The Crew’s servers, scheduled for Sunday March 31, represents a “gray area” in videogame consumer law that he would like to challenge.
…
I think the argument to make is that The Crew was sold under a perpetual license, not a subscription, so we were being sold a good, not a service
…
the seller rendered the game unusable and deprived it of all value after the point of sale.
Goddam right, that’s not a grey area IMO, that shit ought to be illegal. Maybe there should be a term, like let’s say 90 years maybe?
My personal favorite is the “companies are obligated to support it forever, or open source the server software hosted by a third party, hosting paid for up front for at least a year.”
While I love the spirit of this idea, it gets complicated fast. Worlds adrift is a great example. The game’s server was created using some closed source libraries with a paid license. So when the owning company (Bossa Studios?) went under, they were unable to open source it.
A law like this would effectively kill all licensed software that isn’t a full product. I do agree though; we need a solution
When the initially licensed the library, they should’ve included distributed binary copies. That may have allowed them to release the source for their game alongside the binary of the library.
An interesting idea but it’s not possible with all languages. E.g. golang. But probably not the case with worlds adrift. I’m guessing it’s more of an incentive problem for the other company. No more revenue = why bother?
I think it’s like when a tv show doesn’t bother to negotiate the music rights for syndication and then they can’t air it anymore if the audio can’t be removed.
“What happens in 10 years?” Isn’t always a priority. Also, I’m sure that makes the price go up.
Hmm I may be confused. Do you believe that software companies shouldn’t be allowed to build and sell libraries? I.e. They should only be allowed to sell full products, ready for an end user?
Fair enough regarding sass, though I disagree with the opinion.
But I’m asking about builders of partial software. For example, consider a single developer that builds a really great library for handling tables. It displays a grid, displays text in cells, maybe performs some operations between cells, etc. On its own, this software is useless but is very useful for other people to build other products. Should it be illegal to sell this software?
Though I would say that the grid software on its own IS useful. It’s useful to developers, otherwise they wouldn’t use it. Saying it’s useless is like saying a hammer is useless because it’s not a house, it’s only good for building a house (among other things).
Not the person you’re responding to but I definitely think that Library should be able to be made, however I don’t believe that they should be able to prevent a project from going open source in the case of company using the library going under, or if they wanted to keep it closed Source they should have to do something similar to what class action lawsuits do where anyone that is affected by it and opts into the agreement get some sort of compensation. Because it really is like a rug pull you buy a product and then the company makes the product unusable
Except that isn’t how it works, and could lead people to buy a library for a day, then opensource it.
Open source means any code used is widely available to anyone. Having a library you pay for means it cannot be widely available, or nobody would buy it. No more licensing game engines, paid libraries cease to exist since there is no incentive to make them, everything goes the “open source way” which means hard to use, opinionated, unintuitive software that is maintained by random people who rarely know what they are doing. No online banking, since you can’t certify that easily and it wouldn’t be profitable. No card with points and goodies in your supermarket for the exact same reason (points have a calculable value in real money). No online healthcare, etc etc
IIRC Bossa tried to open source it but they used a license for Spatial OS, which provided the backbone of their game. They were unable to make a stable game without it and opted to not open source it. But they were also in an early access that would probably provide an exception for a game closing down.
Bossa did leave the island creator active and has spun up Lost Skies on the same engine, which wouldn’t be possible if they open sourced WA.
Ultimately the issue should be GaaS and MMOs are offerings service while other games are goods which have an artificial expiry date. This is a good test of software judication.
The subscription model makes plenty of sense. But there are loads of games that rely on server side components. That includes basically every multiplayer game that isn’t peer-to-peer. Any very many of them aren’t on a subscription.
I would love to require all that to be open source. But I still don’t see how to do it practically.
I just expect a popup in the game which says something like “Could not connect to server, some multiplayer features will be unavailable. Continue offline?”
Or, maybe don’t force online requirement, and allow p2p. Or, better yet, open source the server now that it’s shut down and release a patch to specify where to connect.
Imagine buying a T-shirt, and the manufacturer, without your prior knowledge or consent, could somehow render your shirt unwearable – that’s effectively what’s happening here. The only “gray area” might be that ultimately you don’t own a copy of the game anyway (since digital copies are effectively leased – a whole other issue unto itself), but regardless: more power to this lawsuit. Seriously shady shit getting tacitly accepted lately.
“Imagine everyone moves to electric vehicles, gas stations close down, and people start sueing Ford for releasing a gas car 30 years ago” is the better analogy.
It’s more like, imagine Fords required a connect to a server to run and they turned that server off, stopping a perfectly functional car you purchased from working.
Then you sued them to force them to make the car work without the server.
Goddam right, that’s not a grey area IMO, that shit ought to be illegal. Maybe there should be a term, like let’s say 90 years maybe?
My personal favorite is the “companies are obligated to support it forever, or open source the server software hosted by a third party, hosting paid for up front for at least a year.”
They get to keep my money forever don’t they?
While I love the spirit of this idea, it gets complicated fast. Worlds adrift is a great example. The game’s server was created using some closed source libraries with a paid license. So when the owning company (Bossa Studios?) went under, they were unable to open source it.
A law like this would effectively kill all licensed software that isn’t a full product. I do agree though; we need a solution
When the initially licensed the library, they should’ve included distributed binary copies. That may have allowed them to release the source for their game alongside the binary of the library.
An interesting idea but it’s not possible with all languages. E.g. golang. But probably not the case with worlds adrift. I’m guessing it’s more of an incentive problem for the other company. No more revenue = why bother?
I think it’s like when a tv show doesn’t bother to negotiate the music rights for syndication and then they can’t air it anymore if the audio can’t be removed.
“What happens in 10 years?” Isn’t always a priority. Also, I’m sure that makes the price go up.
Also, you could use CGo, but if you know golang, then you know why that’s not always a viable option.
What I’m hearing is: this law needs to be a constitutional amendment.
Hmm I may be confused. Do you believe that software companies shouldn’t be allowed to build and sell libraries? I.e. They should only be allowed to sell full products, ready for an end user?
Yes.
I am aware that this would kill SaaS overnight, that’s an intended feature.
Fair enough regarding sass, though I disagree with the opinion.
But I’m asking about builders of partial software. For example, consider a single developer that builds a really great library for handling tables. It displays a grid, displays text in cells, maybe performs some operations between cells, etc. On its own, this software is useless but is very useful for other people to build other products. Should it be illegal to sell this software?
I agree with you.
Though I would say that the grid software on its own IS useful. It’s useful to developers, otherwise they wouldn’t use it. Saying it’s useless is like saying a hammer is useless because it’s not a house, it’s only good for building a house (among other things).
Not the person you’re responding to but I definitely think that Library should be able to be made, however I don’t believe that they should be able to prevent a project from going open source in the case of company using the library going under, or if they wanted to keep it closed Source they should have to do something similar to what class action lawsuits do where anyone that is affected by it and opts into the agreement get some sort of compensation. Because it really is like a rug pull you buy a product and then the company makes the product unusable
Except that isn’t how it works, and could lead people to buy a library for a day, then opensource it.
Open source means any code used is widely available to anyone. Having a library you pay for means it cannot be widely available, or nobody would buy it. No more licensing game engines, paid libraries cease to exist since there is no incentive to make them, everything goes the “open source way” which means hard to use, opinionated, unintuitive software that is maintained by random people who rarely know what they are doing. No online banking, since you can’t certify that easily and it wouldn’t be profitable. No card with points and goodies in your supermarket for the exact same reason (points have a calculable value in real money). No online healthcare, etc etc
IIRC Bossa tried to open source it but they used a license for Spatial OS, which provided the backbone of their game. They were unable to make a stable game without it and opted to not open source it. But they were also in an early access that would probably provide an exception for a game closing down.
Bossa did leave the island creator active and has spun up Lost Skies on the same engine, which wouldn’t be possible if they open sourced WA.
Ultimately the issue should be GaaS and MMOs are offerings service while other games are goods which have an artificial expiry date. This is a good test of software judication.
The subscription model makes plenty of sense. But there are loads of games that rely on server side components. That includes basically every multiplayer game that isn’t peer-to-peer. Any very many of them aren’t on a subscription.
I would love to require all that to be open source. But I still don’t see how to do it practically.
I’m fine with that, wanna keep it out of public hands, nut up and sell your stuff
Still difficult in that example. Bossa can’t force the other company to do anything.
I’d tie its length to copyright length. Maybe they would fight Disney when they try to raise it again.
I just expect a popup in the game which says something like “Could not connect to server, some multiplayer features will be unavailable. Continue offline?”
Or the ability to host community servers like the olden days when a game is sunsetted.
deleted by creator
Or, maybe don’t force online requirement, and allow p2p. Or, better yet, open source the server now that it’s shut down and release a patch to specify where to connect.
Blacklight Retribution did this for their console version. Wish they woulda did it for the PC version but whatever.
😭
I miss it so much.
Imagine buying a T-shirt, and the manufacturer, without your prior knowledge or consent, could somehow render your shirt unwearable – that’s effectively what’s happening here. The only “gray area” might be that ultimately you don’t own a copy of the game anyway (since digital copies are effectively leased – a whole other issue unto itself), but regardless: more power to this lawsuit. Seriously shady shit getting tacitly accepted lately.
“we lost our license to print this brands logo on our shirts, so you have to give it back now”
Smh
“Imagine everyone moves to electric vehicles, gas stations close down, and people start sueing Ford for releasing a gas car 30 years ago” is the better analogy.
That’s a terrible analogy.
It’s more like, imagine Fords required a connect to a server to run and they turned that server off, stopping a perfectly functional car you purchased from working.
Then you sued them to force them to make the car work without the server.
What a weird case of simping