7 ms·

If I buy a game and a company effectively breaks it by turning off my ability to play it, is that not theft?

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
I don't think it would count as theft, but if the original advertising/product information included the online components as a feature, then they could be sued for that. I remember when Sony pulled the Linux support from PS3 as that was a similar situation although even more anti-consumer.
chess_buster 4y ago
If unlicensed copying is theft, than switching off a required server is murder, I guess.
- LightHugger 4y ago
  When do we get to put companies on trial for gameslaughter?
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Probably only after we elect Ross Scott for president.
wil421 4y ago
I guaranteed whatever license you never agreed to doesn’t actually say you bought the game. More like a license to play the game as long as parent company sees fit.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  I guarantee the marketing says "buy". In any case, you can't commit fraud in your marketing then 'correct' it in obscure clickwrap license terms.
  - rqtwteye 4y ago
    Companies are constantly redefining what things mean. “Buy” is just a license to use as long as the company likes. “Unlimited data” means 30GB data. “Made with mozzarella” means that something is made with something that remotely tastes like cheese.
    - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
      No, buy means buy. Companies pretending otherwise are just lying. Limited license. They don't want to offer things like that because consumers won't all go for it, they want to get more money by deceiving prospective users/customers.
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      That's why we (supposedly) have regulator agencies. Unfortunately, like every other part of government, they have been wholly captured by industry and work against citizens and consumers, rather that for them.
mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
What exactly are they stealing from you? If you bought a car in the 1970's and the company doesn't make parts for it anymore is that theft? What obligation do they have to maintain?
- Chilinot 4y ago
  That is a poor analogy as you could still pull parts from other cars and repair and continue to use the car after the manufacturer stops creating replacements. A better analogy would be: If you bought a car in 1970 and the company stopped making the super special fuel blend that they have a patent on and no one else is allowed to produce, making your car unusable. Is that theft?
  - npteljes 4y ago
    >you could still pull parts from other cars and repair and continue to use the car after the manufacturer stops creating replacements. Same can be said about software. People create aftermarket parts just the same as they create third party server implementations.
    - bentley 4y ago
      And then people who create third party server implementations get sued into oblivion. https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd
- ekianjo 4y ago
  physical analogies make absolutely no sense in the digital space.
  - carstenhag 4y ago
    They do make sense as almost all laws are written with physical things in mind.
    - 4y ago
haunter 4y ago
"effectively breaks it" Who breaks it though? For example Hatoful Boyfriend haven't been updated for years, Macs moved to 64bit only so it was essentially unplayable on modern Macs. Is it the devs fault, are you obliged to update your game forever? Is it Apple's fault for the lack of backwards compatibility? Epic was selling a broken game so they must remove it. Btw that happened on Steam too now they only sell the Windows version.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  The game almost certainly had compatibility promises, eg 'runs on MacOS# with X MB RAM'. It should still do that. The fault would be whoever designed it so a single player (or local multiplayer) game wouldn't run on said system in perpetuity. Mind you, some time in the future an AI will be able to watch Let's Play-style footage and generate the game for you.
- nebulous1 4y ago
  That's a different issue. These games are written to require an online component that Epic are rescinding access to. This isn't about what Epic is selling either, it's about them effectively bricking what they've already sold. Assuming Hatoful still works for the users who bought it on the hardware/OS that they bought it for then it's not a good comparison.
- saint_fiasco 4y ago
  It feels different when a game has a server and a client component. I can choose to airgap my ancient Macbook and never update it if I want to keep playing that particular game on that particular computer. I can also play it on Linux, and Linux can run on Mac hardware. All of that sounds like a pain in the ass, and if the game is not worth the trouble I'll just not go through the trouble. But I am the one who makes the choice, not the owner of some proprietary server.
- philippejara 4y ago
  I can play the game in the hardware that it was advertised to work at the time, 32bit(?) macs, the same way I can play a ps2 game on a ps2 but not a ps5. Removing official servers when there is no alternative means I can't use the product on the platform it was listed to work at.
klntsky 4y ago
Depends on the EULA.
- Xelbair 4y ago
  EULA is not a law. It's a wishlist of the company.
nkrisc 4y ago
Don’t buy a game that requires constant intervention from the maker to run, if you’re concerned about that.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  Would be nice if games for which time-limited licenses were being sold told you upfront so you could choose. Not sure how you're supposed to know a game has been designed to be remotely deactivated?
  - MikusR 4y ago
    GOG.com The few that require online connection (like purely multiplayer gwent) there is a notice.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    If the game requires an internet connection, it's a time-limited license.
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      And what about games like minecraft, where the requirement for an internet connection was added later, after the game was sold?
      - nkrisc 4y ago
        Stay on the last internet-free version. I remember when games were sold and that was it, you didn’t get regular free updates.
- bakugo 4y ago
  It's so easy for someone who doesn't care about games to say "just don't play those games" What if I like those games? What if I barely have a choice because 95% of multiplayer games released today work like that?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
datacruncher01 4y ago
The problem is they offered you a service that was unsustainable in the first place. You can't offer a one time sale for a product that requires continual maintenance. In all cases where this is being offered with a product, for example, a game with developer maintained multiplayer servers/lookup services, all app portals like the apple app store, steam, etc. There is either a runway of funds built in that will expire in so many years or it's propped up by other people buying the game like a kind of a Ponzi scheme. Eventually, somehow the bill to run these services becomes an issue and there are only a few ways to maintain it: ads, buyout with more runway, cutting access or charging for it again. So I wouldn't say it's theft, it's a business run by people who have no clue how to run a long term business plan. Or fraud if they know all of this and do it anyway.
- solardev 4y ago
  Well, some hosting costs also go down over time. If the backend server doesn't need a GPU and is just there to facilitate matchmaking for example, what used to be very difficult and required dedicated companies (like Gamespy) can now just be trivially and cheaply/freely rolled into Steamworks or similar matchmaking APIs. Ongoing patches and updates are another story though, especially if new Windowses or DirectX versions have breaking changes.
solardev 4y ago
If you pay $20 for a game on sale and it works for half a decade and has multiplayer and updates throughout, is it really necessary to complain about it...?

I don't think it would count as theft, but if the original advertising/product information included the online components as a feature, then they could be sued for that. I remember when Sony pulled the Linux support from PS3 as that was a similar situation although even more anti-consumer.

chess_buster 4y ago

If unlicensed copying is theft, than switching off a required server is murder, I guess.

LightHugger 4y ago
When do we get to put companies on trial for gameslaughter?
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Probably only after we elect Ross Scott for president.

wil421 4y ago

I guaranteed whatever license you never agreed to doesn’t actually say you bought the game. More like a license to play the game as long as parent company sees fit.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
I guarantee the marketing says "buy". In any case, you can't commit fraud in your marketing then 'correct' it in obscure clickwrap license terms.
- rqtwteye 4y ago
  Companies are constantly redefining what things mean. “Buy” is just a license to use as long as the company likes. “Unlimited data” means 30GB data. “Made with mozzarella” means that something is made with something that remotely tastes like cheese.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    No, buy means buy. Companies pretending otherwise are just lying. Limited license. They don't want to offer things like that because consumers won't all go for it, they want to get more money by deceiving prospective users/customers.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    That's why we (supposedly) have regulator agencies. Unfortunately, like every other part of government, they have been wholly captured by industry and work against citizens and consumers, rather that for them.

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago

What exactly are they stealing from you? If you bought a car in the 1970's and the company doesn't make parts for it anymore is that theft? What obligation do they have to maintain?

Chilinot 4y ago
That is a poor analogy as you could still pull parts from other cars and repair and continue to use the car after the manufacturer stops creating replacements. A better analogy would be: If you bought a car in 1970 and the company stopped making the super special fuel blend that they have a patent on and no one else is allowed to produce, making your car unusable. Is that theft?
- npteljes 4y ago
  >you could still pull parts from other cars and repair and continue to use the car after the manufacturer stops creating replacements. Same can be said about software. People create aftermarket parts just the same as they create third party server implementations.
  - bentley 4y ago
    And then people who create third party server implementations get sued into oblivion. https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd https://www.eff.org/cases/blizzard-v-bnetd
ekianjo 4y ago
physical analogies make absolutely no sense in the digital space.
- carstenhag 4y ago
  They do make sense as almost all laws are written with physical things in mind.
  - 4y ago

haunter 4y ago

"effectively breaks it" Who breaks it though? For example Hatoful Boyfriend haven't been updated for years, Macs moved to 64bit only so it was essentially unplayable on modern Macs. Is it the devs fault, are you obliged to update your game forever? Is it Apple's fault for the lack of backwards compatibility? Epic was selling a broken game so they must remove it. Btw that happened on Steam too now they only sell the Windows version.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
The game almost certainly had compatibility promises, eg 'runs on MacOS# with X MB RAM'. It should still do that. The fault would be whoever designed it so a single player (or local multiplayer) game wouldn't run on said system in perpetuity. Mind you, some time in the future an AI will be able to watch Let's Play-style footage and generate the game for you.
nebulous1 4y ago
That's a different issue. These games are written to require an online component that Epic are rescinding access to. This isn't about what Epic is selling either, it's about them effectively bricking what they've already sold. Assuming Hatoful still works for the users who bought it on the hardware/OS that they bought it for then it's not a good comparison.
saint_fiasco 4y ago
It feels different when a game has a server and a client component. I can choose to airgap my ancient Macbook and never update it if I want to keep playing that particular game on that particular computer. I can also play it on Linux, and Linux can run on Mac hardware. All of that sounds like a pain in the ass, and if the game is not worth the trouble I'll just not go through the trouble. But I am the one who makes the choice, not the owner of some proprietary server.
philippejara 4y ago
I can play the game in the hardware that it was advertised to work at the time, 32bit(?) macs, the same way I can play a ps2 game on a ps2 but not a ps5. Removing official servers when there is no alternative means I can't use the product on the platform it was listed to work at.

klntsky 4y ago

Depends on the EULA.

Xelbair 4y ago
EULA is not a law. It's a wishlist of the company.

nkrisc 4y ago

Don’t buy a game that requires constant intervention from the maker to run, if you’re concerned about that.

pbhjpbhj 4y ago
Would be nice if games for which time-limited licenses were being sold told you upfront so you could choose. Not sure how you're supposed to know a game has been designed to be remotely deactivated?
- MikusR 4y ago
  GOG.com The few that require online connection (like purely multiplayer gwent) there is a notice.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  If the game requires an internet connection, it's a time-limited license.
  - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
    And what about games like minecraft, where the requirement for an internet connection was added later, after the game was sold?
    - nkrisc 4y ago
      Stay on the last internet-free version. I remember when games were sold and that was it, you didn’t get regular free updates.
bakugo 4y ago
It's so easy for someone who doesn't care about games to say "just don't play those games" What if I like those games? What if I barely have a choice because 95% of multiplayer games released today work like that?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

datacruncher01 4y ago

The problem is they offered you a service that was unsustainable in the first place. You can't offer a one time sale for a product that requires continual maintenance. In all cases where this is being offered with a product, for example, a game with developer maintained multiplayer servers/lookup services, all app portals like the apple app store, steam, etc. There is either a runway of funds built in that will expire in so many years or it's propped up by other people buying the game like a kind of a Ponzi scheme. Eventually, somehow the bill to run these services becomes an issue and there are only a few ways to maintain it: ads, buyout with more runway, cutting access or charging for it again. So I wouldn't say it's theft, it's a business run by people who have no clue how to run a long term business plan. Or fraud if they know all of this and do it anyway.

solardev 4y ago
Well, some hosting costs also go down over time. If the backend server doesn't need a GPU and is just there to facilitate matchmaking for example, what used to be very difficult and required dedicated companies (like Gamespy) can now just be trivially and cheaply/freely rolled into Steamworks or similar matchmaking APIs. Ongoing patches and updates are another story though, especially if new Windowses or DirectX versions have breaking changes.

solardev 4y ago

If you pay $20 for a game on sale and it works for half a decade and has multiplayer and updates throughout, is it really necessary to complain about it...?