I don't think their servers run on windows.
Business aspects of Subscription Game Libraries [Xbox GamePass, PSNow]
- Thread starter iroboto
- Start date
I don't think their servers run on windows.
Yeah why not. Since it's not retroactive we are talking about 2027 games, so they would have time to figure out a solution. Those games with complex backends systems are probably a small minority, so it wouldn't really be a big problem.
No matter the technical problems, the important thing is that costumers get more power over corporations in owning games and their rights.
Last edited:
I dont know what it is but some people just love taking the side of companies instead of the side of consumers, even going to far as to suggest that if a product stops working it's the consumers fault
In fact if someone wanted to sue Ubisoft for the crew no longer working they shouldn't. They should sue me because according to Johnny Awesome it's my fault.
In fact if someone wanted to sue Ubisoft for the crew no longer working they shouldn't. They should sue me because according to Johnny Awesome it's my fault.
Last edited:
Probably not. Many are deployed to The Cloud. Give people the code and can run them on Azure/AWS/etc themselves. Or build their own Linux box. Point being, give the users the software and that part of preservation, the responsibility of the developer, is covered without them having to do anything. It's then on the users to source a suitable host. Whereas if the law makes it a requirement that the host is ported to Windows, or in some other way inconveniencing devs, you're generating work for potential no gains - maybe a game that needs a preserving isn't played by anyone but the devs are legally required to make a Windows host? that'd suck.
So I think just provide the client and host executables and some documentation on what they need to run would be enough to satisfy preservation and user control of sunsetted games.
No-one should really sue anyone as the law isn't clear on the longevity of software. Bear in mind if you buy anything else and it stops working over time, that's expected. What's a warranty? 2 years? 3 years? Sometime as long as 5 years? There's an innate 'life expectancy' in everything and nothing is intrinsically expected to last forever. Software is different of course, which is why it needs consideration of what's truly fair in terms of consumer rights and realistic expectations of the developers. At the moment it's largely left to Free Market principles. If you don't like how a publisher maintains the longevity of their games, don't buy from them. Similar to mobile phone updates. If you feel a mobile should get more than 3 years of updates, buy from a manufacturer who offers more than 3 years of updates.
Yes but if I buy a Rolex and it stops working after 10 years it's not because Rolex have prevented my watch from working
as I've previously said If I sell software that only works if I wear a top hat then I should be prepared to wear a top hat. I cant decide that I can no longer be bothered
Yes, that's the ethical argument. However, the law hasn't caught up, and suing people is about the law, which is why people shouldn't seek to sue a software company for doing something illegal because at this point they haven't. It needs consumer law to provide a basis to determine what they do is wrong, which is what that European Initiative in that video is trying to get. Currently the publishers can present games as a service, not as an item.
Similarly, should you be able to sell on a digital game you bought just as you can a disk? Some argue yes, you own it. Publishers say no, you license it based on a contract. The EU is discussing whether to make second-hand digital sales compulsory. Ergo you can't presently sue a publisher for not allowing you to sell a digital license because there's no law that states you are entitled to.
Similarly, should you be able to sell on a digital game you bought just as you can a disk? Some argue yes, you own it. Publishers say no, you license it based on a contract. The EU is discussing whether to make second-hand digital sales compulsory. Ergo you can't presently sue a publisher for not allowing you to sell a digital license because there's no law that states you are entitled to.
However, in contrast to game ownership law, laws regarding EULAs have been codified somewhat. For one, standard contract law applies which means unfair terms cannot be enforced. That's why all EULA's have the line "if part of this is considered illegal, only that part is nullified and all the rest still stands." Digital game ownership hasn't got proper legal understanding in place yet.
And that's another annoyance I have, you should not be allowed to put illegal terms in a contract, and if some of the terms and conditions are removed then it's a different contract and should be null and void
imagine I send you a contract that says "I will pay you £250k for your house" and then in the small print it says "disclaimer : If I don't pay you the sale is still valid"
Trump tried a similar stunt in his fraud case, he argued it was ok to lie on business records because he has what he called a "useless clause" that basically says "disclaimer : I may be lying"
that was rejected by the judge.
Someone should look at these EULA's because they are scandalous
other nonsense
If you sell our product to someone you agree to defend, and hold us harmless from any claims, including attorneys’ fees, related to the distribution or use of our product
You agree that breaking any conditions of this agreement would cause us irreparable harm.
These conditions survive the cancellation or termination of this agreement .
And finally his classic from Microsoft "YOU CAN RECOVER FROM MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS ONLY DIRECT DAMAGES UP TO U.S. $5.00. YOU CANNOT RECOVER ANY OTHER DAMAGES"
ps: Shifty you realise your more or less providing me with therapy
pps: Did you know they shut down ICQ on the 26th July 2024 - I am very upset...
imagine I send you a contract that says "I will pay you £250k for your house" and then in the small print it says "disclaimer : If I don't pay you the sale is still valid"
Trump tried a similar stunt in his fraud case, he argued it was ok to lie on business records because he has what he called a "useless clause" that basically says "disclaimer : I may be lying"
that was rejected by the judge.
Someone should look at these EULA's because they are scandalous
other nonsense
If you sell our product to someone you agree to defend, and hold us harmless from any claims, including attorneys’ fees, related to the distribution or use of our product
You agree that breaking any conditions of this agreement would cause us irreparable harm.
These conditions survive the cancellation or termination of this agreement .
And finally his classic from Microsoft "YOU CAN RECOVER FROM MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS ONLY DIRECT DAMAGES UP TO U.S. $5.00. YOU CANNOT RECOVER ANY OTHER DAMAGES"
ps: Shifty you realise your more or less providing me with therapy
pps: Did you know they shut down ICQ on the 26th July 2024 - I am very upset...
Last edited:
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I'm not against consumer rights, but I'm not against producer rights either. It's a balance and IMO you guys haven't found it.
So a studio should have the right to launch a free game with microtransactions, where some users spend hundreds of dollars for some skins, and then months later they should have the right to shut it down, with those paying users being left with nothing.
It's more balanced than elden ring.
At this point it should be well understood that can happen. So don't buy F2P MTs if you don't want them disappearing one day. And if everyone stops buying MTs, that model will die and you'll get something else, like ownership, or more likely subs on a contract with a termination clause.
In the above petition. I don't think in-game items are part of it. When a game is closed, giving people the chance to play the game on their own servers would not include carrying over all their cosmetics. You couldn't preserve and distribute the database for users.
In the above petition. I don't think in-game items are part of it. When a game is closed, giving people the chance to play the game on their own servers would not include carrying over all their cosmetics. You couldn't preserve and distribute the database for users.
This petition wouldn't really affect me much as far as the microtransactions go. Also, I don't see why in game items wouldn't be part of it.
In game items would need to access to the underlying player database, which is access to every single user, and that'd have to be public and wide open for players to manage it outside of the developer. Complete GDPR privacy impossibility as no-one would have ownership of that database to manage it.
If there is such a violation of privacy, then you could send a email to the developer to ask for a way to unlock those purchases in the game via a unique code for all users that bought items inside of games.
If they are abandoning it, why not make all microtransactions items available without needing money. There are so many other options, so if there is the will to enforce it, it can happen.
That would be the most sensible choice as no effort. But then you aren't really preserving the transactions, just giving it all away. And part of the value of the purchases is often rarity, that others don't have it. eg the $160 Heirlooms in Apex Legends, they mostly have value because most people won't buy them. The same as expensive designer brands only being expensive because they are expensive and so exclusive.
You'll keep you expensive skins, which would be a fair and legal repsect of your purchase, but you'd also possibly lose part of what made them worth buying in the first place.
At the end of the day, nothing last forever and there's something to be said for just letting go and moving on.
I mostly don't like online only games, but they are also pieces of art, and they should have a chance of getting preserved. Let's start to fight software planned obsolescence, there is zero drawbacks for consumers, and very little for studios.
Similar threads
- Locked