Gaming shut downs.

  • Thread starter TRLWNC7396
  • 72 comments
  • 4,113 views
How does this work? Are private actors compelled by law to avail their property and services beyond the terms they're willing to?
 
Last edited:
He is trying to be careful to not go beyond lessening the choke hold of EULA's.

If we have a game we like, we should be able to enjoy it for as long as we want.

Why is that a bad thing? Can't we keep a hard copy or a digital copy, then open and use them whenever?

I really appreciate this. And I hope that something good can come out of this.

Watch the entire video and/or go to stopkillinggames
 
If we have a game we like, we should be able to enjoy it for as long as we want.
Sure, provided the owner of the property avails it for enjoyment unconditionally.
Why is that a bad thing?
What? Denigration of property rights?
Can't we keep a hard copy or a digital copy, then open and use them whenever?
Yes! ... As long as that's what has been availed.

I understand that it used to be that you'd buy a game and that was it. It was yours. I understand that this is unlikely to be the case anymore. Oh well. There's a way to get back to that without pleading for government to violate others' rights but you probably won't like it because it may mean feeling left out as others enjoy a supposed pew-pew or vroom-vroom game that you've passed on because of conditions imposed on enjoyment. [I)Principles, what are they?[/i]

I really appreciate this. And I hope that something good can come out of this.
I understand that much, but I'd suggest that the state forcing individuals to relinquish property on the basis that other individuals like it is not something good. Property is availed conditionally and entirely at the discretion of the owner of said property.
 
That's one way to look at it.

Another way is that since video games are in some ways more similar to a novel than a piece of land, is to look at it like copyright. Copyright exists to allow creators to profit from their work, but also to allow artistic works to enter the public domain and be accessible to those in the future. The community benefits from this in the long term with a wide variety of artistic works that are freely available to enjoy or adapt.

I can see why there is a feeling that video games should be treated the same. A company or individual should not be expected to expend resources to support a product any further than they wish to. If they want to shut down servers, they should. But if they no longer wish to sell or support a product, I could see a reasonable case for requiring the product to be left in a usable state either through EOL patching or through making server-side code/programs available for others to run.

If the company has exhausted their desire to exploit the product, it is then to the benefit of the community that others are allowed to support it if they wish rather than all that work simply going to waste.

I see little benefit to allowing such works to become unplayable abandonware. There are potential intellectual property concerns here, but those are very different from physical property concerns.
 
Another way is that since video games are in some ways more similar to a novel than a piece of land, is to look at it like copyright.
Copyright is headed this way as well. Nobody wants to sell their entertainment anymore. It's all leased out on a subscription basis.
 
Games that are solely offline dont disappear IF you bought them on physical instead of digital.

Games with any online portion need to be allowed to disappear.
Otherwise, because of ongoing required running costs of hardware and labour (at the bare minimum digital security), you restrict future development - or you accept monthly increasing subscription costs by dwindeling usercounts until the last one chooses to quit and up to that point has to heft all with his own payments.
 
Copyright is headed this way as well. Nobody wants to sell their entertainment anymore. It's all leased out on a subscription basis.
I know. I'm just saying that there are ways to think about this where the benefit of the society overall can be considered. It would not be a new and revolutionary thing, even if it does fly directly in the face of current social trends.
Games with any online portion need to be allowed to disappear.
Otherwise, because of ongoing required running costs of hardware and labour (at the bare minimum digital security), you restrict future development - or you accept monthly increasing subscription costs by dwindeling usercounts until the last one chooses to quit and up to that point has to heft all with his own payments.
Not at all. Games at end of life can have servers hosted or paid for by users. That was the basis of Nostalrius, which was the instigation for Blizzard creating WoW Classic once they saw that hey actually there IS still a massive demand for this product.

Users will do a lot to keep a game running, but ideally they would be handed the tools to do so after the creator of the game decides that they no longer wish to be responsible for it. Online games are fine, many multiplayer games simply don't work without online. But there's no need for them to die completely when there are people in the community willing to do the work to sustain them.
 
Sure, provided the owner of the property avails it for enjoyment unconditionally.
This is really the only issue here.

If access to what you've purchased will be lost owing to the action of the copyright holder, rather that through reasonable wear and tear or consumption, and you purchased it on a non time or use basis, then when sold it should probably clearly state the term for which you're buying access to it.

Lots of things we buy and assume we have indefinite access to (barring wear and tear, or consumption), have major elements that are covered by intellectual property (patents, design rights, trade marks, copyrights). There's also massive precedent for buying some sort of creative work on a storage medium of some sort and having access to it for as long as you preserve it. So where a one time purchase is made for something on a physical storage medium, I think the consumer is being entirely reasonable to expect continued access to it.
 
I see little benefit to allowing such works to become unplayable abandonware. There are potential intellectual property concerns here, but those are very different from physical property concerns.
The commodification of everything in life is one thing but e v e r y t h i n g "as a service" or subscription-based or "smart engineered" is really, really frustrating. It turns a nice existence with fun indulgences into life actually becoming bloatware.

I don't care how much of a dinosaur it makes me, I don't care if we do agree to the EULA, games as a service is just wrong.
 
I've started buying DVDs & Bluerays again...for what it's worth.

There's probably an end game where IP holders (Disney for example) try to acquire display companies so they can enforce EULAs at the hardware level. I'm sorry, your old-ass DVD player is not compatible with your new big-ass projecto screen™. Please purchase smart DVD player and PAY UP BUDDY for the rights to watch the copy of the Lion King that you bought 30 years ago.

The real problem...somehow yet again....is the West's obsession with the stock market and finance market based capitalism. Recurring revenue looks really great to shareholders, and CEOs will do an awful lot to make shareholders happy...because shareholders make them obscenely rich.
 
Last edited:
I've started buying DVDs & Bluerays again...for what it's worth.

There's probably an end game where IP holders (Disney for example) try to acquire display companies so they can enforce EULAs at the hardware level. I'm sorry, your old-ass DVD player is not compatible with your new big-ass projecto screen™. Please purchase smart DVD player and PAY UP BUDDY for the rights to watch the copy of the Lion King that you bought 30 years ago.
I mean, one would hope that the government would prevent these sort of monopolies. I have no faith they will though.
 
The commodification of everything in life is one thing but e v e r y t h i n g "as a service" or subscription-based or "smart engineered" is really, really frustrating. It turns a nice existence with fun indulgences into life actually becoming bloatware.

I don't care how much of a dinosaur it makes me, I don't care if we do agree to the EULA, games as a service is just wrong.
I avoid subscriptions like the plague. I don't see the point of paying an infinite amount of money for a finite product.

I'm hoping in the long run that AI technology advances to the point where it's no longer profitable to try to sell media and it can be created by anyone purely for artistic merit. Of course for this to happen, AI has to be kept out of the subscription trap.
 
I avoid subscriptions like the plague. I don't see the point of paying an infinite amount of money for a finite product.

I'm hoping in the long run that AI technology advances to the point where it's no longer profitable to try to sell media and it can be created by anyone purely for artistic merit. Of course for this to happen, AI has to be kept out of the subscription trap.
As somebody who makes a living via creative merit, I sure as hell hope not. I also don't think its realistic as not everyone has the desire to produce art/media even if they could do it with no effort. If AI tools were perfect, are people just all going to start making art? I doubt it. It's not as if making art (talking basic here) is terribly difficult to begin with....you have to want to do it. What's more likely is that producers of art (all forms) will just be able to make more of it (probably too much) but I suspect there will always be some kind of exchange for it. At some abstract point it's basically the AI acting as an intermediary directly between a person's imagination and an audience...but that's still some kind of intellectual property worth something.
 
Last edited:
I avoid subscriptions like the plague. I don't see the point of paying an infinite amount of money for a finite product.
If it's an infinite amount of money, it's an infinite amount of product. For example, if you're talking about a netflix subscription being an infinite amount of product (i.e. an infinite amount of time), then the consumption of the product is also infinite (due to the infinite amount of time to consume).
 
As somebody who makes a living via creative merit, I sure as hell hope not.
If everything else comes with art, it won't be a problem as there wouldn't be a need to make a living any longer. Though I do share you concern during the transition, assuming that we're even heading in a good direction.
I also don't think its realistic as not everyone has the desire to produce art/media even if they could do it with no effort.
That's fine, my goal is to make my own. So really I'd only need the technology to advanced to the point where it can reach my needs. Though I'd like for anyone to have the ability if they want.
It's not as if making art (talking basic here) is terribly difficult to begin with
It's not, though I'm aiming a little higher than basic. AI can make a somewhat realistic movie even now, barring rough edges like giving people extra fingers randomly. I've written short stories and made sketches, but I don't feel like the effort to go beyond that is worth it right now. To my eye it looks like it will eventually be realistic for anyone with a PC and a week of free time to make a full length movie of passable quality, although I don't know if that's 20 years away or 120.
What's more likely is that producers of art (all forms) will just be able to make more of it (probably too much) but I suspect there will always be some kind of exchange for it.
I could accept that if it allows producers to sell to individuals instead of going for mass appeal. AI should be no different than hiring a studio to create something that you envision but lack the skill to create.
At some abstract point it's basically the AI acting as an intermediary directly between a person's imagination and an audience...but that's still some kind of intellectual property worth something.
I agree, AI is a tool just like a ruler. It doesn't remove creativity. My desire is that the tool becomes good enough and cheap enough that everyone has one, though I can still benefit even if things don't go that far.
If it's an infinite amount of money, it's an infinite amount of product. For example, if you're talking about a netflix subscription being an infinite amount of product (i.e. an infinite amount of time), then the consumption of the product is also infinite (due to the infinite amount of time to consume).
There are cases where a subscription is justified, but I feel like there are a lot more subscriptions in the world than there are suitable cases for them. Netflix is fine conceptually, though I'd prefer to have a DVD copy of something I'd want to watch if I have to pay for it. Games as a service don't appeal to me, but charging upkeep for the online portions can make sense.
 
There are cases where a subscription is justified, but I feel like there are a lot more subscriptions in the world than there are suitable cases for them. Netflix is fine conceptually, though I'd prefer to have a DVD copy of something I'd want to watch if I have to pay for it. Games as a service don't appeal to me, but charging upkeep for the online portions can make sense.
As it's become easier to exchange funds for services without physical transactions, repeat transactions have become easier. I think it's absolutely fair to be critical of the trend toward subscriptions over single transactions for tangible goods, and it's a criticism that I also offer, but the answer isn't regulatory oversight.

My primary concern is that government is in a unique position to violate rights (especially absent a preservation of rights, as there's no natural right to tangible goods exclusively), but I also have the informed expectation that oversight won't be conducted consistently, either due to ineptitude or malice. At some point, a state actor is going to make a value judgment about not consistently applying regulatory standards and that value is going to be that of funds exchanged for consideration.
 
The real problem...somehow yet again....is the West's obsession with the stock market and finance market based capitalism. Recurring revenue looks really great to shareholders, and CEOs will do an awful lot to make shareholders happy...because shareholders make them obscenely rich.
The shareholders own the company, that’s why the CEO needs to make them happy.
 
In other words, if you don't like it, stop buying it.
This has worked in a few very specific cases - SimCity 2013 being one of them - but for the most part always-online "DRM" has not been influenced by consumers very much. It was pushed onto consumers by the producers and no alternative was offered. It is almost universally disliked.

But the market has responded in other ways by doing things which we're not supposed to talk about on GTP. I am in full support of doing these things. If consumers can't influence the producers by changing their buying habits, then consumers should simply stop buying and deny business to producers altogether. A lot of games are currently living second lives because of grassroots efforts after years of no response from producers, including older Gran Turismo games.
 
Last edited:
If buying isn't owning, [redacted] isn't theft.

It's an extremly pervasie and common attitude which will only get stronger if pushback to GaaS actually takes hold.
Which is odd, because streaming/lack of ownership has actually helped the situation in the music industry. Music piracy has dropped drastically as reasonably priced streaming services have become ubiquitous among all populations. The side effect has been slightly less tremendous amounts of wealth being paid to artists and labels. And sort of like what Steam has done for indie game developers, indie music artists now have more opportunity than ever. The movie and TV industry is kind of in upheavel at the moment as people are getting fed up with having to subscribe to so many different services, and those services adding and dropping content so often. Piracy has gone down, but disapproval is still high. In many cases I've resorted to buying on a marketplace like Top Gear on Amazon, which of course I was introduced to in America via [redacted]. For all the [redacted] I committed on that front I did actually pay for it once it was offered. Everything is for sale, especially if it's free.

In many cases the gaming industry has simply tried too hard to keep their stuff proprietary in whatever way and that pisses people off.
 
The gaming industry, particularly in the AAA space, is the only type of media that desperately wants to be taken seriously as an artistic medium but also is actively hostile to anything that's more than 5 or so years old. It's like an entire industry run by David Zaslav.
 
Last edited:
The gaming industry, particularly in the AAA space, is the only type of media that desperately wants to be taken seriously as an artistic medium but also is actively hostile to anything that's more than 5 or so years old. It's like an entire industry run by David Zaslav.
I agree with your sentiment. Until recently, old games were difficult to keep playing - because technology and interfaces kept changing - not just for TV systems but backward compatibility with operating systems. These days that's starting to turn around, and old games are coming back out.

I just spotted master of orion 2 on steam. It's a game I "own" but don't really have a good way to play from the copy I own. I think that was windows 95. Moo1 was on a stack of like 15 floppy disks.
 
Last edited:
It was pushed onto consumers by the producers and no alternative was offered.
This is not merely false, rather it's aggressively stupid in its falsity. There was always an alternative. Don't like that a product is only available through a subscription service? Don't subscribe. The only reason it became so pervasive is because consumers were enticed by the product more than they were dissuaded by the constraints. But you can always go back and it doesn't involve appealing to the state to violate others' rights, but you may have to do without the shiny new thing. Buck up. Make the sacrifice. Be the change.
 
Last edited:
I mean, one would hope that the government would prevent these sort of monopolies. I have no faith they will though.
That is what this set of petitions is about. Helping to lessen monopolies. Watch the video. It explains is all.

It is not about changing the industry to remove new games or improvement in general. It's about being able to keep playing a game.

We bought Minecraft Story Mode, and it won't even play off the disk any more. Seriously maddening!

And that is the most blatant one. There are many, many games that would be good to be able to create servers and have fun with. I would love to be able to have that option.
 
Back