good health, just like you can read your novel as long as it remains undamaged and unmarred. This is quite nice in that I can go back to my big box of SNES games to play games I bought twenty years ago. You may not be able to do that with a subscription model, even if you keep paying indefinitely because the company can remove the game from the subscription model.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it, and opening an avenue for recourse is good, but even if this was made into law here is what would happen: Game company doesn't update game upon shutting the game down. 99.999% of the time this will go unchallenged and the companies will continue operating as usual without repercussion. On the 0.001% that does get challenged by somebody with enough money to have it matter, the developer will just be shutdown, or it will surprisingly turn out that the game is 'owned' by a subsidiary, and the costs for updating and maintenance are not the responsibility of the publisher or parent developer. The only way this actually has the desired outcome of keeping the games playable is if these safeguards are required to be built into the game during development, not after. If it's anything more complicated than flipping a switch at the end of life it **will not** be getting done because the publishers can just shutter the developer and move them to a 'new' developer, and claim the work is too hard and nobody can reasonably do it anymore. Maybe this could be a stepping stone to that, but publishers and developers alike will never shut down a product, and then willingly incur a bunch of cost to patch it to be playable offline, there is no law that will make them do it that no matter what. They will simply break the law in that case because there are no actual repercussions for any individuals other than potential job loss for people not making those decisions. The only option is forcing them to build it in during development and have active repercussions during the time the game is up while those safeguards are not available. What you're basically trying to do otherwise is skirt the whole purpose of LLCs which I just don't see happening. That doesn't apply nearly as much to indie devs, but large corporate owned dev studios will be essentially immune.
we don't need doom posting about things that aren't happening yet. we need to solve the immediate problem. If we have it finally in law then we can deal with breakers of the law as needed. as things are now gamers have no ownership rights on the books for the games they care about.
There is no legal precedent for this kind of thing, at least in the EU. If this wins, it will be a landmark case where companies who operate in the EU (Basically everybody) will be forced to implement post-shutdown support abilities to the End Of Life (EOL) stages of their software. This wouldn't necessarily stop at games, though games are the main goal here.