How would the game look under the "Live Service - GaaS model?"
Apr 28, 2019 3:56:46 GMT
Kappa Neko, Little Bengel, and 1 more like this
Post by PapaCharlie9 on Apr 28, 2019 3:56:46 GMT
Okay, I watched the whole vid. I actually like and support the motive behind it: GaaS harms preservation, that's absolutely true -- and the recent exceptions for libraries from the draconian protections of the DCMA is directly to that point. Too bad it's couched in hyperbole, saying GaaS is killing video games, though it's not hype to say that video killed the radio star, Amazon.com killed mom & pop bookstores, and cable TV & the web killed newspapers and magazines. Rather than fraud, I'd cast it more in a progress of technology light, motivated by greed just as much as those other examples to be sure, but a "war" against the progress of technology seems pretty dumb to me. Might as well be fighting for the continuance of buggy whips at the turn of the previous century.
I'm not saying I like what GaaS means for me as a consumer or the power game companies have over my purchases, but I don't see much point in starting a war over it. Much bigger problems have arisen over the progress of technology that deserve a war -- Facebook and Amazon.com to name just two.
And it's really much worse to cast every game as a "Good" vs. "Service" -- thank god that's not established as law in the US. That way lies madness. One of two things would happen: 1/ game companies would redefine games as digital content, like music or videos, and the Good you pay $60 for as a "content player" that will work forever, but if you want the content for it, good luck with that -- that's protected by copyright and limited term licenses, or 2/ they'll split games into Basic (Good) and Premium (Good + Services), where you get a limited amount of content for your $60, but if you want the rest, sign up for a subscription or sign-on for the free service, which they are entitled to turn off at any time. Winning the war will probably put us all in a worse situation.
Shoe-horning modern video games into the archaic legal "Good" vs. "Service" dichotomy is dumb. There should be a new classification that gives consumers some confidence in the time value of their purchase, and businesses some protection from having to support online services forever.
Some specific points I disagree with (all of my comments are from the perspective of US law, your mileage may vary):
The one big point I agree with is this: video game companies that control the functioning of a game through a service -- whether DRM, or anti-cheat, or license renewal, or online store, or whatever -- have us by the balls. There's no other product like that. If the game won't function without that service, there's not a whole lot we can do about it, other than not buy the game in the first place. And that sucks for preservation of the art form.
I'm not saying I like what GaaS means for me as a consumer or the power game companies have over my purchases, but I don't see much point in starting a war over it. Much bigger problems have arisen over the progress of technology that deserve a war -- Facebook and Amazon.com to name just two.
And it's really much worse to cast every game as a "Good" vs. "Service" -- thank god that's not established as law in the US. That way lies madness. One of two things would happen: 1/ game companies would redefine games as digital content, like music or videos, and the Good you pay $60 for as a "content player" that will work forever, but if you want the content for it, good luck with that -- that's protected by copyright and limited term licenses, or 2/ they'll split games into Basic (Good) and Premium (Good + Services), where you get a limited amount of content for your $60, but if you want the rest, sign up for a subscription or sign-on for the free service, which they are entitled to turn off at any time. Winning the war will probably put us all in a worse situation.
Shoe-horning modern video games into the archaic legal "Good" vs. "Service" dichotomy is dumb. There should be a new classification that gives consumers some confidence in the time value of their purchase, and businesses some protection from having to support online services forever.
Some specific points I disagree with (all of my comments are from the perspective of US law, your mileage may vary):
- Perpetual license by default: I don't think that's true in the US. I tried to find the ToS and EULA for a bunch of different offline games, mostly indies, but couldn't find many. Those I could find all used limited licenses, and the word "perpetual" was no where to be found in the license text. As an example, this copy of the EULA for Rogue Legacy. Since the assumption that non-subscription games are perpetual licenses by default seems like an unproven one to me, I find the entire vid's argument undermined.
- If it's not established in law in your country, but other countries have, then it's as good as a law: This is simply not true. Just because the EU calls video games "Goods" does not mean they are Goods in the US. It's still an open question in the US.
- EULA's are club rules with no protection under law: Also not true. At least, EULA's written by $2000/hour law firms are not just advisory. Like any good legal document, they make the most of the laws on the books and exploit any gray areas that are worth exploiting. They avoid gray areas that are at risk like the plague. They are legal documents, don't think otherwise.
- It will only take a few days to emulate a game service so that you can keep playing your game. HAH! If that were true, Anthem would be fixed already. It's a gross oversimplification of a very specific type of service, even in the "instructions on how to repair" context. If a game company decides that they can double the framerate of your game experience by putting a piece of the engine in a game service, that's not something that is going to be "repaired" in a few days if the company goes kaput. Now, to the vid's point, if the game company removes the half framerate local part of the engine, so that once the service is turned off the game is dead in the water, that's bordering on planned obsolescence.
The one big point I agree with is this: video game companies that control the functioning of a game through a service -- whether DRM, or anti-cheat, or license renewal, or online store, or whatever -- have us by the balls. There's no other product like that. If the game won't function without that service, there's not a whole lot we can do about it, other than not buy the game in the first place. And that sucks for preservation of the art form.