Gamer/Consumer Rights curiosities...

[Malithar]

I haven't listened to all of this, but this guy comes across as kind of grating and snobbish when I don't really think he understands what he's referring to at times. The jabs at Wiki for what it says is even more confusing.

I'm glad he brought up the software comparison. I've personally looked at it like that myself. Whether you've purchased a subscription based license (WoW, FFXIV) or a perpetual license (any fully offline game), then you own that copy of the license, IE, that unique game. Software has pretty much always worked like that. Even if the company went out of business, typically your existing software would still work until it was no longer compatible with your hardware, which isn't too dissimilar to how older games work.

The problem is neither of these terms apply to our current crop of inbetween-esque games as a service type of games. Non-subscription based games that rely on always on servers don't really fall into either category. It's easy to say companies should always keep the servers up, or that they should relinquish the code to the public domain for it to be kept up. Keeping the servers up would cost the company money and for no real reason, as much as we want it, should they be required to keep them up. Going to the public domain would likely have all sorts of issues when it comes to copyright or others making profit off of the product.

I don't have the answer, but I agree something needs to be figured out. Calling it fraud is a massive logical leap though.

[arus2001]

He does admit to embellishing some and that the title is clickbait-y, but the overall message is still there. Trusting wiki as a resource as-is also does invite some trouble, especially if the language is being codified by the opposition.

I think the main thing I disagree with is when he gets to Option 1 or 2 part about what they should do at end of support as pertains to it being like a repair manual. Releasing the code incomplete for the so inclined and capable to figure out is a half-measure, much like posting an incomplete complex math problem and expecting people to be able to solve it. The fact it's all 0's and 1's only really translates to a matter of performance issue where someone on a low-end rig could maybe hope to host a smaller number of people on a private server, while someone with the good stuff could push closer to retail, though likely more in the minority since your average user is not going to have more dedicated server hardware. At best, this would encourage a guideline of minimum system requirements, or a far more simplistic note that performance will vary based on hosting capabilities. I'd even say declaring people can't charge for such services or accept donations would also be a fair compromise.

Either way, the guy also knows he has no real individual power in the matter, just as myself and pretty much everyone else here may. I've also never really liked the "vote with your wallet" mantra because all it takes is the impatient or ignorant to ruin a message like that.

[Salodin]

I mean the answer is to not buy their product and only buy games that can be properly archived, like the new God of War or Spiderman as opposed to Fortnite. But somehow people never see that as a solution, but expect companies to make similar but terrible decisions like keeping game servers up for a game no one plays anymore just in case someone wants to boot it up for 5min.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Malithar]

Advising to not purchase games that are outside of fully offline play is a little narrow minded I think. I mean, you're on a board where we've all met thanks to FFXI.

I agree that expecting the company to keep the servers up forever is folly. I thought on it more last night and there's two thoughts that come to mind. For art, there are museums, both private and public. Why not create a body or entity that governs this and does the archiving to keep rights holders safe, while making the product available for use? Whether it's public and paid for via a game tax, or private and individual users are required to pay to use the services, I think it'd work.

Alternatively, copyright law could be altered to account for these types of games. Once a company no longer wishes to support it, they could release it to the wild for the community to keep it alive, but they'd retain the rights. No changes could be made (outside of critical bug fixes), no profits could be earned, but they wouldn't have to worry about their IP being lost due to lack of enforcement or anything. In the name of preservation, the expectation and mandate that company go this route when ending their game would need to be made, it couldn't just be an option.

[Mrbeansman]

Because if you make old games readily available to people they wont buy new games. Seriously that's pretty much the ESAs stance and why they fight so hard against archivists.

[Salodin]

Old games are available for play, you just need the original hardware or you need to rebuy it on current consoles. Seems like the exact same solution as owners of VHS, laser discs, etc. Gamers are getting the exact same treatment, outside of games that require a constant online connection.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Mrbeansman]

Shits situational the Game Boy is a great example the ink in the screen slowly dries out and the console becomes useless over time.

[arus2001]

You're stuck on the physical side of the goods argument, there. And ultimately it is a problem that can further repeat itself in another 10-20 years the way tech has evolved. Or as I posed last time, what happens when Steam shuts down?

One of the few games I've bought multiple times is Shining Force. The first for the Genesis after playing it through the Sega Channel. The second was for the GBA, while it also had some extra features added, but the main appeal was portability. The third was on the Wii through the eshop, in part because I didn't really have room to keep my Sega out and I wouldn't be surprised if the battery in the cartridge has died by now. How many times do I have to buy the game to sufficiently say I own it, though? Especially if the next potential port adds nothing or possibly suffers to the process? Of course, you can also bet said iteration will be solely digital, which means no cartridge, disc, or case production. No need for physical shipping or storage. I certainly won't be buying the game again, either, barring a major remake of quality.

Recreating games these days doesn't need the same degree of physical resource, and movies certainly benefit the same way. It's peanuts for bandwidth for PS1 gen and earlier games, so we can't really pretend that's a major hardship. Demanding a company keep a dead game up forever is unreasonable, a fact none of us here are likely to disagree with. What IS unreasonable is not giving the people who did buy the game(s) the tools to keep it running, themselves. Like the video said, it'd be like buying a car only for the dealer to steal it back from you one night. Where do you think the law would side in such an occurrence? Digital goods seem to be the only products vulnerable to this bullshit, but you just wanted to repeatedly tell us to shut up and buy it again on the next service du jour. And without accounting MMOs and mobile games, there are over 100 titles that have suffered to online abandonment by their creator. This may not seem like a lot, but we also need to realize that online play for consoles wasn't really an expectation until the PS3, 360, and so on. And it's a number that will only continue to grow.

And you played the "vote with your wallet" card when the answer is the distributors shouldn't even be putting us in this position to begin with. Games existed just fine before all this, but as Bean inferred above, the allure is milking suckers like you and younger me into buying the same things more than once because they know hardware fails or that advances lead to incompatibility.

[Salodin]

I dont think you should be able to buy a VHS tape and get the license to play a bluray. Just like I dont think me buying Super Mario RPG on SNES means I should get a Switch version for free.

I mean these things would be nice if they happened, but I'm not convinced it's a right we should have/had but was taken away.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[BerenTebogo]

A better example:

You buy a movie on Amazon Prime (digital copy). Do you own that forever? If it is discontinued for some reason do you lose it without refund? Does Amazon owe you a free bluray if they remove it?

[6souls]

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/07/73931...l-user-content
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/...mmgiswg3ng1d00

Microsoft is shutting own it's e-Book business and wiping everyone's purchased books along with it. Although they're offering refunds, this latest action shows the power of DRM's.

Starting in July, Microsoft will be closing its e-book library and erasing all content purchased through the Microsoft e-bookstore from devices. Consumers will receive a refund for every e-book bought.

The company is able to shutter its store due to a tool called Digital Rights Management or DRM.

DRM allows companies to control content to protect copyright holders and prevent piracy.

"One of the things that I think people don't realize that's crucially important is that DRM and related software tools are embedded in all sorts of devices that we buy," Aaron Perzanowski, the author of The End of Ownership: Personal Property in the Digital Economy, tells NPR's Lulu Garcia-Navarro.

"The initial vision for DRM was that it was going to allow for the sale of digital goods online in a way that reduced the risk of copyright infringement," Perzanowski says.

"As this technology has been deployed what we've seen is that the big beneficiaries of DRM have not been copyright holders. They have been technology companies like Amazon, like Microsoft, who are able to control these ecosystems to make it harder for consumers to switch over to new platforms."

Amazon & Walmart have also used DRM's to wipe digital items that had been previously purchased.

[Tymon]

I only skimmed this, but based on some points I glanced over, if you told me that I could mail in all of my old games and have them added to a digital account for virtual play on their associated modern console? Take my money. This is already a thing for old film, photos, slides, etc.

I think there would be a huge market for Nintendo especially to do this. I would probably keep the ultra-rare games (and the consoles obviously) but the vast majority of my storage could get unloaded and I could just display the consoles for retro status.

[Salodin]

I only skimmed this, but based on some points I glanced over, if you told me that I could mail in all of my old games and have them added to a digital account for virtual play on their associated modern console? Take my money. This is already a thing for old film, photos, slides, etc.

I think there would be a huge market for Nintendo especially to do this. I would probably keep the ultra-rare games (and the consoles obviously) but the vast majority of my storage could get unloaded and I could just display the consoles for retro status.

People like you and I will forever be at odds with those who prefer to hold a slow loading cassette or CD in their hand. I'm embracing digital publishing with open arms.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[arus2001]

I honestly don't know where you picked up we were ever against digital distribution. What we're worried about is shit exactly like 6souls bumped this thread with, only with the video game coat of paint.

[zoobernut]

Digital distribution sucks as the sole means of getting content out there when ISP's refuse to invest in infrastructure to make this countries internet availability decent. I am all for digital distribution if Elon was done with his mega constellation of satellites and I could get gigabit internet in the boonies.

That being said I also really don't like the idea of "renting" content rather than buying it. I want to have access to my content anytime anywhere and not worry about it being taken away after I have purchased it.

[Salodin]

I honestly don't know where you picked up we were ever against digital distribution. What we're worried about is shit exactly like 6souls bumped this thread with, only with the video game coat of paint.

If you can describe a digital distribution platform that does not face this exact same problem, then by all means. Even Steam would have this problem if one day it just goes poof. It's no different than buying a CD game and losing/breaking a disk.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[silverdragontyr]

I believe GoG has it in their agreements companies can't make purchased games unavailable.

[Salodin]

That wouldnt really matter if GoG went under though

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[6souls]

A negative with GOG is that some developers aren't updating their games that they're selling on the platform. A couple weeks ago, indie dev TinyBuild was in the spotlight after players discovered that their titles sold on GOG weren't being updated like the Steam version was. When TB was confronted about it, they said they prefer not to update on the platform because they disagree with GOG's DRM-free agreement. GOG is now negotiating with the developer.

[arus2001]

If you can describe a digital distribution platform that does not face this exact same problem, then by all means. Even Steam would have this problem if one day it just goes poof. It's no different than buying a CD game and losing/breaking a disk.

Again, you can't keep treating this like a physical issue because it isn't one.

There are options available to benefit the consumer in the case of such closures/collapse/whatever. The problem is the financial leg of the industry continuously refuses to embrace them at risk of longer term profits or overall control of the product. They flaunt piracy as a convenient excuse, but in their demand for more, what's really been given back to the players in turn? Quite commonly, frustration.

Surviving companies could adopt/grandfather access codes and downloads, as while not immediate profit for them, there is also no guarantee someone would've turned to rebuy whatever from them. On the other hand, it does instill a sense of good faith and hopes of future consumer relationship. Another option is for the game to just be freely released outright, saved on google or some other service. There's also the old idea of the (inter)national game preservation system, that pretty much strove to guarantee titles over 10 years old would be maintained in digital form and always available, but this one obviously cuts into the remake/remaster market. Generic as fuck discs with paper sleeves could be printed and sent out to buyers with compensations to lacking multiplayer compatibility. There's absolutely nothing that justifies people's shit just arbitrarily vanishing because of poor planning or greed. And it doesn't matter if it happens next month or next decade. Once you buy something, it needs to be yours. Not this facade of long term rental under the mask of buying.