Jump to content

"Games as a service" is fraud.

Recommended Posts

I watched the Lenard video and holy shit it got derailed. I mean the whole discussion about is it legally "fraud" or not is like "who cares, is it legal?" and the last part about art work. Games are not art for quite a while now, imo. It's a product and yes, it must be under consumer protection laws even if restricts "artists". Being an artist is not a free pass on anything.

But
the main part I get from what he said is basically that if there is a company that invented a flying car that works on a very special fuel (totally justified) that only them can produce and then after some period stops producing that fuel because they've got better car that requires different fuel (again totally justified) and everyone got that better car and it's just no longer viable to produce old fuel - they can totally do that. Yes, your old car will be a brick, because there is no old fuel left, but you are not entitled to it. You are entitled to some period of having a fully working car after purchase, but once they've stopped selling old cars they may shutdown the fuel production given that period have passed since the last car was sold.

What you saying basically is that they should be legally forced to either transfer fuel production technology to another company that would produce old fuel in lesser quantities to still be viable, or release that technology and any patents to the public domain, or at least publish the fundamental principles so everyone else can have a chance at figuring it out.

What I am saying that in that "at least" case they also have to remove patents. Because recreating the fuel with violate their patents and you can't make a law that expects that as reasonable outcome. IMO, of course.

 

1 hour ago, Ross Scott said:

What you're saying here flies in the face of what I was told by other developers.  Could you clarify?  Look at my post at the bottom of page 2, it specifies exactly what I'm talking about.  We're not talking about complete code documentation.

You probably talked to non-game developers? I can tell you that if you would ask Wargaming to release just the network communication documentation on WoWS or WoT - they don't have it and it will take quite a while to write it. Because it's a mess.

Game development is a mess. Hell, even at Yandex most internal protocols were coded without any documentation or even design or even sometimes version checks.

What you call "packet description" is not "packet" as in TCP/IP packet or "game packet". It's "message". One packet contain many messages and each message contain different data. See the huge post I've made above. Basically if you think that reverse is allowed, then just removing the encryption would be enough. If it's not, then nothing short of complete protocol documentation with all the messages and communication quirks will be enough.

 

And if we are talking about "how hard it will be" - figuring out the overall packet structure from dumps is easy-ish, figuring out messages is much harder and will require a much bigger data dump to analyze. Figuring out quirks is so-so - client may just crash, it's simple to notice, may be hard to understand why (especially if you are not allowed to reverse). Or it may desync. If a game that may desync just by itself, because it's poorly written - that would be a hell to find out.

 

2 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

I think there's not as many barriers as you're making out.  Here's the thing: as I understand it, (in the USA anyway) the right to reverse engineer IS legal and protected under federal law as long as it's not using copyrighted material.

No, I believe you understand it wrong. It's only allowed to circumvent the DRM (including online DRM) AND it's for museums and such. Preservation does not imply individual play, from what I can get.

Also what Lenard was saying (and it was quite painful to watch tbh, because clearly both of you have not enough technical expertise on the topic, so your questions and his responses were all over the place and never actually covered the actual problem core) - basically if the only thing you are making is the server code and just it - then maybe it's legal (though I am still not convinced you are free to reverse the client to do so), but if you are also producing anything else (any asset) - that is covered by copyright and you can't do that.

That's what I get from there - i.e. if you have say a Quake style server that basically just relays the messages everywhere and does some simple movement/shooting logic - it's fine. But if it's say Destiny server that have quest definitions only on the server (while all the dialogs, cutscenes, etc are on the client) - if you reproduce them, you actually infringing their copyright on those quests - even if you've never seen the actual server data (and if you not copy them you probably making derivative work, which is also forbidden by the license).

2 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

So say they turn off the DRM + and encryption + release the protocol documentation for "non-commercial and research purposes only, all rights reserved by (name of company)".  That language isn't giving explicit permission to reverse engineer, but they don't need to either.

At least in Russian law you can't much such a law as a law. Basically you need a goal of the law. Goal of the law is - games have a chance of being restored by reasonable effort. Sanity check: do conditions and restrictions proposed by the law reach that goal? No - because you can't consider illegal actions being taken as part of restoration process - so unless you are ruling party or just a nice guy or managed to bundle it with some other law that everyone want - that law won't make it through.

Now what Lenard says is that you can make it a certification mark. If you can hype-up some certification mark (which is kinda hard/impossible, but let's assume it is) or provide some incentive in using it - say persuade some countries to give tax cuts on sales of objects with that mark - you may demand practically anything as part of certification. Including such gray area stuff as just publishing docs "for research" while understanding in full that it will he used to create possibly illegal works. The only problem is - I think you'll have hard times proposing anyone to create incentive for using that mark with such unclear goals.

Maybe you want to shoot further. I don't really understand that obsession with half-backed minimal effort solution - it's not really working for 99% of games simply because there will be not enough people caring about them to actually create the emulator. Nor it's any different for developers from just freaking releasing the server if they have it. If they don't (i.e. server is very complex or something), then they will circumvent your restrictions anyway by fancy license wording.

 

They won't bother with providing documentation, because even if it's 2 days, it's still longer than 1 day needed to change text on a site (probably copy-paste from someone else) saying "by pressing that button you agree with EULA and your license is renewed by 6 month"
 

2 hours ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

I watched parts of it, and I 100% believe what GAS does is 100% fraud.

From what I get from there - under US law (well, actually it's the same in Russian law) you are allowed to cheat people if you tell them in advance that you are going to cheat them. Basically if you are starting a financial pyramid and telling everyone applying that it is a financial pyramid and it will collapse at some point - that's not a fraud. It's just you being an asshole and using people stupidity.

On other hand - some other laws may forbid financial pyramids anyway, no matter what, just because they protect people from being stupid. Like forbidding gambling.

So you can have a consumer-protection law that will say "you are not allowed to do X" and in that case you'll face penalties steaming from that law if you do X, but most probably it's going to be some sort of economical punishment - a fine, or something like that. And some companies may decide to just bite the bullet and pay the fine and ignore the law and do X anyway (while telling everyone that they do X, so it's not fraud).
 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't think most people bother writing documentation, seeing as, generally you would not be held accountable for, not having it in the first place.

 

I feel like you sorta screw yourself over in the future, but, honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if some games were so messed up, to the point where they would rather just let the games themselves "die". Just so that they can have an excuse, to not work on them anymore (or with them, the source code, whatever).

 

Either that, or it has something to do with the fact that, most people who work on videogames, treat it like any other job, to them it doesn't matter if it all falls apart by the end, as long as they get their paycheck. People who work on videogames are generally just your average normal joe, not exactly the most passionate people, as far as things go.

 

Expecting your average game developer to do the right thing is a bit of a long shot, and it's not a gamble I would bet on. Documentation in most cases is going to be lacking, seeing as, most people don't really give a shit, once they are done on that game . That's just another job to them, not their problem anymore. It's the next poor sod who gets hired, that has to deal with that mess instead.

Edited by RaTcHeT302

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I just had a sudden realization.  If we were to generalize, would Games as a Service, apply to Software as a Service? Like Photoshop?

 

When you pay monthly for say, Photoshop, the software doesn't just randomly get deleted off your computer after 30 days.

You can either renew the subscription, or you can bypass the protection.

 

All functionality is still there, if you bypass the protection (beyond some, online only Adobe services, I suppose).

Either way, it's a giant rip off, you are paying them 30 bucks per month, to do a whole lot of nothing esentially. But it's sorta legal? (for some reason????)

 

*BEEP BOOP* *IS HE PAYING???* *OK COOL* *BADA BEEP BABA BOOP* *THANK YOU FOR YOUR MONEY*

 

nSNScyr.png

Huh, I guess Photoshop is the expection.

 

Isn't Photoshop like stupid popular? Wouldn't people just be willing to fork the 30 - 60 bucks once, and be done with it?

They must be doing something with all that money, right?

 

WVlpgvE.png

 

Oh.

 

They wanted to resell you the same version... over and over again.

 

Okay...

Nevermind, they are just assholes, and here I thought they were paying the workers better wages or something. STUPID ME.

 

CoPVE7Z.png

Yeah, it almost has something to do with the fact, that people want to buy, functional software... huh... You know, to get things done? FUNCTIONAL.

 

I'm surprised that, we don't have DLC software. I mean, Software Expansion Packs? Hey, if it's justified, I mean, why not? But that implies that they would actually create something worth paying for. HAH, YOU WANTED TO HAVE SOME ACTUAL CHOICES? SUCKER.

 

I have no idea if this interview is real... but... it sounds too plausible. I don't want to think about it. Just look away.

 

It's like with World of Warcraft, if the server costs are so high, why can't I just buy the "60 bucks, host it your damn self" edition. And honestly, the only excuse as to why "live services" games exist, has to do with the fact that, they can claim that they can patch the game live, in real time.

 

There's no reason as to why the gameplay data even needs to be on the servers, like why, what's the point? I have the 3D models and everything else, are they seriously holding hostage, a bunch of text files? That's what they are so afraid of releasing, with the game? It's just stupid the more you look into it honestly. Like there's no reason to any of this madness.

 

Like who gives a shit? All these stupid "features", just make the whole thing more anti consumer for everyone else.

This is garbage. I hate the software industry. Everyone sucks.

 

What's next, you download a picture of a game? You pay for the promise, that you might, maybe, play the game? Wait hold on, that's called Early Access. Nevermind, Valve beat me to it.

 

It's like the industry is almost trying to do everything wrong on purpose, and in the most immoral way possible. 

Everyone is trying to be stupid on purpose. I don't get it. I'm not made of money, I can't pay for the same thing over and over again, I already own it.

 

I just don't get this concept, of paying for something, to the point where, you might have to invest 1000$, only so that someone can tell you, "bitch, you still don't own it, YOU OWN NOTHING".

 

What the fuck is wrong with the law. How the fuck is this normal, or justified??? I FEEL LIKE I'VE INVESTED, WELL PAST THE POINT OF NO RETURN, ENOUGH IMMAGINARY MONEY, TO CLAIM THAT YES, I DO ACTUALLY OWN THE THING I JUST WASTED THOUSANDS OF BUCKS ON.

 

Nope, guess not. Guess I'll waste 10.000 more bucks on World of Warcraft subscriptions, for no reason at all. Because Blizzard is a struggling indie company, who cannot keep itself afloat, unless I, Mr. Money bags, help them out.

 

Yep. That's the future. I LOVE THE FUTURE. DON'T YOU LOVE THE FUTURE, AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Fuck me it's even worse than I thought. And it'll get worse if this doesn't end now. It's now or never. This is what games will turn into.

 

Every game is going to be like World of Warcraft, and like Photoshop. Can you immagine, paying 30.000$ for a car, and like, let's say that you pay 1000$ per month, just to have the guy at the dealership tell you, "nah, you don't own this, bitch, you pay forever lol".

 

What the fuck.

 

Man that's some extreme maintenance going on in there, I mean that's one hardcore checkbox you gotta pay for.

Oh no, how could we possibly do otherwise, there is simply no other way. Nope.

 

GIVE Me mONey to DO NOTHING - Every Game Company of the Future

 

Good god it's not like I'm paying my house's rent. Or the land I've built on. And even then, at least I'm getting SOMETHING out of it.

I mean I technically don't actually own this land, but, it's not the same with computer software.

 

WE CAN'T COMPARE HOUSES TO COMPUTERS, THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS. I'm willing to say that, the land which I have to pay rent on, is well, an actual fucking service. Photoshop is... not. It would be like, paying for the same lamp, over and over again, why would you do that? And I do actually own the right to do, whatever the hell I want with this land. I want to plant 50 billion trees? GO FOR IT.

 

I'm literally paying someone, I mean a computer, just to literally do this.

 

Quote

 

If (Idiot)

{

   TakeMoney();

}

 

 

Why am I still paying? The software's already done. How many times am I going to be paying, for the same old version, over and over again. I don't care about your "new" version, you are just finding an excuse to "update" your software, so that you can have an excuse to charge money for literally no reason. Hell, the company could be pretty much long gone, but they could be claiming that they got a bit update coming, in the next release, and here I am, paying like the sucker am I, for a release, which will never come.

 

Corporations are just finding excuses to keep on existing for no reason. Literally paying employees to do a whole lot of nothing.

All the expenses they have to pay for are made up, it's all artificial, it's all immaginary. What the hell is wrong with this industry?

 

Again, they used to be fair, they used to allow you to just, keep your old stuff, and if you wanted to, you could pay for the new stuff (but most people aren't stupid, they knew they were getting ripped off anyway, so why pay in the first place?).

 

Oh, "live service"? Now you can get ripped off in real time!

 

IT'S NOT OPTIONAL EITHER. MORE LIKE YOUR ONLY OPTION IF YOU WANT A CAREER.

Good god. Talk about lack of free will.

 

Nothing stops Adobe from creating all the big updates, in a row, to just stock up until they have a whole bunch of them ready. 


They can just roll them out say, every 6 months, or every year, even though, they could technically release all of them at once, but they won't, because they suck. There's nothing you can do to stop that from happening either, I mean, how would you know?

 

From your point of view, your money is well worth being used on the subscription, even though the updates you've been getting for the last two years, were pretty much completed in two months, and haven't changed since...

 

This is actual fraud, in my mind. This is as close as it gets, to an example, of potential fraud. I mean, sure you do get your stuff eventually, but... they are tricking you on purpose. Maybe legally, it's okay, but morally, it's completelly wrong.

 

Again pretend that these updates were already ready and complete, just to make it worse. It could happen and it might've happened already with some other monthly sub based software, or even games for that matter, just to sucker people into paying for a while longer.

 

I would never want to be a lawyer, I would suck at it and it would most likely drive me insane. Laws suck. Everything is just so damn muddy. I pretty much ruined the weight of my argument, but maybe I brought up an important point, I'm not sure anymore.

 

I think I'm just going insane, probably. Please prove all my points wrong, and please prove that I'm not insane thank you. I probably am. It's like when you think about, what happened, before the universe was born. It's just a general state of confusion for me right now, I don't know what to think anymore. Or what to believe anymore.

 

Oh and Games as a Service is still a giant scam, that'll never change, I can be sure of that. Finding proof as to why, is really hard, but I know the truth, it's just hard to prove.

 

I actually have proof, definitive proof that Games as a Service are a full blown scam. And here's my proof.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20060113075416/http://www.metaboli.co.uk/MetaGame/abonnement.jsp?abocode=GE

 

What's this. An actual precedent? Let's look into it some more.

 

GfdyLRw.png

Wait, wait, wait. You can "DOWNLOAD", AAND, "STREAM" THE GAMES???

 

Oh hold on, uhhh. Metaboli closed, and, well you see... you need the Metaboli player to play their games, which authenticates to their servers, which is needed to... play the games... so uh... no more games for you.

 

jKjGoxE.png

 

See, "unlimited access" guys. It's "unlimited", oh no wait it's dead. Yeah that doesn't seem very unlimited to me, now doesn't it?

 

Okay, Mr. Unlimited, where's my games at?

mh6l5QT.png

https://bit-tech.net/reviews/gaming/pc/metaboli_gaming_on_demand/4/

 

It already happened, it keeps happening, it'll happen, again, and again.

 

dPweQrr.png

 

 

JB77ywr.png

UNLIMITED *mostly limited once we shutdown our service

 

"BUT IT'S ONLY UNLIMITED WHILE YOU ARE PAY-"

THAT'S NOT WHAT THAT WORD MEANS

 

Oh no, maybe spending the total value, of all the games, on the website, over the span of five years, was not such a good idea after all. Guess that's 1500€ down the drain.  (It's... probably closer to 5000€, yikes - and it's not like, you can choose to just buy the game's individually if you want to, even after throwing that much money, you still own, exactly 0 games, wow, and this is 100% legal lol). WOOOOOOOOOOOW.

 

Oh well, it's unlimited guys. Worth it! GUESS MY MONEY IS UNLIMITED. MY PATIENCE SURE ISN'T.

 

THE WEB IS A WEB FULL OF INSANITY, AND WHAT IS THIS BULLSHIT ANYWAY??? GET ME OUT HERE.

 

- Hey should we give our players store credit, so that they can eventually, actually buy and own and download the games they want to keep, for, you know, forever?

 

- Nah, just say that it's all unlimited, they are all a bunch of dumbasses anyway. WE ARE RICH BITCH, HEHEHEHE.

 

Hey, you know, it's almost like, I could've taken all that money, and I could've used it to ACTUALLY BUY THE GAMES I WANTED TO BUY. WOW WHAT A NOVELm AND NEW CONCEPT, WHAT WILL THESE EARTH PEOPLE COME UP WITH NEXT????

 

I brain stormed all night, and I'm SOO HAPPY that I remembered about Metaboli.

Ho hoooo, I DID NOT FORGET, I NEVER FORGET. Anyway, I'm just going to take a nap. Also, videogames suck.

 

Good god, I don't want to think ever again, GAMES AS A SERVICE ARE ACTUAL FRAUD.

Okay, I'm done with my existencial crysis for now. I guess finding that proof was easier than I thought.

 

Esentially, over time, you pay far more money than you should and once the service shuts down, you are left with nothing. You are being sold with the promise of ownership. Or, you could just, skip the cloud of air, and actually buy the product you want.

 

With the added value, at one point, the subscription service actually puts you at a huge loss.

 

You would've been better off, had you just bought the games off directly. It seems counter intuitive, but it starts to make more sense, if you consider the idea that, paying once for 60 bucks, is cheaper than paying 10 bucks for two years.

 

Game ownership, in the longterm, is actually cheaper, than a live service.

 

With a live service, you pay forever, even though, you have no reason to. Even when the game is sitting on your shelf, you are paying for the privilege, to have it sitting there. Don't want to pay anymore? Burn your whole house down. Want your old house back?

 

Sorry, you were paying for the service, you didn't own anything, remember? It's a literal scam, word by word. Fraud by definition.

Actual trickery. You are lead to believe, a false truth.

 

With game ownership? You own the actual fucking game.

 

It's like two lemonade stands, one charges you, 0.50 cents to smell the lemonade, and you can get a sip, every 5 minutes.

The other stand? You just buy the fucking lemonade for 10 bucks you cheap asshole.

 

Anyway...

Huh... Guess I should've brought this up sooner....

 

Oops.

Edited by RaTcHeT302

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, I wanted to post this back when the video was released, but when I made it to my PC I found out that other people have brought this topic up already so I decided to not repeat what’s already been said, but then I watched Ross’s Lecarde playsession and I changed my mind again, because Ross has said this:

 

https://youtu.be/b_mxZfNClp0?t=3380

 

so here goes.

 

I can’t believe Ross missed (and misses) such an obvious reason of why publishers are tripping over themselves to migrate to GaaS/streaming. I mean, gaming inflation and “the backlog problem” have long since become proverbial. For God’s sake, Ross himself has even talked about it on multiple occasions. Just listen to this:

 

https://youtu.be/pa29EM-YTwo?t=29

 

Yeah, it’s such a great time to be a gamer! We’re freaking set, aren’t we? It’s just a pity that in order for someone to be able to get an AAA game for $5, the other side of the barricade should be forced to sale their AAA game for $5, because of the monstrous competition.


It’s so glaringly obvious that publishers are desperate for any way to control this inflation. And now they found it! Guess what: now you can’t wait for 5 years to buy a game for a fraction of its price. You either buy it today for its full price, or don’t! It’s such a perfect solution, almost a dream come true!

 

Compared to the otherwise expertly crafted and painstakingly researched video, this enormous oversight on Ross’s part was baffling. To quote Ross himself, it was like watching an Olympic athlete train vigorously, eat a perfect diet, only to watch him forget to tie his shoes before the race.

 

It’s not even like the existence of this argument diminishes Ross’s points in any way. When I started watching the video, I was 100% sure that Ross will talk about this in the rebuttals section, and say that although this practice admittedly helps combating gaming inflation, that does not change the fact that it’s a scam and destroying art, or something along those lines.

 

Instead, the main takeaway of Ross’s video ended up to be “publishers are killing games even though they can easily not do that, they just want to avoid this tiny amount of work because they can, since even though this amount of work is tiny it’s still some work”:

 

https://youtu.be/tUAX0gnZ3Nw?t=2483

 

which is absolutely not true. Game publishers – like any proper, textbook capitalists – are greedy, ruthless and immoral douchebags, but they are not short-sighted idiots. They did not spend a metric fuckton of research and development to create all those GaaS/streaming platforms for nothing.


They did that exactly for killing games.


So when Ross repeatedly said that we should just apply some pressure for them to end this practice, because killing games is not the intended purpose of GaaS/streaming, to me it was like a punch in the stomach. The whole point off Ross’s rant, the whole video that he has put so much effort in, just fell apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't know, to me the killing games part, is mostly a side effect. They are mostly trying to maximize how much money they can milk out of you, but beyond that, I doubt it was really planned out like that. Nobody really cares enough about the problem, as long as the money keeps flowing. I feel like we are just heading into the conspiracy theory territory at this point, when in most cases, it really all comes down to just, plain and simple monetary greed.

 

I could be wrong though, but, I'm not much of a conspiracy guy, I just see what I see, for the most part.

Their actions are what really determines, how I feel about them, and how I approach the overall problem.

 

Also, if game developers are stupid enough to devalue their own games, that's their own problem. It's just what sales do. But I feel like this is straying away, from the core problem, and from what actually matters to us, as the players.

 

Hey, I don't care if you bundle your game for one buck, your loss, my gain.

 

Games as a Service is malicious, but for all the wrong reasons, in my mind.

Edited by RaTcHeT302

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/3/2019 at 10:35 PM, RaTcHeT302 said:

Also, if game developers are stupid enough to devalue their own games, that's their own problem.

Developers have nothing to do with neither pricing nor DRM/EOL/GaaSing. They are usually victims of the publishers just as much as we are.

On 5/3/2019 at 10:35 PM, RaTcHeT302 said:

Hey, I don't care if you bundle your game for one buck, your loss, my gain.

The choice is between selling your $60 game for $60 and receiving nothing because nobody buys it, or selling your $60 game for $5 and receiving something. Say hello to the Invisible Hand of the Market.

Edited by ScumCoder

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't know, I just find it a bit ridiculous, how I can literally wait, and games which could potentially cost trillions to develop, will later sell for peanuts, even though the value of the work put into them, is way higher than the asking price.

 

And I'm mostly talking about solo, indie people. The problem with game discounts, is that you create a different kind of expectation.

 

If you are lucky enough, hopefully your game is selling, even if less often, but the moment you discount a game, once the sale ends, people might actually stop buying the game, at the original price, just because it's not on sale anymore.

 

People who would've otherwise paid full price for the game, are now also part of the more reluctant playerbase. I mean why would they pay the full price, when they know that the game is going to be discounted again,  in a couple of months?

 

I've seen too many indie multiplayer games, obliterating their populations, just by doing that.

 

It's ok in the short term, but in the long term it honestly kills some games.

 

Great for the players, saves a lot of money, and it's great value, but you ruin the perception of the game in my mind, seeing as some people start to perceive the game as of a lower quality, the moment it starts to go into a certain threshold.

 

Humble Bundles are another example, of games people will never, ever buy again at full price, once it gets sold for like a buck.

 

Even though there are a limited number of game keys, most people will believe that's the price the game should be sold at, in the future.

 

EA actually faced this problem (I think, I don't really remember), where, whatever games they bundled on the website, are now completelly devalued (if you are aware of Humble Bundles or third party key websites anyway).

 

Maybe I'm remebering it wrong, but I swear, I remember reading something about EA complaining about it, but I honestly forgot, maybe it was just my immagination. I'm probably going crazy honestly.

 

Bear in mind that, I don't understand how the economy works, so don't take any advice from me please.

 

I personally feel like, I would rather have people, who actually want to play the game to buy it, at a higher price, instead of 1000 people who'll buy a game, just to have it sitting there in their library.

 

Sure it's less money, but I don't care about money that much in the long term. I would rather have people who actually want to play the game, to get a copy. It's some weird logic, but I'm not really sure how to explain the why to.

 

Sorry for repeating myself so much. Anyway I don't really feel too overly confident in my arguments, seeing as the sales do benefit me, but I just have a lot of doubts overall.

 

I feel like a hypocrite for complaining about it either way. But it does feel like an anomaly overall.

Edited by RaTcHeT302

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but… how do I get my translation approved on YouTube? I've already translated the title and the description of the video (into Ukrainian), and hope to get the subtitiles translated by the end of May.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Arseniy Yavorśkyi said:

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but… how do I get my translation approved on YouTube? I've already translated the title and the description of the video (into Ukrainian), and hope to get the subtitiles translated by the end of May.

I think @danielsangeo is the subtitles guy? Maybe try sending him a PM. I also sent him a PM just in case, to help you out.

 

If he doesn't respond, I think you can just post the subtiles anyway. You can make a thread, in this section, with your subtitles.

https://www.accursedfarms.com/forums/forum/43-ukranian-українська/

 

I don't know how their system works. But the daniel guy could probably help you.

Edited by RaTcHeT302

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I'm the subtitles guy (but I'm behind on things!  Augh!)

 

You can post it to the Ukrainian section of the forums, but Ross has now opened the channel up to community contributions so you could add them that way.  I think Ross still has to approve them, but you can still submit them.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, ScumCoder said:

https://youtu.be/UKsH7xklMr4?t=5758

 

Wow, some corporate insider literally said exactly the same as I did. Feels good.

I guess game development companies are literally retarded then. Whatever, I'm not even shocked or surprised, just, annoyed if anything.

 

Like of course, that's the reason. I mean that's the stupidest way of making money but, I don't get it. I just don't get it.

It needs some proof though, it only sounds like speculation to me at least. It sounds plausible though???

Edited by RaTcHeT302

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/3/2019 at 8:46 PM, ScumCoder said:

I mean, gaming inflation and “the backlog problem” have long since become proverbial.
It’s just a pity that in order for someone to be able to get an AAA game for $5, the other side of the barricade should be forced to sale their AAA game for $5, because of the monstrous competition.

Guess what: now you can’t wait for 5 years to buy a game for a fraction of its price. You either buy it today for its full price, or don’t!

I agree there is too much competition for new games but I don't think it comes from old titles.
Looking at Call of Duty, each seaquel sold close to 20 million copies in first few months in years 2009 - 2013. Usually was at the top of best selling games that year (quick look at wikipedia).
Compared to recent situation, Player Unknown Battlegrounds sold on steam alone 30 million copies in march 2017 to february 2018 (https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/15/17016332/pubg-sales-xbox-pc-active-players).
At the same time there were other major releases such as CoD WW2 (1 billion dollars revenue ~= 14 million copies in first few weeks), Middle Earth Shadow of War (almost 1 million copies first week), Resident Evil 7 (5 million copies april 2018) and others.

The numbers seem to point out that people are still willing to drop old games and buy new games close to their release. Rather than from old titles the competition comes from the fact that steadily more games got released each year. We are saturated with new games, even though playerbase was growing as well.

 

Quote

Game publishers – like any proper, textbook capitalists – are greedy, ruthless and immoral douchebags, but they are not short-sighted idiots. They did not spend a metric fuckton of research and development to create all those GaaS/streaming platforms for nothing.

Yes. While I don't think killing games is anything more then useful byproduct of GaaS, the goal is the same - get secure flow of money from players.
It is a way of increasing profits. You get people hooked up on your game and you keep it alive and relevant with updates. People who buy stuff in game through microtransactions are compelled to stay with the game since they invested a lot of money and time into it which gives publisher somewhat secure stream of money. Also releasing new content for existing game requires less developers than making a whole new game so you can drop a lot of them thus increasing profit since running servers is less costly than paying developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I completelly forgot about tractors having DRM. I'm willing to say that, crap like Photoshop, is a downright scam.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware

 

5jOMb4k.png

WsVvaxv.png

https://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/

 

How is this not illegal yet? Look! ACTUAL REAL LIFE GOODS, CAN BE SUBJECT TO THIS BULLSHIT. WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT???

 

What's next, Toilets as a Service? Water as a Service? Breathable Air as a Service? This has gone on too far already.

 

So if someone gives you the "but games aren't real" or "games aren't a good" argument, tell them that there are tractors, with DRM on them. Actual fucking DRM.

 

cWXV84a.png

 

Oops. Guess you were all pirates all along.

 

IdOH79p.png

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xykkkd/why-american-farmers-are-hacking-their-tractors-with-ukrainian-firmware

 

5fyE06m.png

When a bunch of farmers, make the same arguments, as an internet gaming forum, you know there's something horribly wrong with this system. The fact that some of my arguments, are now confirmed, to work both ways, is just sad. Videogame or not, what I've said before, still applies. It's sad really, it shouldn't be like this.

Edited by RaTcHeT302

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 4/30/2019 at 9:58 AM, NightNord said:

Ok, it's going to be a long one. I will go slightly out of order with your questions, just to make sure it's coherent[-ish]

 

Before all, I should clear some possible misunderstanding here. You are talking about legal enforcement, not some "gentlemen agreement" between fans and developers. And that means couple things:

  1. Any proposed "minimal effort" should be enough so fans can "repair" the game legally. You can't make/interpret a law in such meaning that to repair the game an owner needs to break another law. Reverse-engineering is illegal and it holds in courts. So all those ideas "just give us encryption keys and we'll do the rest" imply reverse-engineering of the client, which won't hold in a court. License you get might be perpetual, but it's limited. It does not allow you to reverse-engineer the game. And developers will fight to the death against that - a loophole that will allow players to legally reverse-engineer the game is practically open-sourcing the code. And there will be legal problems with third-party.
     

Reverse-engineering is not illegal. The Library of Congress ruling specifically grants an exemption from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for people to modify their software as necessary to continue using it after official support has ended.

 

On 5/2/2019 at 2:57 PM, NightNord said:
On 5/2/2019 at 12:25 PM, Ross Scott said:

I think there's not as many barriers as you're making out.  Here's the thing: as I understand it, (in the USA anyway) the right to reverse engineer IS legal and protected under federal law as long as it's not using copyrighted material.

No, I believe you understand it wrong. It's only allowed to circumvent the DRM (including online DRM) AND it's for museums and such. Preservation does not imply individual play, from what I can get.

Also what Lenard was saying (and it was quite painful to watch tbh, because clearly both of you have not enough technical expertise on the topic, so your questions and his responses were all over the place and never actually covered the actual problem core) - basically if the only thing you are making is the server code and just it - then maybe it's legal (though I am still not convinced you are free to reverse the client to do so), but if you are also producing anything else (any asset) - that is covered by copyright and you can't do that.

That's what I get from there - i.e. if you have say a Quake style server that basically just relays the messages everywhere and does some simple movement/shooting logic - it's fine. But if it's say Destiny server that have quest definitions only on the server (while all the dialogs, cutscenes, etc are on the client) - if you reproduce them, you actually infringing their copyright on those quests - even if you've never seen the actual server data (and if you not copy them you probably making derivative work, which is also forbidden by the license).

 

No, it's you who've read it wrong, and Ross is correct: The Library of Congress authorizes the bypassing of DRM protections and the backing up and modification of video games for the sake of continued use of the software programs by the people who have bought it.

 

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf

 

Here's the proposal:

Quote

Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this exemption and will consider proposed expansions below in the discussion on Proposed Class 12.


8. Video games requiring server communication – for continued individual play and preservation of games by libraries, archives, and museums. Multiple organizations petitioned to renew the exemption for video games for which outside server support has been discontinued. The petitions stated that individuals still need the exemption to engage in continued play and libraries and museums continue to need the exemption to preserve and curate video games in playable form. In addition, the petitioners demonstrated personal knowledge and experience with regard to this exemption through past participation in the 1201 triennial rulemaking relating to access controls on video games and consoles, and/or representing major library associations with members that have relied on this exemption. Accordingly, the Acting Register recommends renewal of this exemption and will consider proposed expansions below in the discussion on Proposed Class 8.

 

 

And here's the ruling:

Quote

201.40 Exemptions to prohibition against circumvention.


* * * * *
(b) Classes of copyrighted works. Pursuant to the authority set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(C) and (D), and upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, the
Librarian has determined that the prohibition against circumvention of technological
measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works set forth in 17 U.S.C.
1201(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to persons who engage in noninfringing uses of the
following classes of copyrighted works:

(12)(i) Video games in the form of computer programs embodied in physical or downloaded formats that have been lawfully acquired as complete games, when the 82 copyright owner or its authorized representative has ceased to provide access to an external computer server necessary to facilitate an authentication process to enable gameplay, solely for the purpose of:

(A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game for personal, local gameplay on a personal computer or video game console; or

(B) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game on a personal computer or video game console when necessary to allow preservation of the game in a playable form by an eligible library, archives, or museum, where such activities are carried out without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage and the video game is not distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of the eligible library, archives, or museum.

 

The part you're talking about, being archived by a museum or similar, is (B), whereas the part Ross mentioned, being able to bypass DRM or modify the software to keep playing it, is part (A).

 

The allowance is for people to modify their software in any way necessary in order for them to continue accessing it in the way it was designed to be used when it was bought. That means that not only may people in the US back up their software and bypass any of its DRM, but they may also do what else is necessary with it in order to continue to use their purchased software.

 

As Ross said, though, copyrighted material cannot be used in the modification. As the Library of Congress ruling says:

 

Quote

(A) For purposes of paragraph (b)(12)(i)(A) and (b)(12)(ii) of this section, “complete games” means video games that can be played by users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external computer server.

 

 

Outside of the Library of Congress ruling, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act allows people to reverse-engineer software under limited situations.

 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf

Quote

 

‘‘(f ) REVERSE ENGINEERING.—(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

 

‘‘(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

 

‘‘(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

 

 

"a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure... for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs" - this sounds to me as though it already on its own and without the Library of Congress ruling protects reverse-engineering for the purpose of getting a game to interoperate with an OS, in other words, to run properly.

Edited by Delicieuxz

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/13/2019 at 9:05 AM, Delicieuxz said:

The Library of Congress authorizes the bypassing of DRM protections and the backing up and modification of video games for the sake of continued use of the software programs by the people who have bought it.

We've already discussed that above (based on EFF article). Yes, it does allow bypassing DRM, but that's it. But again, I am not a lawyer, I am just plain-reading that stuff.
 

Quote

(A) Permitting access to the video game to allow copying and modification of the computer program to restore access to the game for personal, local gameplay on a personal computer or video game console; or

I.e. you can't restore MMO with that, you may only circumvent online DRM (for local play).

Can you convert MMO to single-player experience maybe? Well, no, because as you've quoted

Quote

(A) For purposes of paragraph (b)(12)(i)(A) and (b)(12)(ii) of this section, “complete games” means video games that can be played by users without accessing or reproducing copyrightable content stored or previously stored on an external computer server.

I.e. you can't use copyrighted material on the server (say quests) and, as per EFF, Library of Congress explicitly disallowed reconstruction of that material.  In other words - if you somehow got the server data, you can only use it if you are a library to enable playing the network game only within physical bounds of your library; and if you didn't get server data, you are not allowed to reconstruct it.

I.e. unless we are talking about just DRM, but some actual server-side logic you are screwed. Say even Diablo 3 is already out of reach.

 

Quote

‘‘(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

This is interesting bit, but I can't plain-read it. It's a bit too much legalize here. It does sound like it would allow reversing game protocols to "achive interoperability" with "independently created computer program" (i.e. custom server emulator), but I think the problem of "infringement" still stands - you may create an emulator, legally, but not fill it with contents.

Though even if that's it - this is still a loophole - you may create an emulator and then contents will just happen to be created totally independent and who cares if they are illegal - the emulator itself is not.

Yet the idea was to somehow force developers expose information required to make process of creating an emulator easier and I do believe that convicing judges to consider that loophole will be problematic. Plus Ross already gave up on US anyway, because US is a land of crony capitalizm and corporation is always right :P

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, thought people here would appreciate this.

 

There isn't even a debate about ownership with GoG - they outright say on their website that you own the games you purchase from them.

 

"You buy it, you own it".

 

1994362067_GoG-youownyourgamespic.thumb.png.45d3ef7ffe3960bf18d2697d45628564.png

 

 

Keep in mind that many of the games sold on GoG are the same ones sold through Steam and other platforms, and by the same publishers.

Share this post


Link to post

Thing is, that's how perpetual licences work... As long as you don't make copies to resell, that's how any perpetual licence works. If you are only required to pay once of software, not a subscription, no matter whether they call it a service or not, it's a perpetual licence. Any software you have to pay for on a regular basis to play is a limited licence, and they can terminate the licence at any time legally.

 

If you only pay once for unlimited access: Perpetual licence, and legally they can not stop you from doing anything you want with it for your own use.

If you have to pay more than once: Limited licence, and they can terminate your access to it at any time, without legal consequence.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.