5 ms·

The question is who would they sue. I mean, the process seems to've been roughly - Apple decided not to support Flash on mobile - Everybody else decided to tr

by mst 6y ago

The question is who would they sue. I mean, the process seems to've been roughly - Apple decided not to support Flash on mobile - Everybody else decided to try and deprecate Flash as a browser plugin - Adobe EOLed Flash - Facebook EOLed support for Flash games - Zynga EOLed FarmVille "Whose fault this actually is" seems tricky enough to determine morally, let alone legally.

sigotirandolas 6y ago
Morally, shouldn't it clearly be Zynga's fault, since the game was designed so that it only runs on top of a technology stack that can not be replicated by third parties and only they are technically capable of changing this design?
- m1gu3l 6y ago
  Software developers now have a moral obligation to make sure their code is ready to run on any future tech stack? Sounds .... not correct.
  - giancarlostoro 6y ago
    Space Cadet for Windows that we all miss would like to have a word....
  - iamacyborg 6y ago
    If they sell thousands of dollars worth of digital items then yes, they should have a moral obligation to support those customers. Particularly given the murky exploitative psychological tricks employed by these games to get customers in the first place.
    - m1gu3l 6y ago
      If the EULA says the value of said digital items is zero (as hinted at in some comment further up) then I can agree that we disagree.
      - jhbadger 6y ago
        It may be legal to steal digital items from users because of antiquated laws that don't recognize digital items as items worthy of protection, but it certainly isn't moral.
        pmontra 6y ago
        Let's explore some possibilities. 1. Should Zynga buy back those items at a lower price because they are used items? 2. What happens to cars (because we love car analogies) when the manufacturer stops building spare parts? In this case they are either collected from old cars or somebody else build those parts. Maybe should Zynga at least try to sell the game infrastructure with data? That would be like relying on third party spare parts but the car keeps going. Of course if nobody buys the game, maybe even for free, that's it 3. Other ideas? By the way, this isn't the first time an online game shuts down and players lose everything, right?
        jhbadger 6y ago
        When Microsoft closed their cloud-based ebook business in 2019, they refunded 100% of the money to the people who lost access to the books they bought. This was the correct response to shutting down servers. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a27021744/microsoft-ebook-store-shutdown/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a27021744/micros...
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > When Microsoft closed their cloud-based ebook business in 2019, they refunded 100% of the money to the people who lost access to the books they bought. They probably had different terms of sale; buying books contingent on an external service is less attractive than buying in-game items contingent on the game. > This was the correct response to shutting down servers. Depending on the terms of sale, it may have been the minimum legally required response.
        alisonkisk 6y ago
  - sigotirandolas 6y ago
    No, you don't have a moral obligation for it to run in any future tech stack. But it should be able to run in the same tech stack it was running before, or provide some way to interoperate. The game shouldn't be designed in a way that makes it possible for someone else to unilaterally shut down the game with no recourse. To illustrate, if FarmVille were an offline game that costed $1000, I could still set up a Windows XP computer, install Flash, and play it. It's not trivial, but it's very doable and legal. But instead, actual FarmVille is designed so that it needs an online infrastructure (so far so good, it's a core part of the game after all), but by design this infrastructure can only be provided by Zynga. You can't replicate it even if you want to.
    - watwut 6y ago
      By this logic, making roblox games is immoral?
      - sigotirandolas 6y ago
        I'm not very familiar with Roblox, but if I understand it, it's an online platform that allows others to build games on top of it, and like Farmville the servers are exclusively provided by Roblox. In this case, I would say the moral fault lies mainly in Roblox, since they are the ones providing the platform and hence making the decision to exclusively provide the servers (and that moral fault has not yet happened, it would only happen if when they shut down they don't provide an alternative). If you are someone building on top of Roblox, I don't think you deserve the same amount of fault, but it's certainly something you have to consider. It's also a risk in that building on top of this design leaves you open to being de-platformed (like, for example with the iOS Store if Apple doesn't like your application). For what it's worth, I don't think Roblox or Zynga are immoral because of this, just that on this particular topic they are morally faulty. My bar for what should be acceptable as a recourse is also not very high. Providing any form of alternative like LAN play, closed-source server software, specifications or interoperability with other software would be enough for me. The problem I see with the current situation is the "last resort recourse" there is now in most cases, reverse engineering, is legally shaky, generally against the terms of service, terribly complicated and expensive and not guaranteed to succeed if critical parts of the application are server-side.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  So should companies who provide software and devices worth MILLIONS to factories also port those from DOS 4.something to newer operating systems? Because they don't. A friend had to source BIOS chips for fried ones for an out of warranty CNC machine from around the world just to not have it fail completely.
  - sigotirandolas 6y ago
    I think my post was unclear since you are not the first user interpreting it in this way. I'm not saying companies should port their software to new operating systems and software stacks (presumably forever). The user would be responsible for providing whatever operating systems and software stack the program was built to work on. What I'm saying is that it that companies should provide some way for users to continue using the product they bought, on the same software stack they were already using, when the company decides to shut it down. Anything better than the current situation where the online servers just go down and nothing is offered as an alternative would be much better. One pretty good way (but not the only one) they could do this is by releasing their server-side software, as it is. They don't need to open source it, they don't need to port it, and the user would be responsible for providing whatever underlying software stack it was designed to work on.
giancarlostoro 6y ago
Theres been games that have ported over multiple platforms. Take for example Habbo Hotel. Started off with Shockwave, then before that EOL’d they rewrote it in Flash, and now they are working on a Unity web assembly based rewrite. I think the reality is FarmVille isn't as popular as it once was. I haven’t heard of anybody playing it in years. Funny how games got people to be far more active on Facebook but their usage died down significantly over time. With how addictive those games were for some its probably for the best.
- theshrike79 6y ago
  Also Habbo Hotel is like one three applications the company has to support, so porting it to new platforms is reasonable. Zynga has a dozen high-performing games currently running, the original Farmville isn't one of those.
  - giancarlostoro 6y ago
    You are probably right although its parent company does own several other companies as well.
tomaszs 6y ago
It is interesting since it is not pure EOL. I mean, if Microsoft discontinues support for Windows it does not force you to uninstall it. And with Flash it is exactly the case. Each other day it prompts me to uninstall it even while I didn't ask for any of such support. It seems like Adobe gave itself permission to control what is on my computer. But does it really have authority to do so?
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Actually, all Adobe-provided flash distributions will refuse to run past a certain date. You’ll have to go back a few versions to find one compiled without the kill switch. To use it, you’ll literally have to run it in a VM on an outdated OS with the system time set back a few years.
  - tomaszs 6y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know that. Seems like Adobe took enormous effort to kill all software written with Flash. While I understand some security concerns I can not stop thinking it is just another way to cripple the web. Obviously propertiary app platforms gain a lots with this move.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      How do proprietary platforms gain a lot with Adobe killing Flash? Flash itself was proprietary. And Adobe is advocating for a not proprietary alternative that was recently released and is called HTML5. Sure, killing Flash sucks for all the games, but Adobe isn’t really doing anything illegal.
      - tomaszs 6y ago
        Flash is not propertiary platform. Flash is a tehnology that allowed you to run apps in your browser. It didn't control what apps you are allowed to run because it is not a platform but a software. HTML5 is not near to replace Flash, and with main propertiary platform owners controlling browser market, it may never become Flash replacement.
ballenf 6y ago
This is not tricky in the slightest. All the points you make are distractions from the central concept of what people understand purchasing something to mean. The computers these people played on with auto-updates disabled, would continue to support Flash for eternity. Your points would be valid if Zynga said "the thing you bought isn't going to run on new devices". But what they're saying is "we're breaking the thing you bought because not very many people can still give us money." Purchases without a "XX years' functionality" label should be required to be functional in perpetuity or refunded.

by mst 6y ago

sigotirandolas 6y ago

Morally, shouldn't it clearly be Zynga's fault, since the game was designed so that it only runs on top of a technology stack that can not be replicated by third parties and only they are technically capable of changing this design?

m1gu3l 6y ago
Software developers now have a moral obligation to make sure their code is ready to run on any future tech stack? Sounds .... not correct.
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  Space Cadet for Windows that we all miss would like to have a word....
- iamacyborg 6y ago
  If they sell thousands of dollars worth of digital items then yes, they should have a moral obligation to support those customers. Particularly given the murky exploitative psychological tricks employed by these games to get customers in the first place.
  - m1gu3l 6y ago
    If the EULA says the value of said digital items is zero (as hinted at in some comment further up) then I can agree that we disagree.
    - jhbadger 6y ago
      It may be legal to steal digital items from users because of antiquated laws that don't recognize digital items as items worthy of protection, but it certainly isn't moral.
      - pmontra 6y ago
        Let's explore some possibilities. 1. Should Zynga buy back those items at a lower price because they are used items? 2. What happens to cars (because we love car analogies) when the manufacturer stops building spare parts? In this case they are either collected from old cars or somebody else build those parts. Maybe should Zynga at least try to sell the game infrastructure with data? That would be like relying on third party spare parts but the car keeps going. Of course if nobody buys the game, maybe even for free, that's it 3. Other ideas? By the way, this isn't the first time an online game shuts down and players lose everything, right?
        jhbadger 6y ago
        When Microsoft closed their cloud-based ebook business in 2019, they refunded 100% of the money to the people who lost access to the books they bought. This was the correct response to shutting down servers. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a27021744/microsoft-ebook-store-shutdown/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a27021744/micros...
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > When Microsoft closed their cloud-based ebook business in 2019, they refunded 100% of the money to the people who lost access to the books they bought. They probably had different terms of sale; buying books contingent on an external service is less attractive than buying in-game items contingent on the game. > This was the correct response to shutting down servers. Depending on the terms of sale, it may have been the minimum legally required response.
        alisonkisk 6y ago
- sigotirandolas 6y ago
  No, you don't have a moral obligation for it to run in any future tech stack. But it should be able to run in the same tech stack it was running before, or provide some way to interoperate. The game shouldn't be designed in a way that makes it possible for someone else to unilaterally shut down the game with no recourse. To illustrate, if FarmVille were an offline game that costed $1000, I could still set up a Windows XP computer, install Flash, and play it. It's not trivial, but it's very doable and legal. But instead, actual FarmVille is designed so that it needs an online infrastructure (so far so good, it's a core part of the game after all), but by design this infrastructure can only be provided by Zynga. You can't replicate it even if you want to.
  - watwut 6y ago
    By this logic, making roblox games is immoral?
    - sigotirandolas 6y ago
      I'm not very familiar with Roblox, but if I understand it, it's an online platform that allows others to build games on top of it, and like Farmville the servers are exclusively provided by Roblox. In this case, I would say the moral fault lies mainly in Roblox, since they are the ones providing the platform and hence making the decision to exclusively provide the servers (and that moral fault has not yet happened, it would only happen if when they shut down they don't provide an alternative). If you are someone building on top of Roblox, I don't think you deserve the same amount of fault, but it's certainly something you have to consider. It's also a risk in that building on top of this design leaves you open to being de-platformed (like, for example with the iOS Store if Apple doesn't like your application). For what it's worth, I don't think Roblox or Zynga are immoral because of this, just that on this particular topic they are morally faulty. My bar for what should be acceptable as a recourse is also not very high. Providing any form of alternative like LAN play, closed-source server software, specifications or interoperability with other software would be enough for me. The problem I see with the current situation is the "last resort recourse" there is now in most cases, reverse engineering, is legally shaky, generally against the terms of service, terribly complicated and expensive and not guaranteed to succeed if critical parts of the application are server-side.
theshrike79 6y ago
So should companies who provide software and devices worth MILLIONS to factories also port those from DOS 4.something to newer operating systems? Because they don't. A friend had to source BIOS chips for fried ones for an out of warranty CNC machine from around the world just to not have it fail completely.
- sigotirandolas 6y ago
  I think my post was unclear since you are not the first user interpreting it in this way. I'm not saying companies should port their software to new operating systems and software stacks (presumably forever). The user would be responsible for providing whatever operating systems and software stack the program was built to work on. What I'm saying is that it that companies should provide some way for users to continue using the product they bought, on the same software stack they were already using, when the company decides to shut it down. Anything better than the current situation where the online servers just go down and nothing is offered as an alternative would be much better. One pretty good way (but not the only one) they could do this is by releasing their server-side software, as it is. They don't need to open source it, they don't need to port it, and the user would be responsible for providing whatever underlying software stack it was designed to work on.

giancarlostoro 6y ago

Theres been games that have ported over multiple platforms. Take for example Habbo Hotel. Started off with Shockwave, then before that EOL’d they rewrote it in Flash, and now they are working on a Unity web assembly based rewrite. I think the reality is FarmVille isn't as popular as it once was. I haven’t heard of anybody playing it in years. Funny how games got people to be far more active on Facebook but their usage died down significantly over time. With how addictive those games were for some its probably for the best.

theshrike79 6y ago
Also Habbo Hotel is like one three applications the company has to support, so porting it to new platforms is reasonable. Zynga has a dozen high-performing games currently running, the original Farmville isn't one of those.
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  You are probably right although its parent company does own several other companies as well.

tomaszs 6y ago

It is interesting since it is not pure EOL. I mean, if Microsoft discontinues support for Windows it does not force you to uninstall it. And with Flash it is exactly the case. Each other day it prompts me to uninstall it even while I didn't ask for any of such support. It seems like Adobe gave itself permission to control what is on my computer. But does it really have authority to do so?

ComputerGuru 6y ago
Actually, all Adobe-provided flash distributions will refuse to run past a certain date. You’ll have to go back a few versions to find one compiled without the kill switch. To use it, you’ll literally have to run it in a VM on an outdated OS with the system time set back a few years.
- tomaszs 6y ago
  Thanks, I didn't know that. Seems like Adobe took enormous effort to kill all software written with Flash. While I understand some security concerns I can not stop thinking it is just another way to cripple the web. Obviously propertiary app platforms gain a lots with this move.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    How do proprietary platforms gain a lot with Adobe killing Flash? Flash itself was proprietary. And Adobe is advocating for a not proprietary alternative that was recently released and is called HTML5. Sure, killing Flash sucks for all the games, but Adobe isn’t really doing anything illegal.
    - tomaszs 6y ago
      Flash is not propertiary platform. Flash is a tehnology that allowed you to run apps in your browser. It didn't control what apps you are allowed to run because it is not a platform but a software. HTML5 is not near to replace Flash, and with main propertiary platform owners controlling browser market, it may never become Flash replacement.

ballenf 6y ago

This is not tricky in the slightest. All the points you make are distractions from the central concept of what people understand purchasing something to mean. The computers these people played on with auto-updates disabled, would continue to support Flash for eternity. Your points would be valid if Zynga said "the thing you bought isn't going to run on new devices". But what they're saying is "we're breaking the thing you bought because not very many people can still give us money." Purchases without a "XX years' functionality" label should be required to be functional in perpetuity or refunded.