Should there be official regulation of game updates?

[Shifty Geezer]

An experience last night got me thinking that maybe our consumer rights are being violated by game developers. At least, there's an issue with games updates wherein the game you purchase might be changed to another game, which effectively replaces what you bought with something else. And if you don't like the new game, you lose your money and the game you did like.

Last night I looked at Plants vs Zombies 2. I play it maybe once a day. It's a game I've been enjoying for free, able to progress without any need for microtransactions. I find it's well balanced and the challenges can be completed with the right choice of strategy. I had thought about buying an in game item or two just to recompense the developers, but never got round to it. The game has had a recent update changing the progression order, and it became clear last night that it's now much harder. It seems impossible to complete levels without using the special powers (which I never touched before) which cost credits, and of course these are for sale as microtransactions. So where I enjoyed the game, now I don't. But if I had bought an in-game item before I liked the game, like an extra seed slot and the fire barrel for, I dunno, £3, suddenly that £3 is worthless as the game has been turned into something else. The core game is the same, but the parameters have been changed to adjust the experience.

Another similar experience is Awesomenauts. Game balancing has changed the characters quite a lot. This is usual, but if you buy a game on the strength of enjoying a character, and then the game gets tweaked and you no longer have that experience, you are losing the thing you paid for.

I'm also reminded of the PS3 FW update that removed Linux. Although it was of no issue to most owners, it was still a change of the prouduct removing a feature that some may have bought the console for, for which there's no recompense. Where is the line drawn? What about buying a Smart TV that gets a FW update so you have to buy program access through microtransactions?

As there's technically no limit to the degree of changes developers can make post-release, there's no protection for the game owners from changes that make the experience worse for them. There are no T&Cs from the users' side that ensure they have access to the product they have bought. I can see only two solutions to this.

1) Allow players to always access the old experience after updates, causing bloat and complications.

2) Switch to a subscription model where players only pay for what they use, and changes a player doesn't like comes with the option to not pay. If updates were released a few days before the monthly bill, players would know one month's subscription gets them one month of the game in its current state.

Should there be legal protection of consumer's right to keep the experience they paid for, and the right to refuse an update for anything they've spent money on?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The UK already has several tiers of robust consumer rights legislation; some applies regardless of purchase, some applies only where a contract is in place which is often tied to payment (in money or money’s worth or in kind).

Although I don't think the freemium payment model vs. consumer law has been tested in the UK, when it comes to consumer law a court would generally be looking for evidence that one of the principles of consumer protection had been breached and these are Product Liability, Product Safety and Misleading Pricing. You'd probably be looking to make a case under the third but there is a principle of products decreasing in value over time so defence would likely argue that something worth £3 when you bought it wasn't later when it's intrinsic value (of a digital fire barrel, lol) diminished. Can you imagine the average juror debating that!?!?!

In the case of PS3, which resulted in failed lawsuits in the US, but no lawsuits as far as I recall in the UK, the circumstances are critical and the circumstances weren't Sony removing linux support to be mean but to secure their compromised multi-hundred million dollar platform. Although it failed in the US, even had a case been prevailed in the UK I can't see how, under UK law, damages could exceed the cost of the original device unless you can demonstrate damages. Court fees vs damages are probably why nobody seriously tried this in the UK or EU.

However there has been work done in this area, the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (who lead on consumer rights) commissioned a study in 2010.

Not much has come of it, though. It sounds like something that may be needed but it also sounds horrendously complicated.

 

[pcchen]

1) Allow players to always access the old experience after updates, causing bloat and complications.

2) Switch to a subscription model where players only pay for what they use, and changes a player doesn't like comes with the option to not pay. If updates were released a few days before the monthly bill, players would know one month's subscription gets them one month of the game in its current state.

Should there be legal protection of consumer's right to keep the experience they paid for, and the right to refuse an update for anything they've spent money on?

Option 1 is technically possible, and Apple has enabled it (though solely for compatibility reasons). However, it could be much more difficult if the game has to connect to some servers.

Option 2 is, IMHO, better. If a game has been changed to be worse for most people to enjoy, the subscription number would plummet and the game developer would change it back. However, the problem is that most people don't seem to like subscription model... (personally I think a bulk subscription model could be better accepted by most people, but it has its own problem)

 

[Bigus Dickus]

How about requiring a simple user accept before updates are applied with a clear outline of the changes made. Like, say, the way the app store and Google play work? Of course if you enable automatic updates you are implicitly giving permission to apply updates with abandon.

Were the updates you describe made with no agreement on your part made at any time, explicitly or implicitly?

 

[mrcorbo]

In general, I'm in the camp of letting the market self-regulate. What I would more like to see are initiatives to allow consumers to become better informed so as to more often make purchasing choices that are in their best interest. I think smart consumers are the best way to discourage most anti-consumer behavior by companies. For the most egregious offenses, I believe that adequate mechanisms for consumer protection are already in place.

Essentially, what is needed is something to counter the effects of the advertising/PR industries' ability to manipulate consumer perceptions. Through years of experience and study they have learned how to exploit characteristics of the human psyche to create demand and positive feeling toward the brands, products and services they represent. What is needed, then, is a well-resourced entity or entities that inform consumers when and how this is being done with the hope that it will blunt the effectiveness of those techniques. Global commerce would change radically if products and services more often had to sell solely on their own merits.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

In general, I'm in the camp of letting the market self-regulate.

There's no mechanic to regulate this though. Internet software updates mean consumers are at the mercy of the developers, and in every field where software plays a part. You could buy a device with a UI you like, get a forced OTA update that changes the UI, and be left with a product you don't like. Existing consumer laws and principles are founded on a static product that is defined at the point of production where you know exactly what you are buying and it could not change. Internet software updates means that's no longer true and the experience can change over time, for which there's no way for the user to address except to abandon a product, effectively voiding their purchase.

This has been common practice and changes are usually for the best, but with the advent of microtransactions, there's nothing stopping a company from taking a popular game and tweaking the mechanics after sales to introduce MT. Let's say FIFA and COD get updates to add fairly essential microtransactions - although players can stop player and pick a rival product, that doesn't change the fact that their initial investment has been mitigated without consent. Well, there's a consent in the license but that's a one sided contract without consumer representation and which apparently goes against principles of commerce.

Essentially, what is needed is something to counter the effects of the advertising/PR industries' ability to manipulate consumer perceptions.

This thread is specifically about changes to software after purchase affecting the experience, and not about people buying bad games or how the industry operates.

 

[ERP]

I don't know how you would legislate it without every software update resulting in law suits.

I've said this before customers should be looking for payment model that rewards developers for doing the right thing, ie producing enjoyable content.
That's not 1 off $60 purchases as that tends to reward hype and marketing over overall quality.
It's not micro transactions with free to play because that directly rewards a developers ability to optimize for micro transactions. Though it does require an enjoyable base experience.
IMO a subscription games service that rewards developers based on play time would be about the best thing.

 

[joker454]

Should there be legal protection of consumer's right to keep the experience they paid for, and the right to refuse an update for anything they've spent money on?

It does drive me nuts when the terms of software or services are changed after I'm heavily invested in them, it doesn't really seem fair. On the other hand if you try regulating it most likely what would happen is there would be less updates if any at all, and you'd get less features on new products. Like with the ps3's Linux support, if it was regulated to where Sony would not be allowed to remove that feature later then they probably would have never offered it in the first place.

IMO a subscription games service that rewards developers based on play time would be about the best thing.

That's sort of what Spotify is for music, I wonder if we will ever get something like that for games. Mind you many artists on Spotify seem to complain about never making any money there, and if being paid comes down to being noticed then you end up with the Apple app store type problem where most apps never get noticed at all. Then it brings you right back to it becoming a marketing/advertising problem.

 

[Cyan]

An experience last night got me thinking that maybe our consumer rights are being violated by game developers. At least, there's an issue with games updates wherein the game you purchase might be changed to another game, which effectively replaces what you bought with something else. And if you don't like the new game, you lose your money and the game you did like.

Last night I looked at Plants vs Zombies 2. I play it maybe once a day. It's a game I've been enjoying for free, able to progress without any need for microtransactions. I find it's well balanced and the challenges can be completed with the right choice of strategy. I had thought about buying an in game item or two just to recompense the developers, but never got round to it. The game has had a recent update changing the progression order, and it became clear last night that it's now much harder. It seems impossible to complete levels without using the special powers (which I never touched before) which cost credits, and of course these are for sale as microtransactions. So where I enjoyed the game, now I don't. But if I had bought an in-game item before I liked the game, like an extra seed slot and the fire barrel for, I dunno, £3, suddenly that £3 is worthless as the game has been turned into something else. The core game is the same, but the parameters have been changed to adjust the experience.

Another similar experience is Awesomenauts. Game balancing has changed the characters quite a lot. This is usual, but if you buy a game on the strength of enjoying a character, and then the game gets tweaked and you no longer have that experience, you are losing the thing you paid for.

I'm also reminded of the PS3 FW update that removed Linux. Although it was of no issue to most owners, it was still a change of the prouduct removing a feature that some may have bought the console for, for which there's no recompense. Where is the line drawn? What about buying a Smart TV that gets a FW update so you have to buy program access through microtransactions?

As there's technically no limit to the degree of changes developers can make post-release, there's no protection for the game owners from changes that make the experience worse for them. There are no T&Cs from the users' side that ensure they have access to the product they have bought. I can see only two solutions to this.

1) Allow players to always access the old experience after updates, causing bloat and complications.

2) Switch to a subscription model where players only pay for what they use, and changes a player doesn't like comes with the option to not pay. If updates were released a few days before the monthly bill, players would know one month's subscription gets them one month of the game in its current state.

Should there be legal protection of consumer's right to keep the experience they paid for, and the right to refuse an update for anything they've spent money on?

This is one of the boons of this online era but it can also be a curse. I am not saying we should go back to the medieval times, but some of those politics should be revised some day, perhaps.

PS3 and X360 have revertible patches, by cleaning the cache and asking you for confirmation before patching a game. Xbox One refuses to play a game if you don't patch it when you go online. I wonder if it lets you play the game if you unplug the router, I have never tried.

I kinda miss the days when on the PC you could reinstall a game from scratch and play the original version while the developers had every single patch up in their website -either them had it or specialised websites-. You could just patch and un-patch at will.

Age of Empires was a great example of this. There were exploits found by players because some civs had unwanted advantages -i.e. Chinese beginning the game with too much food, using the Teuton town center to win the game early on... etc-.

But.... you know, it was an entirely new game you could enjoy when you had the ability to switch between patches. There were very useful utilities created for that.

By today's standards we would be "doomed" to play Skyrim in its 1.2 patch iteration for a relatively long time, and that patch was a whole new level of disaster.

I am not sure if any of us can ever play games like that anymore (Sigh), regarding something that actually seems to go on so far back in history.

 

[ERP]

That's sort of what Spotify is for music, I wonder if we will ever get something like that for games. Mind you many artists on Spotify seem to complain about never making any money there, and if being paid comes down to being noticed then you end up with the Apple app store type problem where most apps never get noticed at all. Then it brings you right back to it becoming a marketing/advertising problem.

It has to be priced properly so that developers can see returns, that's a business problem.

I don't think you can ever solve the awareness/advertising problem, but advertising in a subscription model only gets you the first play, which isn't as rewarding as retaining players. I think there is a chance you end up with a system that ends up even more hit driven than we currently are, but it seems to me to be the only model that rewards for quality.

 

[mrcorbo]

There's no mechanic to regulate this though. Internet software updates mean consumers are at the mercy of the developers, and in every field where software plays a part.

In the long term, though, it's developers that are at the mercy of consumers. Not the other way around.

This has been common practice and changes are usually for the best, but with the advent of microtransactions, there's nothing stopping a company from taking a popular game and tweaking the mechanics after sales to introduce MT. Let's say FIFA and COD get updates to add fairly essential microtransactions - although players can stop player and pick a rival product, that doesn't change the fact that their initial investment has been mitigated without consent. Well, there's a consent in the license but that's a one sided contract without consumer representation and which apparently goes against principles of commerce.

You may be right about the initial investment being mitigated, but the whole reason that microtransactions and their ilk exist is because developers and publishers need/want to realize additional income above and beyond that initial investment on the part of the consumer. What's stopping them from implementing those things, if they would be viewed negatively by the previous purchasers of these games, is:

1) Those purchasers may stop playing/supporting the game eliminating opportunities to realize additional revenue from the existing user base.

2) Bad word of mouth preventing others from purchasing the game and adding to that user base.

3) A negative stigma attaching to the IP hurting the prospects of future installments.

This thread is specifically about changes to software after purchase affecting the experience, and not about people buying bad games or how the industry operates.

I hear you. I'll just leave it at the best remedy for companies' not serving their customers' best interests is for those customers to stop purchasing things from those companies and that no outside intervention is necessary to affect the desired result.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I hear you. I'll just leave it at the best remedy for companies' not serving their customers' best interests is for those customers to stop purchasing things from those companies and that no outside intervention is necessary to affect the desired result.

That's true of everything we complain about, and most consumer laws. It's also a rather pointless end to any discussion - "Don't like microtransactions/BF4's reliability/patches that introduce bugs/games that aren't very good despite looking great in advertising? Don't buy the product. No need to discuss any more." Given the world world doesn't seem to work effectively that way though which is why regulation is introduced (a discussion for the RSPCA forum), there's reason to explore problems and solutions without using an ineffective fallback truism.

In this thread, we're just following the current standards. Where an unfairness is recognised (step one, is it unfair or not?), can the industry involved be self regulating or does it need outside regulation? And where it's a new variation on old industries that already have regulation, is it covered by that regulation?

Personally I'm not in favour of governmental control of everything, but I do want some security in the coming decades that products can't be changed from something I like and have paid for to something I dislike. From the developer POV, how should they address changes and their delivery to end users?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Personally I'm not in favour of governmental control of everything, but I do want some security in the coming decades that products can't be changed from something I like and have paid for to something I dislike.

Unfortunately the freemium user retention model is based on moving the goal posts whenever a significant portion of the player base approach the gaming zenith of the game. Like Sisyphus pushing his rock up the hill, most will never reach the top - but will drop lots of chump change into trying to get there.

Were you aware you were buying into a freemium game at the time? Perhaps more clarity on the business model of a game would help serve as a warning.

 

[pcchen]

There is also the problem of sunk cost. If you play a game which has some sort of character development (e.g. a card collection game), you may want to keep playing it because you already spend a lot of time on the game. If, for some reason, a new update for the game makes you unhappy, it probably has to be pretty bad for you to quit.

Of course, normally game developers don't really want to make their players unhappy. However, in this thread, most case of "unhappy" comes from the business side, and therefore there can be pressures to make the game most profitable while bearable for most players.

This is a hard problem and sometimes the only solution is to choose game based on brand reputation (as in most other industries).

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There is also the problem of sunk cost. If you play a game which has some sort of character development (e.g. a card collection game), you may want to keep playing it because you already spend a lot of time on the game.

Yes, this is why I asked if he knew what he was buying into. If you knowingly buy into a game or ecosystem that is subject to change then part of the risk is having changes made that you personally may not like. People who play MMORPGs are used to this sort of thing and this type of purchasing risk isn't isolated to games, how many subscribe to satellite, cable or other content for 12 months without definitely knowing what they will get?

Where I'm going is, could this be better solved with awareness rather than regulation.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Were you aware you were buying into a freemium game at the time? Perhaps more clarity on the business model of a game would help serve as a warning.

I don't want to dwell on the specifics of my opening example as it was just a springboard for the discussion. PvZ2 is a free-to-play game with optional 'microtransactions' (actually rather pricey for what they enable) which I was aware of. I haven't lost a penny and am unaffected by this particular game other than no longer caring to play it and pleased now I didn't spend any money on it. Worst case personally would be three pounds of investment no longer worth anything.

The concern is the nature of the change and how it's possible for any game to be so affected. I guess that EA looked at the returns, decided they were being far too generous with their F2P model and tweaked it. What's to stop any developer taking any game and deciding to tweak it to introduce changes unwanted by (a portion of) the consumers? What if everyone who bought KZSF finds a game update release early next year that makes the game much harder and adds optional microtransactions to bring it back down to the experience they enjoyed before? All they can currently do is grumble and refuse to play. That could also mean less sales next time around. But regards the loss of investment that they've all paid, there'd be no recompense. And tweaks happen constantly. The characters and experience of Awesomenauts is quite different in some ways than the game bought. We're all aware of online game balances that affect the gameplay, and favourite weapons that are gimped etc. We have all just accepted that, but I'm asking people to look more closely at what's really going on in such cases. You buy a product and then that product is changed after the fact. That's something unique to software and poses various hazards to consumers.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, this is why I asked if he knew what he was buying into.

That's no longer true because every game can be updated. It's not constrained to MMOs and online multiplayer. Any game can get an update that changes it significantly (and software, too, extended the concerns to any electronic device like a TV - what if your TV gets a FW update that replaces the UI you bought into with one that you hate? You have no right to refuse a change).

I suppose one solution would be a requirement to provide access to all versions back to 1.0, with the option to revert to any version of the software you liked with the recognition that it'll not receive future updates.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That's no longer true because every game can be updated. It's not constrained to MMOs and online multiplayer.

But still relevant because if a game are required to be advertised with their business model, 'freemium' will serve as a warning and Bethesda would be unable to, for example, patch Skyrim next week so it's unplayable without a $5 mega sword.

Any game can get an update that changes it significantly (and software, too, extended the concerns to any electronic device like a TV - what if your TV gets a FW update that replaces the UI you bought into with one that you hate? You have no right to refuse a change).

In the EU this is covered by DIRECTIVE 1999/44/EC which introduces the concept of conformity, whereby a change as you describe would be a lack of conformity making the seller (not manufacturer, interestingly enough) liable. Perhaps this is why such changes in firmware pretty much unheard of, except where the user is explicitly asked for permission to update and no doubt waive their rights in one of the many pages of EULA-like agreement they click through.

I suppose one solution would be a requirement to provide access to all versions back to 1.0, with the option to revert to any version of the software you liked with the recognition that it'll not receive future updates.

Yup. I think somebody mentioned Apple are doing this with the iOS App Store, and a 'roll back' option seems to like a relatively simple work around for software. Of course there will always be edge cases such as where you like your software but it has a bug and the bug fix includes changes you may not like.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But still relevant because if a game are required to be advertised with their business model, 'freemium' will serve as a warning and Bethesda would be unable to, for example, patch Skyrim next week so it's unplayable without a $5 mega sword.

A $5 optional sword wouldn't make the game unplayable. Just hard and unpleasant. These are subjective terms so difficult to argue. A patch can introduce a change to gameplay and an optional DLC can provide another change to gameplay, neither of which appears to be against consumer laws, or at least not against common practice.

In the EU this is covered by DIRECTIVE 1999/44/EC which introduces the concept of conformity, whereby a change as you describe would be a lack of conformity making the seller (not manufacturer, interestingly enough) liable.

A quick perusal suggests that's conformity at purchase and talks mostly about hard goods. I see nothing about updates changing a product. Also, conformity is subjective. A set of operating parameters aren't necessarily changing the nature of a game regards conforming to its description (A sci-fi FPS with online gameplay).

Yup. I think somebody mentioned Apple are doing this with the iOS App Store, and a 'roll back' option seems to like a relatively simple work around for software. Of course there will always be edge cases such as where you like your software but it has a bug and the bug fix includes changes you may not like.

Yep. Although there really ought to be better protection against bugs too, which IMO contravene the 'fit for purpose' mandate. Often software has bugs which adversely affect use but which the developer isn't under obligation to fix. This is most apparent in productivity software. Major applications can merrily ignore a much requested bug-fix, and often we're offered yearly updates with more features and not fixes. Competition does really solve this as there are many issues affecting choice of software.

In the case of an optional downdate you'd be aware of existing bugs when making your choice. The most important thing would be access to the produce that you actually paid for exactly as it was delivered.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

A $5 optional sword wouldn't make the game unplayable.

That depends if you want to buy Korin's Dragonslayer for $5 which deals 200,000 damage to a dragon, or spend 3 hours fighting each dragon

A quick perusal suggests that's conformity at purchase and talks mostly about hard goods.

For your TV example - that stuff is already covered. It's mostly intangibles where the law is still finding it's feet. But as ERP noted, you need to be careful regulating otherwise you can turn everybody disgruntled troll into a lawsuit machine.

Yep. Although there really ought to be better protection against bugs too, which IMO contravene the 'fit for purpose' mandate. Often software has bugs which adversely affect use but which the developer isn't under obligation to fix.

Not fix but certainly get a refund if 'not fit for purpose', but again the onus is on the retailer, not the developer/manufacturer. I guess this is because the liability with the party engaging in the contract of sale. Certainly Apple are pretty good, I've downloaded a few bits of iOS software that just crashed and Apple refunded me every time, no questions asked.

This is most apparent in productivity software. Major applications can merrily ignore a much requested bug-fix, and often we're offered yearly updates with more features and not fixes.

Blimey, I guess you don't use Office for Mac, a patch a month is typical! But a bad example is the 'upgrade' Apple rolled out to OSX users of Pages, Numbers and Keynote which lacks features of earlier versions. Definitely not cool. Where do you get them? False advertising maybe?