6 ms·

If I subscribe to a service for $M/mo, I expect that service to work as long as I pay for it. If the maintainer of that service decides to turn it off and no lo

If I subscribe to a service for $M/mo, I expect that service to work as long as I pay for it. If the maintainer of that service decides to turn it off and no longer charge me money, then so be it. I subscribed with eyes open about the lifetime that $M got me. If I buy a product for $N one-time charge, I expect that product to work basically forever, until it physically breaks or wears out. I have woodworking tools over 50 years old. I would never expect Craftsman to sneak into my garage one day and destroy them because "they're old and unsupported and I should just buy new ones." I don't expect Toyota to repossess my car because it's hard to supply parts for old cars and they really just need me to buy another one. So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for? EDIT: I realize I am arguing for subscription pricing for software, which I am generally against. But for a game that requires a server operating in order to function, perhaps subscription pricing is more appropriate at least for that kind of game. It's still not appropriate for games or tools that run natively and don't have a significant reason for their logic to reside in a server.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
delichon 5mo ago
Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rely on ongoing services accordingly. See also 'Juicero'.
- ryandrake 5mo ago
  If a software requires a server component that is costly to run, then I would expect the software developer to charge a subscription in order to use it, rather than offering it as a one-time charge and then destroying it when they realize letting me continue to use it is costly.
  - dijit 5mo ago
    Yeah, but gamers in particular are against subscriptions and micro-transactions. Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.
    - Rohansi 5mo ago
      You also pay for expansions in WoW which are a one time fee, for each expansion. The latest one includes previous ones so you don't need to pay for all eleven of the, but if you're an active player you would absolutely pay for all of them.
- jasonlotito 5mo ago
  > Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it There are carve-outs in the legislation for this. It's a moot point.
  - knollimar 5mo ago
    Like what? I read it and don't see workabke carveouts.
  - marcosdumay 5mo ago
    So it's ok for companies to misrepresent their subscription services as a "single-payment" acquisition and pull the brought product away form their customers when they want?
    - delichon 5mo ago
      No, if they materially misrepresent their product like this it is fraud and a crime. A new law isn't needed if a prosecutor or plaintiff can show the misrepresentation.
- trinsic2 5mo ago
  Then switch to a subscription model. nobody is forcing you to operating your service indefinitely. Just don't sell something, the say you are not supporting it any longer and remove the ability to use a purchased product.
0xy 5mo ago
Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs. At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way. The game developer did not promise that, and you hold no contract with them mandating free labor and infrastructure perpetually. It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.
- ryandrake 5mo ago
  I'm not asking for free labor. I'm asking that if someone sells me a product for a one-time cost, then I expect that product to continue working as it did when I bought it. If ensuring it "continues working" represents a cost to the developer, then they should reconsider charging one-time for the product.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - stronglikedan 5mo ago
    > they should reconsider charging one-time for the product You wouldn't be able to afford it. It's well known at the time of purchase that online games will eventually become obsolete. Comparing that to tools is comparing apples to oranges. Now, I do think that game companies should be compelled to make their servers available for others to host and maintain if they decide to stop hosting and maintaining them themselves. Some do, but all should be required to.
    - wxre 5mo ago
      Okay well how about my EVSE (EV car charger)? Much more akin to a tool. I can't configure it now because it relies on a cloud interface and the company that sold it to me changed hands several times and now doesn't operate in the US. Now it's stuck thinking I want it limited to 28 amps rather than the 50 amps my new car can use.
preommr 5mo ago
> So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for? I see this argument repeated, and it's made exactly like this where it sets up a strawman and then brings up software. No one is coming into your computer to repossess your software. They are either turning off their servers, OR they are ending a subscription. If you have a bus pass, you can do anything you want with the card. Your chisels being 50 years old, has nothing to do with you being able to ride the bus forever just because you bought a one-month pass.
- cwillu 5mo ago
  > They are either turning off their servers …that are unnecessarily being checked by the local software before the local software will run the local offline functions.
  - preommr 5mo ago
    That is irrelevant to the topic of ownership since you bought the product, you can now update the code. If you want, you can now change that behavior. Whether that's allowed by the TOS and what the consequences to that are is also a separate issue. At that point, people shouldn't buy the product if they disagree with the conditions.
    - JacobKfromIRC 5mo ago
      > At that point, people shouldn't buy the product if they disagree with the conditions. I think a problem with this idea is that terms of service can be difficult to understand. For example a lot of licenses or terms of service forbid "reverse engineering" entirely. In my mind, "reverse engineering" is just trying to understand something based on observing what it does, and even though a legal agreement is probably using a more strict definition, how am I supposed to know where the boundary is? "Reverse engineering" isn't usually defined in the agreement itself. And if what I want to do is considered "reverse engineering", it might not be legally enforceable anyway. Sometimes I buy a physical object, take it home, and then open it and find conditions that I would have disagreed with if I knew about them. I've noticed this with books, but the same could happen with software. I don't know if conditions like that would be legally enforceable, but I think the complexity of understanding this makes individual decisions about what conditions to accept a poor solution to what Stop Killing Games is trying to solve. The Steam Subscriber Agreement [1] seems to prohibit reverse engineering games (referred to as "content" in the agreement), but I guess I'm misunderstanding it because some GPL games are on Steam (e.g. SuperTux [2]). I agree that people shouldn't buy a product if they disagree with the conditions, but I think this is too complicated for most people to do for every product. Maybe some of these conditions should be illegal to even put in a terms of service, even if they already aren't enforceable. [1] https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1572920/SuperTux/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1572920/SuperTux/

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

delichon 5mo ago

Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rely on ongoing services accordingly. See also 'Juicero'.

ryandrake 5mo ago
If a software requires a server component that is costly to run, then I would expect the software developer to charge a subscription in order to use it, rather than offering it as a one-time charge and then destroying it when they realize letting me continue to use it is costly.
- dijit 5mo ago
  Yeah, but gamers in particular are against subscriptions and micro-transactions. Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.
  - Rohansi 5mo ago
    You also pay for expansions in WoW which are a one time fee, for each expansion. The latest one includes previous ones so you don't need to pay for all eleven of the, but if you're an active player you would absolutely pay for all of them.
jasonlotito 5mo ago
> Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it There are carve-outs in the legislation for this. It's a moot point.
- knollimar 5mo ago
  Like what? I read it and don't see workabke carveouts.
- marcosdumay 5mo ago
  So it's ok for companies to misrepresent their subscription services as a "single-payment" acquisition and pull the brought product away form their customers when they want?
  - delichon 5mo ago
    No, if they materially misrepresent their product like this it is fraud and a crime. A new law isn't needed if a prosecutor or plaintiff can show the misrepresentation.
trinsic2 5mo ago
Then switch to a subscription model. nobody is forcing you to operating your service indefinitely. Just don't sell something, the say you are not supporting it any longer and remove the ability to use a purchased product.

0xy 5mo ago

Why do you deserve free labor from a game developer that you paid a nominal amount to 10 years ago, not to mention infrastructure costs. At no point did you purchase unlimited free online service forever, by the way. The game developer did not promise that, and you hold no contract with them mandating free labor and infrastructure perpetually. It's the equivalent of paying $10 to enter an all-you-can-eat restaurant and complaining when they kick you out at 10pm while you say that you haven't technically had ALL you can eat yet.

ryandrake 5mo ago
I'm not asking for free labor. I'm asking that if someone sells me a product for a one-time cost, then I expect that product to continue working as it did when I bought it. If ensuring it "continues working" represents a cost to the developer, then they should reconsider charging one-time for the product.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- stronglikedan 5mo ago
  > they should reconsider charging one-time for the product You wouldn't be able to afford it. It's well known at the time of purchase that online games will eventually become obsolete. Comparing that to tools is comparing apples to oranges. Now, I do think that game companies should be compelled to make their servers available for others to host and maintain if they decide to stop hosting and maintaining them themselves. Some do, but all should be required to.
  - wxre 5mo ago
    Okay well how about my EVSE (EV car charger)? Much more akin to a tool. I can't configure it now because it relies on a cloud interface and the company that sold it to me changed hands several times and now doesn't operate in the US. Now it's stuck thinking I want it limited to 28 amps rather than the 50 amps my new car can use.

preommr 5mo ago

> So why is it OK for a software developer to just arbitrarily decide to flip a switch and remove my ability to use a product I paid for? I see this argument repeated, and it's made exactly like this where it sets up a strawman and then brings up software. No one is coming into your computer to repossess your software. They are either turning off their servers, OR they are ending a subscription. If you have a bus pass, you can do anything you want with the card. Your chisels being 50 years old, has nothing to do with you being able to ride the bus forever just because you bought a one-month pass.

cwillu 5mo ago
> They are either turning off their servers …that are unnecessarily being checked by the local software before the local software will run the local offline functions.
- preommr 5mo ago
  That is irrelevant to the topic of ownership since you bought the product, you can now update the code. If you want, you can now change that behavior. Whether that's allowed by the TOS and what the consequences to that are is also a separate issue. At that point, people shouldn't buy the product if they disagree with the conditions.
  - JacobKfromIRC 5mo ago
    > At that point, people shouldn't buy the product if they disagree with the conditions. I think a problem with this idea is that terms of service can be difficult to understand. For example a lot of licenses or terms of service forbid "reverse engineering" entirely. In my mind, "reverse engineering" is just trying to understand something based on observing what it does, and even though a legal agreement is probably using a more strict definition, how am I supposed to know where the boundary is? "Reverse engineering" isn't usually defined in the agreement itself. And if what I want to do is considered "reverse engineering", it might not be legally enforceable anyway. Sometimes I buy a physical object, take it home, and then open it and find conditions that I would have disagreed with if I knew about them. I've noticed this with books, but the same could happen with software. I don't know if conditions like that would be legally enforceable, but I think the complexity of understanding this makes individual decisions about what conditions to accept a poor solution to what Stop Killing Games is trying to solve. The Steam Subscriber Agreement [1] seems to prohibit reverse engineering games (referred to as "content" in the agreement), but I guess I'm misunderstanding it because some GPL games are on Steam (e.g. SuperTux [2]). I agree that people shouldn't buy a product if they disagree with the conditions, but I think this is too complicated for most people to do for every product. Maybe some of these conditions should be illegal to even put in a terms of service, even if they already aren't enforceable. [1] https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement [2] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1572920/SuperTux/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/1572920/SuperTux/