Where do you land on the concept of video game ownership?
As far as I understand the "you will own nothing" meme is about 25 years too late to the show.
Where do you land on the concept of video game ownership?
Where do you land on the concept of video game ownership?
As far as I understand the "you will own nothing" meme is about 25 years too late to the show.
copyright is the only infringing right, if a game comes out with a live service game you should be able to copy it and release an offline version
>dev claims you don't own the software, just a license to use the software
>cucks just take them at their word despite this not being upheld in court
In your humble opinion, what is the alternative?
Hire a lawyer for 50k, lose, and get counter-sued for 500k?
>Get counter-sued for upholding consumer rights
Only in corporate America!
OH AMERICA
SAY FRICK
CAN YEAH
YOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LasrD6SZkZk
SEE
>not being upheld in court
this homie knows nothing about software copyright and is proud of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg
Sorry gentile, but it was upheld in court.
Shrinkwrap licenses (which is more or less what EULA is today) are legally binding.
But how does that work in reality? You can't sign a document that says "Anon is allowed to shoot and murder me" and then he does, that does not mean he will not be prosecuted for murder. You can't sign away laws.
The document you "signed onto" in this case is "you're agreeing that you're paying for nothing" and the courts agreed that it is legal for the companies to do so.
Your hyperbole means frick all because it is not at all what is currently happening in reality.
>For Zeidenberg's argument, the circuit court assumed that a database collecting the contents of one or more telephone directories was equally a collection of facts that could not be copyrighted. Thus, Zeidenberg's copyright argument was valid. However, this did not lead to a victory for Zeidenberg, because the circuit court held that copyright law does not preempt contract law.
>"The court views human right laws does not preempt contract law and therefore the company is allowed and correct to murder you"
This is LITERALLY how cucked the US is
>The court views human right laws does not preempt contract law and therefore the company is allowed and correct to murder you"
>This is LITERALLY how cucked the US is
Once again, it's down to EU. You cannot put shit in contracts that contradicts binding law, is impossible, immoral or established under threat in any respectable European country.
Corpo wars dont seem far fetched anymore
that'd be a felony, and corporations aren't allowed to even commit misdemeanours
In the case of the corpo murdering you, your relatives can probably go to court and win if the court judges that your right to life precedes contract law. That said you'd have to prove that life is more important than the EULA for the court to make that judgement.
Murrkan liberty in action.
Okay, now post one that isn't in a third world corporatocracy banana republic. Got any EU examples? They treat the costumer like a human instead of cattle to be milked.
>despite this not being upheld in court
Actually microsoft paid a judge around the year posted in the OP to codify that they could abuse the copyright system to permanently lease software instead of actually selling it.
You know it’s pretty telling that despite being an “honorable” high class position history never remembers judges. Bureaucratic, corrupt weasels
>lease software forever
The thing with Microsoft as an example is you are leasing it forever.
If you are a business you pay yearly for each license. With most games that's not the case you pay once and that's it.
>oh it's a uhm permanent license
bullshit detected. You sold a product not a license. If you want to sell a license stick to the yearly fee model see how that works out for you.
>cucks just take them at their word despite this not being upheld in court
Not really surprising. We have anons here actually agreeing with companies where if you said "Black person" online, they'd revoke access to the game. Every single person online has no backbone, they all grovel at corporate boots. You can't even say to people "hey, instead of supporting shitty companies by paying for games, just pirate them", they all fricking hate that you can't support the heckin industry.
The cattle deserve this shitty industry, I'm gonna keep on being a /vr/ chad because unlike Ross, I genuinely think there's no hope of changing people's minds. All of them simply don't fricking care.
Are they agreeing or are they just old enough to know you play by the rules of the better team
If you dont agree with the practices of the company like their right to revoke your game, dont agree to an EULA that says you wont do X or you will get banned. Simple. Just resist the game and only play games that allow you to do what you want. Its all AAA online multiplayer slop anyway, if you really feel so strong about it you can at least vote with your wallet, right mr consumer? Or do you HAVE to play Call of Duty's annual release, and your cwt is going to hang himself if you don't shout Black person Black person Black person intot the mic?
Even bullshit flies in court if you sign an agreement to it. You have to prove hard negligence to the point of serious harm if you want to supercede thst.
America is, inherently, the land of the free. Meaning that if you as an individual don't care enough to stop crooked systems, bad-faith actors, vaguely defined rights and corrupt officials you are free to do that.
You are also free to accept the consequences of that action.
This. You want freedom, you have freedom. Turns out that a company worth a billion dollars has more freedom than you do so you can suck fat wiener.
open any game manual from the NES days onward. you will find this small grey box with like 7 or 10 lines of text inside. on the very top it says something like LICENSE or LICENSING AGREEMENT. which basically states that you, the user, do not own any of the data on the disc or cartridge and the only thing you did get for your purchasing price was a license to use the data on said disc or cartridge in a non commercial manner. it even goes so far to state that you can not, under any circumstances, display the data in a public manner. it usually ends with something like "this license can be revoked at any time for any reason at the license holders discretion". fast forward 30 years and you now have to register this license online on a platform that is under the control of the license holder. which means that, back in the day they would have to literally come to your home and make the data unusable to revoke the license, today they only have to press a button. but since this is just a bait thread and nobody actually gives a frick about reality nobody is going to read my explanation either. i just felt like typing it up.
>from the NES days onward.
You dumb dumb, it was the 90s, not the 80s.
Hell, Sonic 3's manual has no such license
>i would never wear a yellow shirt
>can I now go back to store with my opened and used copy of the game and demand my money back?
depends on the store policy. they will most likely tell you to contact the license holder.
own is a very clearly defined and important word. own means "all rights to -thing- in perpetuity" which the user clearly doesn't have.
>own is a very clearly defined and important word
The consumer's understanding (regardless of the EULA text) is that they own a copy of the game in the same sense that they own a copy of a book: They aren't allowed to copy it, but it's otherwise their property.
Publishers are getting more and more bold when it comes to breaking this understanding and enforcing the actual EULA. In my opinion they're likely to regret it in the long term.
I just double-checked and the Steam checkout flow definitely says "Purchase" not "Rent".
>they own a copy of a book: They aren't allowed to copy it
Strictly within the confines for distribution.
>The consumer's understanding (regardless of the EULA text) is that they own a copy of the game in the same sense that they own a copy of a book.
and if you go to court over it, what the defendant will have to proof is the whole reasonable expectation angle. would a reasonable customer expect for the purchasing price of X, to receive ownership of the item(which entails all the rights the term 'ownership' would imply)? i think people did go to court, might even have been against nintendo, and got their asses reamed.
I'm just saying that- regardless of what the law says or doesn't say- developers/publishers/storefronts need to tread carefully and at least maintain the ILLUSION that customers own their games.
If companies go too far and people start getting the sense that having their game licenses revoked is something that might actually happen to them rather than just theoretical legalese, they might very well change their buying habits.
>hmm this game is $70 but I remember my friend Adam lost access to his $70 game for some bullshit reason, basically got his money stolen imo
>seems risky, maybe I'll wait for a sale (or buy a pre-owned physical copy if those still exist)
>they might very well change their buying habits.
no. video game buyers have 0 impulse control. they see something they want, they buy it. legit players getting banned is such a rare case that nobody cares. the only users that do often get banned are users that would never raise a stink. botters, cheaters, people who love throw all kinds of Black folk and gays around. and even that subset is, comparatively, tiny.
>or buy a pre-owned physical copy if those still exist
Physical copies do exist, and you can even play them offline just fine. At least I played Lies of P off the disc with my PS5 being disconnected from the internet without issues.
Sony says you can't re-sell physical copies without their permission, but I wonder if any of that is actually enforcable. And do they try to combat that in any way, say assigning some unqiue ID to each disc and them being able to tell when the same copy is played by different consoles or whatever?
Don't know how they'd tell if you were offline, but supposing you were online.
I'm more stuck on how EULAs and manuals are allowed to dictate this shit AFTER purchase. If I buy a video game, let's say a Switch game, and come home, slap that b***h in my console and fire it up and am greeted with a EULA that says they own my house if I hit "Agree", can I now go back to store with my opened and used copy of the game and demand my money back?
I kinda don't understand how they're allowed to take your money first and make demands afterwards.
homie read
>Finally, the circuit court held that a shrinkwrap license, when used for a product that can be returned if the buyer disagrees with the larger agreement inside the package, constitutes a valid and enforceable contract.
"You can return it afterwards so it doesn't count" is basically their argument, and the courts agree
American law doesnt (yet) apply to the world. In the EU permanent or long term licences are viewed legally as a simple sale therefore all terms and conditions are non-binding. EULAs that are unfair, ambiguous or in violation of customer protections are also unenforcable
Which means what for digital games that obviously don't have physical packaging at all?
You contact the store that sold you the digital item and tell them you want a refund because you don't agree with the terms laid out when you install it.
The store then tells you to go frick yourself.
You could then attempt to bring them to court I suppose, if you're a billionaire with money to burn.
Thanks to Australians, Steam, and most other digital storefronts let you refund a game within 2 hours of purchase. Which is enough for you to skim over the EULA and ask for a refund.
>Its the customer's responsibility to make sure they don't get fricked over rather than the seller's responsibility to not frick people over
Yes.
Much like how it is your responsibility to not get fricked over when you sign any legal contract.
Can't handle the responsibility? Then don't bother buying anything and be a free pirate.
>Steam, and most other digital storefronts let you refund a game within 2 hours of purchase
I don't know about it right now, but you still can't get your money back, that is, remove it from the store. It ends up becoming a money that can only be used on steam, just like how old mining companies would pay you a shit coin that can only be used at the companies market.
No it gets refunded to your payment method.
Change the dropdown moron
Why would you so confidentially talk about things you have no fricking clue about? You should consider suicide.
https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds
>or through the same payment method you used to make the purchase.
The important stipulation here is that you can't always return digital games. In a weird catch-22 physical media can be fricked under this ruling but with the specific wording you can argue that because the refund period for a majority of digital releases is so specific it's considered anti-consumer to rule in favor of the company twice. Either they get to decide when the refund can occur, or they can offer you the license they're allowed to revoke.
Also Valve basically got roasted for this shit outside of the US so it's not exactly bulletproof.
I mean not only that, they often change EULAs years down the line. Does every change of the EULA entitle me to a refund if I don't want to agree with it?
>hide a small sign on my house that says "if you enter this house you consent to me fricking you in the mouth"
>I am now free to rape any and all door-to-door salesmen or Jehovah's Witnesses foolish enough to knock on my door
The corporation would win in the USA but would get smacked down instantly in EU.
>sign says they will be raped if they enter
>they dont enter, merely approach your domicile
>rape them on the front porch
I understand you like to live on the edge but at least abide by the sign
The unspoken understanding between publisher and consumer has always been that this "you only own a very limited license" thing is just ass-covering legalese, and that for all practical purposes OF COURSE you do own the copy you paid for.
Online registrations, account bans, etc have given publishers the technical ability to enforce the letter of their agreement, but I don't think they fully understand that they're on very thin ice when they try to do so.
If they don't tread carefully, community goodwill will eventually evaporate and the "if buying isn't owning, pirating isn't stealing" thing will pick up steam.
By this logic I should be able to steal a rental car
I want to be outraged, and not understanding the precedents or legal arguments about the thing I am discussing gives me that opportunity.
I own nothing and yet I own everything
Really makes you think, huh?
Good, very nice
Now show me your working copy of The Crew after the servers shut down
>>
This is just the "physically on a disc" argument. Just because you have something doesn't mean you own it. A lawyer can come to your house, tell you to stop playing Trials of Mana, and if you didn't he could sue you and you'd lose because he's right and you're not.
Just because I have a Bloodborn disc at my house does not mean I have the right to play Bloodborn whenever I want, and a company is completely allowed to do everything in their legal right to prevent me or sue me for doing so.
>A lawyer can come to your house, tell you to stop playing Trials of Mana
I want to see that lawyer transverse through my numerous bear traps
Are you 12?
He's American.
By American laws regarding "digital goods and services", a company can hire lawyers kick your door down for finding a way to play a mmo or game that requires always online connection that they shut down if they find out.
There's a reason why the paranoid fricks behind one of the fan servers of City of Heroes kept it within some secret cult until NCSoft decided to give their legal blessing.
>a company can hire lawyers kick your door down for finding a way to play a mmo or game that requires always online connection that they shut down if they find out.
bitch, it doesn't need to be an MMO and they don't need to send Lawyers. Never forget that 2K games sent a couple of thugs to harrass the guy that got Borderlands 3 early and leaked info.
Hell, the MOTHERFRICKING PINKERTONS were sent out by WotC to harrass a guy over getting his mtg CARDS too early.
US companies can do whatever the frick they want and get away with it.
Why are you Americans not rioting when you have so many guns?
Political discourse and heavily monitored & micromanaged tension in the community. On both a corporate and governmental level. Combine that with how easily the 'public consensus' can be manipulated through social media's vocal minorities and you have a population too focused on telling the others that they're wrong to actually realise what's going on.
Also, I'm not American.
remember how quickly things changed after the first few days of Occupy Wall Street? How quickly people forgot, accepted the rich companies into their hearts, and moved their tensions to racial and homosexual inequality faster than you could say 'quidditch'?
Because for as loud as they are about how tough they are, they're generally the first to fold when they feel some pressure. They're natural cowards.
Imagine letting them in your house in the first place
Never heard of the Pinkertons I'm guessing.
In America, it's legal for billionaires hire people to firebomb your house.
I own my hard drive with my collection of pirated games that I can freely move around, copy and theoretically burn on CDs and unless they hire a burglar to steal my harddrive, corporations can do nothing about this.
This is my view on game ownership.
Yep
>pinkertons
If they're willing to used armed gangs to intimidate some random dude who gets magic cards early, then they better be ready to escape to their New Zealand bunkers one of these days.
Anyone who currently defends, and plans to defend copyright, trademark, and patent laws on either a local, national, or global level deserve nothing less than a sweet kiss to the forehead goodnight.
Frick the law of Man, this is about Natural Law, the rights we were born with.
I got a warning for making this thread last night.
Apparently, jannies are anti-ownership.
>You'll do it for free and you'll be happy
Nah youre too new
Some of them just pull the trigger the moment they see a Youtuber's face these days
Dont forget to take your estrogen and donate to Ross
As far as I'm concerned, I own the game as long as I can play whenever and how often I want it. If I need to be online to play it, I pirate it or don't even bother and I don't play multiplayer games that don't have dedicated servers. Simple as.
All these sad americucks acting like frogs in a well, not knowing that other countries have decent consumer protection is pretty fricking sad.
I pity you guys and hope that WW3 starts sooner, rather than later, to give you the hope of a positive post-war cultural revolution.
Well unlike you, we actually have freedom of speech, civil rights and the right to bear arms
I have all of those and free medical care, laws which protect me from corporations and malicious deals I may have consented to without fully understanding the consequences and the right to get my money back if what I have bought is not what was advertised or simply does not meet my expectations.
Americans cannot comprehend that most people in the EU are more free than any of them ever were.
>free medical care
>right to bear arms
You're a goddamn liar. There is no country right now that has both.
>freedom of speech
lmao
>civil rights
lmfao
>right to bear arms
Hahahahaha.
>we actually have freedom of speech
Cancel Culture
>civil rights
not to own OR REPAIR your own things. You'll own nothing, pay for everything and be happy.
>the right to bear arms
which, itself, has been chipped down relentlessly over the years.
Sure, you can bear them but if you do so outside in most states then you'll be gunned down like a wild dog. If you're white, then your death may be spun into a tragic tale of the crazy anon who wanted to shoot up a kindergarten. If you're black... Well, we've already seen what can happen.
God, USA sounds like a nightmare hellscape
I don't own them whether or not I buy or pirate them.
Yeah well thats like, your opinion maaaan
we live in a society
we can, and should, demand that businesses that operate and profit in our society follow rules
"if you sell a game that requires an external service to operate, you may keep that service's operation private and even charge for it, but if you decide to stop that service, you must provide the customers with a reasonable way to operate it themselves" is not an unreasonable demand
I love Ross' autism, but this is going to achieve nothing and all it'll do if frick over his schedule. We'll have two Game Dungeons this year tops thanks to this insanity.
I kinda appreciate a wild attempt at something insane, more than a couple of entertaining videos.
His pickings for game dungeon has been trash recently.
State of mind in particular sucked hard.
He complains about having no real Christmas games to pick from, but he's never done the greatest one
It feels like Ross has a huge blindspot when it comes to mainstream games. His "Life is Strange" video is still one of my favorites and it's a shame he doesn't cover more popular games because he always brings a fresh perspective even if the game has already been covered extensively by other people.
He has mentioned before he doesn't want to cover games that have been covered before unless he feels he has something unique to say.
>State of mind in particular sucked hard
The frick? That was great, one of his better ones recently imo
Ross has always been right about everything.
His sheer autism and determination will defeat even Ubisoft's strongest lawyers.
He will save gaming.
I need to make a "people who were always right" list
So far it's Ross and Stallman
Ross admitted he was wrong on "games as a service is fraud"
Only in the sense that animals without rights cannot under any circumstances be defrauded. not that it isn't fraud.
He was wrong, but only insofar as "man who thought there was some hope left realises that there was in fact no hope at all"
I'm not sure you can blame him for that.
please share the list once it is made
It took some time for corpos to capitalize on it.
Anyway just don't buy GAAS/always online scams.
im not a buypig so i dont have to care
i would like to add however that GaaS with freemium model is based and the future of game ownership. we can fund our game development costs entirely with moronic whales buying habbo costumes while i just play the full game for free. THIS IS THE FUTURE WE CHOSE AND ITS BASED!!!!!!!!!!!!
o shit, new video is out
the thread pic is from that video, moron-kun.
Good job, anyway. E for Effort.
I though that it is same FUDposting as
also no link in OP and thumbnail from old video, with only a quote from the new video, which you first have to watch in order to know that quote is in there
so all right, I will not complain for not spoonfeeding me, but I am not going to go check AF every time that moron FUDposts just in case that it is actually a good post like OP
>When you paid for The Crew you paid for a service with an expiry date.
Imagine if live-service games actually had to come stamped with fixed dates they will shut down on
Where do you think this thread came from Anon?
What is this phenotype called?
It's one of The Mold's earlier attempts to appear human.
Human bodies are hard to mimic, and The Mold has significantly less processing power than even the most basic image generating AI
>Ross in the RE universe is a moldman
>Instead of being insane and hostile, he's just autistic as frick over videogames
Come to think of it, Ethan managed to remain looking human too, ans he was an autist.
Maybe autists have the power to utilize the mold in the way that normal people can't.
Looking for an honest gamer
Do you think Ross could beat Steve in a fight?
He can definitely beat up Scott
According to him he's of average build, fights dirty and usually goes for the throat.
>copyright (just letting others use your intellectual properties)
>creates an expectation for fans to do whatever they want with all of their products, removes any integrity
No offense anon, but these sound more like excuses. As for WoW I'm not very familiar, but couldn't Activision just shut those down if they actually wanted to?
Also, I wouldn't really call not making every single possible cent of profit a problem.
If I can download it only my SSD I own it. Games that I actually like a lot I will buy a physical version, even for consoles I dont own, just to keep a collection of things I like enoigh to care about keeping hard copies of, Ive started doing this with movies and TV shows too since they keep changing who owns the rights and I dont want to pay for different services.
I think if we get to a point where stuff like Steam gets shut down or they start stripping away your library for no reason we have more to worry about than being able to play videogames. I do not care when someone who spams Black person in a game gets reported and banned, you didnt read the terms and conditions and expect that they dont apply because you didnt read it.
The primary concern of Ross's is games with vital company-side servers whose inevitable shut down will mean the game becoming unplayable forever
No, the entire argument is games as a service kills games forever, not that digital = you don't own it.
You can't own always online games, inevitably the servers will shut down because paying $300 a month in server costs is nothing but 70k a year on a technician to keep it all running is too much.
>You can't own always online games, inevitably the servers will shut down because paying $300 a month in server costs is nothing but 70k a year on a technician to keep it all running is too much.
Even if every online game had private servers or some way to play indefinitely it's still meaningless if you're the only one trying to play a multiplayer game.
An empty game can see a revival in attention
One person can get other people to play the game with him
No one wanting to play the game with you is not the same as the devs themselves taking away your ability to play it
Is it?
You can find communities of ancient games right now that have players.
Even fricking Evolve, that game that shut down years ago? It has a community that organizes sessions every weekend. This community was large enough they literally patched the game years after shutting it down so people didn't have to pirate an older version to play p2p.
If you physically buy it, you own it because you can play it forever
If you digitally buy it, you are renting it because at an eventual point in time the service which you use to play it will shut down or you may delete your data and can never access it again
>Le vidya boomer who thinks 'physical release' and 'the company can take away your ability to play it' are mutually exclusive
>If you physically buy it, you own it because you can play it forever
What now, boomer?
You allowed the disc to be scratched, you still own it but it’s broken forever
Like how if you own a movie dvd and the disc is scratched. It is entirely on you
Yes
It looks like you broke into my home (that I bought with my summer job money btw) and destroyed my property
I am calling the cops while you sit your zoomer ass on my Costco $3000 couch listening to cable TV commercials
>physically buy copy of The Crew
>place game disc in console
>try to launch
>fails because your console is set to offline mode
>*sigh*
>tape up all the cameras and turns of the white noise generator near the console
>turn the console's network on
>launches game again
>can't because it isn't patched
>*SIGH*
>wait for it to patch
>continue waiting
>game finishes patching
>try to launch the game
>fails because the servers are down
You typed all that out just to be told that yes, you own the game. You cannot play it sadly, but the game is in your ownership
>Goalpost shift from 'you can play the game' to 'you at least own the physical object that is now worthless to you'
>'own' something
>can't use it for its intended purpose
>can only stare at it in confusion over why it exists
Bitch, you will never be a woman and we're not talking about modern art.
>If you physically buy it, you own it because you can play it forever
Wow, a whole lot of people are really mad about the truth
Why not do something to change it then if you’re so angry?
You literally said outright falsehoods
>If you physically buy it, you own it because you can play it forever
Ownership doesn't entail just playing the contents, legally that would also include things like reselling, modifying the contents without permission etc. which you technically don't have the rights to do. Of course you can do it right now because it isn't worth the time, money and effort on the IP holder's side to enforce over that stuff but if they did decide to they would be in the legal right to. I swear sometimes people act like if the police don't break down the door the second they do something illegal that means they're doing nothing wrong (in terms of the law,) At the end of the day terms and conditions are always going to include things they aren't actually going to enforce because they want to have the right to just in case a specific situation arises where they'd need to.
>if the police don't break down your door
Literally yes. I obey the laws only inasmuch as they make sense and don't inconvenience me. Subjectively I am the most important person in existence, therefore, I am allowed to do things others are not, because that would inconvenience me. There's obviously exceptions, some people that are close to me, but I obey the laws only because the consequences of breaking them are severe enough BUT in order for that to happen, they need to be enforced.
>American government was worried Islam, isis and Iran were turning gamers into extremist terrorists who want to burn the country down
>it was actually copyright laws that were red pilling Americans how the government feels about American citizens
Why does he make bootlickers seethe so much?
He's threatening their paychecks
In an insane world the reasonable are seen as mad.
Legally we never had any ownership because even if you bought a disc or cartridge or floppies, you only ever acquired a license to use the software on said storage medium.
However, nobody could actually stop you from installing the things from the devices again and again and again.
>spend tens of thousands of many hours, hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a game
>throw it all away because you don't want to spend 100 bucks a month to host the servers on Amazon AWS
Modern AAA Vidya game companies truly are moronic, these people would flush solid gold bars down the toilet if they ate it and then shit them out later
You're thinking about it the wrong way
An older game remaining playable is a bit more competition with your new ones
They released The Crew 2
They want everyone to forget the original exists and buy the new one
I don't know a damn thing about server costs, but why these companies can't just keep a server running in perpetuity is insane.
Surely the PR hit for shutting down 5-10 year old games is bigger than the couple grand they could just spend a year to keep them going.
It's pennies to them. A rounding error, totally negligible.
Anon eventually the company won't even exist anymore
We should want that these games are still playable a hundred or even a thousand years from now, just like Doom and Half-Life will be
Half-Life and Doom are single player games. It does make sense that games which rely on servers must inevitably end.
Like I won't expect some 2002 MMO to still be playable in 2050.
My only issues are with how soon it's done (shutdowns less than 10 years after release is common), and games that don't NEED a server to be played are shutting down.
>must inevitably end
Why?
Because like you (or that other guy, I don't know) said, the companies that host them won't exist forever.
>"Just give everything to the fans"
That creates a myriad of new problems.
The company chooses to make the game reliant on a company-side server when they make the game.
They know how this works, and know the server must logically eventually be shut down, and know what will happen if they don't take steps to snip the dependence beforehand
There's no room to plead ignorance on their part.
'This is just the way it has to be' is gaslighting on their part, don't fall for it and parrot their bullshit.
>That creates a myriad of new problems.
name 3
>creates competition for their newer products that are actually being sold (they are literally losing money by having this exist)
See WoW private servers. Tens of thousands of people playing for free.
>copyright (just letting others use your intellectual properties)
>creates an expectation for fans to do whatever they want with all of their products, removes any integrity
>creates competition for their newer products that are actually being sold (they are literally losing money by having this exist)
>See WoW private servers. Tens of thousands of people playing for free.
you're assuming those people would play your newer product
people that played vainilla wow did so because blizzard fricking ruined the original idea for the game.
>Tens of thousands of people playing for free.
Why is this a problem if they are totally discontinuing the game?
>copyright (just letting others use your intellectual properties)
The server is not the IP.
>creates an expectation for fans to do whatever they want with all of their products
This is how actual humans view ownership, yes.
Corpos cant ban people if they say offensives for lefties words online.
>That creates a myriad of new problems.
Boy, I guess Quake doesn't exist
Or Unreal Tournament
Or Counter Strike
>‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
>quake, ut, CS
Not only did those games work, they worked BETTER than modern games. I did not once experience being unable to get onto a game because "the servers were down" or "maintenance" on a non mmo, until into the 2010s. Not only are the modern formats worse for consumer's they're just straight up garbage from the perspective of making shit actually work.
What problems?
It's easier to do private servers than central servers. All they have to do is as a end of life plan for a game release their server software so people can run a emulator, or patch the game to allow private servers.
It's relevant for shit like this. I'm all for ignoring dumb laws, but that shit doesn't help us when they have the capacity to remotely reduce your game to worthless plastic.
Games don't spoil in five hours, or any amount of time. Nor are there externalities created by people continuing to play something decades later. You can demand better.
Minecraft, TF2, Warcraft, Arma, Rust, Upturned, Stardew Valley, Terraria, Project Zomboid, Left 4 Dead, Garry's Mod, Mount & Blade....
Being able to play the game forever is the norm. The expectation by the consumer is that you get the game forever. Nobody was expecting this shit to happen in the 90s. It's something that just became possible for people to frick with the consumer, and it's weird enough, and rare enough that people don't get it.
> It does make sense that games which rely on servers must inevitably end.
No it doesn't
There are slews of multiplayer-focused games whose companies are long gone and yet are still completely playable, because the practice of the company control-freaking every aspect of the game's operation hadn't yet become a thing. It's a conscious design-choice on their part
They could just release the server code. Niche gaming communities are full of autists, people have reverse engineered their own damn servers for some of these games.
>Like I won't expect some 2002 MMO to still be playable in 2050.
Dudes have been preserving games of all stripes for decades homosexual.
He actually covers this in the original video somewhat.
Free to play games and subscription based games would likely be exempt from any lawsuit that comes from this, since you were never under the impression that you were buying a product in the first place.
Assuming a subscription based game let you play out your subscription, then stopped you from buying more, then shut the game down afterwards once there were no players left, there wouldn't be a legal issue with this as you were always known you were getting periodic based access to the game, and that period simply ended.
And with FTP obviously there was no expectation of owning the game to begin with.
>Like I won't expect some 2002 MMO to still be playable in 2050.
Why the frick not.
It's not asking for more content, just some fricking servers to play the game on.
>Why the frick not.
The company that developed the game will have likely folded or been absorbed by then, and paying for servers for the one person per year that logs on out of curiosity is madness.
I'm against GAAS and game shutdowns, where unnecessary, but shutdowns will have to happen sometimes.
>he doesn't know about Meridian 59
trips won't save you, homosexual
>Surely the PR hit for shutting down 5-10 year old games is bigger than the couple grand they could just spend a year to keep them going.
the average gamer buys the newest fifa/madden every year, they're morons.
>throw it all away
they aren't throwing anything away, these games have already been sold once, their value is spent (a lot dont offer microtransactions as an incentive to keep the servers up).
Half the reason I'm praying the Gigantic comeback pans out well is so other companies will go for the "You can't come!" tactic as well, and start bringing more back after people have been suffering withdrawal for years.
It's total bullshit to have to expect, but I'm fricking desperate to play Dawngate and Wildstar again.
When you look at it from a consumer standpoint, yeah, that's really stupid.
When you look at it from the economic angle of nonstop growth, it's a threat.
The automaker industry in the US showed what happens when your modern products are really badly made and there's a plethora of older, better models to go back to for a fraction of the cost.
>ubisoft chad lawyers keep the moron ancap man in court just to waste their money
>when it comes to the actual lawsuit proceedings because the court gets bored of them wasting their time they will just say "oh ok here's a full refund if you request it"
Rrtard ancap man is gonne be made an example out of. You don't frick with chad billion dollar company's money
Ubisoft is the least Chad business put there
Ubisoft is literally soiboi cuck IRL
>chad
>ubisoft
Just search "ubisoft staff photo" on Google images, it's embarrassing no matter which one of their studios you look at.
these chads wrote some of their best games
>cherry pick the cream of the crop, two people from 20 years ago
anon, Ubisoft has over 21,000 employees, many of which were born after those two even started working.
And sadly it shows
Assassin's creed is spam at this point
>Rrtard ancap man
I'd like you to tell me what you think an ancap is, and why using consumer protection laws against companies makes someone an ancap. I am very interested in hearing your reasoning.
>buy a big mac
>don't eat it for 5 hours and leave it in the restaurant
>come back and shit your pants crying after the waitress took it away and dumped it into the trash
>throw a hissy fit just because you didn't eat your big mac when you should have and lost your money
actually we're talking about video games, not fast food
>food analogy
Your dumb analogy would only work if they broke into your house to take it away, and it was some magical food that never spoils or ends.
Vidya games don't spoil and you're not playing them in their company lobby, are you
you can still play the game, its called playing the sequel. it probably uses the same map and cars and recycles 90% so i feel like this whole "issue" is mostly clout farming by the ancap moron who just wants to yell DON'T TREAD ON ME at the "big man". this was never an issue when MMOs have been systematically invalidating old content for dcades.
>this was never an issue when MMOs have been systematically invalidating old content for dcades.
why are u arguing in such bad faith
>immediate fast food analogy
Americans awake early today, huh?
I don't think information can be owned. If it's about things that don't really exist outside of human perception and conception, then you would need to own a portion of another person's brain to have a claim of the information stored there.
The copyright question is, in practical terms, entirely about compensation for whoever made a thing or bought the rights to it. It's trivial to demonstrate that you may have access to information without having paid for it and without having caused a financial loss to the rightsholder, so there isn't a mechanistic system that you could device to link compensation into access in the first place. What we need is a social solution to the problem of artist/author welfare; if people were sufficiently willing to express the value of information products in real currency then information could be de-facto free in both senses of the word and invasive malware that tries to bind access to sales wouldn't be necessary.
In other words,
>concept of video game ownership
It isn't real in the first place. Neither for gamers nor developers. It's impossible to sufficiently buy a video game such that you would consequently own it more than the original manufacturer does. If the developer still has their copy, you didn't get what you paid for. The developer selling further copies is as much stealing from you as you are stealing from them when you sell pirated copies. Who made the thing only matters when you want to compensate that actor in return of the value that you received from the thing.
>please regulate business some more, daddy
If you don't want to be regulated, don't act like rampant piss-taking c**ts
I agree. Piracy is not theft because piracy isn't legal ownership. It's simply the access of unlicensed of data.
Also Taxation isn't theft because you are legally owned by the state. You will go to jail for not paying taxes, you own nothing,
You do not even own your legal tender, it belongs to ceasar and you render it to ceasar, therefore it's not theft.
Discretion lies with the buyer, it’s a nice show of faith if they make the servers hostable by players after the dedicated goes offline but ultimately the decision lies with whether you agreed to buy in the first place, if you didn’t know it could be taken away you didn’t due diligence.
The discretion lies with the strongest party. That is why we have consumer protection laws, because the individual is rarely the strongest party.
And it’s already been decided those laws don’t apply to this issue so why mention it
They can literally change the EULA after you've bought it, there is no amount of due diligence you can apply that can't be undone by a slimy lawyer.
Listen you homosexual. I am not going to do any amount of research to play a fricking videogame. Frick you are your family line. I hope your mother gets raped. Frick off
>Discretion lies with the buyer
so companies should be allowed to sell you any piece of crap as long as they hide it well?
I don't understand why anyone would argue against his point. You, the reader of this post, has nothing to gain from defending companies like this. The only possible gain for you and others like you is to defend the point being made.
Unless a lot of this thread are shills (which might be true) or actual morons (which is way truer) I can't fathom what the motive is for supporting "the individual will own nothing" mentality.
Ganker is all about having the opposite opinion so you can collect (you)s from contrversial statements.
Worship of written laws
I got called a fascist in the last thread about this for wanting laws to change if they favor swindling corpos
I remember gamestop had no refunds for new games but 7 day refunds for used games. I used to just buy used games and return them if I didn’t like the games, beat them in a few hours, or if I knew I would never play the game again. The world has really changed since 2008
The DMCA came about in 2000, not 1999.
Buy physical media.
We'd discussed this
The physical media now just installs a program that needs connection to a central server to function at all
It's in reference to a court case from 1999 that establishes that US citizens more or less have no right to software ownership.
The DMCA also has provisons for allowing reverse engineering of discontinued games. It is more permissive than said court case.
>It's about ethics in video game ownership.
If you pay for it, its yours. If you pay for a game then the code is your to do as please as long as you aren't pirating/distributing free copies. This means i dont think a company should be allowed to stop fan servers, for example i dont think
Blizzard should be allowed to stop fan servers for WoW, i dont think Ubisoft should be allowed to stop people from cracking their own The Crew copies.
too bad the law in every country disagrees with you
so when will you consoomers realise that the final solution is make good open source video games?
>open source vidya
I'm not playing your troony pixelshit vidya conrad
that's why I said good open source video games
I'm sorry for your lack of reading comprehension
still, thanks for bump, frickhead
>tfw when you’re going to witness the collapse of the Judaic US empire in your lifetime
>he thinks this will do anything other than strengthen the corpos stranglehold
lol
lmao
Battleforge was almost 10 years ago
When can I post my videos on Ganker? I want to get a silver play button.
With all due respect to Ross who is based as frick, I don't really care that much. I care a little. It just doesn't affect me personally.
>always-online live-service games that cease to function without a remote server
I simply don't buy them.
>everything else
The industry's claim that I have no rights, with regard to games that run locally on my machine, is not realistically enforceable. They can tell me that I technically don't own even my DRM-free games and that I am legally obligated to delete them if the license is arbitrarily revoked, but I don't care because they can't make me do it.
Just mandate games to have an expiration notice telling people at least how much time they can expect to be able to play the game
Tux Racer represent
I don't care about eula bullshit unless they specifically say you're renting then buy = own
ok but how does that help when the game you """bought""" shuts down the central server?
>doom.wad
>central server
??
I don't give a shit.
Games are dumb simple toys to play with in the evening after a busy day. Owning them or not makes no difference to me.
You always bought licenses to play video games, not the game itself, since that has different legal implications. That has been true since fricking forever.
The only difference is that, while licenses used to last indefinitely back then, the rise of only multiplayer and GaaS slop now means they will only last as long as the servers stay up.
I highly doubt that the courts will force anyone to update their games to be playable in offline mode or to keep their servers up indefinitely, it's not illegal to provide a service for only a specific amount of time. The ideal solution is to not be a fricking moron and stop buying GaaS slop or anything with some bullshit arbitrary restriction to not function offline.
we need to find something to smear his name through the mud
surely he must've said the n-word in some old obscure forum right?
He barely swears
He said his most controversial opinion is that he believes in population control
Damn, what year is this, 1940?
Time has proven consistantly population isn't nearly as big a threat so many people thought and some still push it to be.
If anything China and Japan has shown population control is a fricking bad idea that will frick you over in the long term even if you try to do it ever so softly.
frick off and die
>average Exit-Moldposter
>Where do you land on the concept of video game ownership?
games should be sold complete on a disk anything else should be illegal.
I pretty much pirate and maybe buy if the game is on GoG (recently bought Bannerlord on there) so that I can back up the installer and don't have to be online to play the game, no forced online, forced updates and so on.
Piracy is always moral because shit's fricked.
i pirate it, i own it
i buy license to play, i don't own it
is there any reason he doesn't suggest lobbying for congress to draft new laws for games? that bald right to repair guy seems to be making good progress in getting laws passed and that's probably something that way fewer people care about. does he just think it's hopeless? a conceited effort from a bunch of gamers might be able to get something done